|
Peisithanatos
|
 |
« Reply #135 on: December 05, 2007, 03:08:37 PM » |
|
like he knows a little about law his entire paper is a juxtapositions of arguments which ends up in an absense of a clear conclusion. The only undisputable thing to him is that - " regime change cannot be the objective of military action." authorisation by the Security Council very well pin-pointed. But totally besides the topic. The topic right now is not the "means" but the ends. There could be, and would be, a debate about legitimacy if the US ultimatum stated: "Saddam Hussein must uphold the UN SC Resolutions..." But in fact, the US ultumatum stated: "Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq..." That had as much to do with enforcing the Resolutions as riding the waves in Honolulu. There is absolutely no debate that the coalition actions were not enforcing the resolutions. Iraq was requested to comply not with the Resolutions but with Bush's demand to leave the country. That was as illegal as it possibly gets in international relations. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 05, 2007, 03:56:08 PM by Peisithanatos »
|
Logged
|
a big pile of bs covered with a thick layer of sugar
|
|
|
Terry Mathis
High Society
Hero Member
Karma: +57/-92
Posts: 1,239
Goulburn NSW Australia Dual Australian/U.S.
|
|
« Reply #136 on: December 05, 2007, 03:53:53 PM » |
|
Oiy! Peisi mate, .. and then there were three.  Left. "By way of deception, thou shalt do war" sound familiar?  Regards Terry aka . |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Its not what they say that bothers me, its what they say that just aint so that does ! - Will Rogers So that we may end the oppression wrought by our own hands.
- Shulman |
|
|
|
5uperChicken
|
|
« Reply #137 on: December 05, 2007, 07:01:27 PM » |
|
Public Law 105-338 the "Iraq Liberation Act"
signed into law by U.S. President Bill Clinton:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
More 'actual' words from actual documents...and we've gone from no WMD's, illegal war...to no deployed stockpiles, regime change as a goal is illegal......still I ask....according to *what*...Not Who. Dare I say it's not according to US or international law...Yes I do.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Peisithanatos
|
|
« Reply #138 on: December 06, 2007, 01:28:44 PM » |
|
Public Law 105-338 the "Iraq Liberation Act"
a marvellous document; unfortunately, totally irrelevant when the international law is concerned. That's typically American: finding legal bases for international actions in your own domestic documents. I kicked his ass because my daddy told me it was OK. ....according to *what* according to same laws that prohibit aggression, use of force, meddling in internal relations, etc. Member States were authorized to use any means to uphold the Rsolutions. American ultimatum did not demand anything about the Resolutions, it demanded things absolutely unrelated. "Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict..." That was not using any means to uphold the Resolutions. That was aggression. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
a big pile of bs covered with a thick layer of sugar
|
|
|
|
5uperChicken
|
|
« Reply #139 on: December 06, 2007, 01:36:42 PM » |
|
Thanks for nothing?....unless you want to name ONE....?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Peisithanatos
|
|
« Reply #140 on: December 06, 2007, 01:49:29 PM » |
|
one what? One law prohibiting aggression? Can u just acknowledge the invasion did not pursue the enforcement of resolutions? U're in a dead-end with your argument. Read the British Attorney again,
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
a big pile of bs covered with a thick layer of sugar
|
|
|
|
5uperChicken
|
|
« Reply #141 on: December 06, 2007, 06:31:45 PM » |
|
Public Law 105-338 the "Iraq Liberation Act"
"a marvellous document; unfortunately, totally irrelevant when the international law is concerned. That's typically American: finding legal bases for international actions in your own domestic documents."
"Read the British Attorney again..."
Are you still trying to make a point?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Peisithanatos
|
|
« Reply #142 on: December 07, 2007, 05:17:14 PM » |
|
no member state was authorized to demand the removal of Iraqi government and exercize force upon such demand. Do u still not understand that?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
a big pile of bs covered with a thick layer of sugar
|
|
|
Terry Mathis
High Society
Hero Member
Karma: +57/-92
Posts: 1,239
Goulburn NSW Australia Dual Australian/U.S.
|
|
« Reply #143 on: December 07, 2007, 05:36:48 PM » |
|
. no member state was authorized to demand the removal of Iraqi government and exercize force upon such demand. Do u still not understand that?
Maybe you should talk in Hebrew Peisi, at least it would be clearer until you lift your English! .. my wife is a Sabra and Haganah, so no worries for me... Regards Terry . |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Its not what they say that bothers me, its what they say that just aint so that does ! - Will Rogers So that we may end the oppression wrought by our own hands.
