I don't believe this one: Perle Says Iraq Invasion Was Illegal

[Zebo]

Text

 

[DealMonkey]

Damn. Now I'm astonished too. Can I believe what I'm reading? :Q

 

[LunarRay]

He may just be saying the invasion is illegal but the events of an illegal action don't carry the cloak of immunity a legal action would. The folks who died as a result and the infrastructure are all on the US if an international court found that way as well. The consequences of all this contrition are too far reaching to have Perle and others simply just become repentant. I always wonder why folks say what they say.

 

[PainTrain]

Either he must be incredibly stupid, or perhaps he's the srouce of the white house leaks? I'll be damned if ONE of them actually has a conscience!

 

[Moonbeam]

We didn't need Pearl to tell us that. It was real obvious the minute Caddy denied it and damn obvious before. I told ya Bush smeared a 50 year struggle to uphold and fix the notion of international law. If Bush were actually the President he should be impeached. As it is the Supreme Coup ought to tell him to go home and put Gore in like the voters actually voted.

 

[Zebo]

Speaking of Gore. Gore Vidal was on CR last night and painted a bleak picture for USA...Said we are headed tward a plice state and despostism...like the founders hoped to aviod.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Speaking of Gore. Gore Vidal was on CR last night and painted a bleak picture for USA...Said we are headed tward a plice state and despostism...like the founders hoped to aviod.

The Salem Witch trials comes to mind. Either you are one of them or you are evil... .. heard something like that before..

 

[alchemize]

Sounds like he was saying international law is irrelevant to me.

"I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

 

[Czar]

are there any laws in the US that prevents the president from waging illegal wars?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Sounds like he was saying international law is irrelevant to me.

"I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

if I think traffic laws are irrelevant to me and I ignore them I am still braking those laws

 

[syzygy]

perle is correct by simply commenting the law on this issue is impotent and needs dire reform. laws that allow evil to continue unbothered, and, at
times, even flourish, do not deserve to be respected. when you have the likes of a saddam yielding a colt python you don't bring a straw and tissue
paper to the fight.

leftists, given their history of public protest against these same type of laws, should be the last souls who raise a peep against this admission. how
many unjust laws have they railed against, petitioned against, and sacrificed lives to over the past 200 years. some for ill, some for good, admittedly.
perle's admission is a brilliant tactic. he feeds the loony left morsels of their own ideology and watches them choke on it. these tidbits need to be
warmed up a bit though, 'cause as the pithy maxim goes 'revenge is a dish best served cold.'

 

[Hoffcorp]

There is no such thing as international law. Also even if there were such a thing, the US Constitution states that it is the supreme law and it would be a violation for any US Citizen, and possibly an act of treason, to violate the Constitution in favor of any other legal body. The interpretation of the Constitution is that Congress can declare war, but it is vague about who can wage war. The Congress is allowed to ratify treaties but it has been interpreted that the President has the power to break treaties but not make them. To call any way illegal you have one document to work from and that is the US Constitution. If you can't find a clear violation it isn't illegal. In accordance to the US Constitution the hague and any other body that tries or even indicts any US Military personel for war crimes will be considered to have commited an act of war and the US will bring its full military might to protect its personel from harm, be it by a terrorist or a judge not recognized by the US Constitution. George W. Bush was also elected by the laws of Florida and the United States Constitution. The Florida court ruled correclty initially when it said you could not change the method votes were counted during or after an election because the state consitution stipulates, as well as federal law that there is a period of time before an election where no changes can be made to the election process or rules. Counting only certain counties instead of the entire state got Gore's motion overturned by the U.S. Supreme court, and then the time had passed that Florida's constitution allowed for counting ballots. If Gore had gone for a complete recount the motion may have succeeded. Whenever I hear someone say this or that was illegal I ask what statute they are qouting, and if they begin with anything other than the US Constitution I politely explain to them no other documents matter for legality. India could declare beef consumption illegal in the united states, France could declare murder only a civil offense with minor fines, these declarations would not change the legality of anything within the United States. If the United States sends armies to the entire world and conquers it, no binding law will have been broken. Nothing in the US Constitution forbids the conquest of the entire world. Furthermore might makes right as far as law goes. A sovereign nation needs to have the monopoly of legitimate force to be said to have the rule of law. Wherever US force is applied it becomes defacto an action within US sovereignty and displaces any previous law. The only illegal invasion is one that is repelled and the invader is inturn conquered by the invaded nation. To say Bush has committed an illegal action will only be valid if decalred by the victor over the United States. If you advocate that his actions are illegal you are advocation the defeat and conquest by the US by a foreign power, or you are trying to overthrow the Constitutional government. Both desires would be met justly with the use of deadly force. The rhetoric of an illegal war is total nonsense. Wars aren't illegal because they are in essence the absence of law. While the war is being fought there is question as to what law is binding, and it could change from day to day or minute to minute. The bottom line is that other governments are trying to appeal to some sentiment of the American people to avoid the process of defeating our military and taking hostages to murder or imprison. They hope to convince us some actions were illegal and without firing a single shot possibly kill many of our servicemen. I would rather see all the world in ash than the US surrender a single soldier to any foreign power.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Hoffcorp
There is no such thing as international law. Also even if there were such a thing, the US Constitution states that it is the supreme law and it would be a violation for any US Citizen, and possibly an act of treason, to violate the Constitution in favor of any other legal body. The interpretation of the Constitution is that Congress can declare war, but it is vague about who can wage war. The Congress is allowed to ratify treaties but it has been interpreted that the President has the power to break treaties but not make them. To call any way illegal you have one document to work from and that is the US Constitution. If you can't find a clear violation it isn't illegal. In accordance to the US Constitution the hague and any other body that tries or even indicts any US Military personel for war crimes will be considered to have commited an act of war and the US will bring its full military might to protect its personel from harm, be it by a terrorist or a judge not recognized by the US Constitution. George W. Bush was also elected by the laws of Florida and the United States Constitution. The Florida court ruled correclty initially when it said you could not change the method votes were counted during or after an election because the state consitution stipulates, as well as federal law that there is a period of time before an election where no changes can be made to the election process or rules. Counting only certain counties instead of the entire state got Gore's motion overturned by the U.S. Supreme court, and then the time had passed that Florida's constitution allowed for counting ballots. If Gore had gone for a complete recount the motion may have succeeded. Whenever I hear someone say this or that was illegal I ask what statute they are qouting, and if they begin with anything other than the US Constitution I politely explain to them no other documents matter for legality. India could declare beef consumption illegal in the united states, France could declare murder only a civil offense with minor fines, these declarations would not change the legality of anything within the United States. If the United States sends armies to the entire world and conquers it, no binding law will have been broken. Nothing in the US Constitution forbids the conquest of the entire world. Furthermore might makes right as far as law goes. A sovereign nation needs to have the monopoly of legitimate force to be said to have the rule of law. Wherever US force is applied it becomes defacto an action within US sovereignty and displaces any previous law. The only illegal invasion is one that is repelled and the invader is inturn conquered by the invaded nation. To say Bush has committed an illegal action will only be valid if decalred by the victor over the United States. If you advocate that his actions are illegal you are advocation the defeat and conquest by the US by a foreign power, or you are trying to overthrow the Constitutional government. Both desires would be met justly with the use of deadly force. The rhetoric of an illegal war is total nonsense. Wars aren't illegal because they are in essence the absence of law. While the war is being fought there is question as to what law is binding, and it could change from day to day or minute to minute. The bottom line is that other governments are trying to appeal to some sentiment of the American people to avoid the process of defeating our military and taking hostages to murder or imprison. They hope to convince us some actions were illegal and without firing a single shot possibly kill many of our servicemen. I would rather see all the world in ash than the US surrender a single soldier to any foreign power.

Paragraphs are your friend, embrace them!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Don't bother with the paragraphs . . . it will not improve the quality of your ideas.

Let me see if I can summarize the Bushies argument this week:

1) The US invasion was illegal based on international law (or agreements).
2) The invasion was NECESSARY to defend the legitimacy of the United Nations and its resolutions.
3) Before the war in Iraq the vast majority of terrorism deaths and sponsorship existed outside of Iraq.
4) After the unofficial end of Bush War 2003, the vast majority of terrorism deaths and sponsorship occur outside of Iraq, yet . . .
5) Iraq is the center of the war on terrorism . . .

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Czar
are there any laws in the US that prevents the president from waging illegal wars?

Perhaps you should file a lawsuit.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Hoffcorp
There is no such thing as international law. Also even if there were such a thing, the US Constitution states that it is the supreme law and it would be a violation for any US Citizen, and possibly an act of treason, to violate the Constitution in favor of any other legal body. The interpretation of the Constitution is that Congress can declare war, but it is vague about who can wage war. The Congress is allowed to ratify treaties but it has been interpreted that the President has the power to break treaties but not make them. To call any way illegal you have one document to work from and that is the US Constitution. If you can't find a clear violation it isn't illegal. In accordance to the US Constitution the hague and any other body that tries or even indicts any US Military personel for war crimes will be considered to have commited an act of war and the US will bring its full military might to protect its personel from harm, be it by a terrorist or a judge not recognized by the US Constitution. George W. Bush was also elected by the laws of Florida and the United States Constitution. The Florida court ruled correclty initially when it said you could not change the method votes were counted during or after an election because the state consitution stipulates, as well as federal law that there is a period of time before an election where no changes can be made to the election process or rules. Counting only certain counties instead of the entire state got Gore's motion overturned by the U.S. Supreme court, and then the time had passed that Florida's constitution allowed for counting ballots. If Gore had gone for a complete recount the motion may have succeeded. Whenever I hear someone say this or that was illegal I ask what statute they are qouting, and if they begin with anything other than the US Constitution I politely explain to them no other documents matter for legality. India could declare beef consumption illegal in the united states, France could declare murder only a civil offense with minor fines, these declarations would not change the legality of anything within the United States. If the United States sends armies to the entire world and conquers it, no binding law will have been broken. Nothing in the US Constitution forbids the conquest of the entire world. Furthermore might makes right as far as law goes. A sovereign nation needs to have the monopoly of legitimate force to be said to have the rule of law. Wherever US force is applied it becomes defacto an action within US sovereignty and displaces any previous law. The only illegal invasion is one that is repelled and the invader is inturn conquered by the invaded nation. To say Bush has committed an illegal action will only be valid if decalred by the victor over the United States. If you advocate that his actions are illegal you are advocation the defeat and conquest by the US by a foreign power, or you are trying to overthrow the Constitutional government. Both desires would be met justly with the use of deadly force. The rhetoric of an illegal war is total nonsense. Wars aren't illegal because they are in essence the absence of law. While the war is being fought there is question as to what law is binding, and it could change from day to day or minute to minute. The bottom line is that other governments are trying to appeal to some sentiment of the American people to avoid the process of defeating our military and taking hostages to murder or imprison. They hope to convince us some actions were illegal and without firing a single shot possibly kill many of our servicemen. I would rather see all the world in ash than the US surrender a single soldier to any foreign power.

Agreed that you need paragraphs in there, but what you said is very true.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Czar
are there any laws in the US that prevents the president from waging illegal wars?

Congress does.

CkG

 

[tnitsuj]

Nothing is illegal for those who have the most power.

 

[StormRider]

I still think the idea of the legality of a war is silly and doesn't make sense. You can say that a war was "right" or "wrong" or "misguilded" or "unjust" but it just seems weird to say that it's illegal or legal.

We haven't reached the point where all of Earth is under one government yet.

 

[CaptnKirk]

'Legal War' or "Illegal War' - the point is moot.
Who are the War Police ?
And who are they going to arrest ?

 

[Lucky]

Do you have another source? The guardian is about as credible as the Weekly World News.

 

[LunarRay]

There is the Constitution of The US which also controls in this situation.
The Treaty regarding the UN was ratified and therefore, is part of the US law. If we violate its provisions we violate our law.Ya might read this essay..

International Law seems impotent because you can't point at the cop or the prosecutor... but, it exists! It is as impotent as the member states wish to make it or as strong. In this case we are the cops the prosecutor and the criminal.

To view the international rule of law that we defend when it suits us, use when it is to our advantage but, ignore when we wish, makes us hypocrites in the eyes of the world.

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
There is the Constitution of The US which also controls in this situation.
The Treaty regarding the UN was ratified and therefore, is part of the US law. If we violate its provisions we violate our law.Ya might read this essay..

International Law seems impotent because you can't point at the cop or the prosecutor... but, it exists! It is as impotent as the member states wish to make it or as strong. In this case we are the cops the prosecutor and the criminal.

To view the international rule of law that we defend when it suits us, use when it is to our advantage but, ignore when we wish, makes us hypocrites in the eyes of the world.

who doubted the law's existence ? we know who the stewards and enforcers are, at least by name, certainly not by deed. these 'cops' and 'prosecutors' are guilty of systemic incompetence.

the one person who most abused the existence of these very laws was saddam hussein. knowing he could not win a conventional battle, he employed the west's own feeble regulations as his chief diplomatic weapon. he stalled, juked his good-willed opponents, and came out ahead as dr. david kay's preliminary report found. he reaped billions in illicit profits through blatant circumventions of the sanctions regime, which his criminal partners (turkey, syria, and jordan) openly admitted.

bush jumped over failed diplomacy, failed institutions, and failed persons who would've
continued in their soft ignorant ways, indirectly helping saddam rack up huge profits, depriving his people of basic humanitarian care, and making a horrible farce worse.
u.n. member states continued pressing a failed program with one end of their mouths while the other side spoke of long overdue reform. that would be the very definition of hypocrisy. this hardly constitutes a whimsical intervention on the part of the bush administration.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
There is the Constitution of The US which also controls in this situation.
The Treaty regarding the UN was ratified and therefore, is part of the US law. If we violate its provisions we violate our law.Ya might read this essay..

International Law seems impotent because you can't point at the cop or the prosecutor... but, it exists! It is as impotent as the member states wish to make it or as strong. In this case we are the cops the prosecutor and the criminal.

To view the international rule of law that we defend when it suits us, use when it is to our advantage but, ignore when we wish, makes us hypocrites in the eyes of the world.

LR, this is precisely the point I've been making all along, only the pro-war folks like to waffle and suggest that UN Res 1441 had some implied thread of actual force and then the lawyers step in and really muddy the waters. The hypocrisy is going to the UN to ask for a new UN Res that explicitly authorizes force and when you don't get one because the UN doesn't support it, you go and use force anyway pointing to previous UN Resolutions as your basis for doing so.

You're right in that you can't point to the cop or prosecutor, because he is us! It's like the bad cop that brutalizes some punk on the street for the sheer hell of it. What are you gonna do about it?

 

[cumhail]

"Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."
- Richard M. Nixon, in his May 19, 1977 interview with David Frost

This quote seems to sum up the philosophy being espoused by many in this thread; but it is was not true for Johnson... it was not true for Nixon... it was not true for Clinton... and it's not true for Bush.

cumhail