Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Those are functions of the VA, not the DoD. Do you hold recruiters responsible for the failings of another cabinet level authority?
|
They're two separate failures stemming from two different parts of the military/government.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
There are no such stipulations in the UN charter.
|
It's a shame you make people do all the legwork for you.
Self defense:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by UN Charter, VIII, Article 41
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.
|
According to precedence (that's legalese for "shit that's officially happened before that relates to this directly from a legal standpoint") this means that a member nation may use force to use anticipatory self-defense (or self defense in case of an impending attack). Please reference "Caroline affair of 1837" (Letter from Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, to Lord Ashburton, August 6, 1842, reprinted in 2 John Bassett Moore, A Digest of International Law 409, 412 (1906)) or more recently
Oppenheim’s International Law: Ninth Edition, 1991, p. 412:
Quote:
The development of the law, particularly in the light of more recent state practice, in the 150 years since the Caroline incident suggests that action, even if it involves the use of armed force and the violation of another state’s territory, can be justified as self defence under international law where:
an armed attack is launched, or is immediately threatened, against a state’s territory or forces (and probably its nationals);
there is an urgent necessity for defensive action against that attack;
there is no practicable alternative to action in self-defence, and in particular another state or other authority which has the legal powers to stop or prevent the infringement does not, or cannot, use them to that effect;
the action taken by way of self-defence is limited to what is necessary to stop or prevent the infringement, i.e. to the needs of defense…
|
Authorization:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by UN Charter, VIII, Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures [not involving the use of force] provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
|
Nowhere else in the UN Charter is military force allowed by any members.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Irrelevant since your initial premise is incorrect.
|
Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it incorrect.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Justice would be fullfilling the oath you took rather than playing shithouse lawyer because you were scared to do what you had committed to.
|
Speaking of scared, someone is scared of standing up to the ape in the White House. Who might you ask? Everyone in the military but Watada and a few others.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
I think the tellingissue is that even back then the policy was to deal with the problem, for example the hiatus to retrain recruiters.
|
You mean clean up the mess when they're caught? Yes, that's very responsible of them.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
High mind, high horse, ingrate.
|
Name calling is against TFP rules. I can take it on the chin once, but cut it out.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Don't think for a second I am trampling your rights, quite the opposite is true.
|
Ah yes, the right to lie to 18 year olds who love playing SOCOM. Which amendment is that again?