Legal murder

[Winston Smith]

Except your caricature of an invalid legal argument is a valid legal argument for at least 8 nations. The US, Russia, Brittan, France, German, China, and Japan can all do whatever they want no matter what the UN says is legal or not. They are too big and to sovereign to be contained or constricted by the UN. And each has historical events they basically told the UN to shove it.

You're just rephrasing what I said. "Shove it" is also not a valid legal argument.

 

[mac]

It is murder if the war is illegal, as our wars usually are. It's considered heroic because we apply a double standard.

Our wars are illegal? By ours I'm assuming you mean the US, so which wars were you referring too? WWI, WWII? The criteria for going to war in the US is pretty clear, which war violated the procedures for going to war?

 

[Winston Smith]

Our wars are illegal? By ours I'm assuming you mean the US, so which wars were you referring too? WWI, WWII? The criteria for going to war in the US is pretty clear, which war violated the procedures for going to war?

I explained it in some of the later posts.

 

[hallam]

You're just rephrasing what I said. "Shove it" is also not a valid legal argument.

Shove it may be a caricature as well. But the vast majority of states do not take UN determination above national sovereignty. The UN is not a legal authority.

 

[Winston Smith]

Shove it may be a caricature as well. But the vast majority of states do not take UN determination above national sovereignty. The UN is not a legal authority.

It is to the extent our treaty agreements have made it an authority.

 

[hallam]

It is to the extent our treaty agreements have made it an authority.

Treaty agreements do not supersede the Constitution. We can sign a treaty to be in a self-defense agreement with other states. We can sign a treaty to be trade agreements or other agreements. But the US can not sign a treaty which places any body over Congress, the President, or the SCUTUS. This includes the UN treaty. Nothing in the treaty enlisting the US in the UN supersedes the Constitution. The UN simply isn't the highest law in the land and therefore the state is the only one which can make and validity a claim of self-defense. The UN can corroborate but the UN determination is not superior to that of the state. No state will take the UN mandate, determination, court deciding over a contrary state determination. For example, US soldiers are not subject to criminal or civil proceedings in the ICJ. This probably extents to all US agents though no proceeding has been against any other type of government agent. The ICJ can make any type of court decision it wants and the US will reject it unless a US court has already made the decision and it is in concernence.

 

[Winston Smith]

Treaty agreements do not supersede the Constitution. We can sign a treaty to be in a self-defense agreement with other states. We can sign a treaty to be trade agreements or other agreements. But the US can not sign a treaty which places any body over Congress, the President, or the SCUTUS. This includes the UN treaty. Nothing in the treaty enlisting the US in the UN supersedes the Constitution. The UN simply isn't the highest law in the land and therefore the state is the only one which can make and validity a claim of self-defense. The UN can corroborate but the UN determination is not superior to that of the state. No state will take the UN mandate, determination, court deciding over a contrary state determination. For example, US soldiers are not subject to criminal or civil proceedings in the ICJ. This probably extents to all US agents though no proceeding has been against any other type of government agent. The ICJ can make any type of court decision it wants and the US will reject it unless a US court has already made the decision and it is in concernence.

Treaties are part of the supreme law of the land, like the Constitution. This is so not because the UN says it, but because the Constitution says it. There's no issue as to whether the UN Charter supersedes the Constitution because there's no conflict between the two. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Nothing in the Charter claims to supersede that power. What we have done in the treaty is agree not to exercise the power except in certain conditions. That doesn't interfere with Congress, the president, or the Court any more than NATO interferes with it by saying we will go to war in certain conditions.

Whether the treaty is self-executing in American courts is a quite separate issue. Parts of it are enforceable against US soldiers, however, through American military law.

 

[hallam]

Treaties are part of the supreme law of the land, like the Constitution. This is so not because the UN says it, but because the Constitution says it. There's no issue as to whether the UN Charter supersedes the Constitution because there's no conflict between the two. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Nothing in the Charter claims to supersede that power. What we have done in the treaty is agree not to exercise the power except in certain conditions. That doesn't interfere with Congress, the president, or the Court any more than NATO interferes with it by saying we will go to war in certain conditions.

Whether the treaty is self-executing in American courts is a quite separate issue. Parts of it are enforceable against US soldiers, however, through American military law.

Your conflating two issues. One is if a treaty can work besides the Constitution and the other is if it can override the Constitution. Treaties are not apart of the Constitution; they are laws over which the Constitution has guided the creation of and has ultimate authority over. The US (and the other countries mentioned above) are not constrained by the UN charter. We have not agreed to restrict our power or our ability to limit the rationale to go to war. What we have done in adopting the Charter is to enter into a diplomatic entity only.

 

[Winston Smith]

Your conflating two issues. One is if a treaty can work besides the Constitution and the other is if it can override the Constitution. Treaties are not apart of the Constitution; they are laws over which the Constitution has guided the creation of and has ultimate authority over. The US (and the other countries mentioned above) are not constrained by the UN charter. We have not agreed to restrict our power or our ability to limit the rationale to go to war. What we have done in adopting the Charter is to enter into a diplomatic entity only.

You're the one who's conflating those two issues. You're arguing that the treaty can't override the Constitution, which is correct, but that isn't the issue here. Limiting the rationale for war is exactly what we've agreed to do by adopting the Charter. That doesn't conflict with our power to declare war, but it does limit our right to do so.

 

[hallam]

You're the one who's conflating those two issues. You're arguing that the treaty can't override the Constitution, which is correct, but that isn't the issue here. Limiting the rationale for war is exactly what we've agreed to do by adopting the Charter. That doesn't conflict with our power to declare war, but it does limit our right to do so.

You are overextending the intent and the authority of the UN Charter to a point which is not supported. The US did not limit its rationales or our right for war by adopting the Charter. The US at any time can go to war for any reason should the People of the US desire so. The people are the ruling body here; not the UN. The UN treaty doesn't limit these rights or rationales. It never did.

 

[Winston Smith]

You are overextending the intent and the authority of the UN Charter to a point which is not supported. The US did not limit its rationales or our right for war by adopting the Charter. The US at any time can go to war for any reason should the People of the US desire so. The people are the ruling body here; not the UN. The UN treaty doesn't limit these rights or rationales. It never did.

The Charter states that "all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." This is an agreed limitation on our rights, just like the North Atlantic Treaty or any other treaty.

 

[American]

It is murder if the war is illegal, as our wars usually are. It's considered heroic because we apply a double standard.

You have information the rest of us don't have?

 

[Winston Smith]

You have information the rest of us don't have?

Not at this point, I would think.

 

[Compatibilist]

OP- A soldier ordered to fire on an enemy combatant cannot commit murder.

 

[mac]

no it's your position, I just wanted to confirm this nonsense...



There was no slant drilling.

Even if there was, and it is a reason to go to war, Canada better get ready!

 

[American]

These Bush administration myths persist even after eight years. The US Senate report, compiled after we went into Iraq and gathered all the available evidence, is worth quoting at length:

I love this post, no pun intended. The key words being "post war", yes everyone is a Monday morning quarterback.

 

[Winston Smith]

I love this post, no pun intended. The key words being "post war", yes everyone is a Monday morning quarterback.

This is wrong on three different levels. First, as easy as Monday morning quarterbacking is supposed to be, apparently some people aren't that good at it. Despite all the evidence, MidRighter and a lot of others still seem to be defending the bad calls we made in 2002-2003. Thus the need to set the record straight.

Second, the title of the document is "Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq." My purpose was mainly to comment on the facts of the Iraqi situation, but if you want to talk about how those facts were handled before the war, the report deals with that as well. It's not just a record of the evidence collected since the invasion, but also an analysis of how the Bush administration handled the information that was available to it. Their conclusions are summarized in a press release by the committee:

Washington, DC -- The Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, and a bipartisan majority of the Committee (10-5), today unveiled the final two sections of its Phase II report on prewar intelligence. The first report details Administration prewar statements that, on numerous occasions, misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq. The second report details inappropriate, sensitive intelligence activities conducted by the DoD’s Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, without the knowledge of the Intelligence Community or the State Department.

“Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence,” Rockefeller said. “In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”

“It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.

“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."

Finally, those of us who looked honestly at the evidence knew even before the war that the threat from Iraq was unsubstantiated. That's not Monday morning quarterbacking. It's what Bush and company should have done all along, and what many true believers in the war on terror have still failed to do.

 

[Hicup]

It is murder if the war is illegal, as our wars usually are. It's considered heroic because we apply a double standard.

There's no such thing as an illegal war, only moral ones, and immoral, and even then, who has jurisdiction, or who decides what is moral, and immoral?

Tim-

 

[Johnny]

Why is murdering one person a crime and murdering thousands of innocent men, women and children in a war heroic?

ricksfolly

It's not heroic. That's why we have the Geneva Convention and Rules of Engagement. Nobody wants to kill innocent people. Innocent people at times are killed in the crossfire but it's certainly not on purpose.

Also as others have said, murder is the unlawful killing of another.