U.S. Vows "Revenge"?

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Johnmb
No you haven't, you've created a strwman argument. Coulda, woulda, shoulda, but the fact remains that he didn't.

On the contrary, It is I that have been consistantly looking for you to prove conclusively that the U.S acted illegally and this you haven't done, because it seems to be impossible.
I've never actually started out or proposed that the war was illegal or not, the onus of that is on you or anyone that wants to and that, you have not done.
You keep bringing up the charter allright, but you have not given me any evidence that the US at the time of the invasion could have felt any way other than the way outlined in the proposition i put before you.

What's to judge? The law says you can't attack another country, they attacked another country. They broke the law. The fact that they can't be punished for it doesn't change that.

You continue to be devoid of an answer to a possible defence by Bush, which means you haven't proved the illegality.

The law is not a quagmire, the enforcing agency is. You seem to have problems differentiating the two.

Let me make it clear again, your attempts to prove the illegality are the quagmire as well as the system that is the UNSC.
You cannot prove it in the court of law sense unless you give the US the right to reply ( I am not the U.S ) and secondly from my looking of it, there are ample avenues for the U.S to go down to make their case that they were entitled to do what they did , with the information they held at the time.

Other than that you are merely stating your opinion which you are entitled to as is everyone.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Rock Climber
On the contrary, It is I that have been consistantly looking for you to prove conclusively that the U.S acted illegally and this you haven't done, because it seems to be impossible.
This is getting daft. They attacked the country, without a resolution, and not in self-defence. That is the proof. Read the damn law if you want to continue to debate it.

I've never actually started out or proposed that the war was illegal or not, the onus of that is on you or anyone that wants to and that, you have not done.
Yes we have. Read the law.

You keep bringing up the charter allright, but you have not given me any evidence that the US at the time of the invasion could have felt any way other than the way outlined in the proposition i put before you.
The fact that they never put forward the scenario that you claim, and the fact that they still don't. And as I said, even if they did, that scenario still wouldn't equate to an attack by Iraq.

You continue to be devoid of an answer to a possible defence by Bush, which means you haven't proved the illegality.
What defence? The only excuse you came up with is already ruled out by the charter, and therefore doesn't constitute a defence.

Let me make it clear again, your attempts to prove the illegality are the quagmire as well as the system that is the UNSC.
The law is not a quagmire, as you would know if you bothered your arse actually reading the Charter. The UNSC procedures are a different matter, and are not being discussed on this thread.

You cannot prove it in the court of law sense unless you give the US the right to reply ( I am not the U.S ) and secondly from my looking of it, there are ample avenues for the U.S to go down to make their case that they were entitled to do what they did , with the information they held at the time.
No there isn't. Again, this all comes down to your ignorance of what the Charter says. Ignorance is not a defence.

Other than that you are merely stating your opinion which you are entitled to as is everyone.
No, I'm stating what the UN Charter says about attacking other countries.

bonkey

Originally posted by Johnmb
Read the damn law if you want to continue to debate it
....
No, I'm stating what the UN Charter says about attacking other countries.

But it is the interpretation of law which is significant, not what is written in the law books.

Every nation with a constitution typically also has a "highest court" who acts as the ultimate aribtrator in terms of what a law means in practice. Their job is to take the written word, and then interpret what the intention of that law was.

Falling back on the specific text is meaningless, because you are still applying your own interpretation to it, not one which has been already established as firm precedent.

International Law is no different. You are still applying your interpretation to it, and insisting that yoru argument must be therefore valid...but nowhere have you shown that your interpretation must be the correct one.

Consider - when the law in question was being written, the use of "pre-emptive self-defence" was explicitly omitted, because of its previous use in a vast number of significant wars (not least for Germany's invasion of Belgium in WW1, I believe). However, the UN did not explicitly forbid it either. Now, to you this may seem like a trivial, nit-picking point, but I'm afraid that this is the subtlety of interpretation that all law is based on. If something is neither expressly permitted nor forbidden, then its status is a grey area until there is sufficient precedent to draw a conclusion...and even then the conclusion is only considerable as probably correct, until such times as it is supported by those who are responsible for interpreting the law - which ain't you or me.

Lets take a slightly more clear-cut example.

Could you show me what, in the UN charter, constitutes an attack on another country which is sufficient in nature to merit a defensive military response?

Does an enemy aircraft straying into your airspace constitute an attack? What about 2? 10? 100? And how far into your airspace? 1 metre? 1 km? 100 kms?

Consider every possible scenario, and then check to see where the UN charter defines clearly where the line is drawn in each and every one of these situations.

You can't, because its not there.

Why isn't it there? Because its something that - were the law ever to be used in more than aspirational terms - would be determined on a case-by-case basis, because it is an impossible to draw a line fine enough that you can say "this was an attack, but that wasn't" for two almost-similar cases.

Now, you may consider that this particular law under discussion shouldnt be or isn't determined by precedent and/or interpretation. But that is still just your interpretation.

And thats where all of this started. Until those who are responsible for the interpretation of a law decide that the law was contravened, then we must assume that it wasn't. We can say that its possible it may have been, or that we believe it has, but we cannot say for sure that the law has been broken.

jc

Johnmb

Originally posted by bonkey
Could you show me what, in the UN charter, constitutes an attack on another country which is sufficient in nature to merit a defensive military response?

Does an enemy aircraft straying into your airspace constitute an attack? What about 2? 10? 100? And how far into your airspace? 1 metre? 1 km? 100 kms?
I really don't have to for this particular case, because Iraq didn't attack the US in any way shape or form. Although the Charter does specify an armed attack, so straying aircraft doesn't do the job. Only if they then procede to bomb something would it be an attack. The charter is quite clear, and doesn't really need much interpretation. No body was set up to interpret it, the UNSC has the job of enforcing it. Even the ICJ does not get given the job of interpreting the Charter, it instead gets to make rulings on international law, and is effectively subject to the UNSC.

bonkey

Originally posted by Johnmb
[I really don't have to for this particular case, because Iraq didn't attack the US in any way shape or form.

Thats not what I'm talking about. I never mentioned that Iraq attacked the US. I said it was a more clear-cut example of how rules must be interpreted

See all those bits where I talk about interpreting law??? Thats what I'm talking about.

Although the Charter does specify an armed attack, so straying aircraft doesn't do the job. Only if they then procede to bomb something would it be an attack.

So, if a fleet of Soviet bombers, known to be armed with nuclear-tipped bombs was flying over the US, the US would have no right to consider this an act of war????

There's nothing in the UN Charter which expressly forbids it, so it must be OK? Right?

The charter is quite clear, and doesn't really need much interpretation.

Keyword : Much.

So you're admitting that it requires some interpretation?

And you are still basing your argument on nothing but your interpretation. I've just pointed out cases where the stated rules are far from sufficiently explicit and clear.....

Your response was to offer a judgement, based on a decision which is not contained within the text of the Charter, and yet you have consistently fallen back on "read the damn rule" to try and show other people where the flaw in their argument is.

So I'll say the same to you. Read the damn rule, and tell me where it specifies what constitutes an attack. If it doesn't, then you are deciding what an attack is, seperate to wording in the Charter.

That is no different so someone else deciding what constitutes self-defence, seperate to the wording in the Charter.

No body was set up to interpret it, the UNSC has the job of enforcing it.

And how do they enforce it, if not by deciding that the actions of a nation to be in contradiction of the law according to their interpretation of it???

If the law doesn't specify the finer points - such as what does and does not constitute self-defence, what does and does not constitute an attack on a foreign nation, and so on - then how can a decision be made in the absence of this knowledge?????

It can't. So someone has to interpret the law. That is part of the UNSCs responsibility - its not just about enforcement, but also deciding when a law has or has not been contravened.

jc

Memnoch

Originally posted by bonkey

So, if a fleet of Soviet bombers, known to be armed with nuclear-tipped bombs was flying over the US, the US would have no right to consider this an act of war????

slight difference between the situation you mention and iraq. There was no proof of Iraq possessing WMD or intending to use them against the US.

In your analogy there is clear proof of intent as well as capability. Iraq was not proved to have EITHER of these.

In fact the UN inspectors had unlimited access to Iraq when the coalition of terror attacked.

So really there is no justification..
as to your points about the UN condoning the war that is completely WRONG.

The UN has NEVER condoned the invasion weather tacitly or otherwise. In fact the UN did its best to remain disparate from the situation specifically BECAUSE people would PURPOSEFULLY and KNOWINGLY misinterpret and misrepresent their actions as "support" for the invasion, as you have just done in your post. The UN is willing to help in the rebuilding of Iraq, but it is doing this for the sake of the Iraqi people whose country the US have destroyed, its not doing this because it condones the war.

in fact the majority of the countries in the UN voiced their clear opposition to the invasion.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Rock Climber
On the contrary, It is I that have been consistantly looking for you to prove conclusively that the U.S acted illegally and this you haven't done, because it seems to be impossible.
I've never actually started out or proposed that the war was illegal or not, the onus of that is on you or anyone that wants to and that, you have not done.
You keep bringing up the charter allright, but you have not given me any evidence that the US at the time of the invasion could have felt any way other than the way outlined in the proposition i put before you.

You continue to be devoid of an answer to a possible defence by Bush, which means you haven't proved the illegality.

Let me make it clear again, your attempts to prove the illegality are the quagmire as well as the system that is the UNSC.
You cannot prove it in the court of law sense unless you give the US the right to reply ( I am not the U.S ) and secondly from my looking of it, there are ample avenues for the U.S to go down to make their case that they were entitled to do what they did , with the information they held at the time.

Other than that you are merely stating your opinion which you are entitled to as is everyone.

actually you're mistaken. it is the burdon on the agressor to PROVE the legality of their war. However the US isn't interested in proof, it never was, never will be. They wanted to invade and did so based on their superior military strength. They know that no one can challenge them or make them pay for their crimes, so they make their declarations and that is that. But seeing the events past it is clear that the US lied and presented false "accusations" to the international community and then still went ahead with its ILLEGAL invasion.

bonkey

Originally posted by Memnoch
slight difference between the situation you mention and iraq.

OK - for the second time, I will clarify to someone....I am not trying to draw a parallel with Iraq. I am showing how the argument about simply taking the UN Charter at "face value" is utterly wrong - that it must be open to interpretation.

Nowhere does the UN Charter say that flying planes into an airspace qualifies as an Act of War, nor that it would be sufficient to justify a military response. Nowhere does it clarify the difference between 1 plane, travelling 1 km inside a nation's airspace, and a fleet of bombers on what would appear to be a bombing run deep inside a nation's airspace.

The conclusion we must draw is that the UN Charter, like any other set of rules is subject to interpretation. That is all I am trying to establish, because once that is established, the argument of "but its in the Charter...just read the rules" clearly carries absolutely no weight.

In your analogy there is clear proof of intent as well as capability. Iraq was not proved to have EITHER of these.

I'm not questioning that. I am simply looking that you - or anyone else who insists the occupation is illegal - will admit that the UN Charter must be open to interpretation by force of what I have outlined above. Once you do that, you then need to prove why your interpretation (that the occupation is illegal) is the correct one.

I am simply saying there are other interpretations (whether you like them or not), and there has been nothing offered on this thread to explain why your interpretation must perforce be the correct one.

So really there is no justification..

In hindsight, no, there wasn't. When we didn't have the benefit of hindsight, we couldn't be so certain, even allowing for Hans Blix' and his team's work.

as to your points about the UN condoning the war that is completely WRONG.

I have not once suggested that the UN condones the war. Go back and check. Seriously. Here is the link to the post where I first questioned what was illegal. Go back and check.

I have suggested that the UN supports the occupation. And it does. To a certain degree, it has no option.

If the US were to hand over, the UN would run the occupation, so it can't really say that having an occupying power in Iraq right now is wrong or illegal.

Lets not also forget all the classical responsibilities which fall to the victor in a war - the UN must hold the US to these as well...which leaves an interesting situation. You say the occupation is illegal. Are you aware that leaving Iraq could also be viewed as illegal because it would violate so many requirements of responsibility which the victor in a war is supposed to accept?

as you have just done in your post.

No, I haven't.

