THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Oh boy! a quiz from Craven!

You are certainly not coming off as being cooperative here Craven. You appear smug and condescending. But, that's just my opinion. I am sure you have your reasons for appearing so.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

UNSCR 678 authorizes "Member States" to employ "all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions ". That authorization includes any or all, but does not specify or limit which "Member States".

Here is one example of the laughable evidence you are trying to slip past for a claim of the war's legality.

Resolution 678 from over 10 years ago clearly names a previous resolution (660) and "subsequent relevant resolutions" that are named clearly within the resolution.

It does not mean any resolution to any point in the future Timber. But nice try.

It means the relevant resolutions from 660 to 678 and names them explicitly.

Furthermore, no subsequent resolution ever authorized the invasion of Iraq at all, so even if we let that one slide it goes nowehere.

Tip: They don't list resolutions in the "recallings" for nothing.

Quote:

The US acted within the requirements of The UN Charter and the relevant resolutions. A legal finepoint perhaps, but nonetheless legal.

False.

In fact the UN charter is the document that the war has the hardest time getting past.

I will give you a big hint towards your efforts to show that you have even the vaguest notion of what the law is by telling you that this document (UN charter) is the basis of it.

So to again summarize:

1) You claimed the war was legal.

2) I do not think this claim is made with any understanding (even that of a layman or casual reader) of what the law is.

So, what is the law Timber? If you claim it is legal I hope you understand what would contitute a case for its legality. I do not think you do. Do you?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

You are certainly not coming off as being cooperative here Craven. You appear smug and condescending. But, that's just my opinion. I am sure you have your reasons for appearing so.

Yes, I have my reasons. Intellectual dishonesty is a bane to mankind.

If you ever catch me making claims about which I clearly know not a whit, please call me on it, even if you toss in a healthy dose of condescending it will be good for me.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Am I declaring myself qualified to interpret international law? No. Are you?
Yes. I am well versed in this facet of International Law.

As of this post of yours, you have failed to provide evidence of your claim that you are in fact "well versed in this facet of International Law."

ican, you might also take note that I made no such claims about the wars legality that would be substantiated by knowledge of the law.

Quote:

Until you do so, your questioning of others about International Law without contributing anything yourself about what about that law relevant to this discussion is suspect.

ican, allow me to introduce you to a simple mechanism called burden of proof.

Timber claimed the war was legal. This is an opinion he has that was voiced without any understanding of the law.

I have made no such claim about the war's legality here.

I used to, but found out I was talking out of my ass and decided to aquaint myself with the law.

I am asking Timber to substantiate his claim, and as I have not made any claim here about the war's legality I am unsure as to what you would like me to substantiate.

Quote:

Also, do not fail to grasp a fundamental requirement. Only that International Law to which the US is a treaty signatory is also part of US Law.

You are grasping at straws, this is not an issue.

Quote:

Are you aware that the UN Treaty signed by the US (i.e., a part of the US's supreme law of the land, see above) grants to each member state the legal right to defend itself against aggression without obtaining an approving UN resolution?

I am far more aware of the intricacies of the UN documents that you are Ican, so the answer is yes.

Quote:

That is exactly what the US is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US is defending Americans against those who have declared war against Americans.

False, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding about the agression to which the UN charter refers.

But by all means, make your case. You too, are making a claim without much of an understanding of the law (though more than Timber demonstrated).

Feel free to make your case for your claim. It will be fun.

0 Replies

I don't see an easy solution to this question. when I can find people on both sides of this issue with A LOT more experience in international law than ANY of us, it leads me to believe that there is no "correct" answer. Only opinion.

Read this as a reference.

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906pf.htm

0 Replies

Quote:

Are you aware that the UN Treaty signed by the US (i.e., a part of the US's supreme law of the land, see above) grants to each member state the legal right to defend itself against aggression without obtaining an approving UN resolution?

That is exactly what the US is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US is defending Americans against those who have declared war against Americans.

Really? I don't recall Iraq declaring war on us.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Are you aware that the UN Treaty signed by the US (i.e., a part of the US's supreme law of the land, see above) grants to each member state the legal right to defend itself against aggression without obtaining an approving UN resolution?

That is exactly what the US is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US is defending Americans against those who have declared war against Americans.

Really? I don't recall Iraq declaring war on us.

Cycloptichorn

Hmmm... Putin suggested otherwise.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I don't see an easy solution to this question. when I can find people on both sides of this issue with A LOT more experience in international law than ANY of us, it leads me to believe that there is no "correct" answer. Only opinion.

I agree wholeheartedly, and that's a big reason I am not making claims about the wars legality.

Quote:

Read this as a reference.

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906pf.htm

I've read it many times. That there isn't a big part of the debate on the war's legality. The debate centers on a few very subjective points but the compliance with the UN resolutions isn't a big part of it as the UN did not authorize the invasion. Individual members do not have the authority to interpret it for themselves.

In our case, we have the guns to do so but that's not a legal authority but merely a matter of overwhelming might.

0 Replies

It is my opinion that under US law (not international law) the case was made and declared legal before any invasion was led. I also think that because we are the 800 pound gorilla that our law trumps international law and therefore remains legal.

I would also like to submit the following into the record:

http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5862

oh, and this too:

http://www.disam.dsca.mil/itm/IMSO/FAQS/01-IraqForce.pdf

I will leave it to the lawyers to settle it for real.

*edited to add links*

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The real question comes down to whether a preemptive war is justified on faulty intelligence. I say no; errors in intelligence makes it all wrong. There must be 100 percent proof of what is being charged; not presumptions and guesses based on hearsay.

100% proof of the occurrence of an event cannot be obtained until the event has occurred. 100% proof that Saddam was helping others sponsor Al Qaeda commit another 9/11event, would have required that the US ignore the 9/11event, ignore the evidence available in March 2003 of Saddam's sponsorsip of Osama, and ignore the Al Qaeda declarations of war against Americans (e.g., 1996, 1998, and 2004) until more Americans were dead.

So try to imagine how you would actually react to the knowledge that those you love were murdered by TMM(i.e., Terrorist Murderers and Maimers) because the US government waited for 100% proof that your loved ones were going to be murdered, before they were willing to preemptively act to attempt to stop them.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

It is my opinion that under US law (not international law) the case was made and declared legal before any invasion was led.

I pity the fool who tries to make a case for it being illegal exclusively under our own laws.

Quote:

I also think that because we are the 800 pound gorilla that our law trumps international law and therefore remains legal.

0 Replies

Well, OK, CdK ... first, I'll say that "International Law" essentially is a comfortable fiction more or less agreed to and abided by at the whim and convenience of whichever party claims right or grievence as may apply in any given circumstance.

Now, I could be mistaken here, but, trying to figure out where you're coming from, I believe your objection to my assertion of the legality of the current US intervention in Iraq stems from your reading and interpretation of The UN Charter, specifically Chapter VII, Articles 39, 46, 47, 48, and perhaps, though I think it a stretch either way, Article 51. Am I on the right track with that assumption, or is there something else you have in mind?

As to the bearing of the 1969 Vienna Convention on Treaties, I think it quite pertinent, though obviously you do not. So be it. The core of my argument is that UNSCR 678 has been neither rescinded nor revised, and that the January 2003 Security Council decision and declaration, pursuant to UNSCR 1441, that Iraq remained in material breach of UNSCR 687 both invoked Article 60 of The Vienna Convention and subjected Iraq to resumption of military intervention under Article 33, in particular but not singularly, of UNSCR 687, which article specifically contains the wording and conditions of the ceasefire agreement. Iraq was found to be in violation of the terms of the ceasefire, and continued to be so, with no evidence of any shift of position or behavior in the matter. The ceasefire perforce ceased.

I sense you assert that since UNSCRs 660, 678, and 687 are, as you put it, " ... from over 10 years ago ... " they somehow are no longer operative. I believe and contend they very much are operative, and constitute the authority for the US action in question. I share this contention with a particular body of legal authorities. I do not assert there is not counter opinion, certainly there is a considerable body of counter opinion. I do however believe that such counter opinion is based on faulty interpretation of relevant law and/or protocol. I believe that were the matter to be adjudicated, The US Position would prevail. I also understand that in matters of adjudication, often it is who has the best lawyers, not who has the best case, that is vindicated.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

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!

I missed this.

Another opportunity lost. Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Well, OK, CdK ... first, I'll say that "International Law" essentially is a comfortable fiction more or less agreed to and abided by at the whim and convenience of whichever party claims right or grievence as may apply in any given circumstance.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that, there are in fact several well established areas of international law (e.g. maritime law) but in regard to invading nations there is an element of truth to your statement.

