Drew Bedson

Only a judge can decide his guilt or innocence. If you wish to be part of the mindless mob that is unqualified to interpret international law and information you are not privy to as a barrackroom lawyer, go right ahead and considere this illegal. You can just 'feel it' fight? Well, without all the information, you have a 33 1/3% chance of being right in 'If Land.' You know the place, where dreams are made of. Where courts convene to decide matters if they feel there is a case. Possibly. I doubt it though. Just as I can say all sorts of bad things about people and things and unlikely to be held liable for it. I am sure however, that the US and others have noted this blathering and will file it away for a time that counts. Yes. I noted how the above head of the UN rushed to take care of that along with the UNSC both condeming it as well as holding a vote and deciding that action be taken. Funny how they do that when things are actually ruled illegal isn't it?

Easy, it would violate the contracts the British and US companies have with both the US and the UAE. If they invest all this money and then have to forfit the contract for union reasons, it would embroil Dubai Word Ports into a legal batle that would probably destroy the company.

Hi. Possibly we can get the facts striaght before the discussion goes south on us. The ports have not been under US control for years, rather British. And, will also remain under British control after this goes through with financing and control over those companies by the UAE. The ownership of the ports will be US. What has happened here is that the companies who have controlled the ports will now be bought by a UAE company and undergo no personel or policy change. Unless the British and a few US companies suddenly turn 'terrorist' on us, then things will remain the same. The security for these ports will still be provided by the US authorities as per whatever breakdown would occur if they were owned by anybody.

The Shifless Sand People cannot be trusted. Every Liberal knows that. Time for some racial profiling too. Box up all the 7 - 11s, taxis and ship 'em home! Heil Hillary!

I think that it is pretty clear what I said. In order for certain groups and mistaken individuals to state accurately that this was an illegal action, they should have some backing of an official body that is qualified to rule on these things. We know that when matters such as this are thought illegal, the UNSC does rule, rather than simply provide 'votes of condemnation.' They hand out punishment and, if certain 'member states' have the gonands, take appropriate action (which can arguably be what the US did with the invasion of Iraq). This did not occur here and so, stating that it is an 'illegal invasion' is only a matter of individual opinion rather than fact. The facts being that the only body able to determine that it was, did not even table the matter yet, they have a history of doing such things when the USA and Israel are the target. Of course not. However, it does render stating that the 'illegality' as fact is voided and relegates it into the realm of conjecture, gossip, opinion and rumor. Hence my comments of 'feeling it in your bones' and 'there outta be a law.'

Of course, as you understand it. That makes it all illegal then, because that's the way you understand it. Good logic. I can argue the wording of the USNC's resolutions and cross reference them to show how their ruling and mandate (which superceedes your criteria above by nature of their existance) allowed this to happen legally but you won't buy that. Instead, you will state that I am wrong and you are right. However, none of it will matter as the only people who can make this determination is the UNSC. And you are 9 of the voting members of the USNC or 10? Can I be Russia and the UK please? And is this a secret vote that you are holding or has it been held already? Now, thank you for the Panama example which while not exact, does show what happens when the process to make something illegal goes into gear. First, there is condemnation and argument at the UN. In this case nineteen odd countries testified at the UNSC, only five favorably btw - the USA one of them (imagine). Then, it goes for a vote, and then, once done, and if sucessful, becomes defacto and punitive measures taken. Now, in the case of the Iraq invasion, when did this process take place? And, I assume that when it did, the US, Btitain or both vetoed it so it would not pass anyhow so, am wondering how you can say it is illegal when nobody has determined, much less convened to declare it so. Did they not do this because they had a pot of water boiling over on the stove or had to do some grocery shopping - for three years? Or maybe the holidays precluded this process? How about, they understood the wording to be just what the coalition member states interpreted them as or, realized it was legal or at the very least, due to the wording and circumstances, not illegal and therefore not do anything. We certainly know from past experience that even when sure of being defeated by veto, these resolutions are introduced anyhow, so they are on record yet one has not been in this case. In a democratic world, this would make the invasion legal until proven illegal woudn't it, not that I'm trying to press that point as I'm simply trying to keep people on a realistic keel. Then again, it's illegal right? We can just 'feel it' in our bones. 'There oughtta be a law' sort of thing, one where there is no need to hold a quorum at the UNSC. It's illegal because everybody that isn't on the Security Council thinks it should be.

True, think you read it wrong. We have thousands of people over in that area some of whom are getting killed, wounded and affected by this war. When did the USNC decide this action was not what it intended with their wordings in 687 and 1441 and was in fact illegal? Who were the nations for, and against when they convened and voted in their comdenation? What was the action to be taken as a result of this supposed 'illegal' invasion that would have flown in the face of thier previous rulings? There was no vote in the USNC as you know, there was no action to be taken, no official comdenation of any kind. Instead, there was lots of opinions from people who were not members engaging in the legal process at the UNSC but, no vote.

Did they use their military for an 'aggressive war of choice?' It is hardly a 2 + 2= 4 forumula argument. And this shmuck is definitely not in the catagory of Rommel or your Jodl Lonius. He's a soldier, not privy to UNSC briefs and the inside scoop on governmental policies as well as top secret intelligence reports because he's supposed to be holding a rifle and carrying out orders. Hardly qualified to decide the intricate reasons, intentions and repercussions of this event. And, if he was that immersed that he did, he would be tried for spying and or deriliction of duty as his job is to honor his contract and follow orders, be they shooting people, handing out candy to kids or building a hospital, not go off in political protests the minute a new argument or hypothisis is introduced. People the world over are still in debate over this so, to simply call it 'an aggressive war of choice' at this time is falacy and conjecture, wide open to debate probably for decades to come if ever at all to be able to be determined. To suddenly argue that this guy, hiding out in Canada has the inside skinny on all this with any certainty while the rest of the planet is still in debate (and has sat on this 'factual,' yet unheard of info for three years to boot) is laughable. There we go with the opinons again trying to make a factual point. In the eyes of many is not a law, it is an argument that falls before fact. That fact being that he is a deserter who did not meet his responsibilities. Citing unfactual theory that has never been proven for his illegal lapse in service to his country, he now becomes a beacon to the anti war people in both our countries. Is this what some people rally behind? A guy who can't get it up? Did it ever occur to the anti war people that he is probably a coward who doesn't have the courage to either face his punishment, rreturn home and bring charges up against the so called 'war crimes comitters' he talks about or, just fulfil his obligation to his contract? In any case, here are a couple of 'facts.' This guy broke his county's law and is afraid to go back. Meanwhile, we have thousands of Canadian guys over there getting killed, wounded and far from home. Why is he not protesting our actions in providing navy ships to allow US personel to persue their invasion? Why do we have air force, army and special forces people helping out in this operation killing and imprisoning people? Why is he not bemoaning the 'fact' that we have over two thousand guys in Afganistan, the place where he said horrendous crimes were commited who are commiting the same 'crimes'? How does he substanciate the 'fact' that others now have to take his place who have less expertise than he, and hence are in more danger? I'm willing to bet that he doesn't. Same as the concerned anti war people who only have one agenda - to distort reality, call conjecture fact and raise this irresponsible guy to hero status for running away from his 'legal' options of action, just so they can flog their message.

Not even trying to stand up and say it was 100% legal. Simply countering that it has never been proved illegal and very likely ever will cross the agenda of the UNSC to debate if it was or was not. Hence, it is wrong to state that it was illegal. And thank you for the welcome Lonius although this is a temporary visit as still pretty busy with my other site. (and couldn't remember the damm password hence having to hide behind my real name) This deserter issue was an interesting thread as those who were anti war automatically cited the war's percieved and not proven illegality as a basis for this guy to do something that is proven illegal. A hypocritical argument to say the least.

Well, you may be wrong about that but right that it is an opinon. However, wrong in that thinking it is unpopular as many hold this mistaken viewpoint, one which is based on nothing other than opinion. When it truely is an illegal action then charges will be laid. Until the only world body capable of making that determination convenes (as the wordings of the resolutions that gave authority for it to occur legally are there) and clarifies their intent to mean other than what has occured, 'illegal' is a word of opinion rather than fact and no charges will be brought forward. I also don't see a real problem however, don't see an advantage either. If this guy were a man of conviction he would take his lumps like Cassius Clay and then move on. He doesn't seem to be a man of steadfast nature though, which is probably the main reason why he didn't adhere to his contract to begin with. Politics playing a distant second out of conveinience. A prison sentence is not grounds for refugee status and I don't see why you feel they or he would add anything but liability to our country given proof that he bolts when required to serve rather than go the route of facing up to his decisions when he doesn't like something. Therefore, question your rush to support such a person. Isn't this country rife with people who won't live up to their responsibilities already?

When did Koffee resign as head administrator and become nine of the fifteen voting members of the UN Security Council, the only body empowered to rule this action illegal? His opinion while interesting, is no more valid than the lawyers for the 45 coalition heads of state that advised their leaders it was legal. Or, the over fifty other nations who gave support (Iran, Suadi Arabia etc) but did not wish to be publiclly named who figured the same? Now, as for him being right. Imagine Chief Wiggams being told by the DA to arrest Al Capone. DA: Arrest Al Capone. Wiggams: No your honor, I think he is innocent. Therefore I will not arrest him so you can have a trial to decide his guilt. Or if you prefer, fire hall gets a call stating house is burning and peoples lives are at stake' 911: Ten alarm fire at 34 Smith Avenus. Children trapped. Fire Hall Dispatcher: Ahh, ok. (turns to ten firemen in boots getting on truck) 'Stand down guys, I don't think this is an emergency. In fact, I believe it is not one, therefore, let's file some paper protests in the morning.' Imagine D Day, half a million troops all sitting around debating the guilt or innocence of Germany before they decide to board the ships. What a farce. As for this guy in Canada. Let him stay, he broke no Canadian law but hasn't his visa expired? In reality, he had one decision to make as a soldier. When he follows orders and aims his weapon - hit or miss.

Forgive me Craig if I got lost here but is it not customary for the victor in a war to be kind of exempt from prosecution in any way shape or form from those whose *** he just whipped? I do believe as well that in the case of the UN that any crimes commited by soldiers are dealt with by the nation whose soldier commited the offence. A perfect example is Trooper Kyle Brown of the Canadian Airborne Regiment. If he was tried by the Somalis for his small role in the murder of that thief he would have been hacked to pieces by a mob of people with machetes. Hardly makes me want to volunteer for any UN duties.