hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
More ridiculous cheap shots from our resident neo-con crusader. Who is this helping?
Blair, like you, has no 'understanding' of such laws, except to delirially transgress and abuse them to commit war crimes.
The End of Blair
- Thread starter MATT MAson
- Start date
More ridiculous cheap shots from our resident neo-con crusader. Who is this helping?
Blair, like you, has no 'understanding' of such laws, except to delirially transgress and abuse them to commit war crimes.
vimothy
yurp
I'm just pointing out the obvious. Although it seems to me that you're not interested in international law unless it's backing up your own partisan line, as despite denouncing the invasion of Iraq as illegal, you also denounce the authority of the law itself:
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'
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
The only thing 'obvious' to you from all your posts here is your 'right' to demonize Arabs and Muslims as a pretext to their slaughter.
The invasion of Iraq is being denounced because its illegal, because its a war crime, and for very rational and consistent reasons.
The abuse of international conventions, principles, and laws on the basis of an empty appeal to authority is being denounced.
vimothy
yurp
Not really - in fact I am denouncing those Muslim extremists who demonise their fellow (but ideologically suspect) Arabs and Muslims as a pretext to their slaughter. And I have never claimed anything as a "right".
Islamist demonisation of Muslims: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahiliyya
Jahiliyyah has come to have a particular function in some radical Islamic circles, analogous to the idea of false consciousness in secular radical movements.[5] The Muslim masses are unaware that they are not true Muslims without overthrow of the secular state and complete and strict sharia law. Following Sayyid Qutb, Jahiliyyah has come to be seen as an active force, emanating in particular from the permissive society of the USA, and seducing Muslims away from the Divine Law. Participation in modern liberal capitalist social and political institutions is taken to be a symptom of the infection.[6]
The threat this 'disease' poses to the survival of Islam might justify a more militant attitude towards Western influence in Islam's heartlands, and can be seen as permitting 'real' Muslims to attack Muslims who have succumbed to Jahiliyyah — who are therefore no longer true Muslims.
The threat this 'disease' poses to the survival of Islam might justify a more militant attitude towards Western influence in Islam's heartlands, and can be seen as permitting 'real' Muslims to attack Muslims who have succumbed to Jahiliyyah — who are therefore no longer true Muslims.
Ok so first to address your aggressive response. I ask you to read through all of my posts before commenting or reacting.
What would you have me do in light of your degrading and condescending comments? If you call my knowledge, intentions and dedication into question surely that was all relevant...
I will post some argument below, shortly. Again, remember that I do not say that this is the only argument, or necessarily the triumphant argument, but rather that its existance calls into question the certainty of your language (which I have accepted was not worth my initial response, but now that we're here...).
I was of course referring to state responsibility.
Without wanting to repeat myself, I did not seek to justify war crimes, but to question the simplistic use of legal terms and argument, and the appraisal of an uncertain issue in certain terms.
What can I say? I feel that I was, and I know that I am anti-war, but it is my belief that under-developed and imprecise claims will lead us nowhere, and that considered argument which will find favour with institutions of authority may lead us somewhere.
I never said that Blair cannot be brought before a court... I said that you cannot (yet) call him a war criminal.
(relating to the fundamental question of what law is, relating directly to my qualm, and leading to debate which examines your confused conflation of morality and law).
This, on reflection, I accept, and as such regret. As I said, the extent of your percieved mistake did not merit the extent of my response in a public discussion. It is also for this reason that I am hesitant posit the pro-US/UK argument, but I will give people the benefit of the doubt and hope that it will be read for what I clearly state it to be.
Again, I have accepted that the way I went about things was a mistake. But I would ask you to question how successful your shouting and insulting will be in turning people against said agenda
I must not have clearly explained my intentions at this point (to question your use of language, and approach, not to proclaim the war's legality)
What would you have me do in light of your degrading and condescending comments? If you call my knowledge, intentions and dedication into question surely that was all relevant...
I will post some argument below, shortly. Again, remember that I do not say that this is the only argument, or necessarily the triumphant argument, but rather that its existance calls into question the certainty of your language (which I have accepted was not worth my initial response, but now that we're here...).
I was of course referring to state responsibility.
Without wanting to repeat myself, I did not seek to justify war crimes, but to question the simplistic use of legal terms and argument, and the appraisal of an uncertain issue in certain terms.
What can I say? I feel that I was, and I know that I am anti-war, but it is my belief that under-developed and imprecise claims will lead us nowhere, and that considered argument which will find favour with institutions of authority may lead us somewhere.
