The End of Blair

elgato

I just dont know
HMLT you are clearly a very intelligent and well-read individual, i cannot understand why you insist on repeatedly using the phrase war criminal without any legal justification. do you not see the damage it does to the idea and ideals of international law to be so careless with its terminology? i do not know the specific area well enough to advocate one way or the other on the matter of Blair's criminality, but i feel confident that (as with almost all international law) it is extremely complex, and a matter very much in grey, rather than the black and white with which you paint it
 

tht

akstavrh
no it isn't, see anything liberal establishment international lawyers like philippe sands or c stafford smith have written in the guardian, lrb etc and read through the diffidence and affected ambiguity
 

elgato

I just dont know
i dont fully understand, are you implying that they are artificially creating this ambiguity, or that the ambiguity is a reality?
 

elgato

I just dont know
re-reading it it seems fairly clear that you are claiming conspiracy

what legal argument cuts the personal criminality of Tony Blair in clear light?

forgive my playing the devil's advocate (!), but it just seems to undermine the integrity of one's argument to throw things like this around so carelessly

i must confess that also i had taken the term 'war criminal' to be exclusive to issues of conduct during war, rather than leading up to war, but on consideration i dont think it is. and there are much stronger arguments for his criminality under the War of Aggression (although it is still very far from clear cut as far as i can see)
 
Last edited:

Guybrush

Dittohead
i dont fully understand, are you implying that they are artificially creating this ambiguity, or that the ambiguity is a reality?

The ambiguity is created by people who want to bend the rules in order to warrant the legality of the attack. Suppose that the aggressor were to have been some north African country. In such case, do you believe for a second that the discussion would have been similar? Not a chance. That being said, it wasn’t a clear-cut violation of international law, but a violation it was.
 

elgato

I just dont know
but the very fact that the rules are so malleable when there are those pursuing political ends (a reality which i very, very much recognise) undermines the degree to which we can claim legality/illegality with such certainty, because it undermines the very nature of 'law' in this context. international law (at least in its current state) is ambiguous. it does not operate in the binaries to which we are accustomed and which we have grown up around. the ambiguities are not even so straightforward as the grey areas of interpretation in national law (which can be pretty ambiguous as it stands)... there are issues on a whole other, and much more fundamental, plane regarding legal base and enforcement.

that is why to me it seems foolish to make simplistic claims, especially without convincing arguments, as to cut and dry international legality.

and why to me, appealing to a phrase like 'war criminal' like this is a mistake - i cannot help but read it as an unsophisticated appeal to emotion and stigma, one which is especially unnecessary in persons so intelligent and well-read. there are strong enough arguments against Blair without any of that
 
Last edited:

vimothy

yurp
From the Guardian article hmlt linked to (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/soumaya_ghannoushi_/2007/06/adding_insult_to_injury.html):

Aside from Iraq, it is for Lebanon that the people of the Middle East remember Blair. For when the whole world stood united in demanding a ceasefire, horrified at Israel's brutal bombardment of the country that left more than 1,000 people dead and 700,000-915,000 homeless, Blair chose to stand with Bush and Olmert. Defying the international community, not to mention his own cabinet, backbenchers, party and public opinion, Blair insisted on giving Israel all the necessary political cover and whatever time it needed to "finish the job".

Why is the Middle East so hypocritical when it comes to Israel? If this arab country had bombed Lebanon, no one would care. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, and gratuitously butchered any and all, the rest of the ME stood by and watched (and in fact the Palestinians and Jordanians quite vociferously backed Saddam's invasion). When Saddam was butchering his own people, the rest of the ME stood by and watched. They watch as Syria assassinates Lebanese democrats, they watch as the Lebanese shell Palestianian refugee camps, they watch as Iran ferments sectarian strife in Iraq, and they watch as Sudanese Islamists trade slaves and kill sudanese christians. The expulsion of palestianians from Kuwait (400,000) did not bother them, the murder of Islamists by Syria (20,000) did not register, the slaughter of Palestinians by Jordan (10,000) was irrelevant. Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, govenor of Dubai, enslaves somewhere in the region of 30,000 children to raise as jockeys over thirty years; the case against him is filed in the US. Mukhtar Mai is gang raped by order of a Pakistani tribal council - a tradition normally followed by suicide - instead of acclaim from the Islamic world for speaking out she recieves death threats. Palestinains dance in the street when Israeli and US civilians are murdered by terrorists. How would the world react if Israelis or Americans did the same? No one is complaining about the persecution of copts in the middle east and no one is complaining about the persecution of arab christians. The oppression of women? Israel, Israel, Israel!

