Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (27932)	4/22/2008 11:19:15 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

And that technical condition exists (under the terms of said international law) The terms of the relevant treaties where contained in the quote. The area isn't under the authority of the US. Therefore it is not in any sense occupied territory (other than the relatively meaningless sense that US forces are located in and take up space in Iraq and therefore "occupy it"). Its not a very "technical" condition. Its a quite simple one. We don't have authority over Iraq, therefore we are not occupiers. "..The Council declared that "by 30 June 2004, the occupation will end and the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist, and that Iraq will reassert its full sovereignty."... ...Second, in the run-up to the June 28 hand-over, the CPA issued a number of orders specifically addressed to the post-occupation period... ...Another order created a Joint Detainee Committee to coordinate detention policy between the Interim Government and the U.S.-U.K. multinational force that would remain in Iraq after the occupation..." findarticles.com "Occupation of Iraq by the United States, United Kingdom, Poland and others: (2003 – 2004) (see United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546)" en.wikipedia.org "The occupation officially ended on 28 June 2004, with day-to-day control being handed to an interim Iraqi government" news.bbc.co.uk "On June 8, 2004, the Council declared that the formation of an interim Iraqi Government meant "the occupation will end."237 The United States acceded to this view.238 In sum, there was no evident disagreement with the legal conclusion that for the fourteen months during which the United States and the United Kingdom were the only effective political and military authorities in Iraq, they were occupying powers subject to the requirements of Hague and Geneva Law." findarticles.com (As our nation... and all others in the world, formally recognize.) Not true. Particularly for the US. But also for the UN "The Security Council, Welcoming the beginning of a new phase in Iraq's transition to a democratically elected government, and looking forward to the end of the occupation and the assumption of full responsibility and authority by a fully sovereign and independent Interim Government of Iraq by 30 June 2004, Recalling all of its previous relevant resolutions on Iraq, Reaffirming the independence, sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Iraq,... ...Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, 1. Endorses the formation of a sovereign Interim Government of Iraq, as presented on 1 June 2004, which will assume full responsibility and authority by 30 June 2004 for governing Iraq while refraining from taking any actions affecting Iraq's destiny beyond the limited interim period until an elected Transitional Government of Iraq assumes office as envisaged in paragraph four below; 2. Welcomes that, also by 30 June 2004, the occupation will end and the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist, and that Iraq will reassert its full sovereignty; usembassy.it Thus, the Bush administration is busy, busy, busy trying to negotiate terms with the Iraqi elected government. Because such treaties are a good idea. You want to have a formal agreement with the host nation when you have a large armed force located there. But not because we are occupiers. We aren't.