About the Protests...What I am "NOT" hearing... - Page 5

Thoran · 03-25-2003, 12:51 PM

Given their exposure... I think it's understandable that Iraqi's are of the same mind as the closest guy with a gun.

Ronn_Bman · 03-25-2003, 04:58 PM

Darn it Fred!

I thought, for once, I'd picked up a live, incoming Donutesque remark on my Ronn_Radar, and then you turn around and just ask a regular question. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-25-2003, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Donut · 03-26-2003, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
Darn it Fred!

I thought, for once, I'd picked up a live, incoming Donutesque remark on my Ronn_Radar, and then you turn around and just ask a regular question. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

ROTFL Ronn. It is the bane of my life that people take me seriously when I'm joking and laugh when I'm serious.

Timber Loftis · 03-26-2003, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Donut:

Quote:
Originally posted by John D Harris:

Quote:
Originally posted by Melusine:
Whether or not you think this war should be fought, it remains a fact that it's illegal and will probably wrench countries apart.

Miss Melusine Ma'am, the rest of you're post was on target. On the above point I'll refer you to this: http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/cg...;f=14;t=000541
TL's post at the bottom , he is a lawyer and does this type of thing for a living (check out legalities and such). This war shouldn't wrench any counties apart unless they are almost to that point already.[/QUOTE]TL may well be a lawyer but I'll bet that for every lawyer you can find saying it's legal I can find one to say it's legal. But as there is no forum to try the case it doesn't really matter. In this case might is right.[/QUOTE]Couldn't be bothered to read the link, huh Donut? I even pointed out that Germany and France stated further resolution was not needed to make the war legal.

Find me a lawyer who will say this and I will show you a *bad* (or at least uninformed) lawyer every time. I'm not super comfortable or confident on all legal issues, but since I won awards in international legal studies and have actually worked in international law, I feel pretty comfortable on this one. Arguing the war is illegal under the terms of international law is as silly as arguing the US can legally ignore the climate change agreements it signed.

Yes, there is a lack of a forum. I mentioned that in the post as well. The case would be brought in the ICJ, and the US could refuse jurisdiction (and likely would), so there hypothetically *could* be a forum.

But, presence of a forum in and of itself does not make something legal or illegal. This war is legal.

Let's get over the non-issues, please. I'm getting dizzy.

Donut · 03-26-2003, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:

Let's get over the non-issues, please. I'm getting dizzy.

Talking to lawyers often has that effect on me!

A war against Iraq in present circumstances would be contrary to international law. The starting point is the principle that the use of force by one state against another is unlawful. This is reflected in Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter. The principle protects the weak and the powerful, dictatorships and democracies. The intervention in Kosovo was arguably lawful, but that was an emergency in which hundreds of thousands of people were being subjected to “ethnic cleansing”.

The UN Charter recognises two exceptions to that prohibition. The first is self-defence. But Iraq has not attacked the UK. The other exception is authorisation by the Security Council. The British Government appears to take the view that Resolution 1441 provides that authorisation. In my view it does not. It set out a number of steps that Iraq was required to take, including allowing the inspectors back in. It then required the inspectors to report to the council. Resolution 1441 clearly envisaged that there would have to be a further decision by the council before force could be used. The phrase commonly used to authorise force is “all necessary means”. That phrase was used in Resolution 678 to authorise the first Gulf War. If there were any doubt, it was made clear from what ambassadors to the UN said at the time of Resolution 1441, that it contained “no ‘hidden triggers’” (John Negroponte for the US) and that there was “no ‘automaticity’” in it (Sir Jeremy Greenstock for the UK).

Why was the phrase "all necessary means" ( a euphemism for armed force) removed from the draft of 1441?

Ronn_Bman · 03-26-2003, 11:35 AM

This is an excerpt from an article by John Chipman, director of The International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. Now I don't claim to know who this guy is, but a Google search offered hundreds of links. Since this was the first on the page, and seems to sum up the "no further authorization for military action is needed" view, I chose it.

Quote:

Right to Fight Iraq:

The 1991 war in defence of Kuwait was fought under the authority of UN Resolution 678, which called for the use of all necessary means to compel the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait and to restore international peace and security in the area. That wording would have allowed regime change to accomplish these aims. Nevertheless, the hostilities were stopped 48 hours after the initial aim of ejecting Iraq from Kuwait was met.

