THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Am I declaring myself qualified to interpret international law? No. Are you? Or is anyone else in this discussion?

If you really want, I could copy and send you my examinations/results/degree(s) from the FH Münster (University of Applied Sciences), University Hagen (Law Department), University Bochum (Law Faculty) - but that sounds to stupid.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Yes. I am well versed in this facet of International Law.

Then by all means, take a break from pointing out I'm not a friggin lawyer and point out the errors, oh mighty one.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Your opinion has precious little to do with what is and what is not legal.

Which part of No could you not understand?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Am I declaring myself qualified to interpret international law? No.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Do you have the foggiest idea of what makes an invasion like the one in Iraq legal?

Which part of No could you not understand?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Am I declaring myself qualified to interpret international law? No.

Craven de Kere wrote:

I don't think you do and from what Timber says I'm pretty sure he doesn't either.

I'll ask you again to stop bitching and prove it.

Craven de Kere wrote:

So I asked a simple question. If you have no idea what would make it legal according to law, then of what value is your opinion on how convincing a case for its legality exists?

Which part of No could you not understand?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Am I declaring myself qualified to interpret international law? No.

Quote:

Exceed them and you are liable to win it.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Again, if you do not demonstrate a modicum of understanding of the laws in this regard what is your legal opinion worth?

Which part of No could you not understand?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Am I declaring myself qualified to interpret international law? No.

Craven de Kere wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Until you provide some reason that his examples shouldn't be considered precedents, I'll continue to think they should be.

Ok, here's a reason:

Merely deciding to think something is legal does not make it legal.

Still waiting.

Craven de Kere wrote:

You make no sense. You either do know the law or you don't.

Which part of No could you not understand?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Am I declaring myself qualified to interpret international law? No.

Craven de Kere wrote:

I've given you ample opportunity to assert that you do, and we both know the reason you are not is because you don't.

Which part of No could you not understand?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Am I declaring myself qualified to interpret international law? No.

Craven de Kere wrote:

So, it is clear that your opinion is not in any way formed by what IS the law.

Which part of No could you not understand?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Am I declaring myself qualified to interpret international law? No.

Craven de Kere wrote:

It could be, but I at least have the intellectual curiosity to aquaint myself with the law before forming an opinion on it.

Still waiting for you to stop bitching and prove it.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Do you? Do you know anything at all (I'm talking knowledge that can be expressed in 3 sentences) about the law in this regard?

Which part of No could you not understand?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Am I declaring myself qualified to interpret international law? No.

Craven de Kere wrote:

And if you do not have enough understanding of these laws to form 3 sentences, then what is your opinion on the legality based upon?

Which part of No could you not understand?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Am I declaring myself qualified to interpret international law? No.

If you are done complaining (like a little bitch, I might add) that I'm not schooled in international law continue. I haven't seen Bob in a while... Do you miss him or something? Laughing

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

If you really want, I could copy and send you my examinations/results/degree(s) from the FH Münster (University of Applied Sciences), University Hagen (Law Department), University Bochum (Law Faculty) - but that sounds to stupid.

Stupid and unnecessary. There is no reason I wouldn't take your word for it.

0 Replies

You have a funny way of admitting that an opinion you state as to the legality of an event is not in any way based on law Bill.

Doesn't it bother you to be basing opinions on legality on something other than the law?

I will be more than happy to elucidate the law in this regard but I will wait for Timber to answer. See, some of his claims are absurd, and I am not yet willing to throw him a lifeline.

He has said in no uncertain terms that the war was legal. I don't think he knows a whit about the law in this regard, so let's give him a chance to see what he can come up with. You ask me to "prove" that Timber doesn't know the law and I'm inclined to allow him to continue to do that for himself.

He has made some really laughable claims about law just there, that's not mere rhetoric but I'm talking about getting it wrong in the most simple ways possible.

Let's see what he can come up with. IMO, he'd be wise to do what you did and admit that his opinion about whether it is or is not legal is not based in any way on the law and what really is legal or not legal but rather what sounds good to him.

0 Replies

Craven, I would have answered the same way had you asked me once, instead of a dozen plus times. While I am usually impressed by your knowledge, I am not impressed with your antics. Now I can't be sure if you've aggravated me, or if I'm just having a nic-fit so I'm just going to cool off and go to bed. But to help me sleep I must first suggest you can kiss my ass!

