Planetarion Forums

Emperorn · 20 Mar 2003, 19:14

Quote:

Published on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 by the Toronto Star
Attack on Iraq Could Turn Bush into Criminal
by Thomas Walkom

There are many good reasons for Canada's decision not to join U.S. President George W. Bush's war against Iraq. The best is that such a war would be patently illegal.

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien hinted at this yesterday when he told Parliament that Canada would not support a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq because the U.N. Security Council has not authorized such an attack.

What he did not say, perhaps because he is too polite, is that in waging war without U.N. authorization, the U.S. and its ragtag "coalition of the willing" are putting themselves outside the boundaries of international law.

Or, to put it bluntly, they are transforming themselves into outlaw states.

"There is no legal basis for war," says Ted McWhinney, a former Liberal MP, professor and expert on international law. "None. That was clear from the beginning."

That the very nations which spearheaded efforts to rein in an outlaw state should themselves become outlaws is a rich, if tragic, irony. It will be appreciated as such in most countries, although possibly not in the U.S. where irony, like French toast, has been declared unpatriotic.

Yet this is what has happened. Iraq, a country that for 12 years did defy and obstruct the international community, is now seen by much of the world as a helpless victim. Even the villainous Saddam Hussein is viewed almost — almost — sympathetically.

The two men most responsible for this remarkable turnaround in world public opinion are Saddam and Bush.

Saddam's strategy was simple. When faced with pressure, he did what the Security Council told him to do. In the language of the U.N., he complied.

By contrast, Bush appeared capricious, arrogant and ever so slightly unhinged. The more Saddam complied, the more Bush complained that he wasn't. The more successes the U.N. weapons inspectors scored in their disarmament of Iraq, the more petulant Bush became.

Eventually, even those people who don't pay a great deal of attention to world affairs began to wonder which of the two was the madman.

Indeed, Bush's behaviour is difficult to fathom. For more than a year, he has seemed bent on invading Iraq, no matter what. Perhaps this single-minded focus on war explains his striking inability to win diplomatic support from the usually pliable members of the Security Council, most of whom are eager for American dollars. In the end, Bush couldn't even be sure of Mexico.

Which is why yesterday, the U.S., British and Spanish abandoned efforts to have the Security Council pass a resolution authorizing war. They now say they don't need one to invade Iraq legally. In fact, they do. Among experts, the overwhelming consensus seems to be that there is no legal authorization for an Iraq war.

Certainly, last fall's Security Council resolution 1441, the one that the U.S. cites to justify its actions, does not do the trick. Contrary to the common wisdom, it does not even threaten Iraq with "serious consequences" for non-compliance. It merely "recalls" that the council has warned of such consequences before.

Even Britain recognizes that resolution 1441 is a week reed. It insists that war is implicitly authorized by Security Council resolutions 678 and 687, both of which date from the early 1990s.

Nonsense, says McWhinney. Security Council resolutions are specific to time and place; they cannot be dragged out years later to justify unilateral actions.

"No country alone can be judge, jury and high executioner."

Besides, writes British lawyer Keir Starmer, the earlier Security Council resolutions don't quite work, either. Resolution 678 (1990) did authorize military action but only to force Iraq to abandon its occupation of Kuwait. And resolution 687 (1991), which established the ceasefire at the end of the first Gulf War, doesn't authorize force at all.

All of this is important in the context of the U.N. system set up by the U.S. and its allies after World War II to prevent war. Under the U.N. Charter, it is a crime for any nation to make war, except in self-defence or with the explicit approval of the council. Anyone in any country that makes war outside of these conditions is breaking international law.

This is not to suggest that Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are about to be bundled into police vans — although there are precedents. Bush had foresight enough to refuse to recognize the new international war crimes court that is being set up in Holland. In any case, it's tough to arrest a man surrounded by nuclear weapons.

Still, says McWhinney, Bush — and indeed anyone involved in an illegal invasion of Iraq — would be wise to stay out of Belgium. That small country has aggressively pursued war criminals, arguing that it has the right to try them under its domestic law.

Theoretically, Bush could find himself sharing a Brussels cell with that other notorious international outlaw, Saddam Hussein.

USA an outlaw state, how about that huh? Canada is cool, and no matter what you duchies say so is Belgium.

(No, there are not enough Iraq threads in this forum yet).

Pyr0 MK III · 20 Mar 2003, 19:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Emperorn
Canada is cool, and no matter what you duchies say so is Belgium.