I opposed the war, and insist that it was wrong. Not illegal, wrong. There is a distinction. Had the UN sanctioned the war, I would still have insisted it was wrong.

I support the occupation, because once we accept that the war happened, the occupation of Iraq is the best possible realistic remaining option.

I have said that the UN support the occupation. You have interpreted this to mean that the UN supported the war. There is a difference, but I'm guessing that this entire conversation has actually sprung from some people deciding that there isn't such a difference, and that their interpretation of hte situation is the only valid one.

The UN is willing to help in the rebuilding of Iraq, but it is doing this for the sake of the Iraqi people whose country the US have destroyed, its not doing this because it condones the war.

And the US is still in Iraq because it is doing so for the sake of the Iraqi people whose country they have partially destroyed (lets not forget that the Iran/Iraq war also bled the nation dry, and the US don't have sole responsibility there).

Or do you think that post-war Iraq, with uprisings occurring all over teh place would be better off without an occupying power who is trying to build a democratic nation, and instead had a civil war between at least three factions, probably resulting in reducing the nation further into poverty, destitution, and the stone age?

jc

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Memnoch
actually you're mistaken. it is the burdon on the agressor to PROVE the legality of their war.

You mis understand me.
I am referring to what was known then and not what is known now.
Any case that the U.S would put foward would not be related to what we know now.
It's like, if I shot someone dead because they came in threatening to shoot me with what looks like a gun and this is in front of plenty withnesses.
Now my house has been invaded earlier by another who shot real bullets.
When the person is dead on the ground, we discover it's a realistic looking toy gun that the dead man has...
I'll claim self defence and might just get away with it.

I'd agree 100% with what Bonkey said there and that would be roughly where I'm coming from.

Johnmb

Okay Bonkey, you seem to have this thing about interpretation. Have you read the Charter? If not, I suggest you do. Chapter 7 is the one to look for. It goes from Article 39 to 51. For most of it, it says that only the UNSC can legally authorise various things (sanctions, blockades, etc.), including war. They are responsible for interpreting the situation, not the Charter. Article 51 then says that if an actual attack occurs, the attacked country can, either alone or with allies, defend itself without UNSC permission, although it still has to obey the UNSC when they get around to dealing with the situation. It is quite clear. Only if an armed attack occurs can a country react without UNSC permission. It requires no interpretation because it is clearly stated, and besides, to get such an interpretation would take as long, if not longer, as it would take for the UNSC to intervene, so the clause would be completely pointless. The only exception to getting a UNSC resolution to go to war with a country is if you are attacked. Not if you think you may be attacked, not if you hope to be attacked one day, but only if you are actually attacked.

As for your example of the armed armada of planes, they could easily be shot down without invading Russia. Hell, the Russians shot down US spy planes without invading the US. Things like that aren't covered by the Charter, it would be the ICJ that makes rulings on who was right and who was wrong regarding such things, and AFAIK the precedent is that a country can defend its airspace. If the country then wanted to go to war with the owner of the planes, to do it legally that country would need UNSC go-ahead.

It's like, if I shot someone dead because they came in threatening to shoot me with what looks like a gun and this is in front of plenty withnesses.
Now my house has been invaded earlier by another who shot real bullets.
When the person is dead on the ground, we discover it's a realistic looking toy gun that the dead man has...
I'll claim self defence and might just get away with it.


The analogy is slighjtly off. Rather it would be like: I wish to have this persons home. I notify the world that the owner of the house is a crinimal and must be taken away. When nothing is done to remove the owner, I take the law into my own hands for my own purposes, and shoot the owner. Now, the only reason I haven't been arrested myself, is because i have ultimate power. I'm capable of resisting arrest with such force, that the Gardai realise that its just too dangerous to try to arrest me.

Such is the case here. The US & Allies invaded. Took control. Now, nobody is capable of kicking them out. <Shrugs> It doesn't matter if they broke International Law or not. Unless, the Law can enforced, its not worth anything. Its just noises in the air.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Rock Climber
You mis understand me.
I am referring to what was known then and not what is known now.
No you're not. You are saying, well what if the US claimed that this is the evidence they had at the time. But if they claimed that, it would be easy to prove that they were lying. Not based on what is known now, but based on what was known at the time, and what they have already admitted to knowing at the time. Hence, your "what if they only knew..." is a strawman argument.

bonkey

Originally posted by Johnmb
Have you read the Charter?

<sarcasm>
No. I'm making all of this up as I go along.
<sarcasm>
Of course I've read the Charter.

Chapter 7 is the one to look for. It goes from Article 39 to 51.

Yes indeed it does. Lets take the very first one of those articles, and allow me to underline some key points that you've been conveniently ignoring :

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Now, you're the one saying this is all nice and clear-cut and devoid of a need for interpretation. So you explain to me which part of the underlined bit has occurred? When has the UNSC concluded that an act of aggression or breach of the peace occurred???

They are responsible for interpreting the situation, not the Charter.

You need to inerpret both.

Article 51 then says ...

Article 51 outlines a situation which the UN will definitely never consider to be a breach of the peace. Nothing in articles 39 through 51 specify clearly what is a breach of the peace. The only reference to it is article 39 which says that it is something which will be determined by the UNSC - which has not appeared in this case.

It is quite clear. Only if an armed attack occurs can a country react without UNSC permission.

That is not what it says at all. There is no use of the word "only". It says that nothing in the Charter shall undermine this inherent right...not that this is the only situation under which an act of aggression may be accepted by or considered aceptable to the USNC, who's job it is to decide when a breach of the peace occurs.

It requires no interpretation because it is clearly stated,

Thats funny, because I've just shown where your interpretation is based on "clearly stated" information thats not in the article at all. In fact, it is clearly stated that it is the USNC's job to decide when a breach occurred, but you and others are insisting that you don't need the USNC to say that a breach occurred because the rules clearly state what is a breach!!!!

So which is it? Either its clear, or it isn't.

If its clear, then its the USNC's job to declare when something is in breach, and hence the action is not illegal because the USNC have not declared it so.

If its not clear, then my original assertion that the contents of the Charter are (and must be) subject to interpretation is correct. In this case and in the absence of an authoritative decision (by the USNC, again), there is no judgement, and the best you can say is that you believe the action to have been illegal, rather than that it was.

