»A war based on gassing Kurds is unjustified«
|
|||
 Was the war in Iraq legal? Prior to the war, Iraq was described as a sovereign state Quote: A sovereign state is often described as one that is free and independent. In its internal affairs it has undivided jurisdiction over all persons and property within its territory. It claims the right to regulate its economic life without regard for its neighbors and to increase armaments without limit. No other nation may rightfully interfere in its domestic affairs . In its external relations it claims the right to enforce its own conception of rights and to declare war.
This description of a sovereign state is denied, however, by those who assert that international law is binding. Because states are limited by treaties and international obligations and are not legally permitted by the United Nations Charter to commit aggression at will , they argue that the absolute freedom of a sovereign state is, and should be, a thing of the past. In current international practice this view is generally accepted. The United Nations is today considered the principal organ for restraining the exercise of sovereignty. So we have two viewpoints. 1) A sovereign state has the right to do what it wants within it's own borders 2) Soverign freedom is overruled by International Law The second is the most common one, but prevents "agression at will" So if you agree with the former, Saddam was not subject to U.S. Morality lessons, however the U.S. is ok declaring war. Dissagreement over "internal domestic affairs" is not a valid justification for war in this case. If you go with the latter, Saddam is accountable for "human rights violations" under international law, however any U.S. war without U.N. Approval is deemed illegal. Which ever way you look at it, a U.S. attack on "human rights" grounds not backed by the U.N. is unjustified and possibly illegal. And if a war is illegal, do the rules of war still apply? posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsPolitics and Crime (Assorted topics)A war based on gassing Kurds is unjustified |
|
|||
 Quote: Soverign freedom is overruled by International Law Except in the US. The Supreme court ruled that international law is not stronger than local law, in cases where both collide. Quote: Actually Bush himself stated that the 9/11 attack was not terrorism. How wishy-washy the terms "terrorism" and "war" (and thus "terrorist" and "soldier") can be easily seen in George W. Bush's own words: He started to condemn 9/11 as an "act of terror" but then his advisers told him, that if that is "terrorism" then he cannot bomb a whole country. Instead he has to apply _police_ rules. So he quickly changed his message to "Act of war" and that was that. posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: Quote: Soverign freedom is overruled by International Law Except in the US. The Supreme court ruled that international law is not stronger than local law, in cases where both collide. So applying the same to Iraq... If Saddam decides that Gassing Kurds is Legal in his country but International Law says it's not, then these Laws conflict. Since Saddam's Law is the local one, then by the U.S. Supreme court's interpretation, it takes presedence and Gassing Kurds is perfectly legal in Iraq. Furthermore, since the Supreme court ruling recognises a state's sovereign rights, it should also accept that (As part of those rights) the Internal Affairs of Iraq are no business of the U.S. since "No other nation may rightfully interfere in its domestic affairs". Making a War based on Gassing Kurds Unjustified. (PC Bullshit Disclaimer - My use of "Gassing Kurds" as an example neither supports nor condones this action, neither does is suggest or imply that this ever did or did not happen  )
posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: Making a War based on Gassing Kurds Unjustified. Well, I would not overstrain this Saddam example. Saddam was not SUDDENLY attacked by the US. Saddam had a history and UN warned him. It is true however, that Bush could commit illegal acts and the world couldn't do anything against it, because Bush is an official president. Please keep in mind, that the higher you get, the less laws are applied. Bush could suddenly start to arrest ALL Arabs in the US, and the worst thing that could happen to him is that the US Supreme court says: "Please stop it". Then Bush could call out a "State of war" and that would be it. There is one loophole however: As soon as Bush is not president anymore he can be prosecuted (even by other countries). That is the reason why former officials (e.g. Kissinger) always ask whether they are wanted in foreign countries, before making a trip to them. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: Bush could suddenly start to arrest ALL Arabs in the US Yeah, but then they might ask for their $200 Billion back
posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: Yeah, but then they might ask for their $200 Billion back Whatever. Bush personally will not be affected. There are simply less and less laws the higher you get. Practically all laws are against small dudes (p2p can bring you into prison, while killing thousands let's you shake hands with political VIPs) posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
 Register Log in |
The time now is 23 May 2012, 07:35 php B.B. |