NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm starting to read the Hague Conventions, and I see the following, which arguably we followed during the UN negotiations leading up to the present Iraq War. What I'm looking for is the exact chapter and verse where the US violated the Hague Convention in going to war.

Is there some other part of the Hague Convention I'm missing? And can anyone name a war since the signing where two or more nations abided by the Tribunal and Arbitration section as outlined in the Conventions?

Part I. The maintenance of General Peace
Article 1
With a view to obviating as far as possible recourse to force in the relations between States, the Contracting Powers agree to use their best efforts to ensure the pacific settlement of international differences.

Part II. Good Offices and Mediation
Article 2
In case of serious disagreement or dispute, before an appeal to arms, the Contracting Powers agree to have recourse, as far as circumstances allow, to the good offices or mediation of one or more friendly Powers.

Article 3
Independently of this recourse, the Contracting Powers deem it expedient and desirable that one or more Powers, strangers to the dispute, should, on their own initiative and as far as circumstances may alow, offer their good offices or mediation to the States at variance.

Powers strangers to the dispute have the right to offer good offices or mediation even during the course of hostilities.

The exercise of this right can never be regarded by either of the parties in dispute as an unfriendly act.

Article 4
The part of the mediator consists in reconciling the opposing claims and appeasing the feelings of resentment which may have arisen between the States at variance.

Article 5
The functions of the mediator are at an end when once it is declared, either by one of the parties to the dispute or by the mediator himself, that the means of reconciliation proposed by him are not accepted.

Article 6
Good offices and mediation undertaken either at the request of the parties in dispute or on the initiative of Powers strangers to the dispute have exclusively the character of advice, and never have binding force.

What does the thread title have to do with your lead-off post? Why drag Zepp into this?

Hoping to stir up some controversy, are we?

What does the thread title have to do with your lead-off post? Why drag Zepp into this?

Hoping to stir up some controversy, are we?

He's the one who says that the US violated the Hague Convention.

Which one? There are quite a few. He and Steph say that the US is in violation, having committed an illegal war as defined by the Hague Convention.

So, I want to see chapter and verse. Since he's the one who brought it up, I'd like to see the answer.

So why do you care?

After all - you claimed that the US was not even SIGNATORY to the HAgue Conventions!

and my correcting you on that point was my ONLY statement to you on this matter.

Well, I'm still waiting for you to provide me a link to prove your supposition, posted in your thread about America-bashing:

I've heard the argument that Europeans (or Canadians) are so much more intelligent, educated, and so less brainwashed, and their media outlets are so much more accurate and unbiased - and that they AND their country were opposed to war from a moral and ethical standpoint.

Please allow me to be the first to parrot the usual knee-jerk reactionary response we've all come to expect from the neo-brownshirts:

PROVIDE ME A LINK.

Otherwise, you're just inflicting grief on the rest of us over what amounts to heresay.


So...where's the proof, Legs?

here's something interesting:

The Fifth Hague Convention Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land of 18 October 1907, for example, states (this one never ratified by Great Britain):

Art. 20: "The provisions of the present Convention do not apply except between Contracting Powers, and then only if all the belligerants are parties to the Convention".

Or, the Hague Declaration (IV, 3) of 1899 on the Use of Expanding Bullets, dated July 29, 1899. This is the one that the US never ratified.

"The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.

"It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the contracting Powers, one of the belligerants is joined by a non-contracting Power".

The Third Hague Convention Respecting the Opening of Hostilities states, article 1, states:

"The contracting powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war".

The problem here is that the "warning" may be as little as one minute, and no verbal formula is required.

I'm thinking that some may have trouble with the annex to the 4th Hague Convention, which defines war crimes and war criminals. And not in the way that we all might think.
For example, Articles 1 and 2 prohibit guerilla warfare. So, insurgents are illegal, and are all war criminals.
Article 43 requires collaboration with occupation governments.
Article 8: Prisoners of war are subject to the laws, regulations and orders in force of the State in whose power they are. Any act of insubordination justifies the adoption towards them of such measures of severity as may be considered necessary.

Hmm.. That means that if I'm a US soldier, and I ask you a question, and you refuse to answer, that's a violation of Article 43, and Article 8, and since that's an insubordinate act, if I make a law that you have to answer questions, then I can kick your ass all I like (such measure of severity as may be considered necessary).

Odd convention. Of course, like most of the other Hague Conventions, we have the neat escape clause:

Art. 2: "The provisions... of the present Convention do not apply except between contracting Powers, and then only if all the belligerants are parties to the Convention".

I wonder...

So why do you care?

After all - you claimed that the US was not even SIGNATORY to the HAgue Conventions!

and my correcting you on that point was my ONLY statement to you on this matter.

I was incorrect, but so were you. The US (and for that matter, the UK, and Russia) are not signatory to ALL Hague Conventions.

Just some of them.

And I would like to see where, since you appear to know.

Well, I'm still waiting for you to provide me a link to prove your supposition, posted in your thread about America-bashing:

So...where's the proof, Legs?

Let me do the Jolt search here, and come up with a list. Just from this forum.

Yes, when things get hot in one thread, let's just start another one in a blatant attempt to get some attention (and maybe support). Getting all freaked out about another poster in your title is a great thing too....maybe I'll try it...

Oh, God! Not another thread on "America's illegal war!" GROAN! :headbang:

Woa, how many points of the convention did the US violated? I stopped counting on the first..

Yes, when things get hot in one thread, let's just start another one in a blatant attempt to get some attention (and maybe support). Getting all freaked out about another poster in your title is a great thing too....maybe I'll try it...

Unfortunately, it's possible to have a discussion with Zepp.
He gets good evidence to back his claims.
He's caught me with my pants down more than once.
He is a reasonable person - show him the evidence and use some logic and he might actually concede a minor point here and there.
But
a) he belives in something, and
b) he finds a rational way to back it up, and
c) he's more than willing to discuss it

So, I thought that since Hague Conventions is a BIG topic, and Zepp had some knowledge, it would be a GOOD thing to make it another thread...

I was incorrect, but so were you. The US (and for that matter, the UK, and Russia) are not signatory to ALL Hague Conventions.

Just some of them.

And I would like to see where, since you appear to know.


I posted the link to the State Department paper that list them in the other thread Legs.

Now, before you get carried away, why don't YOU start off with a bit of honesty.

Item 1) I never said that the war on Iraq was against the Hague Conventions.
Item 2) My wife never stated that the War on Iraq was against the Hague Conventions, she disagreed with your notion that the US had never declared war since WWII as GW certainly did state in a public address prior to the invasion that "unless Saddam and his two sons leave Iraq within 48 hours, hostilities will begin at a time of our choosing"

That is what made the War on Iraq a DECLARED war under the terms of the HAgue Conventions to which you are signatory.


There, does THAT clear it up for you?


The Hague conventions are primarily a treaty to govern how wars are fought - not whether a war ind and of itself is legal or not.

The actual legality of this war in and of itself would fall to the treaty of Paris I noted in the other thread and the UN Charter more than the HAgue Conventions or Red Cross treaties.

Woa, how many points of the convention did the US violated? I stopped counting on the first..

Which Hague Convention, and what Article? And, does the Hague Convention you are using to say that the US committed a violation have the traditional Hague "escape clause"?

Unfortunately, it's possible to have a discussion with Zepp.
He gets good evidence to back his claims.
He's caught me with my pants down more than once.
He is a reasonable person - show him the evidence and use some logic and he might actually concede a minor point here and there.
But
a) he belives in something, and
b) he finds a rational way to back it up, and
c) he's more than willing to discuss it

So, I thought that since Hague Conventions is a BIG topic, and Zepp had some knowledge, it would be a GOOD thing to make it another thread...
Ok ok ok...since you're being reasonable about it...

I apologise for the mock thread.

Part I. The maintenance of General Peace
Article 1
With a view to obviating as far as possible recourse to force in the relations between States, the Contracting Powers agree to use their best efforts to ensure the pacific settlement of international differences.


This one! The US wanted to bomb Iraq so much that it had to "dream" WMD's, despite credible information otherwise.

I posted the link to the State Department paper that list them in the other thread Legs.

Now, before you get carried away, why don't YOU start off with a bit of honesty.

Item 1) I never said that the war on Iraq was against the Hague Conventions.
Item 2) My wife never stated that the War on Iraq was against the Hague Conventions, she disagreed with your notion that the US had never declared war since WWII as GW certainly did state in a public address prior to the invasion that "unless Saddam and his two sons leave Iraq within 48 hours, hostilities will begin at a time of our choosing"
That is what made the War on Iraq a DECLARED war under the terms of the HAgue Conventions to which you are signatory.
There, does THAT clear it up for ouy?

Item 2) The Hague Conventions require that you give only as much as one minute of warning. 48 hours of warning of impending hostilities would seem to be a lot of warning. But, let's say that the was is a Declared War under the terms of the Hague Conventions. Which ones? And is the US a signatory to that particular Convention (there are so many to which the US and other nations are Not), and is there the traditional Hague escape clause in that particular convention?

Item 1) Both you and your wife have said that the war was Illegal. IIRC, the Hague Convention was held up as an illustration of how the war itself was illegal. How so? And if not by the Hague, then by what international law?

Is there a word for this? Flamebaitbaiting?

This one! The US wanted to bomb Iraq so much that it had to "dream" WMD's, despite credible information otherwise.

