How was the Iraq War illegal? [Archive]

View Full Version : How was the Iraq War illegal?

PanzerJaeger

05-15-2005, 22:51

Well liberals and Bush bashers, this is your place to open my mind as to why you constantly call the Iraq War illegal.

Please inform me as to which laws were broken and which crimes were committed. Thanks.. :bow:

kiwitt

05-15-2005, 23:23

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

The United Nations Charter is the constitution of the United Nations. It was signed at the United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco on June 26, 1945 by the 50 original member countries. It entered into force on October 24, 1945, after being ratified by the five founding members—the Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States—and a majority of the other signatories.

As a Charter it is a constituent treaty, and all signatories are bound by its articles. Furthermore, it explicitly says that the Charter trumps all other treaty obligations. It was ratified by the United States on August 8, 1945, making that nation the third, after Nicaragua and El Salvador, to join the new international organization.

Therefore, the UN Charter is in force and has been in force for nearly 60 years. Some countries choose to "cherry pick" resolutions that meet it's own agenda and ignore others that do not fit it. They have been numerous resolutions against Israel and other countries where no military action has been launched.

i.e. the Charter is a Legal Document after been ratified by members and breaking this charter is breaking "international law".

lars573

05-15-2005, 23:28

Because it lacked the UN's rubber stamp of approval. These days your supposed to get UN permission to go to war. For that reason alone the Iraq war is "illegal". Also calling the nearly unprevoked invasion of Iraq illegal is a big stretch at the best of times IMO. The reason I never was for the invasion of Iraq was Colin Powell's "evidence" of "WMD's" and "links to Al-qaida" were horse-shit. I mean 3 sheds in the desert and having intelligence agents in the Kurd country where Al-qaida has operatives too is not evidence.

PanzerJaeger

05-15-2005, 23:55

Hurin_Rules

05-16-2005, 00:00

kiwitt

05-16-2005, 00:03

Every organisation can have "corrupt dealings", but that is no reason to ignore them.

BTW: Would you ignore a "Police Officer", even though you know that some officers are corrupt.

kiwitt

05-16-2005, 00:05

"The US is bound to live up to the terms of the treaty it has signed."... or withdraw from it.

Hurin_Rules

05-16-2005, 00:19

... or withdraw from it.

I was just about to edit my post to make that same point, but you beat me to it. ~:)

If you sign a treaty, you either abide by its terms or you formally pull out of it.

kiwitt

05-16-2005, 00:24

I can't see them doing that though. They will lose too much. It is much easier for them to pay lip service and ignore what they don't agree with.

Idomeneas

05-16-2005, 01:14

So the only reason the Iraq war is illegal to liberals is because an organization that has been proven to have been heavily invested in corrupt business dealings with Iraq didnt approve it?

Seems like a conflict of interests at the least..

In any event, thanks for your responses, i now understand the mindset of the people who scream such things. :bow:

PJ you are Georgie's nephew or something? You say you cannot understand Bush bashers well why dont we reverse the question and share with us the things that makes Georgie such an esteemed figure to you? :bow:

Kaiser of Arabia

05-16-2005, 01:36

Well once the UN gets a backbone and stops taking it up the butt from Kofi and his corrupt buddies in the Congo, we'll listen to it. Because a bunch of sniveling, overprivaleged monarchs in Europe tell us, America, whom without us Europe would be flying the red banner right now, tell us we can't. You know what? Who cares what Europe thinks? Who cares what the UN thinks? I know I don't and I'm glad my nation doesn't give a rats arse about what a bunch of drunken diplomats on a constant heroine fix think. They ignored the Genocide in Rawanda and the Sudan. They pretty much ignored Aparteid in South Africa. Now they have the balls to tell us what we do? Remember, they were America's creation and idea. Ever hear of the league of Nations? Besides, may I add that....
WE ARE NOT AT WAR

There has been no formal declaration of war against Iraq, Usama Bin Laden, or any of those guys. None. Therefore, we are not at war. In fact, we haven't been since WWII.

And also I'll add this

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Isn't this basically saying that "We the United Nations feel that we are the ultimate world government and we wish to establish a new world order and destroy the boarders and sovergnty of Nations worldwide"?

kiwitt

05-16-2005, 01:58

No it doesn't.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state ...

Kaiser of Arabia

05-16-2005, 02:01

So that means if I take over Leichtenstein and decide to slaugher all Leichtensteinians the UN won't care! W00T!

Devastatin Dave

05-16-2005, 02:01

Not really. The US is bound to live up to the terms of the treaty it has signed.

Kind of like how Iraq lived up to the treaty it signed in 91... oh, wait a minute, it didn't. ~D

kiwitt

05-16-2005, 02:10

So that means if I take over Leichtenstein and decide to slaugher all Leichtensteinians the UN won't care! W00T!

Again, I don't think so. If you breach the charter, you are bound to have a resolution passed against you. This may include military action. I think the reaction to the Invasion of Kuwait was resolved in this way.

Kind of like how Iraq lived up to the treaty it signed in 91... oh, wait a minute, it didn't. ~D

So if one country doesn't live up to it's obligations, it means no country needs to.

In a similar vein, if criminals don't obey laws, we don't need to (or for that matter if some Police don't obey laws, we don't need to)

PanzerJaeger

05-16-2005, 02:40

Not really. The US is bound to live up to the terms of the treaty it has signed.

Wait a minute here. Doesnt the UN having corrupt business dealings with Iraq destroy the authority they have over the matter?

If the UN as an organization didnt uphold its side of the deal - fair and objective arbitration - why is the US obligated to uphold its side. Any CEO would tell you thats just bad business.

Devastatin Dave

05-16-2005, 02:43

Gotta love the Saddam apologist leftists...

Hurin_Rules

05-16-2005, 02:46

Wait a minute here. Doesnt the UN having corrupt business dealings with Iraq destroy the authority they have over the matter?

If the UN as an organization didnt uphold its side of the deal - fair and objective arbitration - why is the US obligated to uphold its side. Any CEO would tell you thats just bad business.

If the US feels the UN has failed to live up to its obligations, it should withdraw from the charter. One should note, however, that the US has been the primary obstacle to many of the UN's most daring initiatives in the last few years (The War Crimes Tribunal, the Kyoto Accords, the landmine ban, etc.)

kiwitt

05-16-2005, 02:52

We are in no way apologising for Saddam, just that there is an existing process to follow and it should be followed.

When you attack the UN you attack yourself. The UN is part every country who signed it's charter. If corruption is found it should be dealt with accordingly and not used as an excuse to ignore it.

If some police or judges are corrupt, does that mean we should ignore all judges and police.

The whole of the UN is not corrupt, just aspects of it.

Papewaio

05-16-2005, 03:09

Proletariat

05-16-2005, 03:23

One should note, however, that the US has been the primary obstacle to many of the UN's most daring initiatives in the last few years (The War Crimes Tribunal, the Kyoto Accords, the landmine ban, etc.)

Geez, how daring. How about they dare up the Sudan?

PanzerJaeger

05-16-2005, 03:24

If the US feels the UN has failed to live up to its obligations, it should withdraw from the charter. One should note, however, that the US has been the primary obstacle to many of the UN's most daring initiatives in the last few years (The War Crimes Tribunal, the Kyoto Accords, the landmine ban, etc.)

Why should the US support a tribunal that would have sway over our own troops that is run by such a corrupt organization?

When you attack the UN you attack yourself. The UN is part every country who signed it's charter. If corruption is found it should be dealt with accordingly and not used as an excuse to ignore it.

If that process has been directly tainted by the supposed authority, it loses all credibility.

The whole of the UN is not corrupt, just aspects of it.

And the aspect in question was directly corrupt with Iraq. I fail to see how it is illegal to avoid a corrupt UN.

But corrupt billion dollar business dealings with Halliburton is 100% above board...

Prove it.

The way I see it calling the war illegal because the UN was not fully on board is weak in itself, and when you compound the fact that the UN orchestrated the largest corruption in years in that country makes their authority worthless.

Your argument is basically saying: "Even though the cop takes bribes from the criminal, you should listen to him and not defend yourself against said criminal". Again, conflict of interests.

Also i remember before the war there was a UN resolution passed about Iraq.. i seem to remember it wasnt against the war but i cant remember the specifics. Anybody know of the resolution?

Proletariat

05-16-2005, 03:24

But corrupt billion dollar business dealings with Halliburton is 100% above board...

Proof?

Productivity

05-16-2005, 03:27

Wait a minute here. Doesnt the UN having corrupt business dealings with Iraq destroy the authority they have over the matter?

If the UN as an organization didnt uphold its side of the deal - fair and objective arbitration - why is the US obligated to uphold its side. Any CEO would tell you thats just bad business.

But the UN as an organization wasn't required for the rubber stamp was it? As far as I know it was the security council which was required for the rubber stamp, which although he can attempt to influence, Annan does not control.

Papewaio

05-16-2005, 03:29

Proof?

So its ok to have a billion dollar govenment contract that no one else can tender on?

Proletariat

05-16-2005, 03:30

Sure is. Explain why it wouldn't be. Have you looked into this?

LittleGrizzly

05-16-2005, 03:33

Your argument is basically saying: "Even though the cop takes bribes from the criminal, you should listen to him and not defend yourself against said criminal". Again, conflict of interests.

well the criminal (iraq) wasn't attacking at the time and theres a few other things making it a poor example... also i believe the money filtered through the oil for food scandal was not going to france in return for thier veto

the traffic wardens are making a killing off this criminal guy called iraq, the police get asked to do something about iraq but don't find any evidence and leave him alone, this annoys mr america who rounds up his friends to get mr iraq....

Productivity

05-16-2005, 03:34

Sure is. Explain why it wouldn't be. Have you looked into this?

Well at the least I wouldn't say it is good government policy, unless there are clear reasons why it shouldn't be (security etc.). I'm struggling to think of a sound economic reason for a government to create a monopoly over supply of a service to them. To me it seems completely irrational. Maybe there is nothing sinister, I simply don't know, but if there isn't anythign sinister, it would appear that there is a degree of incompetence in whoever set up the tendering process.

LittleGrizzly

05-16-2005, 03:36

So its ok to have a billion dollar govenment contract that no one else can tender on?

its not 100% proof of corruption in itself, it just looks highly suspect.

Papewaio

05-16-2005, 03:38

In the last two years, the Bush administration has awarded Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown and Root subsidiary $10.5 billion in contracts to do everything from providing meals to the troops to repairing Iraqi oil wells.

A high-ranking civilian whistleblower at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has alleged that KBR was allowed to write the specs for a $2.5 billion oil-repair contract. Not surprisingly, it was the only company qualified to do the work and won a no-bid contract.

Iraq Contract Oddities - Independent Media TV (http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=10751&fcategory_desc=Dick%20Cheney%20and%20Halliburton)

He suggested another contract with the US Army Corps of Engineers to repair and operate oil wells in Iraq was already worth more than $70m, with a ceiling of $7bn.

"When the contracts are combined, the total amount that Halliburton has received to date for work related to Iraq is now nearly $500m," said Mr Waxman.

Halliburton Iraq contract queried - BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2950154.stm)

Proletariat

05-16-2005, 03:42

Refuted.

In the 1990s, the military looked for ways to get outside help handling the logistics associated with foreign interventions. It came up with the U.S. Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, or LOGCAP. The program is a multiyear contract for a corporation to be on call to provide whatever services might be needed quickly.

Halliburton won a competitive bidding process for LOGCAP in 2001. So it was natural to turn to it (actually, to its wholly owned subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root) for prewar planning about handling oil fires in Iraq. "To invite other contractors to compete to perform a highly classified requirement that Kellogg Brown & Root was already under a competitively awarded contract to perform would have been a wasteful duplication of effort," the Army Corps of Engineers commander has written.

Then, in February 2003, the Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton a temporary no-bid contract to implement its classified oil-fire plan. The thinking was it would be absurd to undertake the drawn-out contracting process on the verge of war. If the administration had done that and there had been catastrophic fires, it would now be considered evidence of insufficient postwar planning. And Halliburton was an obvious choice, since it put out 350 oil-well fires in Kuwait after the first Gulf War.

Link. (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/printrl20030918.shtml)

You really don't think someone would've tried Cheney for something regarding this in my country if there was a substantial accusation? Look what we do over blowjobs.

Say what you want about the UN's authority or the BA's evil neocon agenda, but the Halliburton claims are just Moore-esque.

Essential further reading on US DOD contracting. (http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/004318.php)

Papewaio

05-16-2005, 03:47

How is that refuting it?

A 'secret no-bid contract' awarded to the Vice Presidents 'former' company? You see that as transparent, above board and in no way biased or corrupt?

kiwitt

05-16-2005, 03:50

Actually PJ the UN is made up of around 200 countries. So the "Food-for-Oil" official's were corrupt, that doesn't mean all these 200 countries and their officials who make up the UN are corrupt.

I believe there was another IRAQ operation that wasn't corrupt. i.e. the "Weapons Inspectors". I do not think they were corrupt. They just didn't produce results that met other countries expectations.

Given the fact that one operation was corrupt and one was not, doesn't that give the UN the "benefit of the doubt" for it's other operations.

If the "United Nations" is continually undermined and sidelined, I believe our long term hope for future peace will go the same way as the "League of Nations" and we will have much larger wars and invasions.

Proletariat

05-16-2005, 03:51

How is that refuting it?

A 'secret no-bid contract' awarded to the Vice Presidents 'former' company? You see that as transparent, above board and in no way biased or corrupt?

They did bid for the 2001 LOGCAP. They were also the only company capable of handling the war. Who are the other companies that got screwed out of bidding?

But in fact, investigators from the General Accounting Office (GAO) found Halliburton's no-bid contracts to be legal and probably justified by the Pentagon's wartime needs. Furthermore, Pentagon auditors have yet to make any final determination of whether payment should be denied to Halliburton for gasoline or meals for troops. Those billing disputes are still being negotiated.

Fact check. (http://www.factcheck.org/article201.html)

Papewaio

05-16-2005, 03:57

That and other contracts that they have been awarded.

So it is okay to have a secret no bid contract if there are no other contenders? Even if the contracts are normally broken down and given to subcontractors (like the Oil Fires which are given to a subcontractor which has a strategic alliance with Halliburton). Doesn't a monopoly of this nature fly in the face of a free enterprise and a level playing field... surely other suppliers could have competed... maybe even Walmart... ~D

It is also alright to have a bid specifications made by the bidder not the buyer?

You find nothing wrong in a system that has awarded so many contracts that have not been bid on to a company formerly headed by the Vice President (and will in all probablity pick up his contract in one form or another after his political reign)?

Spetulhu

05-16-2005, 05:51

Besides, may I add that....
WE ARE NOT AT WAR

There has been no formal declaration of war against Iraq, Usama Bin Laden, or any of those guys. None. Therefore, we are not at war. In fact, we haven't been since WWII.

So what do you call well-equipped armies camping out in another country? A voluntary field trip? Or are these soldiers acting without orders, perhaps?

BTW, would the soldiers be "illegal combattants" if there's been no declaration of war? ~:confused:

PanzerJaeger

05-16-2005, 06:15

Well the not-so-proven accusations about Vice President Cheney have been thoroughly refuted for a long time, that is why I initially asked for proof because i knew Papewaio couldnt produce.

Now then to a discussion that hasnt been finished long before it started..

If the "United Nations" is continually undermined and sidelined, I believe our long term hope for future peace will go the same way as the "League of Nations" and we will have much larger wars and invasions.

I believe that in fact the world will become much safer when the UN is finally trashed. Coalitions of nations working together have proved much more efficient than the clumsy, corrupt UN.

Papewaio

05-16-2005, 06:21

The UN has worked very well to stop the 'top 5' in the security council from going to war with each other.

It has not done so well when the smaller countries are being used as proxies.

Or the issues are below the big fives radar/citizens care factor.

PanzerJaeger

05-16-2005, 06:24

I think mutually assured destruction and economics have prevented tangles with Russia and China more than the UN.

Papewaio

05-16-2005, 06:37

Cheney said Sunday on NBC that since becoming vice president, "I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years."

Democrats pointed out that Cheney receives deferred compensation from Halliburton under an arrangement he made in 1998, and also retains stock options. He has pledged to give after-tax proceeds of the stock options to charity.

Cheney's aides defended the assertion on NBC, saying the financial arrangements do not constitute a tie to the company's business performance. They pointed out that Cheney took out a $15,000 insurance policy so he would collect the deferred payments over five years whether or not Halliburton remains in business.

Lautenberg, D-N.J., asked the Congressional Research Service to weigh in
Without naming Cheney or Halliburton, the service reported that unexercised stock options and deferred salary "are among those benefits described by the Office of Government Ethics as 'retained ties' or 'linkages' to one's former employer."

Lautenberg said the report makes clear that Cheney does still have financial ties to Halliburton. "I ask the vice president to stop dodging the issue with legalese," Lautenberg said.

Cheney's Halliburton Ties Remain (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml)

So Cheney still was not full divested.

Halliburton receives $7B in no-bid contracts in Iraq

Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Cheney, has won contracts worth more than $1.7 billion under Operation Iraqi Freedom and stands to make hundreds of millions more dollars under a no-bid contract awarded by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The size and scope of the government contracts awarded to Halliburton in connection with the war in Iraq are significantly greater than was previously disclosed.

Dick Cheney on Corporations (http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Dick_Cheney_Corporations.htm)

So can someone explain to me how it is refuted that a company that gets a $7B no bid contract is not in any way beyond reproach.

JAG

05-16-2005, 06:44

One big troll...

bmolsson

05-16-2005, 08:20

Al Khalifah

05-16-2005, 09:44

Because a bunch of sniveling, overprivaleged monarchs in Europe tell us
What? Besides Britain - a constitutional monarchy where the monarch has no true power - which other major monarchies would you be refering to? The French and Germans are republics. Monaco? Liectenstein? Wouldn't want to go to war without those guys.

America, whom without us Europe would be flying the red banner right now
Yeah and without the French, America would probably still be flying the Union Jack now. Those French cowards, they save us in our War of Indepedance and all they give us are these crappy 'freedom' fries and a big old statue.

Who cares what Europe thinks?
I'm glad my nation doesn't give a rats arse about what a bunch of drunken diplomats on a constant heroine fix think.[/QUOTE]
What is that based on?

Remember, they were America's creation and idea.
And America is Europe's creation and idea. I'm sure they're not overly prowd of the fact. America used to love the U.N in the Cold War because they used to use international opinion against the Soviets, but now they're above all that because Russia has stepped down as a world power.

Ever hear of the league of Nations?
Yeah it was an organisation with the intention of preventing another Great War with millions of casualties for no actual change in borders. They had this great idea that if all the world powers were on board, then no member nation would be able to go to war with any others. But then a major power didn't join because it had enough of war and didn't value freedom enough to intervene in Europe until its own interests were threatened.

Meneldil

05-16-2005, 11:31

Anyone noticed that the arguments provided by the UN bashers crew are just the same as those provided by Hitler, Mussolini and *whoever led Japan during the 30's* against the league of Nations ?

Edit : As I don't want to be misunderstood, I'm not saying that US is a fascist country just as the 3 quoted above, but that the whole arguing about the UN being corrupted, and thus unreliable is kinda hypocritical and silly.

As someone said, you were quite happy to use the UN to stop USSR from reaching its goals, though it (the UN) was probably just as 'corrupted' as it is now.

Furthermore, I don't think US is moraly allowed to tell the world who is corrupted and who is not, and to blame something/someone for being supposedly corrupted.

BTW, I don't really know what is all this fuss about. PJ asked a question (Please inform me as to which laws were broken and which crimes were committed.), and he was correctly answered (though he doesn't admit it).

Your country broke the international law, and I won't even speak about the Geneva Convention (sp?) - while I admit torture might have been needed in some cases.
This is called 'illegal'.

3rd edit : AlKhalifat, I think Spain, Belgium, Danemark, Dutchland and a lot of other european countries are Monarchies, though the so called monarchs have way less power than the French or US president.

Yeah and without the French, America would probably still be flying the Union Jack now. Those French cowards, they save us in our War of Indepedance and all they give us are these crappy 'freedom' fries and a big old statue.

And just so Kapo's arguing (the same good old "We saved us during WWII, though I highly doubt Kapo fought on the European soil) sounds even more stupid : 'Without Europeans, America would never have been discovered.' :help:

bmolsson

05-16-2005, 12:08

'Without Europeans, America would never have been discovered.'

Or it would have been discovered by Arabian slave traders. Imagine world politics of today...... :charge:

Steppe Merc

05-16-2005, 13:27

Yeah. Of course, the Vkings didn't do to much with America... just sort of found it, and then lost it. ~;)

Don Corleone

05-16-2005, 14:17

Regardless of what happened during World War II, European nations should, and I would say are morally obligated to follow courses of action which best serve their citizens. If keeping Saddam in power was benefitting the French people, then I would say the French government's actions prior to March of 2003 make sense.

I read article 5 of the Charter to mean that France, Germany, Russia & China were in default on the intent of the charter. Members are required to take necessary means to see resolutions enforced. If dragging the Syrian sponsored anti-Israel resolutions into this debate will help, then fine, I'd be willing to entertain that debate, if that's really the side you want to line up on, but it does not change the basic fact that there were already countless resolutions promising Saddam a military response for his continuing violations. The only mistake the Bush White House made in this whole affair was going back and asking for another resolution. We should have enforced the ones on the books, as they read.

Now, to my Conservative Club cohorts, as for dissolving the UN goes, I don't think you're thinking of the ramifications. Yes, it's corrupt, and yes, it can be used in modes not originally intended to thwart the spread of democracy and human rights. But I'm reminded of that quote by Winston Churchill... "Democracy is the worst form of government there is....except for all the others". While I don't like the current policies of the UN, and I think it is dire need of reform, it is still better than the alternative...everyone acting on their own. You all are apparently still relying on our old friendships with NATO going down the road. I've got news for you...with the exception of the UK, they are no longer our allies. The last holdout (w/ the exception of the UK) was Turkey, and France made certain that the Turks changed sides by telling them that if they supported the US, they would never, ever get into the EU. The Turks listened, and now, they're on their side. This "French are cowards" business is a dangerous mischaracterization... they're not exactly our advesaries but they are most certainly our rivals (and not very friendly ones at that) and if you all continue to write them off and underestimate them, you're going to deliver a nasty surprise to our doors. They're not bosom buddies with the Chinese and selling them every weapons system they can think of because they've got a warm fuzzy for us. Respect them, watch the courses of actions they have pursued for the past 15 years, and be wary. Don't make a joke out of it, that plays into their hands.

Don Corleone

05-16-2005, 14:27

Al Khalifah

05-16-2005, 14:56

3rd edit : AlKhalifat, I think Spain, Belgium, Danemark, Dutchland and a lot of other european countries are Monarchies, though the so called monarchs have way less power than the French or US president.
Yup. None is less than some. Basically they are a rubber stamp to be used whenever someone needs to claim anything legal. They also make a lot of money in tourist income for their respective nations.

Yeah. Of course, the Vkings didn't do to much with America... just sort of found it, and then lost it.
I read something on this recently. Apparently they've found some Viking settlement and burial remains in North America but only in the most coastal regions. The remains suggest that there may have been around for 15 years or so but died out and weren't supported. If only the Vikings had claimed America...

Ronin

05-16-2005, 15:34

Proletariat

05-16-2005, 17:38

So it is okay to have a secret no bid contract if there are no other contenders? Even if the contracts are normally broken down and given to subcontractors (like the Oil Fires which are given to a subcontractor which has a strategic alliance with Halliburton). Doesn't a monopoly of this nature fly in the face of a free enterprise and a level playing field... surely other suppliers could have competed... maybe even Walmart... ~D

Is your position an indictment of the process itself, Cheney, or Halliburton?

All I'm saying is that it's perfectly legal.

Hurin_Rules

05-16-2005, 18:16

I read something on this recently. Apparently they've found some Viking settlement and burial remains in North America but only in the most coastal regions. The remains suggest that there may have been around for 15 years or so but died out and weren't supported. If only the Vikings had claimed America...

The only confirmed viking settlement in North America is the L'anse aux Meadows site in the Canadian province of Newfoundland. Archaeological digs have proven beyond any doubt that the vikings did have a settlement there. The official site is here:

http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhn-nhs/nl/meadows/index_E.asp

Just FYI.

Redleg

05-16-2005, 20:21

This is interesting - but some are making the classic mistake of international law verus national law.

According to the United States Constitution the war with Iraq is legal and fits within the boundries of our governments stated legislative functions.

Congress approved the use of force, Congress sanctions the use of force still, and Congress funds the military to fulfil the military mission in Iraq. Prefectly legal and within the laws of the United States. Futhermore the United States Constitutions clearly states that no treaty with any other nations circumvents or overrides the United States Constitution.

As for illegal under international law - I refer the readers to research the Hague Conventions on warfare. In 1991 the United States, Great Britian and representives from the United Nations signed a cease fire with the nation of Iraq. Iraq failed to fulfill the obligations that they committed to under that cease fire. Under an international treaty that is older then the United Nations, and has an established presedence in international law - a country which violates a condition of a cease fire treaty - is subject to the re-commencement of hostilities whenever the other nations decide that the violation warrants such an action. As signator nations in the orginial cease fire the nations of Great Britian and the United States can resume the conflict if they so chose - without the approval of the United Nations - to resume the conflict.

Now some of you will say then why did Great Britian and the United States go back to the United Nations in 2002-2003 to get approval for such action - that was because both nations were wanting to get approval for such an action - however it was not a requirement for the course of action that both nations chose to go into.

Pindar

05-16-2005, 20:49

Those who argue U.S. action in the Iraq War is illegal do not know U.S. law. I posted this on another thread, but it seems necessary to repost.

Regarding U.S. legal stricture: The UN Charter was ratified in 1945. Ratification is a Senate function and applies to treaties. As such, it has no more force than any other Congressional act. The force of a treaty and the Senate's ability to speak to it are determinative by the U.S. Constitution. Consequently the Constitution is the prior legal justification for any standing a treaty is to have. The UN Charter, as a treaty, cannot supersede the legal framework that provides any assumed relevancy. It is subservient to the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law. It cannot act against Constitutional provision or Congressional provision. This same point was further stressed in the 1957 Supreme Court Decision Reid v. Covert where the Court stated: "no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution" and "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty."

Regarding treaties and international law: treaties are 'law' only for domestic purposes, international obligation only applies to political expediency. This was held to be the case from at least 1884 where the Court stated: "(a treaty) is a law of the land as an Act of Congress is, whenever its provisions prescribe a rule by which the rights of the private citizen or subject may be determined." As for the international aspects, the court held clearly that a treaty "depends for the enforcement of its provisions on the interest and honor of the governments which are parties to it." And if they don't work? "If these fail, its infraction becomes the subject of international negotiations and reclamations, so far as the injured party chooses to seek redress, which may in the end be enforced by actual war." Thus there is no extra legal remedy for lack of enforcement outside of war. Treaties are followed because some benefit is assumed. There is no legal enforcement provision. As stated in 1889 in Chae Chan Ping v. U.S .: "whilst it would always be a matter of the utmost gravity and delicacy to refuse to execute a treaty, the power to do so was prerogative, of which no nation could be deprived without deeply affecting its independence." Further treaties are subject to change by acts of Congress as stated in 1871 Supreme Court ruling The Cherokee Tobacco, "an act of Congress may supersede a prior treaty."

The UN does not supercede U.S. law or have authority over U.S. policy. It is legally irrelevant."

Brenus

05-16-2005, 21:08

Just out of curiousity, can anybody tell me why 1) we didn't need UN approval to attack Serbia and 2) why the American Left & the European intelligensia (two distinct groups, despite what the American Left thinks) didn't scream for Clinton to be brought up on war crimes? Hypocricy?

Yeap, it is. And you know what, Chirac was in this one. But better, it was to help an organisation which few months before was on the list of the terrorist Organisation (KLA). And you know what? The Mudjaidhin and Al Quaida were in Bosnia, helped by the US in fighting the Serbs and the Croats... Irony of the story?

kiwitt

05-16-2005, 22:31

So what you are saying Pindar is that if any country does not write it's treaties that it signs into law, it is not bound to abide by them.

Answer me this;

1) Was the treaty between France, Poland and England signed into law by those countries?
2) Was the NATO treaty signed into law by the US?
3) Was the ANZUS treaty signed into law by the US?

I am sure the US has signed many other treaties, but how many have been signed into law. Not many I suspect. It is simply window dressing.

Then the treaties were not worth the paper they were written on.

I think diplomats should forget about getting treaties signed as they wont be enforceable until the countries actually write them into law.

PS: Did Iraq write the ceasefire agreement into it's laws. It not bound to them as they are subserviant to its national Law. It seemed to abide someway, by not having WMDs.

Kaiser of Arabia

05-16-2005, 22:35

So what do you call well-equipped armies camping out in another country? A voluntary field trip? Or are these soldiers acting without orders, perhaps?

BTW, would the soldiers be "illegal combattants" if there's been no declaration of war? ~:confused:
A military operation is not a war. :bow:

Alexander the Pretty Good

05-16-2005, 23:09

Just out of curiousity, can anybody tell me why 1) we didn't need UN approval to attack Serbia and 2) why the American Left & the European intelligensia (two distinct groups, despite what the American Left thinks) didn't scream for Clinton to be brought up on war crimes? Hypocricy?

One wonders if a part of it is a mindset that says "Beating up Muslims = bad, beating up Christians = sometimes OK." It may not be that developed, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are some who still feel guilty for the Crusades.

However, I believe the [bad] Serbs really deserved some ass-kicking. Certainly Milosivich and his buddies. :book:

Don Corleone

05-16-2005, 23:27

Demon of Light

05-16-2005, 23:58

I'm going to take a stab at an analogy and see how it goes.

A guy walks into the store that I work at. He looks really suspicious in a huge trenchcoat, he's muttering under his breath and staring people down. I know this guy. He has a history of violence in the past and I had to beat him up before because he beat the crap out of one of my friends. THe police and I agreed that this guy should be searched regularly. If he refused to submit to a search, we agreed to force him into the search. Now I have this guy here and I KNOW he has a gun and I KNOW the police have been lax in searching him. I try to search this guy but he refuses. What do I do? I call the police.

THe police arrive on the scene and I tell them that I saw a gun on the guy (I didn't) and that he's a member of a street gang that wants to blow up my store (he's not). THe police try to search him but he puts up a whole song and dance about needing to go to the bathroom every five minutes (just like he's done in the past). After a while of doing this, the guy acts all pissed off and refuses to let the police keep searching him. The police are just stupid enough to let this happen. I try to convince the police that this guy has a gun and wants to blow up my store. They aren't buying it. Their brilliant solution is to try and search him again. They say that all they have to do is talk to the guy and we'll search him and be done with it. Alot of things become apparent to me. First, the police force is comprised entirely of weenies. Second, this guy is getting away with flouting the law (we're supposed to be able to search him). Third, if I want anything done, I'll have to do it myself. Further, I personally hate this guy. So I tell everyone that he's an armed gang member, I grab a large heavy object and I beat him to death with it.

After he is a bloody mass on the floor, I search him and I don't find a gun. THe police pipe in by saying that he wasn't even a gang member. Everybody is upset now. Part of crowd feels lied to because they supported to me killing the guy as long as he had a gun. Another part of the crowd never believed me and now they want my head for lying about why I killed the guy. They claim that I just didn't like him and wanted his money. With all these people yelling at me, what am I to do?

My solution is to tell people that killing this guy was necessary because he beat his wife and molested his children. This is true but now everybody wants to tell me that that was none of my business and that I didn't even mention it as a reason until after he was dead. I feel totally fine about killing the guy (not like the police were going to do anything) but everyone still hates me for being a lying bastard (mind you, I am BUT I feel that I'm a lying bastard who did the right thing). THey hate me even more after I move ito the guy's house. His wife starts performing "favors" for me and this pisses off the guys children. His kids are happy that their child molesting father is dead but they hate me for being in their house and for all the favors I'm recieving from the guy's former wife. They want me to leave. I don't see that as a viable option though as I know full well that if I left, the neighborhood pimp would set up shop the next day. I want to make sure that the wife can support the kids before I go.

So, everybody hates me, I can't seem to catch a break but the only thing I know how to do in this situation is to just keep doing what I think is right tell everyone else to go to hell.

kiwitt

05-17-2005, 00:14

A good analogy Demon.

The killing would mark you as a "murderer". Vigilante justice is frowned upon and against most laws I know.

Pindar

05-17-2005, 01:12

So what you are saying Pindar is that if any country does not write it's treaties that it signs into law, it is not bound to abide by them.

What I have explained is treaties do not trump U.S. law. It is theoretically absurd and legally mistaken to assume otherwise. Treaties must be ratified. The ratification authority is granted by and through the U.S. Constitution. Thus, the Constitution is the prior legal authority that allows action to be taken. The Constitution cannot be superseded by an action that depends on Constitutional authority for meaning. Further, it has been repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court that treaties are always subject to U.S Congressional action. This applies to both enforcement and/or its opposite. The U.S. (as are other nations) is at liberty to recognize, annul, amend or ignore any treaty as it sees fit at any time. The legality of a U.S. action is the domain of U.S. lawmakers and Courts only.

Answer me this;

1) Was the treaty between France, Poland and England signed into law by those countries?
2) Was the NATO treaty signed into law by the US?
3) Was the ANZUS treaty signed into law by the US?

What France, Poland and the UK do or how they decide to comport themselves legally is there own concern. I am only explaining U.S. law though I doubt any of the three believe treaties trump national sovereignty.

Any treaty the U.S. is a signatory to is subject to what I have already described.

Then the treaties were not worth the paper they were written on.

I think diplomats should forget about getting treaties signed as they wont be enforceable until the countries actually write them into law.

I think you feel a sense of loss, perhaps because you assumed that because we use the word "international law" such are in fact law. This is a mistake. International law is the realm of treaty as should be understood accordingly. Treaties may not have enforcement provision, but are not totally without value.

Laws should be the creation of and continually subject to those who are governed by them.

PS: Did Iraq write the ceasefire agreement into it's laws. It not bound to them as they are subserviant to its national Law. It seemed to abide someway, by not having WMDs.

Treaties are expedients as I previously explained. Should a nation breach or set aside an agreement the only alternative by the other signatory is to ignore, harangue, economic retaliation or war. It isn't a legal issue.

PanzerJaeger

05-17-2005, 01:24

BTW, I don't really know what is all this fuss about. PJ asked a question (Please inform me as to which laws were broken and which crimes were committed.), and he was correctly answered (though he doesn't admit it).

Not so correct apparently..

Redleg and Pindar seem to have much stronger cases. :bow:

Redleg

05-17-2005, 01:45

I agree wholeheartedly, and I take my hat off to Clinton for doing it, in the face of a lot of negative domestic pressure. That wasn't my point. I strongly suspect that at least domestically, opposition to the war = "get Bush". Were it Al Gore at the helm and we were in the exact same situation, the war effort would enjoy unparalleled support.

Not really - even Desert Storm had a large minority that protested the action because of either their politics or beliefs outside of politics.

Al Gore would have recieved just as much harsh criticism as President Bush - and most likely would have used many of the exact same arguements as George W. Bush - which happen to be many of the same arguements President Clinton used in his authorization for force and the continuation of the embargo and sanctions against Iraq. However all that is lost and mute once the actual invasion was ordered by President Bush.

kiwitt

05-17-2005, 01:57

Pindar

05-17-2005, 02:06

The more I read this, the more I believe the US is a law onto itself.

Of course. The U.S. is a sovereign state. It is subject to its own citizenry and no other. This is the standard for all nations. A law passed by France is applicable to Frenchmen.

Redleg

05-17-2005, 02:07

The more I read this, the more I believe the US is a law onto itself. i.e. it can choose do do what it like's inside and outside it borders, as it sees fit, no matter what the majority of the "community" of nations, it is a member, of consider "proper process".

Every nation to an extend does exactly this. Why do you suppose no nation other then two were willing to attempt to enforce the 14 UN resolutions that were passed by the Security Council against Iraq. So many other examble to show you using other countries beside the United States.

Just check out some stories on North Korea and Iran - both developing Nuclear weapons in spit of signing treaties stating they would not develop them. Same thing for India and Pakistan.