Marilyn Manson · 20 Mar 2003, 19:17

International law has generally always been a cloudy area.

Emperorn · 20 Mar 2003, 19:35

But perhaps this means we can expect Bush to cut down on his visits to Europe in the future.

And how about Blair, I mean he kind of has to visit Brüssels. It would certainly be an interesting, if somewhat awkward turn of events if one EU member tried the sitting prime minister of another for war-crimes.

Sandsnake · 20 Mar 2003, 20:02

The UN would dissolve before either the UK or US were declared Outlaw states. Without them, the UN's ability to do ANYTHING is shot into the toilet.

Also, the fact that technically, what is occurring IS legal since there was no resolution against war (the US or UK could veto any such resolution anyway) but every UN resolution has authorized "dire consequences" and Iraq has been repeatedly proven in non-compliance of previous resolutions.

The fact was the coalition didn't NEED UN approval to begin with, but rather wanted it. An option that France negated with their "under no circumstances" stance.

Sandsnake · 20 Mar 2003, 20:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Emperorn
But perhaps this means we can expect Bush to cut down on his visits to Europe in the future.

And how about Blair, I mean he kind of has to visit Brüssels. It would certainly be an interesting, if somewhat awkward turn of events if one EU member tried the sitting prime minister of another for war-crimes.

Any attempt to arrest the US or UK leaders would probably lead to a VERY nasty situation. The US already has laws in place concerning such an occurence, and I highly doubt that the UK would allow their PM to be siezed without their consent.

Deffeh · 20 Mar 2003, 20:13

im not sure i see the point in the "veto" system

Can anyone "in the know" explain to me why it was implemented?

Emperorn · 20 Mar 2003, 20:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Deffeh
im not sure i see the point in the "veto" system

Can anyone "in the know" explain to me why it was implemented?

Because otherwise we would not have a UN at all. There was no way in hell the "Great Powers" were going to join the UN if it meant having a bunch of tiny-ass nations telling them what to do.

Emperorn · 20 Mar 2003, 20:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandsnake
Any attempt to arrest the US or UK leaders would probably lead to a VERY nasty situation. The US already has laws in place concerning such an occurence, and I highly doubt that the UK would allow their PM to be siezed without their consent.

Yes, sadly we can all recollect the "The Hague Invasion Act". But did you not say it was just for show, that the US would never actually invade Europe?

edit\. Did you not read the part in the article about how the resolutions do not authorize the war? If not, please do so. If the US and Britain actually believed they did they would not have pushed so hard for a new resolution.

And to become an outlaw you don't have to be specifically condemned, just breaking the law is enough.

Sandsnake · 20 Mar 2003, 20:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Emperorn
Yes, sadly we can all recollect the "The Hague Invasion Act". But did you not say it was just for show, that the US would never actually invade Europe?

highly unlikely to ever occur, as is the US being declared outlaw. I'm just pointing out that anyone attempting to arrest our president on a diplomatic visit to europe would find themselves in a very uncomforable place.

I said that the US doesn't make it's laws UN style. Vague claims don't work here, and never will. We lay down exactly what can be done so that the law is clear in it's limits. Where the UN says "Dire consequences," the US would put "by whatever means necessary." In essence, what this means is that jumping on the "OH NOOOOES! TEH US IS GOING TO INVADE THE HAGUE!" bandwagon is going WAAAAAAAY too far. We, however, set things into law when we make a decision. If we choose to not recognize an international institution, we must lay down clear guidelines on how we would react if such an institution was forced on us. Our laws have teeth so that they are effective, it also makes sure that there are limits set. Vague statements allow decision makers a completely free hand. (lo and behold, we're looking at exactly that problem right now)

Emperorn · 20 Mar 2003, 20:32

I added some stuff to the previous post, feel free to reply to it aswell

JonnyBGood · 20 Mar 2003, 20:32

But according to the Kellog-Briand pact war was outlawed in 1928 anyways lol.

PS Belgium has the right to try international war criminals and other nations don't. eh? If I buy myself the "colossal book of made up international law" does this mean I can try war criminals? If so where can I sign up?

Emperorn · 20 Mar 2003, 20:35

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
PS Belgium has the right to try international war criminals and other nations don't. eh? If I buy myself the "colossal book of made up international law" does this mean I can try war criminals? If so where can I sign up?

I think you have to get some sort of law degree first. And then be appointed judge in a court of some sorts. After that I think you could have a go at it! (But you might get invaded I think i should warn you).

