Free Dating Site    

My fellow soldiers are fighting and dying in Iraq and their families are suffering because of the lies and deceptions crafted by the Bush Administration. The Iraq war is not only a crime against domestic and international law but [it] is a terrible moral injustice against the Iraqi people." Lt. Ehren Watada

Please pay attention to the following. The United States is a sovereign nation. The U.S. does not accept the jurisdiction of the U.N. (remember, the UN stood by while the Serbs engaged in 'Ethnic Cleansing' back in the 90s and the massacre of the Tsu Tsu people as well). The United States therefore does not need any organization's authority to pursue valid actions on an international scale.

Noun: rogue nation

1. A state that does not respect other states in its international actions.

RESOLUTION 678 (1990)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2963rd meeting on 29 November 1990

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm

The briefing paper of July 21, 2002, offers this clear picture of what the British see as the U.S. goal. "U.S. military planning unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by elimination of Iraqi WMD." But, alas, with the evidence of WMD "thin," and an invasion to bring about "regime change" illegal, the British found themselves between Iraq and a hard place—Washington. The document reeks not only of obsequiousness toward the United States, but also wonderment at Washington's policies—particularly with respect to international law.

U.S. views of international law vary from that of the U.K. and the international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law...Legal bases for an invasion of Iraq are in principle conceivable...but would be difficult to establish because of, for example, the tests of immediacy and proportionality.

In lay terms, that must mean that, absent any immediate threat, those who chose to invade and occupy Iraq anyway would flunk the "test of proportionality." Grasping at straws, the document raises the possibility of demanding Iraqi acceptance of an unacceptably intrusive U.N. inspection regime:

It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered access)....However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003.

The British, you see, knew that the summer months in Iraq are uncomfortably hot. Thus, January was the time they thought an invasion would have to begin, or the attack would have to be put off until autumn. As for a possible attack by Iraq, British government documents released to Parliament show that American and British aircraft dropped no bombs on Iraq in March 2002, 10 tons of bombs in July, and 54.6 tons in September. Nevertheless, this failed to provoke Saddam Hussein into the kind of reaction that could be used as an ostensible casus belli. And intrusive inspections? Iraq wound up tolerating the strictest inspection regime in modern history. And when U.N. inspectors found Al Samoud missiles with a range greater than that permitted, Saddam allowed them to be destroyed.

One can visualize the British lawyers wringing their hands: Foiled again.

Breaking The Laws Of War

While the White House may have deemed British government lawyers lily-livered or perhaps "quaint," they were under a good deal of pressure from the British military establishment, which wields more influence in the British government than its domesticated Pentagon counterparts do in Washington. To his credit, British Admiral Michael Boyce, chief of the defense staff, demanded a straightforward, written opinion from the attorney general that attacking Iraq would be lawful, before Boyce would put his troops at risk of subsequent prosecution as war criminals.

This put the bite on Attorney General Goldsmith who had long shared the doubts of the legal establishment about the legality of starting a war without unequivocal endorsement by the United Nations. After much equivocation, Goldsmith bowed to Blair and was asked to appear before the cabinet on March 17, 2003, two days before the war began. Goldsmith read a brief statement saying he now thought attacking Iraq was lawful, and Blair quickly moved the discussion on. Questions were not permitted. The British attorney general reportedly confided to lawyer friends during February and early March 2003 that he found himself in an "impossible" position, and wondered aloud if he should stay in the job.

Admiral Boyce, upset that he was never shown Goldsmith's more equivocal advice to Blair prior to March 17, has now said that if British troops are brought to trial by the International Criminal Court (ICC), British ministers should be "brought into the frame as well." The London Observer asked Boyce if Blair and Goldsmith should be included. "Too bloody right," was his answer.

American forces, of course, do not have to worry about the ICC, since the Bush administration "unsigned" the signature that President Bill Clinton had affixed to the treaty in December 2000. Nor have U.S. government officials shown themselves to be sticklers about international law. In November 2003, Richard Perle, then a key leader of the Defense Policy Board and a principal intellectual author of the invasion of Iraq, left international lawyers astonished when he told a London audience, "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2005/06/13/downing_street_ii.php

The officer in question (a traitor by any definition, as well as a coward) does not enjoy the rights I or any non-military American enjoy.

An officer on active duty clearly falls under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ and this officer additionally has committed (my opinion) seditious acts that warrant Court Martial.

The United States is a sovereign nation. The U.S. does not accept the jurisdiction of the U.N.

Actually, you can. A cease fire is simply a "time-out". It did not officially end the reasons for the start of hostilities. Legally, therefore, the reasons for the 2003 invasion are legal and proper under any legal standard.

unlike Canada and the UK where you can be jailed for expressing unpopular views-for example note the case of Ernst Zundel a few years back-Canada prosecuted and jailed Mr. Zundel for publishing unpopular views

The officer in question (a traitor by any definition, as well as a coward) does not enjoy the rights I or any non-military American enjoy.

Once you volunteer to serve in the Military you fall under the Military's jurisdiction and you are made aware of that fact before you join. And additionally, you are reminded of it once again when you take an oath (see above) to defend the US.

In short, it puzzles me why Cotter and the other member continue to claim the Lt has a right to protest what they claim is an illegal war (it isn't, by the way-Congress authorized President Bush to invade and hasn't withdrawn that authorization-learn the facts please)

You sir are a disgrace to US military

the soldiers job is to deploy into combat zones when ordered to by the commander in chief

if you can’t take the order get the hell out before someone frag’s your coward ass…I can tell you if you were a US Marine it would have already happened!...if you can’t take it get out!...NOW!

An officer on active duty clearly falls under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ and this officer additionally has committed (my opinion) seditious acts that warrant Court Martial.

I have no sympathies for traitors who are also cowards.

someone should frag bush's coward ass. he got out of serving because of his rich and politically connected father. yet, he has the moral cowardice to send other people to fight and die to line his own pockets? he is the true coward in this tragedy.

My comments and conclusions of law are based on AMERICAN LAW.

The US has consistently stated that it will not use military force for aggressive purposes, but rather, to further the goals of peace in a region or in accord with existing treaties (i.e. NATO).

The US has consistently stated that it will not use military force for aggressive purposes, but rather, to further the goals of peace in a region or in accord with existing treaties

As unpalatable it may be for some, the fact is that a super power such as the US has to have a military conflict every 10 yrs or so. Why? An army that doesn't fight becomes rusty, to use a crude metaphor.

Training, no matter how rigorous, cannot replace live war; it just can't. Having regular conflicts insure that we have a steady cadre of battle hardened veterans and NCOs that know what to do when the bullets fly.

The Iraq invasion was carried out under the UN mandate that authorized the Gulf War of 1991.

i totally support this man for resisting being forced to fight in a war that is unjust, based on a corrupt foreign policy put in place by neo-conservatives (read neo social democrats).