Drunk Driving lesson for Paris and other drunks

[Cypress]

We never signed that we would never go to war without permission from the UN. However, the wording of that inane "Serious Consequences" more than gives them wiggle room for that. The US did not give up their sovereignty in this matter to the UN, even in the charter. It is one of the reasons they have veto power.

We never signed that we would never go to war without permission from the UN.


Yes we did. We signed the UN Charter. We are a legal signatory to it. Our constitution therefore compels us to comply with the UN Charter. As it does with any treaty we sign. It's unconstitutional to NOT comply with a treaty we are a signatory to.

The UN Charter (e.g., international law) forbids attacking another country, except in self defense.

 

[Cancel7]

The cease fire agreement was between the United Nations and Iraq.

NOT between the United States and Iraq. Remember, Gulf War 1, was a united nations war? Authorized by the security council? The US and other nations were acting on behalf of a UN mandate.

therefore, it's NOT up to the United States to determine if Saddam is complying with a UN ceasefire. And its not up to us to determine how to punish him, if he's not complying. That's up to the security council.

LOL That one went right past me.

I know, it's straight out of Cheney's mouth. That was his whole argument. Just because Cheney made this argument, doesn't mean it's true, or that it was accepted by most. I mean, can't we all at least agree that Dick cheney is a LYING MF? What does it take? Does someone have to blow him, pardon my english, as they say.

 

[Cypress]

"Bull$hit it wasn't illegal. We were not granted authority by the UN Charter and the last time I checked the US is bound by treaties it signs."

1) Not if those treaties are deemed detrimental toward the safety of this country

2) We may not have had a new mandate from the UN, but we certainly had legal rights under the terms of the ceasefire agreement. Saddam had 12 years, did not live up to the terms... we removed him. The fact that Bush FUBARed the process does not change the legality of the situation.

Nope.

ARTICLE VI, US Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;


There are no exceptions granted for ignoring a treaty that the United States signed.

If we don't like a treaty, then congress can formally withdraw from the treaty.


In addition, Iraq wasn't a threat to us, nor were they about to attack us. There was no reason to violate Article VI.

 

[Damocles]

We never signed that we would never go to war without permission from the UN.


Yes we did. We signed the UN Charter. We are a legal signatory to it. Our constitution therefore compels us to comply with the UN Charter. As it does with any treaty we sign. It's unconstitutional to NOT comply with a treaty we are a signatory to.

The UN Charter (e.g., international law) forbids attacking another country, except in self defense.

One more time, it compels the States to comply, but it cannot Abrogate the US Constitution.

The "law of the land" portion you quotes specifically relates to State Constitutions and State laws, not the US Constitution. The US Constitution cannot be overturned because of a Treaty. I even posted quotes by both Jefferson and Hamilton explaining this.

That you ignore them doesn't change this actual fact.

 

[Cypress]

LOL That one went right past me.

I know, it's straight out of Cheney's mouth. That was his whole argument. Just because Cheney made this argument, doesn't mean it's true, or that it was accepted by most. I mean, can't we all at least agree that Dick cheney is a LYING MF? What does it take? Does someone have to blow him, pardon my english, as they say.

I've been listening to this crap for four years. NeoCons think that WE - the united states - had a ceasefire with iraq.

No we didn't. The United Nations - and its member states - had a ceasefire with Iraq. The security council had the legal authority to determine compliance and punishment. Not us.

 

[Damocles]

Nope.

ARTICLE VI, US Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;


There are no exceptions granted for ignoring a treaty that the United States signed.

If we don't like a treaty, then congress can formally withdraw from the treaty.


In addition, Iraq wasn't a threat to us, nor were they about to attack us. There was no reason to violate Article VI.

I notice that you cut it off right before the restrictions are specified. That no State Constitution, or State law could violate the Treaty, but that the US Constitution is not mentioned. A Treaty cannot override the Constitution. As the Jefferson and Hamilton quotes previously listed by myself clearly state.

The UN does not have authority over the US Constitution because of ratification, only over the constitution and laws of every State.

 

[Cypress]

One more time, it compels the States to comply, but it cannot Abrogate the US Constitution.

The "law of the land" portion you quotes specifically relates to State Constitutions and State laws, not the US Constitution. The US Constitution cannot be overturned because of a Treaty. I even posted quotes by both Jefferson and Hamilton explaining this.

That you ignore them doesn't change this actual fact.

One more time, it compels the States to comply, but it cannot Abrogate the US Constitution.

Damo, please stop excusing war mongering.

First, Article 51 of the UN charter does not require us to seek approval to defend ourselves. The right to self defense is explicit in the UN Charter.

Invading iraq wasn't self defense.

The only time this great country should go to war is for self-defense, or on behalf of an ally in need.

