Post by: MechAg94 on September 19, 2008, 05:29:56 AM
Some people just won't let it go. Do any of our New England members know if this person is likely to get elected?
Quote
BURLINGTON, Vt. - Lots of political candidates make campaign promises. But not like Charlotte Dennett's.
ADVERTISEMENT
Dennett, 61, the Progressive Party's candidate for Vermont Attorney General, said Thursday she will prosecute President Bush for murder if she's elected Nov. 4.
Dennett, an attorney and investigative journalist, says Bush must be held accountable for the deaths of thousands of people in Iraq U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians. She believes the Vermont attorney general would have jurisdiction to do so.
She also said she would appoint a special prosecutor and already knows who that should be: former Los Angeles prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, the author of "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder," a new book.
"Someone has to step forward," said Dennett, flanked by Bugliosi at a news conference announcing her plan. "Someone has to say we cannot put up with this lack of accountability any more."
Dennett and two others are challenging incumbent Attorney General William Sorrell, a Democrat, in the Nov. 4 election.
Bugliosi, 74, who gained fame as the prosecutor of killer Charles Manson, said any state attorney general would have jurisdiction since Bush committed "overt acts" including the military's recruitment of soldiers in Vermont and allegedly lying about the threat posed by former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in speeches that were aired in Vermont and elsewhere.
"No man, even the president of the United States, is above the law," said Bugliosi.
The White House press office didn't respond to a request for comment Thursday. But Republican National Committee spokesman Blair Latoff denounced Dennett.
"It's extremely disappointing that a candidate for state attorney general is more concerned with radical left-wing provocation than upholding the law of Vermont," Latoff said. "These incendiary suggestions may score points among the most fringe elements of American society, but can't be settling for anyone looking for an attorney general."
Anti-Bush sentiment runs deep in Vermont. It's the only state Bush hasn't visited as president, and one whose liberal tendencies make it unlikely he will.
In 2007, the state Senate adopted a resolution calling for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Last March, the towns of Brattleboro and Marlboro voted to seek indictments against Bush and Cheney over the war, and dozens of other towns voted at town meetings to call for his impeachment.
Sorrell, who is seeking a sixth term, said he doesn't believe a Vermont attorney general would have the authority to charge Bush.
"The reality is, in my view, that unless the crime takes place in Vermont, then I as the attorney general have no authority under Vermont law to be prosecuting the president," Sorrell said.
ADVERTISEMENT
Dennett, 61, the Progressive Party's candidate for Vermont Attorney General, said Thursday she will prosecute President Bush for murder if she's elected Nov. 4.
Dennett, an attorney and investigative journalist, says Bush must be held accountable for the deaths of thousands of people in Iraq U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians. She believes the Vermont attorney general would have jurisdiction to do so.
She also said she would appoint a special prosecutor and already knows who that should be: former Los Angeles prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, the author of "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder," a new book.
"Someone has to step forward," said Dennett, flanked by Bugliosi at a news conference announcing her plan. "Someone has to say we cannot put up with this lack of accountability any more."
Dennett and two others are challenging incumbent Attorney General William Sorrell, a Democrat, in the Nov. 4 election.
Bugliosi, 74, who gained fame as the prosecutor of killer Charles Manson, said any state attorney general would have jurisdiction since Bush committed "overt acts" including the military's recruitment of soldiers in Vermont and allegedly lying about the threat posed by former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in speeches that were aired in Vermont and elsewhere.
"No man, even the president of the United States, is above the law," said Bugliosi.
The White House press office didn't respond to a request for comment Thursday. But Republican National Committee spokesman Blair Latoff denounced Dennett.
"It's extremely disappointing that a candidate for state attorney general is more concerned with radical left-wing provocation than upholding the law of Vermont," Latoff said. "These incendiary suggestions may score points among the most fringe elements of American society, but can't be settling for anyone looking for an attorney general."
Anti-Bush sentiment runs deep in Vermont. It's the only state Bush hasn't visited as president, and one whose liberal tendencies make it unlikely he will.
In 2007, the state Senate adopted a resolution calling for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Last March, the towns of Brattleboro and Marlboro voted to seek indictments against Bush and Cheney over the war, and dozens of other towns voted at town meetings to call for his impeachment.
Sorrell, who is seeking a sixth term, said he doesn't believe a Vermont attorney general would have the authority to charge Bush.
"The reality is, in my view, that unless the crime takes place in Vermont, then I as the attorney general have no authority under Vermont law to be prosecuting the president," Sorrell said.
Post by: 209 on September 19, 2008, 05:39:34 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on September 19, 2008, 05:50:34 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on September 19, 2008, 06:42:27 AM
Quote
Anti-Bush sentiment runs deep in Vermont Brat-boro.
Post by: RevDisk on September 19, 2008, 06:47:49 AM
Some people just won't let it go. Do any of our New England members know if this person is likely to get elected?
Not a big chance. But VT also elected a self-proclaimed Socialist to the Senate.
Post by: HankB on September 19, 2008, 07:45:14 AM
This sort of thing - criminalizing politics - was a contributor to the decline and fall of the Roman republic.
Post by: K Frame on September 19, 2008, 08:06:18 AM
I doubt if there's a Federal court in the land that would uphold a state arrest warrant of this kind.
So, I think we'll just file this under "Blustery Idiot."
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 19, 2008, 08:27:50 AM
So, I think we'll just file this under "Blustery Idiot."
