Code Pink is combative? Are you just allowed to make up any kind of nonsense you want to? Excercising one’s freedom of speech is not combative, and CP is strictly non-violent in its approach to protesting the war. Get your facts straight, Mannies.

Combative is not necessarily bad. Many activists and politicians are combative and proud of it. I would think Code Pink would be, as well.

Kirk R, go to YouTube and see Code Pink commiting violence against anyone wanting to visit the Marine recruiter in Berekeley.

There are other videos of Code Pink’s Gael Murphy assaulting people outside Rumsfeld’s home.

Kirk R, stop the lying.

Kirk R Lies, Soldiers Die.

Hey Kirk R,

Code Pink put on tour in the US Eman Kamanas (spelling ?), a member of the Baathist/Saddam puppet “General Federation of Iraq Women.” See what Amnestu International has to say about GFIW. Basically, GFIW was the “women’s rights” fig leaf under Saddam. You could be taken to a rape room, beat and raped, but only if your GFIW “womens’s advocate” was present.

Jo Mannies,

Check out Medea’s first book, “CUBA: Talking About Revolution”.

She’s authored 4 different books with “CUBA” and “Revolution” in the title. Is she for peace or is she a communist revolutionary?

For someone else’s book, she did a chapter on Marxist rebel Subcommandante Marcos in Mexico, leader of the EZLN. The photo used has Marcos with two belts of ammo cris crossed his chest. Yep, she’s a “Peace protester”……

Her hating America, well that’s just a bonus.

I’m with Jo on this one. They are combative. People like them scare me. I think last year they sat outside Pelosi home in SF. Creepy, creepy, creepy. And Hector is right on with his info about them. They are aiding and abetting the enemy in the MIddle East. They should all be arrested for being traders.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://k53.pbase.com/u41/kayakbiker/upload/34136180.MedeaBenjaminCodePink.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.pbase.com/kayakbiker/image/34136180&h=800&w=570&sz=84&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=tl1pWBZ7T0GHPM:&tbnh=143&tbnw=102&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmedea%2Bbenjamin%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN

Its pretty amazing what things scare “CENTRIST”. Of course, his comments are especially ironic given that the name CODEPINK is a reference to the code orange/code red “terror alerts” designed by the Bushies to scare conservatives into a non-thinking stupor.

CENTRIST you sound like a Log Cabin Republican…….Am I right?

War is not only an act, but a state or condition, for nations are said to be at war not only when their armies are engaged, so as to be in the very act of contention, but also when, they have any matter of controversy or dispute subsisting between them which they are determined to decide by the use of force, and have declared publicly, or by their acts, their determination so to decide it.

National wars are said to be offensive or defensive. War is offensive on the part of that government which commits the first act of violence; it is defensive on the part of that government which receives such act; but it is very difficult to say what is the first act of violence. If a nation sees itself menaced with an attack, its first act of violence to prevent such attack, will be considered as defensive.

To legalize a war it must be declared by that branch of the government entrusted by the Constitution with this power. And it seems it need not be declared by both the belligerent powers. By the Constitution of the United States, Art. I, Congress is invested with power “to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; and they have also the power to raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain a navy.”

Combative: inclined or showing an inclination to dispute or disagree. Indeed… then Code Pink is combative because they disagree that the invasion of Iraq is a legal or moral war for starters and as such… it should not be funded. Many in the position to know agree to its illegality.

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan declares the US invasion of Iraq illegal… Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN’s founding charter. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/nov/20/usa.iraq1
It seems prudent to proceed directly to the world’s most authoritative answer to our pressing question du jour: “Was the Iraq War legal, or illegal, under international law?” And The World’s Most Authoritative Answer Is … Among the world’s foremost experts in the field of international law, the overwhelming jurisprudential consensus is that the Anglo-American invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq constitute three phases of one illegal war of aggression.

The legality of the Iraq War document was drafted and signed by the world’s foremost international law experts — the prestigious International Commission of International Law Jurists — to provide ultimate proof of their authoritative opinion concerning the legal status of war against Iraq. Furthermore, this large body of eminent international law experts explicitly stated that they’d drafted their legal document in order to advise Messrs. Bush and Blair prior to the invasion: (1) that it would be blatantly illegal under international law for the Anglo-American belligerents to invade Iraq; and (2) that their joint decision as Commanders-in-Chief to commence hostilities would constitute prosecutable war crimes.

Spanish Judge Calls for Architects of Iraq Invasion to Be Tried for War Crimes (March 27, 2007)
The Courts Are Starting To Accept That the War against Iraq Is A Crime (October 17, 2006)
Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor (August 25, 2006)
NGO Letter to the Security Council (May 19, 2006)
Blair in Secret Plot with Bush to Dupe UN (January 29, 2006)
Willy Peter (January 2006) US using biological weapons in Iraq

Bush’s illegal war
The concept of “preventive war” is illegal under Section 51 of the UN charter. Also… Article 39 provides the three circumstances for the use of force: (1) a threat to peace, (2) a breach of peace and (3) an act of aggression. Our invasion of Iraq meets none of these criteria. U.N. Resolution 1441 didn’t authorize the immediate use of force, only the inspections for WMD in Iraq. “The war wasn’t authorized by Article 39, so it was an act of aggression by Bush and Blair… PERIOD! Under the standards of the Nuremberg trials, the war in Iraq is considered a crime against peace. “If the regime engages in war crimes, the architects of the war are considered war criminals. Therefore Bush and his entourage are war criminals under international law. The only thing today’s soldier is fighting for is the right of The American Corporation to fleece all parties involved in this thing you insist on calling a war… which it is not.

The new national security strategy, as outlined in the Project for a New American Century, calls for unchallenged U.S. military power throughout the world to engage in preemptive strikes against potential opponents and to avoid even going to the U.N. for authorization. Calling themselves the “Straussians,” they argue for an interpretation of Ancient Rome that it is OK for imperial powers to vanquish those who didn’t live up to their standards of “civilization.” But besides imperial hegemony and control of world resources, there is a second reason for U.S. intervention, a “burning interest” by the U.S. military and the weapons manufacturers to test out new weapons in the field.
Is there any room for optimism? Remembering February 15, an extraordinary event in U.S and world history, when unprecedented millions of people joined in a world wide movement against intervention in Iraq, protesting not just war, but affirming “the right to peace.” Indeed, this is the “Second Super Power” that has emerged to challenge the national security state that kills people abroad while destroying our rights here at home. This event will not only be repeated this March 19th in commemoration of 5 years too many… but it will be profoundly expanded and elaborated on. Instead of condemning Code Pink for their behavior… you should be commending them for it because far too many have no clue what has been and is still being done in our names by those that are supposed to represent us. Is this the AMERICA that soldiers of the past have died to preserve? I THINK NOT!

“When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.” - Thomas Jefferson