|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 04/29/2009 : 18:36:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
I acknowledge that your belief is that all wars are a crime against humanity. However, I do not agree with that statement and that statement has no international concensus in the UN or member nations. |
I never got the impression that Gorgo meant all wars are a crime. In a sense all wars are crimes against humanity, but that's not a legal argument. I always thought that the argument (against USA's war of aggression against Iraq) was that it was/is against International Law.
The war in Iraq 1991, Desert Storm, was a legal war, because it was UN sanctioned response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The current invasion was not, and during current occupation, USA has miserably failed to uphold the responsibilities an occupying force have, to uphold law and order in the occupied territories.
|
It was in the principal from the organization he said he was a member of. He also expressed complete support for the statement.
It also fits his line of reasoning.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2009 : 19:12:52 [Permalink]
|
Posted by me:
Also how do you know that you know everything about the situation? Or are you just presuming to have complete knowledge?
I'm not trying to claim there was an imminent threat. Only that you, Gorgo, are not in a position to claim with the amount of certainly you seem to possess that there wasn't. |
I'm not sure what I was thinking before, but I didn't mean to imply that one can't make decisions about whether they think the war is legal or not. I certainly agree with the "Iraq was not an imminent threat" position. I had meant to say that in a case where one is deciding whether or not to disobey orders, they must be damn certain.
Originally posted by Gorgo
An imminent threat is just that. You see a plane flying across your border and you shoot it down. |
I disagree with this. First off, you can't define something by merely giving an example. Further, if you receive knowledge that a terrorist organization just got it's hands on a nuclear bomb, this to me is an imminent threat.
Defining imminent threat can be rather challenging to do, and there isn't a clear line. It is quite obviously a debatable concept. And with such a concept, you can't expect people to disobey orders based upon what you take the definition to be. Let alone the fact of imperfect and only partial information.
How omniscient do you have to be to understand that Bush wanted to murder and impoverish some people, as Clinton and Bush I before him?
|
You make them sound worse than any evil villain I've ever read about in comic books. I can't take you seriously when you use such hyperbolic language. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2009 : 23:13:37 [Permalink]
|
| United Nations appointed weapon inspectors in Iraq stated before the American invasion that they had not found evidence of any WMD. They also said "give us more time". |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2009 : 03:53:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
I'm not sure what I was thinking before, but I didn't mean to imply that one can't make decisions about whether they think the war is legal or not. I certainly agree with the "Iraq was not an imminent threat" position. I had meant to say that in a case where one is deciding whether or not to disobey orders, they must be damn certain.
|
And what I've been saying is there is no legal mechanism for someone to do that.
I disagree with this. First off, you can't define something by merely giving an example. Further, if you receive knowledge that a terrorist organization just got it's hands on a nuclear bomb, this to me is an imminent threat.
|
Man, I was giving an example. That is not the only example that could be made. Certainly, the decision could be hard. This was not hard. There was no imminent threat. There had been inspectors in the country for years. When there weren't, it was because the U.S. kicked them out, as they kicked them out right before the war. The U.S. had control of the airspace and had spies on the ground. They had sattelite photographs. They had bombed the infrastructure to make sure the people suffered, then imposed sanctions to make sure they suffered more. The country was weak.
If there were an imminent threat, they could have removed that imminent threat. They could have told inspectors where to go and what to look for. They could have sent troops, they could have bombed that spot. In fact, they have illegally sent Cruise missiles. The no-fly zones themselves were illegal. They were not afraid of any type of legal or illegal action short of war and could have taken those actions.
So, if there is an imminent threat, and there are countless examples, most of them probably carrying with them some thing that made each decision to repel those imminent threats very difficult, you remove that imminent threat and then take the matter to the UNSC. You don't take over the country and murder and impoverish their people.
It's hard to take you seriously when you seem so nonchalant about such crimes. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2009 : 15:50:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
| Certainly, the decision could be hard. This was not hard. There was no imminent threat. |
How can we have a functioning military while allowing soldiers to disobey orders to deploy based on their own personal judgment of whether or not the threat was imminent?
|
Why would we want a functioning military that has no concern for any kind of ethics or law? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2009 : 16:20:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
Originally posted by Ricky
| Certainly, the decision could be hard. This was not hard. There was no imminent threat. |
How can we have a functioning military while allowing soldiers to disobey orders to deploy based on their own personal judgment of whether or not the threat was imminent?
|
Why would we want a functioning military that has no concern for any kind of ethics or law?
|
We have a functioning military that has concerns of ethics and law.
However, in matters of threat assessment, they must rely on their command structure. The AAA gunner in a gun tub cannot be second guessing his commander when ordered to down an aircraft that his command considers an immanent threat and hostile.
A standing military is only allowed to make value judgements on commands when those commands direct a clearly illegal act. Not based on politics or the opinion of people they haven't met.
Things that can happen but are a way to object to illegal orders
Refusal to obey (Article 92). The soldier has to have evidence that what he is ordered to do is illegal. He will still be before a court marshal, but if his assertion of illegality is proved out, he will not be convicted.
Clearly illegal orders that usually do not merit even an administrative hearing for an Article 92 violation:
Orders to rob a bank
Orders to murder unarmed, non-resisting civilians
Orders to rape
Orders to give sensitive information to an enemy
Any functioning military does not allow their personnel to refuse movement orders. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2009 : 16:58:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Perhaps I am assuming to much, but may I assume you agree that as a country we must have a means to defend ourselves? That we must have a military?
[quote]
Assuming that to be so, the question is: does your idealistic military where a solider is allowed to disobey orders to deploy (as well as others) based on his personal judgment of the war/action have a chance at existing in the real world? I believe the answer to that is clearly no: such a military would be chaotic and dysfunctional.
|
As I've said, we need a mechanism whereby the U.S. government as well as every other government can be challenged, where soldiers or anyone can go to address these problems. There is no such mechanism and that is why these soldiers have to take it upon themselves to deal with it their way. I don't want them to have to do that. I'm not telling them to do that. Those that don't support some kind of democratic U.N. and reasonable World Court are telling them they have to do it, not me.
We need a mechanism whereby this kind of crime can be stopped, and we won't do it by people avoiding the issue by saying that we'll have chaos if soldiers stop obeying orders. Soldiers were shooting their officers in Vietnam and the world didn't come to an end. I think it's you that is engaging in hyperbole.
Do I think a military is necessary? People want to defend their homes. That's why I don't want our government to attack other people's homes for no good reason, and there is no good reason for this nearly twenty-year war against the people of Iraq. The best way to defend your country is to hold every country, including the U.S., responsible for their actions, and responsible to some kind of rule of law. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2009 : 18:09:55 [Permalink]
|
I agree with this entirely. But you were saying soldiers should disobey any order to deploy to Iraq (especially in this post). These are two very different things. |
No, I didn't say that. The UCMJ says that, and international law says that. People will follow their conscience, and if you have outrages such as Iraq and Vietnam, and a criminal government such as the U.S. government, people will defy orders. Now, I see nothing wrong with groups providing advice and information and money for legal fees, etc., if soldiers decide to defy orders, but I don't advocate anyone telling them to defy orders. It makes no sense to me to tell people to disobey illegal orders, and then leave them no mechanism to do that.
Likewise, we won't solve any problems by not addressing what happens in reality. Allowing soldiers to refuse to deploy based solely on their own personal judgment can do nothing but create a dysfunctional military.
|
It's already pretty dysfunctional, and it will remain as long as you support it as it is. Get a mechanism so they can deal with it in a legal way, or people will deal with it in an illegal way.
This is a crime (as in illegal act) and Obama is now carrying on the same crimes as Bush and his predecessors. They're all the same. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 04/30/2009 18:16:18 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2009 : 18:11:16 [Permalink]
|
It was in the principal from the organization he said he was a member of. He also expressed complete support for the statement.
It also fits his line of reasoning.
|
That makes absolutely no sense at all. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2009 : 20:53:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
It was in the principal from the organization he said he was a member of. He also expressed complete support for the statement.
It also fits his line of reasoning.
|
That makes absolutely no sense at all.
|
Did you state that you were a member of an organization which deems all wars to be crimes against humanity?
Did you state that you supported that position?
This position is part and parcel of your line of reasoning in calling the occupation of Iraq illegal. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2009 : 00:13:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by Gorgo
It was in the principal from the organization he said he was a member of. He also expressed complete support for the statement.
It also fits his line of reasoning.
|
That makes absolutely no sense at all.
|
Did you state that you were a member of an organization which deems all wars to be crimes against humanity?
Did you state that you supported that position?
This position is part and parcel of your line of reasoning in calling the occupation of Iraq illegal.
|
Again, that's just absurd. I think it's illegal because it's illegal. I have clarified the difference between the word "crime" and the word "illegal" many times on this board and especially in this thread.
In fact, I have said, in this thread and others, that the law serves people, and that the law is an undemocratic, Cold War relic that should be changed. This is a law that the U.S. demands its enemies abide by, but not itself or its friends. This is a law that the U.S. helped create for their enemies, but not itself. I only bring up the law, because it was created by a group including the U.S., and the U.S. can't even abide by it. Not just in Iraq, but in places like Yugoslavia, Grenada and Panama. I only say it's illegal, because it is illegal by their terms, not mine. I joined a group that says that war is a "crime" against humanity, not that all war is a violation of international law. To say all war is a violation of international law would be absurd.
More about the violation of international law:
http://lcnp.org/global/iraqstatement3.htm
The United Nations Charter is a treaty of the United States, and as such forms part of the "supreme law of the land" under the Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. The UN Charter is the highest treaty in the world, superseding states' conflicting obligations under any other international agreement. (Art. 103, UN Charter)
Under the UN Charter, there are only two circumstances in which the use of force is permissible: in collective or individual self-defense against an actual or imminent armed attack; and when the Security Council has directed or authorized use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security. Neither of those circumstances now exist. Absent one of them, U.S. use of force against Iraq is unlawful.
Self-Defense
Article 51 of the UN Charter recognizes the inherent right of self-defense. It states:
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 international 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.
Under Article 51, the triggering condition for the exercise of self-defense is the occurrence of an armed attack ("if an armed attack occurs"). Notwithstanding the literal meaning of that language, some, though not all, authorities interpret Article 51 to permit anticipatory self-defense in response to an imminent attack. A generally recognized guide to the conditions for anticipatory self-defense is Daniel |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 05/01/2009 00:31:22 |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2009 : 22:26:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
| The United Nations Charter is a treaty of the United States, and as such forms part of the "supreme law of the land" under the Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. The UN Charter is the highest treaty in the world, superseding states' conflicting obligations under any other international agreement. (Art. 103, UN Charter) |
|
So Article 103 of the UN Charter only addresses international agreements, but, even if the UN charter does say it is supreme to national laws, treaties are only part of the "supreme law of the land" if they do not contradict the Constitution, in which case the Constitution is supreme by Reid v. Covert under U.S. law. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Refuses illegal war
