US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1262

On September 01 2014 05:37 Nyxisto wrote:

As the spokesperson of the UN, and as the UN being the generally acknowledged body that represents international law.. I guess the answer is yes?

On September 01 2014 05:36 bookwyrm wrote:
There's no such thing as international legality

On September 01 2014 05:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

So you're just guessing that it was illegal.

On September 01 2014 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

200K dead doesn't change that fact that the war was arguably a completely legal war. We were not at a state of peace with Iraq. We had a legal military presence in Iraq. Iraq and US forces were shooting at each other regularly, for a decade before the war started. To call it illegal as if that's a given is just wrong.

Yes the cold war was messy, but... it was the Cold War and the US was allied with Western Europe. The dirtier things we did was in cohort with you. As for Cuba, Cuban refugees lobby pretty hard for the US to oppose what they see as a totalitarian dictatorship and the history of the Cuban missile crisis gives most American no desire to make friendly with Cuba.

Who says "it's all about values?" Saudi Arabia is a long-time, cooperative ally of the US. They have a lot of economic ties to the US via oil and a lot of social ties via education (many Saudis are educated in the US).

On September 01 2014 05:48 Nyxisto wrote:

No you're just talking out of your ass. If the UN secretary general came to the conclusion the war was illegal. the US didn't have the majority they needed, the evidence Powell put forward was fabricated. Everything about it was a giant joke.

This is what Powell himself said 2005 :
"I looked at the four [sources] that [the CIA] gave me for [the mobile bio-labs], and they stood behind them, ... Now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid. At the time I was preparing the presentation, it was presented to me as being solid. April 3, 2004

I feel terrible ... [giving the speech] ... It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now. Sep 8, 2005"

If you have any higher authority at hand that represents international law then post them.

On September 01 2014 05:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Sorry, but you just admitted that you're talking out of your ass. You're guessing that Annan had the authority to declare a war illegal and that such a declaration would be meaningful.

"In 2003, the governments of the US, Britain, and Spain proposed another resolution on Iraq, which they called the "eighteenth resolution" and others called the "second resolution." This proposed resolution was subsequently withdrawn when it became clear that several permanent members of the Council would cast 'no' votes on any new resolution, thereby vetoing it.[1] Had that occurred, it would have become even more difficult for those wishing to invade Iraq to argue that the Council had authorized the subsequent invasion. Regardless of the threatened or likely vetoes, it seems that the coalition at no time was assured any more than four affirmative votes in the Council—the US, Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria—well short of the requirement for nine affirmative votes"

On September 01 2014 05:58 Nyxisto wrote:

No, I'm not guessing, he has.

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August
1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore
international peace and security in the area,

On September 01 2014 05:43 aksfjh wrote:

Not to anarchists. But to the rest of the civilized world, yes, there is.

For Their Own Good? New Curfew Sends Baltimore Kids Home Early

Young people in Baltimore are adjusting to life under a tougher curfew law. For 20 years, the city has required kids to be inside at night during the summer — but now, children younger than 14 must be in by 9 p.m. every night of the year. ...

On September 01 2014 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Link

Seems excessive, but the nanny state knows best...

(Reuters) - The bald eagle may no longer be extinct, but the U.S. effort to protect the national bird became harder on Wednesday.

A federal appeals court revived a religion-based challenge to a U.S. regulation that allows only members of Indian tribes recognized by the government to possess the birds' feathers, so long as they first obtain permits.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the Department of the Interior did not show the regulation was the "least restrictive means" to advance the compelling government interest in protecting the bald eagle because of its status as a national symbol.

Wednesday's decision reversed a lower court ruling, and revived claims by Texas-based groups and individuals, including the McAllen Grace Brethren Church, that the regulation violated their rights under the First Amendment's free exercise clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The U.S. Department of Justice, which handled the case for the Interior Department, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Milo Colton, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, did not immediately respond to a similar request.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks, is facing a military commission at Guantanamo Bay and potentially the death penalty. He was captured in 2003 but his case still hasn't gone to trial.

Last week, Maj. Jason Wright — one of the lawyers defending Mohammed — resigned from the Army. He has accused the U.S. government of "abhorrent leadership" on human rights and due process guarantees and says it is crafting a "show trial."

Wright joined the military in 2005. He served 15 months in Iraq during the surge and has worked as a Judge Advocate. For nearly three years, he served on Mohammed's defense team.

Wright formally resigned on Aug. 26. Earlier this year, the Army had instructed him to leave the team in order to complete a graduate course that was required with his promotion from Captain to Major. He refused the order; he says it would have been unethical for him to have followed it.

On September 01 2014 16:44 ShadeR wrote:
I think you're playing games with the word illegal and are drawing quite frankly ridiculous parallels.
Eg: Chinese ADIZ escalates tensions over disputed islands and the Iraq troop surge. Really? Your going to make that absurd comparison?

On September 01 2014 15:57 coverpunch wrote:
The war in Iraq was not illegal. It's very gray in places and of course many things were wrong with the premise and conduct of the war, but it never broke international or US laws.