British Navy Sailors

[Figleaf]

The UNSC doesn't have to declare something illegal for it to be illegal. You should inform yourself better on this subject before purporting to say someone is lying. Both courtesy and your reputation would benefit.

Oh believe me, I know a tad about intl law, and you are very wrong.

Actually, I don't believe that in the least. You seem to persistently mistake your (rather hackneyed rightwing) opinions with knowledge.

Chapter VII of the charter is the highest body of law dealing with international armed conflict, and UNSC resolutions are the interpretive judgements of that body of law.

By Charter, I suppose you mean the UN Charter. Please provide:

1-support for your contention that it is the 'highest';

2-an explanation of why you suggest (even if it is the 'highest') that it is exhaustive.

Resolution 687, the ceasefire resolution, ...

Your interpretation of the law is faulty. UNSC authorization was required to legitimize GWB's attack on Iraq, and it was never obtained.

In fact, let me help educate you...

Better you start closer to home.

...nothing is "illegal" or for that matter legal, unless it has been judged to be so by the UNSC.

Utter nonsense.

[M.Dancer]

"It was the pro-Israeli community..."

yes its a code word amd yes its right on cue and yes its the same thing.

The allegation Scott made was that it is code for the word "Jews".

But that's nonsense. Millions of non-Jews, especially in North America, are pro-Israel.

...and that makes them, a community?

What makes a community? Should he call them a faction? Or a movement? What? Is there some special collective noun that you would find more appropriate for these millions?

No non no...the current code word for jews works perfectly....right along with New York Lawyer and international banker....

[ScottSA]

The UNSC doesn't have to declare something illegal for it to be illegal. You should inform yourself better on this subject before purporting to say someone is lying. Both courtesy and your reputation would benefit.

Oh believe me, I know a tad about intl law, and you are very wrong.

Actually, I don't believe that in the least. You seem to persistently mistake your (rather hackneyed rightwing) opinions with knowledge.

Chapter VII of the charter is the highest body of law dealing with international armed conflict, and UNSC resolutions are the interpretive judgements of that body of law.

By Charter, I suppose you mean the UN Charter. Please provide:

1-support for your contention that it is the 'highest';

2-an explanation of why you suggest (even if it is the 'highest') that it is exhaustive.

Resolution 687, the ceasefire resolution, ...

Your interpretation of the law is faulty. UNSC authorization was required to legitimize GWB's attack on Iraq, and it was never obtained.

In fact, let me help educate you...

Better you start closer to home.

...nothing is "illegal" or for that matter legal, unless it has been judged to be so by the UNSC.

Utter nonsense.

I have explained, with references, the facts of the invasion of Iraq. You have responded by calling it "illegal", disregarding 16 UNSC resolutions, and blithely repeating thaty it is "illegal". If it was illegal, there must be a resolution coming to the conclusion. Where is it? Simply saying something is illegal doesn't mean anything. If I say it's illegal for you to be on this board, due to advanced stupidity, does that mean you are here illegally?

[M.Dancer]

Ironically, in another thread close by, Figleaf asks rhetorically to show where he fails to back up his arguments.........

[Black Dog]

What the article doesn't quite get around to mentioning is that the "liason office" is not there at the invitation of the Iraqi government, and is in fact there to facilitate the illegal entry of Iranian Revolutionary guards.

The Iraqi foreign minister called Sunday for the release of five Iranians detained by U.S. forces in what he said was a legitimate mission in northern Iraq, but he stressed that foreign intervention to help insurgents would not be tolerated.

...

Zebari, a Kurd, said those held had been working in a liaison office issuing travel permits for the local population, and he reiterated that the office was in the process of being regularized into a consulate.

“Well, we have asked for their release,” he told CNN. “They are being interrogated by the U.S. forces. But we have established all the information that this office has been there for many years with the approval of the Kurdish regional authorities with their knowledge of the Iraqi government.”

Link

Also, you should probably remember that the phrase "in fact" should preface facts, not allegations.

You really must finish high school woody.

You should really learn to refer to posters by their actual handles. It's basic civility, something you are clearly unfamiliar with.

[M.Dancer]

ody.

You shoudl really learn to refer to posters by their actual handles. It's basic civility, something you are clearly unfamiliar with.

We've known Woody AKA Guthrie for years, myself since the mid 90s on other boards.......

[Black Dog]

We've known Woody AKA Guthrie for years, myself since the mid 90s on other boards.......

Irrelevant.

[Guthrie]

TEHRAN, Iran — An Iranian diplomat seized two months ago in Iraq by uniformed gunmen has been released — a move that suggested progress Tuesday in British efforts to win the freedom of 15 sailors and marines held by Iran.

Neither British, U.S. nor Iraqi officials would say if the release of diplomat Jalal Sharafi was linked directly to Britain's efforts to gain its sailors' release. Britain has publicly sworn not to negotiate. And the signals from Iran grew less clear when the Fars news agency published a new picture of the sailors, showing them squatting on a carpet in track suits. The agency did not publish any of the "confessions" that had been condemned by the British government.

The caption says: "British sailors are chatting and eating fruit, drinking coffee and playing chess. It seems that the sailors are satisfied with their situation, in which they are enjoying good conditions instead of working in a hard situation in the Persian Gulf."

Faye Turney, the only woman among the captured, was shown without a headscarf. She had worn one in initial images of the Royal Navy crew.

The British Foreign Office seemed unperturbed by the Fars picture, saying it was not clear if it was new. Earlier, British Prime Minister Tony Blair told reporters in Scotland that the next two days would be "fairly critical" to resolving the standoff over the navy crew, although he gave no details what he meant.

...

Link

the seizure of those Iranian diplomats was, actually, more criminal of an act than the seizing of those sailors --- and the connection between the two incidents is a major embarassment for the buschistas as it, once again, shows their criminal willingness to engage in wreckless and illegal acts

[M.Dancer]

Irrelevant.

Answer: Irrelephant?

Question: What's a big, a grey and has a long a trunk?

That's a right!

[ScottSA]

the seizure of those Iranian diplomats was, actually, more criminal of an act than the seizing of those sailors --- and the connection between the two incidents is a major embarassment for the buschistas as it, once again, shows their criminal willingness to engage in wreckless and illegal acts

LMAO!! Woody, you really have to graduate high school.

"Zebari, a Kurd, said those held had been working in a liaison office issuing travel permits for the local population, and he reiterated that the office was in the process of being regularized into a consulate."

"In the process"? That means it wasn't in fact there legally. The Canadian government can't simply trot into the US and announce that it's setting up an office and issuing travel documents, and will soon get around to becoiming official. That's not how things work in the big wide world. I know that you'd love to take Iran's side against Bushitlerburtonshista, but it would be more effective if you learned something...anything...first.

[Catchme]

The consulate was recognized as being what it was in Iraq, we discussed this on other threads at length. It was an illegal grab.

Also, this is interesting, eh!

Call that humiliation?

No hoods. No electric shocks. No beatings. These Iranians clearly are a very uncivilised bunch

Terry Jones

Saturday March 31, 2007

The Guardian

I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head? That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe. Then it's perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can't be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.

It is also unacceptable that these British captives should be made to talk on television and say things that they may regret later. If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn't be able to talk at all. Of course they'd probably find it even harder to breathe - especially with a bag over their head - but at least they wouldn't be humiliated.

And what's all this about allowing the captives to write letters home saying they are all right? It's time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilised world: they should allow their captives the privacy of solitary confinement. That's one of the many privileges the US grants to its captives in Guantánamo Bay.

The true mark of a civilised country is that it doesn't rush into charging people whom it has arbitrarily arrested in places it's just invaded. The inmates of Guantánamo, for example, have been enjoying all the privacy they want for almost five years, and the first inmate has only just been charged. What a contrast to the disgraceful Iranian rush to parade their captives before the cameras!

What is so appalling is the underhand way in which the Iranians have got her "unhappy and stressed". She shows no signs of electrocution or burn marks and there are no signs of beating on her face. This is unacceptable. If captives are to be put under duress, such as by forcing them into compromising sexual positions, or having electric shocks to their genitals, they should be photographed, as they were in Abu Ghraib. The photographs should then be circulated around the civilised world so that everyone can see exactly what has been going on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...2047128,00.html

[Guthrie]

The consulate was recognized as being what it was in Iraq, we discussed this on other threads at length. It was an illegal grab.

Also, this is interesting, eh!

Call that humiliation?

No hoods. No electric shocks. No beatings. These Iranians clearly are a very uncivilised bunch

Terry Jones

Saturday March 31, 2007

The Guardian

I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head? That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe. Then it's perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can't be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.

It is also unacceptable that these British captives should be made to talk on television and say things that they may regret later. If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn't be able to talk at all. Of course they'd probably find it even harder to breathe - especially with a bag over their head - but at least they wouldn't be humiliated.

And what's all this about allowing the captives to write letters home saying they are all right? It's time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilised world: they should allow their captives the privacy of solitary confinement. That's one of the many privileges the US grants to its captives in Guantánamo Bay.

The true mark of a civilised country is that it doesn't rush into charging people whom it has arbitrarily arrested in places it's just invaded. The inmates of Guantánamo, for example, have been enjoying all the privacy they want for almost five years, and the first inmate has only just been charged. What a contrast to the disgraceful Iranian rush to parade their captives before the cameras!

What is so appalling is the underhand way in which the Iranians have got her "unhappy and stressed". She shows no signs of electrocution or burn marks and there are no signs of beating on her face. This is unacceptable. If captives are to be put under duress, such as by forcing them into compromising sexual positions, or having electric shocks to their genitals, they should be photographed, as they were in Abu Ghraib. The photographs should then be circulated around the civilised world so that everyone can see exactly what has been going on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...2047128,00.html

Bush is jonesin to get himself an interrogator as good as them Iranis ---- even Jack Bauer ain't that good

[Figleaf]

No non no...the current code word for jews works perfectly....right along with New York Lawyer and international banker....

Are you trying to 'play the anti-semitism card'?

:yawn: How tedious (and dishonest).

[M.Dancer]

No non no...the current code word for jews works perfectly....right along with New York Lawyer and international banker....

Are you trying to 'play the anti-semitism card'?

:yawn: How tedious (and dishonest).

No I'm a pro semite.....

[Figleaf]

I have explained, with references, the facts of the invasion of Iraq.

No, you have averred, citing numerous irrelevancies, to a totally faulty view of the implications of UNSC decisions on the invasion of Iraq. Furthermore, you have ignored my request for you to support your opinion (even though you quoted it).

You have responded by calling it "illegal", disregarding 16 UNSC resolutions, and blithely repeating thaty it is "illegal".

No. I have responded clearly that your interpretation of the implications of UNSC resolutions is mistaken.

It's curious that, even with my posts #322 and #326 readily available for you and everyone else to read, you think its viable to pretend that they don't exist or don't reflect the contents that is obviously within them.

If it was illegal, there must be a resolution coming to the conclusion.

No, again, you are merely ignoring the facts I have provided you, and reciting your opinion, rather than even attempting to rebut my comments. Very tiresome. Please NOTE: There does not need to be a UNSC resolution declaring something to be illegal for it to actually be illegal.

If I say it's illegal for you to be on this board, due to advanced stupidity, ...

You said it, not me.

[Black Dog]

"In the process"? That means it wasn't in fact there legally.

You're saying the Iraqi government was allowing the Iranian office to operate illegally for "many years?"

[M.Dancer]

"In the process"? That means it wasn't in fact there legally.

You're saying the Iraqi government was allowing the Iranian office to operate illegally for "many years?"

Who is saying they allowed anything? Allowing something and being powerless to do anything about it are two different things. Even today, the Iraqi goverments authority in the Kurdish regions is dubious.

[AshNazg]

I have explained, with references, the facts of the invasion of Iraq. You have responded by calling it "illegal", disregarding 16 UNSC resolutions, and blithely repeating thaty it is "illegal". If it was illegal, there must be a resolution coming to the conclusion. Where is it? Simply saying something is illegal doesn't mean anything. If I say it's illegal for you to be on this board, due to advanced stupidity, does that mean you are here illegally?

Its amusing that there are still foo..people who believe that the US led invasion into Iraq had any notion of legitimacy behind it.

Nevermind that you have to have an approval of UN for the war to even start to be considered legal, which the US not only failed to secure, but didn't even bother appealing for because US knew it would be vetoed by several countries (France, China, Russia). In fact, the US reasoning was akin to this: "Since we wont get an approval for legitimately waging war in Iraq, we'll go ahead and do it illegitimately, since UN is powerless to stop us anyway".

Kofi Annan denounced the war shortly after, saying that it was a blatant violation of UN security chapter and international law. But hey, this isnt enough to call the war "illegal", is it?

[M.Dancer]

Kofi Annan denounced the war shortly after, saying that it was a blatant violation of UN security chapter and international law. But hey, this isnt enough to call the war "illegal", is it?

Correct. Kofi is fre to his opinion, and the opinion of the UNSC was that the war was not illegal.

[M.Dancer]

That being said, the war was a hideous blunder.....

[Black Dog]

Who is saying they allowed anything? Allowing something and being powerless to do anything about it are two different things. Even today, the Iraqi goverments authority in the Kurdish regions is dubious.

Well, the Kurds certainly not powerless. Why would they allow this office to operate and allegedly bring in Iranian military types?

We do know this: the Iraqi government knew about the office and was, according to the Foreign Minister, in the process of giving it consular status (I don't know enough about Iraqi travel regulations to comment on whether consular status is the only way for foreigners to legally obtain travel documents so I'll let that pass for now). That means someone-either the Kurds or Iraqi government-gave this operation its blessing.

[AshNazg]

Correct. Kofi is fre to his opinion, and the opinion of the UNSC was that the war was not illegal.

Untrue.

The war was started without a resolution permitting it, and hence was illegal. The fact that Iraq did not comply with previous resolutions, including 1441, does not mean that USA was free to declare war on it.

In fact when 1441 was adopted, it was agreed that failure to comply with it will not cause immediate war with Iraq, but rather lead the way to more resolutions permitting stricter actions.

[M.Dancer]

Correct. Kofi is fre to his opinion, and the opinion of the UNSC was that the war was not illegal.

Untrue.

The war was started without a resolution permitting it, and hence was illegal. The fact that Iraq did not comply with previous resolutions, including 1441, does not mean that USA was free to declare war on it.

In fact when 1441 was adopted, it was agreed that failure to comply with it will not cause immediate war with Iraq, but rather lead the way to more resolutions permitting stricter actions.

The argument is and was that there were umpteen resolutions aurthorizing force starting with the intitial resolution authorising Desert Storm. That brought the cease fire agreement which in turn brought the violation of the ceasefire agreement which in turn brought further UNSC resolutions authorizing force.

Ther can be no denying that the issue was tabled and force was authorised. I don't believe there were any shelf llife attached to the authorization.

What can be argued is that the UNSC was wrong, what can't be argued is that according to the parameters of the UNSC, that the war was illegal.

[M.Dancer]

Who is saying they allowed anything? Allowing something and being powerless to do anything about it are two different things. Even today, the Iraqi goverments authority in the Kurdish regions is dubious.

Well, the Kurds certainly not powerless. Why would they allow this office to operate and allegedly bring in Iranian military types?

That means someone-either the Kurds or Iraqi government-gave this operation its blessing.

Why would the Kurds allow it? Because it suits their puposes. The obvious one is the Kurdsdo not want a united iraq. Or at least a united iraq that includes Kurds.

Did someone either in Iraq or with the Kurds approve the the Iranian mission?

Obviously.

[AshNazg]

The argument is and was that there were umpteen resolutions aurthorizing force starting with the intitial resolution authorising Desert Storm. That brought the cease fire agreement which in turn brought the violation of the ceasefire agreement which in turn brought further UNSC resolutions authorizing force.

Ther can be no denying that the issue was tabled and force was authorised. I don't believe there were any shelf llife attached to the authorization.

What can be argued is that the UNSC was wrong, what can't be argued is that according to the parameters of the UNSC, that the war was illegal.

What are the specific resolution numbers that authorize military intervention in case it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the WMD program was terminated?

I want to read through the resolution texts and see if there is any shelf life attached to it, or it is standard practice to declare certain agreements null and void after some time has passed without enforcing them.

Besides, didn't you say that the opinion of UNSC is that the war was not illegal? Why is there so much heated debate among the members of the UNSC itself that it is? Some members consider it not to be, some members consider it to be. If there are resolutions that permit "finishing" the war from 1991, clearly they're not drafted in a language that is binding, or there would not be so much flak over it.