SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Doug R who wrote (5542)3/30/2003 3:37:26 PM
From: Lazarus_Long  Respond to of 21614
 
they could be prosecuted for war crimes if military tactics violated humanitarian law.
Uh, that's quite a bit different from a claim that the whole war is illegal.

Alternatively, aggrieved states could take the United States and Britain to international courts, complain to the Security Council, or to the U.N. General Assembly
1. Why haven't they?
2. What makes you think those courts have jurisdiction over the US?

Many leading legal experts have rejected attempts by Washington and London to justify a war with Iraq without a new resolution explicitly authorizing force.
Yeah. And OJ found some pretty good mouthpieces to stand up and claim he was innocent. Even convinced a jury biased in his favor. BFD.
Disagreement about the facts and the law is what makes trials.
Oh, that sure sounds way short of the 99% you claimed before.

Amid criticism that 1441 does not explicitly authorize war, they have also argued that military action is legitimized by two other resolutions passed before and after the 1991 Gulf War, although Russia has fiercely rejected this argument.
As I was saying.

"There is unlikely to be a court case," he said. "Those responsible won't be jailed but they can be made uncomfortable."
If the case is as clear and strong as you claim, why not?

"Political leaders in due course could be taken to a national court for an act of aggression," Doswald-Beck said.
Whose army are they going to use to extradite and jail Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, et al.?

"There is little chance of condemnation by the United Nations because they will be paralyzed by the U.S. veto in the Security Council," she said.
D**N! Love it! Payback time for France!

Washington and Baghdad do not recognize the International Criminal Court inaugurated last week and it has yet to define a crime of aggression. But it could still try Britain and other U.S. allies that recognize it on any war crimes charges.
That settles that vis a vis the US. And Blair doesn't appear worried either.

Other legal experts say international law might have to adapt to take account of new justifications for war such as the humanitarian concerns used to legitimize the Kosovo campaign in 1999 that lacked U.N. support, but is now questioned by few.
Ah, yes, KOSOVO! I keep bringing that up. You guys seem STRANGELY reluctant to address it.

Writing in The Sydney Morning Herald, George Williams, an international law expert at the University of New South Wales, and Devika Hovell, director of the International Law Project, said setting a new legal precedent was playing with fire.
If the law was previously as you believe, then Kosovo and Rwanda did just that.

"This decision to wage a just war is based upon an appeal to dangerously subjective standards of morality and the belligerents' conviction that their cause is right. After two world wars, the dangers of this approach are obvious."
They are? France and Britain would have been fully justified in intervening militarily any number of times before WW2. They didn't. 25M-50M deaths were the result.