Shodan, how did you miss all that stuff about the UN? It’s only most of the damned excerpt I gave you, stating Congress’s intent. Or did you, like Bush, simply dismiss the UN as irrelevant and assume everyone else does?
Now go look up Kafka, or better yet read “The Trial”, and submit a book report to us before you misuse his name again.
Hubris??? Off hand, I’d say what’s hubris is the attitude that might makes right, and that anything is legal if you can get away with it.
Since you seem intent on rehashing all this, I will re-post what I wrote several months ago:
Please read the linked essay and then provide cites giving evidence for your opinion that international law does not apply. Actual cites, not just “I talked to some lawyers”. Don’t just tell us there are “thousands of pages” of laws; tell us exactly which law allows you to invade a sovereign country without provocation. I don’t think you are going to find such a law.
All you’ve given us is some anecdotal evidence about “talking to some lawyers”. Sorry, that doesn’t cut it.
Don’t ask me, YOU seem to be the one fixated with it.
Not true. That’s like saying the Mafia murders people all the time and gets away with it, so whether murder is ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’ is a technicality.
No, the whole point is that international standards need to exist. If any country can simply declare another country “oppressive”, and unilaterally invade, then it simply becomes about “strong” and “weak”, rather than “right” and “wrong”.
Actually, the expression is “the ends DO NOT justify the means”, and I think it’s apt in this situation.
I agree, and that’s exactly my point. We should have adhered to international law. Saddam wasn’t an immediate threat, so why couldn’t we have waited, let the law take its course, and enjoyed the support of the international community?
Actually, I don’t think I would have said anything if I had known it wasn’t your native language. “Cut and dry” is a pet peeve for me because so many NATIVE SPEAKERS use it, and that’s what I thought you were. I know I shouldn’t correct grammar, but sometimes I can’t help myself.
From Sailor
Fine…I started a thread on this again. Put up or STFU yourself Sailor. List out your arguements on why the war was Illegal and we’ll see where (if anywhere) it goes).
From blowero
Well, maybe it is then. It seems to me that soveriegn nations have the ‘right’ to do what they feel is best, based on their own legal systems. I suppose its a difference in philosophy between us, as you obviously see the UN as a body that should be above any nations domestic laws. Myself, I see nations balancing each other through treaties and trade, and if a nation does something VERY egregious with reference to the world community, that nation will get spanked for it, one way or the other (trade embargo, sanctions, or even war). I see the UN resolutions as more like guidelines, not cast in concrete laws…because there isn’t anything there to back them up. Its all on the ‘honor system’, no?
Its also how the world works. Having an ‘honor’ system in place to me seems to mean that you will always have situation where some countries play by the rules sometimes, but not others…whenever its in their best interests to do so of course. Maybe you could explain to me why the US should abide by an ‘honor’ system, when it doesn’t feel its in its best interest to do so…or any other nation for that matter. What are the repurcussions of violating them? If you are a major power like the US, China, the various EU powers, etc, there aren’t any appearently. Again, if the US’s actions were ‘illegal’ why isn’t the US under any sanctions or embargos from those powers we most pissed off…the French, Russians, Germans, etc? Surely there must be SOME actions countries can take when one of their numbers does something ‘illegal’. If not, whats the point?
BTW, thanks for the article…it was interesting. Is it your contention though that the primary reason was ‘regime change’ for the US invasion of Iraq? I’ll be glad to wade through the various google articles on legality and see if I can find cites, but I’m not defending ‘regime change’. The US’s contentions, afaik were that SH had WMD (probably erronious), that he was involved in terrorism (tenuous), and that he was a threat to the US (in the aftermath of the conflict and what we learned, almost certainly wrong). However, what I have to ask myself is, did the administration BELIEVE that those were to conditions? Ya, I do think they believed it. The fact that they were most likely wrong, cherry picked their data, etc, doesn’t preclude that they THOUGHT it was the case though. And by the UN article 51
Did the US report its actions to the UN? Yes, they did. Plausable deniability…unless some damning evidence comes out showing that Bush in fact KNEW that there were no WMD, that SH had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, that he KNEW Iraq was not a threat, etc, then the UN charter gives the US a fig leaf to hide behind.
From blowero
Ya, I know anecdotal evidence doesn’t cut it. IANAL though, I’m an engineer. All I know is what I’ve been told…and what I’ve been told by folks that know what they are talking about is that this thing is a complicated mess. I’ll TRY and find some cites showing the points I’m trying to make, but I’ll probably put them in the new thread I’m making to deal with this subject.
From blowero
Good point! But aren’t Mafia Murderers charged with a crime…or at least investigated by lawful authority if a crime is thought to have taken place?? Aren’t charges filed and aren’t they tried before a judge and jury in a court of law? Aren’t they presumed INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty? Again, my point is, no empowered body (that I’m aware of) has seen fit to even bring forth charges against the US…or even an inquiry. If you have no such inquire or charges, isn’t the US presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty…or at least until an authorized body puts forth charges etc?? Why is the US guilty BEFORE being charged by you and the others??
From blowero
Well, I agree that we SHOULD have and COULD have waited. Personally I would have let him rot…he would have fallen eventually, and maybe we could have worked with one of his sons…who knows? I think the administraton blew it big time, and its one of the big reasons I won’t be voting for Bush.
But neither you nor I were in charge. The President GOT authorization from the Congress for his little adventure. To me, based on the laws of the land, this make the adventure quasi-legal.
From blowero
My problem is, the ‘international standards’ are vague and not enforces. It seems to me to be all on the ‘honor system’, which is an inherent flaw IMO. Countries can and WILL do what they feel is necessary and in their own interests. As to the rest…in theory I can see your point about the strong and weak. In practice, I imagine that if the US or anyone else arbitrarily tried to invade another country that was in good standing in the international community, there would be hell too pay. I can see the ‘international community’ turning a blind eye to the US invasion of North Korea, say, or Iraq…but I can’t see them letting us skate by if we invaded, I don’t know, Brazil or Belgum say. I can see the US allowing France to play in Africa, but can see there would be ramifications if they chose to play in Israel or Canada for instance.
Certainly there are power blocks that counter balance the US, so I don’t see the US going nuts and invading country after country. Other nations would bring forth sanctions, embargoes, etc, and quickly cause, say, the US to step back into line. Look how effective they were making Bush back down over Steel Tarriffs.
Well, this post is way too long and I have to get some work done before I can go home. Hope to see you in the Was the US actions in Iraq thread I started, if you want to come and play there.
-XT
It has been rehashed a hundred times and it is very simple: Wars of agression are illegal. This was a war of agression. Ergo, it was illegal.
Note that all wars of aggression are illegal and there is no exception for those you might agree with. Only defensive actions are permitted and this was not a defensive war no matter how you slice it. Ergo, it was illegal.
Besides the legality, there is still the Law of Unintended Consequences to consider.
The article you cited above, blowero, referenced the situation in Yugoslavia, and that seems to me a good taking off point for the question in the OP: What now?
When the Cold War ended, there was lots of euphoria at that time as well. One commentator I used to watch, a very old guy named Ed Hart on the old FNN, predecessor to CNBC (an investment news channel here in the US), said, quoting from memory, “This idea that these kinds of revolutions can be bloodless is fatuous. Now that they don’t have the Russians to hate anymore, they can go back to hating each other.” Well, the Iraqis don’t have Saddam to hate anymore, so now they can go back to hating each other as well.
It would be easy to spin a scenario, given the ethnic brew there, in which a Yugoslav-type chaos ensues. Not inevitable, but certainly a very big danger. Going into a country and effecting regime change always has the danger of bringing out the fissures in a country that are kept under the surface during normal times. This is always dangerous.
Join my thread Sailor. I know I pissed you off earlier, but I really want you to lay out your thoughts. I KNOW its been hashed and rehashed lots of times…but I don’t think its been resolved. You do, but humor me and lay it all out again if you would and lets see what happens. I’m in the middle on this one, saying it was neither legal nor illegal…so convince me it was illegal.
Take your own statement here:
From Sailor
Illegal by UN resolutions? Or not authorized by UN resolutions? Reading through Chapter VII of the UN , ‘illegal’ is never brought up…but unauthorized is. Are you saying that ‘illegal’ is implied? If so, on who’s interperatation? I haven’t read through the other Chapters, so maybe its specified somewhere else and I’m missing it…but I haven’t seen the verbage that such acts are ‘illegal’ in the resolutions for Chapter VII themselves…which seems to be the most relevant part of the charter afaik.
Even if it is and I’m simply missing it, what constitutes ‘self defense’? Who decides that this is or is not a ‘war of agression’? Who judges that? Would it be different if the US believed that SH had something to do with 9/11? What if they believed it and were wrong? Would that make any difference? Was the US’s actions in Afghanistan also illegal…was it also a ‘war of agression’?
What judgements have been made with reguard to whether it was a ‘war of agression’ or not? How does the US view the precidence of UN resolutions verse the Constitution and constitutional powers granted to Congress and the President?
I don’t actually want you to answer these questions here…they were retorical. I would love you to come over and put your thoughts down in the other thread, if you’ve a mind to do so.
-XT
sailor
Ah, sailor, …so true, the great war between the states was a defensive war. The Yankee aggression, ergo, was not permitted. So no matter how you slice it, the south was right and won the Civil War by default.
And now I choose you, Sailor, to be my main man servant, drop your pants and receive forty lashes.
See? Now that wasn’t so bad, now was it? 
Boy, he’s got you there, sailor! Clearly, the War Between the States was entirely illegal, and the UN Security Council said nothing!. Man, he got you good that time!
Yeah, the UN and their so-called “security council” arrived late on the scene by 75 years. I admit that is an unforgivable sign of their incompetence.
xtisme, i have no interest in engaging in an extended debate of this point which we have already beat to death several times. You can re-read my past posts in other threads if you want to know what I think about the topic.
In a nutshell: The USA was not under “armed attack” and the war can in no way be considered defensive by any stretch of the truth. It was as “defensive” as Germany’s invasion of Poland. No, wait, it was even less justified as Poland is next door to Germany. The fact that an international tribunal has not been set up to judge the matter does not change the facts and each one can make up his own mind. I believe that a man who kills another man without provocation is a murderer regardless of whether he is caught or prosecuted. And excuses like “I thought he might attack me some day” would not fly with me if I was in the jury.
The worst part for me is that those who defend the notion that “might makes right” are, in fact, defending al Qaeda. There is no right or wrong, there is only what you can get away with. In that case it was not wrong to crash two airliners against the WTC.
During the cold war the USA was scared of the soviets and it was the USA who talked about international law. The soviets were the barbarians at the gate who disregarded all norms of civilization. For them there was no right or wrong, just ends which they would do anything to achieve. They banged their shoes on the table and they threatened the entire free world. The USA as the one to talk about how might does not make right, how civilization means submitting to the rule of law. The soviets were barbarians while the Americans were the civilized guys. But, as soon as the Soviet threat disappeared the USA changed its tune and proclaimed a new world order where might makes right because now the might of the USA does not fear any enemies. That is apalling. That is not what the USA (or any other civilized country) should stand for.
For many years I have defended the image of the USA abroad saying it was not the agressive country anti-American propaganda made it out to be. I feel betrayed.
Squink said:
[qupte]
There’s nothing like a good Debkafile article to fill in the details:
Indications Saddam Was Not in Hiding But a Captive
[/quote]
I don’t buy it. Since when do captives have two AK-47s and a pistol on them?
The other facts in the article are easily explained:
No cellphone - natch. How would they know if the U.S. can pick up the RF from a cellphone? Even off, a cellphone emits RF from the intermediate stages in the receiver.
The money - while $750,000 pay be a pittance compared to 25 million, it’s still a hell of a lot of money, and there’s no reason to let Saddam have it if he’s a prisoner. Besides the two bodyguards weren’t the ones who collected a reward anyway. In fact, so far it’s not clear that anyone qualifies.
Saddam was captured with a briefcase that contained a lot of intelligence, including minutes from a meeting of a terrorist cell. That intel was used by the military to completely roll up at least one of those cells this weekend, and apparently to catch several other regime officials. If Saddam were a captive that they wanted to turn over to the Americans for a reward, why would they give him all that intel to hang on to?
The reward was for Saddam, dead or alive. If they had Saddam captive with the intent to collect money, why wouldn’t they just shoot him in the head and turn in the body? That way, he couldn’t be squeezed for intelligence.
:dubious:
I look forward to the impending capture and prosecution of Jacques Chirac for harboring Roman Polanski.
I´d like to complement my post way over page 2 I think before the massive hijack and all. That appart from Iran, Kuwait, and of course Iraq, Israel may want to charge Saddam with a thing or two; regarding those Scuds thrown at them.
[semi hijack]Saddam is being interrogated by our military and newcasters are snorting and pawing the ground over his being “a smart alec” and “uncooperative.”
I don’t want to support Saddam but if he is a prisoner of war all he has to give is name, rank, and serial number. Or has that also been changed?[/semi hijack]
David, I heard ABC news say exactly what you said: all he’s required to give is his name, rank and serial number. He’s apparently said more than that, but whether he’s given any real info, who knows.
The repercussions can be anything from censure to economic sanctions to military action. What have the repercussions been to the U.S.? I think it’s too early to tell, but so far there is an obvious lack of trust from our allies, and you may have noticed that other countries aren’t being particularly generous with funds to help us rebuild Iraq. That’s costing us a pretty penny. But I also think we got away with a lot because we are so powerful. Who’s gonna take on the most powerful country in the world? Some people think this justifies us in doing whatever the hell we feel like, but I think it takes a toll on our credibility. After all, how can we make the case that another nation’s aggression is wrong, if we consider our own aggression perfectly acceptable? I think an attitude of “screw the rest of the world; we’re gonna do what we want” can’t help but come back to bite us in the ass.
Well it’s interesting, isn’t it? Bush originally tried to justify the war as a necessary defense against a threat posed by Iraq. He tried to get the U.N. to authorize it, but was not successful. Bush went ahead with the invasion anyway, and was criticized for acting on insufficient evidence.
Now that even more evidence is in, it seems apparent that the threat was nonexistent and the evidence trumped up. And those who supported the war are trying to rewrite history by claiming that it was about ousting Saddam all along. If one argues that the war wasn’t justified, the retort is “But he had WMDs and links to Al Qaeda”. But when one argues that those things didn’t turn up, the retort is “Er, it was more about ousting an evil tyrant.”
No, I’m not buying that. It sounds like you’re saying yes, they played fast and loose with the facts because they believed some underlying truth. That doesn’t justify anything. The administration severly distorted the truth, if not outright lied. If someone was operating under some gross misconception that it was somehow all true, it has no bearing.
51 doesn’t apply. Iraq did NOT attack the United States. If they had, then it would have been legal for us to retaliate. But they didn’t.
Again, just because you got away with something doesn’t mean it wasn’t wrong. I think we’re just going in circles on this point.
Did you read what I wrote about distinguishing between international law and domestic law? You seem to just be talking past me without addressing my point.
I can imagine some scenarios where interpretation might be vague, but in this particular case I think it’s very clear cut. And saying international law is “not enforced” begs the question. The U.N. has no teeth in part because the most powerful country in the world declared it “irrelevant”.
But this is a criticism of the effectiveness of the UN; you’re not giving any evidence as to what international law is or isn’t. Your point is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.