U.S. Vows "Revenge"?

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Johnmb
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.


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?

So you have moved back to an earlier section of the charter when confronted with problems in your argument specifically using chapter 7...
Interesting that you should use such a tack, as it suggests that,you approach the discussion with your mind made up.
If one section doesn't adequately support your argument when the flaws are pointed out to you ( the flaws being the lack of certainty, plus the lack of either a definitive judgement by the UNSC or an ability to always give one, and the openess to interpretation of the charter )... you will attempt to fall back on another one to justify your opinion...and it is just an opinion, its not a legally binding judgement.
Even the line that you have quoted above is open to interpretation... " inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
So we still find nothing definitive or final there without the judgement of the relevant authority ie the UNSC and it hasn't made a judgement and can't.

Memnoch

I didn't realise this was a court of law where people are looking for legal loopholes to justify murder...

lets not forget a few basic facts of the situation...

1) America's attack is aggressive, and NOT in self-defence (despite their claims to the contrary)
2) The people to suffer as a result are the Iraqi's along with a very small number of american troops in comparison
3) The invasion was motivated by greed and personal gain, and propaganda
4) By any judge of human standard this war is wrong, it is amoral, unjust, unfair, and worthy of contempt. As are the american's for waging this travesty...

that in my view is enough to make it illegal.

Remember.... it was considered "legal" for people to own slaves, and this wasn't even a "legal" loophole.

MeatProduct

Agreed. The US are the agressors. They are clearly morally worng and I believe they are legally wrong also.

Nick

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Memnoch
I didn't realise this was a court of law where people are looking for legal loopholes to justify murder...

Where did I ever try to justify, that war or say that I agreed with it?
You can have a view on whether something is illegal or not , but that isn't a determination of somethings legality.
Only the authority vested with such powers in this case can provide a judgement of any legal standing and it hasn't and can't.
Stating legality as an opinion is fine here , but stating it as fact is not because it hasn't be judged definitively by the relevant authority.

Other than that, everybody can have their own interpretation on it and thats all,but it doesn't actually make it illegal untill that has been determined, nothing is clear cut.
Thats the fact of the matter, like it or lump it, it's the way the world order has been designed.
Indeed as you probably know, since nato's action in Kosova it's lead to plenty speculation as to ways to get around the inadequacies of the UNSC.

Sand

Remember.... it was considered "legal" for people to own slaves, and this wasn't even a "legal" loophole.

It wasnt "legal" . It was legal full stop. It was perfectly above board to buy and sell human beings and to treat them as property rather than people. A slave owner was a perfectly law abiding pillar of society. It creates a problem for people looking back to see how many people who we view as enlightened owned and profited from slavery. The thing is, they werent law breakers, they werent crinimals - they simply obeyed the law and customs as they stood.

It was considered illegal for people to liberate those slaves. Actually wasnt even considered - it was illegal. It was illegal to do the right thing. People who did the right thing were crinimals, law breakers, dangerous malcontents.

The law is no substitute for doing morals and it should never stand in the way of doing the right thing. Obeying the laws and customs as they currently stands doesnt mean history will judge you as kindly as your colleagues might. And the "crinimals" and "law breakers" of the current era may be seen as far more progressive in times to come.

Villain

Originally posted by Memnoch

lets not forget a few basic facts of the situation...

1) America's attack is aggressive, and NOT in self-defence (despite their claims to the contrary)
2) The people to suffer as a result are the Iraqi's along with a very small number of american troops in comparison
3) The invasion was motivated by greed and personal gain, and propaganda
4) By any judge of human standard this war is wrong, it is amoral, unjust, unfair, and worthy of contempt. As are the american's for waging this travesty...

that in my view is enough to make it illegal.

I have to say I agree with you 100%.

Now I know you can argue the legal in's and out's till the cows come home, but Iraq did not attack the US, the weapons inspectors were unable to find anything that signalled it was going to attack, no WMD were found, the US had no reason to invade Iraq.

The Iraqi's are been killed in huge numbers now, 450 reported dead today at 1 stage.

Can the US justify that?

Memnoch

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Where did I ever try to justify, that war or say that I agreed with it?
You can have a view on whether something is illegal or not , but that isn't a determination of somethings legality.
Only the authority vested with such powers in this case can provide a judgement of any legal standing and it hasn't and can't.
Stating legality as an opinion is fine here , but stating it as fact is not because it hasn't be judged definitively by the relevant authority.

Other than that, everybody can have their own interpretation on it and thats all,but it doesn't actually make it illegal untill that has been determined, nothing is clear cut.
Thats the fact of the matter, like it or lump it, it's the way the world order has been designed.
Indeed as you probably know, since nato's action in Kosova it's lead to plenty speculation as to ways to get around the inadequacies of the UNSC.

ah but you fail to see the propaganda value of the world legal... people say to the american administration, the war is wrong, the reply, it isn't illegal. What you fail to realise is that MOST ppl, ESPECIALLY american's equate the word "legal" with justified and illegal with "unjustifiable", whatever the definitions may be, and they interpret all statements in THIS context. Now the american administration, or any political body usually, when thye talk of "legal" and "illegal" they are talking about a specific interpretation of the law that then suits their purpose, there is a large discrepancy between the publics view of "legality" vs that of lawmakers and those in power, hence its important to convey the message to the public of the morality of the war through expressing an opinion about its illegality, based on a basic code of humanitarian conduct.

Its like Rice's testimony to the 9/11 panel... "I have no recollection.." is not the same as "it didn't happen". It probably did happen, but she can say legally she didn't lie as she just didn't remember it, sure didn't bertie do the same recently?

Memnoch

Originally posted by Sand
It wasnt "legal" . It was legal full stop. It was perfectly above board to buy and sell human beings and to treat them as property rather than people. A slave owner was a perfectly law abiding pillar of society. It creates a problem for people looking back to see how many people who we view as enlightened owned and profited from slavery. The thing is, they werent law breakers, they werent crinimals - they simply obeyed the law and customs as they stood.

It was considered illegal for people to liberate those slaves. Actually wasnt even considered - it was illegal. It was illegal to do the right thing. People who did the right thing were crinimals, law breakers, dangerous malcontents.

The law is no substitute for doing morals and it should never stand in the way of doing the right thing. Obeying the laws and customs as they currently stands doesnt mean history will judge you as kindly as your colleagues might. And the "crinimals" and "law breakers" of the current era may be seen as far more progressive in times to come.

I actually agree with your post (for once). The American invasion of Iraq is one example of this, where the powers that be stand idly by and the aggressors declare themselves the champions of freedom and humanity. I believe history will not look back favorably on this war, though I'm sure the American's will do their damndest to make sure it does.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Rock Climber
So you have moved back to an earlier section of the charter when confronted with problems in your argument specifically using chapter 7...
Interesting that you should use such a tack, as it suggests that,you approach the discussion with your mind made up.
If one section doesn't adequately support your argument when the flaws are pointed out to you ( the flaws being the lack of certainty, plus the lack of either a definitive judgement by the UNSC or an ability to always give one, and the openess to interpretation of the charter )... you will attempt to fall back on another one to justify your opinion...and it is just an opinion, its not a legally binding judgement.
Even the line that you have quoted above is open to interpretation... " inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
So we still find nothing definitive or final there without the judgement of the relevant authority ie the UNSC and it hasn't made a judgement and can't.

I was, up until this, discussing whether or not the US satisfied the conditions for war. That means chapter 7. It never occured to me that someone who claims to have read the charter who not realise that war is pretty much banned by it. Since it became clear that he was not aware of this, and that he was not aware that chapter 7 listed exceptions, I gave him the relevant parts. Article 2 doesn't discuss the exceptions, so there was no need to discuss it previously regarding the invasion. As for your continued claim that there was no judgement from the UNSC, there was. They judged that there was no justification for war. Is your memory short, or selective? Or did you just not bother to research the topic before making your claims?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

halkar

Originally posted by daveirl
When they aren't civilians and are people hell bent on killing as many Americans as possible, yes.

Not all of those 450 are hell bent as you might thing. If someone invades your country, what will you do? Stay at home and wait for them to go?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

halkar

I don't think its misleading and I fear civilian casualities are probably more than that. You also hear if militia men or insurgents or terrorists (depends on where you hear your news from) killed in action.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Johnmb
They judged that there was no justification for war. Is your memory short, or selective? Or did you just not bother to research the topic before making your claims?

Where did they say that exactly, their last wording on the issue prior to the war was "serious consequences", there was no judgement or decision on war, either for or against.

Article 2 doesn't discuss the exceptions, so there was no need to discuss it previously regarding the invasion.

It's handy that a few pages on, you forget Bonkeys question again regarding article 51.... to suit your argument... let me remind you again...

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.

In other words, your interpretation alone isn't good enough, we need the interpretation of the UNSC to declare it illegal.

Memnoch

Originally posted by daveirl
I'm not saying that, I'm just saying that telling us that 450 civilians have been killed is very misleading, when most of them are armed resistance.

says who???

the US military?

your willingness to blindly believe everything they say shows a definite bias in your attitude

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by daveirl
I'm not saying that, I'm just saying that telling us that 450 civilians have been killed is very misleading, when most of them are armed resistance.

Most of them? Civilians tend not to shoot at other people, armed fighters do. I'd imagine as the claims are not "450 fighters killed" it would tend to imply something else.

Take a look here; http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage
Then click on the link on the right (seems to work in IE not Firefox):

Aljazeera exclusive in pictures:
Falluja siege

This goes for anyone aswell who thinks that the US is justified in it's "revenge" for the deaths of the 4 mercenaries, sorry civilian contracters.

Interesting too, from this story, apparently:

Aljazeera, meanwhile, has learnt that during negotiations to end the military offensive, US forces imposed many conditions including getting Aljazeera crew out of the town.

I wonder why.

NOTE: There's graphic pictures on their site, just in case anyone is sensitive to that sort of thing.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Where did they say that exactly, their last wording on the issue prior to the war was "serious consequences", there was no judgement or decision on war, either for or against.

Neatly forgetting everything that happened afterwards, aren't you. Back when even the UK admitted they needed a second resolution to authorise war, and the UNSC deemed that war was unjustified, thus the draft resolution was withdrawn.

It's handy that a few pages on, you forget Bonkeys question again regarding article 51.... to suit your argument... let me remind you again...
In other words, your interpretation alone isn't good enough, we need the interpretation of the UNSC to declare it illegal.

We don't need the UNSC to declare that war is illegal, it says so in the charter. If you sign up, you must refrain from war, except under two conditions, neither of which were fulfilled. And the condition under Article 51, even if if had been fulfilled, was no longer valid by the time of the invasion.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Johnmb
Neatly forgetting everything that happened afterwards, aren't you. Back when even the UK admitted they needed a second resolution to authorise war, and the UNSC deemed that war was unjustified, thus the draft resolution was withdrawn.

Again you are interpreting events here which is fine, but I must ask you where is the specific resolution that says the U.S /Coalition war with Iraq is illegal...
After all article 39 says the UNSC shall determine this and have they?
This is what Bonkey asked you about earlier and you have no answer...because,its clear the only determination of an illegal act can come from the UNSC and there hasn't been any such determination.

We don't need the UNSC to declare that war is illegal, it says so in the charter. If you sign up, you must refrain from war, except under two conditions, neither of which were fulfilled. And the condition under Article 51, even if if had been fulfilled, was no longer valid by the time of the invasion.

Again you are repeating here something you were challenged earlier on..
The word except is not used in article 51, so that can be interpreted as an example and not as an exception
That article allows an attack in self defence, but it does not say that this is the only exception.
Indeed if you go to the link regarding Kosova, that I provided you with earlier, you will see that the NATO actions there did not fulfill your strict criteria for war either, it did not equate to any example given in the charter, and yet there was no resolution either to declare it illegal.
The UNSC according to article 39 and only them must determine any breach of the peace or act of agression
Only their interpretation counts and they haven't given it.
You are giving yours, which is fine but that is only an opinion , it has no legal standing whatsoever untill the UNSC agree's with you.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Again you are interpreting events here which is fine, but I must ask you where is the specific resolution that says the U.S /Coalition war with Iraq is illegal...
After all article 39 says the UNSC shall determine this and have they?
This is what Bonkey asked you about earlier and you have no answer...because,its clear the only determination of an illegal act can come from the UNSC and there hasn't been any such determination.