It's pretty clear that the Middle East is its own worst enemy, but that Blair, Bush and the Israelis permit the displacement of rage admirably.

If Blair is really convinced that he is well placed to do the job, he should perform the following test: take a walk, not in the streets of Baghdad, which he has helped destroy, but of Beirut, Damascus, Cairo, or any of the capitals of the region to which he wishes to be envoy - except Tel Aviv, of course. If he comes back in one piece, then he has my blessings.

But if Lionel Jospin was pelted with stones by Palestinians during his visit to Beir Zeit University in the West Bank -in spite of France's relatively balanced positions in the Middle East - Blair should count himself lucky if he gets off so lightly.

So what does that prove? People get murdered in the Middle East all the time, frequently for no good reason.

Wonder how long Assad would last on the streets of Damascus.
 
HMLT you are clearly a very intelligent and well-read individual, i cannot understand why you insist on repeatedly using the phrase war criminal without any legal justification. do you not see the damage it does to the idea and ideals of international law to be so careless with its terminology? i do not know the specific area well enough to advocate one way or the other on the matter of Blair's criminality, but i feel confident that (as with almost all international law) it is extremely complex, and a matter very much in grey, rather than the black and white with which you paint it

It is based on a legal [and - perhaps even more importantly - moral, and rational] justification. Why do you insist that it isn't [now that we do indeed understand]?

Elgato, there have been numerous posts on this forum [in this very Politics category] articulating, discussing and referencing - in the specific context of the illegal Iraq invasion - what constitutes a war crime, legally, morally, rationally, and, indeed, there have been many posters like yourself confessing ignorance [despite ample opportunity to overcome such ignorance] of internation law as a pretext for censoring judgements by those who are very knowledgeable about such law (ie because you're ignorant of the topic, therefore nobody else has a right to claim that they are informed about it; your 'reasoning' here is beginning to resemble that of Idlerich. We're back yet again into impotent pomo malaise).

As you say, you "don't know the specifics well enough" to form an opinion, yet - without blinking - you immediately proceed to form some very definite opinions on the issue, expressing them in yet further posts (despite acknowledgeing your ignorance of the topic) for purposes of undermining the credibility of those who have seriously studied - - and who understand - the issues.

Without wishing to be too blunt ('black and white'), but - unless you've had your head in the sand these past 5 years - denying that the invasion of Iraq was a war crime is tantamount to denying that 9/11 was a crime [a crime used obscenely for justifying the invasion of Afghanistan, of Iraq, and currently threatening to do likewise to Iran], that Hitler's invasion of Poland was a crime [indeed, it is easily argued that the invasion of Iraq was a worse war crime, because those who orchestrated it KNEW that they would be breaking numerous international laws, whereas no such laws even existed at the time of Poland's invasion] , that any crime is a 'crime' - on the basis that you're ignorant of the "extremely complex" laws (obviously complex for someone who mysteriously refuses to make any effort to understand them, but effortlessly insults and belittles those of us who have).

So, to surmise from the pomo 'reasoning' of your incoherent posts here, the US/UK under Bush/Blair leadership did not necessarily invade Iraq at all, that you have your 'doubts' about whether it even happened, because the law is "complex" to those who choose to remain ignorant of it, and that therefore, for the benefit of those who wish to preserve their blissful ignorance of the world of geopolitics and international law (along with their right to condemn those who choose otherwise), no definitive judgement can ever be made - or even permitted - about the legal status of those responsible for any actions whatsoever ...

Excellent. Now let's hear you 'defend' Osama Bin Laden on this basis, if you wish to preserve your 'consistency'.
-------------------------------------------

IdleRich said:
I don't "support" him [Vimothy], I just think that he should be allowed to state his views - why exactly is it you are so threatened by his challenges to your dearly held beliefs?

And if David Irving began trolling this forum with endless posts 'reasonably' and 'modestly' claiming that those who 'claim' (a mere 'view', like any other, after all) that the Holocaust actually happened are simply deluded, that anti-semitism is a dangerous myth, and then gradually 'baiting' more and more naive and intellectually vulnerable posters here to his aims, you would defend his right to do so ... while condemning those who expose his actual agenda. Ditto for an Al Qaeda propagandist, and so on.