So clear-cut or not, it would appear that until the USNC declare something illegal based on the Charter, then it isn't.

and besides, to get such an interpretation would take as long, if not longer, as it would take for the UNSC to intervene, so the clause would be completely pointless.

Go back and read Article 40.

I swear...for a man who's been chastising others for apparently not reading a set of articles you claim are clear-cut, you seem to be missing an awful lot of what they clearly say.....

As for your example of the armed armada of planes, they could easily be shot down without invading Russia.

Thats not what I asked. I asked if it constituted an act of war. I did not ask whether or not there were other ways of dealing with the situation.

Things like that aren't covered by the Charter

I thought the Charter was clear-cut in terms of what was and was not permissable?

Are you now telling me that it isn't - that certain things aren't covered? And if its not the USNC's job to interpret the Charter in terms of these short-fallings, then who do they turn to to get such an interpretation before they make the decision????

jc

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Johnmb
Originally posted by Rock Climber
You mis understand me.
I am referring to what was known then and not what is known now.
No you're not. You are saying, well what if the US claimed that this is the evidence they had at the time. But if they claimed that, it would be easy to prove that they were lying. Not based on what is known now, but based on what was known at the time, and what they have already admitted to knowing at the time. Hence, your "what if they only knew..." is a strawman argument.

You also mis understand me.
I did say that they haven't presented an argument because, they haven't been asked to and don't have to.
I did say the unsc is an imperfect outfit incapable because of it's structure to give a definitive ruling on what the U.S did.
And laterly I offered a reasoning down which I could see the U.S going even if they had to offer any reasoning.
My Gunman analogy: The house had already been attacked and in walks another person with what looks like a gun, what am I supposed to do?
Bush:They flew planes into the twin towers and now inteligence is telling me that those people will have access to Saddams chemical and biological weapons and I have reason to believe they are planning attacks on U.S targets.

Like being attacked by the second gunman, I didn't know, it was a dummy gun this time, I've been shot at already so what am i supposed to do?
Yes I fire first on that occasion in self defence
Theres no straw in me saying that, and I'm sure if necessary, the U.S could put up a far more weighty argument.

Now in answer to Bonkeys questions you seem to be falling back all along on the UNSC....
Which obviously due to it's imperfect structure is incapable of ruling against the U.S on this issue.
Remember, I'm not in the business of giving my interpretation of the charter here, It is only as valid as your own and might even coincide with yours
I've given my view on the war, and indeed if I was in power, I'd have stepped up internal security, and not gone to war.
That said, you have no conclusive basis whatsoever to judge the U.S actions, bar your own opinion.
It hasn't been judged and that is a fact and also where I am taking issue with you all along and not on the rights or wrongs of the war per say.
Unless of course you believe, that a person[read country] is guilty of law breaking before they have been before the court to present their case, a kangeroo court if you will...
The fact they cannot be put in front of a court or that the UNSC is incapable of forming a definitive judgement is incidental.

Johnmb

Originally posted by bonkey
<sarcasm>
No. I'm making all of this up as I go along.
<sarcasm>
Of course I've read the Charter.
It's hard to tell.

Yes indeed it does. Lets take the very first one of those articles, and allow me to underline some key points that you've been conveniently ignoring :
I haven't been ignoring it. It is quite clear in what it says:
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

It is saying that the UNSC makes the decisions.


Now, you're the one saying this is all nice and clear-cut and devoid of a need for interpretation. So you explain to me which part of the underlined bit has occurred? When has the UNSC concluded that an act of aggression or breach of the peace occurred???
They don't have to. They have to give the go-ahead to the US to invade, and they didn't. By default, the US breached the Charter, they went to war without the approval of the UNSC. There is only one allowance made in the Charter for doing this, and that is Article 51.

You need to inerpret both.
What needs to be interpreted in the Charter? It is very clear, and states that the UNSC is the only body allowed to make such decisions. What has to be interpreted there? It also states that there is only one reason for reacting before the UNSC intervenes.

Article 51 outlines a situation which the UN will definitely never consider to be a breach of the peace. Nothing in articles 39 through 51 specify clearly what is a breach of the peace.
Articles 39 through 50 clearly states that the UNSC is the only body allowed to make such a decision. Article 51 gives the one excemption a country can use to act without UNSC approval.

The only reference to it is article 39 which says that it is something which will be determined by the UNSC - which has not appeared in this case.
The UNSC did not deem Iraq to be in breach of anything worthy of invasion. And the US invaded, without UNSC approval. According to the Charter, any such acts are not allowed, unless they have been approved by the UNSC (which didn't happen) or they are in self-defence after an attack occurs (which is not the case). Therefore, by default, the US has broken the Charter of the UN. The fact that they are above the law doesn't mean that they didn't break it.

That is not what it says at all. There is no use of the word "only". It says that nothing in the Charter shall undermine this inherent right...not that this is the only situation under which an act of aggression may be accepted by or considered aceptable to the USNC, who's job it is to decide when a breach of the peace occurs.
I never said that is what it said. I said that Article 51 is the only reason allowed for acting without the prior approval of the UNSC, I never said it was the only reason allowed for acting. But the fact remains that the UNSC didn't give the US permission to invade, and Article 51 doesn't apply to this case, so the US breached the Charter.

Thats funny, because I've just shown where your interpretation is based on "clearly stated" information thats not in the article at all.
No you haven't. You tried to say that I claimed something else, and that something else isn't in the Charter. I never claimed that Article 51 was the only reason allowed to go to war, I claimed it was the only reason for you to go to war without UNSC approval.

In fact, it is clearly stated that it is the USNC's job to decide when a breach occurred, but you and others are insisting that you don't need the USNC to say that a breach occurred because the rules clearly state what is a breach!!!!
It clearly states that you need their approval. the US didn't get it. Are you saying that if I have diplomatic immunity, and murder you, it is not illegal because I can't be touched? I would have thought that the murder was illegal regardless as to whether I could be punished for it or not.

So which is it? Either its clear, or it isn't.
It is clear, always has been and always will be. That is the point of the Charter. Anything that cannot be stated clearly isn't stated , it is passed on to the UNSC, ICJ, and other such bodies.

If its clear, then its the USNC's job to declare when something is in breach, and hence the action is not illegal because the USNC have not declared it so.
So you are saying that when a country acts outside of the UNSC, and clearly breaches the Charter by attacking another country without a resolution, and not in self defense, it is not illegal once that country is above the law? Cool. So no crime can be committed by anyone with diplomatic immunity, no matter what they did.

If its not clear, then my original assertion that the contents of the Charter are (and must be) subject to interpretation is correct. In this case and in the absence of an authoritative decision (by the USNC, again), there is no judgement, and the best you can say is that you believe the action to have been illegal, rather than that it was.

So clear-cut or not, it would appear that until the USNC declare something illegal based on the Charter, then it isn't.
So, the invasion of a sovereign country isn't illegal if the US, UK, Russia, France, or China do it? They may be above the law, but that doesn't mean they don't break it, it just means they get away with it.

Go back and read Article 40.
Article 40?
"In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures."
That article doesn't effect anything that is stated in Article 51. It is still making clear the the power to make dicision lies with the UNSC.

I swear...for a man who's been chastising others for apparently not reading a set of articles you claim are clear-cut, you seem to be missing an awful lot of what they clearly say.....
I haven't missed what they say. They say the UNSC rules the roost, and unless you are using Article 51, you need their go-ahead to attack someone else.

Thats not what I asked. I asked if it constituted an act of war. I did not ask whether or not there were other ways of dealing with the situation.
Whether or not it constitutes an act of war would be something for the UNSC to decide, what is clear is that unless they actually attacked, they would not satisfy Article 51 as a way around the UNSC.

I thought the Charter was clear-cut in terms of what was and was not permissable?
It is. It is as clear as day. The UNSC calls the shots, and only one allowance is made. Even that allowance is only temporary.

Are you now telling me that it isn't - that certain things aren't covered? And if its not the USNC's job to interpret the Charter in terms of these short-fallings, then who do they turn to to get such an interpretation before they make the decision????
What decision? If not attack actually occured, Article 51 doesn't apply. No attack actually occured. As a result, the only legal way for the US to attack Iraq would have been with UNSC backing. They couldn't get that. They attacked in any case, thus breaching the Charter. The fact that the UNSC cannot do anything about it means they have gotten away with it, but doesn't change the fact that they breached the Charter. Given that the Charter is a legal document, breaching it would be illegal, no?

Johnmb

Originally posted by Rock Climber
You also mis understand me.
I did say that they haven't presented an argument because, they haven't been asked to and don't have to.
Which is not what I commented on.

I did say the unsc is an imperfect outfit incapable because of it's structure to give a definitive ruling on what the U.S did.
Which is not what I commented on.

And laterly I offered a reasoning down which I could see the U.S going even if they had to offer any reasoning.
Which is what I commented on, and pointed out that they could not offer your reasoning, because it was known by them to be false at the time, hence they didn't even try to offer it back then. We know what they were aware of at the time, and pretending that we don't won't change that.

My Gunman analogy: The house had already been attacked and in walks another person with what looks like a gun, what am I supposed to do?
Bush:They flew planes into the twin towers and now inteligence is telling me that those people will have access to Saddams chemical and biological weapons and I have reason to believe they are planning attacks on U.S targets.
Right there you rule out the use of Article 51. You are basing your argument on what might happen in the future. Article 51 requires it to actually happen, otherwise you need UNSC backing.

Like being attacked by the second gunman, I didn't know, it was a dummy gun this time, I've been shot at already so what am i supposed to do?
Iraq didn't attack the US, with a dummy gun or anything else, so your analogy is pointless.

Yes I fire first on that occasion in self defence
Theres no straw in me saying that, and I'm sure if necessary, the U.S could put up a far more weighty argument.
How? When did Iraq attack the US? When did it look like Iraq had attacked the US?

Now in answer to Bonkeys questions you seem to be falling back all along on the UNSC....
Which obviously due to it's imperfect structure is incapable of ruling against the U.S on this issue.
Remember, I'm not in the business of giving my interpretation of the charter here, It is only as valid as your own and might even coincide with yours
I've given my view on the war, and indeed if I was in power, I'd have stepped up internal security, and not gone to war.
But this thread is not about those things. If it was, we'd probably be using the same arguments. I'm not argueing about whether the Charter should be the way it is, I'm just pointing out the way it is.

That said, you have no conclusive basis whatsoever to judge the U.S actions, bar your own opinion.
Well I can use the Charter, which lists two ways to legally go to war, and I can state that the US didn't satisfy either.

It hasn't been judged and that is a fact and also where I am taking issue with you all along and not on the rights or wrongs of the war per say.
Unless of course you believe, that a person[read country] is guilty of law breaking before they have been before the court to present their case, a kangeroo court if you will...
The fact they cannot be put in front of a court or that the UNSC is incapable of forming a definitive judgement is incidental.
In this case, the law is so simple it doesn't require a judge. Generally in cases of murder, etc. the law has to take into account many different conditions to reach a verdict. However, if the law stated that to kill someone was illegal no matter what, then it would be a lot simplier. That is what the UN Charter says. It says that there is only one acceptable reason to go to war without a UNSC mandate. The US can't use that reason, so they need the UNSC mandate. They didn't have that.

I'd seen this ages ago, and went looking for the list. Rock Climber, this is in response to your plea abt Bush and US intelligence and comments abt WMD's.

Chronological list of statements by US officials about Weapons of Mass Destruction

----

The following list was published in The Chicago Tribune on 4 September 2003 in a commentary titled "Utter nonsense: Open mouth, insert foot" by Molly Ivins.

