.....but what about the legality of it all?

[The_Bearded_Liberal]

Of course Iraqi's are better off without the two punk Hussein boys but there's something that keeps gnawing at me about this whole thing.

Now I know I might be an extremely small minority in this country thesedays who believes in following "the rule of law" internationally but surely if one was to advocate that the assasination of the "Iraqi leadership" is lawful, then that belief is made on the assumption of the entire "war" on Iraq being 'legal'.

And is there no doubt at all about its legality?

How would the US hold up in an international court of law after having attacked a sovereign nation that obviously was 'not' a clear and imminent threat to it?

Would we not be outraged if say India invaded Pakistan on such flimsy evidence of being an imminent threat, as we have with Iraq and then set about assasinating that country's leadership?

Yes, Iraq is better off without the likes of the Husseins but are we not just a little worried about the example and the precedent this sets for other countries and for the future?

I personally think we should be.

TBL

[chesley]

1. Huh?

What assassination are you talking about? The Hussein boys were killed resisting arrest. Not a smart thing to do when you are cornered, even by the county sherriff, let alone the 101st Airborne.

And as for an international court of law, which one is it that has jurisdiction??

[jedicord]

3. Resisting Arrest?

From what I understand, a policeman can only shoot to kill if there is imminent danger. US Military rules are supposed to be (or used to be) "Don't fire until fired upon". Then again, maybe I missed something.

Who's jurisdiction? The world's. You know, not just the US, but all those other countries out there. You might be interested to learn that there ARE other countries out there.

[chesley]

6. Yeah?

But they don't have juriisdiction over American foreign or military policy. Why? 'Cause they ain't got the power. So, and I am honestly asking this question here, "Who is going to call GWB to account for this/"

[jedicord]

15. The US?

Following your line of thinking, since we are the most powerful country in the world, WE need to hold him accountable. But, of course, we won't.

OK, my opinion (and dream, etc. etc.) is that the WORLD should hold us accountable for anything we do OUTSIDE of our borders (like somewhere in the rest of the world, for instance).

I thought that's what we used to stand for, guess I'm wrong.

[chesley]

17. You're right

America probably will not penalize GWB in any way. There's always 2004, though.

[htuttle]

20. So, if I'm understand you correctly

You are saying that we should only follow international law if there is a sufficient military power to force us to? Most other countries DO in fact follow international laws, in case you were unclear about that.

Do you follow the laws in your community only because of fear of the consequences? If robbery were legal, would you commit robbery? Murder?

Do you think that good decisions come from a foundation of fear and greed?

Cause that's where what you are saying is taking us.

[chesley]

23. No

What I'm saying is that international law is not so advance as some people might wish. C'mon now, how many people do you know that would pay their income taxes if they weren't afraid to go to jail? without an enforcement mechanism, law of any sort is nothing but feel-goodism.

International law works well in trade arrangements and such, but not so much in security matters, in my opinion. why should the USA allow others to determine what its security policies should be?? I guess the law-abidingness of other nations is the reason we are in Iraq. We couldn't stand how well they were behaving and decided to stir up some, well, you know. Cuba, North Korea, Palestine. All these places are chock full of law-abiding people. But they have plenty who wish to harm us, and we need no one's permission to defend ourelves.

[jedicord]

5. One more thing...

At least one (I think Quday) Hussein son tried to surrender to the US and strike a deal. He was refused. Kinda gave him the message they were out to get him DEAD (or alive?). I'd have resisted arrest too, frankly.

[Joey121]

7. Not a problem for you?

"And as for an international court of law, which one is it that has jurisdiction??"

None, and that's just the way the US government likes it.
Is that not a problem with you?

[chesley]

11. This was just

an expression of fact. Until there is a court with jurisdiction, all talk of "international law" is just so much hot air

[mike6640]

8. As a signatory to the UN Charter.

The United States is obliged in our own US Constitution (article VI, clause 2), to follow rule established via treaties as the "supreme Law of the Land".

