Court Martial of American Officer for refusing to serve in Iraq

[SASless]

Kevin Sikes interviewed the only American Officer to refuse duty in Iraq. The young Lieutenant faces six years in jail, a Dishonourable Discharge, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances if incarcerated.

His father sought sanctuary in Peru by serving in the Peace Corps and supports his son's stand against what the Son says is an illegal war....thus making his orders to Iraq with the 3rd Stryker Brigade an illegal order.

The officer attempted to resign his commission but was refused.

For the interview....... http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs19056

[brickhistory]

Poor choice for the young Lt. My commission doesn't give me a choice about what wars I want to participate in, fairly sure his doesn't either.
So, if he chooses to make a stand, God bless him for the courage of his convictions, however, another type of conviction is what he deserves and will undoubtedly receive.

[Chugalug2]

Kevin Sikes interviewed the only American Officer to refuse duty in Iraq. The young Lieutenant faces six years in jail, a Dishonourable Discharge, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances if incarcerated.
The officer attempted to resign his commission but was refused.

If the trial of Flt.Lt. Malcolm Kendall-Smith is anything to go by, Lt Watada may expect short shrift and at least six months in the slammer. Hinting, albeit obliquely, that his Commander-in-Chief is a war criminal won't be very popular, either. And yet, as in the case of the good doctor, I cannot but admire the moral courage of someone taking a stand that he cannot win, and will win him nothing but bile from many, including no doubt contributors to this thread. The real scandal is that the Governments of the USA and the UK have betrayed their own armed forces in calling on them to do their duty in morally and legally questionable circumstances. Long after these discredited scoundrels have been ousted from office, those same armed forces are going to have to decide what should be done in similar circumstances in future. In the UK case, calling on the senior government law officer for the go-ahead would seem to have its disadvantages, a bit like returning from Munich with assurances on a small piece of paper! Hopefully he may expect some sympathy from those who posted to the thread entitled Ashamed to be a part of it!
We all know the requirement to disobey and report illegal orders, but the reality is that such orders are only given by the enemy, or at a very junior level in one's own army. So Lt Caley was guilty, but everyone senior to him was innocent. To act in contravention to that maxim will always land you in deep clag. Therefore, like Lt Watada and Flt.Lt. Kendall-Smith, you better believe that what you do (or rather don't do!) is right, for few others will.

[brickhistory]

Unfortunately for the Lt, the fact that the Congress authorized the President and the President ordered the military into action makes the order to deploy legal. What the Lt or his lawyers think of the legality of the war is moot for this issue. The two branches of our government dealing with war spoke Constitutionally, so the Lt is in for a visit to Leavenworth.

[Chugalug2]

. The two branches of our government dealing with war spoke Constitutionally.

Ditto for the UK, BH. I don't know the circumstances that prevailed in Washington, but in Westminster the one branch acted thus because the other branch told it Porky-Pies!

[Radar Muppet]

bh

Little doubt that the war was/is legal from a US domestic viewpoint but you are on an exceedingly thin sheet of ice with regards to international law. The US' saviour is probably that international law is open to more interpretation than most.

[brickhistory]

chug,

Not going to enter into a debate about the basis of the war today, sorry. Regardless of what this young gent thinks about it, he is a member of the US military and the proper US legal and executive branches ordered him to go. If he's strong enough to stand for his beliefs, then a thumb's up to him for that, however, he took Uncle's dollar, he's obligated to go.

rm,

My point regarding the Lt is that under US UCMJ, which he voluntarily put himself under by taking his commission, he is most likely headed for a military cell.

International law would not have priority (not sure what the correct legal term for superseding one set of laws over another, sorry.) over an internal US proceeding which this Lt's court-martial most certainly will be.

[SASless]

Every time something like this comes up....a few folks proclaim the war "illegal".

Is there anything from a credible source or legal authority anywhere, that has condemned the war as being "illegal" and based their opinion upon specific citations of law?

I am not talking about Barrack's Lawyers here but actual, real, binding venues of legal standing?

Unless someone can provide that.....to me, the answer is simply the war is legal.

We may not like it...we may not agree with it...but shy of some proper authority with the legal standing to declare the war illegal, anything else is mere personal opinion of which each of us is welcome to have and express but has sod all to do with the reality of the war in question.

When nations decide to go to war....does it really matter in the end if it is legal or not. Until the majority of the opposing military forces elect to sit it out on the sidelines....the war is going to be fought.

Think back to the reasons for wars in the past.....an assasination, a trumped up attack upon a German Radio station, the claim to territory clear to the opposite end of the world by a former colonial power, the building of an air strip, the mugging and physical assault upon a Naval Officer and his wife....UN Resolutions....what does it really matter?

If you serve in the military and are given orders to go to war....you throw your Bergen on your back...pick up the rifle and go fight the chosen enemy.

The only thing that makes a war legal or illegal is the decision by the winner who gets to write the After Action Report for the affair.

[Load Toad]

If you don't want to fight in wars and stuff don't join the armed forces; there are plenty of other jobs. If you join the armed forces don't bitch when you have to go fight.

The 'legality' of having to fight is an issue for others to take up at the voting box.

[nigegilb]

I am intrigued by the postings of BH, suggesting that we, the military, should not be concerned about the legality or otherwise of the war. The military chiefs of staff here in the UK were so concerned that with 10 days to go to war they demanded from the Attorney General a clear statement that the war was not illegal. I am also surprised by the naivity of some of the postings. The reason the chiefs demanded legal advice was simply because they were concerned their men could end up appearing before war crimes tribunal. US did not sign up to this but the UK Govt (Blair) did. As a serviceman you should take a view on the legality of war especially with the likes of Blair running the show.

Goldsmith famously changed his mind at the last moment. I have been trying to piece together the threads of evidence. IMO the only reason that Goldsmith could have come to that conclusion was because of the content of the dodgy dossier. It stated that Iraq was planning to use WMD at 45 minutes notice and that a base such as Cyprus could be hit. I laughed at hearing this at the time. In the original advice provided by John Scarlett it was suggested that Iraq had chemical weapons but that these would be used for defensive purposes. The word defensive was taken out at the request of Blair's Govt and so was born the politicisation of the UK Intelligence Service.

I apologise for reposting this legal advice but it has been requested by SASless. This legal advice was issued before the dodgy dossier. The whole basis for war again IMO was a sham. The military chiefs did all they could to challenge the legality and I do not blame them at all. I do blame Blair for ordering the UK to fight a war that was probably illegal in International Law because of a failure to prove a capability and intention to use WMD. As for the US, the President never used WMD as a premise for war and let's face it who is going to take the US to an International Court? Of course no evidence of WMD was ever found even though Special Forces assets were used in a desperate attempt to find them after the war.

I am not saying Kendall Smith should not have been sent down, neither am I saying the US Officer should not be sent down. The legality of the war was not part of the remit of the court that tried Kendall Smith. If it had have been the result could have been very different. Ask a lawyer in the Hague......

Legality of use of force against Iraq
____________________
OPINION
____________________
Introduction and Summary of Advice
We are instructed by ********* to give an opinion on the legality of the use of force by the United Kingdom against Iraq. In particular, we are asked to consider whether:
the right of self-defence would justify the use of force against Iraq by the United Kingdom;
Iraq’s alleged failure to comply with all or any of the existing 23 UN Security Council resolutions would justify the use of force by the United Kingdom; and
a further UN Security Council resolution would be required.

In summary, our opinion is that:

The use of force against Iraq would not be justified under international law unless:
Iraq mounted a direct attack on the United Kingdom or one of its allies and that ally requested the United Kingdom’s assistance; or
an attack by Iraq on the United Kingdom or one of its allies was imminent and could be averted in no way other than by the use of force; or
the United Nations Security Council authorised the use of force in clear terms.

Iraq has not attacked the United Kingdom, and no evidence is currently available to the public that any attack is imminent.
Our view is that current Security Council resolutions do not authorise the use of force against Iraq. Such force would require further authorisation from the Security Council.
At present the United Kingdom is therefore not entitled, in international law, to use force against Iraq.

Factual Background

The factual background can be outlined briefly. The United States is publicly considering the use of force against Iraq. This use of force would appear to have the aims of (1) destroying such stores of nuclear, chemical, biological and other weapons of mass destruction as Iraq may have; and (2) bringing about a change of leadership. The United States appears to consider such action to be justified on the basis of the right to carry out a pre-emptive strike in self-defence, the right to respond in self-defence against an armed attack, (in this case the attacks on 11 September 2001), and/or on the basis of current resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.
The United Kingdom Government is currently considering whether to support any such action by itself joining in the use of force against Iraq but,according to Government statements, no decision has yet been taken. The Prime Minister, speaking on 3 September 2002, stated that he plans to publish a dossier in the next few weeks. This would set out the evidence against Iraq and the arguments in favour of intervention. The Prime Minister relies strongly on the fact that Iraq has breached resolutions of the UN Security Council, which he appears to consider justifies military action.
The factual background to these decisions is unclear to the public. Such information as the United Kingdom has about Iraq’s military capabilities and Saddam Hussein’s intentions is not available to the public. Iraq is known to have chemical weapons, which it first used against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq may also have the technology to build nuclear weapons. It appears to have persistently failed to co-operate with the UN weapons inspection programme, violating a large number of resolutions of the UN Security Council, so that the weapons inspection team was eventually withdrawn.1 However, it has recently asked the UN for more technical talks, with a view to resuming the inspection programme. The UN has not yet responded.2...........

.......Is anticipatory self-defence justified in this case?
Although it is not clear that international law recognises the right to use anticipatory force in self-defence, we have concluded above that, if there is such a right, it only exists in situations of great emergency, as set out by Oppenheim.

The evidence about the level and nature of threat presented by Iraq to other countries is not clear. There may well be evidence which is not in the public domain. The United Kingdom Government has not so far made clear the extent of the risk posed by Iraq, making it difficult for the public to engage in informed debate on the issue. The burden of proof is on the Government to demonstrate the existence of a pressing and direct threat. It would also need to show that there is no effective alternative to the use of force. The lack of any effective alternative to force is difficult to demonstrate while Iraq offers to negotiate with the weapons inspectorate.
It is clear from the above discussion of the law of self-defence that the capacity to attack, combined with an unspecified intention to do so in the future, is not sufficiently pressing to justify the pre-emptive use of force. The threat must at least be imminent. However, the degree of proximity required must also, we consider, be proportionate to the severity of the threat. A threat to use very serious weapons – nuclear weapons being the obvious example – could justify an earlier use of defensive force than might be justified in the case of a less serious threat. However, the existence of the threat, regardless of how serious that threat may be, must still be supported by credible evidence. Such evidence has not so far been made available, although some evidence may be provided when the United Kingdom government publishes its dossier..........

[John Blakeley]

Nigel,

Can you make space for a PM please.

JB

[nigegilb]

apologies, space now JB

[Max Contingency]

With both Kendall-Smith and Watada, why did they wait until they were under orders to move before declaring their hand? If an officer feels that he genuinely cannot support the actions of his Service, then that is the time to act (through formal redress or resignation?) rather than hide from a decision until forced to make one. IMHO that would have represented the highest moral courage.

[GreenKnight121]

As one who served his time in the US Military (1981-1989), if the Lt. had requested to resign before he/his unit recieved those orders to deploy, then at the very least he would have been placed in "Administrative Hold" status until everything was sorted out, which would have made him ineligible to deploy at that time.

There would be a good 75% chance of the request being granted if his unit had not already deployed by the time the decision was made.

Even if it had, there still would be a ~50% chance of it being granted, with a near 100% chance of being assigned to somewhere other than Iraq/Afganistan, since he declared his conscientious objection before recieving orders.

There have been a number of officers and enlisted that have done exactly that since the beginning of combat operations in Afganistan in 2002, and over 95% have been simply reassigned.

If you wait until you/your unit recieve orders, it is clear that you did not object to the war, just to your personal endangerment, and that gets NO sympathy or understanding.

[WhiteOvies]

GreenKnight
I suspect the answer lies in getting the US mil to pay for some decent education and qualifications while hoping for a posting to somewhere like Japan or Europe.

Alternatively, they joined up since 2003 knowing that they would probably get sent somewhere hot and sandy, always planning to make a well publicised stand against the war.

Either way, in my book, the bottom line was that they refused a legal order from a superior officer, so they deserve their time at the correctional facility.

[nigegilb]

Both GK and WO are right to point out why these 2 officers were wrong to do what they did when they did. However, I just wonder what this will do for recruitment in the US, a high profile case sending a young man down when the Iraq war is so unpopular. Could be a case of US Mil shooting itself in the foot. On the other hand discipline needs to be maintained.
One thing is for sure, Blair would have been running for cover if Kendall- Smith had taken his stand when the war was still in progress.

[Squirrel 41]

At the danger of boring everyone about the argument of the legality or otherwise of the 2003 Iraq War and the subsequent occupation, the legal position is as follows.

1. International law is largely based on obligations freely accepted by states - in other words, in signing up to a treaty, a country agrees to play by the rules that that treaty imposes. For our purposes, the most important treaty is the UN Charter, which at Article 2(4) makes the use of force between states illegal, with two exceptions;

(i) force authorised by the UN Security Council under a Chapter VII resolution or

(ii) self-defence, when there is no option but to defend yourself (this is the so-called "Caroline" test after a case between the UK (in Canada) and the USA in the early 19th Century) .

A third exception has been postulated for actions to stop humanitarian disasters, which is controversial amongst international lawyers and which I personally support.
(this was the basis of the 1999 Kosovo Campaign).

2. As a result, international law trumps individual country's laws, so if it's illegal in international law, it cannot be legal in domestic law. (Brick: this is the same principle as US Federal Law trumping US State laws).

3. The 2003 attack itself (Op IRAQI FREEDOM / Op TELIC) was illegal - it was not authorised by the Security Council and it was not self defence. It was also not covered by the humanitarian exception.

As a result, as the attack was illegal, orders for the 2003 attack were also illegal.

HOWEVER:

The UN Security Council authorized the occupation force in UNSCR 1483 of 22 May 2003 which has subsequently been renewed, provides the Chapter VII resolution required for the use of force. So no orders subsequently issued to deploy are illegal per se, and should be followed.

It is this that Flt Lt Kendall-Smith and this American Lt fall foul of, because they are failing to obey legal orders, and will (correctly and comprehensively) have the book thrown at them, irrespective of the moral courage that they have shown.

S41

[WhiteOvies]

Nige,
Unfortunately I think these two cases will just become argueing points in what I see as a polarisation of the American population - those who support Bush entirely and those who can't stand him. Those who support Bush will label these men traitors, those who don't will label them as martyrs to the cause.
Standing by for incoming but it seems that there is a real case of 'if you're not for Bush you're against the USA' feeling among a significant proportion of the population. Countered by a significant proportion who see everything Bush stands for as disastrous for the USA and hence the World.
What impressed me on a recent working visit was that the majority of the population, whether for or against Bush, supported the US Mil in their efforts, if only the same was true over here!:rolleyes:

[nigegilb]

The argument of self defence appears to be the one chosen by UK Govt hence the requirement for the heavily doctored and now rubbished dodgy dossier. No doubt about it we went to war on a lie.
It is clear from the above discussion of the law of self-defence that the capacity to attack, combined with an unspecified intention to do so in the future, is not sufficiently pressing to justify the pre-emptive use of force. (hence 45 min claim) However, the degree of proximity required must also, we consider, be proportionate to the severity of the threat. A threat to use very serious weapons – nuclear weapons being the obvious example – could justify an earlier use of defensive force than might be justified in the case of a less serious threat.( hence WMD claim) However, the existence of the threat, regardless of how serious that threat may be, must still be supported by credible evidence. Such evidence has not so far been made available, although some evidence may be provided when the United Kingdom government publishes its dossier..........( No evidence was ever provided or discovered)

Of course what we have not seen is the revised legal advice provided to the Govt, they are not so stupid as to disclose that, are they?

[Wiley]

With the US Army Lieutenant refusing to fight in Iraq, there’s an interesting point of parallel in history with the current war on terror (sorry, War on Terror) and the first time the US more or less officially invaded another country. (We’ll discount Canada in 1812, the pre Louisiana purchase stoushes with the French and the US expansion west into various sovereign North American Indian nations. We’ll also discount the invasion of Mexico in 1836, as that was actually the Republic of Texas, which had not yet joined the USA.)

I'm talking about the Mexican War in 1847-48, when a significant number of US soldiers deserted and fought for the other side.

These were the 'St Patricos', mostly is not all Catholics, mostly of Irish descent and many very recently arrived in the US. There were at least eighty involved. (I'd be guessing more, for eighty were captured by the US Army immediately before Mexico City fell, and apparently they fought very hard against the US forces, surrendering only when their ammunition ran out.)

Apparently they objected to fighting against fellow Catholics. (Anybody seeing any parallels here?) To the overwhelmingly Protestant Establishment in the US - (and not just the US and not just in 1848!!!) - Catholics at the time were a despised (rather large) minority, thought to owe their first allegiance to the Pope – and I suppose one could argue that the ‘St Patricos’ proved the point that there was some substance to this belief.

Fifty of those captured were hanged just before the final assault on Mexico City and around thirty, who were considered not to be hard core malcontents, were branded on their cheeks with a rather large ‘D’. I’d be guessing that there would have been some interesting stories to be told about the lives those thirty men lived after their release from military prison with a very prominent brand on their faces for everyone to see.

****

Reading about the Mexican War only makes me wonder how history so incredibly repeats itself, over and over and over again. A too small US Army is tasked with an impossible task – to invade another country for what many at the time thought were very dubious reasons (who owned the disputed land along the Rio Grande); the enemy army is far larger than the US invasion force; support from politicians back in Washington is half-hearted to non-existent for the Army; the Army – incredibly – does all and more than is asked of it, conquering the Mexican Army in a matter of months - and then suffers badly from guerrilla attack by Mexican irregulars after the very fast victory over the dictator Santa Anna’s far larger army… need I go on?

At least the US Army of 1848 had the good sense not to disband the existing Mexican Government infrastructure after they took over the Mexican Capital – but then again, that’s what the Army wanted to do this time, isn’t it?

[Squirrel 41]

Nige et al

The law on self defence falls into two camps: those who believe in so-called "anticipatory self-defence", which allows you to attack an army sitting on the other side of a border before it attacks, and those who reject this and insist that defence can only occur after an actual attack. The row between the two sides is vociferous and has led to some significant ill-feeling.

