Iraq and legality again Re: [extropy-chat] Professor Being Sued OverAnti-Agi

[Brian Lee]

I've got two schools of thought on this:
1) The Iraq war was illegal because all wars/invasions are illegal. (For 
example, in WW2, Germany waged an illegal war on France, Poland, etc. Then 
the allies waged an illegal war on Germany by invading Germany. After this 
point it's all arguing over what the right motivation is and that leads me 
to point #2).
2) Since the US Congress granted war poiwers to invade Iraq, the US 
Executive was acting legally in invading Iraq. It is up to each country to 
decide what is the appropriate motivation and vote. The US voted and decided 
to go to war and to continue to support the war effort.

BAL

>From: "Brett Paatsch" <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au>
>To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Iraq and legality again Re: [extropy-chat] Professor Being Sued 
>OverAnti-Aging Comments
>Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 15:09:44 +1000
>
>Joseph Bloch wrote:
>
>>*sigh*
>>
>>Brett Paatsch wrote:
>>
>>>The body count in Iraq of innocent
>>>civilians is probably around 20,000 or so based on a UN estimate
>>>I read about in the Australian. Thats about five times the amount
>>>of 'innocent' bystanders that were killed on September 11.
>>
>>
>>That number includes (indeed, by a vast majority) those innocent civilians 
>>killed by the Islamist and Baathist insurgents. 
>>(http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/)
>>
>>Your statement makes it appear as if the 20,000 Iraqi civilians were all 
>>killed by coalition forces, when in fact the truth is that the vast 
>>majority were killed by the very terrorists who we are fighting against. 
>>BUT EVEN SO...
>
>I didn't mean to imply that 20,000 were killed by coalition forces.
>
>Whether the Iraq war was legal or not IS something determineable by
>investigation between fair minded reasonable people with some
>understanding of law.  I am not sure how many people could pass
>through the caveats in that sentence however. Those that think they
>can may be right in thinking so.
>
>I would be *very* interested in seeing the best possible argument from
>the American side, indeed from the Bush administration, that it was legal
>(not amateur hour stuff but the real thing from a lawyer or legally savvy
>person who knows the case) because I have seen the arguments from
>the Australians and during the recent election in the UK more came out
>about the basis of the British decision under Goldsmith. The Brits and
>Blair allowed themselves to be persuaded but not by any legal argument
>I have seen nor that I am aware of that any US citizen has seen or has
>inquired into.
>
>I am 100% genuine on this. If there is any US citizen reading this list
>that honestly feels qualified and can place their hand on or refer me
>to a link that they personally find legally persuasive that shows that the
>Iraq invasion was not illegal then I would really like to hear from them.
>(Mike, with respect, I don't regard you as qualified so you would need
>to have excellent sources or I'd think I'd be wasting my time).
>
>I know Greg Burch is a lawyer and I understand that he disagrees
>with me but I don't know if he took a good look at the legality of
>the Iraq war and concluded that it was legal or not. If he did I'd
>respect him enough to take a look at his case and to be pursuaded
>on the evidence. I can change my mind.
>
>But I suspect what happened is that Greg didn't look. Perhaps
>I am being unfair to Greg and if I am I will owe him an apology
>but I think the US legal savvy extropes were asleep or focussed
>elsewhere when the legalities of the Iraq invasion was being
>worked through. That did disappoint me a bit. On this list way before
>the invasion took place I posted about the possibility of two hoaxes,
>one being that clonaid had a clone, the other being that Iraq had
>weapons of mass destruction - a check of the archives will bear me
>out on this. We on this list were in a position to discuss the game
>theoretic implications and we did not do it. I tried but there were
>not enough takers.
>
>If it was an illegal invasion and the sovereignty of a UN country was
>violated against a US oath, (and an Australian and a United Kingdom
>one) then to my mind a fairly large part of the consequences of
>resistance to illegal force sheets back to the US regardless and the
>Bush administration regardless (and the Howard government regardless)
>of whether those resisting are bathists or people otherwise objectionable
>to the current power in fashion that labels their opponents terrorists.
>
>
>>During Saddam's 20-year reign, around 750,000 Iraqi civilians were killed. 
>>That's an average of 3,125 per month. Even if you lay all of the deaths of 
>>civilians (mostly caused by suicide bombers, insurgent mortar attacks, and 
>>drive-by-shootings by terrorists), at the coalition's doorstep since the 
>>end of major combat operations (May, 2003 - June 2005), you get 769 per 
>>month.
>
>I am not even slightly defending anything that Saddam Hussein did. What
>he did is beside the legal point. And the law is what must matter to us if
>we are going to have a rule that is not a rule of faith or a rule of power.
>
>
>>Hmmm.
>>
>>During Saddam's regime, 3,125 a month killed.
>>
>>After his ouster, 769 a month killed (mostly by Islamic and Baathist 
>>terrorists).
>>
>>Of course, it would be better if no one was killed by Islamic terrorists. 
>>But we don't live in a perfect world, and must perforce make incremental 
>>progress. You think this is a BAD thing? Saving 2,356 lives a month on 
>>average?
>>
>>Pardon my bluntness, but Sweet Reason, man! We're SAVING lives every day 
>>that we're there! If Saddam had been left in power, some 61,000 people 
>>would be dead right now that are alive.
>
>Your missing my point Joseph. And I am not missing yours. I did take a 
>quick
>look at the site reference you provided and it looks like a fairly 
>reasonably
>source so far I could tell quickly. I can freely see that some good can 
>come
>of actions even illegal actions.
>
>I do understand what Spike means when he asks "are we not on the eve of
>construction?" with respect to Iraq.
>
>Please don't make the mistake of miss characterising me as anti-American
>(if anything I'm pro - although I'm Australian), or anti-Repulican, (I'm 
>neither
>Republican nor Democrat by sympathy), nor am I a passivist. (I thought
>the invasion of Afganistan *was* legal, and I thought George H W Bush's
>conduct in the first Gulf War was very creditable and moral and legal and
>upright. I say these things only to try and get you to see that I am not
>someone that is going to be easily classified into the nut job, disaffected
>or disillusioned opponent category.
>
>I was and am a largely disinterested observer with the exception that I
>want progress to be real and I recognize that we need to uphold some
>rule of law, some decency for that to happen, otherwise all that changes
>is which particular group dies.
>
>The dying can slow down, all the way across the board, when the critical
>thinking picks up. The tragedy of Iraq was that it shows the level of 
>thinking
>that we (humans) were capable of through our institutions.
>
>We (humans) need to do a lot better. Or the whole transhumanist thing
>is going to continue to look like pie in the sky.
>
>Sorry, I didn't mean to rant at you ;-)
>
>And the transhumanist thing *may* be pie in the sky anyway.
>
>Regards,
>Brett Paatsch
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat