6 months and NO Weapons of Mass Destruction

[Imran Siddiqui]

Moral and legal justification are two different things....

True.. but who cares about moral justifications .

[Ned]

What bothers me about the Democrat thesis that Bush decided to invade Iraq and then misrepresented the intelligence on WMD to support that decision is that one then is left with a decision to invade without an apparent motive.

[Kuciwalker]

No, they claim the real motive was to help his friends in the oil industry. Another possible motive is to promote freedom and democracy and/or American hegemony.

[Ned]

NEWS FLASH

NEWS FLASH

A democrat policy memo from the Senate Intelligence Committee has just been leaked. In it, it lays out a Democrat plan to politicize the inquiry into pre-Iraq intelligence, to make this a major political issue in next year's campaign. Central to the strategy is a constant questioning of Bush's "real" motives for invading Iraq. The plan called for cooperation with the majority until next year, whereupon the minority would begin calling for an independent investigation in the midst of the presidential campaign.

Finally, PROOF that the questioning of the intelligence by the Democrats is all about politics and not about the truth.

Jay Rockefeller says the memo was not approved by the Democrat minority and that it was stolen. The Republican committee leader is considering calling for an ethics investigation.

This is allegedly exclusive on FOX.

[Kuciwalker]

This is allegedly exclusive on FOX.

...

[Ned]

Hah! It's been an hour and no Democrat has bothered to defend their party! Are they all asleep?

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Why a need for customary law?

Because I don't think most people expect principles in the UN Charter to be binding international law (as opposed to those articles setting up the organization).

1. Most people? Consensus is that they are binding.

2. If it were just a principle in content, why would it be suddenly binding if it came from a different source of law? Sorry, that doesn't make sense.

3. It's not a principle, that's a clear normative rule. Nuremberg and Tokyo assumed it to be part of international law even absent treaty, but as they applied it as a basis for criminal charges, I do not think you can make any case whatsoever that the provisions in the Charter are just happy little declarations of wishes.

self-determination does not necessarily justify intervention

- But it can at times .

Very unlikely. Morally, maybe. Not legally.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


AFAIK they have no part in enforcing UNSC decisions. They prosecute crimes which are more fundamental (i.e. violations of the UN's basic charter) i.e. crimes against humanity and war crimes. ...

The ICJ has no jurisdiction over states unless they accept it, either generally or on a case to case basis. The US (and I think the UK) do not accept general jurisdiction. And I doubt you can stretch the advisory function of the ICJ to get a "decision" on the issue - in any case, it would only be indirect.

The ICC can deal with war crimes etc, but lacks jurisdiction over states (only individuals) and over the Iraq war for several reasons. The legality of the US attack would be a preliminary question for the ICC, so it would not directly decide on the US attack either.

So you're right in the conclusion.

And it amuses me to no end that some little prickbrick thinks he can argue those issues after finding the ICJ homepage.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by MRT144
I bet if we do some thread digging we can find quotes from our resident cons that support this idea that iraq was on the brink of something huge against us.

Not exactly a resident con, but great nonetheless

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MRT144
caligastia, he didnt say it but it was implied. you know it and i know it, and the american public knows bush was implying iraq was an imminent threat. i bet if we do some thread digging we can find quotes from our resident cons that support this idea that iraq was on the brink of something huge against us.

The implication is in your head. Bush clearly stated that he wanted to stop Saddam/Iraq before they became an imminent threat.

- saying Iraq is an imminent threat

- saying we should stop Iraq before they become an imminent threat

Two different things...see?

[Sava]

Calig has a point. Bush was always careful what he said in public. Remember, he has ruthless political genius Karl Rove and others scripting his every word. Every single assertion about Iraq, or accusation starts with...

"Our Intelligence indicates..."

Even the Niger business started out with "British intelligence..." .

So the president has been playing with words so that technically the statements aren't outright lies. But let's not mince words. Bush got this nation scared to death that Saddam was going to unleash terrorist attacks in this country. Bush misled the public with statements and intelligence, that in many cases, he knew to be... hmmm... not entirely accurate.

The dopey Fox News audience can believe whatever they want. They can believe that Bush didn't lie because Brit Hume says, "well he only said the intelligence showed this... blah blah"

Let me ask you guys this.

If I say to someone, "Simon says you are a piece of ****"... don't you think that means I'm insulting that person? Technically not, but most people are smart enough to see past the semantics and read between the lines.

That's the game Bush played. It was dishonest. Invading Iraq at the time we did, the way we did was wrong, and Bush is the one responsible for this mess.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Sava
If I say to someone, "Simon says you are a piece of ****"... don't you think that means I'm insulting that person? Technically not, but most people are smart enough to see past the semantics and read between the lines.

I don't think that's a very good analogy. Whether someone would be insulted by you saying that or not would totally depend on how you say it.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Caligastia


I don't think that's a very good analogy. Whether someone would be insulted by you saying that or not would totally depend on how you say it.

fine, bad analogy... but I think I made my point... Bush = dishonest...

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Sava
fine, bad analogy... but I think I made my point... Bush = dishonest...

But you yourself said none of his statements were lies...how can you then call him dishonest?

[Sava]

...