Very much like a "vigilante". Loved by some, but "unlawful" nonetheless. The fact they the US was able to recruit other members to it's "posse" and lynching the offender (i.e. attack the country)

Once again I would refer you to the Hague Convention and Treaty of 1903 - it states fully when a nation is perfectly within its International right to go to war against another. One article clearly states that if a signator nation fails to abid by the ceasefire conditions - then the other signator nations have the right to resume warfare agaisnt that nation. However it seems that some would like to think the United Nations Charter prevents that from happening.

I still think this (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/) was the real motive for war regardless of the legality. More here (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Iraq_dollar_vs_euro.html).

Well everyone is entitled to their opinion.

kiwitt

05-17-2005, 02:17

It is subject to its own citizenry and no other.

True, but if it's actions on the wider world occurs it is subject to the Club rules you agreed to 60 years ago.

If you were to join a "Club" and you sign and accept the club rules, you are expected to abide by those rules. You can still eat, work and do other things that make you an individual (i.e. sovereign nation), but while you are in the club, you should not break the rules or you can expect to be expelled.

If your circumstances have changed and can no longer abide by it's rules, you should resign from the club.

I don't think the UN Charter, has any jurisidiction of any countries internal laws.

Alexander the Pretty Good

05-17-2005, 02:28

If da Club is so unhappy with a member's actions, why don't they boot the US?

I mean, its not like other members are failing da Club's rules. :rolleyes:

kiwitt

05-17-2005, 02:31

Once again I would refer you to the Hague Convention and Treaty of 1903 -

Did Iraq sign the "Hague Convention and Treaty of 1903" ? I don't think it even existed then. Even if it subsequently signed the treaty did it put it into it's law books.

Did the US sign the Treaty into it's law books ? If not it is not valid.

NOTE: Iraq had a revolution since then, and I understand if you have a revolution you are no longer under the laws of the country that existed prior and can start a a new diplomatic treaty process.

e.g. The recent revolutions of the former Soviet republics are no longer subject to the old Soviet laws and can adopt those laws as required.

bmolsson

05-17-2005, 03:29

"no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution"

But the law instituted by God must superseed US law since he is the protector of the constitution ? Or is Bush bigger than God ??? ~;)

bmolsson

05-17-2005, 03:31

Redleg and Pindar seem to have much stronger cases. :bow:

So you believe that their leftist opinions on laws above God are to be seen as a stronger case ??? :charge:

kiwitt

05-17-2005, 04:00

leftists...

I am not a leftist. I can not ever bring myself to vote for a leftist government (in NZ that would be Labour or Greens).

I respect the law.

My order of Law hierarchy

God (if he/she exists) - Over everything
Universal Laws - between universes
Physical Laws - Between planets and on planets
International Laws and Treaties - Between Countries and agreed to by them. Leaders or representatives who sign these are representing their citizens.
National Laws - Within Countries, what governments impose on their citizens
Common Laws - Within Countries, what has been passed down through the ages
Moral Laws - What is acceptable to the current population
Religious Laws - What religions imposes on their members
Club Laws - What Clubs imposes on their members

Redleg

05-17-2005, 04:14

Did Iraq sign the "Hague Convention and Treaty of 1903" ? I don't think it even existed then. Even if it subsequently signed the treaty did it put it into it's law books.

You are the one arguing for International law - this is counter to your postion is it not?

Did the US sign the Treaty into it's law books ? If not it is not valid.

Yes the United States did sign the treaty and I do believe it was ratified in the United States Congress. Which does make it a recognized treaty.

NOTE: Iraq had a revolution since then, and I understand if you have a revolution you are no longer under the laws of the country that existed prior and can start a a new diplomatic treaty process.

e.g. The recent revolutions of the former Soviet republics are no longer subject to the old Soviet laws and can adopt those laws as required.

Understood - however once again the Hague Treaty is exactly the same arguement as your United Nations Charter arguement - it goes to show that under International Law - which is basically the negotation and interpetations of treaties - the Hague Treaty is of even older presedence (SP) then the United Nations and is still a valid and recoginzed treaty.

Spetulhu

05-17-2005, 04:38

A military operation is not a war. :bow:

Perhaps not. But fighting other armies with military grade weapons isn't exactly police work either. ~;)

And there's actually a good reason for not declaring war, isn't there? Something about the President being forced to give dates and names?

kiwitt

05-17-2005, 04:39

You are the one arguing for International law - this is counter to your postion is it not?

Only it's applicability to Iraq. If Iraq did not sign the treaty and the US did, the US can not use this treaty against Iraq. This law is not applicable.

The US did sign the UN Charter as did Iraq, but both can ignore it for similar reasons.

- The US, because it was not ratified after 60 years. A bit of a slowpoke. ~D
- Iraq, because it may not have ratified the agreement in it's laws. Also the overthrown government was probably different to the one that signed originally. Also now there is a new Government with a new constitution. That government will also need to sign the UN charter too, and pass it in to law.

I would have thought if you sign an agreement you are bound to the terms of the agreement. The US should only sign agreements that the congress has approved.

Therefore the invasion of Iraq is "Legal" in the strictest sense, but that does not make it right.

BTW: Has the US ratified the WTO treaties ?

Maybe it is time to disband the UN and replace it with a body that has authority over other countries, to which all members sign up to and pass in to law. i.e. a World Constitution. I think the EU Constitution is part of that process anyhow

Pindar

05-17-2005, 08:51

Originally Posted by Pindar
It is subject to its own citizenry and no other.

True, but if it's actions on the wider world occurs it is subject to the Club rules you agreed to 60 years ago.

These two statements are mutually exclusive: the final 'and no other' clause eviscerates the idea of being 'subject' to any outside force (including your club). If you agree with the one you cannot agree to the other.

More to the point and what should have been clear by what I have posted to this point: the UN has no binding force upon U.S. policy or law. To assume otherwise is to misunderstand the nature of law and international relations. Treaties exist out of a perceived mutual benefit that is all. Their efficacy ceases whenever one party deems it in their interest to do so.

The UN has no extra-territorial authority. Its collective body is made up of ambassadors of various states: ambassadors by definition are representatives of particular nations meaning: their purpose is to promote their nation's interests. Unfortunately for the UN a large swath of its membership are composed of autocratic states even at the most central levels of the organization. Democratic states should have more as opposed to less mutual interests. It is these mutual interests that bring them together to achieve some end, not an overarching extra-national legal mandate.

I don't think the UN Charter, has any jurisidiction of any countries internal laws.

The is no such thing as external law. Law is internal as its creation, legitimacy and enforceability all apply within the bounds of the polity that is its source.

Pindar

05-17-2005, 08:53

But the law instituted by God must superseed US law since he is the protector of the constitution ? Or is Bush bigger than God ??? ~;)

The U.S. is a secular government.

Papewaio

05-17-2005, 09:01

More to the point and what should have been clear by what I have posted to this point: the UN has no binding force upon U.S. policy or law. To assume otherwise is to misunderstand the nature of law and international relations. Treaties exist out of a perceived mutual benefit that is all. Their efficacy ceases whenever one party deems it in their interest to do so.

Isn't this implicity the case for all law?

If a party decides to ignore the law, only force can make them obey/penalise them.

And explicity the case with the USA consitution outlining that the citizens have the right to bear arms and overthrow government?

Pindar

05-17-2005, 09:02

Therefore the invasion of Iraq is "Legal" in the strictest sense, but that does not make it right.

This is a moral argument not a legal one. If you wish to argue the morality of overthrowing dictatorships that is Ok, but it is a separate issue.

BTW: Has the US ratified the WTO treaties ?

Yes.

Maybe it is time to disband the UN and replace it with a body that has authority over other countries, to which all members sign up to and pass in to law. i.e. a World Constitution. I think the EU Constitution is part of that process anyhow

The UN should be disbanded and replaced by a body made up of democratic states. Only democratic states should be allowed participatory rights.

Pindar

05-17-2005, 09:13

Isn't this implicity the case for all law?

If a party decides to ignore the law, only force can make them obey/penalise them.

And explicity the case with the USA consitution outlining that the citizens have the right to bear arms and overthrow government?

I'm not sure about your initial pronoun, but if your asking about the nature of law: no, law is not simply a question of force. Law is tied to the notion of authority. This authority is tied to the notion of legitimacy. Legitimacy is based upon representation. Thus, law and its enforceability is a byproduct of popular sovereignty.

Yes, the U.S. recognizes the right to revolution when the government no longer reflects the will of the governed. Despots have no right to governance.

Adrian II

05-17-2005, 10:16

The UN should be disbanded and replaced by a body made up of democratic states. Only democratic states should be allowed participatory rights.And the very next day, those democratic countries would be doing business with dictatorships for reasons of national interest. Just like they are doing right now within the framework of the UN. The result would be even more confusion and backroom dealing than we have now.

We've been here before, you and I, and I still think the idea of founding such an organisation has great merit. But only outside the UN, not as a replacement of the UN.

And I doubt that it would have a long life if members felt free to ignore their treaty obligations...

Productivity

05-17-2005, 11:27

My order of Law hierarchy

God (if he/she exists) - Over everything
Universal Laws - between universes
Physical Laws - Between planets and on planets
International Laws and Treaties - Between Countries and agreed to by them. Leaders or representatives who sign these are representing their citizens.
National Laws - Within Countries, what governments impose on their citizens
Common Laws - Within Countries, what has been passed down through the ages
Moral Laws - What is acceptable to the current population
Religious Laws - What religions imposes on their members
Club Laws - What Clubs imposes on their members

That may be yours, but it is not the accepted definition in any country that I can think of.

I would guess it would be ok for the first three (although the second two are somewhat frivolous in my view). From then on, as far as I can tell it is like this in most countries.

Constitution (if present)
Statutes
Treaties
Common Law
Moral Law
Religious/club laws (these can be viewed as the same thing, if you view religion as a (sometimes large) club).

The constitution is what all powers in most countries are derived from. This will then set out how further legislation can be made, who judges upon it and the hierarchy of legislation.

From this consitution the way in which laws are created and treaties become ratified will be derived. Pindar has given a able description of this process for treaties in the US, and I think we all know how legislation is created so I won't go into that. In Australia (and I would imagine the UK and NZ) as far as I know, treaties/agreements etc. are ratified by bringing in legislation, that can often be reffered to as the enabling or implementing legislation (as seen recently in Australia with the "US Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act 2004").

In this case the treaty sits equally alongside other legislation of it's own level (and it would usually be federal). While it is binding when it is in power, under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, no parliament can be bound by it's predecessors, and so and treaty can be overuled by any new legislation.

So your hierarchy really isn't correct for most nations. Indeed any nation that follows the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty cannot follow your hierarchy, as by placing treaties above legislation, a government can be bound by it's predecessors.

Note: Different countries follow different variations of parliamentary sovereignty, however I find it difficult to imagine that any country would have as one of their variations that a parliament can be bound by it's predecesssors.

Tribesman

05-17-2005, 11:32

Redleg

05-17-2005, 12:33

Only it's applicability to Iraq. If Iraq did not sign the treaty and the US did, the US can not use this treaty against Iraq. This law is not applicable.

Technically incorrect - International law is judged the same as national courts based upon international presendce (SP). In this case one nation can use the Hague Treaty of 1903 to justify an action because the Treaty was internationally accepted - and the Hague Treaty of 1903 is often also called the Rules of War which all nations have refered to.

The US did sign the UN Charter as did Iraq, but both can ignore it for similar reasons.

This actually defeats your arguement about war being illegal. Are you now trying to argue counter to your orginal postion.

- The US, because it was not ratified after 60 years. A bit of a slowpoke. ~D
- Iraq, because it may not have ratified the agreement in it's laws. Also the overthrown government was probably different to the one that signed originally. Also now there is a new Government with a new constitution. That government will also need to sign the UN charter too, and pass it in to law.

Not sure if I am following your logic here - are you attempting to prove that the war is legal under international law or illegal. These statements together would go to show how the war is legal because niether country would be obligated to follow the UN Charter.

I would have thought if you sign an agreement you are bound to the terms of the agreement. The US should only sign agreements that the congress has approved.

No the system was designed in this way on purpose - the United States often will honor treaties that were signed even without ratification by the Congress - however the ratification process insures that the President does not just sign any treaty without following the process.

Therefore the invasion of Iraq is "Legal" in the strictest sense, but that does not make it right.

This would be correct - it is indeed "legal" in the strictest sense of the word -now if its ethical or right would depend upon your viewpoint.

BTW: Has the US ratified the WTO treaties ?

Good question - and I don't know the answer

Maybe it is time to disband the UN and replace it with a body that has authority over other countries, to which all members sign up to and pass in to law. i.e. a World Constitution. I think the EU Constitution is part of that process anyhow

Maybe - but I am for one against a world government because of the amount of corruption in the world.

Meneldil

05-17-2005, 12:50

So basically, you're saying that any treaty signed by the US is worth nothing and is to be respected 'if it is ever useful to us' ?

Apparently, the solution is quite easy : invading Iraq was legal for the US due to its Constitution, but not for country bound by treaties they have signed.

Redleg

05-17-2005, 13:00

So basically, you're saying that any treaty signed by the US is worth nothing and is to be respected 'if it is ever useful to us' ?

Every nation follows this philisophy to include yours.

Apparently, the solution is quite easy : invading Iraq was legal for the US due to its Constitution, but not for country bound by treaties they have signed.

Once again I would refer you to the Hague Treaty of 1903. Look into the articles that talk about recourses for when one nation violates the conditions of a cease fire.

There is even international treaties that show that the invasion is legal under international law. You can not pick and chose which treaty will be honored. The UN Charter would make the invasion illegal - the Hague Treaty would make it legal under international law. I hope you can see the contradiction between the two.

Productivity

05-17-2005, 13:47

Good question - and I don't know the answer

Given the US is a member of the WTO, and at times has taken steps to avoid violating it, and has responded to complaints brought against it in the WTO, I would guess it has ratified it.

The Stranger

05-17-2005, 15:17

huh

Pindar

05-17-2005, 17:22

And the very next day, those democratic countries would be doing business with dictatorships for reasons of national interest. Just like they are doing right now within the framework of the UN.

That may very well be. Each nation is at liberty to conduct its own affairs. The point of an international body like the UN or some equivalent is to further many of the basic ideals found in democratic states: peace, prosperity, representative government etc. The UN has failed in this regard not just because of its corruption, but because it is systemically flawed. Allowing autocratic states place contravenes the very ideals espoused.

We've been here before, you and I, and I still think the idea of founding such an organization has great merit. But only outside the UN, not as a replacement of the UN.

I recall your arguments for upholding the present UN and I understand the point. It appears to me that lip service to legitimacy rather than promote popular sovereignty makes a sham of the institution and blocks real work for going forward. The UN is a sandbox. Staying in the sandbox has no impact on the nasty children while there nor does it effect their behavior at home.

And I doubt that it would have a long life if members felt free to ignore their treaty obligations...

Members are free to do so now. Membership in a body that actually had a strong stance for democracy has rhetorical force and marks a clear divide between admitants and those not. At the least it clears the air between states that count for something and those that are pretenders only. Such pretender states may face greater pressure from their own citizenry when the world body refuses to give legitimacy to their autocratic behavior.

Demcracy is a great idea. It should move the soul. I think many want the UN to be the body I described, but it is not.

Pindar

05-17-2005, 17:42

The U.S. is a secular government.
What has that got to do with the price of cheese ?
Bmolsson wrote But the law instituted by God must superseed US law since he is the protector of the constitution ? Or is Bush bigger than God ???
Since the pledge states "one nation under God " then Gods laws come first unless you want to change the pledge to "one nation just above God and Mexico but below Canada apart from the bit next to Canada"

You do not understand the U.S. legal system.

Yes, the U.S. recognizes the right to revolution when the government no longer reflects the will of the governed. Despots have no right to governance.
That isn't what they said last week about Uzbeckistan is it . In fact they said completely the opposite ~;)

Papewaio's statement concerned U.S. citizen's rights vis-a-vis the Constitution. As far as self determination is concerned: the U.S. has traditionally been a supporter of the idea. Recall this was a basic tenet of the American Revolution and a bedrock principle of Wilsonian theory.

Try to add to the dialogue and not just throw bombs from your Island.

Hurin_Rules

05-17-2005, 18:25

I'm not sure about your initial pronoun, but if your asking about the nature of law: no, law is not simply a question of force. Law is tied to the notion of authority. This authority is tied to the notion of legitimacy. Legitimacy is based upon representation. Thus, law and its enforceability is a byproduct of popular sovereignty.

Yes, the U.S. recognizes the right to revolution when the government no longer reflects the will of the governed. Despots have no right to governance.

Then why is the USA supporting Musharraf? By your definition, he has no right to governance and the Pakistani government is illegitimate. This means all the treaties the USA has signed with Pakistan are now null and void, right?

Tribesman

05-17-2005, 19:43

As far as self determination is concerned: the U.S. has traditionally been a supporter of the idea.
Not for the past 50 years it hasn't .

Pindar

05-17-2005, 19:45

Then why is the USA supporting Musharraf? By your definition, he has no right to governance and the Pakistani government is illegitimate.

That is right.

The U.S. supports Musharraf because it is in our interest to do so. That interest is killing Islamo-fascists. This is parallel to the U.S. supporting Stalin in the 40's. At that time our interest was in killing Nazis.

This means all the treaties the USA has signed with Pakistan are now null and void, right?

Nothing I wrote suggests the U.S. cannot sign anything with anyone. Musharraf is the head of Pakistan's government. This does not mean he is a legitimate head, simply that he holds power.

I explained before treaties exist for purposes of mutual interest.

Hurin_Rules

05-17-2005, 19:52

Nothing I wrote suggests the U.S. cannot sign anything with anyone. Musharraf is the head of Pakistan's government. This does not mean he is a legitimate head, simply that he holds power.

So you and the US must then recognize the right of Islamofascists--Taleban included--to overthrow the Musharraf regime, right?

Tribesman

05-17-2005, 19:52

The U.S. supports Musharraf because it is in our interest to do so. That interest is killing Islamo-fascists.
Really ? I thought Musharraf was harbouring and supporting these Islamo-fascists , he even goes as far as having his army shoot at American troops when they a hunting these Islamo-fascists , not to mention his absolute refusal to tell you what WMD technology they have given to these people .