I never said that Blair cannot be brought before a court... I said that you cannot (yet) call him a war criminal.
(relating to the fundamental question of what law is, relating directly to my qualm, and leading to debate which examines your confused conflation of morality and law).
This, on reflection, I accept, and as such regret. As I said, the extent of your percieved mistake did not merit the extent of my response in a public discussion. It is also for this reason that I am hesitant posit the pro-US/UK argument, but I will give people the benefit of the doubt and hope that it will be read for what I clearly state it to be.
Again, I have accepted that the way I went about things was a mistake. But I would ask you to question how successful your shouting and insulting will be in turning people against said agenda
I must not have clearly explained my intentions at this point (to question your use of language, and approach, not to proclaim the war's legality)
Last edited:
Again, I ask you to read through the whole post before commenting or reacting. Please also remember that I am playing devil's advocate... the following is not what I believe to be the most convincing argument (in legal terms I believe it can ultimately be convincingly overcome), and further these are not issues which I relish recognising. I also apologise if a lot of this is obvious.
As I'm sure you know, custom and practice play a very substantial role in 'law-making' at the international level... treaties are not the sole sources of legal authority.
The main problem which I see for the argument against the US and UK is the interpretation of the Security Council's role in collective security. The Charter was drafted with the intention of a highly centralised system of collective security, with strong executive power, and what amounted to the UN's own armed force. At the same time, as you know, it created an exception to the prohibition of use of force, in circumstances where collective security is threatened. But the centralised ideal never came to fruition, and with widespread reluctance to centralise armed force almost immediate, and of course the Cold War. Until the 90s, the Security Council was not able to even come close to operating as it was intended, with the right of veto for the permanent members destroying its ability to act on matters of 'collective security'. Here continued the process of decentralisation, whereby practical need (or percieved need) dictated that the authorisation process for enforcement of collective security (as originally intended) was side-stepped (the US's appeal to General Assembly for authority in Korea and NATO's mandate for action in Kosovo being two major examples), (ostensibly) in pursuit of international peace and security (the fundamental object of the Charter). So with regard to the Security Council's exclusive authority to mandate military action in the name of collective security, we can see a sad history of ambiguity and decentralisation, the precedent of which (in the absense of judicial censure) at least creates doubt as to black and white illegality of the invasion.
There is also the fundamental debate as to the interpretation of Article 51 - does the word inherent ("Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if...") imply a concession to a broader right of self-defence based in customary international law, outside of the control of the Charter? I personally think that it cannot be interpreted in this way, but many eminent scholars and jurists have considered otherwise.
As to pre-emptive self-defence, what makes you so sure that international courts would interpret the law in the way that we would desire? Law is dynamic, and approaches to warfare have changed fundamentally since the Charter. In relation to the objects and purposes of the Charter, and given the hollowing out of the Security Council's executive authority, as far as I can see it would not be a substantial jump to say that the actions were lawful. The law is subject to constant interpretation, especially in light of new practical issues, and it is for the courts to decide legality - before this point we cannot be sure what is legal or illegal.
International law has developed slowly and by degree, and has been by necessity based on the consent of States. The UN represented a massive leap forward in attempts to create an international system of binding law. But before it could so much as walk, it was crippled by the Cold War. More or less every intention as to its operation has been subverted since the very beginning. There has, even since the Cold War, been considerable State practice to undermine the Security Council's centralised decision making power in matters of collective security, which has reached a low-point with Iraq. But Iraq is not so very far from behaviour which has been practiced and accepted ever since the UN's birth. Given all of this, can you not see why I am hesitant to refer to the law in black and white terms? It is not what I desire, and not what I believe to be the winning legal interpretation, but these are the arguments which will be raised to attempts to proceed legally, and they are serious. And what result would come of bringing these issues to international courts? Would the US simply accept the arguments and authority over them? Or would they draw further away from global efforts to achieve peace and security, leaving them even less politically constrained to pursue their foreign policy and further heighten the global divide between the West and Islam, and leaving the UN and international law with even less credibility and authority? But then equally, what use is it if it does not move on these issues...
