"Steve Carroll" <trollkiller@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> stated in post
trollkiller-73E447.08160019052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
on 5/19/08 7:16 AM:
Holy cow! Steve Carroll has, finally, after four years of utter and
complete failure, done enough research to actually keep himself on topic
and
not run to his straw men, yanking of years-old comments out of context,
openly lying, pu****ng an Argument from Ignorance... etc. Wow.
Seriously, Steve, I am impressed. I *never* thought I would see the day
you
would actually do this. Maybe my pointing you to counter- arguments
helped... maybe it was others coming in and calling you on your BS.
Whatever the reason I want to truly congratulate you.
>>>> 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.
Being that I have not claimed a treaty had any conflict with anything else
your comments are lovely but irrelevant.
>>>> 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...
Ok, at least you agree that the conditions for armed forces to be used
were
not met. That is a start of agreement between us. Thank you.
> but that is irrelevant to this case... where a resolution
> authorized Bush to use armed forces.
Conditions for use of armed forces are clearly relevant to the US using
armed forces. The resolution you reference was Congress delegating the
power to the president to declare war (at least in some areas). While
this
in itself is of dubious legality (nowhere in the Constitution does it
suggest one branch can hand over its authority to another), it does not
authorize the president to go against *any* part of the "supreme law of
the
land".
>>>> Therefore the Iraq war is not legal.
>
> Not for the reason you cited above... as I've just shown.
As you *thought* you showed... and, I admit, it is likely your best effort
in the several years you have been trying. It is, actually, the first
time
(at least in many years) you have made an argument relevant to this with
any
validity. As I said: I disagree with you but I agree you are showing an
actual effort here.
What you have done is looked at the references I pointed you to and
parroted
back the "standard" responses those that have a clue have used to try to
defend Bush and the war. While I and most lawyers flat out disagree with
the argument you parroted, there are some who accept it.
In that I think we can, hopefully, both agree that this is a legal matter
that is beyond either of us to be certain beyond any doubt.
>>>> 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.
See above - it is, at best, of questionable legality for one branch of
government to hand over its authority to another.
>>>> ... 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.
You state that as an absolute... when it is merely your opinion. For
years
you have whined and cried and spewed hate-filled tantrums over my making a
statement about Bush without the obvious disclaimers that any normal
person
understands... but here you are doing the same thing: stating an opinion
without a 10 page list of disclaimers. I am not saying you are wrong to
neglect the list of disclaimers but it puts your game into perspective;
your
BS about my lack of disclaimers of my stated views being my opinion can
just
as easily be used in reference to your "absolute statements" in the very
post I responded to!
>>>> 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...
I agree you gave the best and most direct attempt you have been able to
muster in years. I commend you for actually reading the sources I pointed
you to and showing even some basic level of understanding as you parroted
them back to me. For you that is quite an accomplishment.
> a refutation has been accomplished... years ago... by virtually everyone
on
> this NG who has bothered to entertain your "challenge".
It took you four years to make something that is even a reasonably cogent
argument... and that was after I pointed you to others who used the same
defense of Bush and the war.
In the end I think we should be able to agree that while most legal
experts
agree with the view I hold that there are some few who do agree with the
argument I pointed you to and you have now repeated in CSMA...
--
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only
how
to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not
beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller
|