The UN Charter is all about establishing peace and preventing wars of aggression.

I would suggest you read both these documents.

[chesley]

13. I have read them

But again, without a court with jurisdiction, this is so much hot air. Why would the USA feel obliged to be the only country on earth that let's the UN run its foreign policy?

[EAMcClure]

10. I'm sorry, but that is silly

Since when is the 101st airborne an international police organization?

How was this an arrest?

Sounds to me like 200 soldiers and air support is not an arrest, but an invasion.

Think Bonnie and Clyde. Think Dillinger... actually, this is even worse because at least it was law enforcement that riddled those criminals with bullets.

Eric

[chesley]

16. right

It was an invasion, thus putting us at war. Thus, the US military was attempting to detain, arrest, or fill in the blank here, these two murdering thugs who were also enemy combatants that were armed and shooting at them.

Disagree with the war all you like, but a country at war, legal or not will fight. so what's the particular beef, as opposed to a general anti-war beef?? these two deserved what they got!!

Or don't you agree??

[EAMcClure]

24. Don't put me in a double bind

You are not engaging in a fair argument... and I don't mean fair in the childish way. There are hidden assumptions in your response that are disquieting.

Number One: The United States was not forced into a war with Iraq. The arguments for this war were that Iraq posed a threat. Even if this were true, to invade would be a violation of international law. The US invaded Iraq without international consent in an unprovoked act.

Number Two: To put yourself at war does NOT mean you make the rules or have the rights to enforce law as you see fit. Say I met you on the street and punched you in the face, and then arrested you under the pretext that you had unpaid parking tickets. I knew nothing about you, this was an educated guess. Many car owners have unpaid parking tickets. it turns out, I was right. Does this justify my otherwise unprovoked assault. You were evading your liability to the state, you were in violation of the law. Once again, do I have the right to attack you on such a pretext?

Number Three: To "deserve" death is a judgment made by law. To reach this judgment, there are rules which govern the path to a penalty of death. What makes the United States the arbiter of the death penalty in this matter? Where is the vaunted rule of law in this situation?

The crux of the matter: No matter what I personally believe regarding the lives and immortal souls of Castor and Pollux Hussein, I uphold justice. Justice does not mean unprovoked aggression and the displacement of individuals any nation perceives as "unseemly."

Simply observe the golden rule in this matter. I don't decide who deserves to die. Neither does Bush, Inc.

Eric

[chesley]

30. Reply

# 1. Iraq was a threat. Their actions over a decade have proved it. to think otherwise is foolish.

# 2. There ARE international laws about how war can be legally waged. Let us say that reasonable men can disagree about whether or not the USA is observing all of them down to the smallest detail. However, it is not against the Law of War to detain, capture, arrest or kill enemy combatants. Especially if they are firing on you. If it is, show me where.

And international law, or not, America has the right to defend ourselves, the same as individuals. Of course, in Europe, even Britain, they are trying to deny that right to their citizens, but that does not mena that we should, too

# 3. "To deserve death" is a moral judgement. In a civilized society, you are correct, the law makes the decision to impose it, or not. but the law is so often an ass. As a free moral agent, I have the right to my own opinions about what people deserve for their actions. So do you. Our opinions may differ.

but you are making an 'unfair' assumption: The Hussein brothers where not 'executed', they were killed in a firefight. Nobody made them shoot at the US Army. they paid the price, but they were not 'punished'.

[EAMcClure]

33. Flaming pile of horseshit

#1: What actions since Gulf war 1 have shown that Iraq is a threat to the U.S.? Put your money where your mouth is.

#2; The U.S. is not doing something so niggling as violating international law "a little." The international community, through its organized body, the United Nations, roundly voted against action against Iraq in both the General Assembly and Security Council. The Bush administration could not even obtain a simple majority in the Security Council.

#2a: Quit using the term arrest in relation to a 200 man ambush of four individuals in a home. I don't like the way you use words to gild the moral lily. They are not the police, and our military is not operating under a lawful mandate. Everything the U.S. military does in Iraq is a crime, not only in international law, but even U.S. law. Face it. The U.S. has a law prohibiting the assassination of foreign leaders and dignitaries. The U.S. broke their own law in order to spend six hours pumping bullets into four people.

#3: Remember what I wrote about consensus? It is one thing to express a moral judgment, it is another to violate moral precepts and the body of laws designed to uphold BASIC HUMAN VALUES. Your kind of disingenuous subjective individualism undermines civilization.

#4: This was an uncivilized act, a violation of sovereign law, domestic and international... and no amount of criminal acts perpetrated by Castor and Pollux merit the undermining the very important concept of justice. Justice, not justification.

Eric

[htuttle]

2. We are in violation of so many international laws...

..that it's really quite remarkable that ANYONE obeys them elsewhere in the world.

I honestly think the US has finally descended in to barbarism. Our society seems quite willing to screw over the rest of the planet for our own comfort, and feel no guilt about it.

Let me tell you something, however. The rest of the planet has been not-so-slowly waking up to this fact, and we will find out how much we need the rest of the world sooner rather than later.

Just don't come crying to me when some desperate resident of a country we've destroyed comes here and gets all medieval on our asses again. I'll have little sympathy this time.

And that's my crabby curmudgeon post for the day...

[chesley]

9. OK!

Which ones are they again? I mean the ones by treaties that we have ratified, not something the French say we should be obeying. I might be missing something here.

[htuttle]

12. The United Nations Charter

-- The International Court of Justice (we still owe Nicaragua a bundle for mining their harbors) (and not to be confused with the newer ICC)
-- Several chemical and biological weapons non-proliferation treaties (we refuse to allow inspectors)

All of these were duly ratified by our Congress and signed by our President. Our Constitution requires that we follow them, and we don't.

And you obviously don't give a rat's ass about that.

Thanks for unfortunately proving my point in the portion of the thread above.

[chesley]

19. Wrong

Certainly I care. I was asking for information. Why do you guys always impute a moral failure to a requesst for clarification??

Naturally we should follow any ratified treaties. which ones have to do with the Iraq War 2?? Where did we surrender sovereignty to the UN or the EU?? I

[htuttle]

22. Sovereignty does not imply the right to invade other countries!!!!

We surrendered the right to attack other countries for merely our 'national interest' when we signed the UN charter after WWII.

In fact, we gave the Germans a stern talking to about that sort of thing during the Nuremberg trials:

"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy. "
-- Justice Jackson, August 12, 1945, Nuremberg Trials

[chesley]

26. Not

in a case of pre-empting terrorism. Forget 9/11, forget what Bush said. The war is against all terrorists everywhere. No one can honestly deny that Saddam had sponsored terrorism. That Saddam was resonpsible for the deaths of Americans. Whether he had anything to do with Osama is irrelevant to what he had already done.

He would have done worse if he had the means. He meant to do worse. And anyhow, I just can't ignore the 300,000 bodies found so far. Can you?? What would your solution have been??

[The_Bearded_Liberal]

28. 300 000

Yep...and many of those 300 000 died around the time this picture was taken.......



Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.

[The_Bearded_Liberal]

14. You need to read more, Chesney

Here's a start for you....Happy reading!

TORTURE AND SLAVERY IN U.S. PRISONS: A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS
http://www.sonic.net/~doretk/Issues/99-03%20SPR/tourture.html

US said violating international treaties
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/15333/newsDate/5-Apr-2002/story.htm

US Military in Violation of Migratory Bird Treaty Act
http://www.earthjustice.org/accomplishments/display.html?ID=128

[chesley]

21. It's Chesley

Actually I do read quite a lot. conservative, Liberal, Arabic, etc, etc. I will look at the links, you have sent me. But although there is, say torture and slavery in US prisons, this is not an official policy anywhere in the States. Unlike, say Iraq. Admitted, there are many corrupt officials, rapists, and others working in the prison system. Let's get rid of them and throw them in jail. But to equate the US with Iraq, Iran, China, Cuba, etc, etc, etc, is ridiculous

[The_Bearded_Liberal]

25. Ches"L"ey.....

.....in what country is "torture" an "official" policy?

