Smart people talking in this thread...be warned

Richard Fauk recently retired as Professor of International Law and Practice, at Princeton University and is currently a Visiting Distinguished Professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

I know its harder than watching the Fox news channel, kiddies but I promise its worth the effort.

Learning, learning, learning...its feels so good.


Kothari/ Mian: Before the war, there were unprecedented protests in the U.S and around the world. It was evident that a significant proportion of world opinion was opposed to the US plans to attack Iraq. Additionally, if the second Resolution had come to the UN, the US would have faced a veto in the Security Council, and yet they went ahead with the war. What are your thoughts on the legality and illegality of the war, and what are its implications for both the present period of engagement and the post-war situation?



Richard Falk: Before one gets to the issue of legality or morality there is the issue of a war by the US Government that violated fundamental rights of its own citizenry in a country that proclaims itself the world's leading democracy. This war against Iraq is very questionable constitutionally, as well as dubious under international law. There was no urgency from the perspective of American national security that might have justified a defensive recourse to a non-UN war, which is further suspect because the war was initiated without a formal and proper authorization from Congress. So this war against Iraq is constitutionally unacceptable and anti-democratic even if account is taken only of the domestic legal framework in the United States.

Aside from that, there was no basis for a UN mandate for this war, either on some principle of humanitarian emergency or urgency of the sort that arguably existed in Kosovo (1999) or in some of the sub-Saharan African countries that were sites for controversial claims of humanitarian intervention during the 1990's. There was also no evidence of a defensive necessity in relation to Iraq that had provided some justification for the unilateral American recourse to war against Afghanistan in 2001. In the Afghanistan War there was at least a meaningful linkage to the September 11th attacks and the persistence of the al Qaeda threat. A defensive necessity existed, although recourse to war stretched the general understanding of the right of self-defense under the UN Charter and international law. In contrast, recourse to war against Iraq represents a flagrant departure from the fundamental norms of the UN Charter that require war to be waged in self-defense only in response to prior armed attack, or arguably in some exceptional circumstance of imminent necessity -- that is, where there is a clearly demonstrable threat of major war or major attack, making it unreasonable to expect a country to wait to be attacked. International law is not a prison. It allows a measure of discretion beyond the literal language of its rules and standards that permit adaptation to the changing circumstances of world politics. From such a standpoint, as many people have argued in recent years, it is reasonable to bend the Charter rules to the extent of allowing some limited exceptions to the strict prohibition of the use of force that is core undertaking of the UN and its Charter, and is enshrined in contemporary international law. This analysis leads to the inevitable conclusion that in the context of Iraq recourse to force and war was impermissible: there was neither a justification under international law, nor was there a mandate from the United Nations Security Council (and if there had been such a mandate it would have provided dubious authority for war, being more accurately understood as an American appropriation of the Security Council for the pursuit of its geopolitical goals). Furthermore, there were no factual conditions pertaining to Iraq to support an argument for stretching the normal rules of international law because there were credible dangers of Iraqi aggression in the near future. If such reasoning is persuasive, then it seems to me inescapable that an objective observer would reach the conclusion that this Iraq War is a war of aggression, and as such, that is amounts to a Crime against Peace of the sort for which surviving German leaders were indicted, prosecuted, and punished at the Nuremberg trials conducted shortly after World War II.

The rest of the article: www.transnational.org...

Warning the real controllers of ATS are speaking!

They control ATS and anyone that disagrees is punished..

wait for blood to be spilled.

Nice to see that somebody actually sees the reality..

And isnt taken over by FOX or CNN news..

What do you give a damn?

You hate the US because YOU WANT TO!

I never said they were perfect.

Show me a viable ulternative that will work,
and help us throught the problems that are coming in the next 10 years!

and I sure as hell do not trust the following:

Russia, China, Europe, the UN, Socialists, Fulcrum.

story.news.yahoo.com.../afp/20031209/ts_afp/russia_vote_liberals_031209023355

i dont trust russia for one

Fulcrum,

why do you come here?

all you do is attack the US all the time.

why do the people that run this site allow this?

Originally posted by NuTroll
story.news.yahoo.com.../afp/20031209/ts_afp/russia_vote_liberals_031209023355

i dont trust russia for one

This is progress,

This is good for Russia,

Those liberals as they are here called,

Were US agents,

And slaves for money..

It is only a good thing for the Russian people that they got rid off those!

Believing Falk or Chomsky does not mean that you are smart, only that you are sucked into another viewpoint.

I think their rabid american hating stance turns me off, and am happy for them to stay in their political and sociological wilderness.

Thinking people have the abiity to read, understand, and evaluate all ideas and then take on baord only what they truly believe, not swallowing a prepackaged diatribe from somone pushing the barrow of their own magnificence.

Originally posted by FULCRUM

Originally posted by NuTroll
story.news.yahoo.com.../afp/20031209/ts_afp/russia_vote_liberals_031209023355

i dont trust russia for one

This is progress,

This is good for Russia,

Those liberals as they are here called,

Were US agents,

And slaves for money..

It is only a good thing for the Russian people that they got rid off those!

I agree with Fulcrum.

What is happening in Russia is a GOOD thing.

Democrats and Republicians are NOT good everywhere.

P.S. if it work in US it doesnt mean it will work in Russia.

This proves what was told to me:

that many people in this world are not CAPABLE of freedom.

they are born that way.

in time they will be born where there is freedom when they are ready for it, provided it still exists.

that is if the controllers do not make everyone a total slave.

Originally posted by Netchicken
Believing Falk or Chomsky does not mean that you are smart, only that you are sucked into another viewpoint.

I think their rabid american hating stance turns me off, and am happy for them to stay in their political and sociological wilderness.

Thinking people have the abiity to read, understand, and evaluate all ideas and then take on baord only what they truly believe, not swallowing a prepackaged diatribe from somone pushing the barrow of their own magnificence.

Who said you had to believe them NetChicken??? I said "Smart people will be talking in this thread". Since the man was a F**KING PROFESSOR AT PRINCETON FOR 30 YEARS, I think that qualifies as smart.
The purpose of these posts is to add to your own perspective and reality tunnel. I believe that's why we post things here, right???
Choosing to believe or not believe is as irrelivent to me as Neo's claims that these learned men are US bashing. If you bother to read the articles you would notice that both these men offer a myriad of ways to make our world better.
How about we try this today...Lets all READ the information and then discuss what is talked about...quoting specifics and facts. Then we can discuss, dispute and educate ourselves.
Or we can continue the NEVERENDING diatribe of "Repugnant and Demoncrack" witticisms that dominate this once-respectable debate forum.
And to me, the fact that you're a moderator at this discussion site, claiming to be "ok" with these Professors viewpoints 'being in the wilderness' is all the more pathetic. You'd better hurry...I hear Hannity and Colms is coming on..time to plug yourself in for a fix.

There is no friend anywhere - Lao Tse

[Edited on 9-12-2003 by Voice_of Doom]

Owing to the title of this thread becoming a joke because of the level of abuse generated I deleted it back to where it still made some sence.

(Really it should be deleted all the way back to my last post to actually achieve that though)

Come on guys get a grip ....

Really and what part of what I said is foolish?

You know I am right and this child is wrong and further more he is mocking me now cause he has nothing else.

Originally posted by Voice_of Doom
Richard Fauk recently retired as Professor of International Law and Practice, at Princeton University and is currently a Visiting Distinguished Professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

I know its harder than watching the Fox news channel, kiddies but I promise its worth the effort.

Learning, learning, learning...its feels so good.


Kothari/ Mian: Before the war, there were unprecedented protests in the U.S and around the world. It was evident that a significant proportion of world opinion was opposed to the US plans to attack Iraq. Additionally, if the second Resolution had come to the UN, the US would have faced a veto in the Security Council, and yet they went ahead with the war. What are your thoughts on the legality and illegality of the war, and what are its implications for both the present period of engagement and the post-war situation?



Richard Falk: Before one gets to the issue of legality or morality there is the issue of a war by the US Government that violated fundamental rights of its own citizenry in a country that proclaims itself the world's leading democracy.Yeah what fundemental rights are these?If he is referring to the Patriot Act it was voted approved in congress 99-1. This war against Iraq is very questionable constitutionally, as well as dubious under international law. The UN itself put forth unanimously resolution 1441 and again a later resolution that was voted in favor of forceful means to disarm Iraq. Saddam broke 16 resoltions based in 1441 and kicked inspectors out in 1998. The fact that something wasnt done sooner should be what is at question here, not the legality under international law.There was no urgency from the perspective of American national security that might have justified a defensive recourse to a non-UN war, which is further suspect because the war was initiated without a formal and proper authorization from Congress. So this war against Iraq is constitutionally unacceptable and anti-democratic even if account is taken only of the domestic legal framework in the United States.He needs to go back and check to see which wars actually had congressional approval after 1900. Congress does have the sole power to declare war, but the president can send armed forces into a country in situations that are certainly the equivelant of war. When William McKinley ordered troops into Peking to help supress the Boxer revolution in 1900, he was sending them into a combat situation. Truman sent troops to Korea ub 50' as part of the UN to enforce Police actions.Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon waged war in Vietnam that was undeclared where more than 58k troops died. In none of these situations did congress declare war.
Lets talk about the war powers act....that states the President can send troops without congressional approval. For being a Princeton professor, I am sure he knows this but his bias can be seen by not mentioning these other situations.

