Bush knew detainees were innocent

[M.Dancer]

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.

You debating tactics leave much to be desired. What is desired is honesty.

You brought up the UN Charter claiming it is International Law. I merely pointed out the Charter you claim is law doesn't even support you claim that unilateral action is not permited under the CHarter(never mind international law).

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?

Strawman. I'm sure a person with average intelligence and a modicum of honesty would understand my point and not try and twist it into something it ain't.

even more brazen is your implication that the UN Charter doesn't integrate within international law.

Another strawman.

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:

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

.

Read it again and make the argument, if that is what you believe.

Edited April 14, 2010 by M.Dancer

[waldo]

You debating tactics leave much to be desired. What is desired is honesty.

honesty? Indeed - something you have no trouble trampling in your back-peddling earnest. The specific reply made in direct response to a comment that referenced international law and military action was:

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

To which you replied:

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 what do you proceed to do to make your case for your stated, "When clearly, it does"... to make your counter case that "international law does permit unilateral preemptive action without the authority of the UN?" Why... you jump to the authority of the UN Charter itself highlighting Article 51's self defense in response to an armed attack. Somehow... somehow... you presume to equate my reference to "preemptive action", with your reference to a UN Charter Article 51 concerning "self defense in the face of direct attack". Somehow... you're equating preemptive action towards something that hasn't happened yet, to after the fact, self defense responding to direct attack. Say what!

but it gets better! You follow-up with a quote from wikipedia (without identifying it as wikipedia) concerning actual preemptive force... you purposely bold highlight the first sentence in your quote, but curiously seem to ignore it's last sentence. Notwithstanding your own presumptive want to rely on wikipedia... wikipedia... as your source descriptor for actual international law. As follows, your (wikipedia) quote, showing your purposeful bold highlighting of the first sentence, to which I've also added my own purposeful red colour bold enhancement to it's last sentence:

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

.

your wiki quote is most certainly correct that, as I highlighted, as it's sources, the International Court of Justice emphasizes 'state practice' and the obligatory acceptance of that state practice - 'opinio juris'.

but wait, perhaps your Dancer dance has a further outlet to make your case that, as your "When clearly, it does", implies that "international law does permit unilateral preemptive action without the authority of the UN". Perhaps your further outlet is "jus cogens"... principles of international law so fundamental that they override anything/everything. You know, Dancer... that jus cogens peremptory norms principle enshrined within the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Article 53) - you know, the list of norms that includes prohibitions to such things as war crimes, genocide, apartheid, torture, slavery, crimes against humanity... and... waging aggressive war.

oh snap! How could I have missed that... Dancer... apparently the U.S. doesn't recognize the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties - rogue nations and all that! Looks like jus cogens won't support your continued Dancer dance, after all!

I also note you chose to ignore this pointed response to all your blustering over "self defense"... it's a shame you haven't the honesty (you so presume to champion), to address it:

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.

but surely you must be tiring after all that dancing. You could save some dancing powder if you actually stepped forward to make your own case that "international law does permit unilateral preemptive action without the authority of the UN". You could equally show that the U.S. officially recognizes the jurisdictions or foundations of your presumed, but as yet, unmade case. You could do that, or you could continue to dance away while bleating, "strawman, strawman"!

[M.Dancer]

honesty? Indeed -....

Could I get the reader's digest version that includes a point?

[M.Dancer]

I also note you chose to ignore this pointed response to all your blustering over "self defense"... it's a shame you haven't the honesty (you so presume to champion), to address it:

Correct. I ignore everything written by bloodyminded.

[waldo]

honesty? Indeed

Could I get the reader's digest version that includes a point?

that's about what I expected from your dance card. Honesty? Indeed! Carry on dancing, Dancer!

[Shady]

Could I get the reader's digest version that includes a point?

That seems to be waldo's MO. Flood the zone with as many irrelevant points as possible, and ask your opponent to respond to them.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

Correct, as did Canada and NATO for Operation Allied Force (Kosovo) in 1999. This action helped to marginalize and already weakened UNSC in the wake of the Cold War's end and debacle in Rwanda.

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.

Correct again, just as other powerful nations do on a routine basis.

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

Iraq is already better because of the US/UK.

[bush_cheney2004]

... You could equally show that the U.S. officially recognizes the jurisdictions or foundations of your presumed, but as yet, unmade case. You could do that, or you could continue to dance away while bleating, "strawman, strawman"!

He doesn't have access to the foundations of what is still a true assertion....since WW2, the United States of America has always had pre-emptive strike options as a matter of strategic and tactical necessity regardless of a UN or treaty framework. Other nations have as well (e.g. Israel). Since the USA remains the only credible military enforcement for UN mandates or "international law", this worked out quite well.

Example: If you read this report from today concerning "cyber attacks":

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100414/D9F2PLP00.html

....you can be certain that the USA also has and uses a pre-emptive capability.

Edited April 14, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

That seems to be waldo's MO. Flood the zone with as many irrelevant points as possible, and ask your opponent to respond to them.

stop your Shady practice!

there is certainly nothing irrelevant in addressing your and Dancer's claim that international law supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq. You could take up the cause for Dancer, since he's now bailed... you could actually reference the direct articles within the International Court of Justice to support your assertion towards international law. Of course, even if you could do that, you would also need to address those inconvenient truths that the U.S. doesn't recognize the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice... nor does it recognize the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. And yet... you would ignorantly presume to tout "international law" as the legal foundation for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Gitty up, lil' Bush apologist! Hee haw!

[M.Dancer]

stop your Shady practice!

there is certainly nothing irrelevant in addressing your and Dancer's claim that international law supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq. You could take up the cause for Dancer, since he's now bailed...

I believe your claim was that preemptive defence was not allowed by international law....and you support the claim with the UN charter, which clearly allows it.

Maybe somewhere else then, your proof lies...

[waldo]

He doesn't have access to the foundations of what is still a true assertion....since WW2, the United States of America has always had pre-emptive strike options as a matter of strategic and tactical necessity regardless of a UN or treaty framework.

of course, rogue nations rely upon their own determinations as to when to apply preemptive strikes - see Bush Doctrine. They write their own war resolutions to address... to justify... whatever cause-celebre comes along - see U.S. Congress.

[waldo]

I believe your claim was that preemptive defence was not allowed by international law....and you support the claim with the UN charter, which clearly allows it.

Maybe somewhere else then, your proof lies...

ah yes, your silly bugger routine. You absolutely stated, "When clearly, it does"... to make your counter case that "international law does permit unilateral preemptive action without the authority of the UN?". Yet you obviously failed to substantiate that with your miss-step in quoting from wikipedia. As I stated in offering your (wikipedia) quote, showing your purposeful bold highlighting of the first sentence, to which I also added my own purposeful red colour bold enhancement to it's last sentence:

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

.

yes... as you say in your best dancing yoda... "Maybe somewhere else then, your Dancer proof lies..."

but surely you must be tiring after all that dancing. You could save some dancing powder if you actually stepped forward to make your own case that "international law does permit unilateral preemptive action without the authority of the UN". You could equally show that the U.S. officially recognizes the jurisdictions or foundations of your presumed, but as yet, unmade case. You could do that, or you could continue to dance away while playing silly bugger.

[bush_cheney2004]

of course, rogue nations rely upon their own determinations as to when to apply preemptive strikes - see Bush Doctrine. They write their own war resolutions to address... to justify... whatever cause-celebre comes along - see U.S. Congress.

Pre-emptive strikes are permitted under UN Charter, but this is a secondary consideration. Legal wrangling after the fact is for navel gazers and historians.

As for "rogue nation" when it comes to the UN and treaties....how did that Kyoto Protocol thing go for Canada?

[M.Dancer]

you could actually reference the direct articles within the International Court of Justice ....

Could you?

The right to use interventionary, pre-emptive armed force in the face of an imminent attack has not been ruled out by the ICJ

Where does your proof lie?

[waldo]

Pre-emptive strikes are permitted under UN Charter, but this is a secondary consideration. Legal wrangling after the fact is for navel gazers and historians.

ah yes... Article 2, Section 4 of the U.N. Charter... "barring the threat or use of force against any state in the absence of an acute and imminent actual threat."

oh wait... there's also Article 51 clearly permitting self defense in response to direct attack.

just what were those actual acute and imminent threats... or... just what were those direct attacks on the U.S. that justified a self-defense invasion of Iraq?

oh baby, if only the U.S. had it's own doctrine to cover preemptive war... one claiming to be defensive while at the same time responding to non-existent direct attacks. Oh wait - see Bush Doctrine!

[waldo]

Where does your proof lie?

no - you're claiming, "international law does permit unilateral preemptive action without the authority of the UN". Where does your proof lie? Certainly not in your miserably failed attempt to equate "preemptive action", something that hasn't happened yet... to an after the fact event, concerning "self defense in the face of direct attack" (re: the UN Charter Article 51). Certainly, you won't trot that out again, right?

so, yes... where does your proof lie? What substantiates your claim, your assertion, that "international law does permit unilateral preemptive action without the authority of the UN". Where does your proof lie?

[bush_cheney2004]

just what were those actual acute and imminent threats... or... just what were those direct attacks on the U.S. that justified a self-defense invasion of Iraq?

The threat stemmed from an earlier UN aproved action in defense of another member state (Kuwait) and noncompliance with surrender instruments. US interests have never stopped at her shores, same as for Canada.

oh baby, if only the U.S. had it's own doctrine to cover preemptive war... one claiming to be defensive while at the same time responding to non-existent direct attacks. Oh wait - see Bush Doctrine!

The US has such doctrine going back many years before George Bush. Even President Carter made such a doctine plain as day when it came to the Middle East and petroleum.

[M.Dancer]

no - you're claiming, "international law does permit unilateral preemptive action without the authority of the UN". Where does your proof lie? Certainly not in your miserably failed attempt to equate "preemptive action", something that hasn't happened yet... to an after the fact event, concerning "self defense in the face of direct attack" (re: the UN Charter Article 51). Certainly, you won't trot that out again, right?

so, yes... where does your proof lie? What substantiates your claim, your assertion, that "international law does permit unilateral preemptive action without the authority of the UN". Where does your proof lie?

I have backed up my assertion. You haven't backed yours, you have merely lobbed the ball back. Since you have made the first claim I believe it is up to you to prove that claim.

Maybe you could start with the ICJ...

[M.Dancer]

Thus there is still a right of self-defence under customary international law, as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) affirmed in the Nicaragua Case on the use of force. Some commentators believe that the effect of Article 51 is only to preserve this right when an armed attack occurs, and that other acts of self-defence are banned by article 2(4). The more widely held opinion is that article 51 acknowledges this general right, and proceeds to lay down procedures for the specific situation when an armed attack does occur. Under the latter interpretation, the legitimate use of self-defence in situations when an armed attack has not actually occurred is still permitted. It is also to be noted that not every act of violence will constitute an armed attack. The ICJ has tried to clarify, in the Nicaragua case, what level of force is necessary to qualify as an armed attack. It also appears that an attack by irregular forces or non-state actors can justify self-defence, as in the apparent endorsement by the Security Council of the use of military action by the United States following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_by_states

[waldo]

ah yes... Article 2, Section 4 of the U.N. Charter... "barring the threat or use of force against any state in the absence of an acute and imminent actual threat."

oh wait... there's also Article 51 clearly permitting self defense in response to direct attack.

just what were those actual acute and imminent threats... or... just what were those direct attacks on the U.S. that justified a self-defense invasion of Iraq?

The threat stemmed from an earlier UN aproved action in defense of another member state (Kuwait) and noncompliance with surrender instruments. US interests have never stopped at her shores, same as for Canada.

perfect! The Dubya 2003 invasion of Iraq was based upon the imminent threats of a decades previous occurrence... how very imminent! Oh... by the way... what was all that song and dance routine about before the UN Security Council - that failed attempt to secure the '2nd UN resolution to provide force authorization"... why was that needed if you always had the Gulf War era "imminent threat", in the bag? What was that Downing Street memo all about... why was that needed if you always had the Gulf War era "imminent threat", in the bag? What was that Bush/Blair memo all about... why was that needed if you always had the Gulf War era "imminent threat", in the bag?

oh baby, if only the U.S. had it's own doctrine to cover preemptive war... one claiming to be defensive while at the same time responding to non-existent direct attacks. Oh wait - see Bush Doctrine!

The US has such doctrine going back many years before George Bush. Even President Carter made such a doctine plain as day when it came to the Middle East and petroleum.

c'mon, don't negate that marvelous job done by Paul Wolfowitz... don't deny Dubya his rightful positioning. I would think... you... would revel in the formalization of the related foreign policy behind the Bush Doctrine. Don't shirk it!

[M.Dancer]

I can't recall the UNSC condemning the Iraq invasion...

[bush_cheney2004]

I can't recall the UNSC condemning the Iraq invasion...

That's because the UN never did....instead, the UN recognized occupying forces and the terms for creating a new Iraqi government.

[bush_cheney2004]

... what was all that song and dance routine about before the UN Security Council - that failed attempt to secure the '2nd UN resolution to provide force authorization"... why was that needed if you always had the Gulf War era "imminent threat", in the bag?

Because the US Congressioanl resolution required a dog and pony show for the UN. War was authorized by the US Congress.

What was that Downing Street memo all about... why was that needed if you always had the Gulf War era "imminent threat", in the bag? What was that Bush/Blair memo all about... why was that needed if you always had the Gulf War era "imminent threat", in the bag?

See above....the American war resolution has about 15 "whereas" statements relating all events since the 1991 UN action and noncomplinace by Iraq.

c'mon, don't negate that marvelous job done by Paul Wolfowitz... don't deny Dubya his rightful positioning. I would think... you... would revel in the formalization of the related foreign policy behind the Bush Doctrine. Don't shirk it!

I have shirked nothing....WMDs in Iraq were used as a credible pretext for a long desired outcome...regime change in Iraq. It worked.

[GostHacked]

Correct, as did Canada and NATO for Operation Allied Force (Kosovo) in 1999. This action helped to marginalize and already weakened UNSC in the wake of the Cold War's end and debacle in Rwanda.

Correct again, just as other powerful nations do on a routine basis.

This all means UN = nothing. Why the hell does the UN exist if international laws can be ignored by the people who created them?

Iraq is already better because of the US/UK.

Different, but not better (yet.... TBD)

[bush_cheney2004]

This all means UN = nothing. Why the hell does the UN exist if international laws can be ignored by the people who created them?

I think you have answered your own question. The UN is a flawed interpretation of an even earlier disaster called the League of Nations. The UN is a glorified debating club for diplomats.

Different, but not better (yet.... TBD)

Better for some...bad for others. If you think it would be better with Saddam still running things, then it doesn't take much to be considered "better".