Arrest warrent reward for condy rice
-
Oakman wrote:
kidnapping
As I see it, it's not necessarily kidnapping: If you go to a foreign country, you are bound by its law*. That's a given for me. Apparently, Australia does have a legal base[^] for any citizen to arrest someone.
Oakman wrote:
You are aware that Ms. Rice doesn't wander around overseas without bodyguards, aren't you? I wouldn't expect killabyte to understand such things, but I'm surprised to see you entertaining similar fantasies.
A man can have a dream, can't he? :)
*) of course barring diplomatic immunity, "unattainable for mere mortals".
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
peterchen wrote:
Even that's ok with me. I don't want to see her lynched or whatever. If she was held indeed, after a few weeks I'd chime in that the joke is stale now, and she should be let go.
You are aware that Ms. Rice doesn't wander around overseas without bodyguards, aren't you? I wouldn't expect killabyte to understand such things, but I'm surprised to see you entertaining similar fantasies.
peterchen wrote:
However, as a reminder that - no matter how high up you are - you are NOT beyond reach, that with great power comes great responsibility, it would put a grin on my face.
I doubt that the kidnapping of the Secretary of State of the United States would put a grin on anyone's face for very long.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Ms. Rice doesn't wander around overseas without bodyguards, aren't you? I wouldn't expect killabyte to understand such things
I doubt he does.
Oakman wrote:
I doubt that the kidnapping of the Secretary of State of the United States would put a grin on anyone's face for very long.
It would just piss us off. Look at history when someone pisses off America and what happens.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
peterchen wrote:
As I see it, it's not necessarily kidnapping
The Secretary of State is fifth in line for the succession to the Presidency of the United States. She would be in Australia at the invitation of the PM and in her official capacity and not as a private citizen. It would be considered kidnapping by the armed guards that accompanied her and they wouldn't give anyone else a vote.
peterchen wrote:
A man can have a dream, can't he?
I thought the only thing Germans ever dreamed about was world domination, lederhosen, and tubas.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Secretary of State is fifth in line for the succession to the Presidency of the United States
Exactly. Secretary of State is an important figure but there are bigger figures ahead in the pecking order.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
Oakman wrote:
understand why one cannot be a citizen of the world, but do you think Obama does?
Naaah. His IQ isn't high enough.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
Paul Conrad wrote:
Naaah. His IQ isn't high enough.
Consider that he graduated summa cum laude from Harvard, he was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review in his first year based on grades and a writing competition, then appointed president of the Law Review his second year, and he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago law school for twelve years. I don't know you, Paul, and you might be very bright; however, I can't help but think that, in an intellectual pissing contest, chances are that you would be seriously out-pissed.
-
Paul Conrad wrote:
Naaah. His IQ isn't high enough.
Consider that he graduated summa cum laude from Harvard, he was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review in his first year based on grades and a writing competition, then appointed president of the Law Review his second year, and he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago law school for twelve years. I don't know you, Paul, and you might be very bright; however, I can't help but think that, in an intellectual pissing contest, chances are that you would be seriously out-pissed.
I doubt he has the same IQ as me, 150 tanked, 185+ sober :rolleyes:
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I don't know you, Paul, and you might be very bright
Thanks :-\ He is probably better at Law than me, but he's no match for my B.S. and M.S. in Computer Science when it comes to anything related to my intellectual background ;P
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
Paul Conrad wrote:
Naaah. His IQ isn't high enough.
Consider that he graduated summa cum laude from Harvard, he was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review in his first year based on grades and a writing competition, then appointed president of the Law Review his second year, and he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago law school for twelve years. I don't know you, Paul, and you might be very bright; however, I can't help but think that, in an intellectual pissing contest, chances are that you would be seriously out-pissed.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
pissing contest, chances are that you would be seriously out-pissed.
Another thought, I'll just have my back facing a good breeze ;P
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
I doubt he has the same IQ as me, 150 tanked, 185+ sober :rolleyes:
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I don't know you, Paul, and you might be very bright
Thanks :-\ He is probably better at Law than me, but he's no match for my B.S. and M.S. in Computer Science when it comes to anything related to my intellectual background ;P
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
I remember reading a thing that said that political leaders tend to have only slightly higher-than-average IQs, because if it's too substantial then the rabble can't relate to them and are less likely to vote for them. Still, Obama does seem (even though I'm an Australian teenager and don't care a whit about American - or any - politics) to be smarter than the average bear.
There used to be a me, but I had it surgically removed.
-
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10523364[^] i am going to be rich!! :laugh:
Hands off! Rice is mine! ;)
Mark Brock Click here to view my blog
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
It's not rubbish - you can read about it here[^]. I didn't say Syria had a hand in the installation of the party in Iraq, but the Iraqi Baath party originated in Syria.
It's rubbish by virtue of being totally irrelevant from the point of view of international law. Christianity origininated in the Middle East too. What has that got to do with anything?
73Zeppelin wrote:
As to "what would satisfy me", how about a body that condemns the U.S. AND Russia and China and all those countries that don't abide by the U.N. charter. Selective anti-Americanism is petty and dumb and carried out by small minded people with narrow vision. If you can't see the irony in condemning the U.S. while everyone else ooohs and awwwws about the upcoming Olympics in China all the while turning a blind eye to their "illegal" invasion (and continuing oppression) of Tibet, well I can't help you much there. I'm not a "fantasist", but I certainly recognize the inherent ridiculousness of an organization lead by countries with past and continuing grievous human rights abuses.
Seems to me that you are a fantasist --- or at least someone who opposes the concept of an organisation comprising all the nations of the world. There is plenty of condemnation thrown around in all directions. However, it is very rarely unanimous in any direction. It is NOT true that the UN is "led" by countries like China and Russia. They have a big say, along with the US, France and others. Just by the way, Tibet was a backwards theocracy and a consistent violator of human rights before China took over. Don't imagine otherwise merely because the Dalai Lama seems like a nice guy.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Why should any country respect the U.N. charter when member countries carry out assassinations on foreign soil and silence political opponents?
Like I said, mutual self interest in avoiding war and the knowledge that, when its members are agreed, the UN can actually do something to enforce its charter.
73Zeppelin wrote:
At some point it has to turn from "hey, the system is broken but it moves along" to "hey, this thing is fundamentally flawed and something needs to be done". Apathy isn't a solution.
The changes you hope for will only be possible after internal reform of some major countries. No doubt some thi
John Carson wrote:
It's rubbish by virtue of being totally irrelevant from the point of view of international law. Christianity origininated in the Middle East too. What has that got to do with anything?
It has a lot to do with international law - it suggests the Baath government of Iraq wasn't a legitimate government. So when people go on about "illegal war" they had better understand why they think it's illegal and under what context it is "illegal" other than the fact that a bunch of inhomogeneous nations, all possessed of their own unique contraventions of "international law", say so. That's hardly a basis for legal precedent. As for the rest of your reply I can basically sum it up as this: Iraq invasion bad - Tibet invasion not so bad. China's a U.N. member too and they have been occupying Tibet for some 50 years. Where's the outcry?
-
John Carson wrote:
It's rubbish by virtue of being totally irrelevant from the point of view of international law. Christianity origininated in the Middle East too. What has that got to do with anything?
It has a lot to do with international law - it suggests the Baath government of Iraq wasn't a legitimate government. So when people go on about "illegal war" they had better understand why they think it's illegal and under what context it is "illegal" other than the fact that a bunch of inhomogeneous nations, all possessed of their own unique contraventions of "international law", say so. That's hardly a basis for legal precedent. As for the rest of your reply I can basically sum it up as this: Iraq invasion bad - Tibet invasion not so bad. China's a U.N. member too and they have been occupying Tibet for some 50 years. Where's the outcry?
73Zeppelin wrote:
It has a lot to do with international law - it suggests the Baath government of Iraq wasn't a legitimate government.
It suggests no such thing. Your notion of "international law" seems completely fanciful. If Syria didn't depose the Iraqi government, then that is the end of the matter. The fact that a branch of an organisation that began in Syria was involved is irrelevant. The Baath Party in Iraq was NOT an agency of the Baath Party in Syria.
73Zeppelin wrote:
So when people go on about "illegal war" they had better understand why they think it's illegal and under what context it is "illegal" other than the fact that a bunch of inhomogeneous nations, all possessed of their own unique contraventions of "international law", say so. That's hardly a basis for legal precedent.
International law is determined by the UN charter and by UN decisions made pursuant to that charter, not by what a bunch of inhomogeneous nations say. There isn't much doubt about it. It is certainly true that some countries are in breach of international law and get away with it. That includes the US. If enforcing international law means going to war, then there is an understandable reluctance to do it, especially if it would lead to WWIII. The fact that the permanent members of the Security Council have veto rights also means that it is hard to get decisions through.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Iraq invasion bad - Tibet invasion not so bad. China's a U.N. member too and they have been occupying Tibet for some 50 years. Where's the outcry?
Don't you read the papers? I hear plenty of outcry. Likewise, Israel is illegally occupying the West Bank and the Gollan Heights. I hear plenty about that too. In neither case has the international community booted them out. Tibet has been under varying degrees of Chinese influence and control for many centuries. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_sovereignty_debate[^]
John Carson
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
It has a lot to do with international law - it suggests the Baath government of Iraq wasn't a legitimate government.
It suggests no such thing. Your notion of "international law" seems completely fanciful. If Syria didn't depose the Iraqi government, then that is the end of the matter. The fact that a branch of an organisation that began in Syria was involved is irrelevant. The Baath Party in Iraq was NOT an agency of the Baath Party in Syria.
73Zeppelin wrote:
So when people go on about "illegal war" they had better understand why they think it's illegal and under what context it is "illegal" other than the fact that a bunch of inhomogeneous nations, all possessed of their own unique contraventions of "international law", say so. That's hardly a basis for legal precedent.
International law is determined by the UN charter and by UN decisions made pursuant to that charter, not by what a bunch of inhomogeneous nations say. There isn't much doubt about it. It is certainly true that some countries are in breach of international law and get away with it. That includes the US. If enforcing international law means going to war, then there is an understandable reluctance to do it, especially if it would lead to WWIII. The fact that the permanent members of the Security Council have veto rights also means that it is hard to get decisions through.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Iraq invasion bad - Tibet invasion not so bad. China's a U.N. member too and they have been occupying Tibet for some 50 years. Where's the outcry?
Don't you read the papers? I hear plenty of outcry. Likewise, Israel is illegally occupying the West Bank and the Gollan Heights. I hear plenty about that too. In neither case has the international community booted them out. Tibet has been under varying degrees of Chinese influence and control for many centuries. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_sovereignty_debate[^]
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
International law is determined by the UN charter and by UN decisions made pursuant to that charter, not by what a bunch of inhomogeneous nations say. There isn't much doubt about it. It is certainly true that some countries are in breach of international law and get away with it. That includes the US. If enforcing international law means going to war, then there is an understandable reluctance to do it, especially if it would lead to WWIII. The fact that the permanent members of the Security Council have veto rights also means that it is hard to get decisions through.
This is my point - how effective can an international agency be when countries like China participate in the U.N. and hold veto power? They have the ability to block decisions with a single vote. People claim the U.S. may be guilty of inciting an "illegal" war - although the term is rather vague as to what constitutes illegal. I ask how valid it is to call it illegal when the peers that set these so-called international laws are guilty of the same offenses themselves. To go to court on trial for murder and be judged by a jury of peers consisting of murderers is really meaningless. So call the American invasion of Iraq illegal if you like, but in context it's meaningless and as an organization that is supposed to enforce such laws, the U.N. is ineffective. You claim my suggestion in favour of a U.N. overhaul are the work of fantasy, but there are simple things that can be done - putting conditions on the veto are one thing. Punishments for member states in contravention of the U.N. mandate are another. No country is obligated to belong, but the organization is a sham when member countries can choose to belong and be in violation of the U.N. member country regulations. I may have missed the articles about China - last I recall there were no heads of state that adamantly refused to attend the ceremonies. In fact, I think Sarkozy has done a turn-about and will now attend. If there are any others that intend to boycott, I am unaware of them.
-
peterchen wrote:
If you go to a foreign country, you are bound by its law
Ever hear of diplomatic immunity?
If you don't have the data, you're just another asshole with an opinion.
yes[^] God, guys, you are so serious. Don't you see the story potential? "I god my ass dragged to Guantanamo. For arresitng Condi. Yeah, that Condi."
