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

Wed Jun 22 19:07:39 UTC 2005

Here is another school of thought: The UN Charter authorizes use of
force internationally for two main reasons:
a) if a country is attacked it can fight back, or can help another
defend itself against attack (i.e. first Gulf War, plus Saddam's hit
squad against 41)
b) a security council resolution stating dire consequences if a UN
member nation fails to obey the resolution, and the nation doesn't. In
this case, Iraq violated both the Coalition Cease Fire Agreement for
the first gulf war (which was UN authorized) AND some 18 later Security
Council resolutions. The US has been authorized to use force since the
first time Iraq violated the cease fire agreement, it is just that some
nations with profit motive didn't want to acknowledge it.

--- Brian Lee <brian_a_lee at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail 