Supporting the Troops vs. Disagreeing with the War

[Chaos6]

The truth of the matter is that which ever side loses a conflict is going to be the side that is found wrong by the other nations. Thats just how it works. Had Germany and the Axis powers won WWII then the US and the Allies would have been found guilty of war crimes.

Win the war and you are the Good Guys, Lose it and you are the Bad Guys. Thats how it works.

[Tigam]

Originally Posted by ripperjd

They couldn't decide that the invasion was illegal, because they would have no way to enforce the ruling.

Listen... I really don't care why you think they did or didn't. It's completely irrelevant.

It would completely destroy the legitimacy of the SC.

I thought it did it itself. But that's my opinion.

That doesn't mean that the act wasn't against the charter. The US put the SC in a position where it had to rule in favor of the occupation, as after the old Iraqi government was taken out, there was a need for a force to keep order until the new one was in place.

<shrugs> Still not finding a point. Without a court order means nothing.

Using your argument of OJ... If we couldn't find OJ guilty of the murder, does that mean that the law against murder doesn't exist?

Nope. But obviously he was found not guilty. Therefor, he did no wrong in the eyes of the law, as a point of fact.

The finding just means that we can't punish him for it, even though if in reality he did murder, he did break the law. Do you intend to say that if you can get away with a crime, you are not breaking the law when you commit the crime?

I'm saying that if you can't prove a law was broke, it wasn't illegal. PERIOD. You want to say you *feel* the war was illegal.. Fine.
You want to say you *believe* the war is illegal... Fine.

Opinions.

Stating that the war was illegal as a *FACT* without actually using the fundamentals of what LAW is... That makes you kinda look silly.

I believe OJ was guilty. Fact? Nope. Couldn't be proven in which to make a case to a jury of peers. I still feel free to hold said opinion. You are too.

Also... your argument seems to be hinging on the statement of, "that's just your opinion." If you could please, tell me then why my opinion is wrong.

Because you are stating it as if it were fact. Your opinion on the war is not wrong, stating it as if it's factual information without following the fundamentals of how law works, is just dumb.

Do you, or do you not believe in "innocent until proven guilty?"

[ripperjd]

I do believe in “innocent until proven guilty” Do you?

If I killed someone, but was never caught and therefore did not stand a trial, did I not break the law?

Originally Posted by uscourts.gov

Article III of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch as one of the three separate and distinct branches of the federal government. The other two are the legislative and executive branches.
The federal courts often are called the guardians of the Constitution because their rulings protect rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Through fair and impartial judgments, the federal courts interpret and apply the law to resolve disputes. The courts do not make the laws. That is the responsibility of Congress. Nor do the courts have the power to enforce the laws. That is the role of the President and the many executive branch departments and agencies.

[cashpath]

Yes, but the only way for us to know that is if YOU admit it to us.

Otherwise it is just other people's opinions... You seem to keep missing that point.

Has the US said "We broke the law" Cause if not.. then stop this nonsense already you and Tigam keep saying the same thing to each other.. Yeah, if you did it you broke the law.. But if you weren't proven guilty in a curt of law, then the only person who really KNOWS that you broke the law is you. And if I say "You are guilty because you killed someone". Thats JUST MY OPINION.


Hopefully this finally gets across what Tigam has been saying OVER AND OVER AND OVER... It's only your opinion ripper, and you keep stating it as fact...

[Tigam]

Originally Posted by ripperjd

I do believe in “innocent until proven guilty” Do you?

Yes I do.

If I killed someone, but was never caught and therefore did not stand a trial, did I not break the law?

Not as far as anyone is concerned. Unless of course you believe in god. I can't tell you nor would I try to tell you what you believe about yourself.

Article III of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch as one of the three separate and distinct branches of the federal government. The other two are the legislative and executive branches.
The federal courts often are called the guardians of the Constitution because their rulings protect rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Through fair and impartial judgments, the federal courts interpret and apply the law to resolve disputes. The courts do not make the laws. That is the responsibility of Congress. Nor do the courts have the power to enforce the laws. That is the role of the President and the many executive branch departments and agencies.

Well no shit Shurlock. Courts determine not what the law is, but if you are guilty of breaking it. Otherwise it's all opinion. That's been my point all along. Thanks for reinforcing it, not sure why you did however.

Edit: Well... I guess I could have just quoted Cash's post, but didn't know he posted when I did... Oh well...

[ripperjd]

Fine. I'll agree to disagree. I guess even if I lay out any and all rules and charters and findings, if you say, "it doesn't matter... it's just your opinion" then that makes you right. Might as well make this a dead thread.

[Tigam]

Originally Posted by ripperjd

Fine. I'll agree to disagree. I guess even if I lay out any and all rules and charters and findings, if you say, "it doesn't matter... it's just your opinion" then that makes you right. Might as well make this a dead thread.

No... What makes me right is that you are arguing something that you don't even follow. Feel free to address my last points. Because you are absolutely correct, courts do not make law. Of course that reinforced my point.

[ripperjd]

I feel like I am discussing the reality of an action that is contrary to law and you are discussing the finding of guilt in a court of law.

Ok... I want to try and have this discussion, if you are still willing, but taking things directly, one step at a time. The first argument I am posing is that the US acted in a manner which is not in accordance with the UN Charter.

Can we agree that as a founding member of the UN, the United States agreed to abide by the Charter of the UN?

[Tigam]

Sure... I'll let you lead the dance.

But if you make more than one statement I'll address both.

The first argument I am posing is that the US acted in a manner which is not in accordance with the UN Charter.

I disagree. Altho I admit at the same time I don't have a very good argument to say it did. Not that I believe there is a good one to make that it didn't either mind you.

Can we agree that as a founding member of the UN, the United States agreed to abide by the Charter of the UN?

I agree.

[ripperjd]

When I said, "the first argument..." I was just trying to define what we are discussing as a premise for the points that follow.

Okay, we agreed on what we can call point #1,

Here is point #2:

Given United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX), which states:

Article I
Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.

Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":

(a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;

(b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.
Article 2

The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.

Article 3

Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression:

(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof,

(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;

(c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;

(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;

(e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;

(f) The action of a State in allowing its temtory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;

(g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.

Article 4

The acts enumerated above are not exhaustive and the Security Council may determine that other acts constitute aggression under the provisions of the Charter.

Article 5

1. No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.

2. A war of aggression is a crime against international peace. Aggression gives rise to international responsibility.

3. No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful.

Article 6

Nothing in this Definition shall be construed as in any way enlarging or diminishing the scope of the Charter, including its provisions concerning cases in which the use of force is lawful.

Article 7

Nothing in this Definition, and in particular article 3, could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right and referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination: nor the right of these peoples to struggle to that end and to seek and receive support, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration.

Article 8

In their interpretation and application the above provisions are interrelated and each provision should be construed in the context of the other provisions.

FOOTNOTES
2. Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-ninth Session, Supplement No. 19 (A/9619 and Corr. 1).

3. Resolution 2625 (XXV), annex.
4. Explanatory notes on articles 3 and 5 are to be found in paragraph 20 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression (Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-ninth Session, Supplement No. 19 (A/9619 and Corr. 1). Statements on the Definition are contained in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the report of the Sixth Committee (A/9890).

Can we agree that the invasion of Iraq by the US was an act of aggression?
--------------- Madden 2007 Next Gen football ---------
Add to the end of the last question: according to this UN definition of aggression

[Tigam]

Add to the end of the last question: according to this UN definition of aggression

I agree, with your understanding that it's my OPINION.