Well shit. I could have sworn that the “imminent threat” language was contained in Resolution 3314 which defines “aggression,” but now I can’t find it. I can’t seem to find any justifications for aggression through googling so now I don’t know why I thought the language came from the UN Charter. I stand corrected. I guess the invasion was even less justified than I gave the Bushistas credit for. The resolution I linked to does include this line in article 5:
which would seem to rule out any of the justifications that Bush has given so far.
I agree that even if the US had been able to make a case for self defense from an imminent threat they still needed a UN sanctioned international intervention not a unilateral, UN defiant invasion by the US.
Despite the triumphant tone, despite the witticisms, despite the devotion to the President and his cause, I trust everyone fully understand just how sad and humiliation all this is. Our President is now revealed as just what a fair portion of the world thought he was–a reckless and thoughtless cowboy, a dangerous lunatic. The Kaye Report, or what I can find of it, is an indictment of this Administration. We have engaged in a war of aggression in order to rid our selves of a non-threatening annoyance and to control oil fields. By doing so we have badly damaged our international standing, consolidated our rivals and placed in jeopardy out ability to deal with pressing social and economic questions at home.
That it seems to me is a nearly criminal betrayal of trust. I am not the least surprised that the Administration’s PR flacks and lead blowhards are hard at work spinning, obfuscation and minimizing. Things are just getting worse. Things are getting worse because there is no obvious, quick, cheap way out of this tangled web of our own weaving. To let the people who blundered into this hole continue to manage the affair looks to me like the height of folly.
This is just sad. All the more so because it was predictictable and predicted.
Not quite. Treaties bind private persons with full legal effect, but it’s well established that the executive branch can abide by the terms of a treaty, or refuse to abide by the them, at its discretion. See, for instance the late, lamented AMB treaty.
Yes, at least in this instance, you can take comfort in the fact that, once corrected, you turn out to be even more right than you were when you were wrong. If you know what I mean.
I disagree. Most treaties contain provisions for withdrawal. After withdrawing from a treaty, a state is no longer bound by it, naturally. The US, if I understand correctly, chose not to “reaffirm” the ABM treaty, and after that, it was no longer binding. As we write, Iran is considering withdrawal from the NPT; that’s also a fully “legal” right.
What states can’t do (well, to be technically correct, shouldn’t do), on the other hand, is break a treaty agreement while they’re still a signatory of the treaty. In other words, the US is free to leave the UN; but, until it does so, it is bound by the rule laid down by the Charter.
I mean, treaties would be pretty pointless if they allowed states to follow or not follow them at their own discretion, wouldn’t they?
Having said that, it’s true that the US has had a long and ignoble history of breaking Article 2, most often by invoking Article 51. The US invoked 51 at the UN when it invaded Grenada, for example, claiming it was an act of “self-defense.” Same with Panama. In doing so, they employ an unusually broad interpretation of the Article – one they routinely condemn when other nations employ it, and which few other states, to my knowledge, consider valid. elucidator:
I go to bed, sleep 6 hours, and when I next post, you’re right there again.
Scylla and anyone else continuing to support the war:
If you had the information contained in the Kay’s report a year ago, would you still have supported this particular war? Do you think that evidence is sufficient justification?
This isn’t supposed to be partisan rhetoric (I initially supported the war, but then changed my stance solely due to realpolitik, and have gotten progressively more disgusted with the thing as the reconstruction has played out) but genuine curiosity at how strong of a case this actually would make for us to go to war.
You can “disagree” all you want, Svinlesha, but the law is what the law is. Jimmy Carter’s ditching of our treaty with Taiwan–which resulted in the Supreme Court holding that the termination of treaties is not a matter for the courts to get involved in–is a particularly good example.
I could’ve sworn I saw what Diogenes saw too, but now I think it’s all mixed up with Article I, Section 10, last paragraph of the Constitution, to wit:
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
