Bush's Whitehall Palace Speech--opinions?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX). Definition of Aggression
Article I

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.

<snip>
Article 2

The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.

Article 3
Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression:

(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof,
(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;

© The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;

(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;

(e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;

(f) The action of a State in allowing its temtory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;

(g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.
<snip>

Article 5

1. No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.

2. A war of aggression is a crime against international peace. Aggression gives rise to international responsibility.
3. No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful.

[XT]

From Diogenes the Cynic

No he doesn’t have the legal authority to attack the sovereignty of another country. Attacks on sovereignty are explicitly forbidden by the UN Charter except in the case of self-defense (which this clearly was not). The US has ratified the UN Charter and is legally bound by it.

Lets assume for a second that what you say is true ** and that the US was in violation of the charter, and that the US’s actions were illegal. Ok, so, what are the ramifications? What is the UN planning on doing to the US for being in violation of the charter? Sanctions? Imbargo? What steps are the UN currently undertaking to punish the US and Bush for this illegal act? You are making a bald statement that the US’s actions were illegal, so they MUST be doing something. What? And if they are, what effect will this have on the US?

From Diogenes the Cynic

Actually, Bush’s illegal act of aggression would legally justify his own assassination by Saddam Hussein.

Too funny. I suppose you think that SH didn’t assassinate Bush because he needed some justifications or something? If he COULD have, he WOULD have…and thats all the justificataion he needed. He certainly didn’t ask for UN sanctions before invading Kuait, right? And if America equates to that in your mind, where are the imbargo and sanctions against the US from the UN?

If there is enough legal points against Bush to warrent killing, then why isn’t the UN after him, or after America about it?? I think I know the answer to that…do you?

**I DON’T assume it btw…I’d need to see some cites to back all that up, to show that the US was in violation, exactly what points they were in violation of, what said violations MEAN, to show how the ‘charter’ interacts with our own constitution, etc etc. With your Bush rant earlier you’ve lost all credibility as far as I’m concerned, being as you COULD have backed down and retained it

-XT

[XT]

Diogenes the Cynic, yes, I’ve skimmed through the UN charter before. Appearently so have you. However, what I’d like to see cites on are the specific warrents being read out against the US for specific violations of sections of the charter. Do you have the cites for which sections the UN thinks the US is in violation of? I’d like to see THAT, not which ones YOU think they are in violation of. After that, I’d like to see exactly what the repercussions are for the US by its violations of the relevant sections. If you can find all that, you will have proved your case that in fact the US’s actions were Illegal, and shown the price they will have to pay for said actions.

-XT

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

You can read what I posted for what the US is in violation of. The fact that the UN doesn’t have the ability to enforce the resolution against the US doesn’t mean the US didn’t violate it.

What Hussein did or didn’t do before Bush’s illegal invasion is irrelevant. My point is that once Bush violated Iraqi sovereignty he made his own sovereignty fair game.

[Mr.Moto]

And once Hussein violated Kuwaiti sovereignty, he by totally logical extension made his own sovereignty fair game.

The roots of all this go back to the Gulf War, you know.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

GWI was over and resolved. It in no way justifies anything the US has done now. The US was in no danger from Iraq and had no right to attack it.

[II_Gyan_II]

*Originally posted by xtisme *

Too funny. I suppose you think that SH didn’t assassinate Bush because he needed some justifications or something? If he COULD have, he WOULD have…and thats all the justificataion he needed.

-XT **

I think you are assuming that Saddam, the evil, deceitful, narcissistic dictator is also Saddam the stupid dictator. He would have to be, if he tried to assassinate a US president. It would positively get war waged on Iraq, which Saddam thought he could avoid otherwise by delaying and haphazard cooperation. A guy who hangs onto power for 30+ years may be anything, but hardly stupid.

[II_Gyan_II]

*Originally posted by xtisme *

Too funny. I suppose you think that SH didn’t assassinate Bush because he needed some justifications or something? If he COULD have, he WOULD have…and thats all the justificataion he needed.

-XT **

I think you are assuming that Saddam, the evil, deceitful, narcissistic dictator is also Saddam the stupid dictator. He would have to be, if he tried to assassinate a US president. It would positively get war waged on Iraq, which Saddam thought he could avoid otherwise by delaying and haphazard cooperation. A guy who hangs onto power for 30+ years may be anything, but hardly stupid.

[XT]

From Diogenes the Cynic

You can read what I posted for what the US is in violation of. The fact that the UN doesn’t have the ability to enforce the resolution against the US doesn’t mean the US didn’t violate it.

I must have missed it. I only saw your post of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX). Definition of Aggression. Where is your post of the UN warrents of specific violations by the US in reguards to Iraq. If there are specific warrents by the UN about US violation, lets analyze them to see the extent of what the UN feels are US violations. If they don’t have any…well then, I suppose that means it wasn’t illegal, no?

From Gyan9

I think you are assuming that Saddam, the evil, deceitful, narcissistic dictator is also Saddam the stupid dictator. He would have to be, if he tried to assassinate a US president. It would positively get war waged on Iraq, which Saddam thought he could avoid otherwise by delaying and haphazard cooperation. A guy who hangs onto power for 30+ years may be anything, but hardly stupid.

Oh no…I’m not making any assumptions at all. Thats why I said if he COULD do it, he would. However, he couldn’t…and THAT is what restrained him, not his fear of the UN.

-XT

[Beagle]

It’s a strange circular argument, IMO. The US is going to war to support some longstanding UN resolutions. But, the UN doesn’t want the US to do that. Problem is, to get the US to stop the UN needs the US to help, and vice versa. For one thing, how many troops is the UN prepared to put into Iraq right now to replace the “invaders”?

Guaranteed there are some US armored troops that would love to quit being imperialists and come home for some rest.

The idea that “all Iraqis” just want the US to leave as “occupiers” belies the fact on the ground that in some cases US forces are the only thing keeping them from killing each other.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Originally posted by xtisme *
I must have missed it. I only saw your post of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX). Definition of Aggression. Where is your post of the UN warrents of specific violations by the US in reguards to Iraq. If there are specific warrents by the UN about US violation, lets analyze them to see the extent of what the UN feels are US violations. If they don’t have any…well then, I suppose that means it wasn’t illegal, no?*

Just because there aren’t any warrants doesn’t mean there weren’t violations. The UN just doesn’t have the teeth to do anything to the US so they aren’t bothering. You can’t escape the fact that the US violated the UN Charter by attcking the sovereignty of another nation without just cause. The US was not acting in self-defense and no other reason for an invasion can be justified under international law. Bush met the definition of unlawful aggression. there’s no way around it.

BTW, should the US also invade Israel in order to enforce the reso;utions that they have violated (illegal settlements, etc)?

[Mehitabel]

Well, so you’re not differentiating from nations run by people you can talk to as opposed by sadistic loonies? If we respond to one rogue nation with an invasion, we must respond to every one with an invasion, or we can do nothing at all, or just stall like we’re forced to with North Korea?

[rjung]

*Originally posted by Mehitabel *
Well, so you’re not differentiating from nations run by people you can talk to as opposed by sadistic loonies?

Who has the authority to determine which nations are run by level-headed folks, and which ones are run by loonies? You? Me? Michael Jackson? Karl Rove?

[Milum]

Ah yes, ** rjung**, your youthful egalitarianism has robbed you of your abilitity to discriminate. Before you go out into the real world you’d best learn to recognise the loonies.

And no ,** rjung**, it doesn’t. It doesn’t take one to know one.

[II_Gyan_II]

*Originally posted by xtisme *
Oh no…I’m not making any assumptions at all. Thats why I said if he COULD do it, he would. However, he couldn’t…and THAT is what restrained him, not his fear of the UN.

-XT **

But there is your assumption. If I’m reading it correctly, you are claiming that if Saddam was capable of carrying out the assassination, he would attempt it.
If that reading is correct, then there’s your assumption. I’m saying even if Saddam thought he was capable of it, he is not stupid enough to underestimate the consequences of both a successful or unsuccessful attempt, in order to actually attempt it.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

*Originally posted by Mehitabel *
**Well, so you’re not differentiating from nations run by people you can talk to as opposed by sadistic loonies? If we respond to one rogue nation with an invasion, we must respond to every one with an invasion, or we can do nothing at all, or just stall like we’re forced to with North Korea? **

The UN Charter does not differentiate and the US is bound by it. Let me pull down something from the above quoted resolution:

1. No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.

Not a lot of wiggle room is there?

[Sam_Stone]

But there is your assumption. If I’m reading it correctly, you are claiming that if Saddam was capable of carrying out the assassination, he would attempt it.
If that reading is correct, then there’s your assumption. I’m saying even if Saddam thought he was capable of it, he is not stupid enough to underestimate the consequences of both a successful or unsuccessful attempt, in order to actually attempt it.

I think the fact that he already tried to assassinate a U.S. President once pretty much disproves this notion.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

That was never really proven.

[Desmostylus]

This just another one of those bullshit stories that won’t go away. Seymour Hersh did the debunking back in 1993: A Case Not Closed

The crisis had its beginnings in the last few days of April, when the Kuwaiti government announced that it had arrested a group of seventeen Iraqis and Kuwaitis on charges of “destabilizing” Kuwait; that one Iraqi had confessed, under interrogation, to having been sent by Iraqi intelligence to assassinate George Bush; and that a powerful bomb, weighing nearly two hundred pounds and capable of killing everyone within four hundred yards, had been found hidden in a car that had been driven across the border from Iraq to Kuwait.

The announcement produced little reaction in Washington or anywhere in Europe, essentially because the Kuwaiti government was known for making self-serving pronouncements about its adversaries. Three years ago, during Iraq’s six-month occupation of Kuwait, there had been an outcry when a teen-age Kuwaiti girl testified eloquently and effectively before Congress about Iraqi atrocities involving newborn infants. The girl turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to Washington, Sheikh Saud Nasir al-Sabah, and her account of Iraqi soldiers flinging babies out of incubators was challenged as exaggerated both by journalists and by human-rights groups. (Sheikh Saud was subsequently named Minister of Information in Kuwait, and he was the government official in charge of briefing the international press on the alleged assassination attempt against George Bush.) In a second incident, in August of 1991, Kuwait provoked a special session of the United Nations Security Council by claiming that twelve Iraqi vessels, including a speedboat, had been involved in an attempt to assault Bubiyan Island, long-disputed territory that was then under Kuwaiti control. The Security Council eventually concluded that, while the Iraqis had been provocative, there had been no Iraqi military raid, and that the Kuwaiti government knew there hadn’t. What did take place was nothing more than a smuggler-versus-smuggler dispute over war booty in a nearby demilitarized zone that had emerged, after the Gulf War, as an illegal marketplace for alcohol, ammunition, and livestock.

This year, leaks about Iraqi interference in Kuwait’s doings began in early May. On Saturday, May 8th, the Washington Post quoted Administration officials and others as saying that there was credible evidence linking the Iraqi government to the assassination attempt. The officials, who were not named, provided the newspaper with three elements of that evidence. One key fact, the Post said, was the ease with which the alleged Iraqi assassination team had crossed the border area between Iraq and Kuwait: “U.S. officials said the transit of . . . explosives . . . would have been difficult without official sanction.” The newspaper also quoted an official as explaining that the bombs and the detonator recovered in the Iraqi-owned car were “way too sophisticated, involving things too sophisticated, to be just some crazies with a complaint against the president.” Finally, the newspaper quoted Clinton Administration officials as saying that they were in the process of tracing the explosives in question “to the source.” To further buttress its story, which was splashed across the front page in a banner headline, the Post quoted Mohammed Sabah al-Sabah, the new Kuwaiti Ambassador to Washington, as saying that one of the arrested Iraqis had confessed to being “a colonel in the Iraqi secret intelligence service, the Mukhabarat, stationed in Basra.” Each of those assertions has now been shown to be factually incorrect.

The Post article named Berger and two other high-level Clinton Administration officials—R. James Woolsey, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Frank G. Wisner, now an Under-Secretary of Defense—as being among those who advocated “direct retribution” against Iraq. By this time, too, Martin Indyk was hard at work, telling selected journalists, “We’ve got it”—that is, highly reliable intelligence tying Iraq to a plot against Bush. Indyk also said that Saudi Arabia, which had been the most important American and Kuwaiti ally in the Gulf War, was pressuring the Administration to take harsh action. The Saudi argument to the Clinton Administration, as it was relayed by Indyk, was that “if people think they can get away with this, you’ll have no credibility” in the Middle East.

Note that it was Woolsey who was also the most vocal trying to link Saddam with 9/11.

[adaher]

Could you post someone besides Hersh? His history is not one that would indicate trustworthiness. I trust Bill Clinton a lot more than I do Seymour Hersh.