Bit off-topic, isn’t it? Anyway, it doesn’t seem as if any of the so-called civilized countries are the slightest bit interested in Sudan, which is pretty damn disgusting but not in the least surprising.
Bit off-topic, isn’t it?[/quote]
I don’t know. I mean if ever there was a situation which cried out for a “no fly zone” or the ground-based version of it, present-day Darfur is it. That to me makes it relevant to any discussion of the pros and cons of establishing safe zones for civilians and whether or not “international law” means a flying f— in such a context.
Tigerman, how come there is a committee (House of Commons) addressing the question of legality if there is no issue of legality as you claim? Btw, this is a rethorical question, so no need to respond.
Anyhow, I am happy to conclude the matter based on fred’s agreement that the no-fly zones were illegal (but also morally just in his view).
Have a nice day.
And what happens when laws result in actions that are “illegal but legitimate and justified?” Usually, it is the law that gets changed to fit the reality on the ground especially when it serves justice and morality. It is not for the other parties to continue to demand that the now outdated or irrelevant or contradictory law continue to be upheld at all costs. Is that not the tradition in morality? law? justice?
And if the UN itself determines that such laws have resulted in “illegal but legitimate and justified” behavior and if this UN is the organization that most Anti-Americans and anti-Iraq invasion protesters look to, then I would imagine that they, too, would realize that continuing to debate the “legality” in the narrow sense is highly ridiculous. Ultimately, what is important? the Law? or Justice?
I notice that some posters have studiously refused to answer this question and I believe that we all know why. Let’s just consider that a tacit admission of their ultimately untenable position.
nytimes.com/2005/06/01/inter … m6uYdupKwA
Um so a democratically elected government has asked the UN to extend its mandate for the American-led forces.
How is this not multilateral and what is Germany’s problem? I still say the country is risk averse and irresponsible. Its glaring inconsistencies show that it is hardly eligible under the present leadership for a permanent seat in the UN. Until it acts in a more responsible manner and follows international law, it should be relegated to the sidelines where it so clearly wants to sit. Contrast its behavior with that of Japan which has sent troops despite its constitution and despite the dangers of providing security in Iraq.
Let’s look at the first UN resolution giving the US led forces a mandate in Iraq.
[quote]UNITED NATIONS - In a diplomatic victory for the United States, the 15-member Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution Thursday aimed at attracting more troops and money to stabilize Iraq and put it on the road to independence. The resolution authorizes a multinational military force in Iraq under a single command led by the United States, and calls for troop contributions and “substantial” financial pledges from the 191 U.N. member states.
In a joint statement after the council vote, [b]Germany, France and Russia said they would not commit troops because the resolution failed to give the United Nations a bigger role in Iraq
Bit off-topic, isn’t it?[/quote]
I don’t know. I mean if ever there was a situation which cried out for a “no fly zone” or the ground-based version of it, present-day Darfur is it. That to me makes it relevant to any discussion of the pros and cons of establishing safe zones for civilians and whether or not “international law” means a flying f— in such a context.[/quote]
The U.S. is the only country (worth mentioning) that wanted to bring this matter to the UNSC and impose economic sanctions. This plan (as usual) was stifled by FRANCE and Russia. I’ve said this before. Ths U.S. was also the country to declare the situation a “genocide.” The French and Russians have big oil deals in the works with the Sudanese government. Blame them instead of your usual scapegoat.
[quote]UN-Sicherheitsrat verl
C’mon, spook… according to Rascal, Bush had better not try anything with respect to the Sudan… after all, any action that insults the soveriegnty of that state would be a violation of “international law”…
I guess we just have to wait for the UN to do something about the suffering in the Sudan.
So what does that mean? You and I are also discussing the legality/illegality of the matter. So freaking what? What do you think will be the result of those discussions? NOTHING.
And I’m happy to conclude that you don’t have any clue as to what is going on.
C’mon, spook… according to Rascal, Bush had better not try anything with respect to the Sudan… after all, any action that insults the soveriegnty of that state would be a violation of “international law”…
I guess we just have to wait for the UN to do something about the suffering in the Sudan.[/quote]
You’re going to hate me for saying this, Tigerman, but the only thing with less practical significance and legitimacy than “international law” is a UN Security Council resolution.
The majority of them are completely ignored and those that are enforced are little more than a pretext. The whole system is a complete mockery.
It means you are wrong. Unless of course you can prove to us that the House of Commons is as clueless as you claim I am.
Yeah, sorry - not everyone can be as smart and knowledgable as you are. Is that also the reason why you often use snide remarks towards other posters, profanity and personal attacks rather than factual arguments?
Rascal:
You persist in looking at this too narrowly and it is obvious that you are trying desperately to square anything to fit your view of the facts.
-
The House of Commons can debate the illegality or legality of any war that they like. It is, however, only in reference to their participation and how they view their actions.
-
There is no book that the UN or House of Commons can go to and say, voila, here is the law and it has been broken. Or please show me which law, which code?
-
You have persisted in using UN resolutions when convenient for you. You have frequently insisted that the UN is the final arbiter of these kinds of issues and then you studiously ignore UN findings that show that similar such actions while “illegal” (in the UN’s eyes) are “legitimate and justified.” Again, the UN here is debating how it views the action but where is the international law that the UN is basing its determination on? Where?
-
I find it interesting that you persist in having such a high opinion of the UN when despite its findings that such actions are on paper “illegal” that they are in fact “legitimate and justified” and then the major actors refuse to do the right thing and change the law. When facing a matter of legality or justice, most enlightened societies adapt their laws to fit the new facts on the ground so that justice not adherence to the law is raised to the highest good.
-
Your UN is full of actors that are shall we say “unlawful” to say the least and these actors have committed many “illegal” such acts that they have not been able or willing to effectively police. Given that the membership of the UN consists of a number of nondemocratic actors that do not respect human rights, why the persistence in your view that only the UN can lead the way?
-
THEN, if you want to use the UN and insist on its relevance and primacy, then why are your nation, Russia and France not sending troops if the UN has given the US led action a mandate, and extended that mandate. In that mandate it calls for all 191 member nations to send financial and military support. What is your excuse for not complying with this UN mandate? Does only Germany get to pick and choose which UN mandates it will follow? Naturally, such a mandate is not binding but when such a specific request is made and given your lofty views of the UN, I thought you might insist that your nation jump to fulfill these requirements. Why not?
[quote=“fred smith”]
2. There is no book that the UN or House of Commons can go to and say, voila, here is the law and it has been broken. Or please show me which law, which code?[/quote]
"We the Peoples of the United Nations . . . establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and . . . Have Resolved to Combine our Efforts to Accomplish these Aims
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco . . . have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations."
[color=blue]The law which is violated in international disputes is the UN Charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory. The problem really is the primitive system for interpreting and administering this body of laws. There is no balance of powers, no review, no real due process or equal protection so the nations with the veto and the most power usurp the process to their own ends and nothing in the U.N. “legal system” can balance or challenge their power in the service of justice.
The U.N. Charter then is little more than legal window dressing for a “might makes right” system full of pomp and self-righteousness, signifying next to nothing.[/color]
I am no fan of the UN as you very well know Spook and I appreciate your insightful comments into the reality behind the, perhaps high-minded, attempts to set up some kind of international code of law. Clearly, however, the UN to a far lesser degree than many other such international organizations has failed to live up to these high-minded aims. Pretending that the UN is a worthy organization that has the best interests of global peace and security at mind is easily disproved when one examines how the Arab nations are able to gang up on Israel. The pack mentality going in for the kill is prevented only by the intercession of the US not even Europe and for this we are targeted and attacked. It would be akin to having all the gangsters and con artists sitting on the city council and giving them a vote on when and how police actions to enforce the law can be carried out. The ludicrous situation is made even more insane by the fanatic devotion that some seem to have for this termite infested edifice. The UN, the UN, the UN we always hear as if it has some kind of legal, moral or humanitarian sanctity. Better to stick with the one nation that has exhibited the most exemplary behavior on the world stage and that is the US. Scoffers may take the time to ponder any other actor or group of actors replacing the US as world policeman. Can anyone think of any one nation or group of nations that would act so fairly and magnanimously? I cannot. France? Germany? China? Russia? India? The Arab League? Organization of Africa Unity? Think of the possibilities for ending the present enlightened rule. The only true alternative would be the UK. I would accept that. It was after all the one nation that brought civilized rule of law and open markets to much of the world. Its systems were based on justice for all, fair play and magnanimity to a far greater degree than any other previous empire. Long live Britannia.
C’mon, spook… according to Rascal, Bush had better not try anything with respect to the Sudan… after all, any action that insults the soveriegnty of that state would be a violation of “international law”…
I guess we just have to wait for the UN to do something about the suffering in the Sudan.[/quote]
You’re going to hate me for saying this, Tigerman, but the only thing with less practical significance and legitimacy than “international law” is a UN Security Council resolution.
The majority of them are completely ignored and those that are enforced are little more than a pretext. The whole system is a complete mockery.[/quote]
Au contraire, mon ami. I agree with your statements above, completely.
You are proving that quite well all by yourself. You don’t need any help from me in this regard.
Tsk, tsk, Rascal. You have taken my comments the wrong way.
I am merely asserting that you are clueless with respect to this concept of “international law”, as you seem to believe that the same exists with respect to the matter of war and aggression between states and other actors. You continue to point to the UN as the arbitrator and or source of authority over such matters, when anyone with a clue can see obviously that the UN hasn’t an ounce of authority or credibility when it comes to regulating aggressive disputes between nations or even human rights abuses within national borders.
When all evidence and facts point to the undeniable conclusion that no such “international law” for regulating such matters of aggression between states exists, it is only the clueless who continue to claim the existance of Santa Claus.
Tigerman! There is no Santa Claus!
Well for those that believe in International Law, let’s just put them to the test. Give me the law book. Show me the law. The proof is in the pudding. (MFGResque inspired). Though perhaps I should have phrased that as: the proof is in the pudding so don’t pull out any plums on thumbs cause we’re in the no-spin zone. Denial ain’t a river in Egypt. Where is MFGR these days? Is he on vacation? It is getting downright boring without him around. Please MFGR come back.
[quote=“fred smith”]Tigerman! There is no Santa Claus!
Well for those that believe in International Law, let’s just put them to the test. Give me the law book. Show me the law. The proof is in the pudding.[/quote]
Charter of the International Military Tribunal
August 8, 1945
ARTICLE 1
In pursuance of the Agreement signed on the 8th day of August 1945 by the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, there shall be established an International Military Tribunal for the just and prompt trial and punishment of major war criminals . . .
ARTICLE 6
. . . The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:
(a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
(b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
Hermann Wilhelm Goering:
Count I: Indicted / Convicted
Count II: Indicted / Convicted
Count III: Indicted / Convicted
Count IV: Indicted / Convicted
Sentenced to: Death by hanging
Spook:
Thanks for once again pointing out that Germany has been an irresponsible world citizen for much of its history. When the UK, US and France have chosen to work together, we have been able to a far greater degree and with much more efficiency to judge the Germans and find them wanting. Now, how do you propose that we make these policies applicable to Fischer and Schroeder?