this war is an abject illegality. Here is an excellent audio link explaining why, and condemning the media for not pouncing on it.

http://www.webactive.com/cspin/

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith this war is an abject illegality. Here is an excellent audio link explaining why, and condemning the media for not pouncing on it. http://www.webactive.com/cspin/

I tried to understand why he believes this war is illegal, he argues the folloing:

a. "fundamental international laws [rejects aggressive war]".
b. "War made out of the charter is illegal", "[the] country uses force outside of the charter [which is illegal]"

Now as to one that knows his international laws I answer as following;

a. What fundamental laws? He defines the two acceptable ways to go to war in modernity; 1. either in self defense 2. either with approval of UN Security Council (UNSC from here on).
Then he goes on to state that 2 is even illegal due to "fundamental international laws" which he carefully decides not to state, as if they are just a figminte of his imagination - which I must say seems to be the prevailing theory right now. The only international legality in inter-state modernity affairs comes from the UN, especially if either or both states are members of the UN. No othe "fundamental international laws" exist, where does he get this from??

b. Yes I agree, war made out of the charter unless for reason a. 1. is illegal. But what he selectively cares not to address if the fact that the USA has gone to war with the "legal approval" of the UN. It might be questioned morally and the approach, but regardless resolution 678 (Resolution that authorizes the war http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm) and 687 (The Peace Treaty to end the first gulf war http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm). Legally, one can easily argue that the second war is legit because it is simply an extension of the first war which was authorized. Iraq violated the peace, and therefore war endures to ensure peace is re-established. Now on this point one may add resolution 1441 (Entitled "The situation between Iraq and Kuwait" http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.ns...S=S/RES/1441%20(2002)&Lang=E&Area=UNDOC
1441 clearly says Iraq "will face serious consequences" if it does not comply with the resolution. Serious consequences understood as force, as nothing more serious can be done to Iraq.

His arguments are weak, the fact is most international lawyers don't agree with him as he very much implied in his radio statements. He simply brushes them off as "wrong and mislead", however, he should carefully evaluate his illegal justification for war, as many have realized it is not that hard to justify it legal in the context of the UN. Apparenlty the majority this time seems to be right, I guess the rest of the international lawyers in the world are doing their proper jobs in interperting the laws, not like Mr. Ranter who blinds his perceptions by his bias.

As for Mr. Kofi not being addressed - no one seems to care what he said because it has no relevance. The US is like it or not, legally approaching this war, and therefore his statements have no bearing on this case.

Its amazing John, you listen to such radio stations. I love how they bashed Michael Savage "as laughable", "biggot, racist [, and baby killer" and "fanatic conservative" simply since he articulates his views well and has a diverging view point and then looked at their beloved Phil Donahue as a "progressive thinker", "challenging common perceptions" and so on. Phil Donahue was a disgrace, even for liberals, and hearing him portrayed in such manner just shows me that FAIR is actually unFAIR. What they are doing is having an agenda and changing the perception of news to suit that reality, it is a far cry from truth. Screen your ears buddy... get some filters.

Is war with Iraq legal?

By Barnaby Mason
BBC diplomatic correspondent



Annan says unilateral action would defy UN charter
The question of whether a war on Iraq is legal under international law will become more pressing if the United States and Britain fail to get a new Security Council resolution.
They say the use of force would be legal but the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan says unilateral action taken outside the Security Council would not conform to the UN charter.

The UN charter allows military action in self-defence and that can include a pre-emptive strike - but only if there is an imminent threat.

Few accept that Iraq poses such a threat.

So the question comes back to authorisation by the Security Council.

Even the draft resolution now being debated is not clear-cut on this point; if it fails to pass, the key text is last November's resolution 1441.

'Final opportunity'

That gave President Saddam Hussein a final opportunity to give up weapons of mass destruction.

But as for what would happen if he did not do so, 1441 merely reminded him of the serious consequences threatened in previous resolutions.

It did not authorise member states to use all necessary means to enforce it - the key phrase in Security Council resolution 678 that gave authority for the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991.

The reason 1441 was ambiguous is that France and Russia would not agree to such clarity.


1441 gives Saddam a final chance to disarm
Many experts in international law say the absence of explicit wording means that 1441 does not authorise force.

But some agree with the UK Government that it may rely on previous resolutions that did.

To sum up the argument: the Security Council authorised war to end the occupation of Kuwait; the ceasefire in 1991 was conditional on Iraqi disarmament; so Iraq's failure to disarm revives the authorisation to use force.

This is controversial stuff - and certainly no Security Council resolution authorises toppling Saddam Hussein.

___________________
Retro ...

wow, thanks occrider, good article. have your really changed your mind about the war?

yoepus, i will have a rebuttal post for you later, i'm at work right now.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

Kellogg-Briand Pact, anyone?

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith wow, thanks occrider, good article. have your really changed your mind about the war? yoepus, i will have a rebuttal post for you later, i'm at work right now.

No ... I'm just stating that this war can't be classified as being illegal ... much like it can't really be classified as being legal. I can't be completely opposite to what I believe in today but I'll lean more towards anti-war until midnight ... (although even if I'm leaning a little more towards anti-war, I'm still firmly in the pro-war ouste saddam camp)

Edit: btw, just cuz I'm pro-war that doesn't mean that I can't be somewhat objective at times

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider No ... I'm just stating that this war can't be classified as being illegal ... much like it can't really be classified as being legal.

I'll agree to this point. It is hard to categorize it as illegal, and a challenge to classify it as legal as well due to specific wording. A case can be made for its legitimacy only using previous historic documents and implying. This legitimate status however is in all fairness in a limbo - and a precedent could be set with it. Currently the precedent is set that it is legit.

I'm still leaning towards the argument of legality, as it makes better sense, but due to lack of precedents it really is up in the air. What is for sure one can't say with overwhelming confidence that the war is "illegal" but to the point of "legal" some questions can be asked and a reasonable argument can be made. As it stands infront of me it is not a question of Legal vs. Illegal, but a question of Legal vs. Limbo.

This is reminding me of Election 2000.

In any case, i will concede that there is good arguments from both sides that it is both legal and illegal.

but, predictably, i see it as Illegal Vs. Limbo, leaning towards illegal.

Kofi Annan himself has declared it against the UN charter.

Resolution 1441 DELIBERATELY is ambigous, so as to avoid authorizing war without a second resolution. this resolution would never have passed with language specifically authorizing war, it was a concession that the US had to make to appease france at the time, and thought they could later wrangle out of by redefining the words serious consequences.

and as for 678 and 687, i disagree that this can "logically" be an extension of the gulf war. These resolution were passed well over a decade ago, and the situation has changed dramatically. I ask, if 678 and 687 were already in force, then why did the US stop attacking? why did 1441 even need to be passed?

Besides iraq is no longer attacking kuwait, IS disarming, or rather was until the US took inspectors out before beginning to bomb. The inspectors were not able to find anything prohibited whatsoever, with the exception of 16 EMPTY warheads, and 100 or so Al-SamoudII missiles, which were being destroyed when the US suddenly decided to order inspectors out.

Finally, as occrider pointed out, the toppling of saddam, or the more euphemistic term "regime-change" is certainly not authorized anywhere, and that is the stated goal of the US, the one that has been the hardest to swallow for the international community. Even Tony Blair has stated he does not support regime change.

For those reasons, i belive this war illegal.

And, if by some legal wrangling similiar to election 2000 occurs, i fear for the future, when the precedent is set for attacking countries halfway across the world on the grounds of "Pre-emptive Self Defense"

nonetheless the war has already begun, and i suspect that the UN will simply ignore it, instead of specifically making a precedent.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

Law only exists insofar as it might be enforced. There is no threat of these laws being enforced upon the United States, hence for all intents and purposes the laws do not exist (at least, within the scope of the present issue).

The Arbiter has spoken and has decided. The matter is settled then.

while i agree that this is pretty much true i don't think it's right. If we agree that "a law is only a law if it's enforceable" we have completely abandoned democracy, and have gone back to the law of the playground where the biggest bully sets the rules.

I for one, do not accept this point of view, and will continue to speak out against it until the situation is rectified
(or I am silenced by the bully i guess)

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith while i agree that this is pretty much true i don't think it's right. If we agree that "a law is only a law if it's enforceable" we have completely abandoned democracy, and have gone back to the law of the playground where the biggest bully sets the rules. I for one, do not accept this point of view, and will continue to speak out against it until the situation is rectified (or I am silenced by the bully i guess)

No I agree with you, but if you are taking this approach where is your forceful condemnation of the SEVERE AND HARSH violation of the French in the internal affairs of the Ivory Coast?

Their actions can not be warranted in any argument that even resembles legitimacy. They clearly violated the very cores of the UN charter. How come Mr. Kofi does not speak out against this? How come now one cries for the hundreds of africans that are dying at the hands of the french daily?

Could it be hypocracy? no... thats odd.