Watada update...

"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1193347500-sch@news.lava.net...
>
>
> As for Jerry's statement that there's no such thing as
> international law unless it can be enforced. It's
> really a matter of definition rather than of
> enforcement. Enforcement really depends on who are your
> enemies. You definitely want to enforce the law on them
> and not on yourself if you are the US. But this makes
> it a problem of enforcement-- not a problem of
> definition.
>

I will repeat. What good is it to say that something is illegal, when you
are not going to bring them to trial, find them guilty, and throw them in
jail (or execute them)?

okamuraj005@hawaii. (Jerry Okamura) wrote:
> It DOES NOT MATTER what international laws and treaties say, because
> if you want to I can list a whole series of times when countries
> have waged war, which will not meet what these internationa laws
> and treaties say.

I haven't said that there were no other wars which violated international
laws and treaties. I fully accept that there have been. I'm merely
pointing out that _this particular one_ did.

>> Resolution 1441 didn't have anything in it setting a deadline or
>> specifying military action.

> The relevant paragraph in that resolution is, "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,".

It's a Security Council resolution. Which means the Security Council
gets to determine what is "necessary." And it didn't determine that
the US and UK going off and doing something by themselves was
"necessary." So to say that the UNSC approved of the action is
incorrect.

I hope that clarifies matters.

--
"The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the
surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90
million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some
indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be..." - Douglas Adams

okamuraj005@hawaii. (Jerry Okamura) wrote:
> The answer to your question is, the UN Security Council is king
> of the hill. What they say goes, regardless of what the UN Charter
> says.

....but then said...

> The relevant part of the Security Council Resolution on the matter is
> that paragraph that says, "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990)
> authorized Member States to use all necessary means...

I agree with your points completely, Jerry. The UNSC is king of the
hill, and what the UNSC says goes. That being the case, the "necessary
means" that Member States are authorized to use are those which the
UNSC says are necessary. But the UNSC didn't say it was necessary
for any Member States to invade other Member States, so whether it
_could_ override the Charter is a little moot - it didn't.

Whether that's sufficient for Watada, I dunno.

--
"The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the
surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90
million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some
indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be..." - Douglas Adams

"Dan Birchall" <nobody@imaginary-host.danbirchall.com> wrote in message
news:1193929800-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> okamuraj005@hawaii. (Jerry Okamura) wrote:
>> The answer to your question is, the UN Security Council is king
>> of the hill. What they say goes, regardless of what the UN Charter
>> says.
>
> ...but then said...
>
>> The relevant part of the Security Council Resolution on the matter is
>> that paragraph that says, "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990)
>> authorized Member States to use all necessary means...
>
> I agree with your points completely, Jerry. The UNSC is king of the
> hill, and what the UNSC says goes. That being the case, the "necessary
> means" that Member States are authorized to use are those which the
> UNSC says are necessary. But the UNSC didn't say it was necessary
> for any Member States to invade other Member States, so whether it
> _could_ override the Charter is a little moot - it didn't.
>
I would disagree with your analysis. "If" the UN Security Council did not
want a member country to use force, then I would think they should have left
out that paragraph, and instead put in something like, "no member state can
resort to the use of force without the prior approval of the UN Security
Council". They did not do that. As a result, in this case, because of the
way the resolution was wored, the US felt that they DID have the approval of
the UN Security Council to use force. Also, "if" the UN Security Council
felt that they never gave that authorization, then they could have tried to
make that point clear, when it became obvious that the United States,
believed they did have the UN Security Council stamp of approval, which they
also did not do. Even if they had no chance of getting it approved, because
the US does have veto power, it would have been symobolic to bring it to the
vote, and "if" every other member but the US approved this new resolutin,
making their intent clear, we would all know that they did not approve of
the us of force.

somewhere@outthere.net (Hertz Donut) wrote:
> Watada was not given either an illegal or an unlawful order.
> What part of *THAT* do *YOU* not understand?

The part where you saying so makes it so. Please provide supporting
data, instead of just chanting a mantra. Extensive information has
been provided by the people you're chanting at.

> No part of the orders that Watada received were in contavention
> with the Constitution of the United States.
> What part of *THAT* do *YOU* not understand?

The part where "the Constitution" tends to be viewed through the
lens of other existing federal legislation and international treaty
law. After all, the Constitution by itself only allows Congress
to declare war, which hasn't been done. :)

--
"If you like to stand on your head and spit pickles in the snow, on the
Internet there are at least three other people just like you."
- Langston James Goree VI

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, Hertz Donut wrote:

> "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1194406204-sch@news.lava.net...
>>
>> The courts are the right and proper way to protect
>> this oath, and insure that the officer does his
>> duty. You have no right to appoint yourself judge
>> and jury.
>
> But appointing himself judge and jury is *EXACTLY*
> what Watada did. He took it upon himself to decide
> that his orders were not legal, and he is completely,
> utterly and totally wrong.

It is his duty according to the Oath to make that
decision. He has a primary responsibility to protect
the Constitution and the laws and obligations of our
country. He is willing to let the court make the final
decision. OTOH you are jumping ahead of the court to
declare him guilty.

somewhere@outthere.net (Hertz Donut) wrote:
>> "Dan Birchall" <nobody@imaginary-host.danbirchall.com> wrote:
>>> somewhere@outthere.net (Hertz Donut) wrote:
>>>> Watada was not given either an illegal or an unlawful order.
>>>> What part of *THAT* do *YOU* not understand?
>>>
>>> The part where you saying so makes it so. Please provide supporting
>>> data, instead of just chanting a mantra. Extensive information has
>>> been provided by the people you're chanting at.
>
> *YOU* are the on claiming the war is illegal. *YOU* must
> provideproof of that.

And I have already done so, at great length. I'm waiting for you to
reciprocate. Spectators might have trouble differentiating between
being unwilling to provide supporting evidence... and being unable.

--
"If you like to stand on your head and spit pickles in the snow, on the
Internet there are at least three other people just like you."
- Langston James Goree VI

"Dan Birchall" <nobody@imaginary-host.danbirchall.com> wrote in message
news:1195007100-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> somewhere@outthere.net (Hertz Donut) wrote:
>>> "Dan Birchall" <nobody@imaginary-host.danbirchall.com> wrote:
>>>> somewhere@outthere.net (Hertz Donut) wrote:
>>>>> Watada was not given either an illegal or an unlawful order.
>>>>> What part of *THAT* do *YOU* not understand?
>>>>
>>>> The part where you saying so makes it so. Please provide supporting
>>>> data, instead of just chanting a mantra. Extensive information has
>>>> been provided by the people you're chanting at.
>>
>> *YOU* are the on claiming the war is illegal. *YOU* must
>> provideproof of that.
>
> And I have already done so, at great length.

Hardly! I have followed this and other threads that you have participated
in, and not once have you ever proven your point.

I'm waiting for you to
> reciprocate.

You seem incapable of understanding that I don't have to! I am not the one
claiming the war is illegal. *YOU* are claiming the war is illegal, and yet
never post anything other than your own misinformed opinion.


Spectators might have trouble differentiating between
> being unwilling to provide supporting evidence... and being unable.


Well, you are clearly unable to support your position....


Honu