Don Corleone

05-17-2005, 19:54

So you and the US must then recognize the right of Islamofascists--Taleban included--to overthrow the Musharraf regime, right?

Man, talk about straw men. ~:)

Pindar

05-17-2005, 19:58

As far as self determination is concerned: the U.S. has traditionally been a supporter of the idea.
Not for the past 50 years it hasn't .

If you object to the U.S's opposition to the USSR and the spread of communism during the Cold War then we have very different value systems.

The general view of the U.S. in regards to the Third World, as expressed by Jean Kirkpatrick, was the U.S. could generally support an authoritarian state as opposed to a totalitarian state. The difference being the former, while contrary to democratic ideals, nonetheless may maintain a modicum of freedom through its economic policy and this might develop into a free society. The latter, where government control seemed omnipresent, was more likely to remain stagnant and bound to its Kremlin masters.

Pindar

05-17-2005, 20:06

So you and the US must then recognize the right of Islamofascists--Taleban included--to overthrow the Musharraf regime, right?

This doesn't follow from what I wrote.

Dictatorial systems do not have an implicit right to govern.

Hurin, are you just being a contrary because your anti-Americanism demands it or are you really this confused?

Pindar

05-17-2005, 20:08

Tribesman

05-17-2005, 20:11

So peoples have the right to self determination as long as they don't choose a political system that you don't like .
Nice words Pindar , "May maintain a modicum of freedom" "might develop into a free society" .
Would you like to throw in a few ifs , buts , possiblies or once in a blue moon into it aswell ?

Fighting the Taliban and their ilk would be much more difficult without Pakistan's help.
Fighting the Taliban and their ilk would be a lot easier if there wasn't an occupation of Iraq to contend with .

Pindar

05-17-2005, 20:19

So peoples have the right to self determination as long as they don't choose a political system that you don't like .

My likes or dislikes are not part of the equation.

Nice words Pindar , "May maintain a modicum of freedom" "might develop into a free society" .
Would you like to throw in a few ifs , buts , possiblies or once in a blue moon into it aswell ?

How the Cold War would end was not clear. What I described was the U.S. posture as the time. It was based on a general belief that is also being followed with China at present. There are no guarantees either then or now.

Hurin_Rules

05-17-2005, 21:09

This doesn't follow from what I wrote.

Dictatorial systems do not have an implicit right to govern.

Hurin, are you just being a contrary because your anti-Americanism demands it or are you really this confused?

Again with the ad hominem argumentation-- not particularly becoming, I must say. You keep expressing your own opinions as if they were incontrovertible facts (e.g. Post 102: "My likes or dislikes are not part of the equation"). Of course your likes and dislikes are part of the equation. You dislike any form of government that is not democratic. Fine, so do I. But don't pretend that your radical stance on sovereignity is shared by everyone. Other people believe in international law-- international lawyers included. You are an international lawyer and know much more about this than most posters here, so you have almost everybody at a disadvantage; yet you never give the other side of the argument, nor do you help others to understand the issues by acknowledging that your opinions are not shared by many other experts. That is at best pusillanimous and at worst intellectually dishonest. By noting some of the unpleasant consequences of such a radical view on national sovereignty, I'm just trying to point out to others who are interested in these issues that there are major differences of opinion, even amongst the experts. How about acknowledging those?

Nelson

05-17-2005, 21:58

But don't pretend that your radical stance on sovereignity is shared by everyone.

I fail to see how Pindar’s views on sovereignty are radical. The USA is a sovereign nation. It behaves like a sovereign nation. The US government is beholden to no one but the will of the American people.

How is this radical in this day and age? I'll grant you it was a radical idea in 1776. If it is now then color me radical too.

Don Corleone

05-17-2005, 22:01

Yeah, me too. No offense Hurin, but I've never heard you argue when I've defended the French from my Conservative cohorts by saying "The French need to and should do whatever they believe is right for them". Is it your argument that I should change that to "The French need to and should do whatever others believe is right for the International Community, regardless of the consequences for the French" ? I was making the exact same sovereignty argument that Pindar is here.

kiwitt

05-17-2005, 22:31

Being the legal justification was the breach of a ceasefire, I searched for this and came up with this passage.

Discussion (http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg01239.html)

As it stands, then, the Security Council has not identified Iraq as in
material breach of the ceasefire resolution for its current failure to
comply with the weapons inspectorate: therefore, there are no grounds for
considering the ceasefire agreement as terminated or suspended.

Therefore if IRAQ did not breach it's conditions of a "Ceasefire", as under the Hague Convention, and which has since been proven as no "WMD" has been found in Iraq. Therefore the war against Iraq would be illegal.

Redleg

05-17-2005, 23:02

Being the legal justification was the breach of a ceasefire, I searched for this and came up with this passage.

Discussion (http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg01239.html)

Therefore if IRAQ did not breach it's conditions of a "Ceasefire", as under the Hague Convention, and which has since been proven as no "WMD" has been found in Iraq. Therefore the war against Iraq would be illegal.

I only browsed through the discussion however its a nice read - however it discusses the concept of "material breach"

the wording in the Hague states

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm

Art. 40.
Any serious violation of the armistice by one of the parties gives the other party the right of denouncing it, and even, in cases of urgency, of recommencing hostilities immediately.

In other words there is a difference in the meaning between the words used in the Hague Convention of 1907 (my mistake I stated initially 1903) and what the author stated in the discussion you linked. If I was a lawyer I might understand the legal difference between 'material breach" and "serious violation" - but since I am not - I can only assume that its two different definations and a "serious violation" requires a lesser defination then "material breach"

However it seems that the author failed to notice this little Article in the Convention.

Art. 36.
An armistice suspends military operations by mutual agreement between the belligerent parties. If its duration is not defined, the belligerent parties may resume operations at any time, provided always that the enemy is warned within the time agreed upon, in accordance with the terms of the armistice.

You can not argue that the United States and Great Britian did not provide amble warning that if certain conditions were not meet - the invasion would happen.

kiwitt

05-17-2005, 23:09

... if certain conditions were not meet

Was One of these conditions that it hand over all documentation regarding it's WMD. - It did - Volumes of the stuff if I remember.

Was another that it let inspectors in to prove these documents regarding it's WMD - It did - let them in and they did not find any.

What conditions did it not meet ?

Certainly the WMD argument has been proven false now.

Tribesman

05-17-2005, 23:19

What I described was the U.S. posture as the time.
Which doesn't fit at all with a "tradition of supporting self determination" does it ? Or were you talking about an ancient tradition ~;)

Gawain of Orkeny

05-17-2005, 23:47

Was One of these conditions that it hand over all documentation regarding it's WMD. - It did - Volumes of the stuff if I remember.

And it was proven to be half truths and lies and much of what was required was missing. Once more if he destroyed WMDs that we knew he had he had to show proof of this. He never did so.

Was another that it let inspectors in to prove these documents regarding it's WMD - It did - let them in and they did not find any.

Again they found the documents insufficient.

Certainly the WMD argument has been proven false now.

Its been proven a likely theory it has not been proven false as of yet.

LittleGrizzly

05-17-2005, 23:53

Its been proven a likely theory it has not been proven false as of yet.

proven likely that there are WMD or aren't WMD ?

Gawain of Orkeny

05-17-2005, 23:56

proven likely that there are WMD or aren't WMD ?

Its been proven or should I say theorised that the most likely scenario was he secretly destroyed most of them. Which I might add is a violation of the agreements he signed.

Redleg

05-18-2005, 00:16

Was One of these conditions that it hand over all documentation regarding it's WMD. - It did - Volumes of the stuff if I remember.

Yes Iraq did turn over volumnes of material - however it did not meet the conditions of the ceasefire agreement.

Was another that it let inspectors in to prove these documents regarding it's WMD - It did - let them in and they did not find any.

What conditions did it not meet ?

Certainly the WMD argument has been proven false now.

The resolution that was based upon the initial cease fire agreement.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/596/23/IMG/NR059623.pdf?OpenElement

This link provides all of the initial cease fire conditions. Notice where Iraq was suppose to account for all Kuwaiti citizens and property that was seized. And several other conditions that were never fulfilled by Iraq or were violated during the 12 years before the invasion. To include if I remember correctly the use of WMD on their own population. President Bush '41 should of went back to war in 1992 when Iraq violated the ceasefire - however he was politicial weak in his resolve to do so.

kiwitt

05-18-2005, 00:18

Gawain of Orkeny

05-18-2005, 00:22

Still no WMD have since been found. No justification for war and the killing of 100,000's of people (and more than 1000 "Coalition" Troops) on a technicality.

I think the people of Iraq would hardly agree with you here. Once more he violated the ceasefire agreement. Thats all the justification we needed. That was no technicality.

kiwitt

05-18-2005, 00:36

Killing people, which war is, is decision that should not be reached lightly. The WMD was a filmsy reason and the evidence to date has proven that.

Had they gone and said, we want to do a "regime change", so we can ensure the oil is sold in US dollars not Euros, I think the support will be even less so.

I saw an item on "Oprah" whereby 4 million Congolese people have been killed in a period of a few years and I am sure there are other countries where horrendous actions are occurring now. Most Iraqi citizen's would have supported a "regime change" argument as would these other countries.

However, as we are discussing the legality of the war, not the motivations and possible outcomes. It was the WMD issue that was given as the basis of the war and these have been proved unfounded. It's been nearly 2 years since the war started and with US troops all over the country and no WMDs have been found.

Gawain of Orkeny

05-18-2005, 00:42

It was the WMD issue that was given as the basis of the war and these have been proved unfounded.

Not this again. That was only one reason of many. The fact that most of the others have been proven true is totaly irrelevant to you I know.

However, as we are discussing the legality of the war

If its illegal why havent we been brought up on charges? ~;)

It's been nearly 2 years since the war started and with US troops all over the country and no WMDs have been found.

Wrong a few were found. In fact the Dufullier (sp)report said it was even worse and more dangerous than we thought. Another fact you people like to ignore.

kiwitt

05-18-2005, 01:00

If its illegal why havent we been brought up on charges? ~;)

Could it be because the US did not join the International Court of Justice and ratify it in Congress.

Gawain of Orkeny

05-18-2005, 01:05

Could it be because the US did not join the International Court of Justice and ratify it in Congress.

No. What would that have to do with an international body bring us up on charges like they did with Milosovich?

kiwitt

05-18-2005, 01:43

Gawain of Orkeny

05-18-2005, 01:49

The US world face charges as indicated here if it joined.

If it joined what? So all you have to do to avoid charges is not join whatever it is?

Redleg

05-18-2005, 01:51

The US world face charges as indicated here (http://www.unknownnews.net/040428falluja.html) if it joined.

"America is a superpower, which can evidently do what it pleases, and it can withdraw from the war in Iraq whenever it wants."

Now that is a conspiracy websight - it actually weakens the creditablity of your arguement in my eyes. And you were doing so well up to that point in expressing your thoughts and views.

kiwitt

05-18-2005, 01:55

And you were doing so well up to that point in expressing your thoughts and views.

If "Alternative Media" is not acceptable as sources. I will cease my discussion on this topic as I have little faith in supposedly reputable media outlets (the recent newsweek article proves that)

Redleg

05-18-2005, 02:02

If "Alternative Media" is not acceptable as sources. I will cease my discussion on this topic as I have little faith in supposedly reputable media outlets (the recent newsweek article proves that)

Alternative Media is acceptable - but conspricary is just that, conspricary without lots of factual and doublecheck information, often relaying on the type of reporting that has made you question the mainstream media like Newsweek. If you can not accept it from Newsweek - why would you accept it from another site.

Hell you can link to any of the other alternative media sources on the web that actually report the news with lots of factual information - with little rant. I often read alternative sources besides the mainstream.

This type of site would of been better to use to make your point.

http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm

Gawain of Orkeny

05-18-2005, 02:02

Once more to be illegal the US must have broken a law. Tell me what law it has broken and by what authority it has any juristiction or power over the US. I think the US illegaly entered the war in Kosovo but no charges have been brought against us. Even if it were who would punish us.

America is a superpower, which can evidently do what it pleases

This is a fact. The strongest will always do whats best for themselves unless your talking about liberals.

bmolsson

05-18-2005, 02:44

Tell me what law it has broken and by what authority it has any juristiction or power over the US.

God....

Gawain of Orkeny

05-18-2005, 02:44

He told you that? ~;)

Don Corleone

05-18-2005, 02:51

Gawain, way off topic, but you and and Redleg both need to delete the phrase 'Once again' from your vocabulary. Both of you have used it in excess of 150% of your allotted usage for any one phrase in your lifetime.

Back on topic, Bmolsson, I don't argue that we haven't broken God's law. I don't argue that we have either, for that matter. Could you cite your scripture, or ours, where it shows we've violated God's law?

Gawain of Orkeny

05-18-2005, 02:55

'Once again' from your vocabulary. Both of you have used it in excess of 150% of your allotted usage for any one phrase in your lifetime.

I said Once more ~;) Besides I like to point out that Im repeating myself to make a point. After you post something 4 or 5 times you get tired of pointing out again. Its short for how many times do I have to tell you this ~D

Don Corleone

05-18-2005, 03:01

I know what you and Redleg are thinking when you say it, but it's become like nails on a chalkboard. At Christmas, I thought it was funny in Redleg's posts and pointed it out. IT AIN'T FUNNY ANY MORE!!!!

-How many times do I have to say this?
-Either I'm unclear in my post or you're not reading...
-Please pay attention....
-Hey, dummy, listen up....
-I bet somebody a beer you wouldn't pay attention to me, but...
-I've known eggplants that would have understood this by now...

PLEASE, I'm begging, find some other phrase than "Once again", or "Once more".

Gawain of Orkeny

05-18-2005, 03:03

Look Don Im only going to explain this one last time ~D

Don Corleone

05-18-2005, 03:10

Beautiful! :kiss2: That's all I'm asking for! Thank you!

Productivity

05-18-2005, 03:35

Was One of these conditions that it hand over all documentation regarding it's WMD. - It did - Volumes of the stuff if I remember.

Volumes of stuff does not mean anything, but is a relatively common tactic to use to try and make a point. Indeed if I was trying to make a point to a jury, I would be chucking as much evidence at them as I can, knowing precisely how average the general population is, and what effect this will have upon them.

While I agree that Iraq appeares to have no WMD, that is not quite the same as Iraq having shown the world that it has no WMD.

EDIT: Your theories about the real reason are borderline insane. While it is true that the US would preffer to have the USD as the prime world currency, it has far cheaper/easier ways of ensuring that it stays the prime currency. Indeed this war, with all it's spending (increasing budget deficits) is actually increasing the chance of the USD losing it's position as the foremost world transaction currency. I fail to see how that is a real justification.

Don Corleone

05-18-2005, 04:13

Well, dgb makes some good points, and one more I'd like to add is how the US dollar came to be the base currency for the world. At the end of the day, a dollar is a promisary note note from the US government, just like a Pound Sterling is a promisary note from the government of the UK. And the US has never defaulted on a promisary note. Other governments can't say that and therefore, other promisary notes don't carry the same kind of stability.

Nobody's arguing that the dollar is a little volatile right now. It always has been. But if you're an investor, and you want to know you're going to get your investment back, the US dollar is the best place to put your money. So while other investments may be stronger right now, and may remain so in the short term, is 'what's the hottest commodity' really the criteria we want to use as the basis for global capital?

It's funny in a way. On the one hand, we're supposedly evil for asking China to stop artificially tieing it's currency to the dollar and let theirs rise in response to ours. In the other, we're evil because we're trying to force all of the oil producing countries of the world to stay on it. Which is it? The answer can't be "The US is wrong no matter which way it turns". Well, I guess it can, but then there's no point debating all this stuff.

PanzerJaeger

05-18-2005, 05:27

The answer can't be "The US is wrong no matter which way it turns".

It always is with the leftists who wish to undermine our nation.

bmolsson

05-18-2005, 06:59

It always is with the leftists who wish to undermine our nation.

Don't think it's mainly leftist that is after US these days. Being a lefty is soooo fifties...... ~;)

Adrian II

05-18-2005, 07:27

Gawain, way off topic, but you and and Redleg both need to delete the phrase 'Once again' from your vocabulary. Both of you have used it in excess of 150% of your allotted usage for any one phrase in your lifetime.Hehe, good point. They should also refrain from the phrase 'Try reading...' which automatically takes the discussion down to the level of schoolyard bickering and personal slights.

Gawain of Orkeny

05-18-2005, 15:28

Hehe, good point. They should also refrain from the phrase 'Try reading...' which automatically takes the discussion down to the level of schoolyard bickering and personal slights.

In my over 8000 posts I bet you cant find more than 25 instances of me saying this. Good luck proving me wrong ~:)

Ser Clegane

05-18-2005, 16:04

In my over 8000 posts I bet you cant find more than 25 instances of me saying this. Good luck proving me wrong ~:)

Be careful what you are saying, Gawain ... IIRC Adrian read the whole EU Constitution ... going through your 8000+ posts will probably be a cakewalk for him now ~D

Adrian II

05-18-2005, 16:22

Be careful what you are saying, Gawain ... IIRC Adrian read the whole EU Constitution ... going through your 8000+ posts will probably be a cakewalk for him now ~D~:mecry:

Gawain of Orkeny

05-18-2005, 16:25

I can see hes looking forward to proving me wrong. ~;)

Adrian II

05-18-2005, 21:10

I can see hes looking forward to proving me wrong. ~;)Oh for Pete's sake, I can't be bothered. In the name of the father, the son and single malt spirits I absolve thee, brother Gawain.
http://matousmileys.free.fr/catho.gif

Gawain of Orkeny

05-18-2005, 21:46

I need no absolution for I have not sinned ~;)

Pindar

05-18-2005, 22:29

Again with the ad hominem argumentation-- not particularly becoming, I must say. You keep expressing your own opinions as if they were incontrovertible facts (e.g. Post 102: "My likes or dislikes are not part of the equation"). Of course your likes and dislikes are part of the equation. You dislike any form of government that is not democratic. Fine, so do I. But don't pretend that your radical stance on sovereignity is shared by everyone. Other people believe in international law-- international lawyers included. You are an international lawyer and know much more about this than most posters here, so you have almost everybody at a disadvantage; yet you never give the other side of the argument, nor do you help others to understand the issues by acknowledging that your opinions are not shared by many other experts. That is at best pusillanimous and at worst intellectually dishonest. By noting some of the unpleasant consequences of such a radical view on national sovereignty, I'm just trying to point out to others who are interested in these issues that there are major differences of opinion, even amongst the experts. How about acknowledging those?