But when you asserted the legality of the war was that your point? Were you claiming a fictional legality or something more?

Quote:

Now, I could be mistaken here, but, trying to figure out where you're coming from, I believe your objection to my assertion of the legality of the current US intervention in Iraq stems from your reading and interpretation of The UN Charter, specifically Chapter VII, Articles 39, 46, 47, 48, and perhaps, though I think it a stretch either way, Article 51. Am I on the right track with that assumption, or is there something else you have in mind?

Earlier I said the UN charter is a first step and the reason is that in the ambiguous landscape of international law in regard to invasions and the like it is the most authoratative document.

And yes, those are the relevant articles. Especially 51. That is the only legal leg the invasion has to stand and I agree that it is a stretch.

Quote:

As to the bearing of the 1969 Vienna Convention on Treaties, I think it quite pertinent, though obviously you do not. So be it.

How is it pertinent to the legality of an invasion Timber? What you quoted was merely a (in plain English) "if one side breaks the treaty the other is no longer obligated to it" type of a clause.

That's nice, but that says nothing of the legality of initiating an invasion of another country.

Furthermore, what treaty do you refer to. What treaty with the United States was broken? If you are speaking of UN resolutions the Vienna Convention on Treaties says nothing about individual nations being able to arbitrarily interpret UN resolutions against the wishes of the UN.

Quote:

The core of my argument is that UNSCR 678 has been neither rescinded nor revised, and that the January 2003 Security Council decision and declaration, pursuant to UNSCR 1441, that Iraq remained in material breach of UNSCR 687 both invoked Article 60 of The Vienna Convention and subjected Iraq to resumption of military intervention under Article 33, in particular but not singularly, of UNSCR 687, which article specifically contains the wording and conditions of the ceasefire agreement. Iraq was found to be in violation of the terms of the ceasefire, and continued to be so, with no evidence of any shift of position or behavior in the matter. The ceasefire perforce ceased.

Clearly the ceasefire ceased. But that again does not say anything about the legality of the invasions.

And apparently the obtuseness continues. Yes your gross misinterpretation of UNSCR 678 was recinded.

You tried to twist it into an open-ended resolution that is supposedly the basis of a legal mandate for any nation to attack Iraq.

That is absurd. The resolution references very clearly what "relevant" resolutions it is talking about and the resolution is calling for Iraq to quit Kuwait. Iraq failed to do so and the consequences of that resolution transpired over a decade ago.

Quote:

I sense you assert that since UNSCRs 660, 678, and 687 are, as you put it, " ... from over 10 years ago ... " they somehow are no longer operative.

What do you mean by "operative"? That the US has a legal right to arbitrarily declare war on Iraq at any time after those resolutions?

The resolution you quoted authorized war on Iraq if they did not quit Kuwait. It was not an authorization of war by any country against Iraq for any reasons at any subsequent time.

Or do you assert otherwise? Do you assert that the resolution you quoted that calls for Iraq to quit Kuwait authorizes the invasion of Iraq? Is tat what you mean by "operative"?

It calls for Iraq to quit Kuwait or face the consequences, are you trying to say that this is somehow a legal justification for any subsequent war on Iraq? And, Iran, for example could have invaded "legally" at any time?

I don't think you mean that. I think you are just throwing it out there as well and hoping it will stick but if that's what you mean please do say as much and we can have a look.

Quote:

I believe and contend they very much are operative, and constitute the authority for the US action in question. I share this contention with a particular body of legal authorities.

Hmm, looks like you say as much here. Please verify, I ask for verification because if you are claiming legal justification on the basis of 678 that is a very very laughable notion and we can explore it. If however it just sounds a lot like you are I do not want to waste my time.

0 Replies

Craven, what the hell is your problem? You asked; Do you have any idea of what criteria would make it legal?
I answered no, on the very next post. What the hell was so hard to understand about that? You go on to bring it up 20 more times as if I'd said yes, and you think I have a burden of proof? McG agreed with a post I had made and McTag confused it with being about legality. I hadn't brought that up so I have no burden of proof whatsoever. My point was Saddam had not complied with his obligations (a point you and I have discussed and agreed on, btw) Here's where it came from just in case, despite your brilliance and superior knowledge, you've forgotten.

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.

Now where in there do you find justification for your smug attitude? Again, you asked me if I knew something; I said no What makes you think its appropriate to bring it up some 20 times more as if you just uncovered a great big scam or something? Last night I wasn't sure if I was having a nicfit or if you were truly behaving like a complete asshole. Your continued unprovoked belittling demeanor has removed all doubt. You indicated some regret at having missed an opportunity. Fret not; you can still kiss my ass.

(ah, that feels better)

0 Replies

Bill, I understand that being called on a baseless position can be unsettling, but you should probably calm down eventually. I can't be faulted for the fact that you adopted a baseless position and the degree to which it bothers you shouldn't be a big factor in whether or not I will call you on it.

You can fault "my problem" or "smug" till you are blue in the face if you'd like. It will not change that your chagrin is sourced in your adoption of a postition without using a factual basis for doing so.

So no, I will not kiss your ass. I will however lament that that is the level to which you have reduced yourself, just sputtering vulgarities and such. It's ironic that while you are busy calling me a**hole and other such names you are criticizing my manners. Rolling Eyes

Hint: use intellectual curiosity. Whether or not it is "smug" for me to tell you this (it may well be <shrugs>) has no bearing on whether or not this is a good idea.

0 Replies

So, the Bush administration is trying to use the old resolution that concerned Kuwait to justify invading Iraq even though we already went to war about kuwait?

I am beginning to think that they really don't even care if they are justified or not but just think they can get away with anything because up to this point they have.

Quote:

The UN charter outlaws the use of force with only two exceptions: individual or collective self-defence in response to an armed attack and action authorised by the security council as a collective response to a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression.

If the above is true, then no matter how you slice it, we had no legal basis to go to war with Iraq.

But what is anybody going to do about it? I am betting, nothing. No wonder we are hated.

0 Replies

Craven, did you miss the rest of my post? I didn't bring up international law, so I have no burden of proof whatsoever. I merely commented that Timber's articulate explanation was a hell of a lot better than someone simply saying the opposite with no stated reasoning at all. Before you burst onto the thread, hell-bent on calling everyone with less knowledge on international law then yourself ignorant, I hadn't even been discussing it. You asked if I knew about it and I told you no. Do you really not think it is childish to ask me again, 20 more times?

You think I'm upset because you called me on a baseless position... when I hadn't even been discussing that? How bad do you want to believe that? You annoyed me when instead of accepting my answer that no, I'm no law expert, you rub it in my face more than 20 times as if I had said yes. If you don't think that's grounds for annoyance, that's because you are behaving like a child. How many times do you want to hear me say I'm no law expert? Hell, I once started a thread based on my ignorance of law. That's not it.

I haven't engaged you further, not out of fear that I couldn't... you should know me better than that by now... I haven't engaged you further because I
A. wasn't discussing it in the first place.
B. do not approve of your childish, insulting demeanor.
C. have been patiently waiting for your explanation because I am interested in learning that which I do not know.

Treating people like they are stupid because you know something they don't is childish Craven. Repeating your taunts 20 times is even more childish. And, don't try to play the "I'm more mature because you swore card". That dog won't hunt.

0 Replies

Bill, your participation in this discussion for your last several posts has been nearly exclusively limuted to throwing out strings of epithets and insults and you wish that I care about being insulting by being "smug"?

You can continue to call me names and I'll continue to appreciate the irony of your complaints about insults. I have made not a single insult to you of the caliber that you are including in your every post.

You feel consescended to and insulted so what do you do? You set aside a special time to hurl.. you guessed it... a string of insults and obscenities. Rolling Eyes

Bill, your blatant hypocrisy is a blight in the middle of your face. Play your game on your own, I'll appreciate the irony from afar.

0 Replies

Don't let CdK get ya dpwn, Occom ... he holds a pretty rigorous standard. which he applies mot just to others but to hinself. He can be a bit abrubt and abrasive, but that's just his style, and hasn't a whit to do woith his substance, which I happen to think is substantial, to parrot a phrase.

Now, back to the matter CdK and I are discussing, Cdk, I refer you to the paper cited in THIS EARLIER POST OF MINE. I ask, if having read the article, do you still consider the central thesis laughable? If so, cool ... that's your opinion, and I'm sure you've developed that opinion through reasoned consideration of the available evidence. I just don't share your opinion; I don't see that the March '03 action against Iraq was a new, separate, standalone event, I see it as an evolution in the chain of events cascading from Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the resultant UN action to redress that transgression.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know