But there is a real difference; it’s a factual matter to be determined. We can liken it to an individual’s right of self-defense. If an armed intruder enters your home and points a gun at you, you have the legal right to shoot him. A judge has de facto power to decide whether it was self-defense, but that doesn’t mean the difference between self-defense and murder is completely ambiguous.
I certainly think the facts we have are enough for a person to declare his opinion that Bush used a strawman. IMO, the Iraq invasion couldn’t be called self-defense even in one’s wildest imagination. Since when do we need a court ruling to voice opinions about the statements of politicians?
But surely if Iraq and Isreal were formally at war, then it should be neither a surprising nor a reprehensible act to bomb a factroy.
I was under the impression that starting wars was illegal. Am I being naive? Isn’t that why Britain went to war with Germany, why America went to war with Japan?
Cheers.
My point is, that that is the way the Red Cross interprets those treaties. Why does their interpretation hold any more legal weight than yours, mine or GWB’s?
Sure it is, or it can be. Think of those cases where somebody shoots an armed intruder in the back.
More to the point, say that everyone in the neighborhood knows I hate Bob, and I finally shoot him dead in my living room. It was 3 in the afternoon, Bob was wearing bermuda shorts and he was a millionare pacifist. My claim that he was trying to break into my house to rob and kill me is absurd on its face; everyone knows I’m lying. But as a matter of law, I am guilty until proven innocent by a duly-appointed judge and/or jury.
Oh, we don’t at all. We can all have our opinion, we can even be right; but that doesn’t make our opinions law.
The Constitution does not specify what form a declaration of war must have. There is an argument to be made that the resolution authorizing military action against Iraq does in fact constitute a valid declaration. As far as I know, the courts have not ruled on this question, so the question remains open.
Certainly the country has undertaken military action in the past under similar resolutions.
Iraq and Israel had been “formally at war” since 1948. They don’t share a common border. There had been no active hostilities between them for some time. I’m open to correction, but I don’t think Iraqi forces participated in the fighting in either 1973 or 1967; certainly they didn’t play a large part in it.
Yes, the maintenance of a formal state of war by Iraq was a hostile act against Israel, but that doesn’t necessarily whitewash <i>anything</i> the Israelis choose to do to Iraq. It’s a factor to be taken into account, not a trump card which overrides all other legalities.
Targetting any old factory is not always lawful, even in cases of open and active warfare, as your question might seem to imply. But this wasn’t any old factory; it was a nuclear reactor being used (or suspected of being used) to produce material for a nuclear bomb. So that point is a bit of a sideshow.
Is starting wars illegal? Depends on what you mean by “starting wars”. The first side to fire a shot in a conflict is not <i>necessarily</i> behaving illegally, although the onus is very much on them to justify what they are doing, and it’s not easy. But they can have a reason which (in terms of international law) legitimates resort to force. But even the country which didn’t start the war, which is fighting a lawful defensive war, is subject to legal constraints as to what it can and cannot do in the pursuit of the war. The use of poison gas is an obvious example. In the Israel/Iraq case, the issues would be (a) was there really a war being fought here (answer: no, not really, in 1981) and (b) was the Israeli action proportionate to the threat (answer: in the judgment of the international community at the time, no).
A more apt analogy might be walking down the street and shooting somebody who you know has been guilty of crimes in the past so that at some point in the future he won’t decide to attack you. Calling that self defense is very very thin ice
Like I said, that’s a factual matter to be determined at trial. It doesn’t mean self-defense doesn’t exist as a concept.
I think you mean innocent until proven guilty (or do you live in a country that presumes guilt?). And the law says you are presumed innocent. It does not say you are innocent. The fact of your guilt or innocence exists at the moment you commit the act, it does not retroactively come into being when a judicial ruling is made. Your right to self defense exists at the moment you exercise it, and if if you did not act in self defense, that fact exists at that moment as well. The judicial ruling does not travel back in time to the moment when you shot the guy.
Didn’t say it did. But we can have opinions on whether something is legal, even if a legal finding is never made. Or do you contend that Al Capone never murdered anyone, since he was not convicted of it?