or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Human Shields (What are they thinking?)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Human Shields (What are they thinking?) - Page 7

post #241 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>

When did I say that wars are illegal? Never. That's called a straw-man argument. Immanuel is avoiding what I'm arguing and trying to redirect my point.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The only straw-man argument happening here is your method of distinguishing what is legitimate and what is illegitimate.
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #242 of 450
I went to Lexis-Nexis and couldn't find one article from 1998 about human shields (voluntary ones, anyway).
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #243 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>

Firstly its doesn't require every state in the world to sign a treaty to call it international.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it takes two states to call it thus. That a treaty is signed between state A and state b doesn't make state C obligated to it because of it's called international.

[quote]<strong>Just as no democracy has a 100% of its people participate in its political processes. You logic is flawed to the extent that all your saying is that the few countries who haven't signed the UN Charter don't have to abide by it. The same logic used by; was the <a href="http://www.michiganmilitia.com/" target="_blank">Michigan Militia?</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
Those militiamen aren't sovereing states, they're citizens of their country, and therefore are obligated to the laws of that country, whether they participate in its politcal process or not.
What you imply is that all the world's conutries are citizens of the U.N., including states which aren't members, in the same way individuals are citizens of their respective country.

The U.N. is not a sovereign state, and its member states aren't it's citizens, so obviously neither are states which aaren't members.

[quote]<strong>Secondly, they are more than treaties. They are the result of hundreds of years of evolution of democratic principles. With your immense historical knowledge I'm frankly surprised that you seem so ignorant of this. To say there is "no universal legislature" is totally irrelevant. All laws are in principle artificial constructions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The laws of your country are vaild there because they stem from the priciple of national sovereingity as expressed by your democratically elected legislature. It is the law of the land, of a sovereign state weilding its sovereign authority.
The World is not a state, there is no single sovereignity encompassing all humanity

[quote]<strong>The aim of Public International Law has been to "elaborate instruments for settling crises peacefully, preventing wars and codifying rules of warfare." and like I said, this goes back over a hundred years.
It builds on the principles of national sovereignty. Found in many democratic constitutions, including the American and French.

Modern Public international law became more than just a set of treaties with the Nuremberg process. The international war tribunal set up at the end of WWII to deal with the crimes of the nazi-regime. Nuremberg was very much legislation. Ribbentrop was executed, Göring took his own life to avoid the same destiny.
The principles of Nuremberg made way for the <a href="http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html" target="_blank">Universal declaration of Human Rights</a>, one of the key pillars of Public International Law.

Are you prepared to write of Human Rights as "protocols and charters"? You don't see it going deeper than that?

The framework for use of force in international law is laid down in the UN Charter, signed by all parties in this conflict. And described by the International Court of Justice. They are quite easy to find.

You need to be careful where you thread here, because this is about the principles of Nuremberg, and in a broader view of democracy itself.
By calling it "just a set treaties", you risk "throwing the baby out with the tub-water" so to speak.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Countries are, in theory, bound by their signed international commitments, but their keeping these obligations depends mostly on said commitments' nature (some are binding, others are advisory, others yet solemn platitudes), on the countries' own decisions whether to abide by them or not, or on the resolve of other signatory states to act, militarily if need be, accordinly with those in breach of said commitments, if binding that is.
Hence the fact that international commitments, including binding ones, are respected in greatly varying degrees, from relative compliance to all out defiance.

and now a more personal note:
When it comes genocidal criminals and other such monsters, the whole affair of international law, treaties, protocols, is of slight importance.

[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
When you're a soldier participating in combat (that's where armed people are fighting each other, you know?), you're a combatant, and any armed person from the other side participating in the combat is a combatant too.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>define soldier.

No, sorry, its just not that clear cut. the 200 people in Guantanamo are evidence of that. Apparently International Law is good enough to be used in classifying those guys as "illegal combatants". (correct term?)</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'll try to restate it in simpler terms:
Any armed individual participating in a combat is a combatant.

If you fail to grasp the meaning of those simple words I suggest you get an education.

[quote]<strong>Where would you go looking for the source material?</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Planet Earth would be a good start.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Then get down on it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That I'm telling where I'd look for it doesn't mean I'd get down on it for you. I'm not your goddamn secretary.
Obviously, there are indeed holes in your education.