- Shulman |
|
|
|
Peisithanatos
|
|
« Reply #144 on: December 07, 2007, 05:45:10 PM » |
|
Haganah a good way to refer to the neocons. Secular military redeemers of Eretz Yisroel. Or: H.A.G.A.N.A.H. - Holy Allince of God And Nation of Abraham for Horticulture. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
a big pile of bs covered with a thick layer of sugar
|
|
|
Terry Mathis
High Society
Hero Member
Karma: +57/-92
Posts: 1,239
Goulburn NSW Australia Dual Australian/U.S.
|
|
« Reply #145 on: December 07, 2007, 05:49:00 PM » |
|
Haganah a good way to refer to the neocons. Secular military redeemers of Eretz Yisroel. Or: H.A.G.A.N.A.H. - Holy Allince of God And Nation of Abraham for Horticulture. You know who your masters and betters are. . |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Its not what they say that bothers me, its what they say that just aint so that does ! - Will Rogers So that we may end the oppression wrought by our own hands.
- Shulman |
|
|
|
5uperChicken
|
|
« Reply #146 on: December 07, 2007, 10:10:08 PM » |
|
no member state was authorized to demand the removal of Iraqi government and exercize force upon such demand. Do u still not understand that?
I told you what I don't understand, and that is from what legal authority, over coalition or US forces, do you get that from? When you ratify a resolution specifically for the purpose authorizing the use of military force to enforce a resolution by any means necessary and pass a law calling for regime change in Iraq....You're not leaving much loophole room, but please go ahead. I still do not understand...your opinion I get. how it bears on the legality of the Iraq war, I do not. Make me know. What would the biggest opponent in our government of the Iraq war say? "We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict." Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada) Addressing the US Senate October 9, 2002 now there's a crazy coincedence..what are the chances he and I would agree on anything?? unless of course there was just no argument. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677;
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The voting record made this a mile long..... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Peisithanatos
|
|
« Reply #147 on: December 08, 2007, 11:16:19 AM » |
|
again you're citing domestic law as proof of international legality. That;s like Israel citing Jerusalem Law as proof of the legality of the annexation. Or Saudis citing the Koran, their official constitution, as basis for attacks abroad. Am I the only one to have the feeling that this is absurd? There is nothing your Congress can possibly declare that provides international legality for your international actions. Stick with international documents discussing international actions.
Member states were authorized to use any means to "uphold...the Resolutions". There can be no argument that the demand for the legitimate government of Iraq to leave the country was "upholding the Resolutions". No argument. The British legal advice to Blair made this clear. Utterly clear. "..regime change cannot be the objective of military action." US actions in 2003 in Iraq were not authorized by any international body. The 1998 bombings were possibly authorized, if it can be shown they aimed at "upholding". The 2003 actions did not "uphold", and thus were not authorized.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
a big pile of bs covered with a thick layer of sugar
|
|
|
Terry Mathis
High Society
Hero Member
Karma: +57/-92
Posts: 1,239
Goulburn NSW Australia Dual Australian/U.S.
|
|
« Reply #148 on: December 08, 2007, 03:21:55 PM » |
|
again you're citing domestic law as proof of international legality. That;s like Israel citing Jerusalem Law as proof of the legality of the annexation. Or Saudis citing the Koran, their official constitution, as basis for attacks abroad. Am I the only one to have the feeling that this is absurd? There is nothing your Congress can possibly declare that provides international legality for your international actions. Stick with international documents discussing international actions.
Member states were authorized to use any means to "uphold...the Resolutions". There can be no argument that the demand for the legitimate government of Iraq to leave the country was "upholding the Resolutions". No argument. The British legal advice to Blair made this clear. Utterly clear. "..regime change cannot be the objective of military action." US actions in 2003 in Iraq were not authorized by any international body. The 1998 bombings were possibly authorized, if it can be shown they aimed at "upholding". The 2003 actions did not "uphold", and thus were not authorized.
Peisi, The UN does not have a good track record for enforcing its rather ambiguously (intentionally, usual for a committee) worded Security Council punitive resolutions. The UN Assembly has even a worse track record, being predominantly third world influenced. As for me, I see the UN as an anachronism in time that is only relevant for its assistance programs. -Terry . |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Its not what they say that bothers me, its what they say that just aint so that does ! - Will Rogers So that we may end the oppression wrought by our own hands.
- Shulman |
|
|
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +105/-139
Posts: 1,837
|
|
« Reply #149 on: December 09, 2007, 07:12:40 AM » |
|
The UN is a tea party where people meet and make plans.....it works on the principle of "King of the Mountain" I have referred to before and has no "legal" authority over sovereign nations.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood
-George S. Patton
|
|
|
|
