Actually, all of it indicates that this is true. It’s called “circumstancial evidence,” and circumstancial evidence can be sufficient to obtain a conviction.
My whole argument is based on no premise, the proven and admitted (by the Iraqis) fact that Iraq had WoMD. Iraq has refusen to account for portions of those WoMD. Its excuse (“we destroyed it ourselves, but decided not to tell the UN we did it”) is not credible. It’s willingness to submit to the UN disarmament resolutions despite hundreds of thousands of deaths and billions in lost revenue is evidence that they thought they gained a benefit from such defiance - and the only benefit that could be obtained was the retention of WoMD.
You are operating under a fallacy. You believe that, because the dispositive piece of evidence has not been uncovered, the other evidence cannot prove the case. That is incorrect.
Let me tell you a real-life example of how dispositive evidence is not necessary.
Outside of Philadelphia a few years back, a man named Guy Sileo killed his business partner for the insurance money. Showing considerably more ingenuity than I would ever have expected from him (I knew him in school), Guy had bought two guns, one surreptitiously, of the exact same make. After he killed his partner, he disposed of the murder weapon. When police tested the other gun, which Sileo claimed was his only gun, they found it was not the murder weapon.
Eventually, and despite never finding dispositive, physical evidence linking Sileo to the crime, he was convicted of murder and is now serving life in prison.
My premise is not faulty. Your premise, that circumstancial evidence is not evidence and/or cannot be sufficient to warrant drawing a conclusion, is.
Degrance, we can argue about the weight that should be given to the evidence I have noted, and we can consider exculpatory evidence - including the fact that WoMD have, to date not been found - but it is an incorrect argument for you to assert that there is no credible evidence that Iraq has WoMD. That is simply untrue.
The key word there is credible. In the court of world opinion this “circumstancial evidence” has not suceeded in convincing anybody as to the need for this war. Those who are involved wanted the war before they ever saw any proof. Not one country was swayed by any of the information the US managed to present.
The evidence is therefore not credible because it didn’t convince the “court” the the US was presenting it to.
From Websters:
cred·i·ble, adj.
Capable of being believed; plausible.
See Synonyms at plausible.
Worthy of confidence; reliable.
I’m sorry but if the evidence presented were credible, plausible, worthy of confidence or reliable then somebody, somewhere would have been conviced by it. They were not. Therefore the evidence was not credible.
We are talking past each other. I am not referring to the evidence Powell presented to the UNSC or, indeed, anything the Bushies have asserted. Instead, I refer, and refer only to the evidence that was generated by UNSCOM, UNMOVIC and/or is open knowledge.
I fear you misunderstand “credible.” Credible in this context means that the evidence itself is likely to be true. Here is the evidence to which I refer.
Iraq’s admissions that it has had WoMD programs and had created chemical and biological weapons.
Iraq’s admission in 1995 that it had provided false reports to UNSCOM concerning its bioweapons program, in the face of revelations from Saddam’s sons-in-law after they defected.
UNSCOM’s and UNMOVIC’s determinations that Iraq had not accounted for all of its WoMD.
Iraq’s decision to bear the losses incurred to its population and to its coffers instead of accounting for its WoMD and satisfying UNSCOM and UNMOVIC.
Do you believe that none of those four things happened? If you accept these as true, then they are “credible.” Credible evidence is not evidence that causes the trier of fact to rule one way or the other; instead, it is evidence that is, of itself, believable.
Where we differ (and where you misuse the language) is on the weight to be ascribed to this evidence.
This, of course, is bull. The large majority of the US population believes Saddam has WoMD. That’s “somebody, somewhere.” Hell, Chirac stated in an interview with Time magazine that he believes Iraq has WoMD. Indeed, a really large percentage of the anti-war crowd believes Saddam had WoMD - they just don’t believe that justified the war.
Um, rjung, my statement was intended to disprove Degrance’s contention that nobody, nowhere was convinced by the evidence.
I self-evidently, did not assert that the opinion of the US population was evidence. I listed the evidence I was relying upon; I even gave them nice numbers, so you can see what they are.
What was the point of your post? To find that statement of mine, you had to have read my post, and reading my post would have made clear that an opinion poll was not being introduced as evidence by me.
Don’t be an idiot. Respecting the rule of law IS the right thing. Vigilante justice isn’t justice. it’s another crime. As in, two wrongs don’t make a right…
No, we have a obligation to behave. If Bush can’t convince the world (or even a clear majority of his own citizens) that what he wants to do is the right thing, then that’s because it isn’t the right thing. Remember, Bush only got more than 50% of the US behind his war because he lied about the 9/11 connection. Without that lie, and without UN approval, even the USA was against the war than for it.
The fact that there may be a noble side effect of Bush’s illegal war doesn’t excuse the war. Especially not since that noble side effect could have been achieved in other ways if that’s really what he wanted to achieve.
It sounds, to me, that you are arguing that the ends (liberation of an oppressed people) is always worth the means (warfare without the backing of the world community, or whatever the particular protester you have in mind is advocating). Is that a fair restatement of your position?
Assuming it is, I would argue that there are a fair number of us who would not agree with that. To some anti-war protesters, and I count myself among this set, the means are as important as the ends. It’s great that the Iraqi people are liberated. It’s great that Saddam has been toppled. These definitely are good things. But the means taken to achieve them are not means I want associated with our great nation. Unprovoked attack of a sovereign state (unprovoked meaning we were not attacked by that stated first), while not exactly unprecedented, always has and probably always will, be something I have problems supporting. Kinda like when we were kids and fighting with our siblings. My parents taught me that unprovoked hitting of my brothers is a bad thing.
Now, if it could have been proven that Saddam had weapons capable of causing great harm to the US or one of our treatied allies, and that the harm was imminent, then I would have supported the attack. However, no such evidence was supplied (I think if it had, more countries would have been on board), and I’m not naive enough to simply take the word of our President or Secretary of State on faith (didn’t work for Clinton, Nixon, or Bush Sr., why should I set aside my skepticism for Bush Jr.?), so I don’t see why we had to attack now.
My preference would have been to significantly step up inspections and lay out a very detailed set of requirements that Iraq would have had to meet, and put a strong timeline behind it. (And no, I don’t think that simply telling them to disarm would be sufficient. Looking at the various UN resolutions, it looks to me like we got about half-way to where I would want it.) As part of that resolution, the consequences of not complying would be spelled out (i.e., military action to enforce the will of the international community). At the end of the timeline, a tribunal of many nations reviews the requirements, and if any of them are unmet, it would call for military action, or whatever the consequence was.
Would France, Russia, Germany, and all of the others opposed to the current action have supported this? I don’t know but at least I would have liked to see something like this floated in front of the UN…
Is is that difficult to understand what the word “anti-war” means? The prefix “anti-” refers to the word that it precedes only. Don’t make generalizations just to give you an argument against those who are contrary to your opinion.
Of course, anyone in their sound mind agrees it is a good thing that Saddam has been deposed. Can’t argue with that! No one is “anti” that. What those who are anti-war claimed, and will still claim even when Iraqis are dancing in the streets, is that these ends could have been achieved through other means. That is, without
Iraq being flattened down
thousands of people being killed (including US-Brit soldiers)
raising anti-American sentiment throughout the world
invalidating the U.N., the one organ intended to promote international cooperation and peace
The results may be good, but the means used for that may have been uncalled for while alternative means were available, and that’s why those who are anti-war are unlikely to change their minds.
A lot has been said, but no real evidence has yet come to justify the rush which things were dealt with.
“Thousands” of people have not been killed. Nor has Iraq been “flattened down.”
We have no verifiable number of Iraqi civilians who were casualties, the Iraqi Ministry of Information having long ago abandoned its post, after putting forth risible lies about what was occurring in Baghdad, and forfeiting whatever credibility it ever had.
Any civilian death is a tragedy, but one has to weigh the lesser of two evils. Had Saddam Hussein stayed in power for another year or two, a thousand and many more would have died because of him. Read the reports of independent human rights organizations.
Look, I’m not gonna argue numbers, because like you said yourself, “any civilian death is a tragedy.” Just because less people are being killed than it would’ve been under Saddam’s regime, it still doesn’t make killing OK in the first place.
But didn’t you ever ask yourself if this couldn’t have been dealt with in a different manner? That’s what those who are anti-war think.
Not one sustainable reason has yet been given which justified the attack and the time at which it is happening. Everybody knows there are many other countries ruled by cruel dictators, some of them where WoMD provedly exist. So why Iraq, specifically? At the beginning, the reason for war was that Saddam was hiding WoMD. Now that it looks like those won’t turn up very soon, the speech has changed over to “liberating the people of Iraq.” Ok, I’ll pretend for a minute to believe these claims are genuine. I’ll pretend to believe Bush is really just a good guy trying to help the oppressed people of Iraq. Gee, didn’t anyone tell him that with the money spent on this was he could have helped many, many more? Say, the hundreds of thousands who starve to death in Africa every year (you know these figures are not exaggerated). After all, isn’t he just trying to help?
As it’s been said by many others, “the ends don’t justify the means.”
Europeans are anti-war because they’ve learned from experience that war only causes more war. Thankfully, I’ve never experienced war, but there’s a “little” subject called History that helps us learn from past mistakes without actually having to make them. It is common agreement that the main cause for WWII was WWI itself. But some people like to learn things the hard way, to check it for themselves. I’m just glad I’m not one of them.
Oh, and just how much credibility do you think the U.S. has from the rest of the world right now?
BTW, just wanna make it clear that not everyone who’s anti-war is anti-American. I love the country and have a lot of respect for its people. I’ve lived in the U.S. before and I’m quite grateful for the way I was treated.
Well, since more than 75% of folks are for the war, this argument is deflated.
It’s his stated purpose to remove the WMD’s and free the Iraqi people from tyranny. These things are being accomplished. If your mind-reading device says that the real purpose is otherwise, that has no impact on the reality of what’s happenning.
Slavery was legal under the laws of the time.
The holocost was legal under Hitler’s Germany.
Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. And, by the same token just because something is illegal doesn’t make it wrong.
You now must admit that this war cost very little in terms of both US military casualties and Iraqi civilian casualties. The benefit of this has been the removal of Saddam which has the net effect of saving many tens of thousands of lives and dramatically increasing the lives of all 23 million Iraqis.
Even if the invasion was illegal, which it’s not, I don’t care. The US did the right thing.
Actually, the problem is that, in a sense, you’re both right – or both wrong, if you prefer – although in fact, I tend to agree with Tejota’s perspective, myself. In other words, there are strong and valid arguments both in favor of the war and against it. It is therefore incorrect, simplistic, misleading, etc., to claim that one course of action is categorically right, and the other categorically wrong. In other words, what we have here is your standard moral dilemma.
As I see it, the only moral argument that supports the Iraq war derives from the fundamental principles of human rights. Clearly, Hussein was a ruthless dictator whose regime regularly violated even the most basic rights of the population, employed torture routinely, abducted potential political opponents, suppressed free speech, imprisoned without trial, and so on. Thus it is possible to build a moral argument in favor of war in terms of a sincerely held belief that the only way to end Hussein’s reign of terror, especially after the spectacular failure of 12 years of sanctions, would be through direct military intervention.
This argument is being employed frequently by the pro-war side at this juncture, in part because that’s all they have to fall back on so far. (That might change if US or British forces discover a few so-called WMDs.) It is usually employed in combination with a kind of “utilitarian calculus,” the idea being that the war saved more lives than it will cost, in the long run. In addition, it has the added attraction of allowing the right a rare opportunity to snatch the moral high ground, as it were, out from under the left; after all, those who favored war can claim that they did so on the basis of the noblest of reasons, and accuse the left of supporting Hussein’s dictatorship (at least, “in effect”), as well as suffering under the weight of an irrational anti-Americanism.
Against that we have what might be termed “the argument from international law.” This argument has a number of variations, but essentially builds on the idea that the Iraq war is “illegal.” It is pointed out, for example, that Iraq has not lifted so much as a finger against the US, ever, making the war nothing less than a bald example of US aggression; that claims about Iraq’s possession of WMDs are exaggerated, and thus a poor excuse for war; and/or that the US is beholden international rules of laws embodied in, for example, the UN Charter, which expressly forbid it from the threat or use of force in its relations with other nations. Those arguments are also morally correct, as far as I can tell.
Anyway, Debaser, I’m afraid I just can’t agree with your interpretation of my previous post:
Actually, what I’m trying to highlight is the fact that we have two moral principles that conflict with each other. After all, the US is supposedly committed to the rule of law in international relations, to the sovereignty and equality of nations under that law, and to the UN and the principles of the UN Charter; these are also moral values. In signing the Charter, we’ve essentially promised the world that we will abide by it. We cannot simply jettison that promise when it suits us.
What, then, of our obligation to the UN? Of our obligation to the standard tenets of international law? What of our condemnation of other nations, such as Iraq, that refuse to abide by the rules of the UN, if we do not?
There is a strange kind of projection at work here. In numerous threads I and many others who oppose the war have addressed this issue of human rights again and again. To be blunt, if the US government was really concerned with human rights, it could have taken the money spent on the Iraq war and put it to far better use, in, for example, Africa. There are hospitals and schools that need building, and people in desperate poverty who need food and clean water. I find the claim that the US actions are motivated by a real concern for human rights to be highly disingenuous, but I and many others have squarely addressed them time and time again.
In addition, the argument that we needed to overthrow the Hussein regime because of its human rights violations was merely a side issue in the run-up to the war. During that time, the main pro-war arguments centered on the claim that the Iraqi regime was a real and immanent threat to the US. Now that those claims seem to have evaporated, due to lack of any evidential support, the hawks – who have shown a callous disregard for human rights in other contexts, where the cry of “realpolitik” holds sway – have fallen back on the human rights issue as a last-gasp justification. Perhaps it is worth noting here that human rights are commonly used as a pretext for invasion; China claims that its occupation of Tibet, for example, is really a “liberation” of the Tibetan masses from the yoke of the oppressive political system under the lamas.
At the same time, I have yet to see on these boards a single cogent argument addressing US hypocrisy vis-a-vis international law, commitment to the principles of the UN, or the implications of the current administration’s policy of “preemptive self-defense.” How do you reconcile the America’s commitment to the international rule of law, or to the Charter of the United Nations, with its unprovoked attack on a sovereign state?
With regard to that question, the pro-war camp is profoundly silent.
In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq’s commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq’s serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq’s clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq’s behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.
From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons.
First of all, I question whether the above are “moral values.” They are agreements between nations. If Mexico decided to stop accepting US imports into their country, in violation of NAFTA, I would submit that Mexico has not acted in a morally impermissible manner.
Further, I would submit that a system that equates Iceland with Myanmar is not a system based upon morality.
Because there is no congent argument that the US has violated international law. The anti-war argument assumes that international law has been violated. The purported violation of international law is a preemptive attack without permission of the UNSC.
Furthermore, the UNSC itself has already determined that an unprovoked attack on a sovereign state is permissible. The UNSC (retroactively) approved NATO’s actions in Kosovo, a classic example of an unprovoked attack. At the time (paraphrase, from memory) Kofi Annan tossed out the concept of sovereignity - he stated that nations no longer have the right to act as they wish within their borders, and that the world has the right to intervene.
But what advocates of this argument fail to acknowledge is that, if we are to treat this as a legal matter, due process of law must be observed. There is a dispute as to the legality of the US’s actions. The US says it has acted legally; other nations say it has not. There is only one organization that can resolve this dispute and definitively state what the law is - the UNSC. The UNSC has not spoken. Thus, the war has not been determined to be illegal.
The response I get to this from anti-war people is that what I ask is an impossibilty - the US would veto any such determination. So what? That is the system under which the US is accused of having acting illegally; if the UNSC is valid, its rules are also valid.
Under our international law system, the simple fact is that the five permanent members of the UNSC are immune from international law. None of them will ever be held to have violated international law because they can veto any such holding.
The anti-war argument is a legal impossibility. The US has not violated international law because the only organization authorized to determine whether such a violation has occurred has not made a determination. That organization will never make such a determination.
Call it lawyerly games if you wish, but the fact is that, if the anti-war argument is going to be based on international law, the anti-war argument cannot be based on an “cafeteria” style of international law. You cannot deprive the US of due process. You cannot make the accusation without submitting the matter to the UNSC for determination.
I grant completely that the international legal system is flawed; no party should be judge in its own case. But this flawed legal system is the star to which the anti-war groups have hitched themselves. And they can’t make their case (indeed, they haven’t even tried).
So, just as you assert that the pro-war argument has devolved to the human rights argument because that’s all they have going for them, the anti-war argument only has going in its favor the “war is bad” argument.
I submit that the human rights argument, morally speaking, easily outweighs the “war is bad” argument.
Unless you intend this snippet to be a “see, my reasoning can be as bad as yours”, you are incorrect that the anti-war argument now is only has “war is bad” in it’s favor. For starters, a cursory reading of Great Debates will show many, many arguments on why this war is still a bad idea.
I’m glad you brought these points up. I’ve been reading your posts in this thread with a sense of bewilderment. At least here, you seem to be trying to tie them together into an argument; but I disagree with you.
Yeah, right. If Mexico failed to live up to its NAFTA agreements, the US would sue, at the very least, if not begin imposing sanctions. At the same time, neo-cons would be screaming over Mexico’s perfidy.
The moral value that I’m referring to, Sua, is one of trust; of living up to one’s commitments. If Mexico agrees to participate in NAFTA, it has a moral responsibility to uphold its commitments in that context. In fact, the legal dimensions of its commitments are based on this underlying morality. If Mexico fails to follow through on its agreements, the US state has an internationally recognized and morally legitimate right to respond in an appropriate manner, by appealing to international courts to resolve the dispute, suing, or perhaps even responding in kind.
To commit yourself to a contractual agreement, and then gratuitously break the terms of that agreement at will, is morally wrong, even when there exists no legal mechanism by which the contract can be enforced; it is a violation of trust. Do you seriously contest this?
Perhaps not; but the US is nevertheless committed to that system, at least at this point. It has used this commitment, for example, to judge Iraq for its non-compliance; see Walloon’s post, above, in which he makes the case for condemning Iraq’s failure to live up to its UN-imposed agreements.
Yet at the same time the US takes it upon itself to violate its UN commitments at will, as your previous list of unprovoked US invasions clearly reveals. The US condemnation of Iraq is thus blatantly contradicted by its own actions in the theater of international relations.
It is the general opinion among the international community that the US, along with England, has violated its UN commitments; whether you wish to consider this a violation of international law is really a matter of semantics, IMO. Just yesterday I read an interview with a professor in international relations here in Sweden who categorically dismissed US actions as a violation of international law, for example, and this is in fact the official position of the Swedish government.
But even our own US-based National Lawyers Guild, not exactly a bastion of left-wing activism, condemns the Iraqi war, and the principle of “preemptive strike,” as violations of international law. I hope you don’t mind if I provide an extensive quote from their document, appropriately entitled “Attacking Iraq, Subverting International Law,” to support this contention:
With regard to this:
I don’t have much to say about that, since I’m honestly not familiar enough with all the ins and outs of the situation at the UN then. Do you have any evidence that supports your assertions on this point?
I…well, you know…I mean, I don’t know how else to say this, Sua, so pardon me for being so blunt: that’s the lamest piece-of-shit argument I’ve heard on these boards in a very long while.
Of course, there’s been no due process with regard to US actions; that’s obvious. After all, there exists no international mechanism by which due process can be pursued. You are incorrect, by the way, to assert that the UNSC is charged with interpreting the canons of international law regarding the UN; that is not its function. In fact, there exists no internationally recognized court to which the US, or other nations, submit their actions for legal adjudication. So what? US actions are still a violation of the UN Charter; one must deny the evidence of his own senses to argue otherwise.
Consider the following: let us say that we live in a society in which murder is considered illegal. Let us further say that you and I have in our possession a video tape of a man murdering someone else. This person is now in jail awaiting trial; but it is obvious to us, on the basis of the tape, that the man in jail is, without a shadow of a doubt, the man who committed the murder. Can we safely say that he committed a crime, despite the fact that he has not yet been tried under due process?
Let us further posit that this man, due to a legal technicality, is freed from the charge of murder. Do you contend that, despite the fact he committed murder, he is no longer guilty of the crime, due to a fault in our system of justice?
If so, then I submit that your understanding of this issue is both logically and morally incoherent. It is logically incoherent because the very definition of a violation implies that one first agrees to A, and then fails or refuses to live up to A. In the case of the US, it has clearly agreed to “refrain from the use of force in its relations to other states,” and then gone on to use force in its relations to Iraq. In fact, it was precisely violations of this sort that led the US government to condemn, for example, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Israeli air strike on an Iraqi nuclear facility in 1981, and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
It is morally incoherent because it implies that as long as you are not caught and tried for a crime, it cannot be said that you have committed one. Look, just because I manage to get away with murder doesn’t mean that I haven’t committed a crime. By your logic, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan does not violate international law; nor does the Chinese occupation of Tibet. After all, these actions have never been condemned in the Security Council. But very few American politicians would argue that they are not crimes by virtue of that fact.
I would not call this a “lawyerly game;” such games are usually based on some sort of intelligent argument, at least. Anyway, even the National Lawyer’s Guild itself disagrees with your analysis.
Sorry, Sua, but that argument is complete and unadulterated bullshit. Look:
The US is a member of the UN. Its membership is explicitly predicated on the on its agreement to uphold the principles of the UN Charter.
