myata

Well it looks like no one is challenging the point that it'd be impossible to formally decide on the legality of the US actions in Iraq in the absence of a legitimate court of justice taking the case. At least, "legality" in the broad sense of justice, as opposed to narrow technical context of the UNSC process in which I'm no expert. One important outcome of any legal process (no matter how long or expensive it can be) is that it gives parties involved resolution and closure. It will not happen in this affair. The questions and doubts about coalition's actions will remain.

It can't be enforced as a policy and is a bad taste as a personal preference (like making and old or disabled visitor stand in his presence). I'm not sure it'd give grounds for a formal complaint, although I believe that officials shouldn't be allowed to promote their personal preferences and attitudes while on public's time and expense. As someone's already noted, it's them who serve the public and not the other way.

The link to CBC story. The government proposes a bill that will put an onus on the offender to prove that they should not be designated "dangerous" with all the goodies coming with the brand (indefine jail, limitation of parole, etc). For once, I think I'd be OK with that but in an interview with criminal lawyers they expressed concerns about constitutionality of such act. Any comments?

The minor aspect missing from your brief and comprehensive description of Islam is that unlike Christians in the earlier ages, they weren't coming for us before we started coming to them (big time). It could therefore be surmised that maybe, just maybe they would be content to live in their primal and so on world if not bothered from outside. Unless you can prove it not to be the case, of course.

There were reports yesterday (here's a CBC story) that Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt, chief of the general staff of the British Army has strongly suggested pullout of Iraq in the near future. Looks like there's less and less will in the coalition of the "willing" to shoulder the mess. Who's next?

A good analysis of this issue on today's CBC in-depth.

No it's your line of bowing out of the argument by not answering direct and clear questions that starts to look farcial and comical. No matter the problems with the resolution 1441; or all the previous resolutions, condeming the US; or any other pseudo legalistic considerations you want to pull in; the simple fact remains that the SC is obviously not qualified to be a judicial body (which I take it you silently acknowledged it as you never challenged any points I brought up about its mode of operation). Therefore itself it cannot establish the legality or otherwise of its own resolution or any subsequent act. Mock condemnation does not amount to illegality, just as "legal" by default does not mean it was actually legal. Only a court of law, with a reasonable standard of justice can do that. One can hope there will be one on the international level, even if not anytime soon. Surprisingly, there's no contradiction in arguing that someone may have overstepped the authority given by an executive order, or used disportionate force, or any other problems with the act under the order, and the fact that the body issuing the order did not have the judicial power to judge itself. This is what normally happens in our life. Your lawyer can challenge the order, and the actions of any official under it, in the court. Just as it should be - unless you belive in " what I did is legal because I did not say it was illegal" line of argument, which was quite common, respectable and understandable - in the middle ages. Actually I'm getting tired of having to restate the same arguments over and again without much logical response from your side. So, unless you come up with something meaningful, I'll bow out for now.

And while we're at it, let's get completely clear in the terminology we use: I'm not sure what do you mean by "condemn"? Publicly condemn, privately condemn? Condemn among your buddies in a pub or yoga club? I'd say the first step would be to bring a legal challenge to the court of law (which by definition assumes that it satisfies the requirements of independent judiciary. Such as impartiality, independence, fairness, accessibility and so on). Good for it, but it does not make it a court of law for the reasons already mentioned above. Your examples really prove nothing. And so? And so??? I'm not sure where the second part of this statement popped out of? A particular witness can be a part of judicial process but hardly a "key" to it. Please check what I said above, it's not the first time you misquote opponents in this discussion. When I said "controlled body" I meant that it's easily influenced by outside considerations. Independence would be a better term to use, I conceed on that.

1. SC cannot be considered impartial because certain governments, if accused of wrongdoing, can still participate in its deliberations and influence its decisions. 2. SC cannot be considered completely independent because governments can influence its composition and procedures, and its members can be influenced by external political considerations. 3. SC cannot be considered open and accessible because the offended party cannot bring a direct claim against the offender. 4. SC cannot be considered equal because some of the governments have special privileges (right of veto). The above clearly distinguishes the SC, which is no more that an extraordinary executive council, from what is normally associated with adequate justice system in the civlilized societies. The fact that only a few resolutions of the kind were ever attempted (and successfully vetoed down) only underlines its complete inadequacy to serve as a meaningful justice framework on the international scene. If the above still not clear enough, here's an example from real life that may illustrate it: Your house was flattened by police chasing a criminal in a tank. You have the right to complain, however: 1) only if your complaint is supported by a member of the review panel; 2) the commander of the police team IS a judge of the review panel; 3) at the same time he's the attorney for the accused (i.e., him/herself); 4) he has the right to veto any decision of the panel. Questions: 1) would you (or anyone in their right mind for that matter) choose to complain to such a commission or follow the normal legal process where you can have independent court hearing in which you'll have exact same legal rights as your opponent? 2) if anyone (were so bizzare as to have) brought such complaints earlier, would it make the commission any closer to a normal court of law?

I'm curious to see how many "willing" the US would find for their coalition this time around.

Earlier in this thread we already had a discussion on whether someone but the individuals themselves should be authorised to decide what kind of clothing would constitutute "disguise" or "oppression". BTW security factors are usually addressed before individual gets to see the official (e.g. while entering public service area). If identification is required as a matter of policy, I see nothing wrong with veil being removed at this stage. Again, it's a matter of 1) reasonable and 2) accommodation.

What's always puzzling to me is the effortless ease with which certain group of people advocating less government involvement in general turn around on a dime to favour strict policies on specific, especially social issues. One'd think, if you wouldn't have govt involved in educating children, building roads and providing medical assistence, maybe it shouldn't bother with people's clothing or the way they marry either?

What is even more comical is that apparently you cannot grasp the meaning of what was said here multiple times: mock condemnation in a controlled highly influenced political body cannot amount to fair and impartial justice from any rational point of view.

You can spend many words but still won't be any closer to persuading anyone that a body in which the alledged perpetrator sits in the jury, is a part time judge and has the right of veto for the decision can be, in any rational way, qualified as a court of justice. And, do save your sensitivity it for the next batch of civilians killed in Iraq, or soldiers coming back home in caskets or victims of terror attacks triggered by this meaningless aventure. They're the ones who will need all the sympaties the Bushes and Co (yourelf included) have to offer.

Bradco, you raise important quesions but I think these concept would only apply in a normal legal environment i.e. in the presence of appropriate legal framework (the law) and legitimate independent and impartial judicial body (a court). Without those two elements the whole issue becomes muddled. The SC cannot perform judicial function because it isn't independent nor impartial. It is rather an executive body. KK has a point in what in the absence of a better procedure one may think that anything that isn't deemed illegal by such a body should be considered to be legal. I do not agree with such interpretation because in my understanding "legal" means standing the judicial challenge in a reasonably fair legal environment. Such an environment simply does not exist internationally. Therefore it's probably impossible to formally decide on any such action as being either legal or otherwise. That of course in no way removes any doubts about the manner in which these actions were executed, nor challenges such as necessity and proportionality of it. It's just that the judgment will be carried out not by the formal court, but the people of the planet and not necessarily here and today.

Let me put it this way: in the absence of a qualified body (an authorised and legitimate court) there's no point in trading the "legal - illegal" argument, no matter which side one'd take. I cannot agree that it was legal but without legal reference (law) and a court to make final judgement, there's no realistic possibility to prove otherwise. The argument would simply go on forever.

Oh come on ... You have to understand this finally: there cannot be a winning legal argument when there's no court to hear it (from both sides). It's really simple, very simple. The "moral" argument is very simple too: the same result could very likely have been achieved at a fraction of human cost and in much less time. It was (and is being) done to satisfy Bushes' domestic policies and grand visions of victorious democracy marching across the globe. As all grand visions, probably doomed to fail.

I agree there're some troubling signs of 1) political interference (e.g. leak investigation incident); 2) what looks like persistent failure to detect and investigate wrongdoings withing the force (Arar incident; that "pension fund" affair; recent episode with underage molestations accusations on which, again, the (pretty short) term allowed for internal investigation was missed); other episodes that periodically pop up in the news or TV; 3) culture of self preservation and inablity to adapt to modern times. I also agree that most of the problems are emanating from the top brass and probably haven't reached the rank and file level, yet. But a major reform of the force is in order.

One more time: four years and counting (time and lives I don't care about american money) and still no WMD. Could the same result have been achieved by another 6 months of H.Blix's inspections? As supported by majority of the SC and Blix himself? That's what proportionality means. Most people understand that.

Well, if it was made a policy, it'd be instantly challenged on the grounds of discrimination and freedom of religion. As Supreme Court already made decisions based on "reasonable accommodation", such a policy would probably be stricken down unless it can be proven that wearing a veil can bring real harm. Good luck trying to prove it. I believe that school in Quebec had a stronger case with ceremonial knife. If, on the other hand, such decisions were left entirely to the preference of the official, one may question how far should these preferences be allowed to go? E.g. can an official express a preference to deal with young good looking women? only with individuals who are impeckably dressed including full business suit and a tie? and so on?

Exactly. Saddam is sitting put between no-fly zones in the south and protected areas in the north. Inspection teams roam around the country getting access even to his private palaces. He's afraid to move a finger and only shows his nasty temper once in a while, just to keep his buddies in check (guessing), but nothing that isn't solved by a few phone calls to the right places. Blix haven't found any prohibited weapons and presents a plan to eliminate all doubts that they may exist within short timeframe. Despite desperate hand wringing, the liberation team fails to obtain a mandate for invasion from the Security Council (or in fact even secure majority in the vote). Not to worry. One morning Bush and Blair wake up in their (separate) beds stricken by same the message from high on (or on high?): IT IS TIME. They barge their way into the country, destroying power infrastructure, housing infrastructure, water supply infrastructure, undermining the intrinsic framework of the society that could very well result in a civil war, and killing a few thousand civilians on the way. Then, a year later, the message finally hits home: no prohibited weapons were found, still! Could the same result have been achieved by another 6 months of Blix's inspections? Maybe, a year of inspections? (to remind: it's been 4 years now and counting... probably many more years counting). Was the action proportional to the objective? In the absence of internation justice, everybody will have to decide for themselves. But the facts are out there and no amount of liberation and democratization talk can change them.

So you absolutely deny that an individual may wear a veil out of their own will and by consent? Let's parse this statement logically: - you see the veil; - you know that it's "used to oppress women"; - you know that she thinks (being oppressed) and how she'll behave (as one being oppressed). So there's no error in my previous post. Congratulations, you're gifted with a rare indeed ability to read the mind (and make absolute moralistic statements as a bonus).

Just my two cents. There are reports of homosexual pedofile priests and heterosexual pedofile priests. Surprisingly, both can be defined as pedofile priests. And BTW your later defence about brushing under the carpet because they were oh so ashamed that they couldn't even admit it is beyond ridiculous.

Sorry, but you're clearly confused between three of your own posts. And I'm a bit in a rush to help you out. Till soon.

OK, leaving out this "cultures" thing, can I rephrase it to say that by looking at a person you can pretty damn good guess what they think and how they will behave?