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." --Vice President Dick Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." --President Bush, Sept. 12, 2002

"The Iraqi regime possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons." --Bush, Oct. 7, 2002

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that would be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using the UAVs for missions targeting the United States." --Bush, Oct. 7, 2002

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahedeen'--his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past." --Bush, Oct. 7, 2002

"We know for a fact there are weapons there." --Then-White House spokes-man Ari Fleischer, Jan. 9, 2003

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of Sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." --Bush, Jan. 28, 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." --Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5, 2003

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons--the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." --Bush, Feb. 8, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." --Bush, March 17, 2003

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly." --Fleischer, March 21, 2003

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them." --Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22, 2003

"I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction." --Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board, March 23, 2003

"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." --Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003

"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so." --Bush, May 3, 2003

"I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country." --Rumsfeld, May 4, 2003

"U.S. officials never expected that we were going to open garages and find weapons of mass destruction." --National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, May 12, 2003

"They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer." --Rumsfeld, May 27, 2003

"We based our decisions on good, sound intelligence, and the--our people are going to find out the truth. And the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind." --Bush, July 17, 2003

----

Does this really sound like the US Administration were sure abt WMD's in Iraq, and would in your opinion justify an attack in a court of law?

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Johnmb

Which is what I commented on, and pointed out that they could not offer your reasoning, because it was known by them to be false at the time, hence they didn't even try to offer it back then. We know what they were aware of at the time, and pretending that we don't won't change that.

Can you prove that , Colin Powell was aware when he made his presentation to the UNSC, that it was all based on false inteligence?
If not then my proposed defence stands.
Can you prove that, the U.S administration cannot say that they felt due to the inteligence that they had at the time ( now known by them to be highly suspect but not then) was not pointing them in the direction that there was a risk of an attack by Al Queda agents in Iraq and sponsored by Saddam and/or working on his belf.
You can't
You may be able to say it now with hindsight, but then theres a lot of things that wouldn't be done with hindsight.
The potential defence pertains to the time the actions occurred, and not to what is in the here and now.

Right there you rule out the use of Article 51. You are basing your argument on what might happen in the future. Article 51 requires it to actually happen, otherwise you need UNSC backing.

No I am saying, if you re-read my posts, that this proposition is saying that there already has been an attack ie 9-11 and that Bush could well say that this attack according to the information that they had prior to going to war was with Saddams approval.
Can you prove or have you access to the CIA such that, you can prove otherwise in a court of law?
I don't think so , and therefore , yet again you are putting foward your opinion and your interpretation rather than the outcome of a court or the judgement of the UNSC.

Iraq didn't attack the US, with a dummy gun or anything else, so your analogy is pointless.

The dummy gun is an anology for the non existant WMD's which (according to Bush ) were there based on the inteligence at the time.

In this case, the law is so simple it doesn't require a judge. Generally in cases of murder, etc. the law has to take into account many different conditions to reach a verdict. However, if the law stated that to kill someone was illegal no matter what, then it would be a lot simplier. That is what the UN Charter says. It says that there is only one acceptable reason to go to war without a UNSC mandate. The US can't use that reason, so they need the UNSC mandate. They didn't have that.

Again you are proceding to be your own judge and jury on the matter without the case for the defence being presented or the UNSC ruling on the matter.
Thus you have no grounds to declare the legaility of the action bar your own interpretation of the charter which isn't good enough.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Can you prove that , Colin Powell was aware when he made his presentation to the UNSC, that it was all based on false inteligence?
??? You keep changing things around. Nothing Powell presented said that Iraq had attacked the US, nor did it say that they thought Iraq attacked the US. The rest is irrelevant to Article 51.

If not then my proposed defence stands.
No it doesn't, because they didn't get UNSC clearance, and Article 51 didn't apply.

Can you prove that, the U.S administration cannot say that they felt due to the inteligence that they had at the time ( now known by them to be highly suspect but not then) was not pointing them in the direction that there was a risk of an attack by Al Queda agents in Iraq and sponsored by Saddam and/or working on his belf.
You can't
I don't have to. Article 51 only applies when an attack takes place, otherwise you need to go the UNSC route.

You may be able to say it now with hindsight, but then theres a lot of things that wouldn't be done with hindsight.
The potential defence pertains to the time the actions occurred, and not to what is in the here and now.
What defence? You haven't offered any. They acted without the UNSC approval that was needed, regardless as to whether or not they knew they were lying to the UNSC at the time. If they had gotten approval, and we found out that they were lying to the UNSC, then we'd have a quagmire, but they didn't get the approval.

No I am saying, if you re-read my posts, that this proposition is saying that there already has been an attack ie 9-11 and that Bush could well say that this attack according to the information that they had prior to going to war was with Saddams approval.
No he couldn't, because it was already well known at the time that Iraq had nothing to do with it. At the time, he said he feared a future collaboration, but at no stage in the lead up to the war did he say Iraq was involved in 9-11, nor did he say he thought they were. that was known at the time, not just in hindsight.

Can you prove or have you access to the CIA such that, you can prove otherwise in a court of law?
I don't think so , and therefore , yet again you are putting foward your opinion and your [/I] interpretation[/I] rather than the outcome of a court or the judgement of the UNSC.
The judgement of the UNSC at the time was that there was no grounds for going to war. I'm basing my opinion on that judgement. The only way around the UNSC (and even that would be temporary) was Article 51, which doesn't apply in this case.

The dummy gun is an anology for the non existant WMD's which (according to Bush ) were there based on the inteligence at the time.
But Iraq didn't attack the US with dummy WMD or otherwise, so Article 51 doesn't apply.

Again you are proceding to be your own judge and jury on the matter without the case for the defence being presented or the UNSC ruling on the matter.
Thus you have no grounds to declare the legaility of the action bar your own interpretation of the charter which isn't good enough.
The case was presented to the UNSC, and they decided that it didn't add up, so the US invaded in any case. The Charter says that doing this is not allowed, except in the case of Article 51, which not only doesn't apply, has never been claimed to apply by the US.

Redleslie

Richard Perle agreed that the war was illegal. Link.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Johnmb
You keep changing things around. Nothing Powell presented said that Iraq had attacked the US, nor did it say that they thought Iraq attacked the US.

And you keep ignoring the fact that I am putting foward a possible basis for the U.S saying they were attacked not the actual basis.
If they can show in anofficial forum, (if they had to) that this was the case, then you cannot say (a) that they breached the part of the charter you keep mentioning regarding self defence and 9b) you can't say anything other than your own opinion on the matter as it hasn't been judged , nor has any case for the defence been put foward.

But Iraq didn't attack the US with dummy WMD or otherwise, so Article 51 doesn't apply.

