“Territorial integrity” refers to geographical boundaries. An attack on territorial integrity would be any attempt to annex, occupy or otherwise alter any of the land or physical territory of another sovereign state. Bombing Serbia did not violate territorial integrity in that it did not attempt to steal any territory away from a sovereign state.
Bombing other countries is legal if the UN says it’s justified. I don’t really know about the legality of Clinton’s bombings but I was against them. If Clinton violated the UN Charter does that excuse Bush? Don’t you think there’s at least a little bit of difference in degree?
Bush doesnt lie much. He has a staff of paid liars. Rummy with his I know where the WMDs are north of Tikrit or just east or west of that. Then the lying prick denies saying it. Or Condoleeza telling about the mushroom cloud being our next sign. The only mushroom cloud is in her silk underwear. My fav of course when Powell sets up a whole program of lies and presents it to the UN on tv.Every word was a lie. He feels bad about it now but he should have known better. The undeniable fact is the information was available and ignored.
While this administration is swimming in lies,Bush may have shallow roots.His culpability may be borderline clean. You could take Darth Cheney down though. He lies and loves it.
Now I’m completely confused. Was the bombing of Serbia a violation of the UN charter or was it not? Your first paragraph seems to imply that it was legal, but your second pargraph seems to impy that it was not, since the UN did not say it was justifed.
May I interrupt for just a moment to interject an observation? I have learned more about presidential war powers from this thread than from two classes of U.S. government in high school and college. Thanks to **John Mace ** for being such a stickler for precision (man, you are a pain in the butt, but I mean that in a good way!) and forcing me to take my writing skills to the whetstone. And thanks to DtC for staking out a position and defending it with courage and integrity. This is the best SDMB experience I’ve had so far – and still the best 15 bucks I’ve ever spent!
Thank you. You may resume whaling away at each other.
Well, that’s a step in the right direction. Look, don’t get all pissy when you post something that is factually incorrect and you get called on it. Had you just said you didn’t know in the first place, I wouldn’t have harped on it.
Yes and no. If you’re just talking about the Iraq war, then I agree. And certainly it rises to level not seen since the Vietnam war days.
But if you’re talking about whether something is legal or illegal, then it should at least give you pause if it turns out that every president in living memory has done this supposedly illegal thing and not one of them has been called on it by Congress. Even Carter tried to use force to settle an international dispute (sending a strike force in to Iran) without consulting the UN. I’m not sure about Ford, but certianly Nixon, Johnson and Kennedy did. If that many presidents seemingly violated these laws, then maybe your understanding of the laws is flawed.
Well, that’s the difference between debating “Bush is a poopy pants” and “Bush violated the law”.
BTW, please don’t go away with the idea that I supported the Iraq War. I most emphatically did not-- ever. But there’s a difference between saying I think the war was bad or wrong or counterproductive and saying that the war was illegal.
I dunno, John, I’m completely mystified by most of what you’ve said in this thread. Okay, so mostly you’ve been trying to get DtC to clarify his position, but I have no clue what yours is. So, perhaps you might answer a few questions:
Do you believe that violating the UN Charter (or other treaties) is illegal?
Do you believe that Bush’s invasion of Iraq violated the UN Charter?
If not, then what would be required to do so?
Are you now suggesting (in post 66) that there are no distinctions relevant to “territorial integrity” and “political independence” that can be drawn between the invasion of Iraq, the bombings in Kosovo, and (!!!) the attempted special forces op to free the embassy hostages in Iran?
Not to put too fine a point on things, but does anybody else think that these are some of the most ridiculous provisions of any document, anywhere, ever?
The substance of this means that if (or when) somebody attacks you, you cannot attack them on their own turf regardless of a declaration or de facto state of war, otherwise you are violating the agreement. Therefore, every country that is involved in fighting of some sort in a border area can be said to be participating in an illegal war simply for crossing the recognized political border, even by accident.
I realize that this is an optimistic view, and all things being equal I would say that this is a great ideal, but in the real world there is not a single operable provision anywhere in there. There is not a country in the world that will stop at status quo antebellum if they have the ability to destroy their enemies. There is not a country in the world that will not use bombers to destroy infrastructure behind enemy lines in the event of a war. Both of those are “criminal” according to this.
As far as I know, I haven’t posted anything that’s factually incorrect and I certainly haven’t been “called on” anything. As far as I can tell, the bombing of Kosovo did not violate the UN Charter as it was not an attack on sovereignty (or on territorial integrity or on political independence). It may be illegal in some other way, I’m not really sure enough of international law to say it definitely wasn’t, but I AM sure enough to say that the invasion of Iraq definitely WAS illegal and there is no legitimate comparison between the Iraq war and the bombing of Kosovo.
Well the Iraq War IS the ostensible topic of the thread. You are the one who brought up Kosovo as a tu quoque response to the inescapable fact that Bush violated the UN Charter by attacking the sovereignty of Iraq.
Name one who has attempted to overthrow a government.
Whu should it “give me pause” when it comes to what Bush did? What do you even mean by “give me pause?”
How about a cite that any of those presidents (beesides Nixon) violated the N Charter. If you’re actually going to try to claim that Carter’s attempted rescue of US hostages in Iran was a violation of the Charter I’m going to have to laugh at you.
Claiming Bush violated a law by exercising powers granted to him by Congress and the US Constitution is only wishfull thinking. A treaty cannot take that power away from POTUS or Congress. He may have broken some international law or some other countries’ laws, but that don’t mean a fig in the US. DTC also claimed US law is subordinate to International law. IOW, the US cannot ratify a treaty stating it will not use force without the UN’s permission and have it legally enforcable within the US. Truman and his Congress did not have the power to sign a treaty to take away Bush’s and his Congress’s Constitutional authority to invade Iraq.
As one Justice in , i believe, the Reid (iirc) case pointed out: It is every nations right to break any treaty if it is in that nation’s interest, just as it is every other nation’s right to retaliate if it does so. I am paraphrasing of, course.
You’re misunderstanding the terms. If someone attacks you first, all bets are off. These restrictions only govern acts of aggression which are non-defensive. Th Charter says you can’t be the FIRST to do any of these things. You can certainly retaliate, though, and it doesn’t govern what you can do during a war. The Charter only says you can’t START anything, it doesn’t say you can’t finish it.
Let’s save that for another thread. I might start on that topic tomorrow, then we can debate it exclusively.
No. I brought it up as an example of why the Congress isn’t going to go after Bush on the Iraq war, not as a tu quoque. I think that illustrates why the Iraq War didn’t violate US law. I picked Clinton because he was the next to last president. It could have been just about any president in the last 50 years, as I mentioned later.
I don’t accept that overthrowing a government is a requirement to determine whether or not an act of aggression violates the UN charter. You made that claim and have failed to prove it.
It should give you pause not about Bush per se, but about your interpretation of US law. Now it could be that virtually every Congress in the last 50 years is wrong and you are right, but I doubt it.
Hey, it was from the cite you gave (reproduced by Airman Doors above), so laugh at yourself if you want:
The plan, if you recall, was to take over the soccer stadium and use that as a base of operation. “However temporary” means just that-- even if it’s just for a few days.
I did too prove it. I cited the exact article which specified sovereignty.
I disagree that every president of the last 50 years has violated the Charter and I don’t think US law is relevant anyway.
It was not the FIRST act of aggression, though. It was REACTIVE. The Charter only forbids the INITIATION of aggressive action, not the responses to it.
You keep trying to make justifications, and while I think you’re right that there should be exceptions, if you’re going to claim crimes under international law you have to use all of the relevant parts and remain consistent when they hurt your argument. Eagle Claw (the hostage rescue op) was as much a crime according to your cite as the Iraq war is, albeit not in scope.
There appears to be a bit more than that to what is written though. At what point does the “aggression” switch sides? If I counterattack and charge towards your capitol city, it’s clear that you are no longer the aggressor, therefore do the rules now apply to me?
It’s either a bit more nuanced than you’re making it out to be or I’m reading too much into it.
