Is it a crime?

[jreeves]

Stunning argument. Because the law always gets it right. Have I ever smoked pot? Nope. How can you tell? Because I've never been arrested for it, duh!



Actually its pretty fucking clear that he has.

Then tell me specifically the articles he has violated?

 

[jreeves]

Actually no. They would have to do something that is reckless or criminally negligent. And there are many ways that misjudging the distance could be either of those.

That is, of course, for states that follow the model penal code. Otherwise you would have to look at it from state to state as all of this is state law, not federal law. This also only applies to the US...dunno how it is in other countries.

It would definetly be ruled by state law, so you couldn't very well take a broad brush and paint this situation as being a basis for a debate. Even if it is manslaughter in a particular state definetly wouldn't be felony manslaughter it would be a misdemeanor.

 

[Larkinn]

Then tell me specifically the articles he has violated?

UN Charter Article 2(4).

 

[jreeves]

UN Charter Article 2(4).

Since your making the accusation, post the article and show exactly how he has violated it.

 

[Larkinn]

It would definetly be ruled by state law, so you couldn't very well take a broad brush and paint this situation as being a basis for a debate. Even if it is manslaughter in a particular state definetly wouldn't be felony manslaughter it would be a misdemeanor.

There is no such thing as felony manslaughter. However if your question is whether manslaughter is a felony or a misdemeanor, I believe that again is a state to state issue. I don't have the MPC on me so I can't check, but I would guess it would generally be a felony.

 

[Larkinn]

Since your making the accusation, post the article and show exactly how he has violated it.

Lazy bitch.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Explain how he violated it? Its pretty obvious.

 

[mattskramer]

Get back to me when you convene your war crimes tribunal. As for invading the ONLY reason we needed was that Saddam Hussein did not meet the requirements of the ceasefire from 1991. And he did not. But thanks for playing.

The resolution was from the UN, not the US. It was up to the UN to decide if Iraq’s actions constituted a breech of the resolution and what the appropriate steps would be to put Iraq back in line. Even Kofi said that Bush went over the line. Yes, it is true that Bush went to the UN to explain his reasoning. Yes, it is true that the UN has not created a tribunal to try Bush. One reason my be that the USA is such an economic and military power that it can nearly thumb its nose at the rest of the world.

Anyway, your reasoning for going to war being that Iraq broke the UN resolution is tenuous at best.

 

[jreeves]

Lazy bitch.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Explain how he violated it? Its pretty obvious.

I would like the exact articles he has violated included with a cite to the articles he has violated, your making the damn accusation. Lazy...your lazy, you make an accusation then don't want to back it up.

 

[Larkinn]

I would like the exact articles he has violated included with a cite to the articles he has violated, your making the damn accusation. Lazy...your lazy, you make an accusation then don't want to back it up.

Are you retarded?

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter reads:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

 

[mattskramer]

Are you retarded?

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter reads:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Yeah, but first of all, the US conveniently sits on the Security Council. Secondly the UN would not dare bring charges against the USA. We are just too powerful.

 

[dread]

I would like the exact articles he has violated included with a cite to the articles he has violated, your making the damn accusation. Lazy...your lazy, you make an accusation then don't want to back it up.

This is typical....The left DEMANDS proof but offers none in return.

 

[Larkinn]

Yeah, but first of all, the US conveniently sits on the Security Council.

The UNSC has the power to act contrary to that provision. The US tried to get the UNSC to do so, but they said no. The US is on the UNSC, but they don't control everything it does.

Secondly the UN would not dare bring charges against the USA. We are just too powerful.

Well its less that the UN wouldn't dare to do it, and more that the UN doesn't have the power/ability to do it. A state could try to bring the US to an int'l tribunal over it, except probably the only state that has standing to do so would be Iraq....a bit problematic considering Iraq is a semi-puppet state nowadays.

 

[Larkinn]

This is typical....The left DEMANDS proof but offers none in return.

Do you all have a severe case of the stupids?

I posted the text of Article 2(4). Twice now. I know it destroys your asinine arguments, but pretending the I didn't post the text when I obviously did doesn't really make your arguments any better.

 

[jreeves]

Do you all have a severe case of the stupids?

I posted the text of Article 2(4). Twice now. I know it destroys your asinine arguments, but pretending the I didn't post the text when I obviously did doesn't really make your arguments any better.

Are you retarded, you need to provide cites?

 

[mattskramer]

Are you retarded, you need to provide cites?

I don’t get it. Are you asking for a link to the article?

Try this:

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.htm

 

[jreeves]

I don’t get it. Are you asking for a link to the article?

Try this:

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.htm

No, I'm asking for a cite and expressly show which article he violated using quotes. You did get the cite part right though, you are ahead of the curve when concerning Larkin.

 

[Larkinn]

No, I'm asking for a cite and expressly show which article he violated using quotes. You did get the cite part right though, you are ahead of the curve when concerning Larkin.

Alright, I'll post it again since apparently you have some mental disorder.

Article 2(4) reads:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Which part are you having trouble understanding?

 

[Larkinn]

No, I'm asking for a cite and expressly show which article he violated using quotes. You did get the cite part right though, you are ahead of the curve when concerning Larkin.

Do try and stop lying and actually attack the substance. The article specifically says that members cannot use force to threaten another states territorial integrity. Apparently you are just stymied as to how to spin that, so your attacking...my cite? Or something.

 

[Gunny]

It was a cease-fire between the Coalition and Iraq, not between the US and Iraq. Even disregarding that, considering under domestic law to invade Iraq Congress had to declare war it is clear that a war was not already underway, and hence the US had no right to unilaterally invade Iraq.

Its pretty clear that it was illegal under int'l law.

A state of hostilities existed between the US -- coalition if you want to call it that -- tempered only by a cease-fire. The UN Resolution clearly states the use of force as an option for noncompliance. The US also included language in the ceasefire agreement that it reserved the right to act on its own.

Clearly, the US had more than enough legal authority to resume hostilities considering the number of times Saddam violated the terms of the ceasefire agreement.

I agree with in regard to Congress declaring war. They should have. Instead the gutless wonders handed off their responsibility to Bush, an irresponsible act. The Republican majority Congress's continual lack of any spine whatsover would be a primary reason conservatives/Republicans left their tails hanging in the wind in the 2006 mid-term elections.

 

[jreeves]

Do try and stop lying and actually attack the substance. The article specifically says that members cannot use force to threaten another states territorial integrity. Apparently you are just stymied as to how to spin that, so your attacking...my cite? Or something.

So that's your only contention, that Bush violated that specific section of the article? I just want to make sure?