[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
post #244 of 450
You will never be able to convince bunge that the UN doesn't trump any nation's constitution. AFAIK, the UN does not set international law.
post #245 of 450
[quote]<strong>"Then get down on it."<hr></blockquote></strong>

Maybe he was just humming a song by Cool and the Gang?
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #246 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>You will never be able to convince bunge that the UN doesn't trump any nation's constitution. AFAIK, the UN does not set international law.</strong><hr></blockquote>

But as far as our constitution is concerned, it does. Your beliefs and mine don't mean crap. The constitution does.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #247 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by Randycat99:
<strong>

The only straw-man argument happening here is your method of distinguishing what is legitimate and what is illegitimate.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, it's what we agreed to when we signed the UN Charter. It's not that complicated since everything is written down already.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #248 of 450
Can someone flip over the skipping record??? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #249 of 450
Funny how scared some of you are of a little democracy. I think some of you would be better off with a dictator like Saddam or Kim Jong Il, or a government like Communist China.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #250 of 450
No one has restricted you from saying your peace. Mutually, people are free to call you a broken record.
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #251 of 450
What if the UN breaks its own rules? Do we put Annan up before a War Crimes Tribunal?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #252 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>What if the UN breaks its own rules? Do we put Annan up before a War Crimes Tribunal?</strong><hr></blockquote>


No he's black. That would be racist.
post #253 of 450
Send in Agent 49- stat!...we need...Bah-bra on this... [cue suspense music]
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #254 of 450
[quote]Firstly its doesn't require every state in the world to sign a treaty to call it international.

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong>No it takes two states to call it thus. That a treaty is signed between state A and state b doesn't make state C obligated to it because of it's called ?international?.</strong><hr></blockquote>
yes, true, but what relevance does this have to the current conflict? And do you really belive the UN wouldn't intervene against a country that has not signed the UN charter?
(Just like a sovereign nation would act against a group (ethnic or other) that sets itself outside the "laws of the land"?)
[quote] What you imply is that all the world's conutries are ?citizens of the U.N.?, including states which aren't members, in the same way individuals are citizens of their respective country.

The U.N. is not a sovereign state, and its member states aren't it's citizens, so obviously neither are states which aaren't members
<hr></blockquote>
No, you misunderstand. What I'm saying is that the UN has tools and legislature that regulates conflicts between sovereign nations. but this does not interfere with the sovereignty of these nations. But they also have the tools to make sovereign nations comply, like we see with Iraq. The problem is that the US, because of its exclusive position, sets itself above this. Much like a powerful group of people could do inside a sovereign nation. Cosa Nostra.

[quote] The laws of your country are vaild there because they stem from the priciple of national sovereingity as expressed by your democratically elected legislature. It is the law of the land, of a sovereign state weilding its sovereign authority.
The World is not a state, there is no single sovereignity encompassing all humanity.
<hr></blockquote>
Never said it was. But the principle of Sovereignty applies for all nations, at least that's how I interpret both the laws of my own country and the UN charter.

[quote] Countries are, in theory, bound by their signed international commitments, but their keeping these obligations depends mostly on said commitments' nature (some are binding, others are advisory, others yet solemn platitudes), on the countries' own decisions whether to abide by them or not, or on the resolve of other signatory states to act, militarily if need be, accordinly with those in breach of said commitments, if binding that is.
Hence the fact that international commitments, including binding ones, are respected in greatly varying degrees, from relative compliance to all out defiance.
<hr></blockquote>
The same is the case with the laws of sovereign nations. Citizens are, in theory, bound by the laws of their nations, but crime occurs. And is more common where laws are less respected. Be that because of social issues, illegitimacy of a government or internal turmoil etc.
As long as Public international law does not interfere with national sovereignty, but builds on the same principles, and helps guarantee the national sovereignty of the nations of this world, there is no conflict.
The unwillingness of nations to follow International law, can only be attributed to the sorry state of this world and the inadequacy of the institutions that are supposed to uphold international law. Like I suspect is also the situation in places with high crime-rates, like Jamaica, Rio, South Central and Wall Street.
The whole concept of the Security Council is very doubtful in a democratic perspective.

[quote] and now a more personal note:
When it comes genocidal criminals and other such monsters, the whole affair of international law, treaties, protocols, is of slight importance.
<hr></blockquote>
Do you see Nuremberg as insignificant?

[quote] Any armed individual participating in a combat is a combatant.