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
Oakman wrote:
Ms. Rice doesn't wander around overseas without bodyguards, aren't you? I wouldn't expect killabyte to understand such things
I doubt he does.
Oakman wrote:
I doubt that the kidnapping of the Secretary of State of the United States would put a grin on anyone's face for very long.
It would just piss us off. Look at history when someone pisses off America and what happens.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
You invade the wrong country, waste tax payer billions and then declare "Mission accomplished" halfway through?
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighistmodified on Sunday, July 27, 2008 6:31 AM
-
Paul Conrad wrote:
Naaah. His IQ isn't high enough.
Consider that he graduated summa cum laude from Harvard, he was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review in his first year based on grades and a writing competition, then appointed president of the Law Review his second year, and he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago law school for twelve years. I don't know you, Paul, and you might be very bright; however, I can't help but think that, in an intellectual pissing contest, chances are that you would be seriously out-pissed.
You could say pretty much the same thing about George W. Bush and you.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
John Carson wrote:
International law is determined by the UN charter and by UN decisions made pursuant to that charter, not by what a bunch of inhomogeneous nations say. There isn't much doubt about it. It is certainly true that some countries are in breach of international law and get away with it. That includes the US. If enforcing international law means going to war, then there is an understandable reluctance to do it, especially if it would lead to WWIII. The fact that the permanent members of the Security Council have veto rights also means that it is hard to get decisions through.
This is my point - how effective can an international agency be when countries like China participate in the U.N. and hold veto power? They have the ability to block decisions with a single vote. People claim the U.S. may be guilty of inciting an "illegal" war - although the term is rather vague as to what constitutes illegal. I ask how valid it is to call it illegal when the peers that set these so-called international laws are guilty of the same offenses themselves. To go to court on trial for murder and be judged by a jury of peers consisting of murderers is really meaningless. So call the American invasion of Iraq illegal if you like, but in context it's meaningless and as an organization that is supposed to enforce such laws, the U.N. is ineffective. You claim my suggestion in favour of a U.N. overhaul are the work of fantasy, but there are simple things that can be done - putting conditions on the veto are one thing. Punishments for member states in contravention of the U.N. mandate are another. No country is obligated to belong, but the organization is a sham when member countries can choose to belong and be in violation of the U.N. member country regulations. I may have missed the articles about China - last I recall there were no heads of state that adamantly refused to attend the ceremonies. In fact, I think Sarkozy has done a turn-about and will now attend. If there are any others that intend to boycott, I am unaware of them.
73Zeppelin wrote:
This is my point - how effective can an international agency be when countries like China participate in the U.N. and hold veto power?
There is no disputing that the UN has limited effectiveness. However, countries will not agree to give up their veto power. That includes the US. Like I said before, the parallels are clearly there in the development of nation states. There is always reluctance to cede power to the centre. You can only gradually overcome that.
73Zeppelin wrote:
People claim the U.S. may be guilty of inciting an "illegal" war - although the term is rather vague as to what constitutes illegal.
The term is not vague at all and legal scholars in the US, the UK, Australia and elsewhere overwhelmingly say that the war was illegal.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I ask how valid it is to call it illegal when the peers that set these so-called international laws are guilty of the same offenses themselves. To go to court on trial for murder and be judged by a jury of peers consisting of murderers is really meaningless. So call the American invasion of Iraq illegal if you like, but in context it's meaningless and as an organization that is supposed to enforce such laws, the U.N. is ineffective.
I wonder if you take the view that the US has forfeited all rights to a say in these matters given that it has violated international law. Or do you have a double standard on this? Relatively few international peers are "guilty of the same offenses themselves". In any event, you can't apply the standards of a well ordered society governed by the rule of law to an international community that is only taking the first tentative steps in that direction. Again, you can stamp your feet and strike an indignant pose, but none of that comes to grips with the realities of international politics. What you apparently want by way of international governance just isn't an option.
