Anti-War U.S. Marine Sentenced to Six Months in Jail

[chequita guevara]

The war was clearly illegal under international law. The fact is, the US has not respected international law for quite some time. Quit trying to justify it under international law. You stand a better chance justifying by talking about how evil Hussein was/is.

[SlowwHand]

Spiffor, I like you so I'll say it one more time.
Hussein was to PROVE certain things in order to keep up his end of the cease-fire.
Inspectors should never have been required.
1441 cancels all existing resolutions, and yes, cease-fires.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The US declared the cease fire ergo the Us can undeclare a cease fire. Also, I believe the same resolution which authorized force in 1991 also put the US in charge of the situation. Since the US is the authorized party then it makes sense they can declare or undeclare cease fires at their pleasure.

Wrong, and wrong.

The ceasefire was negotiated by the US, but it was legally enacted by a SC resolution. The US and other countries were put into a evry limited role; even the legality of the no-fly zones has been unclear. And finally, undoing cease fires can be a use of force; whether it formerly qualifies as a declaration of war, a de facto start of war, or a resumption of hostilities is totally irrelevant. Not to mention that the old resolutions refer to the liberation of Kuwait, not the occupation of Iraq.

[Dinner]

No it spoke about liberating Kuwait and neutralizing the Iraqi threat. The exact wording escapes me but I remember George Bush Sr. saying in an interview after the war that they purposefully wrote the resolution to be as broad as possible so that what ever happened he could claim he was authorized by the UN.

[SlowwHand]

And as far as the Che's of the world, call it illegal if you want, it doesn't matter since you're STILL wrong.
Bottom-line, this thread wasn't to convince anyone that the action was "legal", it's to say adios to a dumbass who thought he could milk the system.
He's screwed for life, and I'm glad.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Spiffor, I like you so I'll say it one more time.
Hussein was to PROVE certain things in order to keep up his end of the cease-fire.

And because of his violation he was being punishd. That's what the embargo was about. Have you forgotten the embargo?

The previous resolutions only authorized force in order to expell Iraq from Kuwait. Since Iraq was not in Kuwait, the US had no mandate to use force.

The war was illegal, for all that it's worth, snice no one would dare punish us.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
1441 cancels all existing resolutions, and yes, cease-fires.

I suppose you got to wrote on the draft with invisible ink ? No where it is written that the cease-fire is cancelled. I may change my mind if you back your argument; I'll trust Oerdin until proven otherwise. Maybe you can convince me with a minimum of backing your arguments ?

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Oerdin
No it spoke about liberating Kuwait and neutralizing the Iraqi threat. The exact wording escapes me but I remember George Bush Sr. saying in an interview after the war that they purposefully wrote the resolution to be as broad as possible so that what ever happened he could claim he was authorized by the UN.

Was something like using all means necessary. So if Saddam had been toppled in the process of liberating Kuwait, tough luck for him. But with Kuwait being freed from Iraqi occupation, that one has been consumed.

I don't quite understand why you insist so much on the legality of this. Your people are quite safe from any legal consequences.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
I don't quite understand why you insist so much on the legality of this. Your people are quite safe from any legal consequences.

Because they don't just want to be successful, they want everyone to admit they were right all along, which is never gonna happen.

[HershOstropoler]

Well in that case, they really should worry more about the success-part.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Tingkai


What about a situation where a President orders troops to conduct a war without approval from the legislature, or in direct violation of a law passed by the legislature? Would that constitute an unlawful order?

That would be grounds for Congress to impeach the President, but the President is expressly declared by the Constitution to be the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, so his orders are binding, regardless of any "political" controversy within the government.

That doesn't change the fact that he is wrong. The call-up order was lawful. The decision to go to war was made according to the laws of the US. If this guy wants to pick and choose what wars he will fight, he shouldn't join the military in peacetime.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I suppose you got to wrote on the draft with invisible ink ? No where it is written that the cease-fire is cancelled. I may change my mind if you back your argument; I'll trust Oerdin until proven otherwise. Maybe you can convince me with a minimum of backing your arguments ?

Just some examples, ok.
It won't matter to most of the nay-sayers, and again, this thread wasn't SUPPOSED to be about just HOW legal this all was, but ok.
Go look up the cancelled resolutions if it will float your boat, but it says right here.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm (again)

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ramo


Sometimes I wonder how much you legalistic fanatics would enjoy serving time in a prison.

We're not deserters.

I suppose there's nothing wrong with, say, indentured servitude then? Once again, can you tell me how it's just that if a soldier breaks a contract he should get sent to prison, while if a CEO in a big corporation breaks a contract, he doesn't have to pay a single cent?

It's an oath, and the situation is incomparable. He volunteered, he knew what was expected, he knew what was required, and he refused.

Why is it so different? Given that there are serious ethical considerations that aren't existent in other contracts, it only makes sense that reneging on a contract with the USMC should carry lesser penalties than in other cases.

Personal "ethical" considerations are alien to any contract. He knew what he was signing up for. End of story. Don't like it, don't join up.

[DinoDoc]

Ramo: I'm not quite sure I understand your train of thought. If we are going to continue with the contract analogy, the penalties the soldier suffered these actions were spelled out before he even joined the Marines in the UCMJ. If he found those consequences unacceptable, he either should have reported for duty or not joined at all.

[Sprayber]

Why is it necessary to overly complicate this matter. We have a person that signed a contract after reading and getting a breifing on what would happen if he did not live up to his obligations and was quiet happy to draw pay and benifits until it came time to fullfill one of the requirments of his job. He obviously knew what was going to happen since he had is second excuse waiting in the wings.