Moral/Legal Authority

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by jake, Mar 11, 2003.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. At the moment, you guys better be signing up to a legal defence fund... because HMG does not have the legal authority to go to war...
  2. Like we give a sh*t!
  3. International Courts?
  4. Like we give a shit
  5. "I was only following orders"    ..I`m sure I`ve heard that defence before !
  6. Just throw the old line, "we were under orders".  That should work once it's all done and dusted.  Just ask any member of the SS who worked the concentration camps....oh aye, hang on a mo..... ah bugger.
    Anyway, who's gonna push prosecution?  Saddam?  The U.N.?  :-/
  7. Get back to your brazier ********.
  8. We do have legal authority.  It comes from the UK government and the UN.  The UN Charter gives countries the right to defend themselves if they 'think' that another country (in this case Iraq) is a threat, they do not have to wait a UN vote first to give them this authority.  The problem with 'UN speak', and in particular the Charter, is that it is designed to be all things to all men.  We, as the plaintiff, are acting quite legally, unfortunately, so is the Respondent, one Mr S Hussein!  Sitting on the French fence is quite legal too!  We could of course, as a P5 member, insist that this ridiculous situation is changed and some proper law laid down.  Yeh, yeh, lets have some proper international law…… but then we would have to give up Ulster, the Falklands and Gibraltar not to mention the great holiday posting of Cyprus.  

    Where is the only place in the world to try true international law……well the EU of course… and how much bitching do we get about Spanish fishermen, French farmers, German miners blah, blah, blah.  If the world wants international law we all have to take the consequences.  The UK's fishing fleet would totally disappear and France would have to get rid of  3 million small farmers; NO ONE WANTS INTERNATIONAL LAW UNLESS SOME OTHER FCUKER SUFFERS
  9. I have to second that:

    Like we give a sh*t!
  10. Jake

    1. Nobody has declared war.  When the Sudatenland was annexed there was no declaration of war.  There seem to be a slightly bourgois set of values at play here.  Since the weapons inspectors were thrown out, our adversaries have won technical victories hand over fist.  If you want an example look at our own media coverage.  Al Samood missiles are shown being moved about on indiginous commercial articulated lorries that are all nicely painted  in sand finish.

    How nice of them to spruce them up for the worlds media!  Al Samood is a variant of FROG 7 which normally moves on a fixed axle high mobility vehicle like this [​IMG].  This is just one example of their deception methods.

    2.  We are currently engaged in coercion not war.  For coercion to be effective, our adverary has to believe that we will not only step up to the wire, but cross it as well.  Unfortunately we can not achieve this by writing to the Spectator, or debating it at Poets Essayists and Novelists and the Poetry Cafe.   A brainy boxhead once wrote that
    " War is an extension of Diplomacy by another means."  By his reconning we are still at "Diplomacy" and not at "War"

    3.  The press is free, it is also supposed to be impartial and objective.  By you introducing " a war crimes " theme, places you close to Tony Benn's " you're being orderd to kill innocent women and children" line of sofa TV this morning. :p

    A slight twist in objectivity, that places you
    both closer to the indoctrination methods of North Korean and Viet Cong POW camps, than my Dad's NUJ chapel would normally accept.  :eek:
  11. I find it difficult to argue for the authority of law when the argument is "we uphold the law"   as long as it agrees with us... So GB & TB  when they sought the authority of the UN now no longer need it because the UN does not agree with them? -
  12. Come on gentlemen, Jake asked a reasonable question.

    Would someone remind me when we bombed the Serbs using NATO, was it because the UN wouldn't let us?
  13. does not UN resolution1441 give them the legal right as that was passed in  November 2002, as for the moral right - I suppose that comes down to the persons own morals wether its right or wrong!
  14. Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

    4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

    11.. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

    12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security

    13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

    14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

    I can`t see anything thatsays we can go to war !