Does article 2, or does it not, say that members must refrain from war? Chapter 7 gives the UNSC authority to go to war despite article 2, but nobody has ever been able to show where they have done that in this case.

Again you are repeating here something you were challenged earlier on..
The word except is not used in article 51, so that can be interpreted as an example and not as an exception

Article 51 states that if you are attacked you don't have to wait for permission from the UNSC to retaliate. It also makes clear that once the UNSC do make a decision, you must adhere to that decision.

That article allows an attack in self defence, but it does not say that this is the only exception.

It wouldn't would it, considering the previous several articles have already made clear that the UNSC can override article 2 whenever they feel it necessary. The only reason article 51 has been discussed is because the UNSC never authorised the war, but as has been pointed out repeatedly, article 51 doesn't serve the purpose either in this case.

Indeed if you go to the link regarding Kosova, that I provided you with earlier, you will see that the NATO actions there did not fulfill your strict criteria for war either, it did not equate to any example given in the charter, and yet there was no resolution either to declare it illegal.

If there was no resolution authorising it, then it too would have been illegal. Actually, even if there was a resolution authorising it, the resolution would most likely be invalid. That was one of the reasons why every bombing mission there had to be authorised by lawyers, as was reported at the time. They were on very shakey legal ground, that's why NATO moved in, and not the UN. The reason they went ahead was because they knew the UNSC wouldn't intervene, not because the UNSC athorised them to.

The UNSC according to article 39 and only them must determine any breach of the peace or act of agression
Only their interpretation counts and they haven't given it.
You are giving yours, which is fine but that is only an opinion , it has no legal standing whatsoever untill the UNSC agree's with you.

Well, many legal people would disagree with you, they seem to think that the ICC can prosecute, without the UNSC having to make any declaration. Plus, just because the UNSC doesn't point out that a rule has been broken doesn't mean that the rule wasn't broken. Was Article 2 broken or not?

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Johnmb
Does article 2, or does it not, say that members must refrain from war?

Yes it does
But article 39 says only the UNSC shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression
Show me where the UNSC has determined that this has occurred and then and only then can I or You be definitive regarding the illegality of the coalitions actions.

In other words have they given a determination as to the contravention of the charter?
They haven't and therefore, one cannot say that one has occurred definitively as the charter provides for the UNSC to give a ruling on the matter and it has not done so.
In Theory as well as in practice a determination, ie a definitive interpretation has to be given on the illegality comprising a case put for and against at the UNSC.
Without that, Illegality however well informed, is still just an opinion and not a fact.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Yes it does
But article 39 says only the UNSC shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression
Show me where the UNSC has determined that this has occurred and then and only then can I or You be definitive regarding the illegality of the coalitions actions.

In other words have they given a determination as to the contravention of the charter?
They haven't and therefore, one cannot say that one has occurred definitively as the charter provides for the UNSC to give a ruling on the matter and it has not done so.
In Theory as well as in practice a determination, ie a definitive interpretation has to be given on the illegality comprising a case put for and against at the UNSC.
Without that, Illegality however well informed, is still just an opinion and not a fact.

Well if that's the way you think things work, then there's nothing I can do for you. Just a word of warning for you though, if you break the law, a judge will not be required to declare that you did an illegal act, he/she will only be determining whether or not you had just cause, and decide the penalty accordingly. (If you claim it wasn't you, a jury will have to decide whether or not it was, but in this case it is a no-brainer that the US did invade Iraq). It is the same in international law. The US breached the charter. That is fact, it is written in black and white that members must not use force against each other and the US used force against Iraq. The UNSC would simply have to determine whether of not the US was justified in doing so, if the US was not above the law. The UNSC ruling would not change the fact that the act was illegal, only changing the charter could do that. The opinion part comes into the "justification" question, not the question as to whether invading a country without prior UNSC permission is illegal.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Johnmb
The US breached the charter. That is fact, it is written in black and white that members must not use force against each other and the US used force against Iraq.

It is also written in black and white that the UNSC and only them must determine that this was done in breach of the charter, they have to determine whether it was an act of agression, they are in charge of the definition of the breach if it occured and they haven't defined it.
Without that, theres no fact at all in relation to a breach of the charter, only evidence for and against, the same as in a court prior to judgement.
We all know what the coalition did, and we all have a view on it , my own was given pages back, I'd have left sitting dogs lie in Iraq and concentrated on the causes and preventions of terrorism.

That said,I'd like to see due process in the matter before I go around saying something illegal has been done.
I might interpret it as illegal, or otherwise hold that opinion, but that is all that it is, untill there is a definitive judgement from the relevant authority, the UNSC.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Rock Climber
It is also written in black and white that the UNSC and only them must determine that this was done in breach of the charter, they have to determine whether it was an act of agression, they are in charge of the definition of the breach if it occured and they haven't defined it.
Without that, theres no fact at all in relation to a breach of the charter, only evidence for and against, the same as in a court prior to judgement.
We all know what the coalition did, and we all have a view on it , my own was given pages back, I'd have left sitting dogs lie in Iraq and concentrated on the causes and preventions of terrorism.

That said,I'd like to see due process in the matter before I go around saying something illegal has been done.
I might interpret it as illegal, or otherwise hold that opinion, but that is all that it is, untill there is a definitive judgement from the relevant authority, the UNSC.

seems to me that johnb is right. the US used force to invade Iraq when it was not under attack from iraq. There is no ambiguity in that fact. and according to the charter, THAT is illegal. As john has pointed out... the UNSC doesn't come in until LATER.

halkar

Makes me remember when Saddam invaded Kuwait and some of the reasons were that, it was theirs and wanted their oil At least he told the truth to the world unlike US administration whom are still can't make their minds up on what bulls!!t they will come up with next. As said in Braveheart movie "They can't agree on the colour of Sh!te!!
I wonder if Saddam said he was going to Kuwait to Liberate them, would that be legal then? To me both invasions were about the oil and money and greed, the difference is if anyone else does it, it is illegal and if US does it, somewhat its legal.:rolleyes:

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Memnoch
THAT is illegal. As john has pointed out... the UNSC doesn't come in until LATER.

Where does the charter say, that the UNSC comes in untill later ?
You are making an interpretation there.
One thing that is clear in that charter is that the UNSC and only it can provide a determination on any agression.
It hasn't done so and therefore the illegality is your opinion , however founded,it has no legal standing.

Memnoch

Originally posted by halkar
Makes me remember when Saddam invaded Kuwait and some of the reasons were that, it was theirs and wanted their oil At least he told the truth to the world unlike US administration whom are still can't make their minds up on what bulls!!t they will come up with next. As said in Braveheart movie "They can't agree on the colour of Sh!te!!
I wonder if Saddam said he was going to Kuwait to Liberate them, would that be legal then? To me both invasions were about the oil and money and greed, the difference is if anyone else does it, it is illegal and if US does it, somewhat its legal.:rolleyes:

very astute analogy there.. no difference really between saddams invasion of kuwait and the US invasion of iraq

MeatProduct

Originally posted by Memnoch
very astute analogy there.. no difference really between saddams invasion of kuwait and the US invasion of iraq

Well except that the US put Sadam in power but Sadam didn't put the US in power

Nick

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Memnoch
very astute analogy there.. no difference really between saddams invasion of kuwait and the US invasion of iraq

I think you will find in the case of Saddams invasion of Kuwait, that theres a very big difference actually in terms of legality
The UNSC determined that there had been a breach of international peace and security .
In UNSC resolution 660, they not only determined that beut the resolution went further

"Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all s its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990"

Now there has been no determination or interpretation by the proper authority in relation to the coalition action.