I'm glad to see that our Congressman voted against the funding of the illegal war in Iraq. Enough is enough. I'm disappointed that Congresswoman Gillibrand supported this funding.
"I am disappointed that, once again, the House has approved federal funds for President Bush's illegal occupation of Iraq," U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-Hurley, said in a prepared statement following Thursday's vote. "However, I am proud to have continued my record of voting against funding that does not include a plan to redeploy our troops. I still believe that we must launch a diplomatic offensive, end the occupation of Iraq and continue to vigorously pursue national security objectives that will help stabilize the Middle East and make the United States more secure."
Hey, where did you get the nice photo? Jeremy, does Congressman Hinchey like fishing?
ReplyDeleteAnd. Oh, pleaseeeeeeeeeee. send Woltman to Albany. He's got my Vote.:)
Thank you Congressman! I'm glad I voted for you.
ReplyDeleteYou're just way too Conservative for my taste...smitty
The fact of the matter is that the war in Iraq is NOT illegal. Liberals continually try to make the point that it is but cannot point any actual law which has been broken.
ReplyDeleteThere are only a few ways in which any war can be deemed illegal. The first, under the U.S. Constitution, is the principle that only Congress can declare war. While true, the Constitution does NOT prohibit the combat use of troops outside of a declared war. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Desert Storm: all combat uses of our troops outside of declared wars, none found to be illegal by any court.
Furthermore, as Congress declared war on terrorism after 9/11 (NOT on al Qaeda and NOT on those involved in the attacks, but on terrorism in general), a logical case can be made that removing a regime which had long used and advocated terrorism against other nations and against its own people was included under this umbrella. Whether it was or not, fighting a war which has not been declared has never been found to be illegal or unconstitutional by our courts. Certainly, the enemy we fight today in Iraq is one consisting of international (not Iraqi!) terrorists.
The next way in which a war might be considered illegal is as a violation of the War Powers Act passed by Congress after the close of the Vietnam War. This Act has never been tested in the courts and has been condemned as unconstitutional by every U.S. President since, including Carter and Clinton. COnsequently, we have the Legislative Branch stating that it is a legitimate law while both conservative and liberal leaders of the Executive Branch say that it is not. Unless and until the Judiciary chimes in, we have a standoff and no way to ascertain whether or not violations are truly illegal.
The final way a war could be deemed illegal is under international law. The sources of itnernational law are primarily treaties, conventions, precendents and UN resolutions. No treaty, convention or precedent exists which would prohibit our removal of Saddam's regime. The UN resolutions on WMDs in Iraq were very clear. Saddam had an affirmative obligation to not only destroy his weapons but to prove that he had done so.
No resolution required that we prove that he still had his weapons. There was no legal requirement for America or her allies to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt or to any extent whatsoever. This is not a criminal court and no military decision has ever in history been held to that standard. On the contrary, Saddam was required to prove that he no longer had WMDs. The only obligation to prove anything under the pertinent UN resolutions was his. Failure to do so gave any UN member the right to enforce the resolutions against Saddam, with overwhelming military might, if need be. There is no requirement for the General Asembly or the Security Council to approve any such act of enforcement.
Saddam's crime under international law was NOT possession of WMDs, it was the failure to live up to his obligations under the Security Council's Resolutions.
Throwing words like "illegal" around without understanding how or why wars can be illegal does little to make your case against the war. Claiming that this war is "illegal" when no law, constitutional provision, treaty, convention or UN resolution had been contravened is simply a fairy tale.
Hey Kid,
ReplyDeletewww.juliannot.blogspot.com
Julian Not
Read it again, quietly to yourself Imre and you seem to defeat your own premise.
ReplyDeleteIt is not only illegal it is immoral.
Imagine some diplomat saying there was never any Law stating that the Emporer could not attack Pearl Harbor and using that to rationalize the attack!
Using your logic there never was a war or act of war that was or ever has been illegal. Subjectivity can justify any errant nonsense...smitty
Re: imre beke, jr. comments.
ReplyDeleteSpoken like a true neo-conservative wingnut. Let the slaughter of other nation's people continue under our saber.
You forget the real goal of the Iraq war is to bring chaos to the region so the rich can profit. This has been the US government's (read large corporation's) policy in Latin America and Asia. No different now in the Middle East.
Where a country is relatively stable she will not readily give up her resources to a foreign entity.
8:43 -
ReplyDeleteThe word "illegal" literally means "against the law." If no law forbids something, it cannot be illegal, by definition.
You can argue about the morality of this war, but not its legality because it simply is not against any law, national or international. Calling an act illegal in the absence of a law being broken does not - in and of itself - make it illegal. You cannot redefine the English language to suit your purposes. This is not Orwell's 1984, much as liberals would prefer otherwise.
In point of fact, a great many acts of war are clearly illegal because they contravene either internatonal law or the domestic law of the nations which commits them. Much of what the Soviet Union did, for instance, in Eastern Europe and especially in Afghanistan was not only against international law but also against Soviet domestic law. They also nationalized their means of production, much as Hinchey would love to do.