73Zeppelin wrote:
You claim my suggestion in favour of a U.N. overhaul are the work of fantasy, but there are simple things that can be done - putting conditions on the veto are one thing. Punishments for member states in contravention of the U.N. mandate are another. No country is obligated to belong, but the organization is a sham when member countries can choose to belong and be in violation of the U.N. member cou
-
Oakman wrote:
John, I already dealt with this: "Neither New Zealand nor Australia have been given the power by U.N. Charter or Congressional vote to determine when the United States stops being at war. (i.e. You can't tell us that we are at peace with North Korea, even though we are not actively engaging them at this time. Indeed, I suspect that if you check, you'll discover that Australia is also still at war with North Korea.) And your country certainly had no right to presume to claim that we had declared peace with Iraq ourselves -- or that Hussein had done so." Please note the last sentence: Hussein considered himself to be at war with the U.S. and Britain. He said so. In speech after speech. Now if any of these oh so knowledgeable lawyers have an argument that trumps what I said, by all means - lets hear it. Otherwise, without referents, your claim is meaningless.
I am not claiming any special rights for Australia and New Zealand. And the "arrest Condi Rice" thing is plainly just a publicity stunt, not a serious legal manoevre. You, on the other hand, are apparently claiming special rights for the US. It doesn't have them. Legal authority in these matters rests with the UN. The UN authorised the first Iraqi war and then the UN authorised a ceasefire (it never authorised the no-fly zones, by the way). The idea that the US has a unilateral authority to enforce the terms of the ceasefire agreement is not one supported by most international legal experts (just as Australia has no unilateral authority to attack North Korea because of any violations). Particularly compelling in this regard is that the UN explicitly considered the post-ceasefire behaviour of Iraq and deliberately declined to authorise force in subsequent resolutions. The idea that old UN resolutions can be used to overrule the intent of more recent resolutions is not supportable. Searching for 2003 articles seems to get you close to the limit of the Internet's archival ability. Many links turn out to be dead. Here are four that aren't. First is a brief newspaper discussion. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/13/qanda.politics[^] Second is a letter signed by numerous Law Professors http://www.fpif.org/commentary/20
John Carson wrote:
then the UN authorised a ceasefire
No. Actually George Herbert Walker Bush declared a cease fire. The UN ratified it.
John Carson wrote:
it never authorised the no-fly zones
That's right, the U.S. Britain and France imposed them when Hussein began murdering thousands of Shi'a and Kurds using poison gas among other means.
John Carson wrote:
The idea that the US has a unilateral authority to enforce the terms of the ceasefire agreement is not one supported by most international legal experts
If only the handful of lawyers you found - which include assistant professors from second-rate law colleges - argue against the U.S. re-engaging in Iraq, then the concept of "most international legal experts" seems to be quite elastic in Oz-speak.
John Carson wrote:
You, on the other hand, are apparently claiming special rights for the US. It doesn't have them. Legal authority in these matters rests with the UN
I am claiming that the U.S. is a sovereign nation that from 1991 until 2003, with the exception of a very brief period of time right after the U.S. declared a cease-fire, was never not engaged in armed combat with Iraq. The fact that Australian newspapers didn't cover the hostilities well between 1993 and 2003 does not mean we weren't actively shooting at each other. Hussein, during this ten year period offered a $15,000 bounty to any of his pilots who shot down an American or British combat jet. I find myself wondering if Oz would consider itself engaged in armed hostilities if Yudhoyono offered a similar bounty to Indonesian pilots in an attempt to keep Australia from stealing all of the region's oil.
John Carson wrote:
The idea that old UN resolutions can be used to overrule the intent of more recent resolutions is not supportable.
Neither is the idea that resolutions that directly link back to an earlier resolution in an attempt to enforce the earlier resolution suddenly stand on their own. I appreciate your attempt to find links that support your position and agree that there are some. However, I did not find the names themselves, their titles, or the number of them in aggregate impressive enough to let me agree with your claims that "most international legal experts" support yo
-
Oakman wrote:
The Secretary of State is fifth in line for the succession to the Presidency of the United States. She would be in Australia at the invitation of the PM and in her official capacity and not as a private citizen. It would be considered kidnapping by the armed guards that accompanied her and they wouldn't give anyone else a vote.
No doubt. And, just by the way, the proposal is by New Zealanders, not Australians.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
And, just by the way, the proposal is by New Zealanders, not Australians.
I was aware, but someone switched the argument to Australia and since its unlikely that the SecState would even bother stopping in New Zealand, I let it go.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
John Carson wrote:
then the UN authorised a ceasefire
No. Actually George Herbert Walker Bush declared a cease fire. The UN ratified it.
John Carson wrote:
it never authorised the no-fly zones
That's right, the U.S. Britain and France imposed them when Hussein began murdering thousands of Shi'a and Kurds using poison gas among other means.
John Carson wrote:
The idea that the US has a unilateral authority to enforce the terms of the ceasefire agreement is not one supported by most international legal experts
If only the handful of lawyers you found - which include assistant professors from second-rate law colleges - argue against the U.S. re-engaging in Iraq, then the concept of "most international legal experts" seems to be quite elastic in Oz-speak.
John Carson wrote:
You, on the other hand, are apparently claiming special rights for the US. It doesn't have them. Legal authority in these matters rests with the UN
I am claiming that the U.S. is a sovereign nation that from 1991 until 2003, with the exception of a very brief period of time right after the U.S. declared a cease-fire, was never not engaged in armed combat with Iraq. The fact that Australian newspapers didn't cover the hostilities well between 1993 and 2003 does not mean we weren't actively shooting at each other. Hussein, during this ten year period offered a $15,000 bounty to any of his pilots who shot down an American or British combat jet. I find myself wondering if Oz would consider itself engaged in armed hostilities if Yudhoyono offered a similar bounty to Indonesian pilots in an attempt to keep Australia from stealing all of the region's oil.
John Carson wrote:
The idea that old UN resolutions can be used to overrule the intent of more recent resolutions is not supportable.
Neither is the idea that resolutions that directly link back to an earlier resolution in an attempt to enforce the earlier resolution suddenly stand on their own. I appreciate your attempt to find links that support your position and agree that there are some. However, I did not find the names themselves, their titles, or the number of them in aggregate impressive enough to let me agree with your claims that "most international legal experts" support yo
Oakman wrote:
That's right, the U.S. Britain and France imposed them when Hussein began murdering thousands of Shi'a and Kurds using poison gas among other means.
I think the no-fly zones were a good idea. I don't regard conformity to UN resolutions to be the ultimate good.
Oakman wrote:
If only the handful of lawyers you found - which include assistant professors from second-rate law colleges - argue against the U.S. re-engaging in Iraq, then the concept of "most international legal experts" seems to be quite elastic in Oz-speak.
The concept is not elastic at all. You are right that I haven't provided you with proof that most international legal experts think the invasion was illegal. Providing such proof would be quite an undertaking and my time and resources are limited. If you would like to make the relevant study, then please go ahead. The matter was extensively discussed in 2003 and my recollection is that very few independent experts supported the position of the US/UK/Australia. I stand by that.
Oakman wrote:
I am claiming that the U.S. is a sovereign nation that from 1991 until 2003, with the exception of a very brief period of time right after the U.S. declared a cease-fire, was never not engaged in armed combat with Iraq. The fact that Australian newspapers didn't cover the hostilities well between 1993 and 2003 does not mean we weren't actively shooting at each other. Hussein, during this ten year period offered a $15,000 bounty to any of his pilots who shot down an American or British combat jet. I find myself wondering if Oz would consider itself engaged in armed hostilities if Yudhoyono offered a similar bounty to Indonesian pilots in an attempt to keep Australia from stealing all of the region's oil.
I am perfectly aware that there was shooting. These matters are well covered by the Australian media. I note that all of the conflict took place over Iraqi territory. It does not constitute a legal justification for invasion.
Oakman wrote:
Neither is the idea that resolutions that directly link back to an earlier resolution in an attempt to enforce the earlier resolution suddenly stand on their own.
They don't stand on their own. They do nevertheless limit what is legal by way of enforcing those earlier resolutions.
John Carson
-
yes[^] God, guys, you are so serious. Don't you see the story potential? "I god my ass dragged to Guantanamo. For arresitng Condi. Yeah, that Condi."
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
You could say pretty much the same thing about George W. Bush and you.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
I saw some ad on Yahoo that was for one of those IQ test websites that said GW's IQ was 125. Is it really that high? Jeff