It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jamie83
The war is not considered illegal by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Courts, or the U.N.
Q: I wanted to ask you that - do you think that the resolution that was passed on Iraq before the war did actually give legal authority to do what was done?
A: Well, I'm one of those who believe that there should have been a second resolution because the Security Council indicated that if Iraq did not comply there will be consequences. But then it was up to the Security Council to approve or determine what those consequences should be.
Q: So you don't think there was legal authority for the war?
A: I have stated clearly that it was not in conformity with the Security Council - with the UN Charter.
Q: It was illegal?
A: Yes, if you wish.
Q: It was illegal?
A: Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal.
Originally posted by BradKell
...They SHOULD be able to quit... but they SHOULD honor their committment.
Originally posted by jamie83
The war is not considered illegal by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Courts, or the U.N. The "resisters" are people who enlisted voluntarily, and who want to exercise a one-sided discretion over the terms of their enlistment.
The Canadian government isn't really accomplishment much other than pandering to the left-leaning in Canada.
It urged the government to allow conscientious objectors "who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations" to stay in Canada.
Originally posted by BradKell
reply to post by johnsky
On the one hand you have people who may oppose the war and therefore defect, on the other side you have people who signed a contract and gave their word then promptly left others who depend on them.
This blade cuts both ways. Had they been conscripted or drafted, I would defend them completely. As it is, I must remain nuetral. They SHOULD be able to quit... but they SHOULD honor their committment.
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Isn't it interesting that the day after parliament voted on this, the GM truck plant in Oshawa closed with the loss of over 2000 jobs. Especially considering that only 16 days before, GM, in an agreement with the CAW, said that the plant would remain open.
McGuinty didn't deny his government provided conflicting versions of its much-touted ``investment'' with GM _ an interest-free, 50-year loan which wasn't disclosed as such until after GM announced the planned closure of a truck plant in Oshawa, Ont., which employs 2,600 people.
``We should have made that information available earlier,'' McGuinty said......
The province invested $235 million with GM's Beacon project in 2005, $60 million of which went to universities for research and development and the balance to GM for its Oshawa operation.
Originally posted by BradKell
This blade cuts both ways. Had they been conscripted or drafted, I would defend them completely. As it is, I must remain nuetral. They SHOULD be able to quit... but they SHOULD honor their committment.
Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
Canadian Parliament Grants Asylum To U.S. War Resisters
rawstory.comnews
It urged the government to allow conscientious objectors "who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations" to stay in Canada.
[edit on 6/4/08 by niteboy82]
Hmmm.. interesting wording here in bold type DD. Was that a cut/paste from the source link(?) because here's what I read from the source link you posted....
Parliament on Tuesday voted to allow US resisters of the Iraq war who fled to Canada to stay in this country, thus avoiding military court-martial in the United States.
The non-binding motion passed 137 to 110, with support from all three opposition parties, which hold a majority of seats in the House.
the wording could be a trap phrase of sorts because 'urge'="compelling or requiring immediate action or attention; imperative; pressing: an urgent matter"
and voting are COMPLETELY 2 different things .. I was wondering if they changed the wording to VOTING..from urgent.. yea.. might have been a typo but .. on such a touchy subject.. that is HUGE!!
S/F for ya.. great find .. I just hope that it doesn't backfire on them by November 2008
Section 1: torture is defined as severe pain or suffering, which means there must be levels of pain and suffering which are not severe enough to be called torture (often termed "cruel, degrading or inhumane treatment").
However the worst sanction which can be applied to a powerful country is the publishing of the information that they have broken their treaty obligations. In certain exceptional cases the authorities in those countries may consider that with plausible deniability that this is an acceptable risk to take as the definition of severe is open to flexible interpretation.
Section 16: contains the phrase territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, so if the government of a state authorises its personnel to use sensory deprivation on a detainee in territory not under its jurisdiction then it is suggested that that government has not broken its treaty obligations.