Does Lt. Watada stand any chance of acquittal?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

You seem to think George W. Bush was the arbiter of what was legal under international alw.

It was legal to take military action against Iraq, It was not legal to remove the government, though, and I think that even you know that, even if you’ll never admit it.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

@Damuri_Ajashi

The invasion was authorized. It was illegal in the sense taht it broke all sort os international laws but it didn’t break US law.

It’s a more open question whether it broke international law. It did not contravene the UN Charter.

Yes, it absolutely did. There is only one legal justification to attack the sovereignty of another nation, and that justification was not present with Iraq.

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

You seem to think George W. Bush was the arbiter of what was legal under international alw.

It was legal to take military action against Iraq, It was not legal to remove the government, though, and I think that even you know that, even if you’ll never admit it.

Ahh… I see the distinction you’re drawing.

But the regime change was simply a by-product of the military action. And a welcome one, since international law favors democratic governments. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that the only legitimate government is one based on the “will of the people.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says that self-determination is a human right. Clearly these did not exist in Saddam’s Iraq.

[Shodan]

@Diogenes the Cynic

If Kofi Anan says it was illegal, it was illegal.

OK, then let’s see a cite of the UN Charter which states that the Secretary General has the power to declare some action of a member state illegal.

Regards,
Shodan

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

The UN Charter declares it illegal to remove another government for any reason other than self-defense. The Secretary-General doesn’t have to say it.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

You seem to think George W. Bush was the arbiter of what was legal under international alw.

It was legal to take military action against Iraq, It was not legal to remove the government, though, and I think that even you know that, even if you’ll never admit it.

Ahh… I see the distinction you’re drawing.

But the regime change was simply a by-product of the military action. And a welcome one, since international law favors democratic governments. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that the only legitimate government is one based on the “will of the people.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says that self-determination is a human right. Clearly these did not exist in Saddam’s Iraq.

The UN Charter specifically excludes any consideration of the politics of another country’s governement as a justification for an attack on sovereignty (i.e. regime change). It’s self-defense or nothing.

[DrDeth]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

@DrDeth

Sure, International Law has validity in the USA, however, it does come after the Constitution.

When it’s ratified by Congress, it’s the same as federal law. Is there anything about the UN Charter which is unconstitutional.

The Invasion of Iraq was justified by the “self-defense” loophole. Now, your opinion (and that of many others) may think that the US claims there are pretty bogus. However, only the UN Security Council may fine that the actions of the USA were illegal. They have not done so (nor are they likely to do so), thus that means that the actions of the USA are not illegal in fact.

The Secretary-General of the UN said it was illegal.

He has no authority to so rule. His opinion- while certainly respected- is still an opinion. Even if the President sez someone commited a crime, it’s not so until a ruling judicial body has held a trial/hearing etc, and made a legal decision.

Again you confuse opinion with fact.

[DrDeth]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

If I run a red light and no cop sees it, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t illegal. You guys are inventing criteria that don’t exist. There are no steps. It was illegal by the letter of the UN Charter. I can’t believe anybody still tries to argue anything else with a straight face.

*You *are innocent until proven guilty in a Court of Law.

Oddly, a Poster on a message Board is rarely considered a Court of Law.

[DrDeth]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

@Bricker

It’s a more open question whether it broke international law. It did not contravene the UN Charter.

Yes, it absolutely did. There is only one legal justification to attack the sovereignty of another nation, and that justification was not present with Iraq.

Which is your opinion. Again, you confuse opinion with actual legal rulings. Please give us a cite where any legal authority so ruled. The Secretary General has no such authority.

[John_Mace]

@Bricker

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

You seem to think George W. Bush was the arbiter of what was legal under international alw.

It was legal to take military action against Iraq, It was not legal to remove the government, though, and I think that even you know that, even if you’ll never admit it.

Ahh… I see the distinction you’re drawing.

But the regime change was simply a by-product of the military action. And a welcome one, since international law favors democratic governments. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that the only legitimate government is one based on the “will of the people.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says that self-determination is a human right. Clearly these did not exist in Saddam’s Iraq.

Wait a minute. How do you get from “international law favors democratic governments” (what that even means) to the US can overturn undemocratic regimes under international law?

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The UN Charter declares it illegal to remove another government for any reason other than self-defense. The Secretary-General doesn’t have to say it.

You have already conceded that the military action was legal.

The decision of Saddam Hussein to flee his palace and hide in a hole was a result of that legal military action.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The UN Charter specifically excludes any consideration of the politics of another country’s governement as a justification for an attack on sovereignty (i.e. regime change). It’s self-defense or nothing.

It specifically excludes “any consideration?”

No, that’s not true. Article 2(4) says:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Iraq’s territory and political independence were not threatened. The military action taken was legal. Saddam’s flight was a result of that action.

[Bricker]

@John_Mace

@Bricker

Ahh… I see the distinction you’re drawing.

But the regime change was simply a by-product of the military action. And a welcome one, since international law favors democratic governments. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that the only legitimate government is one based on the “will of the people.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says that self-determination is a human right. Clearly these did not exist in Saddam’s Iraq.

Wait a minute. How do you get from “international law favors democratic governments” (what that even means) to the US can overturn undemocratic regimes under international law?

I don’t. I am saying that the fact that the regime changed was a consequence of the legal military action.

[Ravenman]

@Bricker

It’s a more open question whether it broke international law. It did not contravene the UN Charter.

Perhaps you can explain to me how the invasion was consistent with the UN Charter. I especially note Article 41 and 51:

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 [resolution of conflicts by sanctions] would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations. . . .

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

So, the UN Charter allows any country to take actions in self defense to the extent that they are in response to an attack (not just a threat). So, since Iraq did not attack the US, we could not reasonably invoke Article 51, and since the UN Security Council did not authorize the war under Article 41…

I suppose one could make an argument that UNSC 1441 authorized the war, but that was not the common understanding of ANY of the members of the Security Council at the point that it was adopted. In fact, the US Ambassador to the UN declared that there was “no automaticity” in the resolution – meaning it did NOT authorize war if Iraq did not comply with inspectors.

So, I don’t understand on what basis you say the war complied with the UN Charter. Which article are you referring to?

[John_Mace]

@Bricker

@John_Mace

Wait a minute. How do you get from “international law favors democratic governments” (what that even means) to the US can overturn undemocratic regimes under international law?

I don’t. I am saying that the fact that the regime changed was a consequence of the legal military action.

It was one of the purposes of the AUMF, not a consequence:

Whereas the the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998… the policy of the Unites States to remove from power the current Iraqi regime…

[Shodan]

@Diogenes the Cynic

If Kofi Anan says it was illegal, it was illegal.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The Secretary-General doesn’t have to say it.

Actually, never mind. I have spent too much time in the past rubbing your nose in reality and getting nowhere to be amused by the process, at least for now.

Regards,
Shodan

[Little_Nemo]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

You seem to think George W. Bush was the arbiter of what was legal under international law.

Of course not. The Constitution clearly reserved the authority to determine what is legal under international law to members of online message boards.

[Blalron]

Here’s a hypothetical for you, Bricker.

Let’s say we did something completely absurd and unjustified, like invading Canada because they’re making supposedly making illegal chemical weapons. Congress authorizes the President to use force to deal with the Canadian threat. The President promptly invades, and overthrows the Canadian government (which was not authorized by Congress). And of course, no illegal weapons or functioning weapons programs are ever found, no matter how much we search for it.

What would you say about a soldier who, like Watada, refused to be deployed to Canada, claiming it was illegal?

What if Congress passed a resolution saying “We authorize the invasion of Canada as a War of Conquest, with absolutely no regard for our treaty obligations. You pussies at the U.N can’t stop us, Neener, Neener.” What about a soldier who refuses after that?

[Lemur866]

So Congress declares war on Canada, and the President then orders Lt. Hypothetical to get on a plane bound for Canada.

Lt. Hypothetical might think it is an unwise order, or an immoral order, and he might be so strongly against the invasion of Canada that he cannot in good conscience obey the order. If he decides to protest the invasion of Canada by publicly refusing to obey the order, and sits down in front of the transport plane waiting to be arrested, then good for him.

But that doesn’t mean he was given an illegal order. If the President (via the chain of command) ordered him to shoot unarmed civilians, or torture prisoners, then that would be an illegal order. Getting on a plane to invade Canada is not an illegal order, and it would not be a war crime to obey that order, just like no German soldiers were prosecuted for war crimes for invading Poland.

German soldiers got prosecuted for war crimes for shooting civilians, torturing prisoners, rape, and suchlike. Not for obeying orders to invade Poland or France.

Lt. Watada was perfectly free to decide that getting on a plane to Iraq was something he refused to do. That doesn’t mean his commanding officer was committing a crime by issuing the order to deploy to Iraq.

[Frank]

@Bricker

Iraq’s territory and political independence were not threatened.

No, of course not. Iraq’s political independence was demonstrated by the fact that there were Ba’athists all over the place in the executive, legislative, judicial, political, and military spheres of Iraq even after our invasion. Except, of course, for the ones we’d killed, held for the new Iraqi government to kill, imprisoned, or held for the new Iraqi government to imprison, or barred from public activity.

How, precisely, do you believe that an invasion based solely on overthrowing the existing government of a nation not an assault on its political independence?

[kaylasdad99]

@Blalron

Here’s a hypothetical for you, Bricker.

Let’s say we did something completely absurd and unjustified, like invading Canada because they’re making supposedly making illegal chemical weapons. Congress authorizes the President to use force to deal with the Canadian threat. The President promptly invades, and overthrows the Canadian government (which was not authorized by Congress). And of course, no illegal weapons or functioning weapons programs are ever found, no matter how much we search for it.

What would you say about a soldier who, like Watada, refused to be deployed to Canada, claiming it was illegal?

What if Congress passed a resolution saying “We authorize the invasion of Canada as a War of Conquest, with absolutely no regard for our treaty obligations. You pussies at the U.N can’t stop us, Neener, Neener.” What about a soldier who refuses after that?

Whether the soldier voluntarily joined the military before or after Congress passd the resolution might have a little bit of relevance…