Was gadhafi really a threat to National Security

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Why have laws at all, why follow procedures of law, all we need is a justification lynch mob mentality, right? Judge, jury and prosecutioner all wrapped up in one.
More...

And had the US been attacked by terrorists with WMD supplied by Hussein, you would be screaming with rage asking why we hadn't taken him out.

When a pit bull bites a human being the dog is euthanized so it can no longer endanger other humans.

Why oh why would you give the benefit of the doubt to a megalomaniac who invaded a neighboring country, was driven out by our forces (igniting oil wells on the way out just for kicks), agreed to umpteen resolutions and conditions of surrender, ignored those conditions, starved and brutalized his own people, attempted to have Bush 1 assassinated, pays suicide bombers to kill Israelis, and whose actions (or inactions, rather) lead our country and the intelligence services of most of the major countries (along with the UNSCOM & IAEA) to believe he was hiding his WMD program?

Your Answer = Because the system must be followed, no matter how flawed the system is. Better to be a lemming and follow the herd, and should the herd decide to jump off the cliff, well, at least you'll have company, right? In other words, suicide is preferable to not going by the "rules," even when those rules are not adhered to by the very body that drafted them.

(And by the way, Clinton didn't ask for UN permission when he missiled that factory in the Sudan or that village in Afghanistan, and rightly so. Despite how pathetically ineffective they were, akin to throwing a bandaid onto a malignant tumor, it was one of the few times I thought he was actually acting like the President of the United States.)
 
Please explain what International Law is?
Please cite specific examples of what it is you contend the U.S. did to violate International law.
Please cite the authority you have for claiming what the Law is?

I will help -- it can be argued that the U.S. creates International Law because international law is made via the power. International law only exists by consent of the nations agreeing to be governed by it. At least it the beginning. Over time as the law matures the weak nations may have to accept International law; but I would argue that if the U.S. says the U.N. is irrelevant it is irrelevant at least with respect to the U.S. and International law.

For the U.N. to make international law it needs the U.S. especially when it comes to issues such as weapons and war. Consequently if anyone broke International Law it was the U.N.

We shall call this the JEM doctrine as promulgated on elitetrader this date and time.
 
The Jem Doctrine will not stand up to scrutiny of any international body, nor likely any other reasonable organization or individual.

The rules that the UN passes are considered International laws, as they are constructed by an International body.

The Geneva convention rules are also considered International law, as they were approved by an international group.

Their jurisdiction extendends beyond regional borders.

International law is not made by power, but by a group of different nations reaching an agreement as to what the law should be in certain situations.

Link to International Law and International Court of Justice info:

http://www.un.org/law/


Quote from jem:

Please explain what International Law is?
Please cite specific examples of what it is you contend the U.S. did to violate International law.
Please cite the authority you have for claiming what the Law is?

I will help -- it can be argued that the U.S. creates International Law because international law is made via the power. International law only exists by consent of the nations agreeing to be governed by it. At least it the beginning. Over time as the law matures the weak nations may have to accept International law; but I would argue that if the U.S. says the U.N. is irrelevant it is irrelevant at least with respect to the U.S. and International law.

For the U.N. to make international law it needs the U.S. especially when it comes to issues such as weapons and war. Consequently if anyone broke International Law it was the U.N.

We shall call this the JEM doctrine as promulgated on elitetrader this date and time.
More...
 
Now you compare yourself to an attorney in a court of law?

BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAH

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOO

Maybe an attorney in a courtyard of plants....too much, too much.

Quote from axeman:

Oh yes your right.... every attorney in the world who
says "I rest my case" at the end of his summary is
a loser......lmaoo.... off the deep end you go.


peace

axeman
More...
 
Quote from hapaboy:

And had the US been attacked by terrorists with WMD supplied by Hussein, you would be screaming with rage asking why we hadn't taken him out.

If there was proof that Hussein was behind an attack the entire world would support the US acting in self defense. Just like they supported our efforts in Afghanistan.

When a pit bull bites a human being the dog is euthanized so it can no longer endanger other humans.

Capital punishment argument again?

We don't practice euthanasia on human beings without a trial, and without due process.

Why oh why would you give the benefit of the doubt to a megalomaniac who invaded a neighboring country, was driven out by our forces (igniting oil wells on the way out just for kicks), agreed to umpteen resolutions and conditions of surrender, ignored those conditions, starved and brutalized his own people, attempted to have Bush 1 assassinated, pays suicide bombers to kill Israelis, and whose actions (or inactions, rather) lead our country and the intelligence services of most of the major countries (along with the UNSCOM & IAEA) to believe he was hiding his WMD program?

Why oh why, oh me oh my...

Why follow the rules of law?

If you don't get that concept by now, there is no hope you ever will.

Your Answer = Because the system must be followed, no matter how flawed the system is. Better to be a lemming and follow the herd, and should the herd decide to jump off the cliff, well, at least you'll have company, right? In other words, suicide is preferable to not going by the "rules," even when those rules are not adhered to by the very body that drafted them.

Yes, the rules of law must be upheld no matter what. Don't like the laws? Work through the system and change them.

(And by the way, Clinton didn't ask for UN permission when he missiled that factory in the Sudan or that village in Afghanistan, and rightly so. Despite how pathetically ineffective they were, akin to throwing a bandaid onto a malignant tumor, it was one of the few times I thought he was actually acting like the President of the United States.)

WARNING, WARNING, WARNING!!!

Hannityism!!! Hannityism!!!

This isn't about Clinton's right or wrongs, no matter how much you like to distract attention away from Bush.
More...
 
Dang, and I thought rules were made to be enforced. Do you want to tell John Ashcroft about the new paradigm?

Quote from Pabst:

Looks like rules are made to be broken. So there!!
More...
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

If there was proof that Hussein was behind an attack the entire world would support the US acting in self defense. Just like they supported our efforts in Afghanistan.
More...
This is the flaw in your rhetoric: You are willing to WAIT UNTIL WE ARE ATTACKED AGAIN before taking action. In case you haven't noticed, we are no longer in the stone age. If our enemies ever get their hands on nukes or bio/chemical weapons, the loss in life to our fellow citizens will be enormous. You may be willing to wait until a mushroom cloud or ten mark the destruction of our major cities, but fortunately we have a president who is willing to try and get to our enemies before they can get to us, and sees Iraq as an opportunity to democratize and, hopefully, stabilize the region.

We no longer have the luxury of a wait-and-see attitude. Didn't 9/11 teach you anything?

Capital punishment argument again?

We don't practice euthanasia on human beings without a trial, and without due process.
More...
And it's a sad thing, since certain human beings are more vicious than any animal. Besides, Saddam Hussein will be tried and be given due process, unlike the hundreds of thousands who perished under his rule without the benefit of either.

Why oh why, oh me oh my...

Why follow the rules of law?

If you don't get that concept by now, there is no hope you ever will.
More...
The "rules" under the UN resolutions called for harsh penalties if Saddam did not comply. He did not comply for over a decade. What good are rules if they are not enforced?

If you don't "get" that the US must NEVER cede its sovereign right to protect itself without the approval of a hollow and castrated institution like the UN, I'm afraid it is you who is hopeless.

Yes, the rules of law must be upheld no matter what. Don't like the laws? Work through the system and change them.
More...
Well, I must say this is a more reasonable response from you than the usual sarcastic Alcoholics Anonymous mantra. May you do the same. In the interim I suppose we shall both continue to debate these issues here on ET.

WARNING, WARNING, WARNING!!!

Hannityism!!! Hannityism!!!

This isn't about Clinton's right or wrongs, no matter how much you like to distract attention away from Bush.
More...
Alert! Alert! Alert! Typical Colmes knee-jerk reaction! Mention Clinton and the defenses come up faster than a Randy Johnson fastball. I was actually praising Clinton in my post! Hilarious.
 
Rogue, Reasonable argument.

But lets examine. I think it is fair to say the Geneva Convention would be considered international law by most countries and commentators. Why, because the nations consented, the big nations, it has been around a long time without much challenge and it has used to sanctions losers of war by the powerful.

Now just as you said the Jem doctrine will not stand up in your court. The U.N. announcing it makes international law will not stand up either. (you see why I put that little this date and time thing--- similar to what the U.N. attempts)

The U.N. law is not international law if it is not consented to. Look at the recent conventions on pollution. The u.s. did not agree so it is not international law. It is pretty well settled that the U.N. does not make international law by declaration. Now over time by consent and practice something it did, could become international law but the U.N. does not make international law by declaration. Nobody does except maybe the really powerful (hint, superpowers)

Now our little argument makes a great moot court question. But in the end the U.S. must consent to create an "International Law" that effects the U.S. (particularly regarding weapons and war).
 
Actually, if you want to follow this "international law" crap that is being spinned around here.......look up Iraq's cease fire from 91 and whether they complied or not with the terms of the cease fir....its laughable...btw: show me the law we broke....and who said we broke it?? ...feel free to cut an paste the actual verbiage and the law from the court in the UN and the penalty of this....just curious
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top