I don't think my post was ad hominem. I think it was descriptive and questioning. Regardless, there are at least three problems with the above:

1) The quote about my likes/dislikes was in reference to U.S. policy then being discussed. My personal likes do not apply to governmental postures.

2) My explanations of basic international law are just that: basic. There is no informed discussion that confuses treaties with domestic legislation I am aware of.

3) My view that 'legitimacy is derived from popular sovereignty' is a philosophical position. I don't believe it is radical nor do others, as noted by some respondents. I do believe it is correct. I believe this because upon reflection it seems the soundest position. If someone wishes to put forward a counter view on a undemocratic legitimacy I am willing to listen and scrutinize accordingly. I feel no compunction however to do someone else's thinking for them. If someone cannot come up with a counter-argument that is there own affair and may suggest my view is the correct one. I don't believe any of this falls under some breach of intellectual dishonesty.

Given the tenor of some of the other posts:

Now go and sin no more. :angel:

Pindar

05-18-2005, 22:39

Kiwitt

Are you still arguing the Iraq War is illegal? I looked through the recent posts and it seems things have shifted to reasons for war which is a different question.

kiwitt

05-18-2005, 22:56

From what I have learned to date from other peoples posts. The war was "legal" in the strictest sense. The US and it's allies have not broken any law, as these nations are only answerable to their own citizens, which I now accept is the correct position for a "sovereign" state. Also, according to these nations "faulty" intelligence, they were told (what they wanted to hear, because of an possibly alternative agenda) that Iraq had broken the ceasefire by building WMD. Naive, I know, even though other "sovereign" states said they had not. Their arguments and the inspectors reports that they did not find any were also ignored.

I think I remember it been mentioned, that if the US had "intelligence" of these WMD they should have given this information to the inspectors , so they could check it out. This did not happen. Why not, I do not know.

I have not seen any big Broadcast about a "huge" WMD find. In the meantime, over 100,000 people (including US troops and allies) are now dead, because of this war. Right or wrong, war is still bad.

Until I see a detailed, proven independent (non-US) report that Iraq had WMDs, I will still consider this war illegal in my eyes.

Pindar

05-19-2005, 01:24

kiwitt

05-19-2005, 01:30

How are these two statements compatible?

They are not. My position is the last.

Pindar

05-19-2005, 01:40

They are not. My position is the last.

I see. What do you mean by illegal?

kiwitt

05-19-2005, 01:45

No WMD, no breach of ceasefire, no valid reason for restarting combat.

Gawain of Orkeny

05-19-2005, 01:49

No WMD, no breach of ceasefire, no valid reason for restarting combat.

So then are you a law unto yourself?

Redleg

05-19-2005, 01:52

No WMD, no breach of ceasefire, no valid reason for restarting combat.
No WMD - however evidence of programs to develope WMD. Evidence of a missle that violats the agreed upon range limitations as stated in the CeaseFire Agreement. Failure to account for all Kuwaiti citizens and their property as stated in the ceasefire agreement. Failure to account for all WMD as stated in the ceasefire agreement. (one can state that they provide in 1998 - however once again Iraq was in violation of the ceasefire agreement becasue they did not produce the required documents when initially asked). The use of WMD on the people of Iraq in 1992 - yes Kiwitt that to was a violation of the ceasefire agreement.

Lots of reasons why the war with Iraq was going to happen - wether it be Bush in office or another president. President Clinton also conduct warfare against Iraq in the time period of 1993-2000 - four times strikes were made to bring Iraq back to the conditions of the cease fire agreement.

Yep 12 years of failed diplomacy is the reason the invasion happened.

Pindar

05-19-2005, 02:17

No WMD, no breach of ceasefire, no valid reason for restarting combat.

Validity and legality are not the same. Further, what you have listed would seem to be moral rationales which again is a diferent standard. There still seems to be a base tension in your view give you already recognized a fundamental legality.

kiwitt

05-19-2005, 02:17

Considering Saddam may have delegated this "destruction" function to subordinates, and then onto further subordinates and then to possibly illiterate subordinates to carry out. How can all these be adequately documented, if some were destroyed by illiterate soldiers.

I think the US was simply looking for an excuse to invade (for the reasons I outlined earlier), and I am sure it knew that some of the destruction of weapons would be carried out by unqualified people, whom Saddam would have no way of verifying their actions. It was virtually a third world country and the problems associated with those types of countries.

This may have explained why the documentation was inadequate.

Still no WMD have since been found. No justification for war and the killing of 100,000's of people (and more than 1,000 "Coalition" Troops) on a technicality.

As to the accounting of Kuwaiti Citizens and property, this would fall into the same boat. There was an uprising soon after the retreat and in that confusion a lot of records would have been lost.

Expecting First-world standards of documentation on a "bombed" out near Third-World country, where records keeping would be scant at best is a bit naive.

The use of WMD on the people of Iraq in 1992 - yes Kiwitt that to was a violation of the ceasefire agreement.

It took 11 years to take action on this. ~:confused:

DisruptorX

05-19-2005, 02:18

Heck, Iraqi batteries shooting at US planes for years would have been enough for us to declare war on them.

kiwitt

05-19-2005, 02:24

Heck, Iraqi batteries shooting at US planes for years would have been enough for us to declare war on them.

I did not hear them mention that in the last address to the UN before the attack.

Gawain of Orkeny

05-19-2005, 02:30

I did not hear them mention that in the last address to the UN before the attack.

Oh please. How many times have you heard of violations of the no fly zone. I think they shot at coaltion planes almost daily or at least anytime they could get a shot off.

kiwitt

05-19-2005, 02:38

I heard plenty. But the WMD was the real reason given to the UN. True on not.

Gawain of Orkeny

05-19-2005, 02:40

Not

DisruptorX

05-19-2005, 02:41

I heard plenty. But the WMD was the real reason given to the UN. True on not.

That was Bush's biggest mistake. There were plenty of good, obvious reasons for declaring war, and he 1)didn't have congress declare war and 2) used an exuse that was sketchy and relied on the US to prove guilt. Very bad diplomacy didn't help, either.

kiwitt

05-19-2005, 02:58

From the US Ally - Australian Parliment Government Website, an analysis (http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/CIB/2002-03/03cib09.htm) of International Law in relation to Iraq dated 13 December 2002

"As it stands, there is no basis in international law for the US or any other State using military force to 'implement or enforce' any current UNSC resolution on Iraq."

Gawain of Orkeny

05-19-2005, 03:02

And your point?

kiwitt

05-19-2005, 03:07

The point.

.. no basis in international law ...

Gawain of Orkeny

05-19-2005, 03:09

Theres a big difference between

Originally Posted by kiwitt
.. no basis in international law ...

And illegal

Before you posted

From what I have learned to date from other peoples posts. The war was "legal" in the strictest sense. The US and it's allies have not broken any law, as these nations are only answerable to their own citizens, which I now accept is the correct position for a "sovereign" state.

Now you seem to be trying to prove its illegal once more.

kiwitt

05-19-2005, 03:35

Richard Perle a so-call neo-con said (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1089042,00.html) it was.

and here (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2005/04/28/legal.pdf) it says

"... as the ceasefire conditions were set by the Security Council in resolution 687, it is for the Council to assess whether any such breach of those obligations has occurred"

Gawain of Orkeny

05-19-2005, 03:47

So what?

Redleg

05-19-2005, 03:51

kiwitt

05-19-2005, 03:52

Now you seem to be trying to prove its illegal once more.

Pindar, brought me back in to the discussion.

"The Hague Convention" was the legal document that had been used to say it is "legal".

I have since learned the the "Security Council" of the UN was the other party in the ceasefire agreement with Iraq, therefore the US is a member of the security council so it is bound by what the rest of the members agree to as to the next appropriate action.

Gawain of Orkeny

05-19-2005, 03:55

I have since learned the the "Security Council" of the UN was the other party in the ceasefire agreement with Iraq, therefore the US is a member of the security council so it is bound by what the rest of the members agree to as to the next appropriate action.

Where did you learn that nonsense? As a permanent member of the security council we can veto any proposal we deem fit too and are not bound by any decision the rest of the council agrees on.

Gah I have to go see Star Wars damn it. Later peeps.

kiwitt

05-19-2005, 03:55

- all signators of the cease fire agreement have the ability to assess whether any breach happens.

True, but any action should be in agreement with the other signatories, I would hae thought.

Redleg

05-19-2005, 03:57

Pindar, brought me back in to the discussion.

"The Hague Convention" was the legal document that had been used to say it is "legal".

I have since learned the the "Security Council" of the UN was the other party in the ceasefire agreement with Iraq, therefore the US is a member of the security council so it is bound by what the rest of the members agree to as to the next appropriate action.

You answered yourself with this statement Kiwitt. Yes the United Nations was The other signatur party at the ceasefire - along with a bunch of United States Generals. I should know from first hand since my unit had the honor of performing security at the cease fire site in Safwon.

True, but any action should be in agreement with the other signatories, I would hae thought.

No the Haque Convention does not state that the allied warring parties must all agree - it states a signator party of the ceasefire can resume hostilities with warning if another violates the ceasefire agreement.

kiwitt

05-19-2005, 04:05

kiwitt

05-19-2005, 04:06

Gah I have to go see Star Wars damn it. Later peeps.

Lucky One ~D

Redleg

05-19-2005, 04:22

Remember, I am not "Anti-War". He had to go and war was the only way to remove him. I am glad for Iraqi People and all those other reasons that have been stated.

As to the legality. The 1991 war was launched under a UN banner, so the resolution of this war should have been under the same banner and under the UN rules and charter.
If the US can not convince other members of the "Security Council" as to it's case, and "Russia" being closer would have more to fear from WMDs from Iraq, the case must have been very weak.

Not completly true the collation was headed by the United States, the forces were organized by the United States - the only thing the United States did with the United Nations was to get the use of force authorized by the Security Council.

My younger brother was sitting on the desert floor of Saudi Arabia - in August before the United Nations authorized the use of force.

http://www.desert-storm.com/War/chronology.html

While the United Nations authorized the use of force - it was indeed controlled and managed by the United States. And once again it was not a United Nations representive that signed the cease fire for the United States - it was a group of American Generals signing the cease fire for the United States and for the United Nations. Since the United States has never surrendered its soveriegnity to the United Nations - and the United States was a signator nation on the cease fire - under the Hague Conventions - the United States can determine on its own if another nation was in violation of the cease fire agreement signed between both parties - even with other nations involved. A British General was also at the Cease Fire site - He also signed the treaty - not for the United Nations but for the United Kingdom.

kiwitt

05-19-2005, 04:32

Redleg

05-19-2005, 14:05

Well said Redleg. I was not aware of that. Case Closed

At least we got rid of Saddam and his henchmen. Now if only we could get rid of all those criminals he released just prior to the invasion, probably now causing all the current havoc.

One of these days I just might take the other side and argue why the Invasion of Iraq was illegal - it might be hard for me to do though since I am rather convinced that what the United States did was legal.

However that does not mean that there were other motives that could be seen as "illegal" justification for war. Or that certain criminal activities have not occured.

For instance if I was going to argue that the Invasion of Iraq was "illegal," I would argue from the prospective of the United States Constitution and the fact that the United States Congress never authorized war with Iraq in either 1990-91 or during this Invasion. This is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution and is due to the Congress giving up thier power of war with the War Powers Act of 1973. If you argue along those lines - you might have a better arguement about the War with Iraq being illegal.

However there is a problem with that arguement because the War Powers Act of 1973 has been around for a while and that is what has allowed the United States to function in Bosina and Kosvo.

Hurin_Rules

05-19-2005, 17:38

I don't think my post was ad hominem. I think it was descriptive and questioning. Regardless, there are at least three problems with the above:

...

3) My view that 'legitimacy is derived from popular sovereignty' is a philosophical position. I don't believe it is radical nor do others, as noted by some respondents. I do believe it is correct. I believe this because upon reflection it seems the soundest position. If someone wishes to put forward a counter view on a undemocratic legitimacy I am willing to listen and scrutinize accordingly. I feel no compunction however to do someone else's thinking for them. If someone cannot come up with a counter-argument that is there own affair and may suggest my view is the correct one. I don't believe any of this falls under some breach of intellectual dishonesty.

What I'm talking about are things like this, as pointed out by the Australian Parliament:

As mentioned earlier in this paper,(19) the US appears to take the view that it would be justified in forcing Iraqi to comply with the relevant UNSC resolutions if the Council itself fails to do so. It is hard to see that this position has any tenable basis in international law. This same issue of unilateral, or 'automatic', implementation was debated at the UNSC meeting which led to the adoption of Resolution 1154. The relevant part of that debate has been summarised as:

No agreement was reached on this issue. The US and the UK did not receive support for the view that UN members would have such an automatic right. The other members of the Council, including the other permanent members, emphasized the powers and authority of the Security Council and in some cases explicitly rejected any automatic right for members to use force. Sweden emphasised that "the Security Council's responsibility for international peace and security, as laid down in the Charter of the United Nations, must not be circumvented." Brazil stated that it was "satisfied that nothing in its [the Resolution's] provisions delegates away the authority that belongs to the Security Council under the Charter and in accordance with its own resolutions." And Russia concluded that, "there has been full observance of the legal prerogatives of the Security Council, in accordance with the United Nations Charter. The resolution clearly states that it is precisely the Security Council which will directly ensure its implementation, including the adoption of appropriate decisions. Therefore, any hint of automaticity with regard to the application of force has been excluded; that would not be acceptable for the majority of the Council's members." (20)

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/CIB/2002-03/03cib09.htm

The position you are espousing is a distinctively conservative American one. But on the world stage, this position is actually in the minority. I don't expect you to do other people's thinking for them; but you are our resident expert in this field, and as such it would be nice and helpful--although surely not obligatory--to help people understand these issues by noting the other major school of thought on this issue, which clearly disagree with your most fundamental beliefs. You leave people with the erroneous impression that your perspective is the only important one. Now, if you enjoy having your friends here at the boards going away misinformed, be my guest; but I'll try, inasmuch as a layman like myself can, to keep them well informed.

Hurin_Rules

05-19-2005, 17:44

Some further food for thought from the same article:

The passing of Resolution 1441 does not change the situation. For example, the Irish representative on the UNSC has stated that:

as far as Ireland is concerned, it is for the Council to decide on any ensuing action. Our debate on 1718 October [in relation to Resolution 1441] made it clear that this is the broadly held view within the United Nations.(21)

Permanent members of the UNSC, such as France, have made similar statements.

Similarly, the idea that UNSC resolutions can be sometimes seen as 'implicitly' authorising the unilateral use of military force has likewise been rejected in other academic writings. Although not directly relevant to this paper, one implication of this is that the maintenance of 'no-fly' zones over Southern and Northern Iraq have no support in international law.(22)

A related argument sometimes made is that the Gulf War ceasefire agreement referred to in Resolution 687 was dependent on Iraq's carrying out of its disarmament obligations. As Iraq has failed to carry these out fully, the argument runs that Resolution 678 which authorised the use of force against Iraq remains operative. However, Resolution 687 says the UNSC may take further steps 'as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution'. It does not state or imply that UN members themselves may do so. Also, the thrust of 678 relates more to Iraq's failure to withdraw from Kuwait rather than Iraq's possession of WMD.

In summary, international law does not allow the US, or any other country, to take military action against Iraq for the purpose of enforcing any of the UNSC disarmament resolutions. Explicit authorisation would be required from the UNSC along the lines of Resolution 678.

Gawain of Orkeny

05-19-2005, 17:53

It still doesnt make it illegal. You guys remind me of Don Quixote.

Byzantine Prince

05-19-2005, 17:55

It still doesnt make it illegal. You guys remind me of Don Quixote.
Cofi said it was. :smartass:

Redleg

05-19-2005, 17:56

All good and well Hurin - but neither of those statements take in consideraton the Hague Conventions of 1907 - which are always refered to as the Rules or Laws of War.

It also does not mention that there was a cease fire signed in Safwon by American, British, other collation members - and Iraq, before the UN Security Council Resolution was passed.

Feb 27, 1991 President Bush orders a cease fire effective at midnight Kuwaiti time.
Mar 3, 1991 Iraqi leaders formally accept cease fire terms

Followed by the date of the UN Security Council Resoultion 687.

RESOLUTION 687 (1991) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting, on 3 April 1991.

Hurin_Rules

05-19-2005, 18:05

So are you saying, Redleg, that the ceasefire the Americans signed is a separate ceasefire?

You also seem to be saying that the US signed a ceasefire with Iraq, but the fact that American generals were leading the operation does not necessarily mean that it was a treaty between the USA and Iraq; the US was leading a coalition under UN auspices. There were British, French, and other nationalities' generals there too. Did the US congress ratify the treaty? What I'm wondering is whether we should see US soldiers fighting under a UN banner as represenatives of the US or the UN. It seems to me the latter is more reasonable.

Redleg

05-19-2005, 18:27

So are you saying, Redleg, that the ceasefire the Americans signed is a separate ceasefire?

Yep it was - the United States was in overall command of Desert Storm and the treaty was signed initially in March in Safwon - I should know since I pulled security along with other companies from 2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division.

You also seem to be saying that the US signed a ceasefire with Iraq, but the fact that American generals were leading the operation does not necessarily mean that it was a treaty between the USA and Iraq; the US was leading a coalition under UN auspices. There were British, French, and other nationalities' generals there too. Did the US congress ratify the treaty? What I'm wondering is whether we should see US soldiers fighting under a UN banner as represenatives of the US or the UN. It seems to me the latter is more reasonable.

I see United States soldiers as members of the United States Military and representives of the United States - just like you do when you allude to other situations ie GITMO and Abu Griab.

