Bush knew detainees were innocent

[Sir Bandelot]

And with that, we decide if sanctions when other means are available, are the correct way to proceed.

It says that sanctions are in some cases equally harmful to a society as if they were being carpet bombed. Only, the buildings remain.

Maybe sanctions are even worse, if they achieve mass death but no meaningful objectives. Sanctions must be applied intelligently with some achieveable goal in mind. If the intention of sanctions is to remove the offending countrys ability to pose a threat, they need go no further than that. To use sanctions to attack the civilians is no less harmful than an outright military attack, while the government and army remain in power.

[Shady]

no... international law doesn't permit unilateral preemptive action without the authority of the UN

Your premise is completely false. It wasn't unilateral action. There were several countries involved. And it really wasn't preemptive action, since Iraq had already violated its signed agreements regarding sanctions, weapons inspections and a ceasefire. However, it was definitely delayed because of the Clinton administration's unwillingness to responsd, other than a random missile strike here and there, which didn't serve much of a purpose.

you keep ignoring the several references offered to the failed attempts by the U.S./UK to secure that "2nd UN resolution".

Those resolutions are irrelevant. Their only purpose was diplomatic.

[bloodyminded]

Your premise is completely false. It wasn't unilateral action. There were several countries involved. And it really wasn't preemptive action, since Iraq had already violated its signed agreements regarding sanctions, weapons inspections and a ceasefire.

And so did the United States. You keep avoiding this issue.

[GostHacked]

Actually, what I meant to say is that under international law, military action taken by the opposite party is completely legal.

International law does not mean shit to the US. They use it when it suits them.

[M.Dancer]

It says that sanctions are in some cases equally harmful to a society as if they were being carpet bombed. Only, the buildings remain.

Maybe sanctions are even worse, if they achieve mass death but no meaningful objectives. Sanctions must be applied intelligently with some achieveable goal in mind. If the intention of sanctions is to remove the offending countrys ability to pose a threat, they need go no further than that.

The problem with sanctions is, they rely on the assumption that the governing power of the target country has at their root, the welfare of the people at heart. Clearly Saddam couldn't give a rats ass for his own people. We could say, we should have known that...but that's a 20.20 hindsight question. The sanctions would have allowed most people to live adequately...but with Saddam diverting funds, building palaces etc....

To use sanctions to attack the civilians is no less harmful than an outright military attack, while the government and army remain in power.

Sanctions have not been imposed to attack people anywhere. Whther South Africa, or Iraq or Iran...sanctions are clearly aimed at the transgressors...trangressions.

[bush_cheney2004]

no... international law doesn't permit unilateral preemptive action without the authority of the UN... you'll need to push the Bush Doctrine somewhere else, hey buddy. Oh wait... are you saying the U.S./UK acted in self-defense - is that your hook into international law?

Ummm...except when it comes to bombing Serbs into the dust for "human rights"...how ironic!

[Shady]

why not step up and define what acute and imminent threats the U.S./UK were under... so as to presume on self-defense actions

Imminent threats are irrelevant. As are self-defense actions. Again, you're bringing up false premises and strawman to argue against. The US and UK weren't under any imminent threats when Iraq first invaded Kuwait either. It doesn't mean military action wasn't legal. Like I've already stated and proved, Iraq violated its agreed weapons inspections and ceasefire. Military action against them was completely legal. You'll have to find another murderous dictator to take defense of!

[Shady]

And so did the United States. You keep avoiding this issue.

No I haven't. Your claim of them banning foodstuffs was completely untrue.

[bush_cheney2004]

International law does not mean shit to the US. They use it when it suits them.

Correct....as do many other nations. The only difference is that the USA can do a lot more damage.

[bloodyminded]

No I haven't. Your claim of them banning foodstuffs was completely untrue.

They banned items necessary to making foodstuffs useful, such as milling equipment for flour.

So..you still haven't responded, since bland denials based on fantasy don't quite count.

[bush_cheney2004]

No I haven't. Your claim of them banning foodstuffs was completely untrue.

Well, if he can pull 500,000 dead children out of his ass, anything is possible!

[M.Dancer]

excellent... you never know just who will bite! Since you avoided it throughout the other thread, you can certainly take it up again, right here: what basis in international law do you favour to support the invasion of Iraq?

I've referenced 'self defense' as an out for you... is that (also) your favoured position - one based on U.S./UK self-defense? Let's have it Dancer, let's see your best side-step routine as you maneuver between the peremptory norm (based on acute and imminent actual threat) within Article 2, Section 4 of the U.N. Charter and Article 51's permission based on self defense? While you're at it, why not step up and define what acute and imminent threats the U.S./UK were under... so as to presume on self-defense actions.

You seem to be operationg under a couple , if not more false assumptions.

The first is, that the charter is international law...*chortle*

The second is the charter, as you put it,

international law doesn't permit unilateral preemptive action without the authority of the UN

When clearly, it does.

Article 51:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of collective or individual self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members in exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

and regarding pre-emptive force.

There is a limited right of pre-emptive self-defence under customary law. Its continuing permissibility under the Charter hinges on the interpretation of article 51. If it permits self-defence only when an armed attack has occurred, then there can be no right to pre-emptive self defence. However, few observers really think that a state must wait for an armed attack to actually begin before taking action. A distinction can be drawn between "preventive" self-defence, which takes place when an attack is merely possible or foreseeable, and a permitted "interventionary" or "anticipatory" self-defence, which takes place when an armed attack is imminent and inevitable. The right to use interventionary, pre-emptive armed force in the face of an imminent attack has not been ruled out by the ICJ. But state practice and opinio juris overwhelmingly suggests that there is no right of preventive self-defence under international law.

[Sir Bandelot]

Sanctions have not been imposed to attack people anywhere. Whther South Africa, or Iraq or Iran...sanctions are clearly aimed at the transgressors...trangressions.

Perhaps in theory, but I don't know for sure. If food processing machines and medicines are being denied, it's pretty clear what that does. Also if things are being denied that make it impossible for people to work, to have jobs, make money to pay for food, clothing. The crippling of an economy by sanctions could have secondary effects like that. It says that sanctions in the traditional sense are pretty much useless, they harm the wrong people.

[waldo]

Your premise is completely false. It wasn't unilateral action. There were several countries involved. And it really wasn't preemptive action, since Iraq had already violated its signed agreements regarding sanctions, weapons inspections and a ceasefire. However, it was definitely delayed because of the Clinton administration's unwillingness to responsd, other than a random missile strike here and there, which didn't serve much of a purpose.

Those resolutions are irrelevant. Their only purpose was diplomatic.

braniac! Unilateral action doesn't imply "one country"... it implies "one side" - in the 2 sided "thems" against "Iraq".

not preemptive action, hey? Poor Shady... you don't even recognize the foundation itself - see "Bush Doctrine" before embarrassing yourself... even further!

ah yes... the annoying diplomatic channels that actually would have legitimized the Iraq war... clearly, you won't have any of that ole irrelevant diplomacy. Shady, back away and leave the more substantive threads for the grown-ups, hey, lil buddy.

[M.Dancer]

not preemptive action, hey? Poor Shady... you don't even recognize the foundation itself - see "Bush Doctrine" before embarrassing yourself... even further!

The US law authorizing the removal of Saddam predates the "Bush Doctrine" ...nevertheless, the justification of continued war rests in the cease fire agreement.

[waldo]

You seem to be operationg under a couple , if not more false assumptions.

The first is, that the charter is international law...*chortle*

The second is the charter, as you put it,

international law doesn't permit unilateral preemptive action without the authority of the UN

When clearly, it does.

and regarding pre-emptive force.

*chortle", indeed! Nothing like your citing a UN Charter Number to deny the authority of the UN

but, we're making grand progress. However, since you've bitten and signed on to Article 51 "self defense" as your foundation to legitimize the illegal Iraq war, you're ignoring my request for you to define, "what acute and imminent threats the U.S./UK were under... so as to presume on self defense actions." Is there a problem for you in defining those acute and imminent threats that supported the U.S./UK (presumed) self defense actions?

[bloodyminded]

Perhaps in theory, but I don't know for sure. If food processing machines and medicines are being denied, it's pretty clear what that does. Also if things are being denied that make it impossible for people to work, to have jobs, make money to pay for food, clothing. The crippling of an economy by sanctions could have secondary effects like that. It says that sanctions in the traditional sense are pretty much useless, they harm the wrong people.

And in the Iraq case, the effects of the legal sanctions is only part of the tale anyway; the US (with an occasional nod from the UK) disallowed allowable items to enter Iraq. Illegally.

So whatever bad effects the sanctions proper had (and they seem to have been bad), there is no defense at all, nor any real ambiguity, about nations breaking those very sanctions rules in order to make the civilian effects worse. It's a crime of some magnitude, I'm afraid.

[M.Dancer]

*chortle", indeed! Nothing like your citing a UN Charter Number to deny the authority of the UN

but, we're making grand progress. However, since you've bitten and signed on to Article 51 "self defense" as your foundation to legitimize the illegal Iraq war, you're ignoring my request for you to define, "what acute and imminent threats the U.S./UK were under... so as to presume on self defense actions." Is there a problem for you in defining those acute and imminent threats that supported the U.S./UK (presumed) self defense actions?

Now you are making another set of false assumptions. One that I have signed on to your false assumptions and another that I care about your goalposts....

"what acute and imminent threats the U.S./UK were under"

I am quite satistfied in showing and proving your assertion ...

international law doesn't permit unilateral preemptive action without the authority of the UN

...was wrong.

[waldo]

The US law authorizing the removal of Saddam predates the "Bush Doctrine" ...nevertheless, the justification of continued war rests in the cease fire agreement.

well, you're consistent. In the other thread you debated to no end that Resolution 1441 provided the needed "force authorization"... when Bush toady pulled the rug out from under that (you really should have got your talking points lined up, hey?), you peeled back to Resolution 678. Now you're rambling on between Article 51 self-defense... and a "cease fire agreement" for the Gulf War era. Ah, the ever present Dancer shuffle dance - hee haw!

[waldo]

I am quite satistfied in showing and proving your assertion ...

international law doesn't permit unilateral preemptive action without the authority of the UN

...was wrong.

ha! And you come back for more... your playing silly bugger won't negate your attempt to "prove" negation to the authority of the UN... by citing UN Charter Number details. Dancer says, "the UN has no authority... look, it says so... right here in the details within UN Charter Number 51"

[M.Dancer]

well, you're consistent. In the other thread you debated to no end that Resolution 1441 provided the needed "force authorization"... when Bush toady pulled the rug out from under that (you really should have got your talking points lined up, hey?), you peeled back to Resolution 678. Now you're rambling on between Article 51 self-defense... and a "cease fire agreement" for the Gulf War era. Ah, the ever present Dancer shuffle dance - hee haw!

Do you have a clue what you are rambling about? You brought up and bumbled article 51

There were multiple justifications for the war. The ceasefire agreement, 1441..and so one....even the inherent right of self defense, which does not need any UN seal of approval, if need be..

[M.Dancer]

ha! And you come back for more... your playing silly bugger won't negate your attempt to "prove" negation to the authority of the UN... by citing UN Charter Number details. Dancer says, "the UN has no authority... look, it says so... right here in the details within UN Charter Number 51"

I do believe you are the one trotting out the UN charter and claiming it is International Law.

So far, you have yet to prove that:

international law doesn't permit unilateral preemptive action without the authority of the UN

or your claim that the UN charter is International law....

And I bet you can't.

[bloodyminded]

Do you have a clue what you are rambling about? You brought up and bumbled article 51

There were multiple justifications for the war. The ceasefire agreement, 1441..and so one....even the inherent right of self defense, which does not need any UN seal of approval, if need be..

No one but the most extremist fringe sycophants even dare make the case for "self-defense" in that war. The premise is so absurd one can't even laugh at it, but only stare open-mouthed at the affrontery of the propandists.

[waldo]

I do believe you are the one trotting out the UN charter and claiming it is International Law.

So far, you have yet to prove that:

international law doesn't permit unilateral preemptive action without the authority of the UN

or your claim that the UN charter is International law....

And I bet you can't.

brazen contradiction, or what? ... you presumed to use the UN Charter Article 51 (re: self defense) as an example, as an exception, that suggests international law does not require UN authority to permit unilateral preemptive action. Again, as an example, you want to use the authority provided within a UN Charter Article to suggest international law doesn't require UN authority... say what?

even more brazen is your implication that the UN Charter doesn't integrate within international law. In any case, it's a somewhat moot point to be discussing international law... for you/Shady to be presuming on international law as the foundation that supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Is it any wonder we don't hear that presumed legality from the knowing Bush apologists? You know, those that actually recognize that the U.S. has never been willing to submit to the authority of the International Court, that it officially withdrew from the Court's compulsory jurisdiction in 1986. Of course, this withdrawal suits the self-serving interests of the U.S. ... rogue nations and all that!

the UN Charter Article 103 certainly highlights Charter significance within international law:

The UN Charter contains a supremacy clause that makes it the highest authority of international law. The clause states that, "In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail" (UN Charter Article 103). If you still doubt the basis of the UN Charter within international law, you can also source that Article 103 document directly by searching the International Law Commission website.

[GostHacked]

Waldo, you do make some good points. And the hypocrisy surrounding how the US deals with international UN law when it suits them. Obviously UN international law meant everything to the US in order to get sanctions on Iraq after the first gulf war which was also sanctioned by the UN and international law. but threw the UN international law to the side with the drumbeat for war leading up to and including the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

If you want integrity, you might not want to look at the insanity which was the Bush Administration. But then again the US does it all the time, using/abusing the UN when it suits them and leaving them at the curb when it does not.

Iraq may become better, but it won't be because of the US.