I’ve wondered about this since the push to get Iraq.
You only have to read someone their Miranda rights if they’re making a statement, and failure to do so doesn’t make an arrest illegal. It just means the statement can’t be used against them.
From this article on MSNBC.com:
I’m surprised, but it looks like he actually did still have something to do with the resistance.
Actually, he has. He’s committed numerous war crimes punishable under the U.S. Code and attempted to assassinate former President Bush in 1993. He’s well within the jurisdiction of both military and civilian U.S. courts.
From CarnalK
Je ne sais pas, parlez-vous Français, la tête de chowder?
Calm down. I didn’t say it was irrational…I said it was UNRESOLVED, and I’m kind of tired of folks throwing the ‘illegal war’ bullshit around to be honest. Its sort of the same thing that happens whenever someone throws out the ‘fact’ that France and Germany opposed the US for the money, and all the anti-war crowd basically roll their eyes. Its thrown out like its a fact, when the truth is that there are all kinds of shades of grey involved, and nothing is cut and dry…unlike what Sailor would have us all believe, that its a slam dunk issue. Horseshit. If it was such a slam dunk issue, why didn’t he make that case in the appropriate thread and dazzle us all with his rightness?? If anyone wants to continue argueing this stupid subject, resurrect the dead thread and well go a few more rounds to no effect.
The war was ill advised, stupid, and unnecessary…but it was NEITHER legal or illegal. Don’t agree? Well…
Here you go boys and girls…have at it again. Maybe someone will come up with a slam dunk to finally resolve the thing.
-XT
Don’t worry, it happens to me all the time. You’ll get used to it. (Just kidding. I apologize for the tone of my post.)
>> Far out.
Yeah. Far out indeed. In fact, far out “per se”.
>> What do you think I am?
Dunno. A/S/L?
Some teenager who just read the “Communism Rules!” website for the first time?
>> My post earlier, by any yardstick, was a thoughtful and considered one designed to help my fellow posters think outside the loop for a brief moment - and nothing more. Even to the most biased reader, it would have been obvious that my assertion that “international law” does not exist “in reality” was a rhetorical statement based on the wholly valid assumption that whatever “international law” which DOES exist between nation-states, does so based on the voluntary acceptance of those nation-states to adhere to a mutually codified set of laws.
We might want at implement a “rhetorical statement” smiley. I took your post at face value.
In any case, international law exists pretty much like domestic laws exists. Both count on the subjects’ cooperation and on punishment for those who break it. In both cases those who break the law get away with it due to the inability to enforce it. When a murderer escapes from justice it does not mean there is no law, it means nobody was able to give him the punishment he deserved. When a dictator commits crimes agains humanity and does not get punished it does not mean he did not break the law, it means no one was willing or able to try him and punish him. The existence of the law is not in doubt.
>>For crying out loud… talk about taking a statement out of context and trashing a fellow poster senseless with it. Geez… did the analogy escape you or something Sailor? I stated quite clearly that if you’re a citizen within a nation-state, then that country’s laws apply to you. However, if you’re a nation-state, the only laws which then apply are those which you agree to abide by.
Umm, no. Wrong. The nazis were judged by laws which they did not agree to. Milosevich was judged by laws to which it did not agree to. Had Pinochet been extradited he would have been judged by laws he did not agree to. When the SCOTUS ruled against the US government in the case of Paquete Habana it did so based on principles of international law which the USA had not explicitly accepted. A country which breaks International Law is entitled to punishment from the international community. The fact that it may escape punishment in no way negates the existence of the law. The fact that enforcement of the law may me not too strong does not negate the principle any more than widespread speeding negates the law establishing the speed limit.
>> This isn’t new… it’s a simple statement of reality. As it stands, the USA is sufficently powerful and influential to be able to write her own laws at the nation-state level any time she wants. This is neither a good nor a bad thing, it’s merely reality. By extension, this means that “international law” only exists to modify the USA’s behaviour as much as she wishes to accept such laws.
By the same token you could say that, since the government of the USA is incapable of enforcing 100% of the time laws against murder or illegal immigration, then such laws do not exist “per se” in those cases. So International law only exists when the international community has the capacity of enforcing it such as happened with the recent case of the steel tariffs where the US government was forced to back down or face the consequences. I think not.
>> That’s all I’m saying. I’m not trying to say that there is no such thing as the Hague, or Interpol, or extradition treaties between nation-states. I was merely noting that “international law” is a voluntary agreement at the nation-state level. And that there is no “higher authority” who can enforce it - other than the common sense of good men and women around the world. To note such thing is neither ignorant nor stupid.
You are wrong. International law can be and is enforced by the international community and by national courts regardless of whether a country accepted it or not. Or are you telling me those accused of crimes against humanity were breaking laws in force in their own countries? I don’t think so. Or please prove me wrong.
>> Far out…
Yeah, far out squared to you. ^_*
>> And yes, of course I’ve heard of Nuremberg.
I never would have guessed. Now you might want to tell us exactly what laws were broken by the defendants. Where they strictly German laws or laws which Germany had accepted as domestic? Or were they internationally accepted laws?
Do you have any citations by reputable jurists saying international law is only applicable in the measure a country accepts it?
President Cleveland bears repeating: The considerations that international law is without a court for its enforcement, and that obedience to its commands practically depends upon good faith, instead of upon the mandate of a superior tribunal, only give additional sanction to the law itself and brand any deliberate infraction of it not merely as a wrong but as a disgrace.
Pet Peeve: It’s cut and dried, not “cut and dry”. And actually, the matter IS cut and dried. The war was in violation of international law. It’s very clearly stated in the law and we covered it extensively in this forum. You can’t decide independently from the U.N. to invade a sovereign country for the purpose of regime change; there are no “shades of grey” there. Your expletives do not prove otherwise. Sailor did make the case, over and over, in all the appropriate threads. I know because I read them. So where were you?
As far as I’m concerned, it has been resolved.
Once again, all these allegations date back to GWI. More importantly, all the serious ones were against third countries, most notably Kuwait. Do you honestly think the U.S. can bring Hussein to trial for things like “employment of unanchored naval mines?”
The U.S. cannot afford to pursue picayune violations of international conventions as “war crimes” for the same reason it refused to join the international court – the U.S. is just too vulnerable to the same kind of treatment. Especially, as I pointed out, when the conflict in question was ended by treaty.
The U.S. can afford, however, to go after the biggies – international genocide, aggressive war, etc. If there really were a 9/11 link, the U.S. could certainly go after that, for example.
As it is, there isn’t. Moreover, it looks very much like the U.S. will not be pursuing him for any of his international crimes. Bush said in his new conference today,
From blowero
Thanks for correcting my english, which, though I think is pretty good, doesn’t include all the catchy little pharases and such. (Why ‘dried’ btw? Oh well).
My last post on the hijack…as I said, if you want to get back into this, resurrect the thread I listed, make a new one, or bring out another old one on the subject.
From blowero
Oh, I was there all right. I simply am not equiped to make a judgement on the issue, and unlike others, I realize this, so didn’t post a lot concerning the subject. I love the fact that folks are throwing out half baked opinions and conflicting areas of the UN resolutions, the Constitution, international law, etc, without a clue how it all works or interacts together…all for political and ideological reasons of course. Myself, I don’t even pretend to have a clue on this complex subject, but I take my que from people who do…and afaik, the actual lawyers dealing with this are divided on the exact legality, since its such a convoluted mess.
IANAL or pretend to be one, but what I got out of all that is that its NOT a black and white issue. You have the UN treaties…you have the Constitution. You have several interperatations of both with reguard to each other. International treaties do NOT superseed the Constitution…otherwise why have one. Bush was given legitimate powers by congress to go after Iraq. Those powers violated International treaties and UN resolutions. However, as no one has bothered dragging the US and or Bush into a court of law and giving a ruling, its ridiculous for you (who are you any way? An expert on international law??) to assert that it IS black and white.
Even the lawyers are divided on this, and they know what the fuck they are talking about…unlike you, me, Sailor, etc etc. You can assert through fiat all you want that its resolved as far as you are concerned…and that means exactly shit. It will be resolved when the international community actually brings some charges against the US for its ‘illegal’ action and makes a ruling. Until that time, you are just mastrabating yourself on this…because until a LEGAL ruling is made by an EMPOWERED body, you are just talking trash (unless of course that YOU are an empowered body, able to make such a ruling…or maybe that Sailor is). Now, if you HAVE a cite where a real, empowered body has brought such charges against the US or against Bush, by all means, bring it out and I’ll gladly change my tune. Until then, its your OPINION verse someone elses OPINION afaiac.
As far as domestically, Bush was opperating perfectly within our laws as defined by the Constitution…he DID have Congressional approval, and thats all he needed. Thus my own position…the thing was neither legal nor illegal, but something inbetween.
-XT
Here’s the relevant text of what Congress did approve on 10/23/02:
A flat statement that Congress “approved the war” is pretty stretched. Their stated intent that Bush work through the UN was, of course, never taken seriously by him; in fact he flouted it whenever he thought it convenient. The allegation of illegality is not a slam-dunk, no, but it has merit.
I agree that the US should not prosecute Saddam for his crimes, but there is a big (and undisputed) one out there: harboring Abu Nidal. It’s minor compared to the other charges, but it is a firm basis for US jurisdiction if that were the only issue.
As for Saddam’s activities, the Sunday Times reported that Saddam called his (second) wife once a week. Multiple news sources have reported that Saddam’s briefcase had not only a pile o’ cash but also the “minutes” of a meeting between various resistance groups in Baghdad. Plus, Saddam had a taxi nearby for transportation. So he had some role in the ongoing unpleasantness, even if the extent of that involvement was necessarily quite limited.
There’s nothing like a good Debkafile article to fill in the details: Indications Saddam Was Not in Hiding But a Captive
Followed by:
So the resolution authorizing Bush to use the military to do exactly what he did is not approving the war?
I wonder what they would have had to say to make their intention clear.
The resolution says exactly what it says. Congress said, very clearly and specifically, that it was OK with them if Bush used the military to invade Iraq, bring about regime change, and thus enforce the inspection regime that Saddam failed to cooperate with fully.
This is kind of Kafka-esque, to interpret the resolution in any other way. There is no ambiguity at all.
Regards,
Shodan
Your English is very good. In fact I had no idea it wasn’t your first language. I don’t know the origin of the expression; I’ll look it up when I have time.
If it bugs you so much that it’s a highjack, why do you keep writing about it?
That’s utter nonsense. You are conflating two concepts: international law and domestic law. International law states that you can’t invade a sovereign country for the purpose of regime change. Just because your government internally approved the war does not absolve you. Surely you don’t think that’s true; if you believe that, then you’d have to believe that Saddam’s invastion of Kuwait was legal. For that matter, you’d have to believe that Hitler acted legally. At this point, I’m just repeating what Sailor already pointed out, but the fact that we might get away with violating international law does not mean we didn’t violate it. Like he said, if you murder someone and don’t get caught, it doesn’t mean that murder is not illegal. The enforcement of international law may be a grey area, but the law itself is not.
We’re talking about international law. Surely you don’t think that a country’s aggression justifies itself?
What is ´maybe close to Kafka-esque is seeing someone use the term who probably doesn’t even know who Kafka was, much less what the term means.
What is definitely Kafka-esque is Congress passing such a decision and you thinking it is perfectly normal, as if the authority of Congress covered the entire planet, and Congress was not bound by any rules and procedures.
Here’s the funny thing… we’re actually agreeing here but I’ve managed to hit a nerve unfortunately. Your last paragraph neatly summarises my initial observation - namely, that the concept of international law is ultimately predicated upon good faith, and not, by the presence of a global, impartial Police Cop. Would that it were that such Police Cops existed. I’m sure that a million souls in Cambodia during the late 1970’s would have greatly appreciated it.
And the key here is good faith between nation-states. However, behind that good faith is a greater influence - that is, mutual self-interest. Nation-States which agree to abide by, and assist the implementation of International Law do so because of the rewards which stem from the mutual benefits of doing so. Very few nation-states genuinely choose to be an international pariah on the world stage, (North Korea I suspect fits that description) and the reason is simply because if you don’t behave, your commerce is profoundly affected.
In this context, it’s worth noting the “behind the scenes” negotiations which recently took place between the European Union and the United States regarding the US Steel importation tariffs. Yes, it’s true that the matter was resolved peacefully through the World Trade courts, and that was a good thing. However, behind that was the looming and demonstrable threat by the European Union that exports by the USA into Europe were going to be profoundly minimised. In essence, it was commerce, (and the threat to mutual self benefits) which forced the machinations of international law to manifest itself there.
But it’s an interesting thing to be sure. As far as I can remember, it’s pretty well the first time in my own recent living memory that the USA has had a big stick pointed in HER direction if she didn’t play nice. For at least 5 decades since WW2, the USA was in such an unassailable position economically that she was able to selectively “ignore” certain modicums of good behaviour on the world stage if her internal lobbying was sufficiently strong to override that good behaviour.
However, now we have the European Union in existence - and as we all know, that is one seriously big and strong trading bloc. Accordingly, a new way of doing business is in town, and for the first time, the USA has had to eat just a little bit of humble pie.
Nonetheless, at a military level, the USA remains unassailable, and as such, certain decisions can still be made by the USA which may or may not be in keeping with the spirit of “international law” but she’ll make them regardless - such as Iraq in March, 2003.
This is a bad example, since it actually illustrates the very opposite of what you use it for. The measures by the EU were not taking or prepared on its own accord, rather, they were AUTHORIZED by the WTO first. In fact, the WTO authorized much higher punitive tarriffs than the EU actually prepared to use. Rather, the EU decided to make it a staged retaliation: Start small, and if nothing happens, tighten the screws gradually, up to the limit allowed by the WTO -and not above.
Actually, the WTO has slapped the US on its fingers repeatedly -as it did to the EU. Another issue is currently being negotiated at the WTO: Foreing sales corporations. Here, it looks like the EU will indeed be using punitive measures.
The problem is that on the economic level, reputation and trustworthiness are currency. While people might be willing to make a deal with a sleazy schemer who doesn’t treat PEOPLE kindly, making deals with people whose signature isn’t worth the ink it was drawn with is another issue altogether. If you can’t be sure the other side will fulfill their side of the deal, why invest? And investments are something the US is critically dependent on, and can’t get by military means.
Ok, I lied…I guess I will speak to all this somemore. It DOES bother me to hijack someones thread like this, but it seems to be the direction the debate is taking so I’ll go with it.
blowero…well, actually I do think that soveriegn nations have the right to do what they think is best. I also don’t think that international law or treaties superseed the Constitution…and that by the Constitution the President only needs authorization from Congress to be legal in order to go to war.
I’m not saying that nations should disreguard international treaties and do their own thing…that way lies chaos. Its a balancing act, no doubt. But soveriegn nations do, IMO, reserve the right to act in their own best interest if they feel the need to do so…this is simple reality IMO. And thus acting, I think that their actions are ‘legal’ if they are consistant with their own laws and policies. If other nations take offense to these actions, then there will be consequences…war, sanctions, embargo, etc.
Was Kuait ‘illegal’? No, I don’t see it that way. It was an agressive attempt by Iraq to steal Kuait, but I don’t think it was ‘illegal’ just because the UN didn’t authorize it. That doesn’t preclude other nations taking offense though…which is what happened…and doing something about it. Same goes for Hitlers adventures. To me, he certainly did a number of ‘crimes against humanity’, for which he would have been punished…but his invasions of of Poland etc weren’t one of them. I don’t JUSTIFY the actions of Germany, Iraq or the US…I am merely saying I don’t see them as ‘illegal’, as I don’t think the ‘law’ in question is either clear nor explicite…nor do I think that any international law superseeds a countries internal laws/constitution…including that of the US.
Thats just how I see it though. On the more knottie issue though, I think its simply hubris to claim that its black and white when its a matter of debate to the folks that actually do this for a living…the lawyer types. And, from talking to several (my wife works for one of the biggest firms in DC, and they deal in both international law and constitutional law, as well as the more mundain corporate law and litigation), there is no consensus there as to the legality of the situation. Some say its ‘illegal’, some that its ‘legal’, with the majority of the ones I’ve spoken to saying the issue isn’t one that can be expressed in either terms, as the ‘laws’ in the international treaties are vague and in some cases contridictory. The actual ‘laws’ in the various treaties take up thousands of pages…not the few paragraphs that Sailor et al has quoted.
As I said, I don’t even pretend to know or understand…but I do trust the opinions of those that do. And that opinion seems to be, that there IS no consensus on whether or not the US’s actions were ‘illegal’ or ‘legal’.
Personally I don’t understand the fixation on it having to be ‘illegal’ anyway…or ‘legal’ for that matter. Whether it was ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’ is a technicallity. If you feel it was WRONG, why does it matter if it was ‘legal’…it was still wrong to you, no? And if you feel it was RIGHT, it also doesn’t matter if it was ‘illegal’…the ends justify the means and all that. As I’ve said, I feel it was ‘wrong’, not because of any moral or legal issues, but because I feel it was unnecessary to do at this time and in the way it was done. I cringe thinking of our military tied up indefinitely while things get sorted out in Iraq…and the expense, both in terms of money and lives, for little gain from my perspective. And if we REALLY need that military, or that money sometime in the near future…well, we won’t have it.
BTW thanks for the complement on my english…I’ve worked hard at it since I started on this board (I’ve worked hard on getting rid of my accent too, and speak exclusively english now, except when visiting my folks). When I first started posting, I got reamed out because my sentence structure was ‘wierd’ and my spelling horrible…and I tended to laps into spanish sometimes as well, making it all a garbled mess. I’m happy that I can pass as a native english speaker now…or almost. 
-XT
I find this argument unacceptable. We are discussing an issue and we have given reasons and arguments. For you to say “I don’t have a clue and I believe neither do you” is not acceptable. If you have anything to say regarding the arguments then address the arguments. If you don’t have a clue then kindly STFU and go play somewhere where you do but what you are saying is “I cannot refute your arguments so I will just disqualify you without even a reason other than ‘I am clueless and I believe you must be as clueless as I am’”. Not acceptable argument.
Ahh, why thank you. I didn’t know that. Well, I’ve always taken pride in my ability to concede when I stand corrected! 
And Sailor? Your apology is graciously accepted. I recognise that it’s easy to interpret tone incorrectly on a messageboard.