No the cease fire was not ratified by the United States congress - but the United States Congress did not declare war either - if you stick with that arguement about the declartion of war - you actually have a better arguement concerning the war being illegal then the United Nations Charter and Resolution - BTW.. However the cease fire signed at Safwon was honored by the United States Forces that were in theather in 1991, and therefor it has presendence over the United Nations Resolution 687. Resolution 687 confirmed all the aspects of the ceasefire - that the United States forced upon Iraq as conditions to stop the fighting.

No the United States was leading a collation under the auspices of the United States with approval from the United Nations to use force. No United Nations personal at any time was ever in charge of the operation. The United Nations Flag was not represented on any part of the battlefield that I saw.

Adrian II

05-19-2005, 20:51

It still doesnt make it illegal. You guys remind me of Don Quixote.Whether you like it or not, the shoe is really on the other, um, windmill?... ~:cool:

Despite the legal creativity displayed by some, there is the obstinate fact that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes treaties into which the U.S. has entered 'the supreme Law of the Land'. The U.S. was a signatory to the UN Charter and had no legal authority under the Charter to go to war in 2003. Attempts to justify that war as a sequel to the first one (1991) on the basis of UNSC resolutions that were superseded by later resolutions ruling out the use of force without UNSC authorisation, don't bear closer scrutiny, as do the claims (WMD, terrorist ties) that were used to underpin them.

It seems to be the consensus among Conservative members here that the U.S. is not bound by its UN Charter obligations. I think the U.S. has amply demonstrated this sort of contempt and notice has been taken by the rest of the world, including the 'rogue' states who will avail themselves of nuclear weapons no matter what the U.S. declares about their legality. The Iraq war has served as an object lesson to them: whether they have such weapons or not, they may be attacked by the U.S. anyway. The world has taken notice that the U.S. Provisional Authority in Iraq has illegally squandered at least $8 billion of that country's oil revenue on fraudulous or no-bid contracts. The world has taken notice of the 'fixed' intelligence and cooked reports about Saddam's WMD and terrorist connections. The detention, 'rendition' and torture of captured irsurgents and innocents alike in illegal U.S. camps on the instruction of the highest authorities have shown that Washington flouts humanitarian law with ease. And if the whole Iraq episode ends in disaster -- a possibility now envisaged by American generals and serious analysts (though not by all syndicated columnists or bloggers) -- no other government in its right mind will want to have any part of America's foreign entanglements in the foreseeable future.

Superficially at least, this suggests an interesting reversal of roles. The U.S. used to be a nation of traders and proponents of a peaceful, global legal system who wanted to avoid foreign entanglements, particularly in Europe; whereas nowadays Europe is looking for a similar role and wants to avoid becoming involved in American foreign adventures.

Gawain of Orkeny

05-19-2005, 21:19

Despite the legal creativity displayed by some, there is the obstinate fact that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes treaties into which the U.S. has entered 'the supreme Law of the Land'. The U.S. was a signatory to the UN Charter and had no legal authority under the Charter to go to war in 2003.

It does?

U.S. Constitution - Article 6
Article 6 - The United States

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

How does that make treaties the law of the land? No one has legal status over the US we are a soverign state. There is no question of legality here. Who makes the rules? Treaties are merely a diplomatic tool with no real basis in law. Countries will honor them only as long as they see a benefit in them. The US is not alone in this matter. Every nation behaves this way. We are the 800lb gorrila so our actions are far more visible and influential.

It seems to be the consensus among Conservative members here that the U.S. is not bound by its UN Charter obligations.

Its not. People have said that if we dont want to go by their rules we should withdraw from the charter. I say we cant do so quick enough. And get your damn members out of my city.

Adrian II

05-19-2005, 21:24

How does that make treaties the law of the land?I'll give you three guesses. The answer is in the quote you just posted.
People have said that if we dont want to go by their rules we should withdraw from the charter. I say we cant do so quick enough. And get your damn members out of my city.It's not happening. Why would that be?

Gawain of Orkeny

05-19-2005, 21:33

I'll give you three guesses. The answer is in the quote you just posted.

You mean this

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So then once a country signs a treaty they are bound by it until the end of time by your reasoning. We are only bound by the treaty as long as our government wishes us to do so. The federal government does not have the power to give our soverignty to anyone. We are only bound by a treaty as loong as we see fit. Its the same for everyone else as long as their willing to face the consquences of their actions.

It's not happening. Why would that be?

For the same reason as illegal imigrants keep pouring accross our borders. Its still useful as a tool to some. I and many others say get a new tool this ones shot.

Adrian II

05-19-2005, 21:39

The federal government does not have the power to give our soverignty to anyone.Nobody says so, my friend. But your Constitution states that the treaties you enter into are the supreme law of the land. If you want out, you'll have to cancel them. And I believe you and I agree that your country has cancelled the UN Charter de facto. Hence my question: why does Washington keep coming back to seek the approval of the Security Council and the assistance of its members?

Gawain of Orkeny

05-19-2005, 21:44

But your Constitution states that the treaties you enter into are the supreme law of the land. If you want out, you'll have to cancel them. And I believe you and I agree that your country has cancelled the UN Charter de facto. Hence my question: why does Washington keep coming back to seek the approval of the Security Council and the assistance of its members?

It says our constitrution is the supreme law of the land. Treaties are only good as long as our government chooses to go by them. They are the signatories of the treaties. Many countries break treaties without withdrawing from them. Again its merely a politcal tool and nothing more. Bye the way youve just showm why the UN is a powerless and useless organization. We use the UN to rubber stamp our actions. If they refuse we do what we like anyway. Its nice to get their approval but far from called for by our constitution.

kiwitt

05-19-2005, 22:25

The article should be read as

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Redleg

05-19-2005, 22:33

Despite the legal creativity displayed by some, there is the obstinate fact that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes treaties into which the U.S. has entered 'the supreme Law of the Land'. The U.S. was a signatory to the UN Charter and had no legal authority under the Charter to go to war in 2003. Attempts to justify that war as a sequel to the first one (1991) on the basis of UNSC resolutions that were superseded by later resolutions ruling out the use of force without UNSC authorisation, don't bear closer scrutiny, as do the claims (WMD, terrorist ties) that were used to underpin them.

Lets look at the actual wording of the United Nations Charter which you are attempting to state makes the United States actions regarding Iraq as illegal.

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

This is the preamble - now notice the items highlighted in bold - it all flows together.

Now where does it say that a soveriegn nation can not enter into warfare?

Redleg

05-19-2005, 22:38

Wait you are probably trying to refer to Article two of the UN Charter.

Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter. my words: lets see Iraq violated this condtion when it refused to honor the initial cease fire resolution. Once again I refer you to the Hague Convention which governs the rules of war - not the United Nations

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. shall refrain - does not equate to will not use

All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action. Care to list the number of nations which violated this principle of the United Nations - over and over again

The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Redleg

05-19-2005, 22:43

Or are you trying to allude to this article

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Adrian II

05-19-2005, 22:50

Treaties are only good as long as our government chooses to go by them.I know your government has this Mussolini approach to treaties; and they have recently applied it to various treaties and institutions the U.S. once instigated, such as the U.N. and the WTO trade regime. That's one of the reasons why I'm happy the EU is now a trade bloc that can take a U.S. president by the apples and oranges and make him comply with WTO arbitration like it did in 2003 over steel tariffs.
We use the UN to rubber stamp our actions.I know, and I appreciate your frankness about it. So don't complain about being alone out there, losing allies, being 'misunderstood' by the world and seeing other countries cancel their commitments to the U.S. To simplify the matter: the 'world' understands your position very well, I am amazed that you don't seem to understand the hostile or indifferent reactions it elicits.

Redleg

05-19-2005, 22:58

.I know, and I appreciate your frankness about it. So don't complain about being alone out there, losing allies, being 'misunderstood' by the world and seeing other countries cancel their commitments to the U.S. To simplify the matter: the 'world' understands your position very well, I am amazed that you don't seem to understand the hostile or indifferent reactions it elicits.

Now - should we begin to mention all the other countries that do the exact same thing that the United States is doing, however because of their size they are not noticed - or because of the focus on the United States their actions are overlooked by most of the world community.

You act like the United States is the only nation that does what you have been stating. The truth is that every nation on this planet does things in their own self interest - just look at Iran and the numerous violations of the IEA and other nuclear treaties. I don't see you complaining about their approach to the world in these threads.

When you start blasting away at every nation's government that does exactly what the United States is doing - then maybe I won't counter your arguements against the United States - however your complaining seems to be just selective now doesn't.

Pindar

05-19-2005, 23:47

What I'm talking about are things like this, as pointed out by the Australian Parliament...

The position you are espousing is a distinctively conservative American one.

My goodness, there has been some activity since my last visit.

Alright Master Hurin I see where you're coming from. There are some key distinctions that need to be made. The base question was whether the Iraq War was/is illegal. My answers have been that such is a domestic concern, meaning for purposes of focusing on the U.S.'s role it can only be answered by said nation. I have also answered that treaties (whether it be the UN charter or other fare) do not trump the U.S.'s base sovereignty and therefore do not alter the standard political/domestic/ or legal stricture of the U.S. In short: the UN has no extra-territorial authority over the U.S.

Now, if you wish to argue the U.S. is in breach of the UN Charter you can make that argument, but that is different from my basic point. To state in other language: the U.S. is an independent state and no treaty trumps that independence. To say the U.S. violated a treaty or didn't follow a treaty is an argument one can reasonably make, but that is not a legal question (treaties do not have oversight authority nor do they have enforcement in and of themselves). It is a question of fidelity to a particular treaty nothing more.

Arguing whether the U.S. has honored the UN Charter I think also fails given the Articles of the Charter, but I can understand why one might argue a contrary view. Even so, that is an issue separate from legality.

If you thought I wasn't giving proper due to UN Charter fidelity arguments (as I will dub them) I understand, but such do not relate to the basic legal question. Does that make sense?

Pindar

05-20-2005, 00:14

Despite the legal creativity displayed by some, there is the obstinate fact that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes treaties into which the U.S. has entered 'the supreme Law of the Land'.

The meaning of Article VI is explained in my post #54 though perhaps I didn't do it well enough: Regarding treaties and international law: treaties are 'law' only for domestic purposes, international obligation only applies to political expediency. Part of what this means is a treaty, once ratified, acts as any other Congressional act. It does not circumvent the ratifying body's authority nor any other legal/political stricture. In practical terms a treaty can impact a citizen's actions. For example: American Joe wants to do some activity X in nation Y. A treaty can determine that actions' legal standing: international marriage would be a good example. Treaties determine whether other states recognize such. The "supreme law of the land" clause refers to this. It is domestic in orientation. It does not apply to foreign policy. This has been reaffirmed by U.S. Supreme Courts repeatedly over a long course of Judicial history. I noted some of the case law in my post #54.

Treaties cannot trump the ratifying authority and are constantly subject to that authority. The ratifying authority can reject, amend, nullify or ignore such at any time. This applies to all independent nations.

It seems to be the consensus among Conservative members here that the U.S. is not bound by its UN Charter obligations. I think the U.S. has amply demonstrated this sort of contempt and notice has been taken by the rest of the world, including the 'rogue' states who will avail themselves of nuclear weapons no matter what the U.S. declares about their legality. The Iraq war has served as an object lesson to them: whether they have such weapons or not, they may be attacked by the U.S. anyway.

Foreign Policy decisions may certainly have negative impact. The prudence or imprudence of policy are not the same as legality. Legality is determined through law and law is the byproduct of those governed by that law. It is therefore necessarily state specific.

Adrian II

05-20-2005, 01:15

The truth is that every nation on this planet does things in their own self interest - just look at Iran and the numerous violations of the IEA and other nuclear treaties.Well, you can't very well complain that Iran is practicing what you preach, can you?

It'll be interesting to see what happens if the Europeans bring the Iranian breach of its NNPT obligations up before the Security Council. Are we going to see John Bolton bang the table and demand that Iran comply with international law? According to your next UN ambassador, the UN doesn't even exist.

Iran might become the biggest embarrassment for this U.S. administration yet. If the matter is referred to the Security Council, Iran will drop out altogether from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and declare that a nuclear weapons capacity is henceforth in its national interest. If it doesn't have a nuclear capacity + effective delivery system yet, which would surprise me, it will have one within a few months.

The only country that might want to go to war with Iran over this is the U.S. The UK will not participate; Jack Straw has said 'No way, forget it' five times in the past six months. Turkey won't so much as open its air space to American Awacs this time round, let alone to anything else that flies. I recall us, here in the Backroom, wondering a couple of weeks ago about the high sales figures of Hitler's Mein Kampf in Turkey. I've asked around and made some calls since then, and was told that it had nothing to do with Hitler's views on Jews or Communism, but with Turkish interest in the mindset of someone who set out to confront the U.S. on his own. Turkey is fast becoming as anti-American as Greece. That's another erstwhile staunch ally you've lost over the past three years.

So will the U.S. go it alone, risk a huge upsurge of trouble in Iraq at the same time, as well as the first strategic alliance of Shiites and Sunnis that the region has witnessed since the days of Ali?

Oh, and Iraq ranked 56th on the list of world military powers in 2003; a country languishing after decades of tyranny, a costly eight-year war against Iran, a brief but devastating war in 1991, over a decade of sanctions, countless hairbrained economic schemes amd continuous internal strife and unrest. Iran is a different cup of tea. Read Kenneth Pollack.

I think that Iran war is not going to happen. Iran will be subjected to sanctions. Iran will have nuclear weapons nonetheless. After that, other states in the region wil give the U.S the finger.

Gawain of Orkeny

05-20-2005, 01:22

Well, you can't very well complain that Iran is practicing what you preach, can you?

Nope and you and they cant complain when we practice it on them. They have the right to do as they please but like I said before they have to be willing to face the consequences of their actions. Were facing ours having to listen to all of you bitch about what were doing.

Redleg

05-20-2005, 01:36

Well, you can't very well complain that Iran is practicing what you preach, can you?

And neither can you - since the arguements you are complaining about concerning the United States applies to even more countries then Iran - however it seems you rather focus on only the United States. If I decided to dig and research - I am willing to bet I can find several treaties and instances of violations of your country of the UN Charter. However I see you are most often mute on everything other then when it concerns the United States. However I remember a discussion where I pointed out exactly where Iran was violating international treaties - and you took the position that it was okay - which once again show a baised in your arguements.

It'll be interesting to see what happens if the Europeans bring the Iranian breach of its NNPT obligations up before the Security Council. Are we going to see John Bolton bang the table and demand that Iran comply with international law? According to your next UN ambassador, the UN doesn't even exist.

It will be even more interesting to see if the same individuals that scream that the United States is conducting an illegal war will scream that Iran is pursueing their nuclear technology in violation of even more treaties then what you claim the United States is its invasion of Iraq - will you stand up and say that Iran is in violation of international law - and demand that they comply with the treaties that they signed. I am willing to bet you won't. However once again the Hague Treaty does allow for nations to go to war over broken Treaties if they so desire. The United Nations according to its charter is suppose to insure nations comply with certain aspects of international treaties and agreements - if I remember correctly the IAE is part of the United Nations - however once again I don't see you screaming about how Iran is violating International law in its pursuit of Nuclear weapons.

Iran might become the biggest embarrassment for this U.S. administration yet. If the matter is referred to the Security Council, Iran will drop out altogether from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and declare that a nuclear weapons capacity is henceforth in its national interest. If it doesn't have a nuclear capacity + effective delivery system yet, which would surprise me, it will have one within a few months.

Which will allow several nations to decide if its worth going to war with Iran for its violation of International Treaties.

The only country that might want to go to war with Iran over this is the U.S. The UK will not participate; Jack Straw has said 'No way, forget it' five times in the past six months. Turkey won't so much as open its air space to American Awacs this time round, let alone to anything else that flies. I recall us, here in the Backroom, wondering a couple of weeks ago about the high sales figures of Hitler's Mein Kampf in Turkey. I've asked around and made some calls since then, and was told that it had nothing to do with Hitler's views on Jews or Communism, but with Turkish interest in the mindset of someone who set out to confront the U.S. on his own. Turkey is fast becoming as anti-American as Greece. That's another erstwhile staunch ally you've lost over the past three years.

Turkeya staunch ally over - they have been an ally yes - but staunch not likely. There are some things the world doesn't know - concerning the United States and Turkey.

So will the U.S. go it alone, risk a huge upsurge of trouble in Iraq at the same time, as well as the first strategic alliance of Shiites and Sunnis that the region has witnessed since the days of Ali?

If no-one wants to help - we might the issue of nuclear poflieration is becoming that important.

Oh, and Iraq ranked 56th on the list of world military powers in 2003; a country languishing after decades of tyranny, a costly eight-year war against Iran, a brief but devastating war in 1991, over a decade of sanctions, countless hairbrained economic schemes amd continuous internal strife and unrest. Iran is a different cup of tea. Read Kenneth Pollack.

I am willing to bet I know as much as whats in his book - no-one has ever claimed Iran would be the same as Iraq that knows anything about warfare.

I think that Iran war is not going to happen. Iran will be subjected to sanctions. Iran will have nuclear weapons nonetheless. After that, other states in the region wil give the U.S the finger.

Iran will find itself isolated and people like you supporting their violation of Treaties while you complain about the United States violating treaties.

Adrian II

05-20-2005, 01:47

Treaties cannot trump the ratifying authority and are constantly subject to that authority.I have no issue with that part of your statement. But treaties, once entered into by your country, are the supreme law of the land according to U.S. Constitution as long as the U.S. choses to abide by them. This applies to the Charter just as well as to treaties dealing with private law. It would be absurd to state that the Charter doesn't qualify because it is public in nature. The difference is merely one of jurisdiction.

U.S. Courts have traditionally not take a stance on war or foreign policy challenges to Congress and the Executive, but referred them back to Congress, which is where they belong. As the Supreme Court pronounced in the Head Money cases, a treaty 'depends for the enforcement of its provisions on the interest and honor of the governments which are parties to it. If these fail, its infraction becomes the subject of international negotiations and reclamations, but with all this the judicial courts have nothing to do and can give no redress.'

So Congress decides how to interpret treaties as 'the supreme law of the land', and it is up to the President to (re)negotiate its terms if so desired. And at any rate, if the U.S. choses not to abide by a treaty it automatically loses the right to hold others to account under the terms of said treaty. This is the operative principle here: do unto others...

Gawain of Orkeny

05-20-2005, 01:56

I have no issue with that part of your statement. But treaties, once entered into by your country, are the supreme law of the land according to U.S. Constitution as long as the U.S. choses to abide by them.

How many times are you going to beat this dead horse. I and others such as Pindar have explained that your wrong on this issue.

So Congress decides how to interpret treaties as 'the supreme law of the land', and it is up to the President to (re)negotiate its terms if so desired.

Hey you finally got somethimg correct. Guess who authorised the use of force against Iraq?

Adrian II

05-20-2005, 01:59

However I see you are most often mute on everything other then when it concerns the United States.Certainly not. But a thread on the legality of U.S. wars tends to focus on the legality of U.S. wars, doesn't it? You, Panzerjager or Gawain may not like my opinion, but since you've asked for it I don't understand your complaint about reading it. And instead of getting personal and going on about what you think of me, you might consider answering my points.

Gawain of Orkeny

05-20-2005, 02:02

I dont mind your opinion but it has no basis in fact. Your perfectly allowed to hold any opinion you like. But dont complain when we point out the error of your position.

And instead of getting personal and going on about what you think of me, you might consider answering my points.

You have no points. Your being shut out here. ~D

Adrian II

05-20-2005, 02:14

Guess who authorised the use of force against Iraq?Congress, in breach of international law. Not U.S. law, but an international treaty signed by your President and Congress on behalf of the American citizens. That's what we're on about. The fact that Congress doesn't like a treaty or that U.S. courts do not recognize or arrogate jurisdiction over them doesn't mean that all treaties are null and void. And the fact that your country is so powerful that it doesn't suffer immediate consequences for breaching the Charter doesn't mean that it is OK either. It will suffer consequences from its choices in the long run which I have tried to point out, though. From someone like you, who couldn't care less if the UN disappeared tomorrow, I would expect a plan B with regard to, for instance, Iran, but so far I've seen very little of it.

Adrian II

05-20-2005, 02:17

You have no points. Your being shut out here. ~DAh, you're such a darling. And I'll tell you what, with or without the UN your town is going to be the #1 apple of the world for a long time, Gawain, warts and inedible pizza's and all!
:bow:

Gawain of Orkeny

05-20-2005, 02:22

Congress, in breach of international law

No its not. Please point out the law we violated and by whos authority are we bound by it? Why havent we been brought up on charges?

The fact that Congress doesn't like a treaty or that U.S. courts do not recognize or arrogate jurisdiction over them doesn't mean that all treaties are null and void.

It does as far as were concerned and your country is no different.

And the fact that your country is so powerful that it doesn't suffer immediate consequences for breaching the Charter doesn't mean that it is OK either.

Youve failed to even show we have breached it. Also we are suffering immediate consequences of our actions. At least were big enough to admit it.

From someone like you, who couldn't care less if the UN disappeared tomorrow

You couldnt be more wrong. I pray the UN dissapears tommorow. Im far from uncaring on the matter. ~:)

Gawain, warts and inedible pizza's and all!

Now I know your full of bull ~D

Adrian II

05-20-2005, 02:31

Now I know your full of bull ~DAh get a life, meshugana oyle! I'm off to bed.
http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/brush_2.gif

Redleg

05-20-2005, 02:34

Certainly not. But a thread on the legality of U.S. wars tends to focus on the legality of U.S. wars, doesn't it? You, Panzerjager or Gawain may not like my opinion, but since you've asked for it I don't understand your complaint about reading it. And instead of getting personal and going on about what you think of me, you might consider answering my points.

When one argues to the point that the message is either not being heard - or in some cases ignored. Then it spirals down to the personal level.

Actually the points have all been address - however it seems you chose to ignore several things that I have posted that counters most of what you have stated about violating the United Nations Charter.

Adrian II

05-20-2005, 16:42

Actually the points have all been addressed (..)You have explained your considerations why the U.S. was right to go to war in 2003. But the discussion is over whether the U.S. had the legal right to do so, no matter what considerations -- military, Constitutional or otherwise -- led to that decision, and over whether the stated threats of wmd and terrorism (the reasons stated by your country, not you) were vindicated. The answer to both is no.

I fully agree that states have the capacity to ignore treaties for whatever reasons they chose, be they constitutionally sound or not. That's a factual no-brainer. However, such action is a breach of international law and in particular peremptory law (ius cogens) whose over-arching principle since Roman times has been that states should observe the treaties they sign: pacta sunt servanda.

Under the UN Charter rules, your country was obliged to observe resolution 1441 (November 2002) which stated that further action against Iraq was dependent upon 'subsequent resolutions of the Council'. Period. And what you think about The Hague or any other convention is neither here nor there, because we're not asking why Redleg went to war against Iran. We're asking if your representative Colin Powell was right to make his legal case on the basis of resolution 1441. Which he wasn't.

You will agree that if this principle of obligation under treaty is not merely quietly suspended, but openly ignored by the most powerful state on earth, it has consequences far beyond the scope of the present Iraq imbroglio. And it will possibly lead to a suspension or break-down of other major treaties besides the UN Charter. Hence my question to American proponents of this course of action: are you prepared to envisage those consequences and what is your plan B to face them?

Redleg

05-20-2005, 17:13

You have explained your considerations why the U.S. was right to go to war in 2003. But the discussion is over whether the U.S. had the legal right to do so, no matter what considerations -- military, Constitutional or otherwise -- led to that decision, and over whether the stated threats of wmd and terrorism (the reasons stated by your country, not you) were vindicated. The answer to both is no.

Yes indeed the discussion is does the United States have the legal right to pursue war. And the answer is yes. Where has the United States given up its soveignity to the United Nations?

I fully agree that states have the capacity to ignore treaties for whatever reasons they chose, be they constitutionally sound or not. That's a factual no-brainer. However, such action is a breach of international law and in particular peremptory law (ius cogens) whose over-arching principle since Roman times has been that states should observe the treaties they sign: pacta sunt servanda.

Once again the United States has not been shown to violate the charter of the United Nations. Nowhere in the Charter does it say a member nation will not go to war. It states something else entirely. And has been shown in a previous post.

Under the UN Charter rules, your country was obliged to observe resolution 1441 (November 2002) which stated that further action against Iraq was dependent upon 'subsequent resolutions of the Council'. Period. And what you think about The Hague or any other convention is neither here nor there, because we're not asking why Redleg went to war against Iran. We're asking if your representative Colin Powell was right to make his legal case on the basis of resolution 1441. Which he wasn't. Are you attempting to state that the United States has given up its rights as a nation to the United Nations. The obligation of the United Nations was to enforce 14 other resolutions concerning Iraq - however it seems that the United Nations was unable to enforce those resolutions on Iraq. And now your trying to futher refrain the arguement to a single point after several pages and about 100 posts. The question was not was the war legal under resolution 1441 - but was the war illegal in general. Now if you want to discuss only resolution 1441 and how it applies I will be more then willing to discuss it.

You will agree that if this principle of obligation under treaty is not merely quietly suspended, but openly ignored by the most powerful state on earth, it has consequences far beyond the scope of the present Iraq imbroglio. And it will possibly lead to a suspension or break-down of other major treaties besides the UN Charter. Hence my question to American proponents of this course of action: are you prepared to envisage those consequences and what is your plan B to face them?

I was more then willing to break down the United Nations when it refused to enforce the 1st resoultion against Iraq back in 1992 - and voted against George Bush because of his refusal to honor the committments of the ceasefire and destroy Saddam when the Kurd and Shaite (SP) Revolution was crushed with conventional forces and chemical weapons. It seems you want the United States to have a much higher standard in its dealing with other nations then any other nation on this planet. When every nation honors their treaties to the letter - then we can discuss Plan B, but the United Nations allowed this to happen when it failed to enforce Security Council Resolution 687 back in 1992.

Adrian II

05-20-2005, 17:22

Are you attempting to state that the United States has given up its rights as a nation to the United Nations.As long as it is a signatory, the U.S. gives up the right to start a war for reasons other than (a) immediate self-defense, (b) military action authorised by the UNSC.
I was more then willing to break down the United Nations when it refused to enforce the 1st resoultion against Iraq back in 1992 (..). It seems you want the United States to have a much higher standard in its dealing with other nations then any other nation on this planet.That's why I spoke of a 'Mussolini approach to treaties' that is now being adopted by your country to all sorts of treaties, including conventions on torture, conventions regarding the treatment of prisoners of war, etcetera. As Philip Gibbs, British author, wrote at the time:

‘Mussolini and the Italian people have no use for those existing settlements. They believe that those peace treaties ignored their claims, repudiated their share in the war, broke many promises made to them as the price of their alliance. They believe England and France betrayed and robbed them. They are convinced the league is dominated by powers hostile to Italy's expansion and policy. Mussolini smiles with cynicism when any one talks to him about the league or world peace. (..) He believes in force, action, energy, and driving purpose rather than argument, persuasion and idealism.’

Redleg

05-20-2005, 17:24

The actual resolution

UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 4644th meeting, on 8 November 2002

The Security Council, Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President, Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions, Noting that the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq’s continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions, Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions, Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, subcomponents, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

– All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998) of 2 March 1998;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq’s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

– Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Annex

Text of Blix/El-Baradei letter

United Nations Monitoring, Verification
and Inspection Commission
The Executive Chairman
International Atomic Energy Agency
The Director General
8 October 2002
Dear General Al-Saadi,
During our recent meeting in Vienna, we discussed practical arrangements that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA. As you recall, at the end of our meeting in Vienna we agreed on a statement which listed some of the principal results achieved, particularly Iraq’s acceptance of all the rights of inspection provided for in all of the relevant Security Council resolutions. This acceptance was stated to be without any conditions attached.

During our 3 October 2002 briefing to the Security Council, members of the Council suggested that we prepare a written document on all of the conclusions we reached in Vienna. This letter lists those conclusions and seeks your confirmation thereof. We shall report accordingly to the Security Council.

In the statement at the end of the meeting, it was clarified that UNMOVIC and the IAEA will be granted immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to sites, including what was termed “sensitive sites” in the past.

As we noted, however, eight presidential sites have been the subject of special procedures under a Memorandum of Understanding of 1998. Should these sites be subject, as all other sites, to immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, UNMOVIC and the IAEA would conduct inspections there with the same professionalism.

H.E. General Amir H. Al-Saadi Advisor Presidential Office Baghdad Iraq

We confirm our understanding that UNMOVIC and the IAEA have the right to determine the number of inspectors required for access to any particular site. This determination will be made on the basis of the size and complexity of the site being inspected. We also confirm that Iraq will be informed of the designation of additional sites, i.e. sites not declared by Iraq or previously inspected by either UNSCOM or the IAEA, through a Notification of Inspection (NIS) provided upon arrival of the inspectors at such sites.

Iraq will ensure that no proscribed material, equipment, records or other relevant items will be destroyed except in the presence of UNMOVIC and/or IAEA inspectors, as appropriate, and at their request.

UNMOVIC and the IAEA may conduct interviews with any person in Iraq whom they believe may have information relevant to their mandate. Iraq will facilitate such interviews. It is for UNMOVIC and the IAEA to choose the mode and location for interviews.

The National Monitoring Directorate (NMD) will, as in the past, serve as the Iraqi counterpart for the inspectors. The Baghdad Ongoing Monitoring and Verification Centre (BOMVIC) will be maintained on the same premises and under the same conditions as was the former Baghdad Monitoring and Verification Centre. The NMD will make available services as before, cost free, for the refurbishment of the premises.

The NMD will provide free of cost: (a) escorts to facilitate access to sites to be inspected and communication with personnel to be interviewed; (b) a hotline for BOMVIC which will be staffed by an English speaking person on a 24 hour a day/seven days a week basis; (c) support in terms of personnel and ground transportation within the country, as requested; and (d) assistance in the movement of materials and equipment at inspectors’ request (construction, excavation equipment, etc.). NMD will also ensure that escorts are available in the event of inspections outside normal working hours, including at night and on holidays.

Regional UNMOVIC/IAEA offices may be established, for example, in Basra and Mosul, for the use of their inspectors. For this purpose, Iraq will provide, without cost, adequate office buildings, staff accommodation, and appropriate escort personnel.

UNMOVIC and the IAEA may use any type of voice or data transmission, including satellite and/or inland networks, with or without encryption capability. UNMOVIC and the IAEA may also install equipment in the field with the capability for transmission of data directly to the BOMVIC, New York and Vienna (e.g. sensors, surveillance cameras). This will be facilitated by Iraq and there will be no interference by Iraq with UNMOVIC or IAEA communications.

Iraq will provide, without cost, physical protection of all surveillance equipment, and construct antennae for remote transmission of data, at the request of UNMOVIC and the IAEA. Upon request by UNMOVIC through the NMD, Iraq will allocate frequencies for communications equipment.

Iraq will provide security for all UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel. Secure and suitable accommodations will be designated at normal rates by Iraq for these personnel. For their part, UNMOVIC and the IAEA will require that their staff not stay at any accommodation other than those identified in consultation with Iraq.

On the use of fixed-wing aircraft for transport of personnel and equipment and for inspection purposes, it was clarified that aircraft used by UNMOVIC and IAEA staff arriving in Baghdad may land at Saddam International Airport. The points of departure of incoming aircraft will be decided by UNMOVIC. The Rasheed airbase will continue to be used for UNMOVIC and IAEA helicopter operations. UNMOVIC and Iraq will establish air liaison offices at the airbase. At both Saddam International Airport and Rasheed airbase, Iraq will provide the necessary support premises and facilities. Aircraft fuel will be provided by Iraq, as before, free of charge.

On the wider issue of air operations in Iraq, both fixed-wing and rotary, Iraq will guarantee the safety of air operations in its air space outside the no-fly zones. With regard to air operations in the no-fly zones, Iraq will take all steps within its control to ensure the safety of such operations.

Helicopter flights may be used, as needed, during inspections and for technical activities, such as gamma detection, without limitation in all parts of Iraq and without any area excluded. Helicopters may also be used for medical evacuation. On the question of aerial imagery, UNMOVIC may wish to resume the use of U-2 or Mirage overflights. The relevant practical arrangements would be similar to those implemented in the past.

As before, visas for all arriving staff will be issued at the point of entry on the basis of the UN Laissez- Passer or UN Certificate; no other entry or exit formalities will be required. The aircraft passenger manifest will be provided one hour in advance of the arrival of the aircraft in Baghdad. There will be no searching of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or of official or personal baggage. UNMOVIC and the IAEA will ensure that their personnel respect the laws of Iraq restricting the export of certain items, for example, those related to Iraq’s national cultural heritage. UNMOVIC and the IAEA may bring into, and remove from, Iraq all of the items and materials they require, including satellite phones and other equipment. With respect to samples, UNMOVIC and IAEA will, where feasible, split samples so that Iraq may receive a portion while another portion is kept for reference purposes. Where appropriate, the organizations will send the samples to more than one laboratory for analysis.

We would appreciate your confirmation of the above as a correct reflection of our talks in Vienna.

Naturally, we may need other practical arrangements when proceeding with inspections. We would expect in such matters, as with the above, Iraq’s co-operation in all respect.

Yours sincerely,
(Signed) (Signed)
Hans Blix Mohamed ElBaradei
Executive Chairman Director General United Nations Monitoring, International Atomic Energy Agency
Verification and Inspection Commission

Redleg

05-20-2005, 17:36

As long as it is a signatory, the U.S. gives up the right to start a war for reasons other than (a) immediate self-defense, (b) military action authorised by the UNSC.

The Charter does not state that - it states a nation will refrain from armed force - it does not deny a nation the right to enter into war.

That's why I spoke of a 'Mussolini approach to treaties' that is now being adopted by your country to all sorts of treaties, including conventions on torture, conventions regarding the treatment of prisoners of war, etcetera. As Philip Gibbs, British author, wrote at the time:

‘Mussolini and the Italian people have no use for those existing settlements. They believe that those peace treaties ignored their claims, repudiated their share in the war, broke many promises made to them as the price of their alliance. They believe England and France betrayed and robbed them. They are convinced the league is dominated by powers hostile to Italy's expansion and policy. Mussolini smiles with cynicism when any one talks to him about the league or world peace. (..) He believes in force, action, energy, and driving purpose rather than argument, persuasion and idealism.’

In this one instance Mussolini would of been correct - the violation by Iraq of 14 United Nations Security Council Resolutions show that the United Nations was unwilling to enforce their own resolutions.

A much better analysis and write up on the issue.

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/

SECURITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF ALL NECESSARY MEANS
But there is another exception allowing for the use of force, and the United States has simultaneously been pursuing this track in arguing that an attack on Iraq would be justified. This exception is found in Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter and applies to situations in which the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security. Accordingly, members of the Bush administration have pointed to a series of Security Council resolutions to argue that force against Iraq has been authorized.

While the Security Council has passed a series of resolutions concerning Iraq over the past 12 years, only one explicitly authorized the use of force. Resolution 678, passed on Nov. 29, 1990, authorized member states to "use all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." (Resolution 660, passed on Aug. 2, 1990, demanded that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait.)

Some Bush administration officials have argued that because Iraq has not complied with the cease-fire terms of Resolution 687 (a subsequent relevant resolution), which required it to disarm and cooperate with weapons inspectors, among other things, member states still have sufficient legal authority to use force ("all necessary means") against Iraq.

Now read this paragraph
But critics have found flaws in this theory as well. According to most members of the Security Council, it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced. This was made clear in a Security Council meeting on Dec. 16, 1998. That day, U.S. and British warplanes launched air strikes against Iraq after learning that Iraq was continuing to impede the work of UNSCOM, the weapons inspectors sent to Iraq at the close of the Gulf War, and thus was not in compliance with Resolution 687. When the Security Council met that night to discuss whether individual member states could resort to force without renewed Security Council consent, it was clear that the Security Council members did not all agree on the legality of the U.S. and British resort to force.

According to the press release from that meeting, the U.S. representative claimed his country's actions were authorized by previous council resolutions (as many in the Bush administration are arguing again today). The British delegate similarly argued that because Iraq had not complied with the terms of Resolution 687, military force was justified. Warfare based on resolution 687 has been ongoing against Iraq for many years prior to the invasion: my words

But others saw things differently, arguing that it was the job of the Security Council as a whole—and not individual member states—to determine when a resolution had been breached and how to enforce it. The Russian representative insisted that no one had the right to act independently on the United Nations' behalf. Costa Rica's ambassador agreed, arguing that force could be authorized only by the Security Council as a whole. According to the press release, the Brazilian delegate believed that "the council remained the sole body with legal authority to mandate actions aimed at reinforcing compliance with its own resolutions."

The argument that the council alone is authorized to decide how to deal with a violation of Resolution 687 is bolstered by the text of the resolution itself. Paragraph 34 says: "The Security Council decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required." This language indicates that the decision to use "all necessary means" is left to the Security Council—not to individual states. here the author validates your point, but he also mentions the situations where the use of force was allowed by the Security Council under Resolution 687 - even though not all members agreed with it.

I especially like his closing editorial on the subject:

WHAT NEXT?
When President Bush pressed his case at the U.N. on Sept. 12, 2002, he made clear that the organization's continuing relevance was being put to the test. "Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" he asked.

The answer depends as much on Bush himself as on the U.N. Whether the Security Council will work to enforce its resolutions-and whether the United States and its allies will give it a chance to do so-remain to be seen. The continued viability of the post-World War II international legal system hangs in the balance.

Pindar

05-20-2005, 18:25

Originally Posted by Pindar
Treaties cannot trump the ratifying authority and are constantly subject to that authority.

AdrianII I have no issue with that part of your statement.

So Congress decides how to interpret treaties as 'the supreme law of the land', and it is up to the President to (re)negotiate its terms if so desired. And at any rate, if the U.S. choses not to abide by a treaty it automatically loses the right to hold others to account under the terms of said treaty. This is the operative principle here: do unto others...

It appears from the above you recognize the basic premise that legality is a state concern. This means the legal status of U.S. actions are determined by the U.S.

Now you also note an 'operative principle'. in this case it seems to be reciprocitous, meaning: if the U.S. assumes one standard it should apply equally to all. I agree. Any nation (according to their own national dictates) is also master of their own domain. So, if Iraq wished to ignore signed treaties or change them they are at liberty to do so. This, of course, also means other nations are also at liberty to respond accordingly: this includes a resumption of war.

Pindar

05-20-2005, 19:15

AdrianII

You seem to recognize a base sovereignty and this implies legal control. This would therefore settle the question on the Iraq War's legality.

I've noted in subsequent posts between yourself and Redleg or venerable Gawain on the UN Charter what looks to me like a legalism argument. What I mean is you seem to be arguing that abiding by a treaty is important and perhaps the most important issue regardless the ability to change or ignore the same. Now Redleg I think has demonstrated that charging a breach of the UN Charter is at least debatable. That would be a dispute about fidelity where both sides claim to be abiding the recognized standard. I want to speak to this larger issue of treaty obeisance. You refer to a 'Mussolini standard'. On a rhetorical level the connotation seems to be that any view taken by a bad man must similarly be bad. On a more substantive level the view seems to be that fealty to treaty trumps any other issue. You asked at one point: what would be the result if all nations felt free to move past treaties at leisure? Now one might reply that nations do just that all the time, but the principle is the issue. The principle is 'stand by the treaty'. The first question is: why? The formal legal issue has been settled. On a practical level national interest seems to hold sway. So, there is a possible moral appeal. Is it immoral to alter or ignore a treaty? Why? The last possibility is a legalism, meaning one follows X simply because it is identified as such, regardless any other criteria. This also leads to the question, why? I don't think the moral appeal can stand critique and the legalism stance seems ad hoc.

Adrian II

05-20-2005, 19:18

This means the legal status of U.S. actions are determined by the U.S.You are confused.

I couldn't resist that. ~;)

Seriously. The legality of a nation's action is determined by law, including treaties, not by the will of a Congress or a dictator. Its legitimacy, on the other hand, is determined by moral considerations. It is those I would like to discuss in this context. Illegal action may be legitimate and vice cersa, etcetera. But in a sense that is OT. Maybe another thread will serve the purpose.

Pindar

05-20-2005, 19:26

You are confused.

I couldn't resist that. ~;)

I'm thwarted. :surrender:

Seriously. The legality of a nation's action is determined by law, including treaties, not by the will of a Congress or a dictator. Its legitimacy, on the other hand, is determined by moral considerations. It is those I would like to discuss in this context. Illegal action may be legitimate and vice cersa, etcetera. But in a sense that is OT. Maybe another thread will serve the purpose.

In the U.S.'s case, law is determined exactly by Congress. This includes the applicabilty of treaties.

The legitimacy concerns addressed here and mentioned in my previoius post can be set aside then.

Adrian II

05-20-2005, 20:49

In the U.S.'s case, law is determined exactly by Congress. This includes the applicability of treaties.Agreed, but we are disputing legality under international law here. Congress' determination is illegal under international law if and when it is in breach of treaty obligations undertaken by Congress and the President vis-a-vis other nations. Even if this is perfectly legal within the U.S. and by U.S. legal standards, it is still illegal under international law.

If you sign up to a treaty, you are obliged to adhere to its stipulations even if you don't like it. That is a simple notion of decency underlying all contract law anywhere in the world including the U.S. and including the sphere of intercourse between nations. That is why the world dislikes Mussolini's. And that is why the International Court of Justice passed judgment on the U.S. in 1986 for its activities in Nicaragua designed to overthrow the government. The US attempted to withdraw from the case, but the judges proceeded because the US had previously submitted to the ICJ's jurisdiction.

Congress may collectively stand on its head and play the fiddle if it wishes, but it ain't music to the ears of mankind unless it's tonal.

Redleg

05-20-2005, 21:03

Agreed, but we are disputing legality under international law here. Congress' determination is illegal under international law if and when it is in breach of treaty obligations undertaken by Congress and the President vis-a-vis other nations. Even if this is perfectly legal within the U.S. and by U.S. legal standards, it is still illegal under international law.

And neither you or even the well written arguementive article that I link have shown where the invasion of Iraq by the United States are illegal under international law. There is enough wording in the Charter of the United Nations that contradicts the notion that the UN Charter forbids member nations from entering into warfare. The word used is refrain
which is defined in Webster's as

transitive senses, archaic : CURB, RESTRAIN
intransitive senses : to keep oneself from doing, feeling, or indulging in something and especially from following a passing impulse

This is a far cry from the forbiding and other words that have been mentioned.

If you sign up to a treaty, you are obliged to adhere to its stipulations even if you don't like it. That is a simple notion of decency underlying all contract law anywhere in the world including the U.S. and including the sphere of intercourse between nations. That is why the world dislikes Mussolini's. And that is why the International Court of Justice passed judgment on the U.S. in 1986 for its activities in Nicaragua designed to overthrow the government. The US attempted to withdraw from the case, but the judges proceeded because the US had previously submitted to the ICJ's jurisdiction.

Nicaragua is irrevelant to this discussion on the legality of the United States invading Iraq. If you wish to use prior presedence from this court case - then you must also accept the Hague Convention of 1907 as a counter because it also shows legal presedence on international law.

Congress may collectively stand on its head and play the fiddle if it wishes, but it ain't music to the ears of mankind unless it's tonal.
LOL - again not revelant to the discussion at all. The United States has not surrendered its soveriegnity to any nation nor has it surrendered it to the United Nations.

Adrian II

05-20-2005, 22:10

The word used is refrain which is defined in Webster's as: to keep oneself from doingRight, so don't do it. I believe Conservatives have a rather solid view on that when it comes to sex outside marriage. So why not when it comes to waging war without legal justification? Just put a knot in it.

Redleg

05-20-2005, 22:21

Right, so don't do it. I believe Conservatives have a rather solid view on that when it comes to sex outside marriage. So why not when it comes to waging war without legal justification? Just put a knot in it.

Once again you would be incorrect. Conservatives believe that the government has nothing to with what goes on between two consenting adults in the pursuit of their own happyness unless that activity effects the overall wellbeing of the nation.

For instance I have absolute no problem with individual who want to have sex outside of marriage - and if individuals chose to have sex outside of marriage then they must deal with the consequences of their actions.

Your arguement is based upon the preception that the United Nations Charter prevents nations from pursueing their own interests. This is not correct as most of the nations of the world have shown. The Charter asks nations to refrain from such activities - but the Charter of the United Nations does not circumvent the national soveriegnity (SP) of the member nations.

Adrian II

05-20-2005, 22:55

Your arguement is based upon the preception that the United Nations Charter prevents nations from pursueing their own interests.I know this misunderstanding is not going to die a pretty death. Look, the Charter is not some press communique. It's a treaty in which the signatories undertake to refrain from the use of violence etcetera. Apart from that, it allows all signatories the free pursuit of their national interest. Otherwise they wouldn't have signed it, would they? And it doesn't take away their sovereignty or they wouldn't have signed it either.

And in resolution 1441 the Council reserves for itself the right to determine further measures against Iraq. The U.S. supported it, then declared it irrelevant by implicitly calling Mr Blix incompetent, and finally violated the resolution on grounds of fixed intelligence. Bad show.

Redleg

05-20-2005, 23:28

I know this misunderstanding is not going to die a pretty death. Look, the Charter is not some press communique. It's a treaty in which the signatories undertake to refrain from the use of violence etcetera. Apart from that, it allows all signatories the free pursuit of their national interest. Otherwise they wouldn't have signed it, would they? And it doesn't take away their sovereignty or they wouldn't have signed it either.

Your right its not going to die - because the concept of refrain does not prevent a nation of pursueing force when all other means have failed. The Charter does not mean a nation can not pursue its own interests - nor has the UN ever prevent any nation from pursueing its own interests even when those interests run counter to the preamble of said charter.

Take Iraq for instance - violations of 14 different United Nations Security Council resolutions - with absolutely no enforcement by the Security Council - expect what the United States and Great Britian on their own decided to do to enforce said resolutions. Once again this shows that the United Nations often does not enforce the wording of their own resolutions - however it seems that in the past the United States and Great Britian have been allowed by said council to preform enforcement operations on their own and at their own expense. This in essence has establish a presedence for both nations to act to enforce said resolutions.

Your trying to make a case of violation of International Law - when first of all the Hague Convention of 1907 allows nations to resume hostilities when ceasefire agreements are violated, and second the United Nations Security Council in the past has allowed both the United States and Great Britian to enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions without censor.

And in resolution 1441 the Council reserves for itself the right to determine further measures against Iraq. The U.S. supported it, then declared it irrelevant by implicitly calling Mr Blix incompetent, and finally violated the resolution on grounds of fixed intelligence. Bad show.

The Resolution 1441 - which I provided in its entirely does not prevent the United States from pursueing its national interest. Nor does it state in langauage that I can understand that it reserves for itself the right to determine futher measures against Iraq. What it does say is this

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

In other words - how does any part of this resolution negate the formal cease fire signed by the United States representives and Iraq representives on 3 March in the desert town of Safwon? This cease fire was signed appoximately 30 days before the UN resolution 687 and was the building block for that resolution.

As for the rest of it - its conjuctor on your part - the Intelligence was faulty - but "fixed" indicitates foul play - which has not been shown to full satification of the congressional review panels that have investigated such allegations.

Adrian II

05-21-2005, 00:21

Your right its not going to die - because the concept of refrain does not prevent a nation of pursueing force when all other means have failed.Now you're talking: when all other means have failed. Resolution 1441 determines that the Council shall pursue such other means in the form of a new round of inspection by Mr Blix. The U.S. voted for that, then violated it.
(..) the intelligence was faulty - but "fixed" indicitates foul play - which has not been shown to full satification of the congressional review panels that have investigated such allegations.I don't give a hoot. I have much more faith in the capacity of British democracy to deal with the data fixing in the run-up to that war. The British public know they've been had. A majority of Americans still believe Osama was sitting on Saddam's lap playing with a live nuke in 2003.

Redleg

05-21-2005, 01:03

Now you're talking: when all other means have failed. Resolution 1441 determines that the Council shall pursue such other means in the form of a new round of inspection by Mr Blix. The U.S. voted for that, then violated it.

That is not what it says - and I suspect you know that. It does not state anything about a new round of inspections. Again I will quote the actual passage.

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

It seems that you are using selective reasoning to state that the war is illegal by misinterpating what the actual wording of the Charter and the Security Council Resolution 1441 actual states. Resolution 1441 also refers to 687 as the binding resolution - and that resolution authorized the use of force.

I don't give a hoot. I have much more faith in the capacity of British democracy to deal with the data fixing in the run-up to that war. The British public know they've been had. A majority of Americans still believe Osama was sitting on Saddam's lap playing with a live nuke in 2003.

So politicians lied about there reasons in Britian - that does not make the Invasion of Iraq illegal now does it?

Lets see - you don't give a hoot - then your case is mote because you don't care to hear the otherside of the arguement.

Pindar

05-21-2005, 16:47

Originally Posted by Pindar
In the U.S.'s case, law is determined exactly by Congress. This includes the applicability of treaties.

AdrianIIAgreed, but we are disputing legality under international law here. Congress' determination is illegal under international law if and when it is in breach of treaty obligations undertaken by Congress and the President vis-a-vis other nations. Even if this is perfectly legal within the U.S. and by U.S. legal standards, it is still illegal under international law.

You are confused ~;) and on a fundamental level. If law is determinable by Congress then its scope and force is beholden to the same. Treaties have no force outside of ratification. This ratification is a Congressional act. This means the treaty is subject to that ratifying authority. This authority is national: in this case the U.S. Senate. There is no force one can assign to a treaty outside of Senatorial purview, none. If that same authority sets aside or amends in anyway some aspect of a treaty there is no further redress. The treaties' power only extends as far as allowed by Congressional mandate and no further.

There is no such thing as "illegal under international law". International law has no separate standing. International law is treaty law and such only exists between states. There is no force or standing outside of that relation. That relation is dependant upon the continued agreement of the parties involved. Should that change, the treaty is similarly effected. It does not maintain status independent of state recognition.

If you sign up to a treaty, you are obliged to adhere to its stipulations even if you don't like it. That is a simple notion of decency underlying all contract law anywhere in the world including the U.S. and including the sphere of intercourse between nations.

You have confused propriety with legality. They are not the same.

(T)hat is why the International Court of Justice passed judgment on the U.S. in 1986 for its activities in Nicaragua designed to overthrow the government.

The ICJ is has no oversight power or authority. You quoted the Head Money Case earlier and doing so should have known in that same case the Court ruled:

(treaties) "depends for the enforcement of its provisions on the interest and honor of the governments which are parties to it. If these fail, its infraction becomes the subject of international negotiations and reclamations so far as the injured party chooses to seek redress, which may in the end be enforced by actual war...

with all this the judicial courts have nothing to do and can give no redress."

Adrian II

05-21-2005, 17:02

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above (..)Guess what it says in paragraph 4:

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq (..) and failure by Iraq at any time to comply (..) shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below
Now look at paragraph 11:

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC (that's Blix, Redleg!) and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities (..)
And finally paragraph 12:

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security.
In other words: we'll wait to see if Mssrs Blix and El Baradei report further lack of Iraqi compliance. If and when they do, we, the Council, will consider the situation in light of all relevant resolutions. Nowhere does it state or even suggest that the U.S. shall arrogate the authority of the Council and suspend the cease-fire provisions of 687.
So politicians lied about there reasons in Britian - that does not make the Invasion of Iraq illegal now does it?I wanna know who lied to whom about what and I have more faith in British democracy than in the U.S. Congress to eventually clear this whole matter up.

Redleg

05-23-2005, 13:29

Guess what it says in paragraph 4:

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq (..) and failure by Iraq at any time to comply (..) shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below
Now look at paragraph 11:

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC (that's Blix, Redleg!)Oh by the way Adrian I know what the initials UNMOVIC refer to, If Ididn't I would not have used the actual resolution, now would I?] and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities (..)
And finally paragraph 12:

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security.
In other words: we'll wait to see if Mssrs Blix and El Baradei report further lack of Iraqi compliance. If and when they do, we, the Council, will consider the situation in light of all relevant resolutions. Nowhere does it state or even suggest that the U.S. shall arrogate the authority of the Council and suspend the cease-fire provisions of 687.

And while Resolution 1441 does not give direct premission for the United States to act on its own - it does not deny the United States the ability to to act on its own. In fact the Inspectors found at least one major violation of the Ceasefire agreement that Saddam's government swore did not exist. Remember the missles that were beyond the agreed upon range?

And in resolution 1441 the Council reserves for itself the right to determine further measures against Iraq. The U.S. supported it, then declared it irrelevant by implicitly calling Mr Blix incompetent, and finally violated the resolution on grounds of fixed intelligence. Bad show.

Mixing your words with the actual Resolution - no where in the resolution does it state reserves the right to determine further measures against Iraq By doing these you are actually defeating your case that it violates International Law - because Security Council Resolution 1441 - does not state what you are claiming it does. You seem to want to allude that I don't know what certain initials mean - however you might want to examine the actual wording of the resolution a little more. (if your going to attempt to make a slam at me Adrian - at least do a better job.)

I wanna know who lied to whom about what and I have more faith in British democracy than in the U.S. Congress to eventually clear this whole matter up.

Then that is your opinion - it seems the British are no better in resolving who lied to whom then the United States Congress.

Adrian II

05-23-2005, 13:49

(..) no where in the resolution does it state reserves the right to determine further measures against Iraq.Nowhere does it state abrogates the right to determine further measures to the United States.

Anyway, even though we can't agree and seem to run around in circles like Pindar/Saturnus look-alikes, I think we can conclude you and I will remain 'seized of the matter' for some time to come.
~;)

Redleg

05-23-2005, 13:56

Nowhere does it state abrogates the right to determine further measures to the United States.

Nope it doesn't have to - for the simple reason that the United Nations does not control or remove the soverginty (SP) of any nation. Look what the United Nations did concerning the violations of 14 different resolutions by Iraq.

Anyway, even though we can't agree and seem to run around in circles like Pindar/Saturnus look-alikes, I think we can conclude you and I will remain 'seized of the matter' for some time to come.
~;)

I am not "seized of the matter" at all - however we can agree that we will never agree about the Iraq War being Illegal - it will take actual lawyers in an actual court to settle the matter my satificiation - and then most likely only if the court shows that the war was not illegal under the laws of the United States.

~D

~:grouphug: ~:cheers: