Ours not to make reply....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Age: 52
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ours not to make reply....
With all this speculation about attacking Iraq - possibly without a UN mandate, has anyone got ant thoughts on whether or not such an order would be 'legal' under International Law? Food for thought....
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Colin Powell said last week that they UN inspectors don't need to find anything for them to still be able to attack Iraq. At the end of the day who's gonna stop the US? I can't see that the UN will declare war against the US with their headquarters in New York!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Somerset
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pylot,
Just a thought but is Iraq indeed the biggest problem facing the ever-so-effective UN at the moment?
What about famine and corruption in Africa,Aids epidemics,ecological pollution on a massive scale and of course the "policing actions" going on in at least 34 places at the moment as well as EU megalomania and Chinese sabre-rattling?
All of these pale into insignificance,however,when we consider the biggest problem facing the civilized world today,that is how on earth are we (now) civvy pilots going to look even half-cool in an aeroplane now that MOD has taken it upon itself to change the colour of flying gloves to black. It beggars belief.
Yours Heartbrokenly,
(from a sad govt. surplus queue somewhere.....etc.etc..)
Just a thought but is Iraq indeed the biggest problem facing the ever-so-effective UN at the moment?
What about famine and corruption in Africa,Aids epidemics,ecological pollution on a massive scale and of course the "policing actions" going on in at least 34 places at the moment as well as EU megalomania and Chinese sabre-rattling?
All of these pale into insignificance,however,when we consider the biggest problem facing the civilized world today,that is how on earth are we (now) civvy pilots going to look even half-cool in an aeroplane now that MOD has taken it upon itself to change the colour of flying gloves to black. It beggars belief.
Yours Heartbrokenly,
(from a sad govt. surplus queue somewhere.....etc.etc..)
First die Handschuhe, sorry, gloves, und next, mein Freunde, das Uniform. Ve vill haff higher backed boots mit nice clicky heels, und ve vill replace your, I mean our, blue grey mit black....... Zat vill only be ze start, ich denke! Today the gloves, tomorrow......
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
To answer the original question,
At the end of WWII, War crimes were divided into three broad categories.
a) Crimes against Peace. Initiation of invasions of other countries and wars of aggression in violation of international laws and treaties.
b) War Crimes. Atrocities or offences against persons or property including, but not limited to, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, the killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
c) Crimes against Humanity. Atrocities and offences, including but not limited to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population.
Your question concerns the first category. Those liable for indictment under the first category are the heads of state and their cabinets, ministers of the armed forces and the senior military leadership of the offending nation.
In this case, however, the U.N. sanctioned war against Iraq prior to Desert Storm. Fighting ceased under the terms of a U.N. ceasefire resolution passed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, allowing the use of force. Since Iraq has never complied with the ceasefire provisions, the war has not ended and the outside world is still entitled to resort to military force.
The only question remaining is, has Iraq ever been declared in violation of this and subsequent resolutions? And the answer is yes, several times. e.g.
Resolution 707 - Aug 15, 1991
The Security Council issued a strong denunciation of Iraq's "serious violation" of its promise to co-operate fully with Unscom and told Baghdad it was "in material breach" of Resolution 687.
June 1996.
In a Security Council Presidential Statement, the U.N. the condemned Iraq for clear and flagrant violations of resolutions 697 (1991), 707 (1991) and 719 (1991)...........
Iraq Index
So, legally, Bush and Blair seem to have a sufficient case to proceed and to justify it in court. The same case was used as the basis for the establishment of the No-Fly Zones and the subsequent air attacks which have been conducted ever since, the validity of which has been accepted by the international community.
At the end of WWII, War crimes were divided into three broad categories.
a) Crimes against Peace. Initiation of invasions of other countries and wars of aggression in violation of international laws and treaties.
b) War Crimes. Atrocities or offences against persons or property including, but not limited to, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, the killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
c) Crimes against Humanity. Atrocities and offences, including but not limited to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population.
Your question concerns the first category. Those liable for indictment under the first category are the heads of state and their cabinets, ministers of the armed forces and the senior military leadership of the offending nation.
In this case, however, the U.N. sanctioned war against Iraq prior to Desert Storm. Fighting ceased under the terms of a U.N. ceasefire resolution passed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, allowing the use of force. Since Iraq has never complied with the ceasefire provisions, the war has not ended and the outside world is still entitled to resort to military force.
The only question remaining is, has Iraq ever been declared in violation of this and subsequent resolutions? And the answer is yes, several times. e.g.
Resolution 707 - Aug 15, 1991
The Security Council issued a strong denunciation of Iraq's "serious violation" of its promise to co-operate fully with Unscom and told Baghdad it was "in material breach" of Resolution 687.
June 1996.
In a Security Council Presidential Statement, the U.N. the condemned Iraq for clear and flagrant violations of resolutions 697 (1991), 707 (1991) and 719 (1991)...........
Iraq Index
So, legally, Bush and Blair seem to have a sufficient case to proceed and to justify it in court. The same case was used as the basis for the establishment of the No-Fly Zones and the subsequent air attacks which have been conducted ever since, the validity of which has been accepted by the international community.
Last edited by ORAC; 14th Jan 2003 at 01:16.
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had thought that flying gloves were white leather because it offered better fire resistance than either black leather or anything else.
Maybe this had something to do with tanning and dyeing techniques from yesteryear, and maybe black now offers the same protection.
I'd hate to think the change had come about simply because some seat polisher somewhere either didn't know the original reason, or had forgotten it...
Maybe this had something to do with tanning and dyeing techniques from yesteryear, and maybe black now offers the same protection.
I'd hate to think the change had come about simply because some seat polisher somewhere either didn't know the original reason, or had forgotten it...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The first town on the Thames
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
2 Posts
Although the suits could probably argue the legality of an attack without a further resolution, what about the response within the Security Council? It was difficult enough to gain unanimous agreement for the present resolution and it was clearly stated that a the matter would need to come back to the SC before action was taken. I predict some very angry SC members! How about a motion to eject US & UK as Permanent Members if we go it alone?
I still remember the way world opinion turned against us in 1991 after the Basrah Road bombing right at the end of the war. We went from heros to criminals overnight when CNN et al aired some of their gory material. This time we start on the wrong foot. I can't see any way of sugar coating it as far as Joe Public is concerned.
Interesting public opinion pole on Radio 2 this afternoon. 27,000 'phone calls; 87% AGAINST war in Iraq! Good short telephone interview with Jon Nichol as well. Good points well made Jon.
I still remember the way world opinion turned against us in 1991 after the Basrah Road bombing right at the end of the war. We went from heros to criminals overnight when CNN et al aired some of their gory material. This time we start on the wrong foot. I can't see any way of sugar coating it as far as Joe Public is concerned.
Interesting public opinion pole on Radio 2 this afternoon. 27,000 'phone calls; 87% AGAINST war in Iraq! Good short telephone interview with Jon Nichol as well. Good points well made Jon.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Whilst agreeing with you in principle I just have in the back of my head the widespread scorn in which the U.N. is held by many people, including politicians, in the USA, who see it as being as useless as the League of Nations.
In the case you put forward I think it would end up as more of a case of the USA walking away rather than being pushed - and from the U.N. as a whole. it certainly won't stop them taking action - as they have made clear.
In the case you put forward I think it would end up as more of a case of the USA walking away rather than being pushed - and from the U.N. as a whole. it certainly won't stop them taking action - as they have made clear.
ORAC - I don't think that you'll find many people particularly fond of George W..... Bush beyond the borders of the Land of The Crimplene Backside.
.......take first the plank, c...!!
.......take first the plank, c...!!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not just the US and UK that are preparing to "take action" in the absence of a UN resolution. Whilst the input Australia can make would seem to be quite limited, it is quite clear that there are steps being taken to commit Australian forces to a war 9or continuing the existing war, if ORAC is correct). So, does the UN boot out all countries who seem intent on getting stuck in to Saddam.
Slightly off thread, did anyone see the vision of a boat driven by Saddam with 40 odd Saddam decoys. Does that mean to get Saddam it is necessary for Dubya, Rev Blair and Little Johhny to get all the decoys, and can you think of a higher risk "occupation" at the moment than being a Saddam decoy (except perhaps a Osama decoy)?
Slightly off thread, did anyone see the vision of a boat driven by Saddam with 40 odd Saddam decoys. Does that mean to get Saddam it is necessary for Dubya, Rev Blair and Little Johhny to get all the decoys, and can you think of a higher risk "occupation" at the moment than being a Saddam decoy (except perhaps a Osama decoy)?
