02-09-2007, 09:08 AM
|
#15 (permalink)
|
|
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JinnKai
Will, did you write the OP? I've never seen you make consistent typos like that, especially "delcair"...
|
I was typing while talking on the phone. 
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seaver
How is the legality of the war in question?
|
Article 51 of the UN Charter, which was signed in good faither and therefore (unless there is some contradiction with US law, which there isn't) is US law, says that there are only two situations where it is legal to use force against another counrty:
1) self defence against an actual or imminent armed attack, or
2) when the Security Council has authorized use of force
Neither of those circumstances existed, therefore we were and are in direct violation of the UN Charter. The Iraqi invasion and resulting occupation clearly and specifically illegal. Unfortunately for Bush, there simply is no way to expand 'self defense' to a preemptive strike based on questionable intel (and please don't give me the 'everyone thought they had WMDs at the time argument', there needs to be certian proof of an imminent attack, and that evidence did not exist as there were no weapons to fire). Obviously the Security Council did not authorize force.
As for the excuse of 'regime change', Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits 'the threat of force against he territorial integrity or political independence of any state.", therefore that's illegal, too.
The war is clearly and blatently illegal, and all arguments I've seen to the contrary either say that the UN Charter doesn't apply (which, of course it does. The wording is clear), or that we don't have to follow the UN Charter (yes, we do. Our own Constitution says that treaties that are signed by the government, like the UN Charter, are equivalant to the "law of the land", under Article VI, para. 2.).
Last edited by Willravel; 02-09-2007 at 12:41 PM..
|
|
|