I'm not 'threatened' by his 'views'; but the lives of countless Others who have no voice in this - Western - society are very much seriously threatened by the obscene propaganda systematically promoted by numerous Vimothy clones throughout the West. Don't be confusing Hate Speech, the abuse of speech, with 'free speech' ... Don't let yourself be seduced into his irrational schizophrenic ravings ("I'm pro-capitalist but I'm not a capitalist" etc), a weakness you're increasingly displaying here of late.

Idlerich said:
I don't want anyone to be banned even you.

Such exorbitant generosity. But actually, we routinely witness posters here defending 'free speech' in one sentence while gratuititously calling for someone's instant banning from this forum in the next. There have been countless posters here gloating over the banning of some poster because s/he used harsh language in taking to task someone for hurling unjustifiable personal abuse in their direction (as the delirially vicious responses to K-punk's post announcing his departure from the forum over a year ago clearly demonstrated; and the parallel silence and indifference of those who should really have known better was even more disturbing).

The real difficulty with banning someone like Tea for a week is that it will simply further pathologise an arbitrary and totally unfounded grudge - so aggravating his obsessive neurosis as evidenced over the past six months (his psychic doppleganger Droid should be sufficient evidence of that: after a long absence, he recently returned to this forum for the sole purpose of hurling vile personal abuse at a formerly banned poster, as well as at Woebot, and then quickly departed again. So what was he 'defending'? The 'integrity' of a forum he couldn't be bothered posting to, or his precious little ego?).

I'm not into totally banning anyone other than - and even then only temporarily - the kind of sickening troll (and Tea is not ultimately a troll, it's that he comes here for banal, ego-anarchic, fetishistic 'entertainment', incorrectly assuming there are no direct implications from his posts for his life in the wider world - like in the realm of his precious, pure, untouchable physical science) already referred to, and Vimothy is such a troll.

The forum is about a dissensus from both the status quo and right-wing reactionaries like Vimothy, not the consensual encouragement and embracement of their further disasterous hegemony.

[As for holding grudges, on one occasion in the past on another now-defunct forum, following the receipt of numerous e-mail (and snail-mail) death threats, I met up with the guy responsible, who now is quite amicable].
 
Last edited:

john eden

male pale and stale
"HEY! You there!!"

"Who, ME? But I'm ... I'm innocent!"

Is this a revisiting of Althusserian interpellation or 'merely' Foucault's traversing of power's "technology of the self"?

Tell me WHO you are!

I'm a



"Twat" indeed: all in the cause of Dissensus-approved Middle Eastern Twatdom ...

Ha ha, no-one is innocent but that doesn't mean I should feel guilty about the UK's ruling class. I've done what I can to oppose its disgusting excesses. Being lectured on here about my failure to ensure that Blair is convicted of war crimes and my toleration of fascism is an amusing side-issue.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"And if David Irving began trolling this forum with endless posts 'reasonably' and 'modestly' claiming that those who 'claim' (a mere 'view', like any other, after all) that the Holocaust actually happened are simply deluded, that anti-semitism is a dangerous myth, and then gradually 'baiting' more and more naive and intellectually vulnerable posters here to his aims, you would defend his right to do so ... while condemning those who expose his actual agenda. Ditto for an Al Qaeda propagandist, and so on"
But the point is that Vimothy is in no way similar to David Irving. I agree with you that there isn't necessarily always an absolute right for anyone to say anything but where I disagree with you is in your right to choose what people can and cannot say. Just because I said Vimothy's views should be heard it does not automatically follow that I'm automatically committed to defending all free speech at any cost. As far as I can see you seem to be determined to prevent those with views Other than your own from being heard.
I would be interested to see which of Vimothy's posts makes him a racist (and please don't say something like "you can't see it because you don't want to" - just link one or quote him or something).

"Such exorbitant generosity"
That's me.

"We routinely witness posters here defending 'free speech' in one sentence while gratuititously calling for someone's instant banning from this forum in the next."
Yes, we do don't we.

"The forum is about a dissensus from both the status quo and right-wing reactionaries like Vimothy"
And a consensus with the left-wing presumably? This is news to me, I thought it was a dissensus amongst its members, the whole point is surely that people don't always ageee. I didn't realise we had already agreed what we were going to disagree about.
For me, it's different opinions that lead to arguments that make this place interesting - that's one reason I find your presence worthwhile, you could start an argument with yourself.
 

elgato

I just dont know
Elgato, there have been numerous posts on this forum [in this very Politics category] articulating, discussing and referencing - in the specific context of the illegal Iraq invasion - what constitutes a war crime, legally, morally, rationally, and, indeed, there have been many posters like yourself confessing ignorance [despite ample opportunity to overcome such ignorance] of internation law as a pretext for censoring judgements by those who are very knowledgeable about such law (ie because you're ignorant of the topic, therefore nobody else has a right to claim that they are informed about it; your 'reasoning' here is beginning to resemble that of Idlerich. We're back yet again into impotent pomo malaise).