Aside from that, there was no basis for a UN mandate for this war, either on some principle of humanitarian emergency or urgency of the sort that arguably existed in Kosovo (1999) or in some of the sub-Saharan African countries that were sites for controversial claims of humanitarian intervention during the 1990's. There was also no evidence of a defensive necessity in relation to Iraq that had provided some justification for the unilateral American recourse to war against Afghanistan in 2001. The intel that he recieves compared to the administration is to large to state the reasons he is wrong here.In the Afghanistan War there was at least a meaningful linkage to the September 11th attacks and the persistence of the al Qaeda threat. A defensive necessity existed, although recourse to war stretched the general understanding of the right of self-defense under the UN Charter and international law. In contrast, recourse to war against Iraq represents a flagrant departure from the fundamental norms of the UN Charter that require war to be waged in self-defense only in response to prior armed attack, or arguably in some exceptional circumstance of imminent necessity -- that is, where there is a clearly demonstrable threat of major war or major attack, making it unreasonable to expect a country to wait to be attacked.This is thinking for conventional war hich I would agree upon, but the fact is terrorism is much differant than conventional war and therefor the norms of pre-emption vs waiting for something to happen is not a very prudent thing to do. International law is not a prison. It allows a measure of discretion beyond the literal language of its rules and standards that permit adaptation to the changing circumstances of world politics. From such a standpoint, as many people have argued in recent years, it is reasonable to bend the Charter rules to the extent of allowing some limited exceptions to the strict prohibition of the use of force that is core undertaking of the UN and its Charter, and is enshrined in contemporary international law. Americas laws come before international law. We follow all war time laws set forth by the international community on the basis of moral issues during war. But by no means does America need international approval to enforce action when it is regarding our own fate.This analysis leads to the inevitable conclusion that in the context of Iraq recourse to force and war was impermissible: there was neither a justification under international law, nor was there a mandate from the United Nations Security Council (and if there had been such a mandate it would have provided dubious authority for war, being more accurately understood as an American appropriation of the Security Council for the pursuit of its geopolitical goals). Furthermore, there were no factual conditions pertaining to Iraq to support an argument for stretching the normal rules of international law because there were credible dangers of Iraqi aggression in the near future. Wrong htere was justification. Iraq had the onus to prove it was destroying the 7500(I could be off a bit here) tons of WMD that the UN weapons inspectors could not account for. Iraq choose not to prove they detroyed these weapons and under INTERNATIONAL law set forth by the UN and 1441 it gave us more than enough required by international law. What was the vote on whether we should go to war with Iraq anyway, sorry I forgot. Was it 11-4?? Not unanimous, but more than enough to go to war. If such reasoning is persuasive, then it seems to me inescapable that an objective observer would reach the conclusion that this Iraq War is a war of aggression, and as such, that is amounts to a Crime against Peace of the sort for which surviving German leaders were indicted, prosecuted, and punished at the Nuremberg trials conducted shortly after World War II.No they were indicted on charges of genocide. Comparing what we are doing to what Germany is doing is obviously ignorant. We are not going for global dominance or to remove a particular ethnicity from the planet. We are simply taking the offensive to a enemy that is near impossible to defend against.
The rest of the article: www.transnational.org...

It's a very common problem here unfortunately how so many people have decided that the opinion they agree with is "smart" and everyone else is "wrong" and "unenlightened", and had their head in the sand etc. I think it's called closed-mindedness.

There must be 1,000 threads on this board where the people who are against anything America does are "intellectuals" and those who support America at all are "sheep."

Falk, Chomsky etc are entitled to their opinions. So am i. I don't like their's and they don't like mine. That doesn't make either of us correct or "smart" and until some concrete evidence besides "educated" people's theories are presented, you need to get used to an opinion being an opinion.

Originally posted by Netchicken
Believing Falk or Chomsky does not mean that you are smart, only that you are sucked into another viewpoint.

I think their rabid american hating stance turns me off, and am happy for them to stay in their political and sociological wilderness.

Thinking people have the abiity to read, understand, and evaluate all ideas and then take on baord only what they truly believe, not swallowing a prepackaged diatribe from somone pushing the barrow of their own magnificence.

Ding, Ding, Ding!
Nicely said and I couldn't agree more NC.



regards
seekerof

Djarums,

all agreed and concisely noted.

I always look for inconsistency and hypocrisy in a 'point of view' not because I wish to just shot it down or disagree with it but because it indicates hidden motives often.

[Edited on 9-12-2003 by THENEO]

Finding hidden motives is sadly overlooked. All of the aforementioned people who need to quote anti-american writers like the gospel are constantly reminding us that the demonic americans and their leaders have hidden motives. My friends... what are your motives? What are your motives for turning every #ing piece of news from a war to the leaves changing color in the fall into an Anti-American rant? Is it because you are a benevolent soul in dire need of giving people the truth? I don't think so.

It is so sad that people do not see the true conspiracy.

The battle between light and dark and how the human is right in the middle.

I would like to point out that in our attempt to "educate the kiddies" I would like to point out the following technique

"This analysis leads to the inevitable conclusion that in the context of Iraq recourse to force and war was impermissible: there was neither a justification under international law, nor was there a mandate from the United Nations Security Council (and if there had been such a mandate it would have provided dubious authority for war, being more accurately understood as an American appropriation of the Security Council for the pursuit of its geopolitical goals). "

Is how you create a theoretical (hypothetical may be the more appropriate word) catch-22, and create the PERCEPTION, that no matter how things WOULD HAVE GONE, you would still be right.

Very nice example!

[Edited on 9-12-2003 by Valhall]