Hmm. So we only had to do our "best effort" to try to avoid war.
I guess trying to get the UN to enforce its own resolutions was not a best effort. Neither was an attempt to talk Iraq into complying with the UN resolutions.

It seems rather vague for something you're going to say is a violation.

And in the same Convention, we have:

Article 7
The acceptance of mediation cannot, unless there be an agreement to the contrary, have the effect of interrupting, delaying, or hindering mobilization or other measures of preparation for war.

If it takes place after the commencement of hostilities, the military operations in progress are not interrupted in the absence of an agreement to the contrary.


So, technically, we could keep talking, and prepare for war without a violation. And it would seem that if the war broke out, we don't have to stop to talk.

It would seem that the same Convention you say the US violated gives you a barn door to walk your way out of.

Is there a word for this? Flamebaitbaiting?
Not if the people on both sides of the issue are capable of rational discussion.

For those who get upset by rational discussion, I suppose it does.

Item 2) The Hague Conventions require that you give only as much as one minute of warning. 48 hours of warning of impending hostilities would seem to be a lot of warning. But, let's say that the was is a Declared War under the terms of the Hague Conventions. Which ones? And is the US a signatory to that particular Convention (there are so many to which the US and other nations are Not), and is there the traditional Hague escape clause in that particular convention?

Item 1) Both you and your wife have said that the war was Illegal. IIRC, the Hague Convention was held up as an illustration of how the war itself was illegal. How so? And if not by the Hague, then by what international law?


No, the hague convention was held up to refute your notion that the US had not declared a war since WWII.

the applicable note on how a war is declared is from:

CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE OPENING OF HOSTILITIES
Entered into Force: 26 January 1910

Article 1
The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.

The statement by GW met the burden of an "ultimatum with conditional declaration of war ", and yes, this convention is one signed by the US.

Woa, how many points of the convention did the US violated? I stopped counting on the first..

How many has Portugal violated? How many human right violations have you had? *looks at Portugal's African Violations!*

I posted the link to the State Department paper that list them in the other thread Legs.

Now, before you get carried away, why don't YOU start off with a bit of honesty.

Item 1) I never said that the war on Iraq was against the Hague Conventions.
Item 2) My wife never stated that the War on Iraq was against the Hague Conventions, she disagreed with your notion that the US had never declared war since WWII as GW certainly did state in a public address prior to the invasion that "unless Saddam and his two sons leave Iraq within 48 hours, hostilities will begin at a time of our choosing"

That is what made the War on Iraq a DECLARED war under the terms of the HAgue Conventions to which you are signatory.


There, does THAT clear it up for you?


The Hague conventions are primarily a treaty to govern how wars are fought - not whether a war ind and of itself is legal or not.

The actual legality of this war in and of itself would fall to the treaty of Paris I noted in the other thread and the UN Charter more than the HAgue Conventions or Red Cross treaties.

Thanks Zep!

Further my contention that the war is illegal is based on the UN charter, which Kofi Annan himself has said the war in Iraq is illegal, as has my government of Canada, which also as a degree holder in political science I agree with. It's illegal, or perhaps Whisper would like to also tell us about how the US is also not a signatory member of the UN charter? After all it was an idea conceived by the Americans. (The UN that is) so would be a pretty hard sell to tell us they are not signatory members.

The only reference I made to the Hague conventions was that by the US giving an ultimatum, under the Hague conventions which the US is most certainly a signatory member, that was a declaration of war.

Are you able to keep up Whisper?

This one! The US wanted to bomb Iraq so much that it had to "dream" WMD's, despite credible information otherwise.

Is Iraq part of the Hague Conventions?

This is fun!

*grabs some popcorn and stays to watch*

No, the hague convention was held up to refute your notion that the US had not declared a war since WWII.

Correct. We haven't declared war since WWII

the applicable note on how a war is declared is from:

CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE OPENING OF HOSTILITIES
Entered into Force: 26 January 1910

Article 1
The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.

HAHA! You just proved that it wasn't Illegal! Thanks! We told Saddam Hussein what to do to avoid war. He didn't do it so therefor, we attacked. We gave him an ultimatum just like we gave the Taliban an Ultimatum. Hell we even gave both of them a time limit. Both nations didn't do what we asked and therefor, they were attacked in accordance with the article!

The statement by GW met the burden of an "ultimatum with conditional declaration of war ", and yes, this convention is one signed by the US.

And we followed it. Therefor, the war was legal in accordance with this article.

Thanks Zep!

Further my contention that the war is illegal is based on the UN charter, which Kofi Annan himself has said the war in Iraq is illegal, as has my government of Canada, which also as a degree holder in political science I agree with. It's illegal, or perhaps Whisper would like to also tell us about how the US is also not a signatory member of the UN charter? After all it was an idea conceived by the Americans. (The UN that is) so would be a pretty hard sell to tell us they are not signatory members.

The only reference I made to the Hague conventions was that by the US giving an ultimatum, under the Hague conventions which the US is most certainly a signatory member, that was a declaration of war.

Are you able to keep up Whisper?

However, the UN doesn't have the right to tell the US that we can't wage war. We did not give up our right to Wage and Declare War. Can you show me where we gave up that right?

No, the hague convention was held up to refute your notion that the US had not declared a war since WWII.

the applicable note on how a war is declared is from:

CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE OPENING OF HOSTILITIES
Entered into Force: 26 January 1910

Article 1
The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.

The statement by GW met the burden of an "ultimatum with conditional declaration of war ", and yes, this convention is one signed by the US.

Ah. Well, I was looking for wars officially "declared" by the US Congress, as per the US Constitution.

I'm surprised that you haven't advanced the notion that the War Powers Act (and similar abdications of Congressional responsibility) are unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.

Probably a more enforceable leg to stand on from a legal standpoint, and one I would agree with.

The history of the Hague Conventions appears to be one of randomly signed (or signed yet unratified) agreements, unenforced in various wars, and collectively ignored except when winners feel like hanging a few of the conquered.

HAHA! You just proved that it wasn't Illegal! Thanks! We told Saddam Hussein what to do to avoid war. He didn't do it so therefor, we attacked. We gave him an ultimatum just like we gave the Taliban an Ultimatum. Hell we even gave both of them a time limit. Both nations didn't do what we asked and therefor, they were attacked in accordance with the article!


Wait, Saddam did do what was required to aviod war, but we attacked anyway.
They did do what we asked for and we still attacked.

Is Iraq part of the Hague Conventions?

Yes, Iraq signed on to the Hague Conventions in 1970.

However, the UN doesn't have the right to tell the US that we can't wage war. We did not give up our right to Wage and Declare War. Can you show me where we gave up that right?

The declaration of war was in accordance with the Hague convention , agreed.

However, American law means nothing out side of your own borders, as soon as you step outside of the American borders, international law takes over. Since America is a signatory member of said laws.. yes, it was illegal.

If the US would like to sign off on their obligations of their signatory membership to the UN, fine, until then, they are signatory members and as being such committed an act of war that was illegal.

I don't know how much more I can dumb this down for you.

Is Iraq part of the Hague Conventions?
It probably was at some time, though which ones it signed and whether or not Saddam's government ratified them is a matter of question.

For the sake of argument, let's say they are, and they signed ALL of them.

Technically, all of the insurgents, and any of the people who intentionally run a roadblock (even if they are just late for work), are in violation of international law under the 4th Hague Convention.

You can't have an insurgency, and you have to submit to the orders of the occupying power.

It would be better to argue that the war in Iraq was illegal on the basis of constitutional law.

Article I, Section 8, outlines Congressional powers. Clause 11 says:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

You will notice that the President does not have this power. Nor does it give the Congress (anywhere else in the Constitution) the power to delegate this power to the President. As was done under the War Powers Act and similar resolutions.

I'm still waiting for the Congress to "declare war".

I believe that the reason they stopped doing that sort of thing is so that if the war (any war like this) goes badly, they can lose their balls and back out of it in a hurry. If they had gone on record as "declaring war", they would have had a much, much harder time backing out.

Yes, Iraq signed on to the Hague Conventions in 1970.

Historically, it would seem that the Hague Conventions have been enforced only by the winners, and only against the losers.

Since the 4th Hague Convention is in effect, then the whole insurgency is a massive violation of the Convention.

Theoretically, we could send every insurgent we capture to a trial (we could make the trial ourselves, as we did at Nuremburg, which everyone to this day accepts as internationally acceptable - and use their rules of evidence and procedure).

We could then, in accordance with all of that, hang every one of them.

Not a pretty picture, and not one I would go for. Let's take the Constitutional route - it's faster, and we don't end up hanging people for driving past a road block too fast.

You can't have an insurgency, and you have to submit to the orders of the occupying power.



Wrong. The occupying power must enforce the law's of the country, not impose its laws on the country it occupied.

Article 43.. as you posted in another thread:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227

You are reasoning according to a wrongfull interpretation of the Hague Conventions, sorry son.

Ah. Well, I was looking for wars officially "declared" by the US Congress, as per the US Constitution.

I'm surprised that you haven't advanced the notion that the War Powers Act (and similar abdications of Congressional responsibility) are unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.

Probably a more enforceable leg to stand on from a legal standpoint, and one I would agree with.

