Under what legal principle would that be? Guilty until proven innocent? Which legal system does that come from? Also, who put the U.S. unilaterally in charge of the UN Security Council? If there’s not one “right” interpretation of the Bible and the U.S. Constitution, how can there only be one “right” interpretation of UN Security Council resolutions?
The current situation in Darfur is far worse than the situation in Kosovo at the time of the NATO intervention or the situation in Iraq in March of 2003. What has happened to “the merits of protecting innocent people from a ruthless dictator” argument there? At least some minimal efforts.
Well, the US was the first to call what was happening in Sudan a “genocide,” and also recommended that the Security Council impose economic sanctions on the Sudanese government. To date, the US (and to give him credit, Kofi Annan) voice has been the strongest on the need for action in Darfur. It was the FRENCH and RUSSIANS who would not hear of imposing economic sanctions on the Sudanese government. Why? Because they had BIG OIL CONTRACTS in Sudan. Now, the Russians have never been big on human rights, but the French … I mean, they’re the champions of human rights, justice, etc. They would never put personal profit and oil before the millions of starving refugees in Darfur … but they did …
[quote=“Rascal”]So yes, Saddam should have complied immediately, but that doesn’t do away with the fact that this is another fine example where the US bypassed the UN(SC) and then later invokes UN resolutions as justification for their actions.
Another hypocritical if not pathetic attempt to excuse another illegal action taken by the US. :p[/quote]
I disagree, Rascal.
You want to say that the US should act only in conformance with the UNSC. Well, we all know that the UNSC does nothing but “remain seized” of matters. It virtually never takes any action (as it is unable to act without the US).
Yes, Saddam should have, as he was required to, complied with the UNSC cease fire and resolutions immediately. He didn’t. Nothing happened (except further resolutions calling for immediate compliance).
Finally, the US was faced with a situation where demands were insufficient when the same were repeatedly ignored. You can argue all you want that the UNSC was the arbiter and final authority in the matter… but, in fact, the US was the legitimate final authority.
I think it laughable and pathetic that anyone continue to place his/her trust in the authority of the UN. Especially after what we now know regarding the UN’s disgusting actions regarding Iraq and the oil for food scandal.
Why anyone would think that the UN should be the final authority is beyond my ability to comprehend.
And yes, the US invoked the UN resolutions as justification (partial) for its acts. But, I think it clear that the US was only using those resolutions to explain the reasons (justifications) for its actions. After all, what was the reason for the resolutions?
[quote=“Rascal”]And let’s use your approach for once: since you insist that we must read Bush speeches exactly as they are then we can expect that you also apply the same to UN resolutions etc., else you would be applying double-standards.
So, using your agrumentation and to prove that no-fly zones were legal, we can expect that there is a UN resolutions that explicitly mentions the term ‘no-fly’ zones. All you need to do is quote it.[/quote]
You’re not making any sense.
I don’t need to prove anything. You are claiming that the no-fly zones are/were illegal.
I have cited international law sources that explain that under current notions, all states are responsible for and obligated to defend the human rights of all peoples and that this notion now trumps the old notion of state-centric sovereignty.
You say that the no-fly zones were illegal. Fine… show us where such no-fly zones are prohibited by international law.
Look, Saddam signed a cease fire agreement in which he gave up, voluntarily, many of Iraq’s normal sovereign rights. In order to obtain an agreement from the coalition forces to stop battering Iraq’s army and to save his own ass, saddam agreed to certain things… among those was his promise to comply immediately with a list of demands, the carrying out of which necessitated a certain degree of lost sovereignty.
The same thing happens to a parolee. He is let out with heavy restrictions and the burden of proving innocence is placed on the parolee, not on the state.
I don’t know Rascal. Why don’t you ask the German police and immigration authorities and find out how they are managing the abuses and torture of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants. Want me to post the Amnesty International Report on Germany again? I just have to wonder why you would be so interested in US abuses when there are so many awaiting your interest, concern and protest so much closer to home, but I REMEMBER, you don’t want to discuss Germany. That would be off topic. We are here ONLY to discuss the US. US basher. US basher. Rascal is a US basher. What did some GI give you a hard time in a bar somewhere? What’s the obsession all about? Get over it. He probably does not even remember you.
[quote=“Tigerman”]Look, Saddam signed a cease fire agreement in which he gave up, voluntarily, many of Iraq’s normal sovereign rights. In order to obtain an agreement from the coalition forces to stop battering Iraq’s army and to save his own ass, Saddam agreed to certain things… among those was his promise to comply immediately with a list of demands, the carrying out of which necessitated a certain degree of lost sovereignty.
The same thing happens to a parolee. He is let out with heavy restrictions and the burden of proving innocence is placed on the parolee, not on the state.
Saddam was essentially a parolee.[/quote]
Excellent analogy, Tigerman. And just to add one more point, regardless of whether or not the UNSC was involved or that there were other coalition members involved in liberating Kuwait, Saddam for all intents and purposes surrendered to the US (like France, Oman, and Bahrain would or could have taken him on) … so the US had every right to determine if he was or was not in violation of his cease-fire agreements.
[quote]But… but… how can that be? Didn’t you claim that the US violated international law? Where is the prosecutor? Where is the judge?
What the heck is going on?[/quote]
See, that’s what I already answered in my earlier response - just because there is no prosecuter does not prove that no law has been violated. So answering or not answering the question doesn’t make any difference.
I am sure you do know people that have violated laws, say by jaywalking (just an example), and they weren’t prosecuted / judged - but does it prove there is no law against it? Sorry, but your implied argument seems highly illogical.
Of course the UNSC relies on it’s members to take action, and that includes the US.
However it does not change the fact that the UNSC decides if, when and what action is taken, that is the UNSC requests it’s members to execute on behalf of the UN(SC) - the members do not decide unilaterally when it’s time and what to do.
That’s only half of the truth - inspections were on-going and making progress.
Not the progress the US hoped for (by finding WMD), but progress nevertheless.
Only the US was faced with it? With what exactly - their own impatiance and arrogance, turned into an embarrassment when the inspectors didn’t find the stuff based on the ‘best intelligence’?
And doesn’t your argument imply the US is in fact the world-police and decides who is wrong and where action will be taken?
But please explain why the US was the legitimate final authority (unless of course this is their own, highly-biased view). Is there a law that states the same?
If the actions were disgusting is a matter of personal opinion, but ignoring that the inspections were on-going and making progress might qualify as being ignorant and prejudiced.
Why anyone would think that the US should be the final authority is beyond my ability to comprehend.
[quote]And yes, the US invoked the UN resolutions as justification (partial) for its acts. But, I think it clear that the US was only using those resolutions to explain the reasons (justifications) for its actions. After all, what was the reason for the resolutions?
Why make demands that will never be enforced?[/quote]
Enforcement was pending the final report from the weapon’s inspectors.
Or to put it in a different way: why not wait instead of interrupting the inspections and waging war based on heavily flawed evidence? After waiting 12 years another 12 months or so wouldn’t have done much harm (and that harm includes the one the US has done / is still doing to itself).
By then the world would have known the state of Iraq’s WMD, just as what the US asked for.
[quote]Look, Saddam signed a cease fire agreement in which he gave up, voluntarily, many of Iraq’s normal sovereign rights. In order to obtain an agreement from the coalition forces to stop battering Iraq’s army and to save his own ass, Saddam agreed to certain things… among those was his promise to comply immediately with a list of demands, the carrying out of which necessitated a certain degree of lost sovereignty.
The same thing happens to a parolee. He is let out with heavy restrictions and the burden of proving innocence is placed on the parolee, not on the state.
Saddam was essentially a parolee.[/quote]
Excellent analogy indeed, because who decides if the parolee is in violation and if/what action will be taken - the police officer (the US) or the judge (the UNSC) who put him on on parole in the first place?
Look, Saddam signed a cease fire agreement in which he gave up, voluntarily, many of Iraq’s normal sovereign rights. In order to obtain an agreement from the coalition forces to stop battering Iraq’s army and to save his own ass, Saddam agreed to certain things… among those was his promise to comply immediately with a list of demands, the carrying out of which necessitated a certain degree of lost sovereignty.
The same thing happens to a parolee. He is let out with heavy restrictions and the burden of proving innocence is placed on the parolee, not on the state.
Saddam was essentially a parolee.[/quote]
Okay. You’re right. I accept the parolee analogy as a valid legal principle that put the burden of proof on Saddam. I’ll drop my “guilty until proven innocent” objection permanently. I have heard no legitimate argment though for how the U.S. assumed the role of “parole officer” over the UN Security Council’s established process for asserting authority (9 member majority vote). It appears to me to be a case of a powerful party to a dispute pushing aside the established system and making its own justice, just as the Democratic Party attempted to do in the 2000 election over the Florida results but was thwarted by the U.S. Supreme Court. If the Democratic Party had had the power to do so, Al Gore would undoubtedly have been declared president-elect.
Because the system is flawed. Even the UN realizes that its system is flawed, hence the reason that Kofi Annan himself called for unprecedented reforms. France and Russia (both of which had “other interests” in not invading Iraq as we have learned) could put an end to any resolution that would have gotten rid of Saddam with their veto. No matter what (the French said this quite clearly), no bill to authorize the use of force against Saddam was EVER going to get past the UNSC … and all it took was one of them … France. I believe Russia and China could have been convinced to abstain, but France was never going to go along with anything that would cut off the gravy train.
That was the Democratic Party’s argument in Florida in 2000, too, and we know what the Supreme Court said about that – not to mention the Republican Party’s response that that was a bogus argument.
Come to think of, just about everyone who goes to jail or loses a lawsuit blames it on a flawed system.
The United Nations, like the federal legal system in the U.S. and just about every other organization, has an established dispute resolution system and all parties are bound to follow it. If a party refuses to follow the system’s rules, then they have three possible legitimate choices in the short term: withdraw from membership, use an entirely separate justification for their actions (eg. “self-defense”) rather than invoking the authority of the system whose rules they flout, or, three, accept the legal consequences of defying the law.
Proclaiming themselves “the Law” as tyrants throughout history such as Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein have done though isn’t one of their choices.
You may not like it Rascal but yes the US is the world’s policeman. So why don’t you Germans do something to help out.
The problem was not whether Saddam had wmds or not and inspections were never going to get to the root of the problem: Saddam was not a peaceful man and he caused a lot of trouble. Proving that he was at this or that moment not causing trouble was irrelevant or at least not the most important variable. Getting rid of him once and for all was. Bush understood that. That is why wmds or no wmds he had to go. You disagreed with that and bully for you but the one thing that has irritated me most about you and people like you is that you assume that you have the right to enjoy the luxury of added inspections or extended inspections and really what you are doing is gambling with the lives of US soliders since in any potentially worse or more dangerous conflict we all know it will not be Germans who will be laying their lives down to protect the area or restore peace. Ironic. I thought the Germans were rather fond of military conflicts.
No. Its not only a half truth. That the inspections were still going on 12 years after Saddam signed the cease fire agreement agreeing to immediately comply with demands that he prove the status of his WMD and prove the disposal/destruction of the same is proof absolute that Saddam was not in compliance with the UNSC cease fire agreement or any of the subsequent resolutions.
The US goal was not to “find WMD”. Yes, the US believed that there were WMD… but finding them was not the goal. The goal of the cease fire agreement and all subsequent resolutions was for Saddam to immediately declare the status of his WMD and prove that he had disposed of or otherwise destroyed all such WMD.
He failed to do that.
I’m not the least bit embarrassed. I’m glad that we seem to have finally ascertained the status of Saddam’s WMD. That was the goal. Arguing that the US was somehow required or obligated to find or prove the existence of WMD is nothing but a strawman argument.
Yeah, sort of. But, it cannot be denied that the US came before the UN and stated its case and requested the world to assist. Just because much of the world was more interested in tying the US down and or in propping Saddam up in order to earn filthy lucre from dirty oil deals does not mean that the US was wrong to ignore the opinion of some nations.
Of course the US view is biased. Just as Germany’s view is biased. So what? Why is the US the final legitimate authority? Easy. Because all real authority requires force to back it up. The UN lacks legitimate authority because it has neither the will nor the ability to enforce its authority. It is a near useless and corrupt organization.
Might makes right. Law of the jungle. Right of self-preservation. Take your pick.
Saddam had failed to comply with his obligations for 12 years. We now know that the reason the UN did not seek to enforce compliance is because the UN was dirty and was propping up Saddam. If you think that propping up the murderous tyrant saddam at the expense of the Iraqi people so that some Europeans could earn dirty profits from a UN-run oil-for-food program is not disgusting… well, I don’t know what to say about that.
Not at all. The notion that states have the right to act in their own best interest (especially when doing so in self-defense) is an old notion. The idea that a bunch of thugocracies and autocrats can get together and restrict a democtratic government from acting on behalf of its citizens and in its own interest is quite silly, IMO.
[quote]And yes, the US invoked the UN resolutions as justification (partial) for its acts. But, I think it clear that the US was only using those resolutions to explain the reasons (justifications) for its actions. After all, what was the reason for the resolutions?
Why make demands that will never be enforced?[/quote]
Yeah… riiiight! This would have been the umpteenth “final” report. Sorry, wrong answer.
[quote=“Rascal”]Or to put it in a different way: why not wait instead of interrupting the inspections and waging war based on heavily flawed evidence? After waiting 12 years another 12 months or so wouldn’t have done much harm (and that harm includes the one the US has done / is still doing to itself).
By then the world would have known the state of Iraq’s WMD, just as what the US asked for.[/quote]
Why should we have waited? We had already waited too long.
Besides, and more importantly, the main goal was reforming the region. The WMD issue was only the reason that gave the invasion urgency. Why should we have left Saddam in power to continue brutalizing the Iraqi people.
The US has gone about its “interventions” in a systematic, restrained fashion. The fact that French, German, Russian, Chinese and UN corruption have coopted the one organization that could have been a moral arbiter of this is what is truly sad, but for those oppositionists who know this and still continue to sing the endless refrain of the UN this or the UN that are just pathetic beyond sad really.
Guess what? We tried to work with the UN. We tried to work with nations such as Germany and France. They did not want to work with us. They rejected our advances so their corrupt interests could benefit. They have shot themselves in the foot. We will act with or without the approval of Germany or France or the UN. Get over it. Your nations have by their very actions made themselves irrelevant.
