• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Do international laws about wars count?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

The basic reason I believe that is does is because the cease-fire was a stoppage of the war using conditions - conditions Saddam accepted but didn't follow. Therefore - the war is "un-ceased" and the rules of engagement used previously are back in play unless specifically overruled(which they were not).

To each his own opinion though.

CkG
Wasn't the cease-fire agreement between the UN and Iraq? How is it that the US got to decide it was time to terminate the cease-fire? I do suppose based on your argument, that if the UN did terminate the cease-fire, that previous provisions to use "any means necessary" return to being in effect.
But the UN did not terminate the cease-fire, so where does that leave us? Back to no legal basis in the resolutions.

Edit:
Just for reference, CAD is right in that this was part of the President's stated justfication
Text of Bush's proposed congressional resolution
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

The basic reason I believe that is does is because the cease-fire was a stoppage of the war using conditions - conditions Saddam accepted but didn't follow. Therefore - the war is "un-ceased" and the rules of engagement used previously are back in play unless specifically overruled(which they were not).

To each his own opinion though.

CkG
Wasn't the cease-fire agreement between the UN and Iraq? How is it that the US got to decide it was time to terminate the cease-fire? I do suppose based on your argument, that if the UN did terminate the cease-fire, that previous provisions to use "any means necessary" return to being in effect.
But the UN did not terminate the cease-fire, so where does that leave us? Back to no legal basis in the resolutions.

Edit:
Just for reference, CAD is right in that this was part of the President's stated justfication
Text of Bush's proposed congressional resolution
Yep - did you read all of his proposal?

Did you read the part about 687 and 660-678? Seems pretty inline with my interpretation. (just for the record I had not read this proposed resolution before I read the link provided by MonkeyK)

Now, I do understand the confusion over the exact legal reason Bush may or may not be using but I think he kinda used them all, even though I think each individually could stand on their own.

Like I said though, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Legality is sometime in the eye of the beholder(interpreter).

CkG
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Like I said though, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Legality is sometime in the eye of the beholder(interpreter).
Actually, an opinion on legality is in the eye of the beholder. Legality is always in the eye of the body responsible for its interpretation. The problem, with using the resolutions as a reason is that we claimed the responsibility, when it was, in fact, not ours.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Like I said though, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Legality is sometime in the eye of the beholder(interpreter).
Actually, an opinion on legality is in the eye of the beholder. Legality is always in the eye of the body responsible for its interpretation. The problem, with using the resolutions as a reason is that we claimed the responsibility, when it was, in fact, not ours.
Not neccesarily. See, my interpretation is that the resolutions gave us permission because peace and security was not supplied by Saddam - which the agreement clearly states it's objective is.

On here we are all playing the role of "the body responsible" hence the debate. Granted they are only opinions and interpretations and not true legal interpretations(which I wasn't trying to claim they were).

CkG
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
So what do you think a cease-fire is all about?
I think I've more than made my self clear but to state it one more time I'll just say this:

10 Bang Bang Bang
20 Pause 5
30 If <insert condition here> = True Then continue. If false goto 10
40 If <insert condition here> = True Then continue. If false goto 10
50 If <insert condition here> = True Then continue. If false goto 10
60 If <insert condition here> = True Then continue. If false goto 10
70 Write "International Peace and Security in the area has been acheived. Game over."

OK, so that was really really crude and sloppy but it should get my point accross. I could write a Quick PLC program if you understand Ladder logic better?

CkG

PS - You don't know how hard I tried to work "all you base are belong to us" into that :p I think I could have but it would have made it more complicated than neccessary.
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Oh, goodie, I'm a programmer, so I can understand this kind of language (and good job keeping your GOTOs structured)

Your analogy is that the US is a rogue program then. What you have is a subroutine (the US) checking logical conditions for the main program (the UN).

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Oh, goodie, I'm a programmer, so I can understand this kind of language (and good job keeping your GOTOs structured)

Your analogy is that the US is a rogue program then. What you have is a subroutine (the US) checking logical conditions for the main program (the UN).
No, that was my interpretation of what "a cease-fire is all about". If you want my interpretation of how the US is justified in taking action that requires more qualifiers. I'm much more comfortable in my ladder logic programming though, since I haven't done much "real" programming other than simple AutoLisp scripts and minor VB scripting since Highschool. I figured since this was a computer dork(no offense to you non-computer dorks that participate:p) forum the program logic angle would work the best since english words and sentences can muddy things.

I'm afraid I don't have time to work up a quick program that would add the qualifiers neccessary to mold that into the Iraq situation at the moment due to other obligations.

CkG
 

DaiShan

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2001
9,617
1
0
No he cannot be found guilty, here is the simple reason: there would be no enforcement of the verdict, they say yes you are guilty, you will hang, then we say come and get him, whats stopping you? The largest single stockpile of nuclear weapons on earth? Or is it maybe the world's strongest millitary? The court would not even try him as a war criminal because they would know the outcome, and realize that it would set a precedent for disregarding their verdicts.
 

DaiShan

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2001
9,617
1
0
It
Originally posted by: Vaerilis
Good point.
'If you are high enough, you are invincible.' What an amazing old saying, still going strong.
Interestingly enough, no proof has been recovered ever since. No weapons of mass-destruction.
I've been watching Iraqui sat. TV for months, and when the Americans seized Iraq, the broadcast stopped. There was no broadcast ever since. The taste of democracy?
It was a state funded and state run operation when the state as it were ceased to exist, so too did all of its tendrils, including the Television Station.
 

DaiShan

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2001
9,617
1
0
Originally posted by: Vaerilis
Losses on the US side are 'very strange'. They often said in the news: the US forces encountered Iraqi warriors in the city of *****. About 100 Iraqi soldiers are wounded, no reports of US losses. Fair and balanced, eh?
And what, you think they sent home clones of people's children? You can't hide a death, these soldiers have families, its not like they wouldn't be missed. Those that see conspiracy in everything seem to be engaged in their own private fantasy world.
 

DaiShan

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2001
9,617
1
0
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Originally posted by: Vaerilis
What's the promised full media coverage on the war? Where were the Iraqi soldiers and vehicles? Can 2K tanks and 400 aircraft disappear along with millions of soldiers?
The US military does not count military casualties, so we'll never know how many Iraqi soldiers died. I'm sure they were in the tens of thousands.
They died for their country, just like our soldiers died for theirs. What will a death tally do more than serve as morbid trophies of war?
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Originally posted by: DaiShan
No he cannot be found guilty, here is the simple reason: there would be no enforcement of the verdict, they say yes you are guilty, you will hang, then we say come and get him, whats stopping you? The largest single stockpile of nuclear weapons on earth? Or is it maybe the world's strongest millitary? The court would not even try him as a war criminal because they would know the outcome, and realize that it would set a precedent for disregarding their verdicts.

Dude, I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I am trying to determine if there was a legal basis for the recent war in Iraq. Besides, Bush may have been its leader, but the US went to war.
 

DaiShan

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2001
9,617
1
0
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: DaiShan
No he cannot be found guilty, here is the simple reason: there would be no enforcement of the verdict, they say yes you are guilty, you will hang, then we say come and get him, whats stopping you? The largest single stockpile of nuclear weapons on earth? Or is it maybe the world's strongest millitary? The court would not even try him as a war criminal because they would know the outcome, and realize that it would set a precedent for disregarding their verdicts.

Dude, I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I am trying to determine if there was a legal basis for the recent war in Iraq. Besides, Bush may have been its leader, but the US went to war.
And I am saying it doesn't matter, you can find the current administration guilty of war crimes, or the war illegal, will not make one bit of difference. Besides the OP was talking about a war crimes tribunal (where milosovic went)
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Sorry, you are right, the original post was regarding the applicability of war crimes. I hijacked this thread to try and split out the arguments so we can discuss them seperately.

So it sounds like you subscribe to the 3rd legal basis for war that I described earlier: "the war was legal because we said it was." and augment it with "and if you don't like it, just see if you can do anthing about it". I'll think about that one some more in the future.

I mainly want to finish thinking through the first point that I listed: "Whether the war was legal based on resolution 1441 and preceding resolutions." I am rather enjoying discussing the matter without having to change the subject to some other legal basis (makes it difficult to keep track of what we are discussing).


 

bandana163

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2003
4,170
0
0
As I know, the president of the USA (like most politicans) cannot be brought to court in this case as long as he's in charge because of his status and rights. That's not all right, but as long as he's the boss, he can wage wars almost freely.

The war's "cassus belli" was the liberation of Iraq and the banishment of the 'evil dictator' S.H., plus, some blank, dim mis-explanation of the resolutions which didn't allow an attack on Iraq at that time (the security council didn't agree). The real cause of the attack was not explained by the US. Pre-empitive strikes don't exist in law. Self-defense would have been correct, if only SH threathened the US or attacked another state. But he didn't. And how dangerous is a far-away state which has no bio-nuclear weapons (as the inspectors found out) to the US?
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
<<I mainly want to finish thinking through the first point that I listed: "Whether the war was legal based on resolution 1441 and preceding resolutions.">>

There have been so many interpretations of 1441 and the rest, your conclusions would probably vary depending on whose interpretation you're using. I've heard...
- only the UN can authorize a war based on violations because the cease-fire was between Iraq and UN...not Iraq and USA
- there's wording in one of the resolutions that gives any of the original players the right to resume hostilities in the event of violations
- there is a clause stating that the UN has to vote on whether 1441 has been violated or not
- 'severe consequences'......I don't have to tell you of the contraversy surrounding this little phrase

 

bandana163

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2003
4,170
0
0
But something seems sure, regardless of declarations: Iraq did not threathen the US (unlike N. Korea) or the UN, didn't have WMDs (unlike N. Korea) and didn't attack the US.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
so what's your take on it Gaard?

edit:
sorry, I didn't notice the intervening post.
It seems logical to me that if two parties come to an agreement, only those two parties have the right to say the agreement is null and void. I'm not sure, but I think that's probably why our president searched far and wide for a 'last straw' to say we needed to wage war. If you remember, long before we actually sounded the battle cry, we (Bush) repeated over and over how SH was in violation of the cease-fire. I asked way back then, if that was all the reason/justification we needed, why did we (Bush) continue for weeks and months looking for more reasons? I was told that he was doing it to bring the rest of the world 'on board'. This doesn't make much sense to me. I *think* that Bush probably figured he would be called to the carpet if he went to war on the 'violation of the cease-fire' argument, simply because it was between Iraq and the UN, not the US. Therefore he needed to gather other reasons.

Do the violations of the resolutions make this war legal? IMO, no. Not without the UN authorizing war. Had they given their thumbs up on a war...no problem.
 

LilBlinbBlahIce

Golden Member
Dec 31, 2001
1,837
0
0
Originally posted by: DaiShan
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Originally posted by: Vaerilis
What's the promised full media coverage on the war? Where were the Iraqi soldiers and vehicles? Can 2K tanks and 400 aircraft disappear along with millions of soldiers?
The US military does not count military casualties, so we'll never know how many Iraqi soldiers died. I'm sure they were in the tens of thousands.
They died for their country, just like our soldiers died for theirs. What will a death tally do more than serve as morbid trophies of war?
You're right, they died defending their country. We cannot forget that a lot of these "soldiers" were forced conscripts. Giving a number of how many people we killed would illustrate the brutality of a war whose premise is becoming more and more dubious as days go by. Saddam may have been the devil incarnate, but by starting the war, the Bush admin is both indirectly and directly responsible for all the blood spilled on that battlefield, that is to say, if there was no war, no one would be dead. Atleast till they find some WMD and give us proof that this war was justified, even the dead soldiers are not an irrelevant statistic IMO.

 

Regs

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
16,665
21
81
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
The day you see any US official affiliated to this administration idicted on war crimes will be the day Bin Ladin will pose nude for Playgirl. Ain't going to happen. International rules and regs don't apply to us. Want a simple example? Remember the outcry when Iraqi media showed those American troops being interrogated? Remember the administration screaming that the Iraqis were violating the Geneva Conventions? Notice how nothing was said about footage of us strip searching hundreds of Iraqi soldiers, tieing them up and marching them off into the horizon. No one had qualms about showing footage of hundreds of dead Iraqi soldiers. No one cried foul then. But show an American and it's game over man. Rules are good only if they do not apply to us.
....

You don't think the Iraqis or other Muslim nations complained when we showed that footage of 100 dead Iraqi soldiers? They acted the same way we would if we saw our kids out there dead. And International Laws are a joke. The only people who in-force them is the United States anyway.
 

bandana163

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2003
4,170
0
0
Does anybody know what happened to the oil reserves in Iraq after the war?
Will EXXON and the others cabalize the oil (as foreseen)?
As I've heared, since the US&UK forces are in charge there, the country's people don't have the country's oil. Bush promised that the people of Iraq will be liberated and their nation's riches will be given to them.
 

TaylorD

Diamond Member
May 13, 2000
5,495
0
76
As far as I am concerned, the concept of "international law" is somewhat irrelevant here... Because not every country is involved in the formation of such laws, can they really be applied to every country? The UN is something of a consultation service, with no real power, and they have less influence on worldly affairs than they would like to believe.

If you still want to cling to the idea of international law, then what do you make of Saddam's repeated violations? And how about the fact that the US has always taken the lead in enforcing said "international laws"?

The United States is in the unique position of being the first "most powerful nation" of any timeperiod that does not have imperialistic goals, and because of that, the world expects us to clean up the messes and to fund the less affluent nations. Then we will take the blame for all that goes wrong.

So we are expected to be champions of human rights around the world, but when we free a people from an oppressive leader, people cry foul?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY