TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Danish PM faces Iraq war lawsuit

Danish PM faces Iraq war lawsuit

quote:

Danish PM faces Iraq war lawsuit By Julian Isherwood BBC News, Copenhagen An unusual constitutional battle is about to get underway in Denmark. After two years of preparation, a group of 24 citizens have brought a suit against the Danish prime minister over Denmark's role in the Iraq war. The plaintiffs are seeking to challenge the legitimacy of Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen's decision to go to war against Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Denmark was one of the original members of the US-led coalition which invaded Iraq in 2003. False weapons claims The group say it is vital that the Danish courts are given a chance to decide on the legitimacy or otherwise of the Danish government's decision. They contend that the prime minister breached the constitution on two counts, taking the country to war without a United Nations Security Council resolution, and devolving sovereignty over Danish troops to a foreign power without the necessary constitutional authority. Although Denmark's contingent is small, currently some 500 men, Mr Rasmussen has been the target of widespread criticism and claims of misleading the population on the issue of the Iraqi threat and claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Although the Danish parliament overwhelmingly supported the government motion to go to war in 2003, the suit claims that under the constitution, it had no right to do so. Lengthy debate It says that under the constitution, Denmark is only allowed to go to war if the country is directly threatened or if there is a UN mandate to commence hostilities and that Danish troops are placed under UN command. According to the suit, none of these prerequisites were fulfilled. As a case of constitutional principle, the suit is likely to take at least five years to go through the courts as both parties are likely to exhaust all appeals available with the case ending up in the high court. Initially the first court of complaint will have to decide on whether the group of 24 is eligible to bring the case at all as an interested party. That in itself is likely to take at least two years.

Source: BBC

Since I don't know much about him or the Danish constitution, could you provide some insight Trancaholic?

Geez. When will people realize, you weren't "lied to about WMD", everyone was just stupid about it?!

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Geez. When will people realize, you weren't "lied to about WMD", everyone was just stupid about it?!

If I understood that article right, it didn't matter if they lied about those or not, what matters is "was those WMDs a direct threat to Denmark". Most likely the answer to that question would be no.

Seems like someone in parliament should already have noticed tho? So probably something is missing

Trancaholic? =)

Man, Europeans really dont like war. Except the Brits those blood thirsty bastards.

Hmm, I haven't got much more details on the actual case against the prime minister, but I do know the following: When parliament voted for participation in the "Coalition of Willing", it was on the formal basis of an age old UN resolution (from around 1992, I think) mandating the use of power against Iraq because of its failure to comply with some other UN resolution. Less officially, it was a clear cut decision taken on the basis of a world where the US and the UK had already decided to go to war: In such a scenario Denmark would want to be on the side of the US and the UK, due to our close ties to these two countries, the reasoning went.
Ever since it became apparent that the WMD would probably not be found, the political left has been spending enormous resources on painting the prime minister into the same corner as Blair and Bush. Unfortunately for them, though, they have been unable to find just the slightest hint that the case for war was built on Saddam possessing WMDs, and believe me they are *very* keen on bringing this prime minister to a fall. Therefore, it surprises me that this group of people have decided to sue the prime minister: Unless, they're sitting on some private tapings or proceedings I cannot see how they would build their case?
To be brutally honest, the people in the group that I know of, are the absolute worst of the left in Denmark IMO, and I suspect them of running this case in the hope of gaining some media-momentum that could bring troubles to the current government, failing to bring it down by solid arguments alone. But I've been proven wrong before, so it will be interesting to see how this case evolves.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Hmm, I haven't got much more details on the actual case against the prime minister, but I do know the following: When parliament voted for participation in the "Coalition of Willing", it was on the formal basis of an age old UN resolution (from around 1992, I think) mandating the use of power against Iraq because of its failure to comply with some other UN resolution.

I was writing a reply based on this assumption too first, but when I read the article again I noticed something:

quote:

It says that under the constitution, Denmark is only allowed to go to war if the country is directly threatened or if there is a UN mandate to commence hostilities and that Danish troops are placed under UN command.

Which means it didnt matter if UN had passed a resulotion a long time ago justifing the war in a legal sense. The Dansih troops are not under UN command, rather under US command.

Go home study your constitution please

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew I was writing a reply based on this assumption too first, but when I read the article again I noticed something: Which means it didnt matter if UN had passed a resulotion a long time ago justifing the war in a legal sense. The Dansih troops are not under UN command, rather under US command. Go home study your constitution please

Heh, I like constitutions so I looked this up (BTW Denmark nice constitution except for your court!):

No mention of the "UN" or even the word "united" once in the Danish constitution. The closest passage I could even find to dealing with war is as follows:

quote:

Denmark - Constitution { Adopted on: 5 June 1953 } { ICL Document Status: 1992 } ... Section 19 [Foreign Affairs] (1) The King shall act on behalf of the Realm in international affairs. Provided that without the consent of the Parliament the King shall not undertake any act whereby the territory of the Realm will be increased or decrease, nor shall he enter into any obligation which for fulfillment requires the concurrence of the Parliament, or which otherwise is of major importance; nor shall the King, except with the consent of the Parliament, terminate any international treaty entered into with the consent of the Parliament. (2) Except for purposes of defence against an armed attack upon the Realm or Danish forces the King shall not use military force against any foreign state without the consent of the Parliament. Any measure which the King may take in pursuance of this provision shall immediately be submitted to the Parliament. If the Parliament is not in session it shall be convoked immediately. (3) The Parliament shall appoint from among its Members a Foreign Affairs Committee, which the Government shall consult prior to the making of any decision of major importance to foreign policy. Rules applying to the Foreign Affairs Committee shall be laid down by Statute.

So its not a constitutional issue anyhow. Could be a legal issue still if parliment passed a silly like like that.

Most likely just a bunch of hot air.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Heh, I like constitutions so I looked this up (BTW Denmark nice constitution except for your court!): No mention of the "UN" or even the word "united" once in the Danish constitution. The closest passage I could even find to dealing with war is as follows:

So I read through the whole damn thing, and I didn't find anything either. Guess BBC didnt do their homework!

The constituion mention the foregin policies on a few places, but the only thing is that the King must approve it, and the Folketing. Or perhaps I was skimming too much on some places...

quote:

So its not a constitutional issue anyhow. Could be a legal issue still if parliment passed a silly like like that. Most likely just a bunch of hot air.

Might be. Hopefully trancaholic can keep us updated on this one!

quote:

BTW Denmark nice constitution except for your court!

I think it sucked actually. First of all, the king of denmark actually have quite a lot of powers. Second of all, the church and state is not seperated. And some other things I thought about when reading it.

Not a big suprise it sucked tho since it was Danish

I actually took time to look in a newspaper last night, and it said that the paragraph of the constitution that we are looking at is indeed the one Yoepus emphazised in his post. And I think that that fact backs up my point about this being a witch hunt, rather than the result of serious concerns about the future state of the constitution, pretty well.
In fact I would have been very surprised to see the UN mentioned in our constitution; AFAIR it's only been changed twice in the last hundred years - once to allow women to vote (boy was that a mistake) and once to allow female heirs of the throne.

About the "King"'s powers: Last time he tried to execute them, he was publicly told off by parliament, and since then (1930s I think) there has been no such attempts at mingling in politics.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic About the "King"'s powers: Last time he tried to execute them, he was publicly told off by parliament, and since then (1930s I think) there has been no such attempts at mingling in politics.

What point is there too have that then?! Clearly all parts of a constitution should be followed, otherwise there is no point in having them there!

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew What point is there too have that then?! Clearly all parts of a constitution should be followed, otherwise there is no point in having them there!

Well its good in dire circumstnaces or when you have a popular king that can pull such things off.

The British magna carta reads pretty similar too..

The deal basically is/was in exchange for giving the King some power you get a bloodless change of government and secession of power. Afterall recall the constitution was made when the King was absolute.

I'm sure your Swedish constitution isn't much different... what is your King says all the time, oh yea that's right "skull!"

I like your King

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Well its good in dire circumstnaces or when you have a popular king that can pull such things off.

Well if the king is that popular he should fucking run for parliament.

Really, I don't see why in a democracy a non elected person (a person choosen by god ) should have any powers whatsoever!

quote:

The British magna carta reads pretty similar too.. The deal basically is/was in exchange for giving the King some power you get a bloodless change of government and secession of power. Afterall recall the constitution was made when the King was absolute.

Yeah, I defently see where the law is comming from, however it doesn't belong to 21st century.

quote:

I'm sure your Swedish constitution isn't much different...

Feel free to read it
http://riksdagen.se/templates/R_Page____6357.aspx

(We are on our way making a new one tho)

The king has no powers whatsoever in Sweden. The king has the title "Head of State", the only thing he does thogh is to open up every session in the parliament (once a year). He has no powers whatsoever to do anything else. He can still not be charged tho, which is the only benefit he has over other ppl today (and of course that he get like 40 millions a year to spend of tax money ).

I think we had a constitution similair to the Danish, but it was majorly ammended in the '70s, where all the king's powers were taken away, amongst other things.

quote:

what is your King says all the time, oh yea that's right "skull!"

Skull? like in the swedish word "skull"?!

Or huh?

quote:

I like your King

Yeah except he can barely write/read he is cool

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Well if the king is that popular he should fucking run for parliament.

Why should he? He has more power then the parliment

quote:

Really, I don't see why in a democracy a non elected person (a person choosen by god ) should have any powers whatsoever!

There goes judges, ambassadors, bureaucrates, cops, etc...

quote:

Yeah, I defently see where the law is comming from, however it doesn't belong to 21st century.

Thats like saying if we had a hypothetical situation where I just saved your life after you begged for mercy and said that if I spare your life you will forever pay me $2000 a year. And then after 5 years when you have a posse of bodygaurds your like, "I already give you $10,000, what are you gonna do, kill me?".

Ya.. I coulda and probably shoulda. See the point? Its just about integrity.

quote:

Feel free to read it http://riksdagen.se/templates/R_Page____6357.aspx

Zaqariw's letter is on my #1 on the things to read list. Until there is some dispute there is no reason for me to read your Constituion. Thought I found the "Act of Succession" part interesting.

quote:

(We are on our way making a new one tho)

Mmm inspired by the EU are you?

quote:

The king has no powers whatsoever in Sweden. The king has the title "Head of State", the only thing he does thogh is to open up every session in the parliament (once a year). He has no powers whatsoever to do anything else. He can still not be charged tho, which is the only benefit he has over other ppl today (and of course that he get like 40 millions a year to spend of tax money ).

I could probably prove you wrong but I prefer to read what a terrorist has to say.

quote:

I think we had a constitution similair to the Danish, but it was majorly ammended in the '70s, where all the king's powers were taken away, amongst other things.

Guess it comes in handy that your Kings are drunkards that don't know how to read I guess

quote:

Skull? like in the swedish word "skull"?!

Yes

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Yeah, I defently see where the law is comming from, however it doesn't belong to 21st century. Feel free to read it http://riksdagen.se/templates/R_Page____6357.aspx (We are on our way making a new one tho) The king has no powers whatsoever in Sweden. The king has the title "Head of State", the only thing he does thogh is to open up every session in the parliament (once a year). He has no powers whatsoever to do anything else. He can still not be charged tho, which is the only benefit he has over other ppl today (and of course that he get like 40 millions a year to spend of tax money ). I think we had a constitution similair to the Danish, but it was majorly ammended in the '70s, where all the king's powers were taken away, amongst other things.

Well in Denmark politicians tend to view changes/alterations to the constitution as something that should be absolutely necessary - attempting to keep the constitution as simple as possible. However, we have yet to have a nut job as a king, and if that happened we might take similar measures as you Swedes in limiting the formal powers of the king.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Why should he? He has more power then the parliment

My point was that if the king is a really popular man, and that would ratify his powers, then he could as well run for parliment to prove that he is that popular.

quote:

There goes judges, ambassadors, bureaucrates, cops, etc...

Those are appointed by a democratically elected government tho, and/or can be fired if we decide they are not up to the task.

quote:

Thats like saying if we had a hypothetical situation where I just saved your life after you begged for mercy and said that if I spare your life you will forever pay me $2000 a year. And then after 5 years when you have a posse of bodygaurds your like, "I already give you $10,000, what are you gonna do, kill me?". Ya.. I coulda and probably shoulda. See the point? Its just about integrity.

Please explain to me why we would have a moral responsibility to uphold the kings powers? Your anology just doesnt cut it

quote:

Zaqariw's letter is on my #1 on the things to read list. Until there is some dispute there is no reason for me to read your Constituion. Thought I found the "Act of Succession" part interesting.

It would just be a good example for you to see how a monarchy could actually be democratic

quote:

Mmm inspired by the EU are you?

Lol, clearly the EU is inspired by us

No but the current system is kinda weird. We don't have a constitution per se, we have four "constitutions". Our freedom of press and freedom of information actually dates back longer than your constitution tho

I think we are going to get a more of a US style constitution now. will probably take something like 10 years tho before we have a new one. But I'm confident that by then we will have one of the best constitutions in the world

quote:

I could probably prove you wrong but I prefer to read what a terrorist has to say.

I bet you 10 bucks you can't prove me wrong

quote:

Guess it comes in handy that your Kings are drunkards that don't know how to read I guess

Lol, exactly!

quote:

Yes

Hmm okay

Never thought about that

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Well in Denmark politicians tend to view changes/alterations to the constitution as something that should be absolutely necessary - attempting to keep the constitution as simple as possible.

Taking away all the text from the constitution dealing with the king's powers, would actually make the constitution a lot shorter, and easier to understand

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Taking away all the text from the constitution dealing with the king's powers, would actually make the constitution a lot shorter, and easier to understand

I'm not convinced. Take the paragraph quoted by Yoepus for instance: What it says is not easily rewritten without the abstract notion of some central decision maker, representing the intentions of the nation.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.