In article <C4545D0B.BA104%usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Snit <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <trollkiller@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> stated in post
> trollkiller-122601.10415017052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
on 5/17/08 9:41
AM:
>
> > In article <C45454CF.BA0C2%usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > Snit <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >> You keep going on and on and on lying about how you have refuted
arguments
> >> and made valid points. I just read some of your posts and you are
still
> >> doing so and accusing those who call you on it of having "OCD", as
though
> >> responding to your lies somehow makes people worse than you for
telling
> >> the
> >> lies. Here are the challenges:
> >>
> >> 1) Can you refute the following argument about Bush?
> >>
> >> Bush broke the law by illegally using force against Iraq.
> >>
> >> Based on Article VI of the US Constitution, our treaties are
> >> a part of the "supreme law of the land" (this is not the same
> >> as superseding the Constitution, as some have mistakenly
> >> claimed).
Unless and until a conflict arises between an international charter and
the U.S. Constitution. In that instance, Ried vs. Covert (among other
cases) made it crystal clear that treaties take a back seat. The U.N.
has no power to prevent a HJR from being penned and passed... which is
what was done here.
> >> The US is a signatory of a treaty with member
> >> nations of the UN (the UN Charter). The UN Charter sets
> >> standards for when armed force can be used. Such conditions
> >> were not met (and no part of the Constitution overrides
> >> this).
Yup... but that is irrelevant to this case... where a resolution
authorized Bush to use armed forces.
> >> Therefore the Iraq war is not legal.
Not for the reason you cited above... as I've just shown.
> >>
> >> Some say that UN Resolution 1441 did grant the US the
> >> authority to use armed force against Iraq. The words used to
> >> describe armed attack in UN Resolutions are "all necessary
> >> means". These words do not appear in 1441 (other than a
> >> reference to resolution 678) and many of the member nations
> >> who signed 1441 made it clear they did not intend 1441 to be
> >> an excuse to use force. Others try to cite different UN
> >> Resolutions, but the only resolution that did permit armed
> >> force against Iraq was UN Resolution 678 and the only action
> >> it authorized was such force as was necessary to restore
> >> Kuwait's sovereignty. It is not up to the US to decide
> >> consequences of Iraq not following UN Resolutions - that
> >> responsibility falls with the UN Security Council.
> >>
> >> Therefore the Iraq war is not legal.
Same as above (due to the U.S. joint resolution you mention below).
> >>
> >> Some say that in Resolution HJR114 (the Iraq Resolution)
> >> Congress authorized the President to go to war, which would
> >> override any signed treaty. This is not true:
It's completely true, as evidenced by the landmark case
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) and other cases.
> >> what it did was
> >> give the President authority to follow the War Powers Act
> >> without further approval from Congress
Incorrect. It's very title states "what it did":
"To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq".
War Powers is, at best, a tenuous legal argument. If you want to open
that can of worms you'll have to focus your sights on Congress.
> >> ... meaning Congress
> >> granted the rights (and responsibilities) declaring war
> >> (etc.) to the President. If clearly stated "Nothing in this
> >> joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
> >> Resolution." However, Bush never made any finding, decree,
> >> resolution or statement that he was evoking the War Powers
> >> Act. Even if he had not only does the War Powers Act have
> >> similar criteria for armed force as does the UN Charter, it
> >> clearly states: "Nothing in this joint resolution is intended
> >> to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of
> >> the President, or the provision of existing treaties".
> >> Clearly nothing in the War Powers Act can be seen as
> >> superseding our existing treaties.
> >>
> >> Therefore, again, the Iraq war is not legal.
Not for any of the reasons cited above.
> >> Just to be clear, the challenge is if you can refute that argument,
not
> >> babble on and on about some meta-debate comments you think are
relevant.
Your "challenge" has been met... a refutation has been accomplished...
years ago... by virtually everyone on this NG who has bothered to
entertain your "challenge".
--
"Apple is pu****ng how green this is - but it [Macbook Air] is
clearly disposable... when the battery dies you can pretty much
just throw it away". - Snit
|