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Timber, I will ask you the very simple question as well.

Do you even know what the law is in this regard or are you just basing your opinion that it is legal based on something other than the law as well?

From your statements it is very clear that you do not know the law.

If you think you do, by all means please provide just a one or two sentence summary of what it is.

If your knowledge of this law can't adequately fill one or two sentences, I assert that your opinion on whether it is or is not illegal is worthless as legality is based on law, not what Timber thinks is legal.

I'm sure you're after something here, CdK, but I must be having an attack of obtuseness; I can't figure out exactly what it is you are after. I would contend, if forced to sum up in a few words, that Article 60 of the 1969 Vienna Convention says it pretty well:
(Paraphrasing) A material breach of a multilateral treaty by one of the parties to that treaty entitles the other parties, severally or singley, to suspend operation of the treaty in question or to terminate it.

0 Replies

Well there are various points that have arisen from my analysis of Timber's post, but call me arrogant if you wish but I cant actually be bothered with further comment at the moment. But by way of compensation, here is some good news from the Washington Post:-

Do the following statements apply more to Bush or Kerry?

1. He will do a better job of handling the campaign against terrorism

Kerry 48% Bush 47%

2. He is honest and trustworthy

Kerry 52% Bush 39%

3. He understands the problems of people like you

Kerry 56% Bush 36%

4. DO YOU THINK THE WAR IN IRAQ WAS WORTH FIGHTING

No not worth fighting 52% Worth fighting 47%

Very Happy

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

McTag wrote:
McGentrix wrote:

I can agree with this.

You can agree with the statement that it does not matter whether the invasion was legal?
More sloppy bob and weave action... This is an excerpt from what he agreed with:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Bitch and moan all you want about our chosen method of remedy, whether or not it was legal, just or any other damn detail but stop pretending Saddam was in compliance! That part is not a matter of opinion.
I'd say Timber subsequently provided a damn strong case for legality anyway (certainly more convincing than your unsubstantiated proclamation to the contrary), but that is not what McG was agreeing with. This is the type of fact avoidance that drives me crazy.

I did not avoid answering all your points in order to bob and weave, but simply in order to cut to the chase. You don't mind a mixed metaphor or two, do you, since everything else seems to be allowable round these parts, not excluding obfuscation and irrelevancy heaped on irrelevancy. I do not have the time to pick through all the verbiage you guys throw up.

Nor do I think all the faults lie on one side only.

I just want to question the basis for going to war. Tony Blair can't prove it was legal; he has avoided the issue. Nor can you. It is not.

0 Replies

Quoting the "1969 Vienna Convention" is really good, timber - ehem, what about executed juvenile offenders, which still happens in some US-states and isn't allowed re this convention?

0 Replies

For a somewhat longer discussion of the legality of the recent Iraq Intervention, offered by an individual far more credentialed than I, a discussion congruent with the argument I have been making, see:

Yoo, John C; "International Law and the War in Iraq" , American Journal of International Law, Vol. 97, p. 563, July 2003

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Quoting the "1969 Vienna Convention" is really good, timber - ehem, what about executed juvenile offenders, which still happens in some US-states and isn't allowed re this convention?

Neither is the use of grape jelly ... in fact neither grape jelly nor juvenile offenders are mentioned in the 1969 Vienna Convention.

0 Replies

Oh dear having said I couldnt be bothered to comment, something bothers me...

Quote:

And c.i. , I wish folks would look at the facts and get over the notion "This was all about WMD" ... it was not about WMD, it was about Iraq's continued evasion of her obligations and responsibilities, among which obligations and responsibilities WMD divestiture was but a single component among many other components, components none of which Iraq satisfied.

Thats funny. I distinctly heard Colin Powell at the UN say it was. Oh and Tony Blair. And Donald Rumsfeld. And Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Geoff Hoon, someone called Bush, and that woman with a really funny name, Condolezza Rice. And Dick Cheney. In fact quite a few people in the American and British governments.

But if it really wasnt all about WMD and you say so Timber, thats good enough for me. (In fact I agree, Very Happy

it was about the control of oil and the profitability of large corporations).

0 Replies

Steve, WMD was a component, not the entire package, It did get the most play, both in the media and from the governmental spokesfolk, and that was just plain stupid marketing. The stability and security of the global petroleum market was a component as well, and, by extension, so was the overall economic security of all nations.

0 Replies

Quote:

The stability and security of the global petroleum market was a component as well, and, by extension, so was the overall economic security of all nations.

Do you know, I think we could make some progress here. Now if you just change your last full stop to a comma and add -

Quote:

in particular the United States, which imports nearly 60% of is daily oil requirement.

- we could see some light at the end of the tunnel.

Bill hope you got the good night kiss and slept well. That made me laugh btw.

Regarding the legality of the war....ask a lawyer. Lawyers advising the US and British administrations say it was legal. Lawyers not representing USUK govts say it was illegal. Take your pick. There is no such thing as International Law anyway, just legal opinion based on what the great powers have done in the past (and want to do in the future).

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Regarding the legality of the war....ask a lawyer. Lawyers advising the US and British administrations say it was legal. Lawyers not representing USUK govts say it was illegal. Take your pick. There is no such thing as International Law anyway, just legal opinion based on what the great powers have done in the past (and want to do in the future).

May I add a rider to that. British lawyers say it was illegal- even in the right-wing "Spectator".
The only British lawyer who (apparently, because we're not allowed to see the judgement) said it might be legal was the Solicitor General, and that judgement was (apparently) predicated upon the "fact", now proven to be a lie, that Saddam could strike with WMD against Britain or British interests in 45 minutes, and might do so.

Waiting for the smoke and mirrors to blow away
I am, sir, your obedient servant
McTag

0 Replies

McTag

You are right of course. I personally think the war was illegal. But I wouldn't like to take on the Attorney General over it....don't think I'd win somehow.

Blair says his government has always acted and will continue to act within the law. But that doesn't mean anything, because he calls up his old flatmate, who happens to be the foremost legal authority in the country Lord Goldsmith, and gets him to pronounce that the government is acting legally. (No wonder the details of his advice remains secret...must adhere to tradition old boy). Its total bullsh1t of course. But the Government does not take the country into an illegal war, by definition. Of course if it could be proved that Blair acted illegally, then he would be open to prosecution as a war criminal. (And here's a thought..as head of State her Maj. too). The whole British Establishment will not allow that to happen. And although I can understand the desire of many people to see Antony Lynton Charles Blair in the dock at the Hague, it aint gonna happen is it?

And I am, sir, and will remain, your most faithful loyal and obedient servant etc etc till hell freezes

S

0 Replies

Why not? Bush has been cited as a witness already in the Abu Graib trials.
Mind you, I don't think he will show up- not without Dick or Don, at any rate.

These fellows are not supposed to be above the law, are they?

0 Replies

I think supposed is the operative word there.

Taking Blair before the International Criminal Court must be a lawyer's dream for his assured wealth and for that of his family for generations to come.

We will all be long gone before anyone lays a finger on him.

On the other hand...it could be quite funny.

Saddam would be chief witness for the prosecution. Bush called as a defence witness would probably incriminatize himself.

To be serious for a moment, I think Blair must be worried that the various legal actions that are planned could cause embarrassment. He'll probably do an immunity deal with Brown in exchange for handing over the premiership.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Well there are various points that have arisen from my analysis of Timber's post, but call me arrogant if you wish but I cant actually be bothered with further comment at the moment. But by way of compensation, here is some good news from the Washington Post:-

Do the following statements apply more to Bush or Kerry?

1. He will do a better job of handling the campaign against terrorism

Kerry 48% Bush 47%

2. He is honest and trustworthy

Kerry 52% Bush 39%

3. He understands the problems of people like you

Kerry 56% Bush 36%

4. DO YOU THINK THE WAR IN IRAQ WAS WORTH FIGHTING

No not worth fighting 52% Worth fighting 47%

For more on that line of thought:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Polls/iraq_election_040621.html

0 Replies

Since craven says he knows about such things, I wish he would explain why the Iraq war was illegal in simple terms so that we all can understand it. I would just like to read it for my own sake.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know