The history of the Hague Conventions appears to be one of randomly signed (or signed yet unratified) agreements, unenforced in various wars, and collectively ignored except when winners feel like hanging a few of the conquered.

Did not the Congress vote to allow the President to start this war even though it were not officially declared by them?

I don't claim to be a Constitutional Lawyer, but it would seem to me that Congress granted him the right to declare war for them - which is a tacit approval, and that the declaration met the burden associated with the Hague Conventions.

Now, given that the Constitution also indicates that treaties duly ratified become the law of the land, then this declaration would also then meet your own definition therof, and given that the Congress approved the war then I would tend to believe that this IS an officially declared war under US law.

After all, even when Congress voted to declare war in '41 it was still FDR that made the official public declaration wasn't it?

Anyway, it is legal hairsplitting that I'm sure would hinge on some obscure precedent or other if it were to wind up in front of the Supreme Court.

Nor really was it specified in your first post whether you meant that you had not been in a declared war since '45 under International Law or under US law.


Trust me, everyone else on the planet looks at this as a declared war. and under the terms of the Hague Conventions it certainly is one.

Wait, Saddam did do what was required to aviod war, but we attacked anyway.
They did do what we asked for and we still attacked.

He didn't step down from power so no, he didn't do what was required.

Also if he did what was required, then why did we have 17 UN Resolutions against Iraq? If he did what was required, don't you think there would be considerably less than 17?

Yes, Iraq signed on to the Hague Conventions in 1970.

Thanks! I wasn't sure hence why I asked :)

He didn't step down from power so no, he didn't do what was required.

Also if he did what was required, then why did we have 17 UN Resolutions against Iraq? If he did what was required, don't you think there would be considerably less than 17?

He didnt steped down as required by Bush, and Bush had no legitimacy to ask that.

The only body that has legitimacy to do anything was the UN.
And those resolutions were passed since 1991, those relevant to the war, the final ones, were stating that Iraq was grudgling complying with the UN resolutions. There was no reason to mount an attack, since he was complying. You would need an explicit resolution allowing that, to have legitimacy. You didnt had any.End of story.

Wrong. The occupying power must enforce the law's of the country, not impose its laws on the country it occupied.

Article 43.. as you posted in another thread:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227

You are reasoning according to a wrongfull interpretation of the Hague Conventions, sorry son.

No, Article 8 says that all of these insurgents have to wear a distinctive emblem or uniform.

So we can pick them out of a crowd of civilians. If they fight, and don't wear a uniform or emblem, they are violating international law.

I'll give you a hint - a lot of people were hung by virtually all countries involved in WW II using this Article. It's accepted international law.

No, Article 8 says that all of these insurgents have to wear a distinctive emblem or uniform.

So we can pick them out of a crowd of civilians. If they fight, and don't wear a uniform or emblem, they are violating international law.

I'll give you a hint - a lot of people were hung by virtually all countries involved in WW II using this Article. It's accepted international law.

You got me lost, are you talking about the shot civilians of the link i posted in the other thread? Well, those were UNARMED civilians, not insurgents, please show me were the Hague convention allows shooting civilians.

Historically, it would seem that the Hague Conventions have been enforced only by the winners, and only against the losers.

Since the 4th Hague Convention is in effect, then the whole insurgency is a massive violation of the Convention.

Theoretically, we could send every insurgent we capture to a trial (we could make the trial ourselves, as we did at Nuremburg, which everyone to this day accepts as internationally acceptable - and use their rules of evidence and procedure).

We could then, in accordance with all of that, hang every one of them.

Not a pretty picture, and not one I would go for. Let's take the Constitutional route - it's faster, and we don't end up hanging people for driving past a road block too fast.

And so have some of your tactics been blatantly illegal too. TAke CPA Order 39. This order allowed the CPA to privatize publically held properties and institutions, allows foreign companies unrestricted access to buy up the industries of Iraq, and also provides them free reign to take all profits from those companies out of Iraq without any requirements for local reinvestment. And despite being a temporary government, this act allowed the CPA to sign any leases it so chooses of such assets held in public trust for 40 year periods.

This is insane. In trying to rebuild the country and give the citizens a free and prosperous future your first step is to let it be bought up?

However it again just show how this administration cares nothing about the rule of law.

Because this is about as blatantly illegal as you can get! And yet it has been signed into law by the agent of the US government, Paul Bremmer.


Illegal you ask? Yes!


The Hague regulations state that an occupying power must respect "unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country". Iraq's existing constitution outlaws the privatization of key state assets, and it bars foreigners from owning Iraqi firms. No plausible argument can be made that the CPA was "absolutely prevented" from respecting those laws, and yet the CPA overturned them unilaterally.

The convention also states that occupying powers "shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile state, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct."

Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines "usufruct" as an arrangement that grants one party the right to use and derive benefit from another's property "without altering the substance of the thing". Put more simply, if you are a housesitter, you can eat the food in the fridge, but you can't sell the house and turn it into condos.

What could more substantially alter "the substance" of a public asset than to turn it into a private one?

But when Bremer enacted the order September '03, the CPA immediately announced that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatized; decreed that foreign firms can retain 100% ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories; and allowed these firms to move 100% of their profits out of Iraq. The allowance of complete foreign control of Iraq's banking industry is certainly key. No country has ever been successful without a fair measure of domestic control of it's financial intitutions.

Indeed, The Economist declared the new rules a "capitalist dream".

Don't care about International Law?

How about Domestic Law. The US army's Law of Land Warfare states that "the occupant does not have the right of sale or unqualified use of [non-military] property". This is pretty straightforward: bombing something does not give you the right to sell it.

But the great selloff went ahead anyway. After all, you have a population in dire financial need after a decade of sanctions, and a business community crying out for capital to get things running again. The pickings are great when the situation is dire and you can buy up firms at pennies on the dollar.

And the section allowing the CPA to sign binding 40 year leases on businesses it choses to privatize is also in full swing. Cases in point, MCI (the perpetrators of the greatest fraud in US history) being handed Iraqi mobile telephone business on a silver platter, and JP Morgan (you remember them from the Enron scandal) has been handed the business of heading up the new Trade Bank of Iraq.

And the laws did not even require the CPA to look at domestic bids for services when a foreign company has an interest. There is no formalized bidding structure in place at all that provides even the veneer of legitimacy.



Hey, I mean - as long as we are looking into the Conventions we might as well go into all of them...

Did not the Congress vote to allow the President to start this war even though it were not officially declared by them?

I don't claim to be a Constitutional Lawyer, but it would seem to me that Congress granted him the right to declare war for them - which is a tacit approval, and that the declaration met the burden associated with the Hague Conventions.

Now, given that the Constitution also indicates that treaties duly ratified become the law of the land, then this declaration would also then meet your own definition therof, and given that the Congress approved the war then I would tend to believe that this IS an officially declared war under US law.

After all, even when Congress voted to declare war in '41 it was still FDR that made the official public declaration wasn't it?

Anyway, it is legal hairsplitting that I'm sure would hinge on some obscure precedent or other if it were to wind up in front of the Supreme Court.

Nor really was it specified in your first post whether you meant that you had not been in a declared war since '45 under International Law or under US law.


Trust me, everyone else on the planet looks at this as a declared war. and under the terms of the Hague Conventions it certainly is one.

There are those in the US who believe that Congress has consistently been abdicating its constitutional responsibility since WW II in not "declaring war".

It's not legal hairsplitting - it's more like parting your hair - a large and rather obvious combing technique being used to cover a bald spot.

Under US law, we can't go to war unless Congress declares it.

Here's a longer rant http://www.monad.com/sdg/Journal/warpowers.html

He didnt steped down as required by Bush, and Bush had no legitimacy to ask that.
Didn't Bush had Gods approval?

Hey, I mean - as long as we are looking into the Conventions we might as well go into all of them...

The problem is that when you look at them historically (when they were enforced or not enforced, enforced by who and upon whom), it's really spotty, and no one seems to complain.

International law, at this point in history, and definitely in the past, is a smoky illusion - a pedantic fantasy that is occasionally trundled out to justify mass executions of certain people on the losing side to satisfy public outrage.

Otherwise, they seem to be dead paper. And the US is not the only country that largely ignored the Hague Conventions, except where convenient to justify a few hangings.

HAHA! You just proved that it wasn't Illegal! Thanks! We told Saddam Hussein what to do to avoid war. He didn't do it so therefor, we attacked. We gave him an ultimatum just like we gave the Taliban an Ultimatum. Hell we even gave both of them a time limit. Both nations didn't do what we asked and therefor, they were attacked in accordance with the article!


No, I just proved that a declaration was made under the terms defined by Hague Conventions. That has nothing to do with the legal foundation of the war itself.

You got me lost, are you talking about the shot civilians of the link i posted in the other thread? Well, those were UNARMED civilians, not insurgents, please show me were the Hague convention allows shooting civilians.

If I'm running a roadblock to regulate traffic, and you're speeding (I'm sure there was a law in Saddam's time against speeding through a roadblock), then I have to enforce the law.

if you keep speeding through, you're not only violating the law of Iraq, you're violating international law.

And because all of your insurgents aren't wearing that distinctive emblem, as required by international law, I have a hard time telling you apart.

The declaration of war was in accordance with the Hague convention , agreed.

At least we agree on this!

However, American law means nothing out side of your own borders, as soon as you step outside of the American borders, international law takes over. Since America is a signatory member of said laws.. yes, it was illegal.

Your right that it means nothing but the same goes for Britain who also approved a resolution for Iraq. However, no nation hasn't given up its right to go to war on any nation.

If the US would like to sign off on their obligations of their signatory membership to the UN, fine, until then, they are signatory members and as being such committed an act of war that was illegal.

But the UN Charter doesn't eliminate our right to go to war. Are you following me Stephistan? No nation has ever given up its right to declare war or go to war.

I don't know how much more I can dumb this down for you.

Nice personal insult. Its unbecoming of you.

He didnt steped down as required by Bush, and Bush had no legitimacy to ask that.

Isn't that the purpose of an Ultimatum? Demand something that will never happen? Yep. Reminds me of how WWI got started or most wars for that matter.

The only body that has legitimacy to do anything was the UN.
And those resolutions were passed since 1991, those relevant to the war, the final ones, were stating that Iraq was grudgling complying with the UN resolutions. There was no reason to mount an attack, since he was complying. You would need an explicit resolution allowing that, to have legitimacy. You didnt had any.End of story.

However, we all know how corrupt the UN is. Besides, the UN DOES NOT have the authority to tell a nation when to go to war. Did Britain ask permission to go to war with Argentina? NO they did not. Did North Korea have the UN permission to Invade South Korea? No they did not. Did the Soviet Union have UN Permission to invade Afghanistan? No they did not. Did Iraq have UN Permission to invade Kuwait? No they did not. Are you seeing a trend here?

If I'm running a roadblock to regulate traffic, and you're speeding (I'm sure there was a law in Saddam's time against speeding through a roadblock), then I have to enforce the law.

if you keep speeding through, you're not only violating the law of Iraq, you're violating international law.

And because all of your insurgents aren't wearing that distinctive emblem, as required by international law, I have a hard time telling you apart.


Those soldiers are not legitimate occupiers of Iraq, they don't have the right to uphold the law of Iraq, the legitimate power never passed to the hands of the US, after all, you never wanted to run iraq, did you? :p Those soldiers (well, the politicians that command them) were the ones violating international law
And besides, even if Iraq had given you authority and legitimacy, your soldiers still had to, to their best, to do everything "as far as possible" to ensure public order and safety.. shooting a car like that, without looking, is hardly described as going "as far as possible"

.

No, I just proved that a declaration was made under the terms defined by Hague Conventions. That has nothing to do with the legal foundation of the war itself.

Actually it did Zeppistan. We followed the Hague for going to war! Since we did, it makes it legal under the Geneva Conventions. Nice try Zep

No, I just proved that a declaration was made under the terms defined by Hague Conventions. That has nothing to do with the legal foundation of the war itself.

There's a legal foundation for war??

Isn't that the purpose of an Ultimatum? Demand something that will never happen? Yep. Reminds me of how WWI got started or most wars for that matter.



However, we all know how corrupt the UN is. Besides, the UN DOES NOT have the authority to tell a nation when to go to war. Did Britain ask permission to go to war with Argentina? NO they did not. Did North Korea have the UN permission to Invade South Korea? No they did not. Did the Soviet Union have UN Permission to invade Afghanistan? No they did not. Did Iraq have UN Permission to invade Kuwait? No they did not. Are you seeing a trend here?


Yes, i'm seeing a trend: Illegitimate wars of agression (just like the Invasion o f Iraq)

a) Actually, Britain was attacked by Argentina, they then acted in self defense.
b)NK did not asked authorization to invade SK.. perhaps it was because of that, that the UN managed to get authorization for a force led by your country to go kick their butts.
c) Nope, unlawfull war, condemned various times. Offcourse, since going against the USSR was kinda impossible unless you wanted a nuclear war, nothing was done
d) See nº3

There's a legal foundation for war??

Yes, one explicitly authorized by the UN security council.

But the UN Charter doesn't eliminate our right to go to war. Are you following me Stephistan? No nation has ever given up its right to declare war or go to war.

You are not getting this.. the charter is very clear on what is and what is not legal in matters of war, for signatory members.

The fact that Iraq posed no threat to America is what made it illegal. Not saying Saddam wasn't a bad guy, lots of bad dictators out there. The charter is very clear. That is why there was zero dispute of Afghanistan.. it was just and legal, they attacked America (more or less) even though it was really the Saudi's.. but America remains friends with them, it's all really puzzling.

Oh that wasn't meant as a personal attack, it's just frustrating when so many people don't get the law. Sorry if I offended you. :)

Actually it did Zeppistan. We followed the Hague for going to war! Since we did, it makes it legal under the Geneva Conventions. Nice try Zep

Interesting.

So your premise from what I stated is that ANY country can make ANY ultimatum against another and - if it isn't complied with - then it justifies a war under all international laws (including the UN charter and the Paris treaty)

"France! Change your name to Ecnarf or it's war!"


I think not....

Yes, i'm seeing a trend: Illegitimate wars of agression (just like the Invasion o f Iraq)

a) Actually, Britain was attacked by Argentina, they then acted in self defense.
b)NK did not asked authorization to invade SK.. perhaps it was because of that, that the UN managed to get authorization for a force led by your country to go kick their butts.
c) Nope, unlawfull war, condemned various times. Offcourse, since going against the USSR was kinda impossible unless you wanted a nuclear war, nothing was done
d) See nº3

Very nice. You finally saw the point. No one listens to the UN when it comes to war because the UN does NOT HAVE AUTHORITY in such matters.

Yes, one explicitly authorized by the UN security council.

The UN HAS NO AUTHORITY IN MATTERS OF WAR!!! IT IS UP TO THE NATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Very nice. You finally saw the point. No one listens to the UN when it comes to war because the UN does NOT HAVE AUTHORITY in such matters.

Now, i missed your point: How come you say the UN does not have authority in such matters, when it is the one that deems wars illegal or not, and when it has indeed authorized several wars, that were fought under the "flag" of the UN (political justification)?


The UN HAS NO AUTHORITY IN MATTERS OF WAR!!! IT IS UP TO THE NATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It as political authority.. given to it by its member states.. its up to the nations to obey, or not, to that authority. Regretfully, many nations do have the power to wage war without suffering consequences, but that still means that they are waging illegal wars.

You are not getting this.. the charter is very clear on what is and what is not legal in matters of war, for signatory members.

Where in the UN Charter does a nation give up its right to declare war. If you like, I can provide you an email address to my Global Politics teacher. Maybe he can tell you in better words that the UN can't tell a nation that it can't wage war.

The fact that Iraq posed no threat to America is what made it illegal. Not saying Saddam wasn't a bad guy, lots of bad dictators out there. The charter is very clear. That is why there was zero dispute of Afghanistan.. it was just and legal, they attacked America (more or less) even though it was really the Saudi's.. but America remains friends with them, it's all really puzzling.

Sorry, he posed a threat to the region and therefor, by extension, to American Interests so yea he was a threat to America. Its called Global Politics.

Oh that wasn't meant as a personal attack, it's just frustrating when so many people don't get the law. Sorry if I offended you. :)

I do get the Law. The Law states that the UN Can't tell a nation that it can't go to war. That is up to the Nations to decide when to go to war.

Where in the UN Charter does a nation give up its right to declare war. If you like, I can provide you an email address to my Global Politics teacher. Maybe he can tell you in better words that the UN can't tell a nation that it can't wage war.



The UN charter gives the UN security council the authority to determine if a war is legal or not, under its own auspices

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_functions.html

The UN can't stop a country from declaring war, as much as no one can stop you from punching your teachers; But they may say it is illegal, and recomend action against it.

The UN HAS NO AUTHORITY IN MATTERS OF WAR!!! IT IS UP TO THE NATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


That being the case I guess you then have to chuck out all of those resolutions as the premise I've seen offered here supposedly giving the legal authority for the US to invade Iraq.....

After all, according to you the UN has no mandate in this regard.

Yes, one explicitly authorized by the UN security council.

You forget that the UN is an impotent organization with no enforcement powers that work.

One would think that under Chapter VII, Articles 39 through 47, that the UN would have sufficient military force to immediately stop the United States from attacking Iraq.

Excuse me while I go outside and laugh - this is too funny.

I do get the Law. The Law states that the UN Can't tell a nation that it can't go to war. That is up to the Nations to decide when to go to war.

From your last post, I'm sorry Corneliu, apparently you don't. :headbang:

I posted the link to the State Department paper that list them in the other thread Legs.

Now, before you get carried away, why don't YOU start off with a bit of honesty.

Item 1) I never said that the war on Iraq was against the Hague Conventions.
Item 2) My wife never stated that the War on Iraq was against the Hague Conventions, she disagreed with your notion that the US had never declared war since WWII as GW certainly did state in a public address prior to the invasion that "unless Saddam and his two sons leave Iraq within 48 hours, hostilities will begin at a time of our choosing"

That is what made the War on Iraq a DECLARED war under the terms of the HAgue Conventions to which you are signatory.


There, does THAT clear it up for you?

The Hague conventions are primarily a treaty to govern how wars are fought - not whether a war ind and of itself is legal or not.
The actual legality of this war in and of itself would fall to the treaty of Paris I noted in the other thread and the UN Charter more than the HAgue Conventions or Red Cross treaties.
Well good to see that you 2 can share the playground without too much supervision, LOL :D
Yes, the yanks have followed the letter of the law and as such the war is legal. The point of contention, internationally speaking, is that they did not follow the spirit of the law as perceived by some countries.

That being the case I guess you then have to chuck out all of those resolutions as the premise I've seen offered here supposedly giving the legal authority for the US to invade Iraq.....

After all, according to you the UN has no mandate in this regard.

There's a big leap between some agreement on paper, some "legal" authority, and the real power to actually do something.

Political power comes from the barrel of a gun.

You are not getting this.. the charter is very clear on what is and what is not legal in matters of war, for signatory members.

The fact that Iraq posed no threat to America is what made it illegal. Not saying Saddam wasn't a bad guy, lots of bad dictators out there. The charter is very clear. That is why there was zero dispute of Afghanistan.. it was just and legal, they attacked America (more or less) even though it was really the Saudi's.. but America remains friends with them, it's all really puzzling.

Oh that wasn't meant as a personal attack, it's just frustrating when so many people don't get the law. Sorry if I offended you. :)

I didn't see any Security Council resolutions passed (or even attempted) after the invasion of Iraq, either. Did I miss something?

You forget that the UN is an impotent organization with no enforcement powers that work.

One would think that under Chapter VII, Articles 39 through 47, that the UN would have sufficient military force to immediately stop the United States from attacking Iraq.

Excuse me while I go outside and laugh - this is too funny.

Regretfully, it doesnt have the force to stop such attack. But that doesnt mean that the attack is legal or righteous. The UN enforcement power is the enforcement power of its members, and no one is going to attack the US, just like no one attacked the USSR when it invaded afghanistan. If the dictatorship of the US by force makes you laugh, it just re-inforces the notion that your nation is becoming the gravest threat to the world.

There's a big leap between some agreement on paper, some "legal" authority, and the real power to actually do something.

Political power comes from the barrel of a gun.

*yawn* Only in America I guess..lol

*yawn* Only in America I guess..lol
The Chinese came up with that philosophy.

They still seem to understand it today.

Something that is completely lost on the UN.

Regretfully, it doesnt have the force to stop such attack. But that doesnt mean that the attack is legal or righteous. The UN enforcement power is the enforcement power of its members, and no one is going to attack the US, just like no one attacked the USSR when it invaded afghanistan. If the dictatorship of the US by force makes you laugh, it just re-inforces the notion that your nation is becoming the gravest threat to the world.

It was a really, really smart idea to pass a bunch of resolutions with no enforcement capability.

Or, it is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion.

Or, from James Thurber,

Within the memory of the youngest child there was a family of rabbits who lived near a pack of wolves. The wolves announced that they did not like the way the rabbits were living. (The wolves were crazy about the way they themselves were living, because it was the only way to live.) One night several wolves were killed in an earthquake and this was blamed on the rabbits, for it is well known that rabbits pound on the ground with their hind legs and cause earthquakes. On another night one of the wolves was killed by a bolt of lightning and this was also blamed on the rabbits, for it is well known that lettuce-eaters cause lightning. The wolves threatened to civilize the rabbits if they didn't behave, and the rabbits decided to run away to a desert island. But the other animals, who lived at a great distance, shamed them saying, "You must stay where you are and be brave. This is no world for escapists. If the wolves attack you, we will come to your aid in all probability." So the rabbits continued to live near the wolves and one day there was a terrible flood which drowned a great many wolves. This was blamed on the rabbits, for it is well known that carrot-nibblers with long ears cause floods. The wolves descended on the rabbits, for their own good, and imprisoned them in a dark cave, for their own protection.
When nothing was heard about the rabbits for some weeks, the other animals demanded to know what had happened to them. The wolves replied that the rabbits had been eaten and since they had been eaten the affair was a purely internal matter. But the other animals warned that they might possibly unite against the wolves unless some reason was given for the destruction of the rabbits. So the wolves gave them one. "They were trying to escape," said the wolves, "and, as you know, this is no world for escapists."

Moral: Run, don't walk, to the nearest desert island

The Chinese came up with that philosophy.

They still seem to understand it today.

Something that is completely lost on the UN.


And would you care to guess WHY the UN was set up such that it would never have the military power to challenge the might of any single country?

C'mon - three guesses.

And then guess which countries were it's principle architects.

Sheesh - the way you go on you would think that it sprang up on it's own and decided it's constitution unilaterally!

:rolleyes:

"Might is right" is valid in every sense except the legal, moral, and ethical ones - in other words except in the sense that count to people who aspire to call themselves 'civilized'. It's why the schoolyard bully may be able to do some things, but why what he does is still wrong.

There's a big leap between some agreement on paper, some "legal" authority, and the real power to actually do something.

Political power comes from the barrel of a gun.That is more than sad. What you are saying is that nothing matters except who has the ability to do more damage. Might makes right.

It is the goal of law, and such organizations as the United Nations, and such agreements as the Hague Conventions and the Geneva Convention, to bring us to a point where right makes right.

The power of the United Nations is supposed to be the power of the united nations. The power of each treaty and agreement signed between nations is supposed to be both their combined power, and their combined will to do something better than fall to killing one another to settle disputes.

Political power comes from the mind and heart of whoever holds the gun.

And would you care to guess WHY the UN was set up such that it would never have the military power to challenge the might of any single country?

C'mon - three guesses.

And then guess which countries were it's principle architects.

Sheesh - the way you go on you would think that it sprang up on it's own and decided it's constitution unilaterally!

:rolleyes:

"Might is right" is valid in every sense except the legal, moral, and ethical ones. It's why the schoolyard bully may be able to do some things, but why what he does is still wrong.

You'll notice we're right back around to a place where we were a few weeks ago.

Yes, I know who set up the UN - the same clowns who couldn't agree on what to do about Iraq - who all had their own self-interest at heart - who wrote a charter for an organization that could not possibly meddle in their plans - then or now.

It was a really, really smart idea to pass a bunch of resolutions with no enforcement capability.


So what you are saying is that tribunals should not pass laws prohibiting manslaughter, just because they won't be able to stop manslaughter from happening? Or that laws against the Mafia should not be passed, because many people of the Mafia are able to get away from their crimes?

PS: Signing off..

So what you are saying is that tribunals should not pass laws prohibiting manslaughter, just because they won't be able to stop manslaughter from happening? Or that laws against the Mafia should not be passed, because many people of the Mafia are able to get away from their crimes?

People hire police. So if you pass a law, and someone commits murder, the police investigate, and apprehend the suspect.

Eventually, against Mafia, the police and courts win. Time is on their side.

But if there are no police...

That is more than sad. What you are saying is that nothing matters except who has the ability to do more damage. Might makes right.

It is the goal of law, and such organizations as the United Nations, and such agreements as the Hague Conventions and the Geneva Convention, to bring us to a point where right makes right.

The power of the United Nations is supposed to be the power of the united nations. The power of each treaty and agreement signed between nations is supposed to be both their combined power, and their combined will to do something better than fall to killing one another to settle disputes.

Political power comes from the mind and heart of whoever holds the gun.

High minded, but seriously flawed. Do you know when the Hague Conventions have been enforced (if at all)?

To hang people at the end of wars won by the Allies. Otherwise, a largely useless set of documents that have largely been unenforced (and in some cases, deliberately avoided by more nations than just the US).

The Geneva Conventions have a similar history. And loopholes big enough to squeeze Guantanamo Bay through.

High minded, but seriously flawed. Do you know when the Hague Conventions have been enforced (if at all)?

To hang people at the end of wars won by the Allies. Otherwise, a largely useless set of documents that have largely been unenforced (and in some cases, deliberately avoided by more nations than just the US).

The Geneva Conventions have a similar history. And loopholes big enough to squeeze Guantanamo Bay through.The loopholes are not in the treaties and conventions. The loopholes are in the conscience of those who are supposed to be abidding by them.

There are no documents worth more than the paper they are printed on. The resolution of those who write and sign documents, those who truly agree to live by what is written - that is what gives documents power. The failure of people to be resolved to abide by a written agreement is not the agreement's fault, but it does result in the agreement being worthless.

The loopholes are not in the treaties and conventions. The loopholes are in the conscience of those who are supposed to be abidding by them.

There are no documents worth more than the paper they are printed on. The resolution of those who write and sign documents give the documents power. Failure to be resolved to abide by a written agreement is not the agreement's fault, but it does result in the agreement being worthless.

These are intended to be legal documents. If it's not in the legal document, and the terms aren't well defined, or defined to give the signatories an "out", then there's a definite loophole.

None of these documents are intended to be spiritual declarations of good will.

If a document says that its provisions only apply to people from signatory states, or to groups that agree to abide by the provisions, then it only applies to those people.

It doesn't, for instance, apply to anyone that doesn't fit those conditions. And yes, that's the idea behind Convention I, Article 2, of the Geneva Conventions.

Makes you wonder why they put that in there. I mean, if you want to protect everyone's dignity, then why not make it apply to everyone? Why exclude people who are not a party to the agreement? Why exclude them in writing?

By the time we reach Convention III, we have to hold a short tribunal to determine the POW status of people we detain - but we can do this with a military tribunal - which they seem to be holding in Guantanamo (hence some people are being released). However, I would bet that if the tribunal decides that you are not a party to the Conventions, they could very well crush your testicles between two hot irons if they felt like it.