Which is why ultimately I support the legal examination of these questions, as otherwise Iraq potentially represents extreme and dangerous precedent both with regard to both collective security and pre-emptive self-defence. And I hope that the actions would be found to be illegal, and that punishment and censure would follow.
hmlt, I do not want to be unecessarily adversarial, and if I state matters as fact it is for the sake of argument. I hope that you can resist slinging mud in the same way that you have with others, twisting my avatar to perverse implications or insults, bitter personal attacks. The personal is of course a part of the argument, but if you could refrain from arguing in such a degrading and aggressive manner I would greatly appreciate it. I am genuinely interested in what you have to say, as despite your frequent rudeness I have a great deal of respect for you and your ideas, and am only too aware that there lies a world of thought and knowledge into which I am yet to gain insight.
As I'm sure you know, custom and practice play a very substantial role in 'law-making' at the international level... treaties are not the sole sources of legal authority.
The main problem which I see for the argument against the US and UK is the interpretation of the Security Council's role in collective security. The Charter was drafted with the intention of a highly centralised system of collective security, with strong executive power, and what amounted to the UN's own armed force. At the same time, as you know, it created an exception to the prohibition of use of force, in circumstances where collective security is threatened. But the centralised ideal never came to fruition, and with widespread reluctance to centralise armed force almost immediate, and of course the Cold War. Until the 90s, the Security Council was not able to even come close to operating as it was intended, with the right of veto for the permanent members destroying its ability to act on matters of 'collective security'. Here continued the process of decentralisation, whereby practical need (or percieved need) dictated that the authorisation process for enforcement of collective security (as originally intended) was side-stepped (the US's appeal to General Assembly for authority in Korea and NATO's mandate for action in Kosovo being two major examples), (ostensibly) in pursuit of international peace and security (the fundamental object of the Charter). So with regard to the Security Council's exclusive authority to mandate military action in the name of collective security, we can see a sad history of ambiguity and decentralisation, the precedent of which (in the absense of judicial censure) at least creates doubt as to black and white illegality of the invasion.
There is also the fundamental debate as to the interpretation of Article 51 - does the word inherent ("Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if...") imply a concession to a broader right of self-defence based in customary international law, outside of the control of the Charter? I personally think that it cannot be interpreted in this way, but many eminent scholars and jurists have considered otherwise.
As to pre-emptive self-defence, what makes you so sure that international courts would interpret the law in the way that we would desire? Law is dynamic, and approaches to warfare have changed fundamentally since the Charter. In relation to the objects and purposes of the Charter, and given the hollowing out of the Security Council's executive authority, as far as I can see it would not be a substantial jump to say that the actions were lawful. The law is subject to constant interpretation, especially in light of new practical issues, and it is for the courts to decide legality - before this point we cannot be sure what is legal or illegal.
International law has developed slowly and by degree, and has been by necessity based on the consent of States. The UN represented a massive leap forward in attempts to create an international system of binding law. But before it could so much as walk, it was crippled by the Cold War. More or less every intention as to its operation has been subverted since the very beginning. There has, even since the Cold War, been considerable State practice to undermine the Security Council's centralised decision making power in matters of collective security, which has reached a low-point with Iraq. But Iraq is not so very far from behaviour which has been practiced and accepted ever since the UN's birth. Given all of this, can you not see why I am hesitant to refer to the law in black and white terms? It is not what I desire, and not what I believe to be the winning legal interpretation, but these are the arguments which will be raised to attempts to proceed legally, and they are serious. And what result would come of bringing these issues to international courts? Would the US simply accept the arguments and authority over them? Or would they draw further away from global efforts to achieve peace and security, leaving them even less politically constrained to pursue their foreign policy and further heighten the global divide between the West and Islam, and leaving the UN and international law with even less credibility and authority? But then equally, what use is it if it does not move on these issues...
Which is why ultimately I support the legal examination of these questions, as otherwise Iraq potentially represents extreme and dangerous precedent both with regard to both collective security and pre-emptive self-defence. And I hope that the actions would be found to be illegal, and that punishment and censure would follow.
hmlt, I do not want to be unecessarily adversarial, and if I state matters as fact it is for the sake of argument. I hope that you can resist slinging mud in the same way that you have with others, twisting my avatar to perverse implications or insults, bitter personal attacks. The personal is of course a part of the argument, but if you could refrain from arguing in such a degrading and aggressive manner I would greatly appreciate it. I am genuinely interested in what you have to say, as despite your frequent rudeness I have a great deal of respect for you and your ideas, and am only too aware that there lies a world of thought and knowledge into which I am yet to gain insight.
Last edited:
thanks for the tip, i'll have a look. i dont know what i would call myself in honesty. perhaps an unwilling positivist!
Isn't the question of the technicalities of international law totally naive (and yet somehow, simultaneously covertly cynical) here? Both in terms of waging war and determining war criminals it always returns to realpolitik- to power pure and simple. Laws are either re-written after the fact, or ignored entirely according to the whims of the winners, and those who have the greatest power. Blair will never be tried as a war criminal simply because of his power and his allies. The very status of "war criminal" is entirely defined by those with the most power, and those who win wars. International law then is either ignored or bent to fit the pre-existing conclusions of those states with the greatest power, and as such are little better than a side-show, or a fig leaf.
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
Elgato said:
The observation is that Blair, as UK PM, committed a war crime by invading Iraq. You introduced another Blair, an imaginary 'personal' Blair, which only serves to confuse and displace the central issue.
Elgato said:
Elgato, what your intentions might be is not a guide to what you actually write here, does not over-ride what you actually state. The problem, your problem - and it is a serious one - is that you claim to be anti-war, you claim to be against justifying war crimes, while simultaneously going out of your way to invoke 'legal complexity' concerning, to raise doubts about, to completely undermine the overwhelming evidence regarding what is actually one of the most serious war crimes committed by a UK PM in many decades. By doing so, you disavow your ostensible anti-war position. You have failed to state your position, whether you believe a war crime has been committed, despite 5 years of comprehensive evidence, despite knowing that the invasion was both a moral obscenity and a blatent contravention of all international conventions and laws. Instead, you seek safe refuge in "it's all a matter of interpretation", "the law is subject to change", while subjecting us to pedantic, pompous, and condescending little history lessons about the development of, the realpolitic of, the compromised organisational structure of, the UN. That is also known as smug, cynical pragmatism, Elgato; you're not actually interested in seeking justice, in taking a reasoned and moral position in relation to this atrocity, but simply in invoking and defending the - totally discredited - legal profession and its 'legal ambiguities.'
Far from us dealing - as you seek to do - with an "uncertain issue in certain terms", we are crucially addressing a very definite issue in no uncertain terms. What is instead simplistic - and all-too-unfortunately predictable - is your unprincipled inability to do so.
Elgato said:
But it is you who is being under-developed, imprecise, and vague, so raising doubts about your 'anti-war' claims. And it is the institution of reason (and of consistent ethical commitment), not currying favour via reigning dogma ('considered argument') with - again, already discredited - "institutions of authority" which will actually lead us to a just outcome (and not just 'somewhere').
Elgato said:
It is the implication of all that you are arguing here - that Blair should not be brought before a court (because 'the law is difficult, complex, subject to different interpretations' etc, etc).
Of course I can call Blair a war criminal. And we have MUCH more right, politically, rationally, empirically, morally, to call Blair a war criminal than you have to negate it (all you're doing is retreating back into legalese, censoring all judgement because he hasn't yet been charged, tried or convicted for anything)
--------------------------
Elgato said:
Again, Elgato, your breathtaking condescension on display here is nothing more than an evasive move: you need to read through what you have written (and previously written), because your utterly contradictory reasoning is so painfully obvious. Incidentally, you are not 'playing' devil's advocate, you are actively seeking excuses in realpolitic for justifying your complacency, for actually doing nothing, other than - that is - actively defending the present status quo pathology. I'm more than familiar with the history of the UN, Elgato, and simply presenting here a brief summary of its already-long-obvious intra-organisational machinations, compromises, short-comings, and hijackings does not constitute - even partially - a 'defence' of Blair's innocence. Bush and Blair treated the UN with contempt and indifference, knowing that it couldn't approve of their planned war crimes.
Elgato said:
I'm not sure you fully realise just how quaint and conservative your sentiments are here. You completely dismiss morality, evidence, rationality, politics, as irrelevant while elevating "custom and practice" (and as if these were unproblematic and not subject to any questioning). Again, we're not discussing 'law-making,' but your insistence on raising doubts about an obvious war crime. Why are you doing this, Elgato? Whose interests are you serving by doing so? How does your zealous equivocation here advance the cause of justice (as opposed to further confirming the Law as a plaything of power)? If we were discussing, instead of the reality of Blair's war crime, the reality of the Holocaust, would you be as eager to raise all of these patently absurd - and frankly obnoxiously evasive - 'legal points'? Who benefits from such historical 'revisionism'?
Yes, Elgato, as you clearly articulate and demonstrate in your posts, both politics and the law, and the structures underlying them, are 'complex', 'uncertain', 'developing', while also contradictory, evasive, corrupt. But that doesn't justify a complacent retreat from the world into the imagined 'safety' of impotence (or a 'my hands are tied by procedure' refusal to take responsibility, or a throwing up of those same hands in abject, despairing dismissal of the state of things, or an aggressive defence of that complacency), or at least not without some very definite implication for your true position (this isn't about shooting off 'personal insults', it's about establishing where that position actually resides).
gek-opel said:
Precisely. [But there are always exceptions ... 'events' (and their 'truth procedures~) ... as Badiou et al call them
. The alternative is a defeatist quietism].
Last edited:
I am interested to hear you expand on this, if you would.
This is simply not the case - because the law is complex does not mean it should not be examined.
Yes perhaps this is true.
'Incidentally'. Ha. As a secondary point I am doing a number of things in my career to pursue what I believe to be right, perhaps not enough, but to be fair that is not for you to judge, given that you know absolutely nothing about me. I would, however, be interested to hear advice as to what one can do to further these causes.
One of the main things that I am doing is exploring my thoughts. I am still young, and am still trying to find my view on life, and a way in which to drag myself from the undeniable malais in which I have found myself. Is it such a crime to want to explore ideas on an internet forum? To engage with intelligent and informed individuals? Perhaps it has been reckless, and for certain it has not been entirely self-aware. But you treat me with such great contempt. Why do you attack rather than reason? Is alienation your aim? You speak as if you want change, yet all you do is attack and belittle.
I agree that it does not 'justify' retreat. But I cannot say that I find the sense of impotence comforting. Much more comfortable was a previously dedicated and unambiguous belief that I knew what was right and knew what people were doing wrong. And I do not find myself with an easy discovery of renewed passion.
I find your moral certainty quite remarkable, especially given what you said in another thread about religion. I am interested to hear how you come to this.
Last edited:
Yes I think this is a fair assessment. I certainly feel very cynical, to the point at which I feel, as hmlt points out, impotent. I suppose it is true that I have retreated to naivety, in the pursuit of personal happiness and satisfaction. I have lost faith in morality and faith in my ability to even come close to understanding how things could change. As an open question, where to go to reinstill this?
The ludicrous thing is that the essense of these power processes are even openly incorporated into the doctrine of international law-making. It has by necessity been born of political power, and therefore restricted by it. It is these processes which left me dumbfounded by hmlt's conclusion that Blair is, with no uncertainty, a war criminal. I initially took this to be ignorance, but I understand now that he does not use the language to refer to the actual law, but rather in a symbolic manner. I find this counter-intuitive, but I think I am beginning to understand where he is coming from (so little respect left for it that it is but an empty provider of symbolic power? a willful simplification?).
Am I closer to understanding what your position is on the matter hmlt?
Given that it is the discussion we are already amidst, in your views what can the role be for international law in the future?
I wish to say sorry to MisterSloane for my outburst earlier. I did actually find the original joke quite funny (as I've been to Tiger Tiger and it's shit), but the 'legitimate target' line set me off. Anyway, calling people the c-word rarely triggers useful debate, so please accept my apologies.
Either that, or a compulsive subconscious urge to derail as many threads as possible.
MATT MAson
BROADSIDE
I know this thread is now a total train wreck thanks to the usual suspects, but I thought this news was encouraging:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6258794.stm
Anyway, sorry, back to glib dismissals and the usual bollocks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6258794.stm
Anyway, sorry, back to glib dismissals and the usual bollocks.
MATT MAson
BROADSIDE
Every political thread seems to turn into the same tedious series of 2,000 word posts on Islam vs the West, which soon become angry personal attacks, which get really boring after reading them again and again.
What starts as a productive discussion between a handful of people soon degenerates into a bitter argument between two old rivals braving a rainy Sunday afternoon at Speaker's Corner.
But to get back on topic (which I realize we have no chance of doing at this point) I thought what Brown proposed to day looked promising. Any thoughts?
What starts as a productive discussion between a handful of people soon degenerates into a bitter argument between two old rivals braving a rainy Sunday afternoon at Speaker's Corner.
But to get back on topic (which I realize we have no chance of doing at this point) I thought what Brown proposed to day looked promising. Any thoughts?
hucks
Your Message Here
All the more so since there are really not many votes in this kind of thing, so it's kind of a pelasant surprise.
I do particularly like the fact he's even floating the idea of allowing protests back in Parliament Square, firstly, because obviously it's the right thing to do, and secondly 'cos it's basically calling Blair, Clarke and Reid pricks for banning them in the first instance.
vimothy
yurp
That was meant to be a joke.
& FWIW, I think that the argument between elgato and hmlt has been pretty interesting.