Again can you prove with certainty that they weren't and that they hadn't good reason to believe at the time that another attack was imminent.
You cannot, and indeed again it's just your opinion we are hearing, here without due process or conclusive proof of what was felt then, not to mention any definitive ruling on the matter by the relevant authority.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Rock Climber
And you keep ignoring the fact that I am putting foward a possible basis for the U.S saying they were attacked not the actual basis.
But it is a fictional scenario you are coming up with. Not only have they never claimed to have thought Iraq carried out the attacks, they have acknowledged that Iraq didn't carry out those attacks, and they acknowledged that they knew it at the time of the Iraq invasion.

If they can show in anofficial forum, (if they had to) that this was the case, then you cannot say (a) that they breached the part of the charter you keep mentioning regarding self defence and 9b) you can't say anything other than your own opinion on the matter as it hasn't been judged , nor has any case for the defence been put foward.
I wouldn't have to, because as I said, Article 51 is only a temporary thing, the UNSC still has overall power, and by the time of the Iraq invasion, the UNSC had already deemed war to be inappropriate.

Again can you prove with certainty that they weren't and that they hadn't good reason to believe at the time that another attack was imminent.
I don't have to, as that belief, even if it existed, is not enough under international law to go to war. They would still need UNSC approval, as you have been told countless times on this thread.

You cannot, and indeed again it's just your opinion we are hearing, here without due process or conclusive proof of what was felt then, not to mention any definitive ruling on the matter by the relevant authority.
There was a ruling. The UNSC deemed war not to be an appropriate action at the time, hence the wording of 1441.

bonkey

Originally posted by Johnmb
Its saying that the UNSC makes the decisions.

But your entire argument is based on you making a decision that the UNSC hasn't made, and arguing that your decision is the right one. The Charter is explicit in that it is the UNSCs job to decide when a breach has occurred. They declare when something is illegal, and until they do...it isn't.

They don't have to.

You just quoted the same piece of teh article that I did which states clearly and explicitly that they do.

There is only one allowance made in the Charter for doing this, and that is Article 51.

Incorrect. Article 51 states the one case which can never be ruled as a breach. Article 51 does not in any way state that all other acts cannot be considered legal, given the circumstances that prevailed, nor does any other Article.

What needs to be interpreted in the Charter? It is very clear, and states that the UNSC is the only body allowed to make such decisions.

It also states very clearly - again - that the USNC is the body tasked with deciding when an act of aggression has occurred....which you are still ignoring.

It also states that there is only one reason for reacting before the UNSC intervenes.

.
No,. it doesn't. And here's a challenge. Post up the exact wording of article 51, and then explain how it means that there is only one situation which can ever be considered as a valid reason for an act of aggression. Please. Prove to us all that is as clear-cut as you say, because my understanding of the English language leads me to believe that it doesn't say what you are alleging at all.

Articles 39 through 50 clearly states that the UNSC is the only body allowed to make such a decision.

No, they don't. Article 39 clearly states that the UNSC is the only body allowed to judge whether or not an act is an act of aggression or not - which you continue to ignore - and also that the UNSC is tasked to decide what - if anything - is an appropriate response when they make such a decision.

Articles 40 through 50 then go on to outline the responsibilities of the member nations should a response be called for, what can be done by the UNSC following such a decision, etc. etc. etc. Nothing in there states what constitutes an act of aggression.

Article 51 gives the one excemption a country can use to act without UNSC approval.

No, it doesn.t It gives the one situation which must always be considered an exception - it does not state that no other specific situation can ever be considered an exception on a case-by-case basis.

The UNSC did not deem Iraq to be in breach of anything worthy of invasion.

I'm not talking about that. The UNSC did not judge America to have carried out an act of aggression. They are the only body allowed to make such a judgement, and they have not done so. But you are quite happy to judge them, based on the very same rules that say only the UNSC can make such a judgement.

And the US invaded, without UNSC approval.

I've never questioned that.

According to the Charter, any such acts are not allowed,

Where??????? Show me the exact article that says it. Post it up here. Don't just hand-wave at articles 39 through 51, because not a single one of them clarifies that what the US did must be considered as an act of aggression. Not one.

I said that Article 51 is the only reason allowed for acting without the prior approval of the UNSC, I never said it was the only reason allowed for acting.

Same difference. Article 51 is not the only reason allowed for acting without prior approval. Article 51 outlines the only reason that must always be accepted for acting without prior approval. It does not say anywhere that no other reason will ever be accepted when taken on a case-by-case basis.

You tried to say that I claimed something else,

No, I'm saying that you are mis-interpreting article 51.

Screw it...I can't be bothered waiting for you to refuse to post it up and analyse it, so here's the text :

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Now, look at it. Nowhere does it say that this is the only case where action is permissable without prior approval. It says that this type of action must always be permissable.

If you can't understand the distinction, then claming that the article is clear and not open to interpretation is meaningless.

and that something else isn't in the Charter.

I've never said its in the Charter. I've said that there's nothing in the Charter that says "only actions as covered in Article 51 are permissable without prior approval", nor does Article 51 say it.

It clearly states that you need their approval.

No it doesn't.

it says that the UNSC decide what constitutes an act of aggression, and what should be done about it when they make such a decision.

Do I need to post up the same text that both of us have supplied again to show you that again????

Come on - you're claiming that people don't know the articles...so start including the specific text from them that backs up your points. I'm managing to do that disagreeing with you, and you believe you are right, so surely it couldn't be a problem?

That is the point of the Charter. Anything that cannot be stated clearly isn't stated , it is passed on to the UNSC, ICJ, and other such bodies.

And nothing in the Charter states what an Act of Aggression is. Nothing. Not article 51 (already posted above). Not article 39 (already posted previously). Not any of the other intervening articles. None of them.

If I'm wrong, then just post up text of the article that makes it clear. Go on...it can't be hard.....its all clearly stated, or so you say.

...it is not illegal once that country is above the law?

.
Well, thats pretty much the conclusion one would have to draw, yes. The UNSC, since its inception, has made itself incapable of finding its permanent members guilty of any wrongdoing that htey object to being found guilty to. It was an unfortunate - the probably necessary - compromise which was undertaken in order to get them to sign on board in the first place.

So no crime can be committed by anyone with diplomatic immunity, no matter what they did.

Innocent until proven guilty, added to an inability to prosecute means that you are indeed correct - technically no crime can be comitted by anyone with diplomatic immunity.

Its a screwy situation, but you're bang on.

Go back and read Article 40.
Article 40?
"In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures."
That article doesn't effect anything that is stated in Article 51.

Did you even read the quote of your own that I was responding to? Here it is again...and you'll note that Article 51 isn't mentioned anywhere in it.

nd besides, to get such an interpretation would take as long, if not longer, as it would take for the UNSC to intervene, so the clause would be completely pointless.

I simply pointed out that the clearly written articles that you claim to know (and allege that I don't appear to know) already cater for this problem. Article 40 covers that situation exactly - that the UNSC can take actions to alleviate a situation even before they have concluded whether or not the situation was an Act of Aggression or not.

I haven't missed what they say. They say the UNSC rules the roost, and unless you are using Article 51, you need their go-ahead to attack someone else.

PLease, please please....I grow tired of asking....please show me where the italicised point is contained within the articles. Its not in 39. Its not in 51. Its not in 40 through 50. Its not anywhere else in the Charter that I can find.

Now...you say you know the Charter and I don't, so won't you please please educate me and show me where it says this.

Whether or not it constitutes an act of war would be something for the UNSC to decide, what is clear is that unless they actually attacked, they would not satisfy Article 51 as a way around the UNSC.

Yes. So The Americans cannot use Article 51. I've never suggested otherwise. What I've said is that there is nothing which says Article 51 is the only way around the UNSC. If there is, show it to me.

jc

chewy

The death toll for coalition forces in the last two days of fighting stood at 34, including 12 Marines who died Tuesday in Ramadi. Ten of those Marines were from a single company.

Johnmb

Originally posted by bonkey

Look, Bonkey, whether you like it of not, Articles 39 to 50 make it clear that the UNSC is the only body allowed to take action such as military action against another country. Article 51 provides only one exception, which doesn't apply to the US. The US went to war without the approval of the UNSC, despite the Charter making it clear that they are the only body allowed to make those decisions. What do you call it? If an act goes against the rules imposed in a legal document, I call it illegal.

bonkey

Originally posted by Johnmb
Look, Bonkey, whether you like it of not, Articles 39 to 50 make it clear that the UNSC is the only body allowed to take action such as military action against another country.

You keep saying this, but you've singularly failed to provide the art5icles (or pieces of Articles) that actually state this....and you claim it states everything clearly.

Article 51 provides only one exception, which doesn't apply to the US.

Yes, it provides only one exception. It does not state it is the only exception that can ever be made as you allege...and I've even supplied the text to support that.

The US went to war without the approval of the UNSC, despite the Charter making it clear that they are the only body allowed to make those decisions.

The Charter does not make it clear. Show me where. There must be a key sentence somewhere which says "no action is allowable without..." or "any action taken without..." or something like that to back up yoru assertion. I've searched, and the more I look, the less it looks like its there, and that you are simply interpreting the charter to suit yoru argument.

What do you call it? If an act goes against the rules imposed in a legal document, I call it illegal.

If it went against the rules, I would call it illegal as well. The problem is that you haven't shown that it goes agains the rules. You keep saying that it does, and that the rules are clear, but you cannot show the text of the rule that is being violated.

Three articles have been quoted between you and I - 39, 40, and 51. Neither 39 nor 51 say quite what you have been claiming they do, and you you still assert they are clear, and that they something other than what is clearly written in them.

YOu can insist that you're still right...but to be quite honest...I've supplied the text of the Articles which back my arguments, and you haven't....so I'm beginning to think that you're simply making noise.

jc

Lemming

my two cents

johnmb, learn to use 'quotes'. I stopped reading this thread at page 7 because it's too hard to read your posts.

pleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseeeeeeeeeee use the 'quote' feature when quoating others comments.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Lemming
my two cents

johnmb, learn to use 'quotes'. I stopped reading this thread at page 7 because it's too hard to read your posts.

pleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseeeeeeeeeee use the 'quote' feature when quoating others comments.

I would if I was quoting from more than one person, as it is, I have only quoted from one person in each post (up to now), so I have only made the quotes bold, to save room and time.

Originally posted by Bonkey
The Charter does not make it clear. Show me where. There must be a key sentence somewhere which says "no action is allowable without..." or "any action taken without..." or something like that to back up yoru assertion. I've searched, and the more I look, the less it looks like its there, and that you are simply interpreting the charter to suit yoru argument

Well, I'g go with Article 2, which pretty much states all members should refrain from war. Then, Chapter 7 allows the UNSC to engage in war. So we have a "no war, except for..." situation. The only "except for..." is with the approval of the UNSC (or a temporary action if you are attacked). Section 4 has been quoted on a different thread, it says:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

That seems pretty straight forward to me. Where can you find anything remotely confusing about it?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Johnmb

Originally posted by daveirl
Sorry to jump back two pages but I just want to continue this strand.

Now John, I said that the UN currently supports the status quo since it voted for it last Decemeber. Now you said the UN wants more changes, now how is that possible, surely you mean certain member states of the UN want changes, If the UN as a whole wanted changes then they would happen, it's only when there is disagreement change doesn't occur.

I'm working from what the Secretary General, and most of the main players have publically said they wanted. They couldn't get it from the US, so they settled, but they have said that things still aren't good enough. Ideally they want the UN running things. What difference that would actually make on the ground, I don't know.

And since you believe that the war was illegal since it contravened the UN charter, or resolution 1441 or whatever, is it not fair to say that since the US wanted changes to these that it couldn't have been illegal since it's open to interpretation.

Sorry, I don't get you. Wanting changes doesn't matter, it is what is there that matters. For example, even though the UN wants changes, the occupation is not illegal any more because a resolution was passed.

You see where I'm going? You say that the December 2003 resoltion isn't valid because some member states disagree with it, but since the US disagrees with some parts of 1441 and the charter does this not invalidate those documents in your eyes?

No, I'm saying that the UN making the most of what it considers a bad situation does not equate to the UN supporting what the US has done, that is all I have said on that particular point. The legal issues where a different point, and related to the actual invasion, and initial occupation, not the current situation.