Iraqi Blogs and Election

[KrustyKidd]

No. That was a citation of the text of 678.

Oh, now I get it. The UN just throws stuff in even though it means nothing. To fill space or for entertainment. Gotcha. And then, it allows people like you and others to fill in their own meanings when they wish to change things after the fact. Rosey world you got there Black Dog.

Then why did China France and Russia all state that their endorsement of 1441 was contingent on the fact it did not automatically authorize the use of force?

I don't see that in the resolution. Is this a side story of some kind? If it is, then it is not UN law or part of the resolution. Same as Koffi Annan comming out of his office two years later saying that he thinks it's illegal. Whoops, sorry Koffi, you aint a voting member of the Security Council and neither is your employee Blix.

So by your logic then, a murder is only a murder if the perpatrator is caught and charged. If you happen to get away with it, then you've done nothing wrong. Awesome.

No. I think murder is against the law. Hence, it is illegal under any circumstances. See, you are trying to use a society where laws are laid down to provide an analogy to international law where it changes from one day to the next with resolutions. I have shown you where the US can take action using certain terms within those resolutions and you come back with interpretations and opinions. Yet nothing precludes the action and so, there is no way to say that it was illegal.

I am very sure that in retrospect there are many who wish they had inserted this or taken out that so that it would be more clear, but alas. There is enough leeway to provide a legality to the action. No matter what law offices or officials from wherever say about it. Hard to live with but the only people who can make it illegal are the ones who pass the resolutions, and they didn't spell it out right. And I am sure the US would have vetoed it anyhow so, people such as you and Eureka are stuck with the moral arguments. Tis what it tis.

As I said before, loopholes, you bet. But since it isn't illegal, then by default it has to be legal. So, to say that it is a morally ambiguous invasion is ok but to say that it was illegal is not correct as it is not.

[Black Dog]

Oh, now I get it. The UN just throws stuff in even though it means nothing. To fill space or for entertainment. Gotcha. And then, it allows people like you and others to fill in their own meanings when they wish to change things after the fact. Rosey world you got there Black Dog.

Uh...dumbass? You said the phrase ‘all necessary means’ was used in 1441, implying that it was a new reference, when it fac t (by your own admission) the text of 144 1was "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means..."

Which means 1441 did not specifically authorize force, but recalled a specific resolution that did.

I don't see that in the resolution. Is this a side story of some kind? If it is, then it is not UN law or part of the resolution

And I don't see the use of force mandated in 1441 either. Is that a side story of some kind.

In any case:

Statement in Explanation of Vote by Sergei Lavrov, Russia's Permanent Representative to the UN, on the Security Council's Resolution on Iraq

As a result of the intensive talks the agreed resolution contains no provisions for an automatic use of force against Iraq. It is important that the co-authors of the resolution themselves today officially confirmed in the Council just this understanding and gave an assurance that the resolution was pursuing the aim of achieving the implementation of the existing Security Council decisions on Iraq through the inspection activities of UNMOVIC and IAEA. This aim is shared by all the Council members.

I have shown you where the US can take action using certain terms within those resolutions and you come back with interpretations and opinions. Yet nothing precludes the action and so, there is no way to say that it was illegal.

Huh? Let's see your opinions and interpretations trump the one's I've put forward (authored by legal experts; I'm not sure what your authority is) because...you say so? So, because no one opted (for whatever reason) to hold the U.S. accountable for its actions (actions that it would have gone ahead with regardless), then it becomes okay for it to do so?

As I said before, loopholes, you bet. But since it isn't illegal, then by default it has to be legal.

I'm pleased to see you taking such a principled stand.

Gotta come back to this...

[I miss Reagan]

Uh...dumbass?

Sign that someone is losing a debate...

[KrustyKidd]

Uh...dumbass? You said the phrase ‘all necessary means’ was used in 1441, implying that it was a new reference, when it fac t (by your own admission) the text of 144 1was "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means..."

Which means 1441 did not specifically authorize force, but recalled a specific resolution that did.

Interesting how you fit the Liberal mould so well. If not allowed to insult you have little to argue with. And this is how it seems. No, 1441 did not need to authorize force as that authorization was already in place as it so clearly noted Thank you for agreeing with me.

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

And I don't see the use of force mandated in 1441 either. Is that a side story of some kind.

Good argument. It was not, 1441 was directed to Iraq. It gave them one final opportunity to adhere to all previous resolutions and refers to the standing authorization to member states to allow Iraq to KNOW they can and will still be subject to military action if they do not adhere to the requirements. No wonder you have to resort to insulting, you have no idea of what is going on.

In any case, let’s move onto the little side games here. :

Statement in Explanation of Vote by Sergei Lavrov, Russia's Permanent Representative to the UN, on the Security Council's Resolution on Iraq

As a result of the intensive talks the agreed resolution contains no provisions for an automatic use of force against Iraq. It is important that the co-authors of the resolution themselves today officially confirmed in the Council just this understanding and gave an assurance that the resolution was pursuing the aim of achieving the implementation of the existing Security Council decisions on Iraq through the inspection activities of UNMOVIC and IAEA. This aim is shared by all the Council members.

Oh well. Guess they should have gotten it on paper, or, used better lawyers..

Huh? Let's see your opinions and interpretations trump the one's I've put forward (authored by legal experts; I'm not sure what your authority is) because...you say so? So, because no one opted (for whatever reason) to hold the U.S. accountable for its actions (actions that it would have gone ahead with regardless), then it becomes okay for it to do so?

Yes, I really can see how you are floundering. Wonder what your next insult will be. My legal experts? Ahhh, let’s see, the division of lawyers for every head of state in the coalition. The lawyers for every statesman who researched the resolutions and advised their heads of states.

Well, let’s see. You have brought forth such esteemed people as Rabinder Singh

Most of his practice involves acting either for or against government departments. He is a visiting professor at the L.S.E. [London School of Economics] and until recently held a part-time post as the independent monitor of the entry clearance system, which required him to make random checks on up to 1,000 visa refusals a year.

and Allison Macdonald

is a junior practitioner with a developing practice in both the civil and criminal field. Her work includes judicial review in a wide range of areas, actions against the police and prison authorities, inquests, and immigration. She also has experience in international arbitrations and in cases before the European Court of Human Rights.

On the other hand, we have a battalion of US lawyers such as John Norton Moore

Moore taught the first course in the country on national security law and conceived and co-authored the first casebook on the subject. From 1991-93, during the Gulf War and its aftermath, Moore was the principal legal adviser to the Ambassador of Kuwait to the United States and to the Kuwait delegation to the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Boundary Demarcation Commission.

From 1985 to 1991, he was chair of the board of directors of the U.S. Institute of Peace, one of six presidential appointments he has held. From 1973 to 1976, he was chair of the National Security Council Interagency Task Force on the Law of the Sea and ambassador and deputy special representative of the president to the Law of the Sea conference. Previously he served as the counselor on international law to the Department of State. With the deputy attorney general of the United States, he was co-chair in March 1990 of the United States-USSR talks in Moscow and Leningrad on the Rule of Law. As a consultant to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, he was honored by the director for his work on the ABM Treaty Interpretation Project. He has been a frequent witness before congressional committees on maritime policy, legal aspects of foreign policy, national security, war and treaty powers, and democracy and human rights. He has been a fellow of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars at the Smithsonian Institution.

Moore is a member of advisory and editorial boards for nine journals and numerous professional organizations, and he has published many articles on oceans policy, national security and international law.

More Real Legal guys, unlike part timers like yours

Also, you might add to this list Lord Goldsmith, John Ashcroft, John Danforth and every lawyer that advises ever head of state in the coalition. See any heads of state in jail? Either do I save you know who. Guess that means that the advisors did a pretty good job and your duds did squat. How’s that for proof there insult boy?

Lord Goldsmith, had found Britain was acted within the law citing three U.N. resolutions that justified the use of force against Saddam Hussein’s regime. Australian and US legal advisors had reached the same conclusion, as had the advisors and parliaments of 32 other nations in the early part of 2003.

And you my name calling friend, you have two people who fight Visa violations.

I'm pleased to see you taking such a principled stand. rolleyes.gif

Well, I assumed you were talking legalities, not morality here. After all, you are trying to prove a legal case, not what is right and wrong. If you want to go into that then I will say that Iraq was run by a man who was bad and it is a good thing he is now gone. The US has saved lives, over two hundred fifty thousand of them and Saddam is no longer a threat to the region. Elections have just been held with better turnout than most western societies enjoy despite the threat of death to voter and poll workers. So, are you trying to discuss a point of right and wrong or if it was illegal? So, Iraq is better off, hence the moral argument is with me and there are no Presidents, Kings, Queens and Prime Ministers in jail except you know who again. So, your legal argument seemingly has not stuck too well on the international law scene. Dumass indeed.

Gotta come back to this...

Yes, please hurry, I can hardly wait to be called a dumass again by a guy with shit except emotion to argue with.

[Guest eureka]

Still have only one side of your brain working, Krusty?

I went through all that with you previously. To be seized of something in law is a firm ruling that only the court making the ruling can hear or rule on action or even hear argument. That is not arguable. It is also not arguable that the UN made that decision.

It is also not arguable that China, France and Russia added an addendum to 1441 requiring UN sanction before any further action could be taken by the force representing the UN - not Member States.

And, you still have not addressed yourself to the point I brought up in those previous "discussions" about "Member States." Your interpretation suggests your belied that any state in the world could attack Iraq, if, in its view, Iraq was not complying with Resolutions. How absurd can it get?

Then, the coalition in the Gulf War was a force representing the UN acting under UN authority. Even if your position were correct - a ludicrous thought - that force could not resume hostilities without UN approval. A ceasefire had been arranged under conditions as set out by the UN. It was for the UN only to decide whether the conditions were met and whether it should order its representatives back into action.

Black Dog has cited all the relevant articles and Resolutions so I need not trouble myself with that exercise.

BTW, I am thinking of getting into the remedial reading business. Can I sign you up as a pupil?

[KrustyKidd]

I wish to know who in the entire world, that has authority to make such a ruling, has determined that this action was illegal? Please, get off the pot and show me. You cite this and that, saying they meant this but did not mean this. Even bringing out people from the woodwork to say that it is illegal and such yet not one body that has the authority to cite this action as illegal has done so. Please, show us the ruling.

Now, we all know that the only committee able to do this is the UNSC and they have not done so.

Until you do, the action is legal by default.

Still have only one side of your brain working, Krusty?

It is a leftist thing. When you know you are wrong, you insult. Cool! I finally figured you guys out!

BTW, I am thinking of getting into the remedial reading business. Can I sign you up as a pupil?

[Guest eureka]

http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm

You could also try this page for some legal opinions about the invasion. I have forgotten your kind information on making links but this is the address. There are scores of them from the foremost authorities around the world and you will be hard pressed to find an opinion that supports the aggressors.

Note the one about Lord Goldsmith: "A talented lawyer arguing a weak case.

[Guest eureka]

It worked but don't ask me how.

[KrustyKidd]

They really don't matter as Goldsmith was only in response to Black Dog giving me those second rate Immigration lawyers as his stand up legal team. Now, pony up with the world body that has determined that the action was illegal or shut down and admit you only have opinion.

Show me the resolution which charges that the interpretation by the Coalition was wrong and makes this action illegal or admit that you are wrong. No big deal. Shoot, you can even call me a name like Black Dog does when he gets his emotions high like a while ago or you did when you got flustered in the last post. Heck, no shame.

I would certainly expect to see a supposed ilegal action of this magnitude would be recognized by such a world body as the UNSC, yet they did not. Are they going to continue to allow this supposed illegal action to continue? For how long? Years? What?

We all know that when Iraq invaded Kuwait they had one up in days. Yet here, they still don't have one after two years. Comon, where is the resolution making this illegal? It would say something like 'We, the UNSC find the US led invasion of Iraq illegal' and then go off into some conditions and stuff. You know the routine.

It wouldn't be a hard ruling to miss as it would have a number beside it like ‘UNSC Resolution 2436' and say that ‘they deplore’ or whatever. Got anything like that or just some high emotions that make you wish it were illegal?

Show me,

[KrustyKidd]

you will be hard pressed to find an opinion that supports the aggressors.

Yes. Lots of opinions. Yes. Show me the ruling. If there is not one then it is not ilegal. It's just yours and a whole lot of others opinions.

[Guest eureka]

Is anything you are posting more than opinion? The ruling was made before the invasion when the UN said that it and it alone would rule on whether military force was to be used. That is clear from the simple word seized: is that spelled differently in your world? Do you, by any chance, think that Gomez is a credible interpreter?

To have another Resolution declaring the US and Britain as aggressors and acting without the authority of the UN, it would be necessary for some member to bring the issue before the UN. That would be interesting wouldn't it and the fur would fly.

You have been shown everything that matters. It remains only for you to take a little time to absorb it.

[KrustyKidd]

You have been shown everything that matters. It remains only for you to take a little time to absorb it.

Sorry, in the real world what matters is real determinations. There has been NONE to make your claim that this action was ilegal a fact.

The facts are that the US invaded Iraq. Your opinion is that it is ilegal. Another fact is that when a nation ilegaly invades another country there are always lots of reslolutions going around condeming the action. Any here? Any that even hint that the action is ilegal? I would imagine that given the temperment of many of the world's leaders that they would have brought forth something of this nature if they had a leg to stand on don't you? They did not, for whatever reason wether it may have been vetoed or their case was not strong whatever. Hence, the determination that is was and is ilegal is not correct. Maybe it would have been, I doubt it though. Not one official motion was ever set forth to challenge the legality of it.

To have another Resolution declaring the US and Britain as aggressors and acting without the authority of the UN, it would be necessary for some member to bring the issue before the UN.

Ya, it would wouldn't it. They would need to do that to make it ilegal and they didn't. Yet, when Iraq invaded Kuwait there were over a dozen of them. Funny how resolutions get passed pretty good when the action is ilegal.

In this case though, there were none. Lots of opinions though. Lots and lots of officials, kangaroo courts and lesser bodies pissed off running off with the mouth but not one resolution that says it is ilegal. Hence, your argument is as strong as tissue paper in water.

Oh, congrats for not lowering yourself to insults as before other than the petty little spellng snipe.

[Guest eureka]

How could I insult you until you develop eyes that can see!

Let's try some more legalities without imploring the help of your real world when your argument fails.

The UN Charter requires by Art. 33, that States must seek peaceful resolutions to their disputes by "negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation. arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their own choice."

The UN was employing this process shen the "Coalition" breached the mandates.

Art. 41. In the case of an act of aggression or a threat to the peace, The UNSC. is also firstly required to use measure not involving the use of armed force.

The UNSC was engaged in this process when the "Coalition" breached the UN Charter requirements.

Art. 42. states that only when such measures are inadequate or have PROVED to be inadequate can the Security Council authorize the use of force.

Note that it is the Security Council that must do this. It was taking the appropriate steps with the inspections which had turned up no breach by Iraq when the "Coalition" again acted without specific authorization.

Art. 51 states that States may threaten or use force only "if an armed attack occurs" and only "until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peaceand security."

There was no armed attack or threat of attack and, under Resolution 687, the UN had ended the 1991 war which adhered to the Charter with conditions that the Inspectors were investigating.

Under Resolution 1441, Sec 4, there is the requirement of reporting by members of any breaches amplified by, I think sec. 11.

There was no reporting of any breach by the "Coalition.' There was only suspicion of breach and the UN was investigating when the "Coalition" avoided its obligations under the Charter and under International Law and committed an act of aggression against Iraq.

The real world you inhabit does not enter into this. The real world is one that has been trying with some success, to establish a basis in International Law for the resolution of disputes without war.

This "war" on Iraq threatens to bring us a future of international anarchy where only physical strength counts. It has done untold damage to the cause of international justice and the quest for peace.

[KrustyKidd]

Well, certainly sounds like you might want to take this argument to a world court of UN staure so they might listen and be swayed. Then, if you can get 9 members of the Security Council to go along with you, you can make it an ilegal invasion!

Oh, due to the ambiguity of the whole affair, for lack of a resolution stating that it is ilegal, the default position is that it is legal until proven different by the UNSC, thus, it is a legal invasion.

The real world is one that has been trying with some success, to establish a basis in International Law for the resolution of disputes without war.

No, the real world takes action and makes resolutions that stick. Here, you have fantasy and opinion.

Keep up the good work though, report back often.

This "war" on Iraq threatens to bring us a future of international anarchy where only physical strength counts. It has done untold damage to the cause of international justice and the quest for peace.

Yes, toppling a ruthless dictator and watching millions of people vote for the first time in their life is a terrible thing. So unjust, so wrong. Nice reality you have there Eureka.

[Guest eureka]

There can be no default position. A nation is required to observe the language and spirit of Article 33 and any action that does not is illegal by definition.

Toppling a ruthless dictator and watching millions of people vote is a straw man argument. Only the UN can authorise that and it is empowered to do that also in accordance with the Charter. The US just did not like the idea that it, too, must obey the Rule of Law.

[Guest eureka]

There is also the question of the Constitutionality of the war on Iraq.

Under Article 1 of the American Constitution, only Congress can declare war. It did not do so when asked by Bush.

There was no exculpatory base for Bush since there was no emergency calling for action without approval.

[KrustyKidd]

Toppling a ruthless dictator and watching millions of people vote is a straw man argument. Only the UN can authorise that and it is empowered to do that also in accordance with the Charter. The US just did not like the idea that it, too, must obey the Rule of Law.

You must have written that with some poor syntax as you cannot of course mean that only the UN is permitted to hold elections so I take it to mean that only the UN can topple a ruthless dictator. If that is not the case I hope that your remedial spelling/reading institute does not include a syntax course taught by yourself. However, back to the argument; they did have their opportunity. As for Straw man argument during this legal discussion, I refered to this after you sidetracked this argument by saying that if this is not ilegal then international anarchy will prevail etc etc - basically introducing a moral justification into our legal discussion. In other words, you went first hence it was not a straw man. See, I am able to define the diference between the two. In a legal world, loopholes exist that unintentionally allow those who are morally wrong to commit moral crimes legally. That is not to say that the US was morally wrong as that is another argument entirely , one in which I obviously feel they were not. Here though, we speak of pure legalities.

There can be no default position. A nation is required to observe the language and spirit of Article 33 and any action that does not is illegal by definition.

Gee, after all this time talking about those silly UNSC resolutions and you and I saying they meant this and that, suddenly, you say they mean nothing and switch back to this. Damm, all those peope in New York wasting money and they have no idea their determinations mean nothing because art 33 superceedes their rulings! Like even Black Dog's immigration lawyers who are the experts on internation UN law didn't know this, making their case on resolution interpretation. Damm that's funny. Jokes on them or is it watching you move the goal posts around (as you do later in the post with the introduction out of frustration of US constitution matters to sidetarack the argument?) I think you have it ass backwards here. That is correct unless a resolution counters it as is the case with Iraq. Anyhow, when the Member States are given the authority and that authority is not rescinded, they are free, unless told otherwise to go ahead and carry out that action. You, and your other insult throwing buddy have given all sorts of good arguments (much better than the last batch I might add) that add up to what was possibly INTENDED by those who wrote and ruled on them. However, given the virtually unlimited resources the UN has to print, type, rule, conference, define, meet, redefine and make these resolutions say exactly what is intended, they do not say exactly what you proport they do. Why is that? Incompetence? Maybe they were not meant to say what you think they are supposed to say?

Instead, Black dog brings forth immigration lawyers to argue that the UN meant this, they meant that and basiclly read between the lines of the resolutions intent in order to make it read the way they want. Meanwhile, the US invades and nobody makes any sort of ruling citing any of these para in any of these resolutions as a basis to call it ilegal. Yes indeed Eureka, ilegal. and so on, why is there this ambiguity? Why is there this wide open window through which arguments can be made for both sides? Easy, the UN figured everybody would play by these loose rules they had going and the US caught them by surprise. While somewhat dodging between the lines they were after all charged with making sure Iraq complied with all the provisions of the ceasefire.

So, still waiting for you to provide me with the resolution that we can all go to Iraq with and start arresting US soldiers with. You know, the one that at least nine of the fifteen members of the UNSC have voted on and approved that will allow us to bring GW Bush and the leaders of the sixty odd member nations of the Coalition to justice with. You have it in your possession? It's OK if you don't as the UN doesn't either.

There is also the question of the Constitutionality of the war on Iraq.

Under Article 1 of the American Constitution, only Congress can declare war. It did not do so when asked by Bush.

There was no exculpatory base for Bush since there was no emergency calling for action without approval.

Ah, the Leftist red herring. Thought we were talking about the UN. Now, after insults you go for the throat. You wish to send in an information cascade in order to make up for a losing argument and then hoping I just give up will then sneak in the back door and declare victory after I retire out of being used as a speed bag.

Sorry to disapoint you. I really am.

WH lawyers: Bush can order Iraq attack

Fleischer said White House lawyers believe the president can act on his own for several reasons, including his authority as commander in chief to make military decisions. He said terms of the Gulf War resolution still apply.

The lawyers also believe the president has authority to act under the September 14 congressional resolution approving military action against terrorism, Fleischer said.

BTW, those lawyers he is refering to are REAL lawyers, not off duty visa violation social workers like Black DOg likes to cite.

Anyhow Eureka, here is what Congress had to say about your red herring;

One Hundred Seventh Congress

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Gee, no wonder all you guys were trying to untie all the knots between Al Queda and Iraq. Funny, if Al Queda wasn't in Iraq at any point it would have the honor of being the only country in the Middle East that didn't enjoy their company.

So, has Bush been impeached yet for declaring war without congressional approval? Stay on this breaking story too will you. As before, report back when mission complete.

Nice try, good night.

[Guest eureka]

Don't go in the water, Krusty. You can't swim very well.

Law reflects morality: it is not amoral. That is applicable if there were any merit to your idea that we are dealing only with legalities and not morality. The legalities are clear enough and I thought I would let you into the "secret" of how the Charter of the UN applies to the Resolutions.

WRT the US Constitution, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces - God help them with Bush giving the orders! The President has no authority to go to war: that is Congress's prerogative.

You are citing the wrong reference. Congress refused to label the Iraqi adventure a war and, therefore, Bush exceeded his Presidential powers. That is before the Courts in the US at this time. Of course it will go nowhere. How could a Bush appointee on the Bench not return the IOU.

So, now we have the attack on Iraq as both illegal and immoral. Immoral because you claim that I say it is - and I am always right. Illegal because all those international lawyers and jurists and all those lawyers in the US itself say it is. Look at the link I gave you again and try to find an argument that holds any water and that says the attack was not a pure act of aggression.

It is also, probably, unconstitutional for America, because the C.in C., Bush does not have the authority to declare war and war was not declared. The UN is clear that he was not acting under their authority. Thus, he could only have been acting on his own whim.

He was given authority by Congress to act against the 0/11 perpetrators and not against any other state. Even had Congress given authorisation to go to war, he could not have done so without breaching those Articles of the UN Charter I referred to you.

War ain't so simple anymore. International Law now requires that attempt must be made to avoid it.

[I miss Reagan]

First of all the US didn't invade Iraq on their own. It wasn't "unilateral". Second if it was illegal, who was there to enforce this law? Why didn't the UN unite and punish the 30 countries that participated in the invasion with sanctions or otherwise? A lot of whining and crying by Kofi, France, Russia, and Germany does not constitute illegality. Without enforcement the law ceases to exist.

[I miss Reagan]

nor do I think that I'm wrong for not breathlessly regurgitating the latest White House talking points.

Lol. As opposed to what? regurgitating the latest talking points from counterpunch.org?

Touching moment at the State of the Union address don't you think?

"She thanked us for our son's sacrifice and made sure we knew the people in Iraq were grateful for the sacrifices that were made not just by our son, but by all of them," Janet Norwood said.

[KrustyKidd]

Thanks Regan, couldn't have said it better myself. So lacking proof that it is ilegal such as a ruling by a qualified body that has determined it so, he now tries to link morality into the equation to give his argument some credibility.

Morality and legality are two separate entities. I got burned for over sixty thousand dollars by a company that knew they were going bankrupt. Not a damm thing I could do. Was it morally right what they did? Course not, they stole my money right before they went under, squiring it away in execs slush funds and so on. Was it legal? Well not the slush funds but stealing my money was. The two were separate, no matter how I tried to present my case I still was behind even the unsecured creditors. Everybody knew they were wrong, yet, it was legal. Maybe I should have gone to that turbaned guy in London that Black Dog uses when he is losing na argument, you know, the guy that does the visa thng (and high brow UN law on weekends) he may have saved me a few bucks.

Eureka, there is no way I will go in the water, you are thrashing around too much for my liking.

[Guest eureka]

At last we agree on something! That is that you "could not have said it better yourself." Black Dog and I have been trying to get that through to you, What you say cannot be said better since you are saying nothing. IMR too, said nothing so far as I can see. Does he use invisible ink for the worthwhile contents of posts.

I sympathise with your loss but I can't say that you are correct in your assessment of law and morality. You would have to explain the circumstances since, on the surface, it seems that what you say does not accord to law.

[Black Dog]

The facts are that the US invaded Iraq. Your opinion is that it is ilegal. Another fact is that when a nation ilegaly invades another country there are always lots of reslolutions going around condeming the action. Any here? Any that even hint that the action is ilegal? I would imagine that given the temperment of many of the world's leaders that they would have brought forth something of this nature if they had a leg to stand on don't you? They did not, for whatever reason wether it may have been vetoed or their case was not strong whatever. Hence, the determination that is was and is ilegal is not correct. Maybe it would have been, I doubt it though. Not one official motion was ever set forth to challenge the legality of it.

So we can dispense with all the busines of resolutions here and there: in the end it's an academic exercise of interpretation, your lawyer's words against others (and while you launch fallacious pleas to authority, you ignore the principle that legal opinions offered by government attorneys are NOT considered to be authoritative because they're drafted in the adversarial mode of an advocate, often out of self-interest).

The real issue then becomes the idea that "nothing is illegal as long as you don't get caught". The United Staes then, is the OJ Simpson of nations: guilty as hell, but off on a technicality because, for whatever reason, the UN hasn't called them to task on their actions.

However, to seperate the letter of the law from the moral spirit upon which its based is disingenous, when it's clear the purpose of this exercise in legalese is to create a moral legitimacy for this action and those this might provide a precedent for.

First of all the US didn't invade Iraq on their own. It wasn't "unilateral".

There's 152,000 U.S. troops are currently stationed in Iraq along with about 25,000 other foreign soldiers. For all intents and purposes, it was unilateral.

Why didn't the UN unite and punish the 30 countries that participated in the invasion with sanctions or otherwise?

Good question.

Without enforcement the law ceases to exist.

Which is precisely why Bush's little adventure sets such a dangerous precedent.

Touching moment at the State of the Union address don't you think?

Touching? I think the word you're looking for is "carefully

stage managed". For some reason, I was reminded of the Kuwati incubator babies story.

[Shakeyhands]

Interesting quote from the Star today referencing an article from the NY Times (Liberal slosh eh Righties)

Dated Sept. 4, 1967, it's headed, "U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote: Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror."

It reads, "United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam ... The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government ..."

We all know how that movie ended.

Boy that sounds familiar.... WOW

[KrustyKidd]

The United Staes then, is the OJ Simpson of nations: guilty as hell, but off on a technicality because, for whatever reason, the UN hasn't called them to task on their actions.

That is quite possible, however, once again, the only body that can rule that it is ilegal is the UN and they have not. Hence, you can get every lawyer on the planet shaking their fists but it means nothing in reality.

Now, I imagine that France and Germany and all the rest of the anti US/War natins would have used this opportunity and brought forth a resolution to draw shame and angst onto the US but they did not. Why? Because even France knew it was legal, and said so before the war.

For all intents and purposes, it was unilateral.

Oh I see, the qualifier for good or bad is amount. Hmm. Interesting. So, the amount you put in is related to your perception of guilt. Yes, have to remember that for future arguments Black Dog.