|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 01 2014 05:37 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2014 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2014 05:28 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 05:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2014 05:19 Nyxisto wrote: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.
Well, no. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stmThe only real thing that even kept the discussion going was the accusation of WMD's,which as it turned out was completely fabricated nonsense. Annan was the ultimate arbiter of international legality? WMD's were a concern for the UN, not just the US. The UN demanded routine inspections which Iraq routinely refused to comply with. Well as former UN secretary general I'd say that's quite literally his job description. Denying inspectors into your country is not an excuse for a full blown war. I mean, today most prominent voices in the US admit that the Iraq war had no legal basis and was a complete failure, I don't even know why we're discussing this. I'm literally asking a question - is it? 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? So you're just guessing that it was illegal.
|
On September 01 2014 05:36 bookwyrm wrote: There's no such thing as international legality Not to anarchists. But to the rest of the civilized world, yes, there is.
|
On September 01 2014 05:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2014 05:37 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2014 05:28 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 05:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2014 05:19 Nyxisto wrote: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.
Well, no. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stmThe only real thing that even kept the discussion going was the accusation of WMD's,which as it turned out was completely fabricated nonsense. Annan was the ultimate arbiter of international legality? WMD's were a concern for the UN, not just the US. The UN demanded routine inspections which Iraq routinely refused to comply with. Well as former UN secretary general I'd say that's quite literally his job description. Denying inspectors into your country is not an excuse for a full blown war. I mean, today most prominent voices in the US admit that the Iraq war had no legal basis and was a complete failure, I don't even know why we're discussing this. I'm literally asking a question - is it? 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? So you're just guessing that it was illegal. 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 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2014 04:46 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 04:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2014 04:32 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 04:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2014 04:21 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 04:14 Introvert wrote: I would hope we all hold our own countries to a better standard so we are more motivated to act and make our countries do the right thing. It's easier to act in your own nation then it is to act in another.
If that's what would be happening, that would be great! But the idea of 'American exceptionalism' has lead to the opposite thing, it has lead to giving the country a free pass on things that other countries wouldn't get away with. When other countries go to war it is considered imperialism, but America is spreading democracy and freedom! You can now tell me how that isn't what true exceptionalism looks like, but that's irrelevant, because that's what the idea has been used for. If the US would be exceptional in the true sense of the word then social mobility in the US would not be lower than in almost any other developed country. A free pass? We get criticized internally and externally all the time. Seems like Germany gets more of a free pass - Europe is in the tank and all anyone wants to talk about are the problems in the US. When the US started an internationally illegal war with 200k casualties based on the idea of fantasy WMD's and 10 years later not one single sanction has been passed I'd say yes, internationally the US pretty much gets a free pass on literally everything. Iraq was complicated. We were in a ceasefire state with the country with military skirmishes taking place regularly. Iraq was also repeatedly in violation of both UN and US rules regarding the ceasefire. To your edit: you know we didn't annex Iraq just because we wanted to, right? I'm well aware that the US didn't annex Iraq. Which doesn't bring two hundred thousand people back to live. And 'complications' aren't an excuse. Russia claims that their situation is very complicated. There are many more examples Grenada, Panama, proxy wars and not to mention that the US has sanctioned countries like Iran or Cuba off the map just because they politically drifted away from what the US thought is desirable. If it's all about the values what about Saudi-Arabia? And for all of this the US never felt any kind of repercussions, simply because the US is too big of a power. And if you are not able to see this then you simply are holding the US to a very different standard. If you think the US has been harshly criticized what the fuck would you call what the US has done to a country like Cuba? 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). Iraq goes back to the early eighties when a relatively newly appointed Saddam Hussein got a lot of support from USA against Iran. Another time, another world and a dictator USA let stay in power and the problems that lead to.
Cuban refugees will inevitably have a representation bias. Cuba is changing at the moment, though it is still a timeloop of the 1950s and a problematically run country, like basically all of latin america.
Saudi Arabia is a case of common interests given the Texas tea.
|
On September 01 2014 05:48 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2014 05:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2014 05:37 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2014 05:28 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 05:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2014 05:19 Nyxisto wrote: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.
Well, no. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stmThe only real thing that even kept the discussion going was the accusation of WMD's,which as it turned out was completely fabricated nonsense. Annan was the ultimate arbiter of international legality? WMD's were a concern for the UN, not just the US. The UN demanded routine inspections which Iraq routinely refused to comply with. Well as former UN secretary general I'd say that's quite literally his job description. Denying inspectors into your country is not an excuse for a full blown war. I mean, today most prominent voices in the US admit that the Iraq war had no legal basis and was a complete failure, I don't even know why we're discussing this. I'm literally asking a question - is it? 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? So you're just guessing that it was illegal. 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. 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.
|
On September 01 2014 05:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2014 05:48 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 05:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2014 05:37 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2014 05:28 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 05:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2014 05:19 Nyxisto wrote: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.
Well, no. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stmThe only real thing that even kept the discussion going was the accusation of WMD's,which as it turned out was completely fabricated nonsense. Annan was the ultimate arbiter of international legality? WMD's were a concern for the UN, not just the US. The UN demanded routine inspections which Iraq routinely refused to comply with. Well as former UN secretary general I'd say that's quite literally his job description. Denying inspectors into your country is not an excuse for a full blown war. I mean, today most prominent voices in the US admit that the Iraq war had no legal basis and was a complete failure, I don't even know why we're discussing this. I'm literally asking a question - is it? 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? So you're just guessing that it was illegal. 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. 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. No, I'm not guessing, he has. He represents/represented the UN. If he makes that statement it's the most binding statement you'll get as far as international law goes. Not to mention that there was no UN mandate and security council members like France,China and Russia announced to veto any kind of resolution that would warrant a war.
"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"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War
|
On September 01 2014 05:58 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2014 05:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2014 05:48 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 05:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2014 05:37 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2014 05:28 Nyxisto wrote:On September 01 2014 05:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2014 05:19 Nyxisto wrote: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.
Well, no. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stmThe only real thing that even kept the discussion going was the accusation of WMD's,which as it turned out was completely fabricated nonsense. Annan was the ultimate arbiter of international legality? WMD's were a concern for the UN, not just the US. The UN demanded routine inspections which Iraq routinely refused to comply with. Well as former UN secretary general I'd say that's quite literally his job description. Denying inspectors into your country is not an excuse for a full blown war. I mean, today most prominent voices in the US admit that the Iraq war had no legal basis and was a complete failure, I don't even know why we're discussing this. I'm literally asking a question - is it? 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? So you're just guessing that it was illegal. 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. 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. No, I'm not guessing, he has. He has what? Complained to the BBC that there should have been another vote?
Edit From Resolution 1441 (2002):
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, Link
Also, they were shooting at our military, our military was shooting back, and I'm pretty sure that bit was legal.
|
On September 01 2014 05:43 aksfjh wrote:Not to anarchists. But to the rest of the civilized world, yes, there is.
Haha pretty sure I'm not an anarchist.
what is this supposed international law based on? What's the legislative body that makes this law? Under what principle does it have jurisdiction over the world? What's the judicial power with the authority to interpret this law, and the executive which enforces it. The UN doesn't cut it (and 'WW2 victor' is a pretty shitty criterion for being 'international lawgiver')
It just doesn't exist. Talk about 'illegal wars' is just a thin secular gloss over the concept of a 'just war', which is just not a legalistic concept but a religious one.
You might believe that there are standards by which 'civilized' countries should conduct themselves, but that's a far cry from 'international law'
my claim is not that there shouldn't be international law, just that there in fact is no such thing
|
Sure international law isn't really enforceable like national law, but there surely is some kind of "de-facto pressure" on countries to adhere to 'standards' that the international community has set. If there was no international law Russia would have just marched into Ukraine full force months ago and it wouldn't have been sanctioned. There may not be any international constitution written down, but the "law of the jungle" with all the wars that Europe had before WW II was basically abolished.
The world before WW II and WW I was very different from how it is now, the idea of a supranational institutions didn't even really exist. So maybe 'international law' is inaccurate in the legal sense, but there surely is an international 'code of conduct' now that has changed things immensely.
|
It's not law is just realpolitik pretending to be more civilized than it really is
I thought the law of the jungle got abolished with westphalia. Or maybe they were just lying to themselves then also :p
|
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. ... Link
Seems excessive, but the nanny state knows best...
|
On September 01 2014 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +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. ... LinkSeems excessive, but the nanny state knows best... Agreed. The definition of guilty until proven innocent.
|
(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.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the u.n. and other international institutions have soft power. the lines are elastic but they are there.
on this argentine business, it's kind of impossible for a u.s. court to come to a conclusion against the bondholders. the way they arrive at any conclusion is constrained by the precedent making system in the u.s. how do you even start with building a doctrine that allows argentina to get off the hook on this one. maybe more case specific info will help with it but on the surface it looks like a hard conclusion to make a rule consistent decision over. if they decide for argentina then whatever legal rule they used will be applicable to other, similar cases.
|
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.
Source
|
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.
The irony is that if you're going to complain, the way Obama has conducted the War on Terror is in grayer territory than it ever was under Bush. And that's just the US - China establishing the ADIZ and bullying its neighbors, Putin annexing Crimea, Syria's civil war, broken ceasefires between Israel and Gaza, and almost everything about ISIS are much more illegal than the US occupation of Iraq...and this is all in the last year. It's a strange line of logic to go down if you're looking to make the world a more accountable place.
|
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 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? Is that more or less absurd than comparing the Iraq troop surge to Argentina's default?
|
Allstate reports on America's best and worst drivers. I included the top 10 and the bottom 15, since I'm from California and wanted to include both LA and San Francisco in there, with the added punch that measured by accidents, drivers in SF are worse than drivers in LA. I don't know what's going on in Massachusetts though.
Link
Note that methodology only includes property damage claims by those insured by Allstate, the 3rd largest car insurer in the US covering about 10% of the market.
|
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. At the time there were two ways to legally go to war with Iraq.
1)The old resolution 1441 which stated that measures can be taken against Iraq if it fails do disarm, but it was repeatedly stated that this resolution does not contain a "hidden trigger" meaning that Iraq's failure to comply would not automatically grant countries the right to go to war.
2) A security council resolution which needed a 9/15 majority, which the US didn't get.
So the US argued that going to war is legitimate because the threat of WMD's is imminent and that based on resolution 1441 they could attack Iraq. Not only did they make that shit up, but as stated above a declaration of war would have needed an approval by the security council.
So no, there is no grey area when it comes to the legality of the Iraq war. This is why Annan said "the war was illegal" and not "you know that is a really greyish area"
|
|
|
|