12:09 -
Yes, you're right. How could I forget? We went there for the oil! No wonder our gas prices have gone down since we went into Iraq!
Please. The war in Iraq had NOTHING whatsoever to do with oil. Even many organizations who were opposed to the war admit that Saddam's Fedayeen and Mukhabarat state security agencies killed between 100 and 300 persons every single day. Not only are we NOT slaughtering Iraqi civilians, but the death rate in Iraq has actually gone DOWN significantly since Saddam was removed from power.
The 650,000 death figure which was bandied about at one time (notice how liberal pundits are no longer using it?) was the total number of deaths in Iraq over 4 years: natural, accidents, criminal and miltary combined. That makes the death toll in Iraq about 6.5 per thousand compared the the U.S. death rate of 8.5 per thousand.
The only slaughter being perpetrated in Iraq is Muslim on Muslim terrorism.
Oh, and please continue to call me and all the other conservative posters here names such as wingnut. Since I never use pejoratives in political debate, it only serves to underscore your lack of any logical basis for your argument.
I voted for Bob Moppert in 92 & 94... Don't blame me for Mo's Messes.
ReplyDeleteCal the Conservative
Response to Imre Beke, JR.
ReplyDeleteOk, you dont need to go off on rants and raves on this blog about how the war in Iraq cannot be deemed illegal. I got a nice little web site for you supporting all the ways in which it is illegal, check it out, it tells all about the paperwork, and requirements of the grounds for said war, two being PROOF of the WMD as well as PROOF that Iraq was behind 90/11 for US TO LEGALLY DECLARE WAR.
And as far as I know, both of these have proven to be false, so we are fighting a war one, under false pretenses OR we are fighting a war for no reason that is and always has been unwarranted, and Bush just feels like he is the ultimate power and will continue to send our children, family and friends overseas to settle a dispute his Father had back in the 90's. So not only is it illegal, YES its Immoral, we have no grounds for being there other than the fact that Bush says so. That is not a good enough reason for me, and if it is for you, shame on you.
And what kind of an idiot cannot see how the whole Oil fiasco works? Bush has his family legacy in Texas oil... he sits on thousands of acres of land does he not? All provided by the money maid from the oil. We go to war in Iraq, Bush gets more oil, and because of the panic of the people in America gas prices soar NOT Because they initially cut oil off at all, just because they KNEW Americans were concerned and would assume the high prices were a result of the war. Its not until RECENTLY that the barrels actually have increased, benefiting again, NOONE but the oil company.
ReplyDeletePlease do not think Bush is that commendable... he doesnt give a shit about the "little" people in America who cant afford to pay bills, all he cares about is how pretty his ranch sits on its thousands of acres.
Gas prices go up and it Benefits BUSH, in case you havent seen the theme, thats all his term has been about, finishing up his fathers dirty work and making sure his life remains as charmed as ever.
Nearly Four Decades Later, U.S. Oil Companies Return to Iraq
ReplyDeleteSource: New York Times, June 19, 2008
Four oil companies are in the final stage of contract negotiations to regain drilling rights in Iraq -- thirty-six years after they lost them. Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP -- founding partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company -- are currently in talks with Iraq's Oil Ministry "for no-bid contracts to service Iraq's largest fields." Joining them are Chevron and several smaller oil companies. The deal is expected to be approved by the end of the month and "will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations." The no-bid process has frozen out 40 other oil companies, including Indian, Russian and Chinese competitors. A spokesperson for the Oil Ministry said that "the no-bid contracts were a stop-gap measure to bring modern skills into the fields while the oil law was pending in Parliament." He added that the companies chosen already had a relationship with the government, "advising the ministry without charge for two years before being awarded the contracts." While the current contracts are relatively small, they represent a foot in the door for much more lucrative future deals.
Smitty,
ReplyDeleteIf you think Hinchey is conservative, then you need medication and quickly.
2:09PM Sorry I should spell it out [tongue in cheek]-[understatement]get it now!!!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the thought, I do take medication and it helps me socialize and even sign my name.
I will try to be more anonymous in the future, lest I offend anyone...smitty
Oil companies are returning to Iraq because our OWN congress won't let us drill. Hint: Want to drop oil prices, invest in nuclear energy. Seriously, you libs want to tax big oil, and that tax will be passed down to me. You libs are so disgusted at anybody else making a profit, but when you are the one making the profit its fine.
ReplyDeleteSecond. The war in Iraq is NOT illegal. Your little websites that say its illegal are pointless. Do yourself a favor and READ the constitution. The war is not illegal.
Third. Last I checked, Bush does not sit on Opec. He does not dictate oil prices. His family got into he oil business. If any one of you libs were invested in oil, you would not be complaining.
Hey, I have an idea, lets take all the money from the oil companies, and give all private property to the collective. I bet Marx is cheering in his grave for you guys.
Speaking of websites, since you like to make arguments with them, check this one out. http://www.idiotsforobama.com/