Is the UN an Effective Mediator in International Conflicts?

[Adam]

I note the whopping great lack of response to points.

http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Adam
I note the whopping great lack of response to points.

http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/

Fact remains, there are those who are considered experts that would disagree.
I don't care.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Adam
I note the whopping great lack of response to points.

http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/

Wow. A group of people who were against the war were against the war. Profound and shocking.

 

[FZ+]

If, as some have suggested, the UN was replaced by an exclusive organisation limited to the ones we find acceptable, then it would be even more useless. The UN's present role is a way for the general opinion of the world to be brought to bear. It's not the UN's fault that the world's opinions are, in some people's view, that of "spineless gits".

If the UN were to say, reject countries like China, then approximately 99% of its members, including the US, will leave. That does not do much for its credibility.

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Wow. A group of people who were against the war were against the war. Profound and shocking.

What are you crowing about russ_waters? I already showed you all the legal stuff in another thread, and proved the case. I'm not going to re-post it all for this guy..

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Adam
What are you crowing about russ_waters? I already showed you all the legal stuff in another thread, and proved the case. I'm not going to re-post it all for this guy..

You miss the point: That website exists to make the case for a group of political activists. Lawyers join the group BECAUSE they are against the war, not to be part of an unbiased panel which then together makes a decision that the war was wrong. See the difference?

So its unsurprising that a group of lawyers that are against the war are against the war. And it says nothing at all about whether their opinion is typical (it isn't).

 

[Adam]

But russ_waters, the laws they present are not their biased opinions. See the difference?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Adam
But russ_waters, the laws they present are not their biased opinions. See the difference?

So what is so special about these particular lawyers that makes them unbiased? Other lawyers have the opposite opinion, doe that make THEM biased? Two people can look at the same evidence through different eyes and obtain different conclusions. Thats why they call them INTERPRETATIONS.

 

[FZ+]

Actually, I think the legal justification given to the war, at least the one from the British attorney general, has been invalidated. We are getting off topic, though.

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by russ_watters
So what is so special about these particular lawyers that makes them unbiased? Other lawyers have the opposite opinion, doe that make THEM biased? Two people can look at the same evidence through different eyes and obtain different conclusions. Thats why they call them INTERPRETATIONS.

You missed the point again. The lawyers can be as biased as they want. The LAWS are not biased. The laws are not sentient beings.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Adam
The lawyers can be as biased as they want.

Not when giving legal council, at least not in the U.S...unless of course they want to be disbarred, sued...and without clientele.

The LAWS are not biased.

No, but they are open to intepretation and usually based upon prescedence, unless there is none to base it upon.

Protest sites, whether presented by lawyers or others..are far more subject to bias amd personal opinion...

 

[Adam]

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have power to...

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8

It's pretty clear.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Adam
It's pretty clear.

I think if it was really as clear as you think it is congress would not have had to pass the "War Powers Resolution". Maybe you need to do a bit more "homework".

 

[Adam]

It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President[/color] will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities[/color] or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

... the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place[/color]; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.[/color]

(d) Nothing in this joint resolution--
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President[/color], or the provision of existing treaties; or
(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities[/color] or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.

Once again, don't throw around names and titles of things which you do not know.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Adam
Once again, don't throw around names and titles of things which you do not know.

Lol, I was alive and of an age to be aware of the possible ramifications when Nixon vetoed the War Powers Resolution, and I was also alive when his veto was effectively over-ruled. Since you're so wise and knowledgeable, tell me which U.S. court has ruled the War Powers Resolution as legal or illegal? and what those terms precadence, interpretation, and oh, a favored American term..."loophole" might have to do with it all? Oh Oh..and..and what about the failure of a "cease-fire"?

 

[Adam]

I have no idea about US court decisions. However, I do know that the War Powers Act does not in any way alter the USA Constitution.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Adam
I have no idea about US court decisions. However, I do know that the War Powers Act does not in any way alter the USA Constitution.

Well then, ignore the War Powers Act and you're right back to where they were during the vietnam war (prior to the passing of the war powers resolution)...a war that was never declared either. And again we are back to court cases, precadence and interpretations! Not at all clear!

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by kat
Well then, ignore the War Powers Act and you're right back to where they were during the vietnam war...

Frankly, kat, I think my opinion of the war powers act is different from yours, but stay on target: your main point is a good one.

The US constitution requires interpretation and clarification.

The War Powers Act is a clarification, and the inevitable striking down of the War Powers Act (should Congress ever be so dumb to try and invoke it) would be the interpretation.

Adam, laws themselves are not sentient beings. Obviously. But they are written by humans and therefore are subject to all the usual human imperfections and as a result our Constitution was built with error checks to allow its clarification and interpretation.

 

[The_Professional]

Originally posted by russ_watters
laws themselves are not sentient beings. Obviously. But they are written by humans and therefore are subject to all the usual human imperfections and as a result our Constitution was built with error checks to allow its clarification and interpretation.

Good point

 

[kat]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Frankly, kat, I think my opinion of the war powers act is different from yours, but stay on target: your main point is a good one.

The US constitution requires interpretation and clarification.

The War Powers Act is a clarification, and the inevitable striking down of the War Powers Act (should Congress ever be so dumb to try and invoke it) would be the interpretation.

Adam, laws themselves are not sentient beings. Obviously. But they are written by humans and therefore are subject to all the usual human imperfections and as a result our Constitution was built with error checks to allow its clarification and interpretation.

Actually Russ, I expect that my opinion of the War Powers Resolution is probably very similar to yours. My point being that it's never been proven to be viable or supportable, but that the very fact that congress felt the need to create the War Powers Resolution should at the very least suggest to someone that the claim that the Constitution itself is all the argument they need to claim that a President, specificly this president has no constitutional right to use troops aggressively, even if he's not officially declared "War"...isn't, wasn't and has never been supportable...not even in a court of law. The greatest weapon of congress has never been an exclusive right to declare war...but their right to hold the purse strings and refuse to finance aggression (this is how they ended the vietnam war)...having financed an agression, it's very difficult to suggest they don't support it. I believe that has been at least one of the opinions given in the rulings of the courts in the past. Correct me if I'm wrong.