These are intended to be legal documents. If it's not in the legal document, and the terms aren't well defined, or defined to give the signatories an "out", then there's a definite loophole.

None of these documents are intended to be spiritual declarations of good will.

If a document says that its provisions only apply to people from signatory states, or to groups that agree to abide by the provisions, then it only applies to those people.

It doesn't, for instance, apply to anyone that doesn't fit those conditions. And yes, that's the idea behind Convention I, Article 2, of the Geneva Conventions.

Makes you wonder why they put that in there. I mean, if you want to protect everyone's dignity, then why not make it apply to everyone? Why exclude people who are not a party to the agreement? Why exclude them in writing?

By the time we reach Convention III, we have to hold a short tribunal to determine the POW status of people we detain - but we can do this with a military tribunal - which they seem to be holding in Guantanamo (hence some people are being released). However, I would bet that if the tribunal decides that you are not a party to the Conventions, they could very well crush your testicles between two hot irons if they felt like it.All legal documents, including these, are only as good as the people who make them, and choose to abide by them - or choose not to abide by them. Interestingly, the choice to hold these prisoners at Guantanamo illustrates my point by providing an interesting dichotomy.

On the one hand, the administration is concerned enough about US law to refrain from bringing these prisoners into the United States, where US law might (probably would) provide certain rights and privileges to the prisoners. Things that might include legal counsel, communication with the outside world, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and others. And definitely being under the jurisdiction of the US jurisprudence system, and not just the jurisprudence system of the US military.

On the other hand, the administration is not concerned enough to provide these basic rights to these prisoners, who were apprehended in a war. How can someone who was apprehended in a war and put in prison not be a Prisoner of War? Apparently the administration believes it's possible, and seems to have found a way - imprisoning them in a US military facility that is NOT on US territory, and not accessible to anyone but the US military.

Carefully, at least in appearances, abidding by US law. Does this adherance to the law go to the spirit of the law, or just surface appearances? That's another question, isn't it?

And just as carefully getting around any international law (agreements, conventions, et al) that might apply by ensuring the prisoners are somewhere that no other jurisdiction can reach, and certainly not abidding by these international laws and agreements in spirit.

- - - - - -

It is my understanding that the "spirit" (or lack thereof) behind these conventions and agreements is really not to protect others...but to afford protection to "ourselves" by agreeing to extend that same protection to others. Not really a humanitarian idea, but rather a humanistic one.

I don't know how much more I can dumb this down for you.
Careful there, Steph. No need for insulting people.

Everyone, keep cool. Keep it just a polite debate.

I posted the link to the State Department paper that list them in the other thread Legs.

Now, before you get carried away, why don't YOU start off with a bit of honesty.

Item 1) I never said that the war on Iraq was against the Hague Conventions.
Item 2) My wife never stated that the War on Iraq was against the Hague Conventions, she disagreed with your notion that the US had never declared war since WWII as GW certainly did state in a public address prior to the invasion that "unless Saddam and his two sons leave Iraq within 48 hours, hostilities will begin at a time of our choosing"

That is what made the War on Iraq a DECLARED war under the terms of the HAgue Conventions to which you are signatory.




But, the President doesn't have the legal authority to declare war. It is no more a declared war than it would be if an intern made that statement.

You know Whisper, what I find the funniest is that you took the time to start this thread in order to refute something that I didn't even say, went and read the laws you didn't think applied to your country - presumably in order to clear it's name in the face of false accusation, and when you discover that the treaty HAS in fact been violated you respond with "oh well - it's not like it matters anyway unless someone can force us to uphold our obligations".


I mean - really?


Why did you bother trying to prove a point that you didn't care about in the first place?

But, the President doesn't have the legal authority to declare war. It is no more a declared war than it would be if an intern made that statement.

there is a difference between international law and domestic. Plus Congress granted him the authority to do so.

If he did NOT have the right to wage a war, and given the length of time that this war has been going on - should you not then have arrested him by now for exceeding his authority?

The UN charter gives the UN security council the authority to determine if a war is legal or not, under its own auspices

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_functions.html

The UN can't stop a country from declaring war, as much as no one can stop you from punching your teachers; But they may say it is illegal, and recomend action against it.

However, this war was legal under UN Resolutions. You remember those seventeen resolutions that Hussein violated? I sure do. Under those resolutions did we go into Iraq. Therefor, this war was legal even under the UN Charter despite what Kofi Annan (Who doesn't speak for the Security Council) says. Besides, the Security Council, by your own admission, has not declared this action legal or illegal.

From your last post, I'm sorry Corneliu, apparently you don't. :headbang:

Steph, I'm going to break this to you very gently. My father is in the military and has to know international law. Who do you think I'm going to trust? A Canadian that has no experience in International Law or someone who has over 30 years of military experience and fought overseas and has traveled overseas in all political sensitive areas?

I do know what the International Law is and I do know that Iraq is a legal war under UN Resolutions and the Hague!

The Chinese came up with that philosophy.

They still seem to understand it today.

Something that is completely lost on the UN.

And Japan, Germany, Russia, Britain, Portugal, France, and even Italy follwed that philosophy.

Steph, I'm going to break this to you very gently. My father is in the military and has to know international law. Who do you think I'm going to trust? A Canadian that has no experience in International Law or someone who has over 30 years of military experience and fought overseas and has traveled overseas in all political sensitive areas?

I do know what the International Law is and I do know that Iraq is a legal war under UN Resolutions and the Hague!

Stop saying that YOU know the law just because your father is in the Military. What a crock.

Besides, it was you who just stated, and I quote:

The UN HAS NO AUTHORITY IN MATTERS OF WAR!!! IT IS UP TO THE NATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So by the fact that you now say it is legal based on the UN shows that you are a) trying to have it both ways, and b) have no clue what you are talking about.

Because these two statements are mutually exclusive.

Stop saying that YOU know the law just because your father is in the Military. What a crock.

Are you saying that my father never taught me international law? That is a lie and a very bad one at that. He has taught me alot about internatinal law.

Besides, it was you who just stated, and I quote:



So by the fact that you now say it is legal based on the UN shows that you are a) trying to have it both ways, and b) have no clue what you are talking about.

Because these two statements are mutually exclusive.

The un doesn't have the authority to tell any country that it can't wage war on another nation. Period. That is a fact. If the UN does authorize force, the nations themselves have to approve the deployment of their own soldiers.

However, this war was legal under UN Resolutions. You remember those seventeen resolutions that Hussein violated? I sure do. Under those resolutions did we go into Iraq. Therefor, this war was legal even under the UN Charter despite what Kofi Annan (Who doesn't speak for the Security Council) says. Besides, the Security Council, by your own admission, has not declared this action legal or illegal.


First, point to the exact phrasing in all 17 of the resolutions that authorizes war as the penatly for non-compliance.

NExt, discuss why Iraq should be held to all of the tenants of all the resolutions when the US refused to be likewise bound by reneging on the promise of phased sanction withdrawl tied to the disarmament process - especially given the results of the post-war investigation which proved that Saddam HAD disramed of WMD, which means that we starved thousands of Iraqis for no reason given he HAD complied as he repeatedly stated.

Finally, explain why anyone would bother bringing a resolution to the Security Council to try and condemn this war knowing full well that the US would have veto power over such a resolution - thus it being a pointless exercise.

First, point to the exact phrasing in all 17 of the resolutions that authorizes war as the penatly for non-compliance.

Why pass a resolution that doesn't authorize force? Do you remember the speech that they made 48 hours before the war started? They listed at least two that I remember but I have to go back and find out which resolution numbers they are.

NExt, discuss why Iraq should be held to all of the tenants of all the resolutions when the US refused to be likewise bound by reneging on the promise of phased sanction withdrawl tied to the disarmament process - especially given the results of the post-war investigation which proved that Saddam HAD disramed of WMD, which means that we starved thousands of Iraqis for no reason given he HAD complied as he repeatedly stated.

Because the world intelligence got it wrong, its the US's fault? Come on Zeppistan. Everyone thought he had WMD and yes that is everyone. Don't blame the US alone.

Finally, explain why anyone would bother bringing a resolution to the Security Council to try and condemn this war knowing full well that the US would have veto power over such a resolution - thus it being a pointless exercise.

your right it would be pointless! Since it is pointless and no nation did, then the UN pretty much gave legal credence to the war. The UN Security Council did not pass a resolution stating that it was illegal.

And so have some of your tactics been blatantly illegal too. TAke CPA Order 39. This order allowed the CPA to privatize publically held properties and institutions, allows foreign companies unrestricted access to buy up the industries of Iraq, and also provides them free reign to take all profits from those companies out of Iraq without any requirements for local reinvestment. And despite being a temporary government, this act allowed the CPA to sign any leases it so chooses of such assets held in public trust for 40 year periods.

This is insane. In trying to rebuild the country and give the citizens a free and prosperous future your first step is to let it be bought up?

However it again just show how this administration cares nothing about the rule of law.

Because this is about as blatantly illegal as you can get! And yet it has been signed into law by the agent of the US government, Paul Bremmer.


Illegal you ask? Yes!


The Hague regulations state that an occupying power must respect "unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country". Iraq's existing constitution outlaws the privatization of key state assets, and it bars foreigners from owning Iraqi firms. No plausible argument can be made that the CPA was "absolutely prevented" from respecting those laws, and yet the CPA overturned them unilaterally.

The convention also states that occupying powers "shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile state, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct."

Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines "usufruct" as an arrangement that grants one party the right to use and derive benefit from another's property "without altering the substance of the thing". Put more simply, if you are a housesitter, you can eat the food in the fridge, but you can't sell the house and turn it into condos.

What could more substantially alter "the substance" of a public asset than to turn it into a private one?

But when Bremer enacted the order September '03, the CPA immediately announced that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatized; decreed that foreign firms can retain 100% ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories; and allowed these firms to move 100% of their profits out of Iraq. The allowance of complete foreign control of Iraq's banking industry is certainly key. No country has ever been successful without a fair measure of domestic control of it's financial intitutions.

Indeed, The Economist declared the new rules a "capitalist dream".

Don't care about International Law?

How about Domestic Law. The US army's Law of Land Warfare states that "the occupant does not have the right of sale or unqualified use of [non-military] property". This is pretty straightforward: bombing something does not give you the right to sell it.

But the great selloff went ahead anyway. After all, you have a population in dire financial need after a decade of sanctions, and a business community crying out for capital to get things running again. The pickings are great when the situation is dire and you can buy up firms at pennies on the dollar.

And the section allowing the CPA to sign binding 40 year leases on businesses it choses to privatize is also in full swing. Cases in point, MCI (the perpetrators of the greatest fraud in US history) being handed Iraqi mobile telephone business on a silver platter, and JP Morgan (you remember them from the Enron scandal) has been handed the business of heading up the new Trade Bank of Iraq.

And the laws did not even require the CPA to look at domestic bids for services when a foreign company has an interest. There is no formalized bidding structure in place at all that provides even the veneer of legitimacy.



Hey, I mean - as long as we are looking into the Conventions we might as well go into all of them...


Someone's been to the Yale website. :rolleyes:

At any rate, there was no law in Iraq, and we are respecting it. (Go look up the doctorine of desuetude up in your fancy legal dictionary,)

Are you saying that my father never taught me international law? That is a lie and a very bad one at that. He has taught me alot about internatinal law.


No Corneliu, what I am saying is you equivalencing your knowledge of international law to that of your father is BS.

To draw you a parallel, my father is a well respected research physician. So much so that the WHO commissioned him to write the official dictionary of medical terms and treatments for his field of specialty that is used worldwide. Based on my discussions with him I bet I know a lot more about neurology than the average person. However what I DON'T do is to try and pass myself off as having as much knowledge as him which you seem to be doing.

In other words, if you asked me for my diagnosis I'd give you my opinion but still tell you to get your ass to a real doctor for treatment.


The un doesn't have the authority to tell any country that it can't wage war on another nation. Period. That is a fact. If the UN does authorize force, the nations themselves have to approve the deployment of their own soldiers.

Bull. If the UN cannot forbid the use of force then the UN cannot approve it either - which tosses your 17 resolution out the window as an sort of material point. However, the UN CAN forbid a country's actions and pass a resolution to craft an appropriate response. That might be economic sanctions, or it may be military intervention. At that point - having forbid the ongoing conflict - yes, individual nations approve deployment of their own soldiers.

If the UN had no business butting into other countries wars, then Korea would never have happened, and there would be no peacekeepers watching the border of etheipia right now nor any still inside places like East Timor now. Nor would they have the authority to put an end to the ongoing civil war in Dufur - which I wish they would get off their asses and deal with.

what the UN cannot do is force a country to engage in a war on it's behalf.

Someone's been to the Yale website. :rolleyes:

At any rate, there was no law in Iraq, and we are respecting it. (Go look up the doctorine of desuetude up in your fancy legal dictionary,)


Excuse me? There was no law.... but you are "respecting it"?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Point of fact, Iraq DID have a fully functioning constitution and body of laws - several of which were overturned by the CPA. As to the concept of desuetude - the notion that a law or custom had already fallen into disuse thus rendering it meaningless, I fail to see any proof on your part that the ban on foreign ownership of certain key industries as noted in my post had done so.

For if they had then it would have been impossible to privatize and sell them off without a scream from the foreign owners who had purchased them.

Funny, I don't remember that happening.


Perhaps that is because ..... IT DIDN'T!

Excuse me? There was no law.... but you are "respecting it"?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Point of fact, Iraq DID have a fully functioning constitution and body of laws - several of which were overturned by the CPA. As to the concept of desuetude - the notion that a law or custom had already fallen into disuse thus rendering it meaningless, I fail to see any proof on your part that the ban on foreign ownership of certain key industries as noted in my post had done so.

For if they had then it would have been impossible to privatize and sell them off without a scream from the foreign owners who had purchased them.

Funny, I don't remember that happening.


Perhaps that is because ..... IT DIDN'T!


Uhuh, we are respecting the previous lack of law, by substituting our own for the duration of the occupation. (You see Hussien was functionally a warlord, hence there was no rule of law, hence no law, hence deseutude, hence lawless).

And food for thought, Mr. International law expert, you do realize under your twisted interpretation of the operation of the Hague conventions, what happened at abu ghraib would have been perfectly legal. Hell, if our only duty was to respect the former laws (operative or not) we could have cut their ears off, and it would have been perfectly okay.

The declaration of war was in accordance with the Hague convention , agreed.

However, American law means nothing out side of your own borders, as soon as you step outside of the American borders, international law takes over. Since America is a signatory member of said laws.. yes, it was illegal.

If the US would like to sign off on their obligations of their signatory membership to the UN, fine, until then, they are signatory members and as being such committed an act of war that was illegal.

I don't know how much more I can dumb this down for you.

You can't use the UN charter. It's a legal impossibilty, hence void. It's also like the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, a statement of aspirational priniciples rather than a set of treaty obligations. (Which is how everyone in the world of importance interprets it.

As to ignoring international law. In the US, Constitutional law > Treaties > Domestic law. In the event that a treaty is in conflict with the constitution, the treaty provision is void. Yet we are prepared to void our own domestic laws to conform to international obligations. (which we do).

In Canada: Domestic law > Treaty law. In other words, a treaty with Canada has no value unless it already conforms to canadian law, unless enabling legislation is passed. Pot. Kettle. Black.

And we didn't declare war. The US is not at a state of war because congress did not declare war, and they are the only ones that can. I don't know how much more that can be dumbed down.

No, the hague convention was held up to refute your notion that the US had not declared a war since WWII.

the applicable note on how a war is declared is from:

CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE OPENING OF HOSTILITIES
Entered into Force: 26 January 1910

Article 1
The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.

The statement by GW met the burden of an "ultimatum with conditional declaration of war ", and yes, this convention is one signed by the US.

Whether or not the US is at a state of war cannot be determined by examination of the hague conventions. It is a consitutional matter, not a matter of international law.

However, what consitutes a reasonable previous and explicit warning of a declaration of war is not determined by whether or not the US is at war. And even if hostilities commence, congressional authorization is irrelevant.

You see under the conflict of laws, the US can both give reasonable warning and declare war, yet never be at war, while still engaging in hostilities. There is no paradox, the term War just means different things under different bodies of law.

Similar to how a tomato is both a fruit and a vegetable, or neither, depending.

Whether or not the US is at a state of war cannot be determined by examination of the hague conventions. It is a consitutional matter, not a matter of international law.

However, what consitutes a reasonable previous and explicit warning of a declaration of war is not determined by whether or not the US is at war. And even if hostilities commence, congressional authorization is irrelevant.

You see under the conflict of laws, the US can both give reasonable warning and declare war, yet never be at war, while still engaging in hostilities. There is no paradox, the term War just means different things under different bodies of law.

Similar to how a tomato is both a fruit and a vegetable, or neither, depending.It's interesting how we can use semantics and the peculiarities of the particular legal phrasing of documents to manage to create a situation where we can physically be engaged in a war, and yet academically not be at war. This is especially interesting in light of the fact that many of the documents either are written in several languages, or have to be translated into different languages to be understood by all those the documents apply (or are supposed to apply) to.

Perhaps someone should have taken the time to explain that to all the soldiers and civilians who have died over the years in all the non-war wars, including the current one.

I'm a little concerned over the attitude of some of the postings in this thread, and some of the other threads in NS dealing with the same or extremely similar topics. The ones that explicitly or implicitly take the "My Country Right Or Wrong" approach, and/or the "Tail Gunner Joe" approach. The law of the land in the United States is still the Constitution. The Constitution still contains the Bill of Rights - those first 10 amendments. And that first one is still in effect. It reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Everyone has the right to have, and express, their opinion. It doesn't say in there anywhere "restricted to agreeing with the position or positions of the current administration."

Amendments Nine and Ten are also quite interesting. Nine provides that just because certain rights are listed (enumerated) in the constitution, that does not mean that rights not so listed are denied, but in fact are retained by the people. Ten provides that all rights not specifically delegated to the United States, and not specifically prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States, or the people.

The point I'm making, and have probably belabored (I do tend to continue to beat the horse even after the poor thing is dead) is that citizens of the United States still have the right of free speech, both written and spoken.

Let's all remember that as we exercise it in these discussions.

Not intended to offend or exclude any of you who are not citizens of the United States

Whether or not the US is at a state of war cannot be determined by examination of the hague conventions. It is a consitutional matter, not a matter of international law.

However, what consitutes a reasonable previous and explicit warning of a declaration of war is not determined by whether or not the US is at war. And even if hostilities commence, congressional authorization is irrelevant.

You see under the conflict of laws, the US can both give reasonable warning and declare war, yet never be at war, while still engaging in hostilities. There is no paradox, the term War just means different things under different bodies of law.

Similar to how a tomato is both a fruit and a vegetable, or neither, depending.

So, what you are premising is that as along as your domestic laws allow you to sidestep the declaration of a war while actively engaging in it, then this somehow means that the US can engage in all of the military actions it likes and not be technically at war in the eyes of international law?

Interesting. What a novel approach. I would guess then that this liberates the US military from ever having to follow either the Geneva Conventions or Hague Conventions as long as it's done on a Congressional nod and a wink.

And the rest of the world must accept that the US Constitution trumps any international laws or other treaties signed.


Of course, if that were true then the US had no business complaining and invoking the Geneva Conventions when Al Jazeera posted that video in the early days of the war that showed several dead US soldiers.

After all, you aren't at war so they shouldn't apply....

:rolleyes:

You can't use the UN charter. It's a legal impossibilty, hence void. It's also like the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, a statement of aspirational priniciples rather than a set of treaty obligations. (Which is how everyone in the world of importance interprets it.

As to ignoring international law. In the US, Constitutional law > Treaties > Domestic law. In the event that a treaty is in conflict with the constitution, the treaty provision is void. Yet we are prepared to void our own domestic laws to conform to international obligations. (which we do).

In Canada: Domestic law > Treaty law. In other words, a treaty with Canada has no value unless it already conforms to canadian law, unless enabling legislation is passed. Pot. Kettle. Black.

And we didn't declare war. The US is not at a state of war because congress did not declare war, and they are the only ones that can. I don't know how much more that can be dumbed down.

Once again, if the Charter of the UN is void, then it;s resolutions are meaningless. Yet those very same resolutions are being used as the legal justification for war.

You can't have it both ways.

Either the UN IS a valid source of legal judgements or it isn't.

Make up your mind.

Uhuh, we are respecting the previous lack of law, by substituting our own for the duration of the occupation. (You see Hussien was functionally a warlord, hence there was no rule of law, hence no law, hence deseutude, hence lawless).


On what - exactly - do you base this lack of rule of law. Please be specific. I mean, members of the US government and it's agencies are routinely charged and convicted of offenses stemming from abuse of office. This does not invalidate the rule of law in the US.

Sorry, you have not met the burden of prrof to show that there was no rule of law in Iraq prior to the invasion.


And food for thought, Mr. International law expert, you do realize under your twisted interpretation of the operation of the Hague conventions, what happened at abu ghraib would have been perfectly legal. Hell, if our only duty was to respect the former laws (operative or not) we could have cut their ears off, and it would have been perfectly okay.

That would have to assume that legal requirements were set at the minumum standard between your Geneva and Hague convention requirements and the domestic laws of Iraq.

They don't.

Nor do those conventions state in any way that your ONLY duty is to respect the former laws of the country you occupy. Besides which, the soldiers were charged for violating the UMCJ - which certainly was still in force for them as soldiers.

You may find this hard to believe, but people ARE indeed often subject to the laws of multiple jurisdictions at the same time. Say, for example, that you are bound by the city, state, AND federal laws for the location you happen to be in.

You know Whisper, what I find the funniest is that you took the time to start this thread in order to refute something that I didn't even say, went and read the laws you didn't think applied to your country - presumably in order to clear it's name in the face of false accusation, and when you discover that the treaty HAS in fact been violated you respond with "oh well - it's not like it matters anyway unless someone can force us to uphold our obligations".

I mean - really?

Why did you bother trying to prove a point that you didn't care about in the first place?

The impression that I get of the Hague Conventions and their history is that they have only been enforced against the Germans and the Japanese during WW II (in any significant manner).

I can't find any historical reference where anyone used the Tribunal mentioned in the Conventions to settle any international dispute. Perhaps you could enlighten me. If we can't find any that correspond to the wars of the 20th Century, then we may assume that:
a) most every nation in those wars is guilty of a significant violation of the Hague Conventions, and
b) no one cares

They seem to be brought up mostly as a matter of political mudslinging rather than as serious charges brought before a serious tribunal that has serious teeth to enforce the law. The only time it appears that anyone was tried was for violation of provisions of the Fourth Convention, and that was Germans and Japanese who were, in the public opinion, ripe for hanging.

That, and the Germans and the Japanese lost the war. Had they won the war, it is arguable that a fair number of Allied personnel would have been executed under the very same provisions. Bomber Harris, for example.

If the majority of the signers of the Hague Convention don't care enough about the Conventions to enforce it against the United States (and indeed, enforce it on themselves in all applicable situations), then why should I care?

They certainly, and quite demonstrably, don't care.

And since they don't care, it's a worthless collection of paper that you're waving madly in the air, saying, "please, you've got to care! for the sake of humanity and civilization, you've got to care!"

Don't you realize what a dark world we live in? Do you actually believe that there's any hope?

In case you haven't noticed, the Long Night began back when Orwell was writing his best.

Well, you certainly do expend a lot of energy arguing a side when you claim to be without hope.

What is that old Burke quote? "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"?

Perhaps you feel that all hope is lost and that you can have no impact in your life on the events of the world, however if that were the case then nothing would ever have got done in the first place since the days when most of our forebearers lived in serfdom, when women were totally disenfranchised, when blacks were denied basic rights, and when environmental and labour laws were even more of a joke than it is now.

Now if you have no hope, then I feel sorry for you. However don't expect everyone to turn over with their rumps raised high and complacently take whatever gets shoved at us.

Speaking for myself, I will never stop trying to ensure that I leave a better world for my children than the one I was born into. I may fail, but at least they will know that I tried.

Well, you certainly do expend a lot of energy arguing a side when you claim to be without hope.

What is that old Burke quote? "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"?

Perhaps you feel that all hope is lost and that you can have no impact in your life on the events of the world, however if that were the case then nothing would ever have got done in the first place since the days when most of our forebearers lived in serfdom, when women were totally disenfranchised, when blacks were denied basic rights, and when environmental and labour laws were even more of a joke than it is now.

Now if you have no hope, then I feel sorry for you. However don't expect everyone to turn over with their rumps raised high and complacently take whatever gets shoved at us.

Speaking for myself, I will never stop trying to ensure that I leave a better world for my children than the one I was born into. I may fail, but at least they will know that I tried.

I only fight battles in my own area - where I believe that I can actually see the results or be directly affected by the outcome.

One of the overriding reasons that I believe that Vietnam was so unpopular and the current war seems to be riding along ok so far is that as long as it doesn't affect the average American, they don't care what happens to people in another country.

Those "foreigners" are reduced to sound bites and political footballs. Irrelevancies.

Now, it seems that Osama understood this, and so 19 assholes flew some planes into some US buildings. And we all saw it on TV. So even though most of us can't claim to have known anyone in those buildings, we took it personally.

As far as the typical American is concerned, they see no difference between one Arab and another, or one Moslem and another (just ask Keru - he can probably show this to be true of the typical Frenchman).

As far as international law goes - until all nations are willing to give up their sovereignty (which they write loopholes in the treaties to avoid doing), it's only useful for hanging a few people for sport after a big war.

You can be "for" international law all you like. You can say it matters. But the way the UN is set up, and the way the Hague and Geneva Conventions are conveniently ignored (not just now - historically), you would have to write new laws and create new organizations.

The current ones aren't going to cut it, even if modified.

.........Don't you realize what a dark world we live in? Do you actually believe that there's any hope?......As long as anyone is still breathing, there remains hope.

As to the dark world, you get no arguement from me. Do you choose to simply accept it, or do you choose to try, however feebly, to change it?

I only fight battles in my own area - where I believe that I can actually see the results or be directly affected by the outcome.

One of the overriding reasons that I believe that Vietnam was so unpopular and the current war seems to be riding along ok so far is that as long as it doesn't affect the average American, they don't care what happens to people in another country.

Those "foreigners" are reduced to sound bites and political footballs. Irrelevancies.

Now, it seems that Osama understood this, and so 19 assholes flew some planes into some US buildings. And we all saw it on TV. So even though most of us can't claim to have known anyone in those buildings, we took it personally.

As far as the typical American is concerned, they see no difference between one Arab and another, or one Moslem and another (just ask Keru - he can probably show this to be true of the typical Frenchman).

As far as international law goes - until all nations are willing to give up their sovereignty (which they write loopholes in the treaties to avoid doing), it's only useful for hanging a few people for sport after a big war.

You can be "for" international law all you like. You can say it matters. But the way the UN is set up, and the way the Hague and Geneva Conventions are conveniently ignored (not just now - historically), you would have to write new laws and create new organizations.

The current ones aren't going to cut it, even if modified.

Any international law that you have, as bad as it is, is the best thing we have, and it should be perfected, and we all should strive to uphold it. You know why? Because if you don't, all you have is the Rule of Force. Not the good guys winning, on this one. Just the one with the bigger weapons.

Being European, perhaps I am more sensitive for this than you. For centuries, our countries fought on the principle of rule of force, until that principle ended in our very own demise.

Don't repeat such demise on the world, please.

I'm not saying that I agree with Whispering Legs, but at least we finally have a conservative on these boards who is not afraid of complex, challenging and difficult arguments.

Don't get your hopes up.