Court Martial of American Officer for refusing to serve in Iraq
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless
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!
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.
Can anyone cite a binding legal authority that has gone on record as saying the War in Iraq is Illegal?
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?
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.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 6th Jan 2007 at 12:42.
Thread Starter
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Last edited by nigegilb; 6th Jan 2007 at 13:21.
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
‘[B]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 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."
"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:
‘[B]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 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."
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by brain fade; 7th Jan 2007 at 17:14.
Thread Starter
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 ****!"?
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 ****!"?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless, whilst you are at it, check out this article in today's Independent,
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...cle2132551.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?
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...cle2132551.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?
Thread Starter
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.
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.
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!".
Last edited by Chugalug2; 7th Jan 2007 at 14:32.
Thread Starter
Chugs,
You skipped over the important part.....
The key element was the complete lack of any recourse other than that described.
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?
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".
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
