THIS is why we're intervening in Libya

[MrJonno]

Example where a non-self-defense war is legal without UN involvement: If someone attacks a NATO country, the rest of NATO doesn't have to wait for the UN to move in order to come to the defense of the attacked country

If a country is attacked and asks for aid its self defence, if a country is for some reason quite happy to have another one occupy it getting a 3rd country to interfere would be a criminal.

[JOZeldenrust]

Yes, I have. Specifically. Clearly. Unequivocally. But, whatever. I've already explained to Gallstones today on another thread that I blocked PMing because of some messages I received that were not particularly nice.

Look: this is something you brought up, not me. So you can feel free take it to the other thread.

Your comment to Gallstones reminded me I had meant to PM you. It also told me you were online, and gave me a chance to get your attention.

I accused you of unfairly ridiculing me. You denied that allegation. I substantiated that allegation.

I don't want to have this discussion in yet another unrelated thread. So respond, in the proper thread, or live with your own hypocrisy.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, I have. Specifically. Clearly. Unequivocally. But, whatever. I've already explained to Gallstones today on another thread that I blocked PMing because of some messages I received that were not particularly nice.

Look: this is something you brought up, not me. So you can feel free take it to the other thread.

Your comment to Gallstones reminded me I had meant to PM you. It also told me you were online, and gave me a chance to get your attention.

I accused you of unfairly ridiculing me. You denied that allegation. I substantiated that allegation.

I don't want to have this discussion in yet another unrelated thread. So respond, in the proper thread, or live with your own hypocrisy.

Look - I don't have any more patience for this nonsense. I didn't "ridicule" you. However - to the extent that you felt ridiculed, I apologize. That was not my intent, and if my language was in any way curt or if you felt impliedly ridiculed, then I retract it. I don't have a beef with you, and I don't know where this comes from. My apologies for any Now I have to get home to SWMBO'd.

[Seth]

Could argue once you start breaking fundamental human rights as defined by the UN your actions are no longer domestic

That's never been the law before. And, if so, then all objections to the War in Iraq in 2003 are gone, because there were humanitarian issues raised among the justifications for war. I.e. - the justifications for the Iraq were included, but were not limited to humanitarian reasons and the protection of civilians from oppression and murder by the Iraqi state. So, once we go there and state that aggressive war can be waged to stop a government from violating fundamental human rights, then no war is illegal as long as the aggressor can point to some violation of fundamental rights by a government. As the old saying goes, treat every man after his just desert, who among us shall escape whipping?

Actually, the distinction is pretty clear: no state may use military force against civilians, including its own. Do so, and your actions are out of your country's jurisdiction, and the UN can legally sanction military action.

Evidently you do not understand the nature of war, or of national sovereignty. Do you think Iran acknowledges a restriction on its sovereign power to levy war on the Infidels to bring about the return of the 12th Imam and the establishment of the World Caliphate?

Do you think that Kim Jong Il recognizes restrictions on his sovereign power to levy war on South Korea, or for that matter, his own people?

You fail to understand that the "rules of war" and "international law" are meaningless when it comes to the exercise of sovereign war-making power, and only have existence if and when the conflict ends with the defeat of the warmongering nation.

Such conventions purport to "control" the process of "civilized" warfare, but there is in fact no such thing, and no nation can or will be constrained in its actions in self-defense against an aggressor. That's why we have the concept of "mutually assured destruction," wherein a nuclear attack on the US will result in a total nuclear exchange that will absolutely target civilians.

If Tehran launches nuclear missiles into Israel, Israel will turn Tehran and every other Iranian city into glowing nuclear glass in a heartbeat, and be perfectly justified in doing so.

UN and Geneva conventions only apply, and may be enforced, by the winners of a conflict against the losers of the conflict, because in the obverse, the winners will simply deny the authority of the UN in justifying their actions.

It's naive to think that such "rules of war" will constrain a megalomaniacal dictator like Kadaffy, who either wins or gets his head on a pike in Tripoli.

[Seth]

Example where a non-self-defense war is legal without UN involvement: If someone attacks a NATO country, the rest of NATO doesn't have to wait for the UN to move in order to come to the defense of the attacked country

If a country is attacked and asks for aid its self defence, if a country is for some reason quite happy to have another one occupy it getting a 3rd country to interfere would be a criminal.

Not necessarily. If the occupation of the country by forces intimical to the interests of the third nation resulted in a security issue, the third country would be fully justified in expelling the invaders in order to protect its national interests.

For example, if the Soviet Union "invaded" Cuba and erected nuclear-tipped missiles aimed at the United States, the United States would be fully justified in invading Cuba, or blockading it, in order to eliminate the threat.

[MrJonno]

For example, if the Soviet Union "invaded" Cuba and erected nuclear-tipped missiles aimed at the United States, the United States would be fully justified in invading Cuba, or blockading it, in order to eliminate the threat.

Err no

[Aos Si]

Very true - but, then my point still stands.

Those who opposed the Iraq War for the reason that it was illegal due to "no imminent threat" can no longer do so, because "imminent threat" is not required for a war to be legal. The risk to Iraqi civilians posed by Saddam, which is undisputed, was sufficient cause in and of itself.

Moreover, those who lamented the "rush to war" in 2003, and who aren't now lamenting the complete lack of non-military efforts made in Libya, aren't being particularly consistent....

Wait a minute it was illegal not because of that, but because they pre-empted the UN sanctions and went in without cause and without a UN resolution from the security councils. Now these may sound like semantic details to you but they are important. The threat to Iraqi civilians had nothing to do with whether it was illegal, they breeched some pretty clear guidelines. Our version of your supreme court leader came out and said publicly that after reviewing the various treaties and international law, it was illegal. That's good enough for me. The ex head of MI6 our foreign wing of the intelligence service said much the same. I consider them experts in this area I don't question that it was illegal because better ridiculously way more qualified people than me said it breached the terms of the UN agreement between Iraq and the countries monitoring Iraq. End of story as far as I was concerned. Of course any security council resolution would of been vetoed by the US and this later caused Kofi Anan to say on the record it was clearly illegal. But then you know my views on legality and technical legality. The fact the US President lied to justify his actions is just the icing on the cake. What a cunt though.

[Coito ergo sum]

Very true - but, then my point still stands.

Those who opposed the Iraq War for the reason that it was illegal due to "no imminent threat" can no longer do so, because "imminent threat" is not required for a war to be legal. The risk to Iraqi civilians posed by Saddam, which is undisputed, was sufficient cause in and of itself.

Moreover, those who lamented the "rush to war" in 2003, and who aren't now lamenting the complete lack of non-military efforts made in Libya, aren't being particularly consistent....

Wait a minute it was illegal not because of that, but because they pre-empted the UN sanctions and went in without cause

Without cause is untrue. The Coalition listed many causes, one of which was to protect the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein who demonstrated that he would attack his own people. There were other causes listed. And, the war was never considered illegal because of a preemption of UN sanctions - sanctions were ongoing for 12 years, and an ultimatum was given with Resolution 1441 - the war was follow through on the "serious consequences" promised in Resolution 1441.

and without a UN resolution from the security councils.

There was a resolution - 1441. And, if a war is justified on humanitarian grounds (or other grounds, like self defense or defense of others), then it doesn't need Security Council approval. A war is illegal if it is "aggressive war" (i.e. not justified based on self-defense, defense of another, or apparently "humanitarian" protection of civilians) - if those reasons exist, the war is legal with or without Security Council resolution.

Now these may sound like semantic details to you but they are important. The threat to Iraqi civilians had nothing to do with whether it was illegal, they breeched some pretty clear guidelines. Our version of your supreme court leader came out and said publicly that after reviewing the various treaties and international law, it was illegal.

Yes - and by his same rationale, the Libya war is illegal too. A vote by 10 members of the Security Council and 5 abstentions does not turn an illegal war legal.

That's good enough for me. The ex head of MI6 our foreign wing of the intelligence service said much the same.

And, what was his rationale? Every rationale I've heard would also render the Libyan war illegal.

[Aos Si]

Yeah well I am siding with the experts not some interweb nobody although a perfectly nice internet nobody. I'd like to see you go toe to toe with the ex-Head of MI6 the ex-Chief Supreme Justice and Kofi Anan on this one.

I don't think you can resolve this into a black and white argument. I've tried before and some people will say illegal, some legal but not really technically only and some will say not. The text of the agreement is what is at issue here and it superseded SC general rules because of its specificness to this case. It makes it clear that first the UN SC had to be consulted if the country was to use military force for an invasion, and the only way that wasn't true is if any forces were under attack directly or indirectly by Iraqi troops. They did something illegal. End of story for me.

Yes Libya is illegal Libya could take it to the UNSC however they wont because they know the UNSC will declare it legal, same reason totally opposite reasons for not going to them. Of course the US could of just vetoed the UNSC resolution Libya doesn't have that option. And Kofi Anan retracted the statement because of diplomatic reasons.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yeah well I am siding with the experts not some interweb nobody although a perfectly nice internet nobody.

There are plenty of experts who took the position that the Iraq War in 2003 was not illegal. And, there are experts today who take the position that the Libya War is illegal. It seems to me that the reasons offered for the Libyan War are just as illegal or just as legal as those offered for the Iraq War.

I'd like to see you go toe to toe with the ex-Head of MI6 the ex-Chief Supreme Justice and Kofi Anan on this one.

I'd like to hear what those same folks say about Libya, and then I'd like to compare their rationales on the two situations.

I don't think you can resolve this into a black and white argument. I've tried before and some people will say illegal, some legal but not really technically only and some will say not. The text of the agreement is what is at issue here and it supceded SC general rules because of its specificness to this case.

What agreement are you referring to?

It makes it clear that if first the UN had to be consulted, and the only way that wasn't true is if any forces were under attack directly or indirectly by Iraqi troops. They did something illegal. End of story for me.

There is no such provision in an agreement that I'm aware of. Please direct me to the agreement. I could be wrong.

Yes Libya is illegal Libya could take it to the UNSC however they wont because they know the UNSC will declare it legal, same reason totally opposite reasons for not going to them.

Why do you think the Libyan war is illegal?

[Aos Si]

Yeah well I am siding with the experts not some interweb nobody although a perfectly nice internet nobody.

There are plenty of experts who took the position that the Iraq War in 2003 was not illegal. And, there are experts today who take the position that the Libya War is illegal. It seems to me that the reasons offered for the Libyan War are just as illegal or just as legal as those offered for the Iraq War.

I'd like to see you go toe to toe with the ex-Head of MI6 the ex-Chief Supreme Justice and Kofi Anan on this one.

I'd like to hear what those same folks say about Libya, and then I'd like to compare their rationales on the two situations.

I don't think you can resolve this into a black and white argument. I've tried before and some people will say illegal, some legal but not really technically only and some will say not. The text of the agreement is what is at issue here and it supceded SC general rules because of its specificness to this case.

What agreement are you referring to?

It makes it clear that if first the UN had to be consulted, and the only way that wasn't true is if any forces were under attack directly or indirectly by Iraqi troops. They did something illegal. End of story for me.

There is no such provision in an agreement that I'm aware of. Please direct me to the agreement. I could be wrong.

Yes Libya is illegal Libya could take it to the UNSC however they wont because they know the UNSC will declare it legal, same reason totally opposite reasons for not going to them.

Why do you think the Libyan war is illegal?