The war ended not with a peace treaty but with a ceasefire. UN Resolution 686, passed on March 5 1991, demanded full compliance with all relevant resolutions as a condition of commencing the ceasefire. Iraq accepted this and there followed UN Resolution 687, passed on April 3 1991, that set out the full ceasefire terms and obligations to which Iraq had to adhere. This included a demand that Iraq unconditionally accept the destruction and elimi-nation of all of its WMD, and that it unconditionally undertake not to use, develop or acquire any items relevant to WMD.

Crucially, Resolution 687 was passed under UN "Chapter 7" authority dealing with threats to the peace. It does not in any way terminate the authorisation to use force in the earlier Resolution 678. That has to be seen as intentional.

The effect of these resolutions, it could be argued, was to condition the continued cessation of hostilities on Iraqi compliance with the ceasefire terms. This heavily restricted Iraq's normal sovereign rights for so long as the ceasefire terms remained unfulfilled. The resolutions implicitly sanctioned the resumption of hostilities at any time if there were consistent and material breach of the ceasefire terms.

Iraq is in breach of many of these terms and its continued possession of elements of WMD constitutes a particularly offensive breach that must be seen as a threat to international peace and security.

[ 03-26-2003, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Donut · 03-26-2003, 11:44 AM

Batter up!!!

New York, March 17, 2003--War against Iraq is "unequivocally illegal under the UN Charter and international law generally", according to a new report. The report rejects efforts by the U.S., U.K, and Australia to circumvent the U.N. Security Council and claim legal justification from past resolutions.

Attempting to legitimize a war opposed by world public opinion, the U.S. Secretary of State, the U.K. Attorney-General, and the Australian Prime Minister have in the past 24 hours each issued major statements insisting that international law justifies their decision to attack Iraq.

The report, issued by the New York-based Center for Economic and Social Right, cites a range of authoritative legal sources to dismiss their arguments. According to Professor Thomas Franck, a leading authority on the use of force, the use of old resolutions to support military action today "makes a complete mockery of the entire system" of international law.

"It is the height of hypocrisy for the U.S. and U.K. to base war on Resolution 1441 when they are fully aware that France, Russia and China approved that resolution on explicit written condition that it could not be used by individual states to justify military action," said CESR Executive Director Roger Normand, who recently returned from a fact-finding mission to Iraq. "This war violates every legal principle governing the resort to force. It clearly has little to do with disarmament, democracy, human rights, or even Saddam Hussein, and everything to do with oil and power."

The report warns that an illegal war in Iraq would threaten the pillars of collective security established after World War II to protect civilians from a recurrence of that unprecedented carnage. "This is an attack on the very institutions of international law and the United Nations," said Philip Alston, Professor of Law and Director of Human Rights and Global Justice and New York University. "It opens the door for every country to take the law into its own hands and launch preemptive military strikes without any universally binding restraints."

In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal rejected German arguments of the necessity for preemptive attacks against its neighbors and instead outlawed preventive war as a crime against the peace. In the Tribunal's judgment, "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

The Center for Economic and Social Rights is taking part in an unprecedented worldwide effort by legal organizations, practitioners, and scholars to uphold the rule of law by putting governments on notice that they will face public condemnation and legal prosecution for any war crimes they commit in Iraq. "The law is meant to protect all people and apply to all countries," said Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a human rights litigation center. "We are working with CESR and likeminded groups in the UK, Australia, and elsewhere to ensure that our leaders know in advance that they will be held individually accountable for any and all war crimes they commit."

The report points out that the impact of an unlawful war against Iraq will be suffered primarily by innocent civilians. "A pre-emptive military strike against Iraq is a cruel culmination of 13 years of punishment of people for something they have not done," said Hans von Sponeck, CESR's Europe representative and former U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq.

CESR is an international human rights organization accredited to the United Nations and supported by the Ford Foundation, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and Joyce Mertz-Gilmore Foundation. For further information please visit www.cesr.org/iraq.

Timber Loftis · 03-26-2003, 11:50 AM

Last time I post on this "legality of war" issue:
1. Resolutions 686/687
2. 17 resolutions since then
3. ~~Resolution 1441~~ (While I disagree with your conclusion, I'll concede this one because I don't need it to be right - and think you present your case well, BTW)
4. Saddam signed a cease fire. Failure to abide by the cease fire terms nullifies the cease fire. After a cease fire is nullified, fighting by either party is not illegal. War was never un-declared. If you want to see evidence of violation of the cease fire, see numbers 1-3 above. Technically, the cease fire was dead as dead when the UN inspectors pulled out the first time, and likely long before then.

Note I'm not taking President Bush's side here. The "preemptive strike is a form of self-defense" notion he argues does not pass the straight-face test with any legal mind, and I don't assert it above. I'm telling you the reasons the war is legal, and I'm applying the law the ICJ would. You knocked out (I will concede for purposes of argument) only the R1441 justification. That is not the only justification I argued in the link.

But, let me finally state my absolute disgust with the "take measures, pass protocols, resolve to think about it, and sit on our hands" crowd. As a general rule, I abhor those who say they will do something and then do not do it. 4 months ago I supported the UN. At this point, I can't wait to see it fail, and to see those HUNDREDS of treaties turn to dust, allowing my country to run amuck as it pleases.

I'm not *for* the US's constant manipulation of international law, mind you - or the aforementioned "running amuck." The US is woefully stubborn in its unwillingness to compromise, as indicated by its refusal to sign on to the human rights treaties and the international criminal court.

But, (1) the war in Iraq issue is NOT one of those instances, and (2) while the fall of the UN will result in human tragedy, it serves the UN right for not being able to do anything whatsoever of substance.

Timber Loftis · 03-26-2003, 12:51 PM

CESR has an obvious agenda. CESR believes that folks being more poor in one country than in another violates international human rights. CESR is the far out there way off the scale view.

They simply are not credible on this issue. They have the need to make the statement that war is illegal combined with a lack of expertise on the issue. It's a combination that destroys their credibility.

More importantly, they do what Donut did: take on the Res.1441 issue. That is not the only issue.

03-25-2003, 04:58 PM	#42
Ronn_Bman Zartan Join Date: March 11, 2001 Location: North Carolina USA Age: 58 Posts: 5,177	Darn it Fred! I thought, for once, I'd picked up a live, incoming Donutesque remark on my Ronn_Radar, and then you turn around and just ask a regular question. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] [ 03-25-2003, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ] __________________ [img]\"http://home.carolina.rr.com/orthanc/pics/Spinning%20Hammer%20Sig%20Pic.gif\" alt=\" - \" />

03-26-2003, 11:44 AM	#47
Donut Jack Burton Join Date: March 1, 2001 Location: Airstrip One Age: 41 Posts: 5,571	Batter up!!! New York, March 17, 2003--War against Iraq is "unequivocally illegal under the UN Charter and international law generally", according to a new report. The report rejects efforts by the U.S., U.K, and Australia to circumvent the U.N. Security Council and claim legal justification from past resolutions. Attempting to legitimize a war opposed by world public opinion, the U.S. Secretary of State, the U.K. Attorney-General, and the Australian Prime Minister have in the past 24 hours each issued major statements insisting that international law justifies their decision to attack Iraq. The report, issued by the New York-based Center for Economic and Social Right, cites a range of authoritative legal sources to dismiss their arguments. According to Professor Thomas Franck, a leading authority on the use of force, the use of old resolutions to support military action today "makes a complete mockery of the entire system" of international law. "It is the height of hypocrisy for the U.S. and U.K. to base war on Resolution 1441 when they are fully aware that France, Russia and China approved that resolution on explicit written condition that it could not be used by individual states to justify military action," said CESR Executive Director Roger Normand, who recently returned from a fact-finding mission to Iraq. "This war violates every legal principle governing the resort to force. It clearly has little to do with disarmament, democracy, human rights, or even Saddam Hussein, and everything to do with oil and power." The report warns that an illegal war in Iraq would threaten the pillars of collective security established after World War II to protect civilians from a recurrence of that unprecedented carnage. "This is an attack on the very institutions of international law and the United Nations," said Philip Alston, Professor of Law and Director of Human Rights and Global Justice and New York University. "It opens the door for every country to take the law into its own hands and launch preemptive military strikes without any universally binding restraints." In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal rejected German arguments of the necessity for preemptive attacks against its neighbors and instead outlawed preventive war as a crime against the peace. In the Tribunal's judgment, "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." The Center for Economic and Social Rights is taking part in an unprecedented worldwide effort by legal organizations, practitioners, and scholars to uphold the rule of law by putting governments on notice that they will face public condemnation and legal prosecution for any war crimes they commit in Iraq. "The law is meant to protect all people and apply to all countries," said Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a human rights litigation center. "We are working with CESR and likeminded groups in the UK, Australia, and elsewhere to ensure that our leaders know in advance that they will be held individually accountable for any and all war crimes they commit." The report points out that the impact of an unlawful war against Iraq will be suffered primarily by innocent civilians. "A pre-emptive military strike against Iraq is a cruel culmination of 13 years of punishment of people for something they have not done," said Hans von Sponeck, CESR's Europe representative and former U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq. CESR is an international human rights organization accredited to the United Nations and supported by the Ford Foundation, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and Joyce Mertz-Gilmore Foundation. For further information please visit www.cesr.org/iraq. __________________ [img]\"http://www.wheatsheaf.freeserve.co.uk/roastspurs.gif\" alt=\" - \" /> <br />Proud member of the Axis of Upheaval<br />Official Titterer of the Laughing Hyenas<br />Josiah Bartlet - the best President the US never had.<br />The 1st D in the D & D Show

03-26-2003, 11:50 AM	#48
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	Last time I post on this "legality of war" issue: 1. Resolutions 686/687 2. 17 resolutions since then 3. ~~Resolution 1441~~ (While I disagree with your conclusion, I'll concede this one because I don't need it to be right - and think you present your case well, BTW) 4. Saddam signed a cease fire. Failure to abide by the cease fire terms nullifies the cease fire. After a cease fire is nullified, fighting by either party is not illegal. War was never un-declared. If you want to see evidence of violation of the cease fire, see numbers 1-3 above. Technically, the cease fire was dead as dead when the UN inspectors pulled out the first time, and likely long before then. Note I'm not taking President Bush's side here. The "preemptive strike is a form of self-defense" notion he argues does not pass the straight-face test with any legal mind, and I don't assert it above. I'm telling you the reasons the war is legal, and I'm applying the law the ICJ would. You knocked out (I will concede for purposes of argument) only the R1441 justification. That is not the only justification I argued in the link. But, let me finally state my absolute disgust with the "take measures, pass protocols, resolve to think about it, and sit on our hands" crowd. As a general rule, I abhor those who say they will do something and then do not do it. 4 months ago I supported the UN. At this point, I can't wait to see it fail, and to see those HUNDREDS of treaties turn to dust, allowing my country to run amuck as it pleases. I'm not for the US's constant manipulation of international law, mind you - or the aforementioned "running amuck." The US is woefully stubborn in its unwillingness to compromise, as indicated by its refusal to sign on to the human rights treaties and the international criminal court. But, (1) the war in Iraq issue is NOT one of those instances, and (2) while the fall of the UN will result in human tragedy, it serves the UN right for not being able to do anything whatsoever of substance. __________________

03-26-2003, 12:51 PM	#49
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	CESR has an obvious agenda. CESR believes that folks being more poor in one country than in another violates international human rights. CESR is the far out there way off the scale view. They simply are not credible on this issue. They have the need to make the statement that war is illegal combined with a lack of expertise on the issue. It's a combination that destroys their credibility. More importantly, they do what Donut did: take on the Res.1441 issue. That is not the only issue. __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
8 year old "raped" and "buried alive" in FLORIDA ....	a_decent_1	General Discussion	38	05-29-2005 03:46 PM
Searching for "Star Blazers" aka "Uchuu Senchen Yamato," or "Space Battleship Yamato"	Skydracgrrl	Entertainment (Movies, TV Shows and Books/Comics)	3	12-17-2004 01:38 PM
Searching for "Star Blazers" aka "Uchuu Senchen Yamato," or "Space Battleship Yamato"	Skydracgrrl	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	0	12-02-2004 09:27 PM
The "gay" high school opens with hateful protests	Chewbacca	General Discussion	63	09-19-2003 04:17 AM
status on "pool of twilight" & "EOB4, xanathar's revenge"?	manikus	Dungeon Craft - RPG Game Maker	0	05-03-2003 07:28 PM

03-25-2003, 12:51 PM	#41
Thoran Galvatron Join Date: January 10, 2002 Location: Upstate NY Age: 57 Posts: 2,109	Given their exposure... I think it's understandable that Iraqi's are of the same mind as the closest guy with a gun.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)