Oh no you don't. We booted her out of the club a long time ago.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 19, 2008, 09:20:21 AM
Post by: Balog on September 19, 2008, 01:47:26 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on September 19, 2008, 04:03:20 PM
Post by: MrRezister on September 19, 2008, 04:16:25 PM
Post by: taurusowner on September 19, 2008, 06:31:42 PM
Post by: MrRezister on September 19, 2008, 07:24:15 PM
Post by: French G. on September 19, 2008, 08:25:28 PM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on September 20, 2008, 12:45:39 PM
Another attempt by the Left to criminalize politics they don't agree with.
This sort of thing - criminalizing politics - was a contributor to the decline and fall of the Roman republic.
This sort of thing - criminalizing politics - was a contributor to the decline and fall of the Roman republic.
Exactly, if folks think the desperate attempts to retain power are bad now, imagine if you could go to prison simply for losing a race and becoming vulnerable to misuse of the courts.
"'insert title' for Life" anyone?
Post by: De Selby on September 20, 2008, 04:16:30 PM
Another attempt by the Left to criminalize politics they don't agree with.
This sort of thing - criminalizing politics - was a contributor to the decline and fall of the Roman republic.
This sort of thing - criminalizing politics - was a contributor to the decline and fall of the Roman republic.
Of course the right has never done that-all those anti-communist witch hunts were conducted by flaming leftists, and all the calls to "throw all the america haters in guantanamo" or to try the New York times for treason come from Naderites.
Illegal warfare is a serious matter, and it has been considered criminal in every western legal system for a good 500 years at minimum.
The political dimension here is more of identity than of substance as it pertains to the proposed prosecution-people who self identify as liberal are far more likely to see the war on Iraq as an illegal one than people who identify as conservative.
But certainly right wing elements accept the idea of criminalizing warfare-look at what they were saying when Saddam was hung, and look at what they are calling for with respect to the terror supporting states.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on September 20, 2008, 08:44:49 PM
That's not an "apples to apples", and criminalizing politics (not warfare) is wrong no matter who does it.
What the VT prosecutor is talking about is charging Bush, not for his command decisions during the war, but for her view of his decision-making process leading up to it.
War crimes under international law cover actions taken during a war, they don't weigh in on the rational involved in making the decision to go to war.
By definition, the war was legitimate (setting aside subjective right and wrong) as it was voted on in Congress and was justified under any number of violated UN resolutions, acknowledged at the time by the Security Council, completely separate from the claimed connections to 9/11 or fears of WMD.
The only people who can legitimately protest about any claimed lies in getting their authorization is Congress itself via the impeachment process, or teh Security Council under theirs, both of which have declined to do so.
So, we aren't talking about criminalizing warfare, but rather criminalizing decisions the political opposition disagrees with, after they come into power, after a legal handover of said power.
That cannot happen and preserve the Republic.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 20, 2008, 08:48:27 PM
Quote
War crimes under international law cover actions taken during a war, they don't weigh in on the rational involved in making the decision to go to war.
Actually, planning or starting a war of aggression is a war crime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_peace
Post by: De Selby on September 20, 2008, 09:08:30 PM
By definition, the war was legitimate (setting aside subjective right and wrong) as it was voted on in Congress and was justified under any number of violated UN resolutions, acknowledged at the time by the Security Council, completely separate from the claimed connections to 9/11 or fears of WMD.
That is a summary of the Government's legal argument in favor of the war, but it is a hotly disputed interpretation. Most commentators previous to this war had maintained that the Security Council was the only actor that could a) Determine with finality that a SC resolution had been violated and b) Authorize force on the basis of a SC resolution. Added to that, there were the basic UN principles regarding the threat or use of force, so it was even arguable that the Security Council could legally sanction a war without there being some act of war, even if the target nation were violating Security Council resolutions.
The claims of lies would not be terribly relevant to a prosecution under that theory; rather, the claimed facts (irrespective of the representations to the public) that Iraq did not attack the US and was not in a position to imminently attack it, and that the President prosecuted a war in the absence of Security Council authorization, would serve as the basis for a charge of "war of aggression"....as Micro cited above.
Post by: tokugawa on September 20, 2008, 09:10:46 PM
Post by: De Selby on September 20, 2008, 09:11:33 PM
I have never heard of a war of non -aggression. Seems like they all involve a lot of aggression.
It means "not in self defense."
Post by: Matthew Carberry on September 20, 2008, 09:17:01 PM
In any event, that is irrelevent to the larger domestic issue of, absent Congress indicting the President for a crime, we cannot allow a party taking power to post facto declare any conduct by a previous administration criminal. However good the intentions, to do so will inevitably lead to parties refusing to give up power in fear of becoming vulnerable to sanctions.
When treason, and thus death, is on the line, they will kill to retain power and be fools not to.
If you want your government to find a current administration's actions criminal, they need to do it at the time and through existing channels, not via some jumped up local contrarian taking non-existant powers into their own hands after the fact.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 21, 2008, 01:59:50 PM
I have never heard of a war of non -aggression. Seems like they all involve a lot of aggression.
It means "not in self defense."
shoot the thinking amongst the japanese leadership was that pearl harbor was "self defence"
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 21, 2008, 02:24:43 PM
I have never heard of a war of non -aggression. Seems like they all involve a lot of aggression.
It means "not in self defense."
shoot the thinking amongst the japanese leadership was that pearl harbor was "self defence"
I'd like you to provide a source for that claim.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 21, 2008, 02:38:15 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 21, 2008, 02:44:33 PM
Japan Favors War with America
U. S. Places Trade Embargo Against Japan
? Mary Trotter Kion
Nov 23, 2006
Hanauma Bay, Oahu, Hawaii, Brodebund? ClickArt 750,000
An embargo is placed on Japan by the United States, depriving her of much needed natural resources to carry on her war with China.
Prior to the December 7, 1941, bombing of Pearl Harbor, Oahu in the Hawaii Islands by Japan, that country had signed a Pact with Germany and Italy. Not only was the pact designed to expand Japan's industry but to allow Japan to carry on its ongoing assault on China for another three years.
This was the start of Japan's "special undeclared war with China." Shortly afterwards, on July 7, 1937, Chinese and Japanese forces clashed outside of Peking. This Japanese encroachment on China had been taking place long before 1936.
Japan in Need of Natural Resources
Basically, Japan, in order to expand her industry, need China's natural resources. By 1939, Europe's own move toward war all but halted Japan receiving any natural resources from that factor. Not only that, but also by this time Japan was going broke as her ongoing conflict with China was costing her some $5,000,000 a day.
United States Cuts Natural Resources to Japan
In 1940, as events heated up in Europe, the commercial treaty governing trade relations between the United States and Japan lapsed. From that time on, in Congress there were demands for a "total trade embargo against Japan." The result was that Japan was deprived of aviation fuel, scrap metal, and eventually copper and brass, then virtually every raw material of importance from America.
Japan Favors War with America
Needless to say this did not make the Japanese happy campers or look upon the United States with kindness because on July 21, 1941, the Japanese government "formally declared" that it was in favor of war with the United States of America.
i had the misfortune to be educated back when they taught history before the internet
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 21, 2008, 02:45:54 PM
Japan Negotiates and Prepares for Attack
? Mary Trotter Kion
Nov 24, 2006
Honolulu Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii, Brodebund? ClickArt 750,000
An embargo is place on Japan by the United States, depriving her of much needed natural resources to carry on her war with China.
Japan had now, in 1941, officially declared itself in favor of war with the United States in order to secure control of Southeast Asia. This, from their standpoint was necessary due to the embargo the United States had placed against Japan, cutting off this source of badly need natural resources. Japan had no choice now but to look toward China for these resources.
Negotiations to Life Embargo Continues
Negotiations were now underway between the Untied States and Japan to lift the embargo. America's price tag to Japan for removing the embargo was for Japan to evacuate China and French Indo-China. For Japan this would mean walking away from all she had gained since her invasion there had commenced in 1937. This prescription for peace between Japan and the United States was too much of a bitter pill for Japan to swallow.
Japan Chooses Official War Date
On September 4, 1941, Japan made the official decision for war to begin at the end of October. However, Japan continued her 'peace' negotiations with the United States. In part, these negotiations were being used as a cover-up for Japan's preparations for the war she would soon wage against America. It is also believed that these negotiations were, also in part, a genuine attempt to find peace.
As these negotiations dragged on in Washington D.C., and yet to be known by the Roosevelt administration, the Japanese embassy in Washington had received instructions to end their negotiations to the State Department at 1300 [1:00 p.m. civilian time in Washington] local time on December 7, 1941.
United States Guesses Wrong
Japan continued its negotiations with the United States and at the same time prepared for war with America. By now the United States was well alerted to the fact that they would be pulled into this conflict but at the same time the idea that its involvement would be triggered by a strike against her Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor was simply unimaginable. She was wrong, dead wrong.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 21, 2008, 02:46:28 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 21, 2008, 02:51:29 PM
Post by: Bigjake on September 21, 2008, 05:34:17 PM
its hard for a westerner to understand the japanese mindset. all that polite hides aggresion thats quite remarkable
James Bradley has a book addressing that. Flyboys. Good read.
Post by: De Selby on September 21, 2008, 06:43:48 PM
What a nation's leaders believe or claim in statements won't protect them from prosecution.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 21, 2008, 07:07:37 PM
Post by: De Selby on September 21, 2008, 07:09:58 PM
japan lost if they had not truman woulda hung as a war criminal but then again had the war of northern aggression ended differently sherman woulda met a similar fate. its most important to win wars
ain't that the truth...seriously
Post by: K Frame on September 21, 2008, 07:21:28 PM
Post by: RevDisk on September 21, 2008, 08:47:36 PM
its hard for a westerner to understand the japanese mindset. all that polite hides aggresion thats quite remarkable
My uncle worked as a linguist in Japan and married a local. Mess with their racial superiority complex and see how "polite" they are. They moved back to the US when their kids hit school age.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 21, 2008, 08:50:51 PM
though folks here were not all cool either
wasn't legal for mom and dad to be married in md till i was 5.made me a tad mean kid
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 21, 2008, 08:57:13 PM
It's always amazed me that after the War of Southern Stupidity there was only one individual hanged for war crimes...
who would you have hanged?
besides mary surrat
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 21, 2008, 10:04:15 PM
its hard for a westerner to understand the japanese mindset. all that polite hides aggresion thats quite remarkable
James Bradley has a book addressing that. Flyboys. Good read.
I have a book titled "Zero!", IIRC, written post-war by two of te leaders of the Japanese air forces (a general and a designer). They write that many of the Japanese brass had serious misgivings about starting the war, FWIW.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 22, 2008, 02:45:39 AM
many of the military had been to the usa amongst the leadership there was a religous devine right concept that got em in trouble
Post by: Jeff B. on September 22, 2008, 03:52:37 AM
The liberal bent of the NE is obvious, and has been accelerating in the last 10 - 15 years, IMHO. I went to school in Maine, (5 year plan
) and have great memories of the state, but could not live there or in the NE due to the prevailing beliefs. With that, if they choose to follow what some call a "secular-progressive" lifestyle, that's great for them. For now, I am happy in Texas with its generally more conservative outlook.Jeff B.
Post by: roo_ster on September 22, 2008, 05:46:59 AM
By definition, the war was legitimate (setting aside subjective right and wrong) as it was voted on in Congress and was justified under any number of violated UN resolutions, acknowledged at the time by the Security Council, completely separate from the claimed connections to 9/11 or fears of WMD.
That is a summary of the Government's legal argument in favor of the war, but it is a hotly disputed interpretation.
Many folks still hotly dispute the spherical nature of earth, too. Doing so doesn't make "dissidents" out of "knuckleheads."
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 22, 2008, 06:19:17 AM
Quote
as it was voted on in Congress
This is different from Congress declaring war, technically.
Post by: De Selby on September 22, 2008, 08:04:58 AM
By definition, the war was legitimate (setting aside subjective right and wrong) as it was voted on in Congress and was justified under any number of violated UN resolutions, acknowledged at the time by the Security Council, completely separate from the claimed connections to 9/11 or fears of WMD.
That is a summary of the Government's legal argument in favor of the war, but it is a hotly disputed interpretation.
Many folks still hotly dispute the spherical nature of earth, too. Doing so doesn't make "dissidents" out of "knuckleheads."
True, but the disputing party here would be the Government-before the Iraq war, there weren't any authorities who made the case that any nation could unilaterally enforce claimed violations of Security Council resolutions by means of a war.
Think about the catch 22 here: If no nation needs the UN to act before it can declare a war illegal, why can't any European country whose population hates Bush legally indict him for war crimes on that country's own position that Bush violated the laws of war?
If the Security Council needs to take action to declare that a violation of its rules has occurred, then the Iraq war was clearly illegal. And if it doesn't...then why can't some other nation levy charges against the US leadership, on the theory that any nation can individually enforce violations of UN resolutions and laws?
Post by: K Frame on September 22, 2008, 08:10:01 AM
It's always amazed me that after the War of Southern Stupidity there was only one individual hanged for war crimes...
who would you have hanged?
besides mary surrat
I didn't say that I would have hanged anyone.
But take a look at civil wars in other nations. The winners usually do a pretty good job of cleaning house of the losers.
Hell, the English executed their King after the end of their civil war.
Post by: roo_ster on September 22, 2008, 09:01:16 AM
By definition, the war was legitimate (setting aside subjective right and wrong) as it was voted on in Congress and was justified under any number of violated UN resolutions, acknowledged at the time by the Security Council, completely separate from the claimed connections to 9/11 or fears of WMD.
That is a summary of the Government's legal argument in favor of the war, but it is a hotly disputed interpretation.
Many folks still hotly dispute the spherical nature of earth, too. Doing so doesn't make "dissidents" out of "knuckleheads."
True, but the disputing party here would be the Government-before the Iraq war, there weren't any authorities who made the case that any nation could unilaterally enforce claimed violations of Security Council resolutions by means of a war.
Think about the catch 22 here: If no nation needs the UN to act before it can declare a war illegal, why can't any European country whose population hates Bush legally indict him for war crimes on that country's own position that Bush violated the laws of war?
If the Security Council needs to take action to declare that a violation of its rules has occurred, then the Iraq war was clearly illegal. And if it doesn't...then why can't some other nation levy charges against the US leadership, on the theory that any nation can individually enforce violations of UN resolutions and laws?
First off, you imbue the UN with more authority it has or merits. It has no real authority to more than talktalktalk. If it wants something done, it has to ask a nation-state to do it. For instance, it has condemned the Joos countless times in its existence and Israel still exists, as the UN can't get a nation-state to do anything about the nasty Joos. All it can do is assail the Joos with harsh language.
GHWB made the mistake of getting the UN on board for GWI and the UN & UN-o-philes have had delusions of relevance since then.
Second, sovereign nation-states can pass laws a their leisure. If they want to indict our political leaders, that is their prerogative. I am sure Iran, the Norks, and various and sundry other countries have done so already. A few more won't tilt the world upside-down.
They might not like the consequences, though, if they do try such shenanigans. An executive order here & there can make a government foolish enough to indict squeal* for uncle. If COTUS gets its back up, there might be even greater consequences. They will likely be cowardly and only indict after the official(s) are out of government.
Third, Iraq after GWI was defeated and signed a cease-fire agreement. Iraq then violated the cease-fire agreement every day and twice on Sundays. We needed no one's permission to go back and finish the job.
* Oh, so sorry, we are no longer granting visas for citizens of Indictastan. We also will not allow any of our military personnel into your country, even if you are NATO...BTW, we will be moving all our personnel currently stationed in your country to another country. We are also slowing down delivery of all those F35 JSFs your Air Farce wants. And spare parts for your older F16s. You mean you want access to your country's gold bullion reserves stored at Ft Knox? It can be moved only in the presence of one of your gov't oficials. Since we are no longer issuing visas...