Because NATO has no rights to invade here under security council general resolutions to which all nations are signed. I think Libya could make that assertion, I think it would be a waste of time because once asked the SC would make it pointless by letting them do it anyway legally. It's semantics NATO should have asked first, it probably would of if it hadn't already been questioning the UN anyway. I can't prove it did or didn't but I suspect someone in the secret services of each nation involved would of asked.

And God no I'm not fishing that shit out again. I got bored of this discussion ages ago. I don't care if you believe me or not. I just think it was patently illegal and there are some big names in my corner. Take it or leave it. If you really care google this I'm sure it wont be hard to find. But I'm out. the argument never goes anywhere just gets buried in semantic issues.

[Coito ergo sum]

Because NATO has no rights to invade here under security council general resolutions to which all nations are signed.

Which ones? First of all, Security Council resolutions are signed only by the Security Council, and what general resolutions prohibit NATO from taking action here?

I think Libya could make that assertion, I think it would be a waste of time because once asked the SC would make it pointless by letting them do it anyway legally.

They could take it before the general assembly.

And God no I'm not fishing that shit out again. I got bored of this discussion ages ago. I don't care if you believe me or not.

It's not that I don't believe you. It's that I'm trying to understand the argument. I really don't know what SC resolutions and GA resolutions you're referring to.

I just think it was patently illegal and there are some big names in my corner. Take it or leave it. If you really care google this I'm sure it wont be hard to find. But I'm out.

By it do you mean Libya?

[Aos Si]

Because NATO has no rights to invade here under security council general resolutions to which all nations are signed.

Which ones? First of all, Security Council resolutions are signed only by the Security Council, and what general resolutions prohibit NATO from taking action here?

I think Libya could make that assertion, I think it would be a waste of time because once asked the SC would make it pointless by letting them do it anyway legally.

They could take it before the general assembly.

And God no I'm not fishing that shit out again. I got bored of this discussion ages ago. I don't care if you believe me or not.

It's not that I don't believe you. It's that I'm trying to understand the argument. I really don't know what SC resolutions and GA resolutions you're referring to.

I just think it was patently illegal and there are some big names in my corner. Take it or leave it. If you really care google this I'm sure it wont be hard to find. But I'm out.

By it do you mean Libya?

Generally if you want to invade a country that has made no threat to you, you have to ask. It's considered good manners. The whole point of signing up to the UN was to prevent this sort of thing, ie large nations forcing their will on smaller nations without regard for anyone's opinion. That's what the whole charter is about. WWII made that abundantly clear to the US president when he made that speech about not shitting on countries because of your military supremacy alone.

No I meant Iraq, all that resolution stuff is in the general public domain just search the UN web site.

Libya is not because it has as yet not done anything to assert anything about legality.

Let's just say Libya is as illegal as Iraq because no official declaration has been made to its legality by the SC.

[Coito ergo sum]

Actually, there is no such rule about asking. If someone attacks a NATO country, for example, other NATO countries can and will respond and they won't ask anyone before doing it, for example. The inherent rights of nations were not abrogated by the UN Charter and the UN Charter specifically says so.

I've read the resolutions. There isn't one that literally says what you say it says.

Libya has asserted the illegality of the war. Qadafi himself has claimed that it is illegal. And, Iraq never filed anything with the UN Security Council over the Iraq War either.

The idea that the SC is a "war approval body" and wars are legal if approved by the SC and illegal if not approved by the SC is not correct international law.

[Coito ergo sum]

A prominent libertarian constitutional lawyer and civil libertarian has drafted an article of impeachment against President Obama over his attack on Libya, throwing down a legal gauntlet that could be picked up by some Congressional Republicans

Bruce Fein, a former Reagan administration official in the Department of Justice and chairman of American Freedom Agenda writes in his 15-page argument of Obama's course that "Barack Hussein Obama has mocked the rule of law, endangered the very existence of the Republic and the liberties of the people, and perpetrated an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor."

Fein is a small-government conservative who worked on the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and also called for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... ml?showall