In practice, there is little distinction on the ground between the mainstream opinion on both sides. The majority of those who insist on an actual armed attack would not insist that a country sits idly by until the first shell lands or the first air raid crosses the border; this group (of whom I am one) would accept that this is highly dangerous position given the ability of a massive C4ISTAR first strike rendering the attacked country unable to defend itself. As a result where there is compelling evidence that a first strike is imminent, and in the words of the Caroline test "leaves no moment for decision", then a pre-emptive strike would be allowable.

To put this into context, this probably means that the attack would be 24-48 hours away.

To most advocates of "anticipatory self-defence", the right to attack to defend is also only when there is a clear and immediate threat. The case of the 1967 Israeli attack leading to the Six Day War is usually held up as an example, but it also raises serious questions about the quality of Israeli intelligence, as it is subsequently became clear that Nasser probably didn't intend to attack the Israelis (knowing he'd lose) but instead was engaged in lots of posturing (which went horribly wrong).

The reason for the row between the two sides is that those who oppose "anticipatory self-defence" do so because in allowing it, you open the door to what became the Bush Administration detailed in the 2002 National Security Strategy as "pre-emptive self-defence". This basically says that you can attack whoever you want if in your view, they may pose a threat to you at some point in the future, and was the basis of the Israeli 1981 attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor complex.

In essence, "pre-emptive self-defence" attempts to re-write the UN Charter's renunciation of the use of force - and it is therefore both illegal and extremely dangerous; after all, what is good for the goose is good for the gander - and if the west decides aggression is ok, then we can't complain when others use the same rationale against us. It is for this reason that the neo-conservative 2002 National Security Strategy is so dangerously short-sighted: be under no illusions: the West, with the US and the UK in the lead redesigned the international legal order in 1945 for our own benefit, and it is a massive boon to us - throwing this away by binning the condemnation on the use of force would be a monumentally crass mistake.

S41

[SaddamsLoveChild]

Chugalug: He will get no sympathy from me. Whilst I did not agree with the justyification for 'going in' in 2003, I went, I did my duty and came home. I still didnt agree with it last year but like so many others went because I was still in uniform and it was my duty. Even when I ended up on the 2 way range, I did what I needed to do and can balance my conscience but that doesnt stop me feeling ashamed that our collective actions are not making an iota of difference in Iraq.

If an individual is in uniform he does his masters bidding, if he cant get out of the service he has to do what he is asked IMHO. Until I hand my ID card in I will do my duty and try to balance my actions with my conscience, if I cant do that then I will seek help.

He deserves what he gets, he is there to lead troops and they rely on him - its called' sense of duty', if an individual wants a job where they can pick their loyalties then they should become a lawyer. Rant over:=

[Chugalug2]

1.Chugalug: He will get no sympathy from me.
2.If an individual is in uniform he does his masters bidding,
3. He deserves what he gets, he is there to lead troops and they rely on him - its called' sense of duty'.

SLC, Fair enough,
1. I merely suggested the possibility that he might have your sympathy as you guys had (unusually from my generation) expressed pointed criticism of the orders that you had acted under, and still are for that matter.
2. Yes but not without limit, even MAFL (or whatever your legal bible is now) covers that. After all we hung people at Nurnburg for the self same reason.
3. I think he is quite probably resigned to what he gets. As for his sense of duty, that is precisely what landed him in this.

On the whole I agree with your position, and hasten to say that I was never placed in the unenviable position that you and your ilk have been. Like the majority of the civilian population my overwhelming emotion is one of admiration for the way our servicemen and women have conducted themselves in harm's way, trying to give the moderate inhabitants of that benighted land some hope for the future, while contesting those who would deny them that. I salute you all. I condemn the administration that placed you in that ambiguous position, and the Chiefs of Staff who allowed them to do it and could have derailed this if they had the guts. I suspect that they knew then, what we all know now, that you were sent to war on a tissue of lies.

[SASless]

Perhaps we missed a couple of facts here.

The American Officer is not a "Concientous Objector", but rather objects to this particular War in Iraq. If he had declared his "CO" status prior to enlisting (some paradox that would be) he could have feasibly served in a non-combat arms duty such as the Army Medical Corps.

Ovies,

I hate to report there are far more than "two" views held by the American people about Bush. To suggest there only two camps is naive and completely unrealistic.

A small example....within my American Post comprised of Veterans from all the wars and services of beginning with WWII, there are all variations of views about the war, Bush, Iraq, Iraqi's and politics.

In general, the common thread seems to be a view that we need to do whatever it takes to "win" in Iraq. We even have former Marines that advocate pulling up stakes and folding our tent. They do that until you ask them what that would mean to the current generation of soldiers.

The reality check is if we do that, we now have another generation of folks that were sacrificed to political expediency and who will have to live with that the rest of their lives just as Vietnam Vets do now.

The common feeling says "If you start a war....do whatever it takes to win it in a timely manner with the minimum of friendly casualties."

I re-state the initial question....."Can anyone cite a binding legal authority that has gone on record as saying the War in Iraq is Illegal?" Has any Court with jurisdiction over the matter issued a formal writ declaring the war to be illegal?

[Load Toad]

With regard the situation in Iraq Sasless can you define what is 'win'? Because until we define what this 'win' is we can't begin to work out what to do. Is it destroy all terrorists? Exterminate insurgents? Rebuild the country? Win over the hearts and minds? Oversee the dismantling of Iraq and the establishment of new states - what?

If we are doing things for the 'face' of the military or our elected leaders then it is the wrong reason and futile.

[SASless]

Perhaps it is an American perspective here but the basic defintion of "winning" in Iraq has always been to effect a regime change and allow the establishment of a soverign democratic form of government by the Iraqi people.

I don't beleive that has changed.

The devil has been in the details.

Don't misunderstand what I was suggesting. I do not advocate the motivation for "winning" being a "face saving" effort.

The war in Vietnam was run by politicians who set far too many limitations on the way we fought the war and when the war dragged out due to their incompetence, they got weak kneed and pulled the plug on the effort thereby rendering the valor and sacrifice of a generation of soldiers to political folly.

What I am saying and others here as well....if we are going to send our men and women into battle, we owe it to them to do so with the complete support and assistance of the nation. Our politicians....political leaders....and military leaders agreed to the war. The reasons they did so, really do not matter.

When the war turned into a long termed thing vice a short relatively painless affair like the first Gulf War, those who were so keen on the war then began to shirk their own responibility and began to criticize the people who are having to fight the war.

Being a Vietnam Vet with two combat tours, I know too well what it feels like to have the carpet jerked from under my feet. I just do not want that to happen again and yet another generation have to suffer the same wound.

The fact that geniune "victory" and preventing that happening to the folks fighting, dying, and being maimed in this affair is the same makes it doubly important in my view.

Does it matter why you do the right thing....so long as you do the right thing?

[mbga9pgf]

Does it matter why you do the right thing....so long as you do the right thing?
It does if you are bound to lose. Do you see the important difference between "doing the right thing" and "doing what's right for america" (ultimately what the US armed forces are for)?
The lives that were lost in vietnam were not lost without just cause... it taught American Policy makers they could be wrong and had got it hideously wrong in Vietnam. It unfortunately gave the commies a strategic victory very similar to the one the Islamists will claim when we pull out of Iraq. Ultimately, over time, Vietnam sorted itself out. Unfortunate also that the policy makers you now have in office have either forgot the lessons or are the generation on.


Has any Court with jurisdiction over the matter issued a formal writ declaring the war to be illegal?



I am sure that will follow once your and our leadership changes... I wouldn't put it past those we currently have in power be up against war crimes charges at some stage in the future, one they lose the ability to protect themselves at a top level (can the President issue himself a pardon? I think not :hmm: ). Or at the very least some form of charge; I daresay they (Blair as Lawyer scum) knows this.

[Load Toad]

Sasless whilst I empathise - the valor and sacrifice of soldiers is NOT a reason to continue war.
We owe it to The Services to NOT put them in harms way and NOT to leave them in harms way especially when military force is NOT the way to 'win'. They are there for when we fail to do the job properly by all the other means and for that I 100% support the Services.

No one is criticis(z)ing who is having to fight. On the contrary.

But we can not say we will see it through or go the extra mile or remain comitted or whatever sound bite sounds nice & continue with the ongoing situation.

There are over 3000 US soldiers dead now, scores of thousands Iraqi's - how many more of both is an acceptable cost? Another 1? 1000? 10000? Where do we stop? Remember that every 1 of those dead conservatively leaves 4 family; bitter, sad, and questioning why.

It is now an pure acedemic debate what was legal. It is a bar room conversation - how we support our troops.

We now, very certainly have to work out what will START to solve the problem that over decades we have contributed through our policies to causing. And the peoples that live in the countries involved have to for once decide amongst themselves how they want to live, or be excluded from the international community,

[BenThere]

Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's leader, has an interesting take on the impact of the Viet Nam War in the current issue of 'Foreign Affairs'.

The gist of it is that while the end of the Viet Nam conflict appeared to be a debacle, the fighting of it gave the other dominoes, such as Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand time to construct their advanced industrial economies while the Communist juggernaut was tied down. Thus, he concludes, the strategic victory went to the free world, a.k.a. the US. Looking at the current Asian environment, I tend to agree.

I believe it was Chou En-lai who was asked of the impact of the French Revolution and replied, "It's too soon to tell."

Iraq may prove, and I hope it does, to be similar.

[Load Toad]

Mentor Lee is indeed a clever man. In hindsight he is a genius. We all are.

He is not wthout his faults and before taking his words as gospel one should consider the times he has been wrong or contradictory.

An example been selective breeding amongst the (Chinese) elite in Singapore.

[SASless]

Ben,
I fully agree with what you say to the extent the Vietnam War was just another theater in the Cold War, a war which the West won.

My view is we could have done it much sooner and without the cost in lives and suffering on both sides if we had agressively pursued the fight rather than relying upon Johnson's Signal Sending methods. The photograph of LBJ on his hands and knees viewing photographs and maps while deciding what targets could be hit tells it all to me.


He should have done much like George Bush Senior did.....ask the military what they needed to be successful, provide that, and set loose the Dogs of War.

We did not do that in Korea and settled for an Armistice....see where we are now as a result of that decision. Look at the plight of the North Korean people under an oppressive Communist Regime and compounded by the threat of nuclear weapons that government continues to advertise.

During Vietnam we never invaded the North and allowed the enemy the use of sanctuaries in Cambodia and Laos without destroying them. It was not until Nixon sent the B-52's to down town Hanoi and mined Haiphong harbor did the North Vietnamese understand what military power of the US was all about.

Within a week, they came to the table and agreed to the equivalent of an armistice with us. It was not until the Democrat controlled Congress terminated funding of the South Vietnamese did the Communists win.

A couple of million Cambodians died as a direct result of that decison to completely withdraw and many other South Vietnamese....something the anti-war folks ignore.

If we pull out of Iraq without ensuring the stability of the government there....how big a blood bath are we talking about this time. How many other wars and fighting will take place in that region so critical to the economies of the world.

The overall foreign policy of the United States has been to foster freedom and democracy throughout the world. We are accused of being a pseudo-colonial power in that regard but most critics fail to acknowledge how many nations and people are now enjoying the benefits of living in freedom.

[OFBSLF]

Unfortunately I think these two cases will just become argueing points in what I see as a polarisation of the American population - those who support Bush entirely and those who can't stand him. Those who support Bush will label these men traitors, those who don't will label them as martyrs to the cause.I don't think this case will significantly change the polarization.

Those on the extreme left wing may try to hold this Lt. up as a martyr. He volunteered for the military and now that he's scheduled to pay the piper by getting shipped to Iraq, he is suddenly questioning his previous decision. I believe the vast majority of the US will have very little sympathy for him.

[Chugalug2]

Perhaps it is an American perspective here but the basic defintion of "winning" in Iraq has always been to effect a regime change and allow the establishment of a soverign democratic form of government by the Iraqi people.......

The overall foreign policy of the United States has been to foster freedom and democracy throughout the world. We are accused of being a pseudo-colonial power in that regard but most critics fail to acknowledge how many nations and people are now enjoying the benefits of living in freedom.Today 17:22


And that succinctly sums up the dilemma that we in the UK have with all this, for regime change was not the stated war aim of the UK government, and has been specifically denied. Bliar took us to war on a lie, ie WMDs, in order to fulfil an unstated US aim of regime change. The aim was achieved and the result is chaos. The overall foreign policy of the US may be to foster freedom and democracy, but if Iraq is an example they were better off under a brutal dictatorship. At least the death toll was lower. This adventure has been a total disaster, planned by a clique of clever ignorants.
We had our problems with US policy in WWII, your State Department being more suspicious of UK aims than those of the USSR, but faced with dangerous and implacable enemies we kept the show on the road. Better co-operation emerged in the Cold War, though Vietnam as always divided us as did Suez. I served in the 60/70s and can vouch for the mutual respect and co-operation that existed between our Armed Forces. My crew spent an evening as guests of the USAF at Clark Field and your hospitality was generous and overwhelming. Time and again we learned (as I hope did you) that far more unites us than divides us.
But if US administrations are set on a series of Iraq like adventures, toppling regimes to foster "freedom" here, there and everywhere, I think I can safely say you will be on your own. As Sam Goldwyn might have said, "Included us out!" There is nothing special in this relationship, it is crass and dangerous, and needs rethinking.

[SASless]

Chug,

if Iraq is an example they were better off under a brutal dictatorship. At least the death toll was lower.

Care to provide an accounting of the various death tolls?

Add victim's of Saddam's Death Squads, Gas Attacks on the Kurds, the mass graves found so far, the Iranians that died in his first invasion of a neighbor, the Kuwaiti's from his second invasion of a neighbor, the troops lost in both Gulf Wars, civilians killed during the Iran War and the two Gulf wars and come to a tally.

Chalk up to the Americans all coalition deathes of any sort including those murdered by Terrorists and Al Qeada attacks, and insurgent attacks....and come to a final tally.

I dare say....even using your logical premise....the Iraqi people are still better off determining their own future. The fact they are murdering one another in the process is all the more tragic.

[Chugalug2]

Chug,
I dare say....even using your logical premise....the Iraqi people are still better off determining their own future. The fact they are murdering one another in the process is all the more tragic.

Well of course that is for the Iraqi people to decide, not we. And they seem to be deciding it by sliding into a Civil War, brought about by the very policies we have discussed. The vultures on their borders will then be in position to move in and cash in, brilliant RealPolitik!
My theme though is for the lessons my country must learn from this farrago. It seems that all the checks and balances of our democratic system simply vaporise if one man stands up in Parliament and very sincerely and gravely lies his head off, and gets key players in the decision tree to do the same. We have to do better next time!

[SASless]

I question the repeated prior approvals given by our Congress just as they did in this current event.

Since WWII, we seem to find ourselves involved in wars that start with a commitment of troops and somewhere down the line after the bus goes over the bluff, Congress gets on its collective high horse and start trying to find a convenient goat to sacrifice.

Let's add in the factor we have an all voluteer military now.

If we had conscription where anyone and everyone's kids were going to be heading off to the butchers block....our citizenry would not be so unconcerned about our military being used as they are.

Everytime our politicians (in and out of uniform) play their games for personal gain....and ignore the public good....we get ourselves in a mess.

In trying to downsize the active military to save money....we grew our Reserve and National Guard units so that as unlike during Vietnam, the Reserves would be called out. The Military politicians did this to ensure there would be no more Vietnams where only the active duty personnel fight the war.

Their mistake was in failing to see the future and did not give the thought of almost continous commitments as has happened.

It is said that we always show up to a war with military designed for the last war.....and not the new one. That is really the case here in Iraq for sure....someone thought this would be Gulf One ReDux.

[Roadtrip]

I love al this useless prattle about the United Nations and "international law." If anyone depends on the United Nations to do ANYTHING to protect them, they are seriously deluded.

Mass murder going on in Africa while the UN leeches stuff their pockets, then bleet about the United States taking out another mass murderer.

The UN should be moved to someplace more fitting for it's reputation for fecklessness . . . like Paris.

[Bronx]

Yeah, it does seem kinda ironic the UN being in NY when America don't give a **** what other nations think.
"If anyone depends on the United Nations to do ANYTHING to protect them, they are seriously deluded."
Sure, and so long as America keeps using their veto to stop the UN intervening when it don't suit them thats how it's gonna be. No point in moving to London, England's just as bad with the veto.
Maybe if Bush and Blair hadn't ignored the UN over Iraq we wouln't be in this mess.

[Load Toad]

Why do some Americans forget how much the French have supported them in other wars? Is it because on this occaision the French were right about what would happen?

Why are people so easily indoctrianated by their governments that they don't think for themselves?

We are reaping the rewards of foreign policies over the past 40 odd years. And we need to look at other ways to solve the issues now cos continually throwing troops at the problem is not going to solve anything.

I'm reminded ofthe scene in Fantasia - the one with the brooms helping to empty the water....

[nigegilb]

Road trip, if the US had listened to Kofi Annan, Sec Gen UN, they would not be in this mess now. Or should we ask the people of Lebanon on the receiving end of a UK/US veto whilst getting bombed back 30 years? The UN has always been something handy to kick in frustration. The UK/US went cap in hand to get UN authority for the occupation of Iraq. Your comments do not reflect the idiocy of embarking on an illegal war. We have lost a great deal of moral authority in the World,by sidestepping the UN. that is very bad news.

[Flying Lawyer]

Load Toad

I agree there's a certain irony about the attitude of some Americans towards France, given that America's most famous landmark was a gift of international friendship from the people of France to the people of the United States.

Coincidentally, Pierre-Charles L'Enfant the French architect who enlisted in the American Revolutionary army and later produced the brilliant design used for the country's new national city also fell out of favour for daring to disagree with a President. He was dismissed by George Washington, not paid for his services (apart from a notional sum for which he had to fight) and eventually died penniless in Maryland. It was more than 80 years before L'Enfant was eventually forgiven and his remains disinterred and reburied in Arlington National Cemetery with a fitting monument.

[Flying Lawyer]

SASless Can anyone cite a binding legal authority that has gone on record as saying the War in Iraq is Illegal? No. The majority view of those international lawyers who specialise in such matters is that the war against Iraq was illegal, but their opinions do not have the force of binding legal authority.

When we (UK) were told the Attorney-General had advised the Government that the war was legal, I was surprised; I couldn't understand how he'd come to that conclusion. Given that I'm not a specialist in that field - nor is he, but he is an exceptionally clever lawyer - I had to assume I must be wrong.
However, I still had strong reservations about what he'd apparently advised. In a thread at the time (March 2003), I wrote "Peter Goldsmith the AG, is one of the cleverest men with whom I've worked, but bear in mind that he is a barrister. We spend our lives arguing points we may not believe personally, and we sound convincing. Also bear in mind he was appointed by Tony Blair. Although (unlike most of his predecessors) he is not an MP, it is nonetheless a political appointment."
And, "I've known Peter Goldsmith for some years and I do not suggest for a moment he would give an opinion he did not believe to be properly arguable, but the law is frequently open to interpretation. Barristers on opposite sides of a case each argue that the interpretation most favourable to their client is the correct one."
Three years later, it turned out that Blair had given us only a highly selective account of what the Attorney-General had actually said in his advice to the Government!