Just because it isn't "official" doesn't mean it don't happen.

Come on....are you that naive?

Some have also raised questions about the US sending those they captured in Afghanistan and Iraq to "third countries" like Saudi Arabia to actually be tortured in attempts to extract information.

So if this is true, yeah, I damn well do equate the US with other countries who will readily use means of "torture".

[jedicord]

18. They're going right over your head Son!

You're advocating that the US attacks whomever we feel needs an attack.

That means that all those other countries out there (France included) should be able to attack any country they want (and feel sure can conquer).

What do we have now? Chaos!

The world is not a game of Risk, even though it might be YOUR favorite game. This is reality, baby.

[chesley]

27. Actually

it is pretty rugged, and yes, risky, out there. What keeps countries from attacking one another?? It is not international law. It is a fear of the consequences. No one fears the UN. No one fears France. The only power currently capable of keeping any kind of peace in the world is the USA.

So, if the US doesn't do it, who will?? But why should the US do it? What's in it for us.?? Even the US cannot protect the whole world. therefore, it needs to protect itself.

[EAMcClure]

29. Oversimplification

You are commiting reductions left, right and sideways.

There are many factors which prevent acts of international aggression. One of the main ones is: the citizens of that country. There is such a thing as popular will, but it is shaped by circumstance and by propoganda.

It is ridiculous to say that the only thing preventing a cause is its effect. Of course there are consequences to any invasion, or any war, and these are taken into account by any thinking individual as far as they can reason.

International law exists, not necessarily to deter by force, but deter by CONSENSUS. The more countries that agree to adhere to a body of laws, the more the world's popular will galvanises the idea and makes the idea reality, without international ARMED GUARDS standing around to enforce these laws like Klaatu.

I think you should really examine your pretenses in this situation. You should see how you are limiting the scope of the debate and thereby eliminating the answers to your questions. You are engaging in rhetorical aggression, and it comes off as naive.

Eric

[chesley]

31. Not so

Why do the citizens of a country prevent war?? Some may do so for pure "moral" reasons. Others becasue fighting a war would interfere with their plans for their lives. Most probably because there is no good reason that they can see for going to war. But in some country, somewhere, there is an evil man who wants something and is willing to kill to get it. Force is called for.

Let's say that international law exists and is enforced by consensus. Great, I love it. I don't have the same ideas as Kofi. I will agee with few things he says. We have no consensus. Let's say 90% of the world agrees with him, 10% with me. The 10percenters decide not to play ball. How the heck is he going to make us do it?? Unless he uses force, he damn well can't.

Law depends on force. why else are policemen armed with deadly weapons?? The stupidest and most dishonest lie they ever told us in school was "Force doesn't solve anything." Well you can't solve algebra with it. But social problems are all, or mostly, solved by force, or the threat thereof. Would the slaves be free without force; would blacks and whites sit at the same lunch counter without force? Would Hitler be dead without force. Would taxes be paid without force? Not mine, I can tell you.

[htuttle]

32. There it is again....barbarism

"Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of
the women!"

Have you learned nothing from the lesson of Ed Gruberman?

[EAMcClure]

34. Equivalency

Yes, force solves many things. Force is the application of energy... many people apply energy, many things apply energy, it is a basic law of life and physics.

HOWEVER

There is a difference between defense and aggression.

That's really all I have to say on the matter. Your reasoning is convoluted and you have backed yourself into a corner.

The world is filled to the brim with evil men, and for a powerful nation to judge who is evil enough to be destroyed without any consensus is evil themselves. Vigilantism by empire.

Eric

[sirshack]

4. I'm not a foregin relations expert...

...but here's my take.

I think it's hard to put war and the reasons for going to war in a legal framework. Especially in terms of "precedence". Comparing one war to another is not like comparing the verdict in a couple of court cases.