One of the most fundamental of these principles of the Charter explicitly states that all member states “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” with two exceptions: in the event of an armed attack against a state’s territory, or under the auspices of the Security Council.
The US has never been attacked by Iraq, and has failed miserably to even demonstrate that Iraq represents an imminent threat to US territory or citizens;
The Security Council has not approved of US military action against Iraq;
Therefore, the US is in current violation of the UN Charter, to which it is also formally committed, and can thereby be fairly accused of violating international law as well as moral hypocrisy.
There. That wasn’t so hard, was it?
You know, the incredible waltz the pro-war crowd tries to dance around this simple and inarguably straightforward interpretation simply boggles the imagination. Imagine how those who support war might react if they were to encounter someone who argued, for example, that we cannot really accuse Hussein’s regime of violations of human rights, since the regime has never been formally subjected to due process. Such an argument would be completely absurd.
Excuse me for being so blunt, but your blanket rejection of the anti-war argument is little short of ludicrous, and a good example of how the right accuses the left of failing to meet its objections, while simultaneously disavowing the obvious weight of the left’s strong, and very valid, counter-arguments, by means of a silly reliance on irrelevant, assumed technicalities.
Actually, my last post is unrelated to my other posts, but is only a response to yours. I didn’t “tie anything together”; if you think I did, you either misunderstood my earlier posts or this one.
Well, where are these responses here? No appeal to any international body, no suit, etc.
::sigh:: The United States has never violated a resolution of the UNSC.
If you interpret the US’s previous and current actions as violations of the UN commitments, then you must acknowledge that the every permanent member of the UNSC has also violated them, as well as a goodly percentage of the rest of the nations of the world
France in Chad, Cote’ d’Ivoire, Bosnia, and Kosovo, amongst others;
Russia in Afghanistan and China;
China in Vietnam;
Britain in the Falkland Islands, Kosovo, Iraq, etc.
The “the war is illegal” crowd is guilty of selective application and enforcement of a law. Selective application of a law is a moral no-no.
Excuse me? By your reasoning, O.J. was guilty, and opinion polls on “Jerry Rivers Live!” were the appropriate trier of fact.
And who appointed either the professor in international relations or the Swedish government as arbiter of international law?
I can provide professors in international relations and other governments who take the opposite position. Why should I accept the position of your professor and your government when you will not accept the position of mine?
Giggle, snort. The National Lawyers Guild is explicitly and forthrightly a bastion of left-wing activism; I should know, I’m a donor. Kindly read the NLG’s website. I believe you are confusing the NLG with the American Bar Association.
The article I read it in is archived, and I gotta pay to get it. I’ll search Google for a free article that recounts Annan’s statement.
Your argument is “we don’t need a trial, the US is obviously guilty.” And Tejota accuses the US of vigilante justice?
No, we cannot. That is the freaking point of a judicial system.
[exasperated lawyer hat ON] There is no such thing as a legal technicality. There is a system of law with rules of justice that are obeyed, or there is no system of law. [exasperated lawyer hat OFF]
I do not contend that he is “no longer” guilty of the crime; I contend that he never was guilty of the crime.
Excuse me? You are the one saying that this is an issue of law, but then assert that we do not have to apply that law in determining right and wrong here. That is incoherent.
As noted above, the NLG is a left-wing political advocacy group (again, to which I am a donor). Their opinion means no more or no less than that of the National Heritage Foundation
If it is so easy, prove it in court.
Um, actually, they will be given due process when caught, either by an Iraqi or an international tribunal.
The entire argument is that the US violated international law. There is a dispute as to whether that is true. Legal disputes are not resolved by opinion polls, and you, I’m sure, would be outraged if your government announced that, from now on, it was going to forego trials to determine guilt or innocence, but instead would rely on phone-in opinion polls.
But when I demand that you do what you would demand your government to do, it becomes “irrelevant assumed technicalities.”
It is immoral to deny a person (or a country) its day in court. But you have decided that “morally” it is OK to deny it to the US.
Mr. Svinlesha, Kofi Annan’s statements reflect a new development in international law, as does the UN’s retroactive approval of NATO’s actions in Kosovo. If a nation violates the human rights of its citizens, the protections of sovereignity - including to protections written into the UN Charter - do not apply.
Further, Mr. Annan opined it was the obligation - not an option - of the UN to intervene to prevent massive and systemic violations of human rights.
According to Mr. Annan’s position, the UNSC failed to abide by its obligations. The US chose to fulfill those obligations.