As you say, you "don't know the specifics well enough" to form an opinion, yet - without blinking - you immediately proceed to form some very definite opinions on the issue, expressing them in yet further posts (despite acknowledgeing your ignorance of the topic) for purposes of undermining the credibility of those who have seriously studied - - and who understand - the issues.

I apologise for not having followed the other threads on dissensus on the matter, I can see that it is tedious to have to qualify your statements over and over again, so perhaps it was unfair of me to question your lack of immediate justification so strongly.

However, despite your rather rash assumptions and personal slurs, I in fact studied a law degree, which I finished last year, which had (due to my study choices) a particular emphasis on public international law. I have read and worked extensively on UN law and general principles, indeed the syllabus included examination of the very issue of the legality of the war in Iraq. Out of this study I took the opinion that a strong argument can be made for its legality (whether I like it or not - I do not). Furthermore, that is a different issue from Blair's personal criminal liability, which I suspect would come up against even further difficulties

My confession of ignorance was regarding crimes committed during conflict, rather than leading up to it, as initially I made the mistake of assuming that it was to that which you referred (an assumption which I cannot justify). I can also see that in my posts I adopted a counter-productively humble attitude (one stimulated primarily by the extreme polar demonstrated by yours).

I did not wish to censor your view, but rather your view's proclamation without adequate justification and acknowledgement of ambiguity. It is perhaps telling that when challenged you launched into personal attack and vague moral/quasi-legal argument rather than addressing the legal question directly.

It is based on a legal [and - perhaps even more importantly - moral, and rational] justification. Why do you insist that it isn't ?

It is important to be clear that I am questioning the certainty with which you state criminality. I did not claim that it was not a crime, but rather that it is easily arguable either way - that legal certainty is not achievable in this question (until it is decided in a court of law).

It is also important to understand that to me, the term criminal is a legal one, and it clouds the issues to conflate moral and legal liability - if you say illegal, or criminal, it should refer to the law, not to 'morality'. If you wish to use 'criminal' and 'crime' to denote moral crime, then it seems to me you should steer clear of phrases like 'on the loose' (What do you suggest if you refer to 'moral law'? Vigilante assassination/incarceration?). Either that or show me a convincing philosophical justification for a natural law perspective (or something more convincing that those brought by Finnis, Fuller, Aquinas etc).

To me, a law is no less a law if it is immoral. It is an immoral law, but a law regardless. The degree to which we respect that is a different question, but in terms of how we use language, that is my belief.

But it is worth bearing in mind that attempting to give the law (our personal) moral content is what got us into this debate - this is precisely what George Bush did, and precisely what so devastatingly undermined (and continues to undermine) the authority of the United Nations and international law today.

Thus to me, using the term 'war criminal' in this context not only undermines the integrity and strength of the argument against Blair (leaving the taste of irrational vehemence in my mouth, unnecessary given the ample ammunition available if one takes a strictly political or moral tack), but it is in fundamental contradiction with my views on the nature of law, and is of the same school of thought which continues to discredit and devalue attempts to find global solutions by centralised international institutions.
 
However, despite your rather rash assumptions and personal slurs

Elgato, you acknowledged that you were unfamiliar with the issues, yet you proceeded to then make contradictory pronouncements as though you were so familiar, which I pointed out. The only 'slur' was of your own making.

Your post again fails to actually address any of the questions I raised, instead retreating away from discussion into a summary of some of your biographical details:


I in fact studied a law degree, which I finished last year, which had (due to my study choices) a particular emphasis on public international law. I have read and worked extensively on UN law and general principles, indeed the syllabus included examination of the very issue of the legality of the war in Iraq. Out of this study I took the opinion that a strong argument can be made for its legality (whether I like it or not - I do not).

What argument? That arbitrarily invading another country, commiting mass-murder, against all known laws (AND all rationality) is easily imagined as justifiable? You're clutching for phantasmatic straws.

Furthermore, that is a different issue from Blair's personal criminal liability, which I suspect would come up against even further difficulties

"Personal"?? What is that? What are you saying? That instead we should 'arrest' the office of the prime minister rather than its (ex)occupant? [Apart from the issue of radical institutional reform, of course, it isn't just Blair, obviously, who colluded, but his entire cabinet, with a few honourable exceptions].


My confession of ignorance was regarding crimes committed during conflict, rather than leading up to it, as initially I made the mistake of assuming that it was to that which you referred (an assumption which I cannot justify). I can also see that in my posts I adopted a counter-productively humble attitude (one stimulated primarily by the extreme polar demonstrated by yours).

First off, there is nothing 'humble' about reflexively abusing and distorting very clear laws to justify and rationalise war crimes, whether concerning the invasion itself or the many later ones committed, still continuing, 'in theatre'.

I did not wish to censor your view, but rather your view's proclamation without adequate justification and acknowledgement of ambiguity.

There is nothing 'ambiguous' about describing the illegal invasion of a country under the gaze of most of the world's population as a war crime, though you're welcome to join the ranks of the PR spin doctors and apologists for attrocity and describe it as a tea party instead if you so wish ...


It is perhaps telling that when challenged you launched into personal attack and vague moral/quasi-legal argument rather than addressing the legal question directly.

That was what you did, as you've already admitted. Once again, Elgato: The invasion of Iraq was a WAR CRIME; it contravened ALL KNOWN international laws and conventions (including the UN [Security Council], so destroying that institution's power and credibility) vis-a-vis justifications for - and conduct of - war.


It is important to be clear that I am questioning the certainty with which you state criminality.

No, you most certainly are not. You seek to invent doubts about it by resort to fantasy to retrospectively justify your pro-war stance. Next you'll be - hilariously - telling us you're 'anti-war.'


I did not claim that it was not a crime, but rather that it is easily arguable either way - that legal certainty is not achievable in this question (until it is decided in a court of law).

Why do you assume we're all legal idiots with no understanding of even the most elementary jurisprudential procedures? Bush and Blair's asses have FIRST to be brought before the (Hague) court, to be brought to account, before any determination, any possible conviction for their war crimes. You've fallen victim to (the irrational/impossible perversity) of an infinite contradictory circular regress here: Blair cannot be brought before a court on charges of committing a war crime until it is legally established that he has committed a war crime, which can only be established when he is brought before a court on charges of committing a war crime, which can only be done when it is legally established that he has committed a war crime, which etc ...

[snip some patronising, pompous tautological sophistry]

But it is worth bearing in mind that attempting to give the law (our personal) moral content is what got us into this debate

It is NOT. What brought you into this debate was your attempt to turn international law on its head by claiming it to be other than what it is, by further undermining what's left of it after its systematic abuse by the US/UK ("do you not see the damage it does to the idea and ideals of international law to be so careless with its terminology" LOL: that's exactly what YOU are doing), and by your resorting to childish psychologising dismissals via "that's just your personal opinion."

this is precisely what George Bush did, and precisely what so devastatingly undermined (and continues to undermine) the authority of the United Nations and international law today.

A miracle! We actually agree on something [though you remain oblivious as to how your views above serve to perpetuate that very same Bush agenda].

Thus to me, using the term 'war criminal' in this context not only undermines the integrity and strength of the argument against Blair (leaving the taste of irrational vehemence in my mouth, unnecessary given the ample ammunition available if one takes a strictly political or moral tack), but it is in fundamental contradiction with my views on the nature of law, and is of the same school of thought which continues to discredit and devalue attempts to find global solutions by centralised international institutions.

The failure to actively pursue Bush and Blair for their war crimes is precisely what will further obliterate the very notion of international political organisations, institutions, and laws, returning the world to the pre-WWII geopolitical order: extreme nationalist imperialism.

In the face of historically unprecedented levels of evidence for the invasion of Iraq being a serious war crime, you seek to again irrationally dismiss this charge as an instance of "irrational vehemence," while hiding behind, taking irresponsible refuge in, the most banal, vacuous legalistic bullshit, a perverse travesty of international justice, to preserve the pro-war status quo you so cluelessly support via your unexamined political unconscious.
 
Last edited:

old goriot

Well-known member
hey elgato.. I'm the other law student HMLT is referring to. You're wasting your time even attempting to reason with him about international law.

btw it's nice to see a legal positivist around here. I'm of the HLA Hart/Joseph Raz vein myself. I've been reading a lot of Hans Kelsen lately. A guy I studied with named Lars Vinx is having his thesis on Kelsen published by OUP in october:

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/gener...andLegalPhilosophy/?view=usa&ci=9780199227952

Look out for it.. I guarantee it will be excellent.
 
hey elgato.. I'm the other law student HMLT is referring to. You're wasting your time even attempting to reason with him about international law.

And like Elgato, you conflate bullying appeals to the "authority" of the law (the phallocentric inanity of "the Law is the Law is the Law", disavowedly abandoning reasoning and taking refuge in a (voided) master signifier) with political ideology and power dynamics, forgetting that the latter is your true 'master': like Elgata, you have succumbed to the dominant legal rhetoric in the West which meekly concedes that the foreign policies of particular (Western) governments are ABOVE and OUTSIDE the realm of international institutions and laws and principles. And in doing so - dismissively interpreting these laws via such ideological blinkers - you effectively reject the very foundations of international laws and conventions: the Nuremberg Principles established following World War II as well as earlier agreements such as the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907, the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, and the Geneva Conventions of 1929 and 1949, with the UN conveniently rendered as a plaything of Western hegemony.

But at least there are still some law scholars who understand this:

Any law scholar will tell you that pre-emptive self-defense is unlawful under international law – from Article VI of the Nuremberg Charter to the UN Charter. In fact, the United States was the guiding force behind both the Nuremberg trials and the establishment of the United Nations. At the end of the second world war, with the Nazis defeated and discredited, the United Nations Charter, a treaty binding on the U.S., prohibited nations using preventive force in Article II, Section 4. Only the Security Council has the authority to take measures against “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression.”

The only exception to this is the right of individual and collective self-defense that the U.S. and Britain invoked under Article 51. The key, of course, is that you have to be attacked or that an enemy must be in the process of attacking you. Under the UN Charter, you cannot simply say here’s a list of “rogue nations” who may at some undefined time in the near future pose a threat to you because they may harbor weapons of mass destruction, which we have in abundance, and they are not allowed to have. Nor is there anything under international law that says simply developing a weapons program amounts to an armed threat or attack. If this were true, every country on Earth would be justified in attacking the U.S., the country with the greatest number of WMD’s, at any time.----- American Society of International Law
 

vimothy

yurp
However, despite your rather rash assumptions and personal slurs, I in fact studied a law degree, which I finished last year, which had (due to my study choices) a particular emphasis on public international law. I have read and worked extensively on UN law and general principles, indeed the syllabus included examination of the very issue of the legality of the war in Iraq. Out of this study I took the opinion that a strong argument can be made for its legality (whether I like it or not - I do not). Furthermore, that is a different issue from Blair's personal criminal liability, which I suspect would come up against even further difficulties.

Word
 

elgato

I just dont know

I'm gonna post properly later, but for now I just want to stress that I do not believe that the argument for the war's legality is necessarily the strongest. There is also considerable weight behind the argument for its illegality, and on balance I would favour that argument.

Mildly irritated by the wording of hmlt's post, I wished to point out that it wasn't as straightforward as he seemed to imply. But having thought about it over the last few days, I have come to the opinion that my objection was disproportionate to the gripe... my issue I suppose was with semantics and precision, and while I stand by the content of my posts, I think that in this context they were misplaced, as they undermine a much more important cause (bringing the actions of the US and UK under the eye of international law), and if mis/selectively interpreted can give credence to a simple dismissal of the legal question.

But as I say, I'll get back and post properly later when I get a minute
 
Last edited:

vimothy

yurp
I'm gonna post properly later, but for now I just want to stress that I do not believe that the argument for the war's legality is necessarily the strongest, by any means. There is also significant weight behind the argument for its illegality, in fact on balance I would favour that argument.

Mildly irritated by the wording of hmlt's post, I wished to point out that it wasn't as straightforward as he seemed to imply. But having thought about it over the last few days, I have come to the opinion that my objection was disproportionate to the gripe... my issue I suppose was with semantics and degree, and while I stand by the content of my posts, I think that in this context they were misplaced, as they undermine a much more important cause (bringing the actions of the US and UK under the eye of international law).

But as I say, I'll get back and post properly later when I get a minute

I was just impressed that despite HMLT's belief that,

there have been many posters like yourself confessing ignorance [despite ample opportunity to overcome such ignorance] of internation law as a pretext for censoring judgements by those who are very knowledgeable about such law (ie because you're ignorant of the topic, therefore nobody else has a right to claim that they are informed about it; your 'reasoning' here is beginning to resemble that of Idlerich. We're back yet again into impotent pomo malaise).

You actually have a degree in Law and have focused on international law. It was an amusing moment.

I'd be intersted to hear the arguments for and against, though, if you find the time.
 
Last edited:
Top