If you fail to grasp the meaning of those simple words I suggest you get an education.
<hr></blockquote>
So you see no moral difference between a stone trowing 12 year old and the pilot of an apache helicopter? And your attacking my education!?! Go re-read some basic humanist philosophy. I expect you have the books already.

[quote]That I'm telling where I'd look for it doesn't mean I'd ?get down on it? for you. <hr></blockquote>
Get down on planet earth i meant. Sorry for the confusion. The best place to start looking for definitions of "combatants" would be Public International law, Since most nations have slightly different definitions here, (if any at all).

[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #255 of 450
I haven't read the preceeding pages (I'm on dialup)but I thought it was hilarious that a human sheild should parade himself on TV saying "oh no, the gov isn't telling us where to go" (paraphrase) and then buggering off as soon as he was asked to straddle a coolant pipe.

Laughs.
post #256 of 450
I wonder how many civil lawsuits will come out of a war with Iraq? Every family of every human shield will want to sue <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
post #257 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>Firstly its doesn't require every state in the world to sign a treaty to call it international.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
No it takes two states to call it thus. That a treaty is signed between state A and state b doesn't make state C obligated to it because of it's called international.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>yes, true, but what relevance does this have to the current conflict? And do you really belive the UN wouldn't intervene against a country that has not signed the UN charter?
(Just like a sovereign nation would act against a group (ethnic or other) that sets itself outside the "laws of the land"?)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't believe there's one case where the U.N. had mandated a military attack against a non-member on the ground that it fails to abide by the U.N. Charter.

[quote]<strong>No, you misunderstand. What I'm saying is that the UN has tools and legislature</strong><hr></blockquote>
Tools? Yes.
Legislature? No.
The U.N. has no legislative authority.
[quote]<strong>that regulates conflicts between sovereign nations. but this does not interfere with the sovereignty of these nations. But they also have the tools to make sovereign nations comply, like we see with Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
To comply, yes, but only to the binding commitments to which these countries are bound by there own signature.

[quote]<strong>The problem is that the US, because of its exclusive position, sets itself above this. Much like a powerful group of people could do inside a sovereign nation. Cosa Nostra.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know any case where the U.S. doesn't comply to its own signed binding commitments, or is otherwise in breach of protocol. It's certainly skewing it to its favour in accordance with its clout, and so do most member states.

[quote]The laws of your country are vaild there because they stem from the priciple of national sovereingity as expressed by your democratically elected legislature. It is the law of the land, of a sovereign state weilding its sovereign authority.
The World is not a state, there is no single sovereignity encompassing all humanity.
<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Never said it was. But the principle of Sovereignty applies for all nations, at least that's how I interpret both the laws of my own country and the UN charter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All states keep their full sovereingnity, that's what I've been saying here.

[quote]Countries are, in theory, bound by their signed international commitments, but their keeping these obligations depends mostly on said commitments' nature (some are binding, others are advisory, others yet solemn platitudes), on the countries' own decisions whether to abide by them or not, or on the resolve of other signatory states to act, militarily if need be, accordinly with those in breach of said commitments, if binding that is.
Hence the fact that international commitments, including binding ones, are respected in greatly varying degrees, from relative compliance to all out defiance.
<hr></blockquote>

[quote]<strong>The same is the case with the laws of sovereign nations. Citizens are, in theory, bound by the laws of their nations, but crime occurs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it isn't the same.
States are bound only by the very international commitments, treaties and conventions, etc they have signed by their own agreements; citizens are bound by the all laws of the eland, thogh in democracies they have a say via their elected legislature.
Simpified explanation of thaty essential difference:
State A has signed the red international treaty, it is obligated to comply by the Red treaty.
State B has signed the red, off-white, and aubergine treaty, it is bound by these three treaties, but A is only bound to Red treaty.
All citizens of state A are bound by the the laws of state A.

[quote]And now a more personal note:
When it comes genocidal criminals and other such monsters, the whole affair of international law, treaties, protocols, is of slight importance.
<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Do you see Nuremberg as insignificant?</strong><hr></blockquote>
On the contrary, they very significant.
At the time, the various treaties and protocols against genocide, crimes against humanity, and the such, remained to be elaborated, ratified and signed.
Yet, since the Axis had surrendered without conditions, the Allies had the right, and in my opinion the duty, to dispense justice, their justice, irrespective of the prior international commitments signed by the Axis powers.
In sucn matters, I'm in favour of going after the genocidal maniacs, rather than wait for international law to be in place first.

[quote]Any armed individual participating in a combat is a combatant.

