Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
A few things first about Watada: bottom line, he was wrong to base his defense on the illegality of the war. He can't challenge the judgement of congress in a military court, which is why the judge refused to allow witnesses (pertaining to the il/legality of the war). The prosecution mishandled the case when they brought in Watada's conflicting stipulation of fact because arguing the il/legality of the war before a military jury is not permitted. Thus a mistrial. And Watada is a weasel.
|
Having a familiarity with the law, I will try to explain this point.
Watada has a legal right to claim that an order is illegal. Watada has a right to defend his thought process and thus himself for not shipping out. He was charged with Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer and a Gentleman. To clarify, the charge of Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer and a Gentleman is applicable in an instance when an officer commits a violation of the UCMJ that dishonors or disgraces the officer personally and thus calls into question the person's standing as an officer. During these types of trials, the defendant is allowed to 'defend his honor' and offer proof in support and explaination of his or her thought process. The Article 32 hearing, similar to a prelim or grand jury peoceeding, promises that the accoused is allowed presentation prescribed in subsection (Art. 32, Paragraph C). In this case specifically, that means that the trial should have explored the reasoning behind Watada's actions. Whitnesses supporting Watada's stance would be called by the defence to elaborate on any points not made clear by Watada. Instead of allowing the trial to run correctly, the judge declaired that the war was legal (objection your honor, relevance), thus taking Watada's right to defend himself.
No Watada cannot challenge the legality of the war in court, but he can provide proof that he believed that the war was illegal. That would have been his defense, and it would have proven very difficult for the prosecution and the idiot judge.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
As to the UN: If the idea is to nitpick and ignore world affairs, true enough.
|
The idea is to follow the law.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
The questions remains as to why the UN wouldn't find Sadaam in violation. When in actuality, they did. Repeatedly. They have seventeen resolutions, and each of the last sixteen started with the preamble that Iraq was in violation of 1441 and needed to come into compliance.
|
The UN was obviously succesful in preventing Saddam from developing a weapons of mass destruction program.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
The issue wasn't whether Iraq was in violation -- it was -- or whether the UN would find it in violation -- it did. The issue was whether the UN would back its word by actually doing something about it other than another sternly-worded resolution. If one wants to be a nit-picking grain-lawyer one can continue to complain that what the US did under 'international law' was wrong because we didn't ask 'mother may we' from the UN.
|
You're hurting your argument with "mother may I" type statements. We commited an unlawful act. The UN Security Council has to rule in favor of something like the invasion of Iraq in order for it to be legal. Do you know why they didn't? Look at Iraq. Where there was once a bad government with a bad leader, there is now several different large scale wars going on. Look at the world. Global terrorism is on the rise. The US has not acted in the best interest of international peace, and it is only in that interest that the Security Council is allowed to rule. Had we listened to the UN, we would have 3000 more US soldiers and 100 British soldiers alive today, and there would be tens to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis alive. We have failed and continue to fail, just as Korea, just as Vietnam, just as Cambodia, and the hundreds of other places we've seen fit to militarily destroy in the past 50 years.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
And perhaps you know the reason for that: Saddam had succeeded in bribing the French and Russians to the point that they would vote 'no'. The French certainly weren't principled about this (for them it was all about oil), and the Russians had any number of secrets to hide, arms smuggling foremost if the past is any guide. So the question for you to answer, in turn, is whether you would allow unprincipled, lying, thieving states to stymie you from doing what you believe must be done.
|
You mean in the way that the US allows Israel to commit crimes against humaity against the Palestinians? Yeah, we're hardly the good guys here. At least the Iraqis didn't have WMDs and nukes. Israel is poised to strike, and the proof is dead in the rubble of Southern Lebanon, right next to a good friend of mine who lost his life. The US govrenment's foriegn policy is hypocritical.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
So to the chorus of "unilateral and illegal war of aggression", I say: Yes unilaterally, with a couple dozen other countries in support. Legally, per our Constitution. George Bush didn't allow the lying, thieving French and unprincipled Russians to stop him from doing what he knew had to be done. Bravo.
|
Our Constitution does not allow for wars of aggression, therefore the UN Charter is the rule of law. Article 4, paragraph 2 makes it perfectly clear that the treaties we sign are US Law. Bravo indeed. It's entirely possible that, after he is finished raping the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, he will move on to something you care about. Will you wait until that day to finally let your support in him be shaken? Or will you turn on what you care about in order to serve the President?