There's is NO reason to violate Article VI of the constitution, as it relates to the UN charter. Unless you think we should be a war mongering nation that attacks others without merit.

 

[Cypress]

I notice that you cut it off right before the restrictions are specified. That no State Constitution, or State law could violate the Treaty, but that the US Constitution is not mentioned. A Treaty cannot override the Constitution. As the Jefferson and Hamilton quotes previously listed by myself clearly state.

The UN does not have authority over the US Constitution because of ratification, only over the constitution and laws of every State.

I didn't pick you out for a poster who advocated for preemptive illegal war on iraq.

Here's the whole text:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


We are compelled by the constitution, to comply with any treaty that we sign. Period.

If we don't like the treaty, congress can formally withdraw us from the treaty.


I suggest if you enjoy pre-emptive war, you should ask your congressman to withdraw us from the UN charter.

 

[Damocles]

One more time, it compels the States to comply, but it cannot Abrogate the US Constitution.

Damo, please stop excusing war mongering.

First, Article 51 of the UN charter does not require us to seek approval to defend ourselves. The right to self defense is explicit in the UN Charter.

Invading iraq wasn't self defense.

The only time this great country should go to war is for self-defense, or on behalf of an ally in need.

There's is NO reason to violate Article VI of the constitution, as it relates to the UN charter. Unless you think we should be a war mongering nation that attacks others without merit.

However the UN Charter does not override the US Constitution, specifically by the portion you only partially quote, the "Supreme law of the land" applies, after that semi-colon that you conveniently stopped at, to the "constitution and laws of each state". No Treaty can override the US Constitution regardless of how much you want them to. They can only override your state constitution and laws.

The reasoning is flawed from the get-go when you state that it overrides the Congress' authority to authorize war. It does not.

And you, of all people, should know that I do not and have never supported invasion without declaration. I am not arguing to support the war, I am arguing directly, the Constitutional authority of the Congress and whether it is overridden by a Treaty. It is not.

 

[Cypress]

Article 6 - Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

I don't think the constitution is vague in this instance.

It's not.

Only bush worshippers will try to say that we can ignore international law that we are signatories to, whenever the mood strikes us.

 

[Damocles]

and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Notice, it specifically applies to the States. The US Constitution is not abrogated to the Treaty, only the States.

 

[Cypress]

How can invading a sovereign, with no UN authority, be legal under International law?

It's not. Unless that country attacks us, is on the verge of attacking us, or if we are coming to the aid of an ally under attack.

 

[Cypress]

No no no. There were inspectors in there before bush. clinton too pulled them out when he bombed them in 98. Saddam did screw around with not always giviing them full access, but they were there. And before the 2003 invasion, he gave them full access, no holds barred, and Bush PULLED THEM OUT, because he didn't want to make sure there were no wmds. He wanted to invade.

He f'ing lied, and I do not understand how you people are not pissed about being lied to. But I guess if someone has an R after their name, you don't mind it.

He f'ing lied, and I do not understand how you people are not pissed about being lied to. But I guess if someone has an R after their name, you don't mind it.


QFT.

 

[Cypress]

7. Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and to ratify the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972;

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

9. Decides, for the implementation of paragraph 8 above, the following:

(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below;

(b) The Secretary-General, in consultation with the appropriate Governments and, where appropriate, with the Director-General of the World Health Organization, within forty-five days of the passage of the present resolution, shall develop, and submit to the Council for approval, a plan calling for the completion of the following acts within forty-five days of such approval:

(i) The forming of a Special Commission, which shall carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities, based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission itself;

(ii) The yielding by Iraq of possession to the Special Commission for destruction, removal or rendering harmless, taking into account the requirements of public safety, of all items specified under paragraph 8 (a) above, including items at the additional locations designated by the Special Commission under paragraph 9 (b) (i) above and the destruction by Iraq, under the supervision of the Special Commission, of all its missile capabilities, including launchers, as specified under paragraph 8 (b) above;

(iii) The provision by the Special Commission of the assistance and cooperation to the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency required in paragraphs 12 and 13 below; "

Please tell me how Saddam lived up to any of the above?

Also, we could visit the oil for food fiasco as well. Yet another failing of the UN.

In addition, I did not say the ceasefire agreement was detrimental to the US. I said IF a treaty becomes detrimental to our safety, then it is the duty of our leaders to protect us. Regardless of the treaty.

An example (not in any way based on the situation in Iraq) If a country, say Afghanistan, harbors a terrorist group who just flew planes into say... the WTC... and a member of the security council had decided to use their veto to prohibit any UN approval for taking military action against Afghanistan... would you have the US sit on its hands and do nothing? Again, NOT saying this is what happened in Iraq.

Iraq under Saddam failed to live up to the ceasefire agreement. THAT provided justification for his removal legally.... not to say that it was necessary at the time.

Iraq under Saddam failed to live up to the ceasefire agreement. THAT provided justification for his removal legally.... not to say that it was necessary at the time.

That's your opinion.

Your opinion, and the opinion of George Bush carry no weight, with respect to this ceasefire.

It wasn't a ceasefire between the US Government and Iraq. It was a ceasefire between the UN and Iraq. The security council was the only legal authority to determine compliance and punishment.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"No we didn't. The United Nations - and its member states - had a ceasefire with Iraq. The security council had the legal authority to determine compliance and punishment. Not us."

The ceasefire agreement was between Iraq, Kuwait and all members on behalf of Kuwait. We were part of that agreement. If the UN refuses to uphold the ceasefire agreement then we have every right to do so if we believe our security is at stake. The UN had twelve years to get compliance, but somehow you and those like you seem to think that a miracle occured in the final three months and that everything was solved. Which is bullshit.

 

[Cypress]

"Actually, it looks like they were sure in 3 months. And according to you in the months leading up ot the ILLEGAL invasion, Saddam was complying making you're initial points about him no complying in 12 years mute and invalid."

Bullshit. If they were capable of determining "for sure" in three months, then what the hell were they doing for 12 years?

Saddam making gestures of compliance simply because we had built up forces on his border in NO WAY invalidates 12 years of failing to comply. Had we pulled those forces, do you think that compliance would have continued? How completely naive.

Bullshit. If they were capable of determining "for sure" in three months, then what the hell were they doing for 12 years?


This was Clinton's fault. By the mid 1990s, inspection were essentially done. Virtually all WMD had been accounted for. A small, tiny fraction were unaccounted for, but that was as likely to be an accounting error, as it was to be saddam hiding something. In a large, industrial nation like Iraq, there's virutally no way to account perfectly for 100% of WMD that was alleged to have been built.

Didn't matter to Clinton. His policy was regime change. THere was no way he was ever going to let saddam escape santions, nor was he going to stand by and allow the security council to declare Iraq disarmed. That would have removed the sanctions.

And clinton was lying. He didn't give a shit if Iraq was totally disarmed of WMD. He wanted to keep sanction on, and thereby make the regime collapse.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"Only bush worshippers will try to say that we can ignore international law that we are signatories to, whenever the mood strikes us."

And only a left wing nut would try to imply that is what Damo or myself is saying. Please show us where either of us stated that the US could ignore treaties "whenever the mood strikes us" . Strawman alert.

 

[Cypress]

"No we didn't. The United Nations - and its member states - had a ceasefire with Iraq. The security council had the legal authority to determine compliance and punishment. Not us."

The ceasefire agreement was between Iraq, Kuwait and all members on behalf of Kuwait. We were part of that agreement. If the UN refuses to uphold the ceasefire agreement then we have every right to do so if we believe our security is at stake. The UN had twelve years to get compliance, but somehow you and those like you seem to think that a miracle occured in the final three months and that everything was solved. Which is bullshit.

Exactly. The ceasefire was between UN member states (including Kuwait), and IRaq. It wasn't between the US government and Iraq.

You, Bush, and Cheney had no authority to determine compliance and punishment. That was the legal authority of the security council.

 

[Cypress]

What do you mean? States cannot, of themselves, invade anybody. However the Congress can give the President authority to do so, under the US Constitution, which is not abrogated by a Treaty as the "Law of the Land" thing you keep quoting specifically refers to State Laws and State Constitutions.

The authority of the US to wage war is on the shoulders of the congress, not on the UN.

But, other than self-defense, or coming to the aid of an ally under attack, what possible reason is there for congress to declare war? There's not.

That's why the UN charter and the US constitution are completely compatible, and there's no need to withdraw from the UN charter.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"It wasn't a ceasefire between the US Government and Iraq. It was a ceasefire between the UN and Iraq. The security council was the only legal authority to determine compliance and punishment."

It was an agreement brokered by the UN on behalf of Iraq, Kuwait and the member states cooperating with Kuwait. We were one of those member states. The bulk of the forces used were ours. The bulk of the money used was ours. We were one of the member states that the ceasefire agreement encompassed. If we felt our national security was at stake, we had the right to force Saddam to comply if the UN failed to do so. The UN failed for 12 years. Do you really believe the crap you just spit out about Clowntoon? That he alone held up the removal of the sanctions because he wanted regime change? Then why did he do nothing to make sure the UN oil for food program wasn't abused by Saddam? Why did he spend his entire 8 years on the sideline... occassionally lobbing a missle here or there? If he felt so strongly about it as your post suggests... why did he not get the UN to be more pro-active?