I think the flag has been dropped on another Bush bashing free for all. The term Bushivik seems to be the red flag dropped to begin the carnage.
Before the rants get well underway, I would like to possibly sneak in a question to elucidator. You say that the actions of the president were illegal, but that using the "Nixon Principle, “when the President does it, its not illegal.” " that Bush is immune or something. This seems to fly in the face of reality, though. I mean, wasn’t Nixon himself impeached?? If what Bush did was illegal why WOULDN’T he be taken to task for it? Are you saying he’s king or something? God almighty? Isn’t he just the president, answerable to Congress and the Senate on this? Could you list out your real reasons why this would be so?
Oh well, any rational discussion on this is probably gone now. I suppose let the ranting begin…
You’re right!! I’m simply too gullable. I should have seen that the Democratic party is simply too cowed to do anything to a clearly illegal action. I mean, not like THEY would raise a hell of a stink if Bush did something demonstratably illegal. Not like it would be in their best interest or anything…
I keep forgetting that Bush has all the Powers of Darkness at his command, as well as being all powerful. He can control both the Democrats AND the Republicans, as well as the forces of nature. Oh, and he hates puppies and children.
Sorry…I forgot all that. Thanks for setting me straight…I hate it when I simply believe anything.
What I think we’ve established here is that the US as a whole waged an illegal war, assuming you think it was illegal, not just the President. Congress did approve it, and not just for one reason. If you’ll read the Congressional resolution, most of the reasons given are still valid.
You DO realize that international treaties are RATIFIED, and as such become national law?
And no, self-defense isn’t in the eye of the beholder. Try stabbing a man on the street and see if the court buys you were just defending yourself. The principle of a clear and present danger is practically universally accepted. It is precisely that principle that Bush wants to undermine with his preemptive doctrine.
To some degree, I suppose. If the UN Treaty were in force before 1945, and we had caught the Japanese fleet steaming towards Pearl Harbor with no good reason to be there…a pre-emptive attack would have been entirely justified, due to an imminent threat. Is it your contention that Iraq posed just such an imminent threat? If such is your case, please make it. Good luck.
**
Succinctly stated, and blazingly obvious. My case for judging the war illegal has been stated (see above). Were it entirely a product of my fevered imagination, it would have no particular relevence. It is not, of course, and I suspect you are well aware of that. Have you some subtle point that has eluded me?
**
International treaties have the force of law, according to our Constitution. Individual citizens are enjoined to respect such treaties. Neither the President nor I have any dispensation to act otherwise. You and I both know that no one will be tried for this, and what of it? Again, perhaps your point is too subtle for me.
As to your last sentence, again, your point eludes me, and I have little patience with rhetorical snipe hunts. One of the DC Snipers has not been tried. I think he’s probably guilty, there being a massive preponderance of evidence. I also strongly suspect that the US invaded Iraq. Exhibit A, the First Airborne Division. You are, of course, welcome to rebut.
Thanks for the cite. It was very interesting. However, I have to point out that we don’t know on what basis Perle is making that statement either. Would you believe him (and cite him) if he simply said the opposite? Why not?
I don’t want Perles opinion. I don’t want any of YOUR opinions on whats been violated either, unless you happen to be part whatever internation institution actually looks into such things (UN security counsel?).
If the US/British actions were illegal, then I would like to see that shown by the body that DECIDES that it was illegal. Its not illegal if no actual body calls them on it, SAYING its illegal. Are other nations boycotting the US/UK? Are there plans for embargo or sanctions? Is the security counsel fighting this issue out about the illegality? Are they split on the issue because the US and UK are on the counsel? Are the other members in agreement that it WAS in fact illegal?
I’m all for internation treaties. If the US’s actions were illegal, they I would think it would be fairly easy to prove they were so…because SOME action would be being taken against them by the internation community. Wouldn’t it?? And if they aren’t…well, what does this say for legality among nations?
My bolding. You hit the nail on the head. For something to be illegal there must be a court to determine that-- not your opinion or my opinion. When Bush is convicted in a court of law of illegal activities, I’ll agree that he did something illegal.
Would you claim that someone accused of murder had done something illegal before he was tried in a court of law? I don’t see the difference, except that in the case of Bush, there is no court, other than the impeachment process.
Precisely. And the impeachment process is dominated by the very people who cheered “Hooray, we’re going to war”.
So you say that just because the judges are complicit in the act but refuse to recuse themselves, everything is fine?
The only thing this illustrates is precisely why an international criminal court is a good thing.
As an aside, I’ll stop saying this war was illegal when Bush supporters stop claiming Clinton committed perjury.
You are mistaken. There is such a thing. The US just doesn’t recognize it.
You are wrong on all accounts. Clinton never was convicted of perjury. The start of the impeachment process is NOT a conviction. It is equivalent to an indictment. The impeachment process has very distinct stages, and Clinton’s didn’t result in punitive measures being taken, i.e. no conviction.
Clinton wasn’t convicted of anything…and no, impeachement is not the equivalent of a conviction or anything close to it. That’s like saying a criminal trial is the same as a conviction.
I say the war is illegal because it violates both US and international law. The fact that the UN has no ability to enforce international law against the US does not invalidate the law itself. The POTUS will not be impeached or held responsible for violating a ratified treaty because the body which would judge him, congress, is just as culpable as he is.
Bush staged a non-defensive invasion of another sovereign nation. When Iraq did that we had no problem calling it illegal and calling Saddam a criminal. There is no legal difference between the US invasion of Iraq or Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.
But we’re talking about US actions, so the existence of this court is irrelavent.
Sorry, but it’s you who are wrong. The impeachment process is like the trial phase, and the removal from office is like the sentencing phase. According to your argument, a person convicted of a crime, but not sentenced to prison, has not committed the crime. And, in actual fact, Clinton waspunished with disbarment for the very actions we are talking about.
John Mace–are you really misunderstanding impeachment this much? Yes, removal from office is the punishment, but only upon being convicted by 2/3s of the senate. Clinton wasn’t. The outcome of the impeachment was the equivalent of either an acquittal or a hung jury in a standard criminal case, depending on how you want to characterize it. OliverH is saying that Clinton is not a perjuror because he was never convicted, not because he was never sentenced.
So in other words (and as far as the actual OP goes, discounting the whole Clinton thing)…this all boils down to a matter of opinion. Several posters FEEL that the US’s actions were illegal, several FEEL that they weren’t…but there is absolutely nothing difinitive SHOWING that the actions were either. Does that summarize this debate completely? So, when its bandied about later in other threads by this poster that the war was illegal, or by that one that it wasn’t, its really just their opinion about the thing, as there is actually no factual basis here at all…either way.
Ok…glad we straightened that all out. BTW, if I’m wrong here and someone actually DOES have something factual to put forth (I’ve searched google btw, and found nothing difinitive myself), by all means bring that puppy out. Anything else (i.e. This posters or that posters interpretaton of the UN charter, Perles unsubstantiated views, etc) is pure speculation driven by one agenda or the other IMO.
Xtisme, the law is what people feel, codified. If I bop you on the head and am convicted of assault, it’s because a jury felt that I was guilty of assault. But, if my lawyer was more expensive that yours and I wasn’t convicted, I still would have bopped you on the head. Capice?
As I said originally, the impeachment process is not equivalent to a judicial process. Even if BC had been removed from office, one could argue that he hadn’t been convicted of perjury. He’d have to be tried in a actual court of law, which he wasn’t.
So, can you explain again what process has been used to determine the the Iraq war was illegal? I can just as easily say that what BC did was “clearly” perjury, and so he is is perjurer. You cannot claim that one is guilty, but not the other, when in fact neither has been found guilty.
BTW, if I’m wrong here and someone actually DOES have something factual to put forth (I’ve searched google btw, and found nothing difinitive myself), by all means bring that puppy out. Anything else (i.e. This posters or that posters interpretaton of the UN charter, Perles unsubstantiated views, etc) is pure speculation driven by one agenda or the other IMO.