Has any Court with jurisdiction over the matter issued a formal writ declaring the war to be illegal?
No. No court with jurisdiction over the matter has been asked to rule.
However, I'm not sure which court you (or the Bush administration) would accept has jurisdiction over actions by governments.

The International Court of Justice, created in 1946, settles legal disputes submitted to it by states and gives advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it. America withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986, and accepts the court's jurisdiction only when it wishes to do so.

Since 2002, the International Criminal Court has had jurisdiction to try people accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. America was one of only 7 nations to vote against its creation. It was in interesting (but predictable) company - the other 6 were China, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Qatar and Israel.
America eventually signed in 2000 but, in 2002, the Bush administration said it didn't consider itself bound by the signature and America 'unsigned' the Treaty.

[SASless]

Now that we have heard from our learned colleague, the Flying Lawyer, in who I have the greatest respect and confidence, I will accept the fWar is legal.

It is note worthy to consider what he states in rendering his argument. Unless the "defendant" or "Accused" submits to a court's authority by some means, the court does not nor cannot exercise jurisdiction.

I also find it interesting to consider whether one should submit knowing the judge and jury are unfairly prejudiced towards the defendent even before the trial is initiated.

No reasonable person would do that freely.

[nigegilb]

SASless I admire your unswerving faith but how can you possibly state the war was legal? The Attorney General initially advised the Govt that it would be illegal to fight the war without a 2nd resolution. What changed? Well, 2 things, a visit from your fellow countrymen to stiffen his resolve and the issue of the widely discredited dodgy dossier. It seems clear to me that Goldsmith changed his mind because he was told that Saddam had WMD and that he was planning to fire missiles at UK Sovereign bases in Cyprus at 45 minutes readiness. All of this intelligence claimed without a shred of evidence provided to the British people at the time. And non found in Iraq since.

IMO, based on this dossier and under considerable pressure he was given the reasoning to claim an immediate threat and intention of the use of WMD against UK interests so he changed his mind. Furthermore can you please supply us with the binding legal authority that it was legal for the UK to fight this war? No you can't, because our Govt will not release it. They could remove all this speculation at a stroke, but they won't will they? There is a drama on Brit TV next week about Blair appearing before a war crimes tribunal, suggest you watch it.


For a very clever man the Attorney General has not done much for his own credibility since he started working for Blair, then again who has?

[BenThere]

But the 'legality' of the war doesn't hinge on WMD, which, by the way was thought to have existed based on accredited intelligence estimates from multiple sources, and widely accepted before the political winds demanded it be characterized as the sole causus bellum, and failure to find it used to delegitimize the war.

The fact is, GW 1 was an internationally sanctioned conflict, and no movement has emerged declaring that war to be 'illegal'. GW 2 was a continuation of hostilities made 'legal' by Iraq's bald violation of the terms of the peace agreed upon to end GW 1 hostilities.

The first SAM launched at coalition no fly patrolling aircraft by Iraq made GW 2 'legal', and it was only forebearance and imposition of ineffective sanctions that forestalled resumption of the conflict.

[nigegilb]

Beg to differ Ben There
"The objections to the United Kingdom’s argument were powerfully stated by Professor Thomas Franck at proceedings of the American Society of International Law in 1998:
‘y any normal construction drawn from the administrative law of any legal system, what the Security Council has done is occupy the field, in the absence of a direct attack on a member state by Iraq. The Security Council has authorised a combined military operation; has terminated a combined military operation; has established the terms under which various UN agency actions will occur to supervise the cease-fire, to establish the standards with which Iraq must comply; has established the means by which it may be determined whether those standards have been met (and this has been done by a flock of reports by the inspection system); and has engaged in negotiations to secure compliance. After all these actions, to [B]now state that the United Nations has not in fact occupied the field, that there remains under Article 51 or under Resolution 678, which authorised the use of force, which authorisation was terminated in Resolution 687, a collateral total freedom on the part of any UN member to use military force against Iraq at any point that any member considers there to have been a violation of the conditions set forth in Resolution 678, is to make a complete mockery of the entire system.’ (ASIL Proceedings, 1998, ‘Legal Authority for the Possible Use of Force Against Iraq, at 139.)
We consider that it is far from clear that material breaches of a cease-fire agreement authorise the use of force in response. However, if such use of force can ever be justified, this is clearly a decision to be taken by the Security Council. The constitutional arguments considered above apply with equal force in this context. Given the purpose of the system of collective decision-making, the emphasis on peaceful resolution wherever possible, and the Security Council’s active management of the Iraqi situation to date, the better view is that neither breaches of the cease-fire agreement nor breaches of any other resolution authorise the unilateral use of force. Such use of force by the United Kingdom would therefore violate international law."

[Flying Lawyer]

SASless

Thank you for the kind comment but, having re-read my post, I still can't see anything I said which leads you to conclude the war on Iraq was legal.
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm firmly of the view (FWIW) that it was illegal.


Whilst looking for the posts I quoted above, I found this. Written in humorous style, but some excellent points IMHO.

Warmonger Explains War With Iraq To Peacenik
Author Unknown
3-18-03

Peacenik: Why did you say we are invading Iraq?
Warmonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate security council resolutions.
PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.
WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.
PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.
WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.
PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons. WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.
PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?

WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer.
PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?
WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.
PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?

WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Qaida. Osama BinLaden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide attack us, proving a partnership between the two.
PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?
WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein unless we act.
PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?

WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.
PN: He did?
WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Qaeda poison factory in Iraq.
PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?
WM: And a British intelligence report...
PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?
WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...
PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?
WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...
PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?
WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.
PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point.
PN: So what is the point?
WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the security council
will become an irrelevant debating society.

PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?
WM: Absolutely. ... unless it rules against us.
PN: And what if it does rule against us?
WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.
PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?
WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.
PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.
WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.
PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.
WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.
PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?
WM: Yes.
PN: But George B-
WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being
a patriot. That's the bottom line.
PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?
WM: I never said that.
PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.
WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.
PN: You know this? How?
WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.
PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?
WM: Precisely.
PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.
WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.
PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?
WM: Exactly.
PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.
WM: That's a diplomatic issue.
PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?
WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.
PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.
WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.
PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?
WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.
PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.
PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.
PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?
WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?
WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?
WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?
WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.
PN: In which case?
WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.
PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?
WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.
PN: That makes no sense.
WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with the all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.
PN: I give up.

[SASless]

FL,
Has there been a legal proceeding anywhere that deliberated the issue and produced a finding that declared the war illegal?

Until such time a court with the proper jurisdiction hears the case and makes a binding decision within the bounds of their legal authority.....I hold without such finding being in existence....the war is legal in that it has not been proven to be illegal.

Since our (UK and US law) common law assumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our adverserial system of prosecution, it would seem to this layman such consideration must be afforded nations as well.

In order to "prove" the war illegal, one must first find a court having jurisdiction over the matter and then institute a proceeding whereby charges of violations of established law can be heard by the convening authority.
Am I wrong in that assumption?

Except for that court, wherever and whatever that may be....are we not engaging in some virtual Hyde Park discourse here?

Let's think back to the original Gulf War....the one where we were there to restore Democracy to a Kingdom. I somewhat giggled when I heard that one thrown out for the peasants to consider.

[brain fade]

SAS

Who cares?

Sh+t is sh+t

just like in Vietnam the US must now either double up or quit.

All the signs are that it's 'GO' for double up!

Now, after 'tet', when charlie was flat out beat, it might have worked, but I suppose we'll never know for sure.

Maybes POTUS Bush is thinking about those days now.

OK, lets wait and see.


Personally, I see ahard rain's gonna fall.













But I hpe to be proved wrong.:confused:

[brain fade]

Ben There
No soldier likes war.
It is an ugly business. Try to imagine your own child cut into bits before you make another stupid post like your last, beligerent one.
PPrune ROE prevent me from stating my case more clearly.:rolleyes:

[SASless]

Fade,

Perhaps you can tell us more about war....some of us would be entralled by hearing about what it is all about. Perhaps you could enlighten us.

How will your tale begin...."once upon a time...or 'now this ain't no ****!"?

[Flying Lawyer]

SASless

Thanks. I understand your argument.
(BTW, did you hold that Saddam Hussein was innocent before he was convicted in a criminal court? ;) )

Given that you consider the cornerstone of our adverserial system of prosecution must also be afforded to nations, do you think nations should be required to apply the same high standard before they invade another? I have in mind the 'evidence' relied upon by Bush, supported by Blair poodle, to justify the invasion of Iraq.

[BEagle]

FL, I fear that 'frontier justice' mentality still exists in the minds of some.....

[nigegilb]

SASless, whilst you are at it, check out this article in today's Independent,

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2132551.ece

One of these chaps has done 5 years solitary in Camp X Ray. What was that you said about innocent before proved guilty? This chap has never been charged, the Brtit Govt has refused to incarcerate him and it is being reported that he was working for MI5. Thoughts?

[SASless]

Nige,
What information led to their capture? MI5 must have told them something pretty interesting it seems. If they are suspect enough to require following about if released seems they are not goody two shoes.

When Gitmo first was argued about here....I took the position of handling the prisoners in a timely fashion. That was prompted by a conversation I had with an old police buddy who worked at Gitmo when it first cranked up. He took the same position I did on the matter....weed out the bad from the rest, send the rest home, deal with the bad guys in a timely fashion. He and I agreed the "soft /slow" method works best. Thus I differ from what is being done in Gitmo.

There are some genuinely evil folks being held down there....we must not and can not forget that.

Beags,

In the early days of the West....there was no criminal justice system thus people had to take the "law" into their own hands. In time that was replaced by a formal system of courts, police, and prisons.

Consider what it was like if a murder occurred during a robbery....and there is no police force, no courts, and no prison....just how do you go about dealing with the killer in your midst?

Sometimes it was called a shotgun from a dark alley as the Killer staggered to the boarding house from the saloon. BOOM! End of problem.

[Chugalug2]

BOOM! End of problem.

No beginning of problem! That "Get off of your horse, and go for your gun!" philosophy has never been the Brit approach to problem solving, witness the way we sat on the NI problem for 30 years. I remember the siege of Balcombe Street in London in the very early 70s. Mrs C, newly arrived in a secret part of Wiltshire from her native land in the Americas (though not the US!) watched the unfolding drama on the 9 o'clock news night after night. On about day seven, she said with disgust of the Met, "Why don't they do something!" Shortly after the IRA gave themselves up, no dramas, no BOOM!. Of course if necessary we could have gone for BOOM, as with the later Libyan Embassy siege. But it is the last, not the first resort, in our book. The unease in this country of the Iraq fiasco is that BOOM was the chosen method from the word go, and the UN, weapons inspectors, raw intelligence, and millions of protesters were not going to get in the way of it. There was no way that BOOM would have worked in the Cold War thanks to MAD, but in the war on terror, sorry The War on Terror, it seems that "A man has to do what a man has to do!" Well, as the preacher says in Blazing Saddles, "You're on your own, son!".

[SASless]

Chugs,
You skipped over the important part.....


Consider what it was like if a murder occurred during a robbery....and there is no police force, no courts, and no prison....just how do you go about dealing with the killer in your midst?

The key element was the complete lack of any recourse other than that described.

[Chugalug2]

Chugs,
You skipped over the important part.....
The key element was the complete lack of any recourse other than that described.

There were plenty of choices, but none were acceptable to Mr B. other than aforesaid BOOM BOOM, hereinafter to be known as Shock and Awe. The others included Diplomacy and Compromise, but I'm afraid I can't find a translation for either in my UK/US dictionary, though they can be summed up as "Jaw Jaw rather than War War".

[toddbabe]

What would be interesting is if hundreds if not thousands refused to serve out there, what would they do then? Never going to happen I know but just a thought.
The war was/is illegal but what can you do about it, most people can't afford to just give up their salarys and careers for their beliefs so they have to carry on doing a job out there that they just don't believe in.
Kendall Smith will have no problems getting a nice well paid gp's job once he does his time at Colchester.