Post by: De Selby on September 22, 2008, 04:56:27 PM
Quote
Third, Iraq after GWI was defeated and signed a cease-fire agreement. Iraq then violated the cease-fire agreement every day and twice on Sundays. We needed no one's permission to go back and finish the job.
Okay, this misses the entire point:
There are many national governments and other authorities that claim Bush violated the Geneva conventions, the UN Charter, and the Security Council resolution that was cited as authorization for war in Iraq.
If you don't need anyone's permission to punish a nation for violations of SC resolutions and other international law, how come another nation would be in the legal wrong to prosecute GW for these things?
The point here is that, if any nation can decide that another nation violated Security Council resolutions and then punish the violator of its own accord, how can you possibly claim that it would be illegal for a nation to do it to George Bush?
And if it's up to the Security Council and the UN to decide when a war was conducted in violation of its resolutions, before a member state can act on said violations....then what's the legal argument in support of the Iraq war?
Catch-22: If Bush acted legally (based on the legal arguments his administration advanced in support of the war), then a prosecution of GW Bush for violations of SC resolutions and the UN charter can be entirely legal. And if it's actually illegal for a nation to decide on its own when a violation of the SC resolutions/UN Charter/International law has occurred...then what's the argument in support of Iraq, again?
You seem to be arguing that the law doesn't matter-that's fine, but that isn't the Bush admin's position.
Post by: RevDisk on September 22, 2008, 05:03:32 PM
* Oh, so sorry, we are no longer granting visas for citizens of Indictastan. We also will not allow any of our military personnel into your country, even if you are NATO...BTW, we will be moving all our personnel currently stationed in your country to another country. We are also slowing down delivery of all those F35 JSFs your Air Farce wants. And spare parts for your older F16s. You mean you want access to your country's gold bullion reserves stored at Ft Knox? It can be moved only in the presence of one of your gov't oficials. Since we are no longer issuing visas...
Don't have a problem with your theoretical suggestions except for the last. Looting other country's gold reserves that we hold in trust is a bad idea.
Allow me to make a very simplified analogy. Would you put your own money in a bank that at will seized a customer's entire account on ideological cause? Even if the person whose funds were seized was ideologically different than you, what's to say the political leaning of the bank would not change in the future?
Post by: Matthew Carberry on September 22, 2008, 05:58:34 PM
By definition, the war was legitimate (setting aside subjective right and wrong) as it was voted on in Congress and was justified under any number of violated UN resolutions, acknowledged at the time by the Security Council, completely separate from the claimed connections to 9/11 or fears of WMD.
That is a summary of the Government's legal argument in favor of the war, but it is a hotly disputed interpretation.
Many folks still hotly dispute the spherical nature of earth, too. Doing so doesn't make "dissidents" out of "knuckleheads."
True, but the disputing party here would be the Government-before the Iraq war, there weren't any authorities who made the case that any nation could unilaterally enforce claimed violations of Security Council resolutions by means of a war.
Think about the catch 22 here: If no nation needs the UN to act before it can declare a war illegal, why can't any European country whose population hates Bush legally indict him for war crimes on that country's own position that Bush violated the laws of war?
If the Security Council needs to take action to declare that a violation of its rules has occurred, then the Iraq war was clearly illegal. And if it doesn't...then why can't some other nation levy charges against the US leadership, on the theory that any nation can individually enforce violations of UN resolutions and laws?
As I recall, the consequences for violating the SC Resolutions were explicitly laid out and authorized within the Resolutions themselves and included military force. There was no need for a follow-up vote to "authorize" them, merely evidence that the Res's had been violated.
Once Saddam broke just one, it was on with no further discussion required.
The fact is that we kept giving Saddam second chances when GW II could have lawfully been kicked off by any signatory a dozen times prior for simple violations of the no-fly zones.
Also, think it through.
Every declaration of illegality requires a prior overt act. Without an action there is nothing to find illegal.
Or should I be able to be declared in violation of (insert crime here) without committing it first?
Domestic or international, you have to have the crime first.
Post by: roo_ster on September 23, 2008, 02:07:11 AM
You seem to be arguing that the law doesn't matter-that's fine, but that isn't the Bush admin's position.
I am not the Bush admin.
When you write, "the law," be sure to use modifiers. US law matters, as do laws passed by sovereign nations (more or less). International law & UN dictat? Not so much.
Were it otherwise, those umpteen UN resolutions finding Saddam in violation of the previous resolutions would have efficacy. IOW, they did not matter.
Don't have a problem with your theoretical suggestions except for the last. Looting other country's gold reserves that we hold in trust is a bad idea.
Allow me to make a very simplified analogy. Would you put your own money in a bank that at will seized a customer's entire account on ideological cause? Even if the person whose funds were seized was ideologically different than you, what's to say the political leaning of the bank would not change in the future?
Not so much looting as an effect of denying all visas. One effect among many, I suspect. It is still their gold. Unless we get really cranky I guess they could authorize some third party to truck it about.
My point was that even without Congress dragging out the Ugly Stick, there are means at the executive's hand to make foolish actions hurt the perpetrator.
Although, freezing of assets does seem to be used for truly obnoxious types like Iran & Iraq.
Post by: Intune on September 23, 2008, 03:56:01 AM
Quote
Once Saddam broke just one, it was on with no further discussion required.
The fact is that we kept giving Saddam second chances when GW II could have lawfully been kicked off by any signatory a dozen times prior for simple violations of the no-fly zones.
Yep.The fact is that we kept giving Saddam second chances when GW II could have lawfully been kicked off by any signatory a dozen times prior for simple violations of the no-fly zones.
Interesting read.
http://www.afa.org/magazine/Feb2004/0204war.asp
The two no-fly zones were, from December 1998 onward, the scenes of a long series of duels between US and British air forces and the Iraqi land-based air defenses, with occasional probes and challenges by Iraqi aircraft, said Cordesman. He continued: The Iraqis lost all of these duels and suffered a steady attrition of their land-based defense capabilities. It must have also become apparent that the Iraqi Air Force could not successfully challenge US and British forces in air combat.
It must not have been apparent to Saddam Hussein, however. According to a January 1999 Iraqi news report, the dictator had offered a $14,000 bounty to any unit that succeeded in shooting down an allied airplane and an additional $2,800 reward to anyone who managed to capture a coalition pilot.
Saddam had ousted UN weapons inspectors in late 1998, and, in response, in mid-December 1998, President Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, four days of air strikes that targeted suspected weapons of mass destruction sites, Republican Guard facilities, and air defense systems. After those strikes, the Iraqis became even more aggressive in their attacks on coalition aircraft.
Before Desert Fox, the coalition tended to confine its response to an Iraqi attack to the attacks immediate source. On Jan. 27, 1999, the Clinton Administration revised the rules of engagement (ROE), permitting US aircraft to target a wider range of Iraqi air defense systems and related installations. Pilots could not only defend themselves but also act to reduce the overall Iraqi air defense threat to coalition aircraft.
From 1999 onward, Iraq mounted more than 1,000 AAA attacks, launched 600 rockets, and fired some 60 SAMs. On Feb. 16, 2001, 24 US and British aircraft struck five Iraqi air defense command and control installations. The goal was to disrupt a fiber optic cable network that China was installing for the Iraqi military. On July 24, 2001, Iraqi forces fired a SAM at a U-2 spyplane, narrowly missing.
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US, there was a brief lull in Iraqs provocations. It lasted just two months. Iraq subsequently resumed full-throttle attacks.
In 2001, Iraq showed a considerably more aggressive stance in trying to bring down a coalition aircraft, said Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley, a Pentagon spokesman. The motivation, said Quigley, was the reward that Saddam offered on several occasions. He is trying his darnedest to bring down a coalition aircraft, said Quigley.
Quigley added that the volume of fire was up throughout Northern and Southern Watch, as compared to the same period in the preceding year.
In the first nine months of 2002, Iraq fired upon OSW aircraft 206 times and ONW aircraft 200 times. The coalition responses to those 406 attacks numbered about 60. As the Iraqi attacks continuedaccording to CENTCOM, they totaled nearly 500 for all of 2002the number of coalition responses rose to about 90 for the year.
Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reminded reporters at a Sept. 30, 2002, briefing that the Iraqi attacks were not limited to AAA and SAMs. Iraqi military aircraft, he said, were also violating the no-fly zone airspace. Iraqi fighter aircraft flew into no-fly zone airspace about seven times between Jan. 1 and Sept. 20, said Myers. On Sept. 24, three Iraqi MiG-25s violated Operation Southern Watch airspace, flying deep into the no-fly zone area.
Pentagon officials maintained that coalition actions, though focused on a new target set, were the direct result of Iraqi attacks on coalition aircraft. To the extent they keep shooting at our airplanes, ... we keep engaging in response options, said Rumsfeld at a mid-September 2002 briefing. He added that, if those response options are harmful to their air defense, which they are, then thats good.
Commenting about Southern Focus after the war, Moseley said, If the Iraqi forces had stopped threatening or actually shooting at the aircraft, ... we would not have had to use force against any of the military targets.
According to the Air Force, coalition aircrews dropped 606 bombs on 391 targets during Southern Focus, which lasted from June 2002 to the March 20, 2003, start of Gulf War II. At the peak of Iraqi attacks, Saddams forces were firing more than a dozen missiles and rockets per day at coalition forces. On one day, Iraq fired 15 SAMs.
Post by: anygunanywhere on September 23, 2008, 04:34:13 AM
Saddam had ousted UN weapons inspectors in late 1998, and, in response, in mid-December 1998, President Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, four days of air strikes that targeted suspected weapons of mass destruction sites
How can this be? I thought Bush perpetrated the WMD story.
Anygunanywhere
Post by: MechAg94 on September 23, 2008, 06:17:32 PM
Quote
as it was voted on in Congress
This is different from Congress declaring war, technically.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 24, 2008, 01:45:37 AM
Quote
as it was voted on in Congress
This is different from Congress declaring war, technically.
The last time Congress declared war was far more recent.
Of course, most of the Constitution is a 'technicality' to some people.
Post by: roo_ster on September 24, 2008, 05:37:28 AM
Quote
as it was voted on in Congress
This is different from Congress declaring war, technically.
The last time Congress declared war was far more recent.
Of course, most of the Constitution is a 'technicality' to some people.
MB:
His point was that Congress during the Jefferson admin used language similar to that used by Congress to authorize GWII when the Jefferson Congress authorized Jefferson to go after the Barbary Pirates.
So, was TJ and his contemporary Congress treating the COTUS as a "technicality," in your opinion?
Post by: ilbob on September 24, 2008, 09:09:50 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on September 24, 2008, 01:17:44 PM
Historically, US Presidents have been sending troops on various activities outside our borders since the country was founded. The Barbary Pirates are a good example of why that is necessary. Presidents sending Marines all over South America in the early 1900's represent some examples of how it can be bad.
Post by: De Selby on September 24, 2008, 09:53:44 PM
As far as a question of international law, paragraphs 4, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are most problematic for the Bush theory.
If you don't believe international law exists or matters, what would be the cause for war against Saddam's Iraq, exactly? The only crime he was proven to have committed was non-compliance with...international laws. Yet another catch-22 in explaining this situation.
I really do believe that the largest part of argument in support of the legality of the war is simply a facade for "America does what it will because it has the power to do it."
Not a good direction to take in international affairs, imho, but that's a separate debate.
The question of what gives a war power in America is especially interesting. It's true that the "declared war" thing has been a technicality from the beginning; but then again that was also true of free speech, so it doesn't necessarily mean that the vesting of the power to declare war in Congress should be meaningless by design.
Personally, after all the "adventures" we've been taken through for little apparent public reason in the past decades, I think an amendment is in order: The President may start a war as he chooses, but must ratify the war by referendum within one year after the initiation of hostilities....if the war is voted down, the President loses his seat and the VP steps in to arrange a new presidential election.
That way, you leave the power to defend America immediately in the hands of the executive, but it's still accountable to the population. If there's a good reason for a war, it ought to be apparent to the voters. And if isn't apparent, I don't want decisions being made that require the sacrifice of the whole country without the whole country having a say.
Post by: roo_ster on September 25, 2008, 05:11:07 AM
If you don't believe international law exists or matters, what would be the cause for war against Saddam's Iraq, exactly? The only crime he was proven to have committed was non-compliance with...international laws. Yet another catch-22 in explaining this situation.
Let me quote what I wrote earlier in this thread:
Quote from: jfruser
Third, Iraq after GWI was defeated and signed a cease-fire agreement. Iraq then violated the cease-fire agreement every day and twice on Sundays. We needed no one's permission to go back and finish the job.
We had a bilateral agreement (ceasefire) with Iraq. They violated it numerous times. That is but one of several reasons.
No Catch-22 to be seen.
Post by: Intune on September 25, 2008, 05:47:09 AM
Quote
If you don't believe international law exists or matters, what would be the cause for war against Saddam's Iraq, exactly? The only crime he was proven to have committed was non-compliance with...international laws. Yet another catch-22 in explaining this situation.
The United States does not recognize the jurisdiction of any international court over its citizens or military, holding that the United States Supreme Court is its final authority. One example of this policy is that the United States did not ratify the International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty, and on 6 May 2002 it informed the UN that it has no intention to do so.
As of 24 February 2005 neither Iraq nor the United States have ratified the ICC treaty, and therefore neither the US attack on Iraq nor subsequent actions in Iraq fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC.
Article 2 of the United Nations Charter forbids UN members from employing "the threat or use of force" against other states in a manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Two exceptions exist to the rule: self-defense (Article 51) or an authorization by the Security Council to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII). I would venture that 1,600+ attacks on U.S. citizens meets Article 51 about 1,599 times...
In 1973, amid increasing domestic controversy about the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to limit the ability of the president to undertake prolonged military action without Congressional authority. No president since has recognized the constitutionality of this act, and most legal scholars believe it would not survive a challenge in court.
To avoid initiating a crisis under the War Powers Resolution, the Bush administration sought explicit approval from the Congress to exercise force in Iraq.
It appears to me that Ms. Charlotte Dennett, should she win, will have to go after every member who put forward a yea vote. Anything less would show her true colors.
Quote
If there's a good reason for a war, it ought to be apparent to the voters. And if isn't apparent, I don't want decisions being made that require the sacrifice of the whole country without the whole country having a say.
You live in the wrong country.
In the U.S. we have a Republic. We vote for representatives to represent us, hence the name. There may be a small tribe deep in the Congo that functions with the type of government you desire but I doubt it. Talk about gridlock! Should your upcoming expedition prove fruitless, I believe that you should begin scouring the market for a sizable amount of rocket fuel and a used, serviceable, interplanetary vehicle.
Could you do us a favor? Should you find utopia, please send us a little message with the coordinates. Just us though. We'll keep it a secret. All of the other people in the world are delighted with their governments. No, really. Delighted!
SS, please dont take any of the above as you should move, youre not an American personal attack tripe. Im just yankin yer chain a bit.
Post by: De Selby on September 25, 2008, 06:39:59 AM
Quote
We had a bilateral agreement (ceasefire) with Iraq. They violated it numerous times. That is but one of several reasons.
Going to war on the basis of violating a bilateral agreement is against the laws of the United States and against the International law rules no the subject.
The problem for your position is that the US government does officially recognize the international laws of war-it's our law too.
Intune,
Quote
The United States does not recognize the jurisdiction of any international court over its citizens or military, holding that the United States Supreme Court is its final authority. One example of this policy is that the United States did not ratify the International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty, and on 6 May 2002 it informed the UN that it has no intention to do so.
Yes, but from a legal standpoint, the US obviously does not believe that refusal to recognize an international regime legally bars any action by that regime. Otherwise what's the case for getting Saddam? He didn't recognize the jurisdiction of any foreign government or laws in his country either...but the US obviously used his violations of those laws to justify its invasion of Iraq and arrest of Saddam.
The Article 51 argument, of course, cannot be taken seriously at this point-Saddam was not going to send over an army of canoes to attack the U.S. There is no such thing as "self defense" against a country that has no operations or realistic designs outside its own borders under Article 51.
Quote
You live in the wrong country. In the U.S. we have a Republic. We vote for representatives to represent us, hence the name.
And our representatives can change the rules to accommodate our wants. There is absolutely no reason why a vote would be infeasible in this scenario, and if the Government is going to use public resources and expend the lives of its citizens prosecuting a war, it should be directly accountable.
What's the benefit, in your mind, of the government not having to face a popular vote on its wars?
Post by: Matthew Carberry on September 25, 2008, 09:31:13 AM
We elect Presidents and Representatives in Congress to be our public faces.
Representative Constitutional government, no direct democracy needed (or wanted, for anyone with a grasp of history).
Post by: Wildalaska on September 25, 2008, 09:56:38 AM
WildwhatsillinessAlaska "
Post by: Balog on September 25, 2008, 10:48:18 AM
Post by: Intune on September 25, 2008, 12:35:17 PM
Quote
He didn't recognize the jurisdiction of any foreign government or laws in his country either...
Really? So he didnt agree to a ceasefire or UN weapons inspectors or no-fly zones? I could have sworn& Quote
&but the US obviously used his violations of those laws to justify its invasion of Iraq and arrest of Saddam.
Nope, didnt have to. From 1999 onward, Iraq mounted more than 1,000 AAA attacks, launched 600 rockets, and fired some 60 SAMs. UN Article 51 had em covered.
Quote
The Article 51 argument, of course, cannot be taken seriously at this point-Saddam was not going to send over an army of canoes to attack the U.S. There is no such thing as "self defense" against a country that has no operations or realistic designs outside its own borders under Article 51.
What? What? Have you ever read UN Article 51? I would posit that shooting at our pilots constitutes an armed attack on us and when an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations. We are allowed to neutralize the aggressor. Please point to the outside its own borders part.
Here it is-
Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain inter-national peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Look, SS, this is just going to keep going in circles. Saddam had years & years to get all of his WMDs outta the country & he did so. He didnt let us inspect for them, we felt threatened and we kicked his ass. Lets say were guilty of breaking every international law you can think of. So what?
Do you envision Blue Helmets on the White House lawn and at the U.S. Capital building escorting everyone off to the Gulag? Is that what you WANT? Not me, Ill squeeze my beer belly into those olive drabs (thats right. No camo back then) and defend my President and Congress from foreign enemies. I served my country once and Ill do it again without hesitation.
That lady makes me want to puke. Lets see what her tune is when a dirty bomb goes off in Burlington VT and Iran says, Yeah, we did it. Death to the Great Satan! Death to ALL Infidels!
No, on second thought, I dont want to see all that death & destruction cause that bitch and others would get on the news & tell us that we brought it all on ourselves with the support of Israel or some other B.S. Sad.
Post by: 280plus on September 25, 2008, 03:30:32 PM
Post by: De Selby on September 25, 2008, 04:32:14 PM
Quote
Look, SS, this is just going to keep going in circles. Saddam had years & years to get all of his WMDs outta the country & he did so. He didnt let us inspect for them, we felt threatened and we kicked his ass. Lets say were guilty of breaking every international law you can think of. So what?
This would be an example of what I'm saying underlies the "legal" arguments in support of the war-they don't really matter for most supporters, thus, the fact that most of the arguments advanced were painfully bad isn't an issue.
I don't think one looney in Vermont should be able to prosecute the president-obviously that is insane. And I highly doubt that any of the arguments you get from this person would be any more insightful than what the White House has advanced in support of many of the elements of the war on terror.
But saying in principle that the leader of a state should be above any international law, when we're talking about the war in Iraq, is like something you'd see on Saturday Night Live-how do you deny any such liability when it comes to our president when we're talking about a war where the whole claim was that Saddam violated a bunch of international laws, and was therefore subject to the judgment and punishment of "the coalition of the willing"?
Post by: Matthew Carberry on September 26, 2008, 12:50:09 AM
Quote
Look, SS, this is just going to keep going in circles. Saddam had years & years to get all of his WMDs outta the country & he did so. He didnt let us inspect for them, we felt threatened and we kicked his ass. Lets say were guilty of breaking every international law you can think of. So what?
This would be an example of what I'm saying underlies the "legal" arguments in support of the war-they don't really matter for most supporters, thus, the fact that most of the arguments advanced were painfully bad isn't an issue.
I don't think one looney in Vermont should be able to prosecute the president-obviously that is insane. And I highly doubt that any of the arguments you get from this person would be any more insightful than what the White House has advanced in support of many of the elements of the war on terror.
But saying in principle that the leader of a state should be above any international law, when we're talking about the war in Iraq, is like something you'd see on Saturday Night Live-how do you deny any such liability when it comes to our president when we're talking about a war where the whole claim was that Saddam violated a bunch of international laws, and was therefore subject to the judgment and punishment of "the coalition of the willing"?
Saddam did in fact violate multiple UN sanctions multiple times and thus was subject to Article 51, if not any other rational interpretation of standing international law.
I'm not sure how you are wishing this all away when that fact is not in doubt.
By that fact he was incontestably vulnerable to UN sanctioned attack, which we did in perfect accord with existing particular standing UN sanctions.
The fact that the Bush admin emphasized WMD's above, but not in exclusion of, the multiple other perfectly legitimate justifications for military action cannot logically, legally or rationally invalidate those other recognized justifications.
Post by: 280plus on September 26, 2008, 01:59:38 AM