If you fail to grasp the meaning of those simple words I suggest you get an education.
<hr></blockquote>

[quote]<strong>So you see no moral difference between a stone trowing 12 year old and the pilot of an apache helicopter?</strong><hr></blockquote>
A 12-year old with stones is not a combatant, an 11-year old with a Kalashnikov most certainly is.
Dozens of 12-year-olds with big rocks surrounding me from all sides are combatants.
There are many more nuances to it.

[quote]<strong>And your attacking my education!?! Go re-read some basic humanist philosophy. I expect you have the books already.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since you act in a uneducated manner, as in spouting orders (as you do here), don't be surprised that one notices your lack of education.

[quote]<strong>Get down on planet earth i meant. Sorry for the confusion. The best place to start looking for definitions of "combatants" would be Public International law, Since most nations have slightly different definitions here, (if any at all).]</strong><hr></blockquote>
The initial meaning of your text is duly noted.
If you want legal opinion, you can consult an expert on those things.
Back on Planet Earth, combatants are those people with weapons, who are participating in a combat.

[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
post #258 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>


No he's black. That would be racist. </strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree with Scott here. He is quite right to remind us that Kofi Annan is black. He reminds us also that all the courts in the developed nations are weighted in the favour of black people and that this is so unjust: thanks, Scott.

I don't like it any more than you do, Scott, and the sooner we have a white man in charge of the UN again the sooner I'll be comfortable knowing that you can park a limousine outside the UN building without it running the risk of losing its hubcaps. (Apparently since Annan took over, muggings in the UN complex multiplied by something like eight times! Can you imagine.)

[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: Hassan i Sabbah ]</p>
post #259 of 450
Incidentally, Scott, would it be OK to try Kofi Annan if he were Jewish? Or would that be, you know, anti-semitic?

Just to trying to establish once and for all how this works, you understand.
post #260 of 450
[quote]<strong>Originally posted by BuonRotto:
You will never be able to convince bunge that the UN doesn't trump any nation's constitution. AFAIK, the UN does not set international law.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>But as far as our constitution is concerned, it does. Your beliefs and mine don't mean crap. The constitution does.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.S. constitution doesn't say whether the U.N. is a legislative body or not (and it is not), as this is no concern for the U.S. constitution.
As far as the U.N. itself is concerned (cf. one of my previous messages), no state gives up an ounce of its sovereingity by becoming a member, which is no concern for the U.S. constitution either.
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
post #261 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong>
The U.S. constitution doesn't say whether the U.N. is a legislative body or not (and it is not), as this is no concern for the U.S. constitution. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Go give it a read.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #262 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by Randycat99:
<strong>No one has restricted you from saying your peace. Mutually, people are free to call you a broken record.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Have I asked people not to? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #263 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah:
<strong>

I agree with Scott here. He is quite right to remind us that Kofi Annan is black. He reminds us also that all the courts in the developed nations are weighted in the favour of black people and that this is so unjust: thanks, Scott.

I don't like it any more than you do, Scott, and the sooner we have a white man in charge of the UN again the sooner I'll be comfortable knowing that you can park a limousine outside the UN building without it running the risk of losing its hubcaps. (Apparently since Annan took over, muggings in the UN complex multiplied by something like eight times! Can you imagine.)

[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: Hassan i Sabbah ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Talk about missing the point.

Scotts comment stems from a speech Mandela made, saying that the US is ignoring the UN only because Annan is Black. Do you get the sarcasm in Scott's comment now?

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #264 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong>I don't believe there's one case where the U.N. had mandated a military attack against a non-member on the ground that it fails to abide by the U.N. Charter </strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't asked that. I asked if you thought they wouldn't if the case ever came up. There are so few nations that haven't signed the UN charter that this is almost a hypothetical question.

[quote]Tools? Yes.
Legislature? No.
The U.N. has no legislative authority.
<hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.gwu.edu/~jaysmith/Nicaragua.html" target="_blank">Nicaragua Vs. the US</a>
Or is its authority just undermined?
[quote]Simpified explanation of thaty essential difference:
State A has signed the ?red? international treaty, it is obligated to comply by the ?Red? treaty.
State B has signed the ?red?, ?off-white?, and ?aubergine? treaty, it is bound by these three treaties, but A is only bound to ?Red? treaty.
All citizens of state A are bound by the the laws of state A.
<hr></blockquote>
My point is that "aubergine" builds on "off-white" builds on "red" builds on A. There is no conflict.
Unless A orders citizens to break say "red", for example by saying "gas that jew" or "kill that bosnian-muslim". Then, if the unstable institutions of international law works, we have stuff the Nuremberg- process. Where soldiers were tried for having followed orders and not their own conscious. Same thing with Milosevitch.
[quote]On the contrary, they very significant.
At the time, the various treaties and protocols against genocide, crimes against humanity, and the such, remained to be elaborated, ratified and signed.
Yet, since the Axis had surrendered without conditions, the Allies had the right, and in my opinion the duty, to dispense justice, their justice, irrespective of the prior international commitments signed by the Axis powers.
In sucn matters, I'm in favour of going after the genocidal maniacs, rather than wait for international law to be in place first.
<hr></blockquote>
But Nuremberg did build on international law. And laid the foundation for what is now modern international law, and the UN charter.
[quote]A 12-year old with stones is not a combatant, an 11-year old with a Kalashnikov most certainly is.
Dozens of 12-year-olds with big rocks surrounding me from all sides are combatants.
There are many more nuances to it.
<hr></blockquote>
And you think everyone is qualified to make this distinction on their own?
[quote]Since you act in a uneducated manner, as in spouting orders (as you do here), don't be surprised that one notices your lack of education. <hr></blockquote>
hehe, so you are talking about social education then? I'm uneducated for saying "get down on earth"? Well, forgive me for not being on your sophisticated social level of gentleman-like conversation. I thought you were talking about the issue at hand. :-)
[quote]The initial meaning of your text is duly noted.
If you want legal opinion, you can consult an expert on those things.
<hr></blockquote>
I did post some links to such experts.
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #265 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by Tulkas:
<strong>

Talk about missing the point.

Scotts comment stems from a speech Mandela made, saying that the US is ignoring the UN only because Annan is Black. Do you get the sarcasm in Scott's comment now?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Thanks. I get it now.

It's a knee-jerk thing on my account. Sorry.

I am a hate-filled reactionary with a cartoon view of the world, though, if that's any help. I just can't stop having a pop at the clear-sighted and sage. People like Scott.

post #266 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah:
<strong>

Thanks. I get it now.

It's a knee-jerk thing on my account. Sorry.

I am a hate-filled reactionary with a cartoon view of the world, though, if that's any help. I just can't stop having a pop at the clear-sighted and sage. People like Scott.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

First step to recovery?
post #267 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah:
<strong>

I am a hate-filled reactionary with a cartoon view of the world, though, if that's any help. I just can't stop having a pop at the clear-sighted and sage. People like Scott.

</strong><hr></blockquote>
Couldn't have said it better myself, Hassan

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #268 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>Go give it a read.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It meaning the U.S. constitution.
Which, being about the U.S., is not about the U.N.
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
post #269 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
I don't believe there's one case where the U.N. had mandated a military attack against a non-member on the ground that it fails to abide by the U.N. Charter.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>I didn't asked that. I asked if you thought they wouldn't if the case ever came up. There are so few nations that haven't signed the UN charter that this is almost a hypothetical question.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not hypothetical at all, sovereign states aren't bound by treaties or charters they had not committed to.
Unless it comes to crimes against humanity, the U.N. isn't supposed to intervene to mak a country comply to commitment it didn't make.
When it comes to crimes against humanity, any country able to intervene to oppose it, has the moral right, and in my opinion the moral duty, to intervene, whether within the frameowrk of a U.N. mandate, or not.

[quote]Tools? Yes.
Legislature? No.
The U.N. has no legislative authority.
<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Nicaragua Vs. the US
Or is its authority just undermined?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The International Court of Justice is used to settle disputes, in which one member state can sue another for breach of international commitments, like treaties or charters, to which it had committed with its signature.
Your link does not show that any state is bound by treaties it did not sign. The ICJ itself is not a legislature, and neither is the U.N.

[quote]Simpified explanation of thaty essential difference:
State A has signed the Red international treaty, it is obligated to comply by the Red treaty.
State B has signed the Red, Off-white, and Aubergine treaty, it is bound by these three treaties, but A is only bound to Red treaty.
All citizens of state A are bound by the the laws of state A.
<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>My point is that "aubergine" builds on "off-white" builds on "red" builds on A. There is no conflict.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Those three treaties could be related, by they aren't necessarily so, as not all treaties are built on all others or even related to all others.
[quote]<strong>Unless A orders citizens to break say "red", for example by saying "gas that jew" or "kill that bosnian-muslim".</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is precisely what I've been saying, A is bound by the Red treaty, so ,it can be p[rosecuted if in breach of Red but not of Off-white.

[quote]<strong>Then, if the unstable institutions of international law works, we have stuff the Nuremberg- process. Where soldiers were tried for having followed orders and not their own conscious. Same thing with Milosevitch.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Only that the Nürnberg Trials precede thae actual treaties and conventions pertaining to matters like genocide, which , if my memory doesn't fail me, are from circa 1948.
As for Yugosalvia, it had signed all the treaties and conventions therefore it was bound by them, and was actually prosecuted because it had gone to extreme hroors which, by the year 2000, the U.S. wouldn't tolerate in Europe. Miloević had miscalculated, he thoght he could have gotten away with it, like so many before him since 1945.

[quote]On the contrary, they [Nürnberg Trials] were very significant.
At the time, the various treaties and protocols against genocide, crimes against humanity, and the such, remained to be elaborated, ratified and signed.
Yet, since the Axis had surrendered without conditions, the Allies had the right, and in my opinion the duty, to dispense justice, their justice, irrespective of the prior international commitments signed by the Axis powers.
In such matters, I'm in favour of going after the genocidal maniacs, rather than wait for international law to be in place first.
<hr></blockquote>

[quote]<strong>But Nuremberg did build on international law. And laid the foundation for what is now modern international law, and the UN charter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now the foundations of what is now modern international law preced the Nürnberg Trials, as it builds on treaties such as those against piracy and maritime slave trade of the 19th century.

[quote]A 12-year old with stones is not a combatant, an 11-year old with a Kalashnikov most certainly is.
Dozens of 12-year-olds with big rocks surrounding me from all sides are combatants.
There are many more nuances to it.
<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>And you think everyone is qualified to make this distinction on their own?</strong><hr></blockquote>
While there are official rules and regulations on the matter, which are strict and taken seriously where I got to know them, when it comes to a life or death situation, it all comes down to whomever's life or death it is, yes.

[quote]Since you act in a uneducated manner, as in spouting orders (as you do here), don't be surprised that one notices your lack of education.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>hehe, so you are talking about social education then? I'm uneducated for saying "get down on earth"? Well, forgive me for not being on your sophisticated social level of gentleman-like conversation. I thought you were talking about the issue at hand. :-)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your lack of education manifests itself in the excessive use of the imperative. It's not so much a lack of sophistication, only a lack of rudimentary education.

[quote]The initial meaning of your text is duly noted.
If you want legal opinion, you can consult an expert on those things.
<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>I did post some links to such experts.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I haven't read each and every entry on this thread, since I mostly addressed what was adressed to me, so I haven't seen these links.
Do those experts of yours say that armed people participating in combat aren't combatants?
Or that unarmed people not participating in combat are combatants?
Or any other allegation of the sort?
Then, my non-expert understanding, while not elaborate on every intricate detail, is quite on target.

[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
post #270 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong>
?It? meaning the U.S. constitution.
Which, being about the U.S., is not about the U.N.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But containing stuff concerning international treaties, which is what bunge points out.
[quote]<strong>It's not hypothetical at all, sovereign states aren't bound by treaties or charters they had not committed to.
Unless it comes to crimes against humanity, the U.N. isn't supposed to intervene to mak a country comply to commitment it didn't make.
When it comes to crimes against humanity, any country able to intervene to oppose it, has the moral right, and in my opinion the moral duty, to intervene, whether within the frameowrk of a U.N. mandate, or not. </strong><hr></blockquote>Someone has to define what is a crime against humanity is.
This is not a task any nation can just take upon itself. (or any individual, no-matter how educated). At least not when other nations oppose the conclusion.
[quote]<strong>Only that the Nürnberg Trials precede thae actual treaties and conventions pertaining to matters like genocide, which , if my memory doesn't fail me, are from circa 1948. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Your quite right. This indicates that Nurmeberg internationally legislated subjects not regulated by the current treaties or charters of the time.
[quote]<strong>As for Yugosalvia, it had signed all the treaties and conventions therefore it was bound by them, and was actually prosecuted because it had gone to extreme hroors which, by the year 2000, the U.S. wouldn't tolerate in Europe. Milo?evi? had miscalculated, he thoght he could have gotten away with it, like so many before him since 1945.</strong><hr></blockquote> Actually, european states, the US and the UN paved way for milosevic's actions. But that doesn't really have anything to do with the issue at hand. Just as you say Yugoslavia was bound by the signed treaties, so is the US.
[quote]<strong>Now the foundations of what is now modern international law preced the Nürnberg Trials, as it builds on treaties such as those against piracy and maritime slave trade of the 19th century. </strong><hr></blockquote>Nuremberg is far more important to modern international law than old piracy laws. But in principle we are in agreement on this. International law isn't a new invention.
[quote]<strong>While there are official rules and regulations on the matter, which are strict and taken seriously where I got to know them, when it comes to a life or death situation, it all comes down to whomever's life or death it is, yes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So, I take it you acknowledge there are international rules and regulations then. What you actually end up doing in a life or death situation doesn't really matter. I guess it comes down to character. Looking at conflicts around the world, I'd say that there are more than enough examples of people in life or death situations not being able to make the right distinction.
[quote]<strong>Your lack of education manifests itself in the excessive use of the imperative. It's not so much a lack of sophistication, only a lack of rudimentary education.</strong><hr></blockquote>Comments like this reflects worse on you than on me. Use of Imperative has more to do with culture than education, unless you are talking about education in the english language.
[quote]<strong>I haven't read each and every entry on this thread, since I mostly addressed what was adressed to me, so I haven't seen these links. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Hardly "educated" to enter a debate without the reading through the preceding contributions, is it?
[quote]<strong>Do those experts of yours say that armed people participating in combat aren't combatants?
Or that unarmed people not participating in combat are combatants?
Or any other allegation of the sort?
Then, my non-expert understanding, while not elaborate on every intricate detail, is quite on target.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, the experts say that under international law, a war on Iraq would be illegal.

[ 03-06-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #271 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong>
It meaning the U.S. constitution.
Which, being about the U.S., is not about the U.N.</strong><hr></blockquote>

But it does explicitly state that the international treaties we sign are the 'supreme law of the land' which, in my book, is pretty important.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #272 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>But it does explicitly state that the international treaties we sign are the 'supreme law of the land' which, in my book, is pretty important.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And if it conflicts with a Constitutionally appointed power of government the Constitutional is supreme. Read Article VI (the one you're referring to) in full.

No treaty can take away a Constitutionally-appointed power.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #273 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

No treaty can take away a Constitutionally-appointed power.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It doesn't take away a Constitutionally appointed power. The UN doesn't step in and declare war for us. THAT would be ursurping Constitutionally appointed power.

Our government has limited the choices of when WE can declare war. WE still declare war, but WHEN is now partially definded by the UN Charter.

Your argument is weak.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #274 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
It meaning the U.S. constitution.
Which, being about the U.S., is not about the U.N.
<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>But containing stuff concerning international treaties, which is what bunge points out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A sovereign country fulfilling its international obligations is no surrender of its sovereignity, unless the treaty is specificially about surrender of sovereignity, which the U.N. Charter is not.

[quote]It's not hypothetical at all, sovereign states aren't bound by treaties or charters they had not committed to.
Unless it comes to crimes against humanity, the U.N. isn't supposed to intervene to mak a country comply to commitment it didn't make.
When it comes to crimes against humanity, any country able to intervene to oppose it, has the moral right, and in my opinion the moral duty, to intervene, whether within the frameowrk of a U.N. mandate, or not.
<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Someone has to define what is a crime against humanity is.
This is not a task any nation can just take upon itself. (or any individual, no-matter how educated). At least not when other nations oppose the conclusion.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nations have the prerogative to come to a conclusion opposed by other countries, they even have the prerogative to wage war to other countries.
It seems to me you keep imagining that relations between sovereign states are regulated in the same manner that relations between individuals are regulated within a state.

[quote]Only that the Nürnberg Trials precede thae actual treaties and conventions pertaining to matters like genocide, which , if my memory doesn't fail me, are from circa 1948.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Your quite right. This indicates that Nurmeberg internationally legislated subjects not regulated by the current treaties or charters of the time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, the court at Nürnberg didn't legislate. The Axis powers having surrendered without condition, they were at the mercy of the victors who by reight of victory had dispensed justice as they saw it.
A few years later, were drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and a new Geneva Covention (which prohibits genocide), to which scores of countries have signed, making it international law for the singnatory countries.

[quote]<strong>Just as you say Yugoslavia was bound by the signed treaties, so is the US.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And when the U.S. fails to comply with its own signed commitments, it is liable to a lawsuit, and I'm sure they have the do$h so I wouldn't worry about that..

[quote]While there are official rules and regulations on the matter, which are strict and taken seriously where I got to know them, when it comes to a life or death situation, it all comes down to whomever's life or death it is, yes.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>So, I take it you acknowledge there are international rules and regulations then. What you actually end up doing in a life or death situation doesn't really matter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps not to you, my remaining alive is still of some importance to me.

[quote]<strong>I guess it comes down to character. Looking at conflicts around the world, I'd say that there are more than enough examples of people in life or death situations not being able to make the right distinction.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It depends of what education and values did they receive, and of how their society look upon excessive deviations from said rules and regulations. The cases kniwn to me are mostly ones of restraint.
Of course, it is easier to have little or no blemish when one is lucky enough not to be involved in a conflict and actually face such dilemma.

[quote]<strong>Comments like this reflects worse on you than on me. Use of Imperative has more to do with culture than education, unless you are talking about education in the english language.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Frequent use of the imperative in conversation (e.g.: do this and that!) is a lack of education in any language, to which you certainly have a right to, as you have the right to have it remarked to you.

[quote]<strong>Hardly "educated" to enter a debate without the reading through the preceding contributions, is it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
In a thread as long as this one it is hardly reasonable to expect that all read each and every post.

[quote]Do those experts of yours say that armed people participating in combat aren't combatants?
Or that unarmed people not participating in combat are combatants?
Or any other allegation of the sort?
Then, my non-expert understanding, while not elaborate on every intricate detail, is quite on target.
<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>No, the experts say that under international law, a war on Iraq would be illegal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So I gather they tend to agree with me on the issue of who's a combatant.
It seems to me you fail to discern cetain nuances:
There is a debate going on whether current binding U.N. resolutions on Iraq are enough of a mandate for a military attack; and many experts are certainly of the opinion it is not enough of a mandate. And the U.S. could hardly claim a U.N. resolution to justify its attack without such a mandate.
However, there is no treaty or convention proscribing war. So there's simply no such legal terms as illegal war.
But it can make some catchy tunes.
Any country is entitled to wage war to Iraq; however, in order to assume the mantle of a U.N. mandate for such an attack it must first fulfill the criteria required by such a mandate.

[דיר באלאק חבל על הזמן]

[ 03-06-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
post #275 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>Our government has limited the choices of when WE can declare war. WE still declare war, but WHEN is now partially definded by the UN Charter.</strong><hr></blockquote>

When we can is not partially defined by the UN Charter. In absoultely not way can the UN Charter circumvent Constitutionally-appointed powers, however our government wans to interpret those powers.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #276 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

When we can is not partially defined by the UN Charter. In absoultely not way can the UN Charter circumvent Constitutionally-appointed powers, however our government wans to interpret those powers.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You're ignoring my posts.

The UN Charter doesn't circumvent Constitutionally-appointed powers. When we signed the UN Charter, WE agreed to follow guidelines that are now 'supreme law of the land' as much as it may pain you.

I'm sorry.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #277 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong>

[דיר באלאק חבל על הזמן]

[ 03-06-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

hehe.
Tell me about it.
post #278 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong> When we signed the UN Charter, WE agreed to follow guidelines that are now 'supreme law of the land' as much as it may pain you.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I realize bunge. I understand that. But that has nothing to do with when we decide on war. Congress makes that decision, it doesn't matter what the UN Charter says.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #279 of 450
After rereading the last page of this thread, i came to the conclusion that the definition of a combattant is not easy to get.

A combattant is not only a people who use a weapon during a fight. A burglar who use his weapon against police should not be called combattant, it's simply a criminal.

Combattant refer to combat and not only to a fight. It's very hard to give a definition nowdays. The geneva convention speak of combattants, but a this time, things where simplier, mostly soldiers or milice. Terrorism was only embryonic.
post #280 of 450
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

Congress makes that decision, it doesn't matter what the UN Charter says.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes and OUR congress limited future congresses by enacting the 'supreme law of the land' to limit when and why we can go to war as stated in the UN Charter.

That's the US Congress, not the UN Charter that's responsible. The US Congress does have the ability to pass laws that put limits on future congresses.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Human Shields (What are they thinking?)