Sandsnake · 20 Mar 2003, 20:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Emperorn
(But you might get invaded I think i should warn you).

Jonny likes being "invaded"

Emperorn · 20 Mar 2003, 20:41

I actually saw that one coming, honest!!!

JonnyBGood · 20 Mar 2003, 20:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandsnake
Jonny likes being "invaded"

Only a Saturday and not by OLD BALDING MEN.

PS What if I set up my own country (whose territory is on Pluto), give myself a law degree, appoint myself judge and try them in absentia or whatever the correct legal phraseology (what a made up word that is heh) actually is.

Sandsnake · 20 Mar 2003, 20:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Emperorn
edit\. Did you not read the part in the article about how the resolutions do not authorize the war? If not, please do so. If the US and Britain actually believed they did they would not have pushed so hard for a new resolution.

As vermillion stated yesterday, this is actually up for debate. The UN resolutions were so vague that it could be argued that it allowed war, but also be argued that it didn't specifically authorize it.

The reason they wanted the resolution was because popular opinion was that they would support the war with complete UN authorization (a new resolution). It was a popularity play and an attempt to curry support from the general population of various fence-sitters. France killed it, so they decided they would go ahead without.

The fact remains that their ultimate responsibilities were not to the UN and not even to their own popularity. At the end, they have to do what they think is the right thing regardless of the consequences.

Emperorn · 20 Mar 2003, 20:46

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
PS What if I set up my own country (whose territory is on Pluto), give myself a law degree, appoint myself judge and try them in absentia or whatever the correct legal phraseology (what a made up word that is heh) actually is.

That could work, but I think you would have to actually hold the trial on Pluto for it to be legal. Is that a problem? Oh, and I think you need at least one other country, preferably someone important, to recognize this country of yours.

JonnyBGood · 20 Mar 2003, 20:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandsnake
As vermillion stated yesterday, this is actually up for debate. The UN resolutions were so vague that it could be argued that it allowed war, but also be argued that it didn't specifically authorize it.

The reason they wanted the resolution was because popular opinion was that they would support the war with complete UN authorization (a new resolution). It was a popularity play and an attempt to curry support from the general population of various fence-sitters. France killed it, so they decided they would go ahead without.

The fact remains that their ultimate responsibilities were not to the UN and not even to their own popularity. At the end, they have to do what they think is the right thing regardless of the consequences.

UN resolutions are usually intentionally vague so that they can be reinterpreted at later stages if that should so prove necessary. I think in this case the only way that unanimous support was attained was by leaving the wording vague enough so that both sides could be argued effectively and in fact neither one could claim to be wholly and only supported by the resolution. Of couse the UN probably didn't imagine that someone could ignore their system and decide themselves.

JonnyBGood · 20 Mar 2003, 20:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Emperorn
That could work, but I think you would have to actually hold the trial on Pluto for it to be legal. Is that a problem? Oh, and I think you need at least one other country, preferably someone important, to recognize this country of yours.

Don't foist your fascist objections on me commie.

Emperorn · 20 Mar 2003, 20:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandsnake
As vermillion stated yesterday, this is actually up for debate. The UN resolutions were so vague that it could be argued that it allowed war, but also be argued that it didn't specifically authorize it.

The fact remains that their ultimate responsibilities were not to the UN and not even to their own popularity. At the end, they have to do what they think is the right thing regardless of the consequences.

If the intent was to specifically allow a war, surely it should have said so. And if an organisation requires a majority to make a decision, surely the interpretetion of the decision reached should be what the majority of said organisation thinks it has decided?.

Also, as the article states: "Security Council resolutions are specific to time and place; they cannot be dragged out years later to justify unilateral actions".

Their ultimate responsibility was to not throw the international community into a state of Jungle Law. A new resolution was definitively needed to justify this war.

Sub · 20 Mar 2003, 22:18

Even if they are an outlaw state, who can do anything about it?

Emperorn · 20 Mar 2003, 23:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Sub
Even if they are an outlaw state, who can do anything about it?

I firmly believe BELGIUM will do what is right and needs to be done while the other countries of the world sit on their cowardly asses, only concerned about their business interests in the United states!

xtrasyn · 21 Mar 2003, 08:47

Land of justice ptoooie

US administration sucks and if I was able to leave this planet I would.

I hope I donṫ meet an al quaida member soon. I'd easily be talked into joining.

The ENTIRE world except US UK and some countries liek Bulgary (?!) are opposed and still you do it so Amoco can drill.

I so hate you.

Sandsnake · 21 Mar 2003, 09:15

You forgot australia.

Oh and there are german troops present as well (shocking, isn't it?)

xtrasyn · 21 Mar 2003, 09:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandsnake
You forgot australia.

Oh and there are german troops present as well (shocking, isn't it?)

What are they doing?

Sandsnake · 21 Mar 2003, 09:41

Quote:

Originally posted by xtrasyn
What are they doing?

Australia is supplying full military support, Germany is supplying NBC units.

xtrasyn · 21 Mar 2003, 09:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandsnake
Australia is supplying full military support, Germany is supplying NBC units.

Then Australia too has committed a crime against humanity in name of the war on terrorism that has more to do with economy than we want.

Sandsnake · 21 Mar 2003, 10:17

Quote:

Originally posted by xtrasyn
Then Australia too has committed a crime against humanity in name of the war on terrorism that has more to do with economy than we want.

and the entire world committed a crime against humanity by not stopping this bastard the first time, or how about when he first started using the mustard gas on civilians? Or what about the african continent?

You don't act, you're guilty. You act, you're guilty. Which is it? or can we simply accept the fact that the world isn't black and white, that in an external sense, even the US cannot handle every situation so it must pick and choose, and that the UN is/was complete and utter toss.

wu_trax · 21 Mar 2003, 12:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandsnake
highly unlikely to ever occur, as is the US being declared outlaw. I'm just pointing out that anyone attempting to arrest our president on a diplomatic visit to europe would find themselves in a very uncomforable place.

i hope someone shoots him if he should ever come here again.

Quote:

I said that the US doesn't make it's laws UN style. Vague claims don't work here, and never will. We lay down exactly what can be done so that the law is clear in it's limits. Where the UN says "Dire consequences," the US would put "by whatever means necessary." In essence, what this means is that jumping on the "OH NOOOOES! TEH US IS GOING TO INVADE THE HAGUE!" bandwagon is going WAAAAAAAY too far. We, however, set things into law when we make a decision. If we choose to not recognize an international institution, we must lay down clear guidelines on how we would react if such an institution was forced on us. Our laws have teeth so that they are effective, it also makes sure that there are limits set. Vague statements allow decision makers a completely free hand. (lo and behold, we're looking at exactly that problem right now)

what problem? 'serious concequences' do not mean 'war' therefore this was is illeagal and violates the un-carta, this means Bush is a war criminal, jsut like saddam. end of story.
he should be trialed in den haag, not in belgiuum though.

wu_trax · 21 Mar 2003, 12:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandsnake
Oh and there are german troops present as well (shocking, isn't it?)

in kuwait and turkey, not in iraq.

21 Mar 2003, 14:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandsnake
Australia is supplying full military support, Germany is supplying NBC units.

those units are there since 18 moths and have nothing to do with your mad attack against iraq!

21 Mar 2003, 14:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandsnake
and the entire world committed a crime against humanity by not stopping this bastard the first time, or how about when he first started using the mustard gas on civilians? Or what about the african continent?

You don't act, you're guilty. You act, you're guilty. Which is it? or can we simply accept the fact that the world isn't black and white, that in an external sense, even the US cannot handle every situation so it must pick and choose, and that the UN is/was complete and utter toss.

no, the bush administration is a complete and utter toss for not listening to the whole world and start an illegal preemptive strike against a country that was in no way any threat to them.

Sandsnake · 21 Mar 2003, 17:53

Quote:

Originally posted by wu_trax
what problem? 'serious concequences' do not mean 'war' therefore this was is illeagal and violates the un-carta, this means Bush is a war criminal, jsut like saddam. end of story.
he should be trialed in den haag, not in belgiuum though.

They don't NOT mean war either, and that's the problem.

W · 21 Mar 2003, 18:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandsnake
They don't NOT mean war either, and that's the problem.

Do the many UN humanitarian resolutions that do not mean war justify war too?

Do we have a right to attack the US, because the UN stand on organized crime in no way forbids invading a sovereign nation?

IMO you should stick with the "The UN has no authority over us" line and forget trying to convince people your intepretation of their rules are the one that counts. The UN rules is against ALL war, that is not for direct defence, or specifically sanctioned by the security council. There has not been any specific sanction of agressive war. This war is against UN rules.

Texan · 22 Mar 2003, 05:32

I intend to "Invade Amsterdam" before I return to the land of the brave and home of the free.:eek: