On the legality of the war, two legal experts debate

[Czar]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3543079.stm

Taking part are Professor Malcolm Shaw of the University of Leicester, who thinks the war can be justified on legal grounds, and Dr Gerry Simpson, reader in law at the London School of Economics, who believes it cannot.

ahhh after reading this if only the debates here would be at that level
but anyways its a great read

 

[bdude]

Enlightening.

 

[chess9]

And why did Malcom miss the opportunity to refer to his opposition as a latte drinking, scum sucking commie?

That's the problem with the Brits. They don't like to wrestle. Here, we wrestle. Thinking is a no-no.

Anyway, Malcom's argument is dreadfully weak. Gerry's is significantly better but could have been stronger.

Are these boys in the same cricket league, perhaps? All that politeness is cloying....

-Robert

 

[Czar]

chess9,
think thats how people communicate in the outside world

 

[conjur]

Bravo!

From the last email:

I agree, too, that Resolution 678 refers to more than simply the liberation of Kuwait. Resolution 686, for example, makes it obvious that 678 remains active until Iraq meets its obligations under the formal cease-fire. Iraq met these obligations. As a consequence, 678 falls away and cannot be used to authorise military action where Iraq has breached a different set of obligations altogether (i.e. those contained in 687).

I believe this is where Bush et al. made their contention that compliance with Resolution 686 by Iraq was not complete and, therefore, 687 was moot and 678 was still active.

 

[zillafurby]

Originally posted by: Czar
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3543079.stm

Taking part are Professor Malcolm Shaw of the University of Leicester, who thinks the war can be justified on legal grounds, and Dr Gerry Simpson, reader in law at the London School of Economics, who believes it cannot.

ahhh after reading this if only the debates here would be at that level
but anyways its a great read

aaahh, two experts diametrically opposed, academia hasnt changed since voltaire ruled the universe.

 

[zillafurby]

Originally posted by: chess9
And why did Malcom miss the opportunity to refer to his opposition as a latte drinking, scum sucking commie?

That's the problem with the Brits. They don't like to wrestle. Here, we wrestle. Thinking is a no-no.

Anyway, Malcom's argument is dreadfully weak. Gerry's is significantly better but could have been stronger.

Are these boys in the same cricket league, perhaps? All that politeness is cloying....

-Robert

Robert; genius of ATP&N when the state has been hijacked by a marauding, murdering gang, as iraq's had, and the people want them gone, how can it be illegal to forcibly attack these gangsters, and replace them with legitimate politicians to run the state?
i.e. after having defeated the gangsters and left the state intact, as in iraq now.

 

[maddogchen]

I hate how we've let lawyers into War. Damn lawyers, we should wage war on them. legal or not!

 

[chess9]

zillafurby:

I have no clue, and your argument sounds so strong I think I'll switch sides. Czar, you blood-sucking commie latte drinking' blowjobforgivin' clintonlovin alienpieceofmerde, GET OUTTA HERE!

AH, now I feel better....

-Robert

 

[zillafurby]

Originally posted by: chess9
zillafurby:

I have no clue, and your argument sounds so strong I think I'll switch sides. Czar, you blood-sucking commie latte drinking' blowjobforgivin' clintonlovin alienpieceofmerde, GET OUTTA HERE!

AH, now I feel better....

-Robert

well you are a

brain.

i love how the aching heart brigade would squeal like anything if they had had to live under ho chi minh, or saddam.