Political history being re wrote as we watch

[JakeStarkey]

JRK believes his twisted opinion is fact.

 

[JRK]

Corruption?
What has that got to do with anything?
Did the UN give authorisation to go in or not?
The answer is 'no' as you said yourself.

what does the UN have to do with this country?
no-one asked your opinion any-way
congress gave the go ahead 10-2002
we dont answer to the UN

You fool.
Bush used the UN as a justification for going into Iraq, that's what it has to do with the US.

No-one asked my opinion?
You had better stop posting on a public forum then, just send PMs to those that agree with you - it would save you a lot of stress and heartache.

No-one said to agree
where did we get this notion the UN has jurisdiction over this country?
what peeves most of us is this third world, no truth, no precedence mind set that I dont even know where you people get this stuff

To start with the UN has 0000000000000000000 jurisdiction over us
show me one link that states it does

 

[idb]

what does the UN have to do with this country?
no-one asked your opinion any-way
congress gave the go ahead 10-2002
we dont answer to the UN

You fool.
Bush used the UN as a justification for going into Iraq, that's what it has to do with the US.

No-one asked my opinion?
You had better stop posting on a public forum then, just send PMs to those that agree with you - it would save you a lot of stress and heartache.

No-one said to agree
where did we get this notion the UN has jurisdiction over this country?
what peeves most of us is this third world, no truth, no precedence mind set that I dont even know where you people get this stuff

To start with the UN has 0000000000000000000 jurisdiction over us
show me one link that states it does

What do you mean by 'jurisdiction'?

 

[JRK]

You fool.
Bush used the UN as a justification for going into Iraq, that's what it has to do with the US.

No-one asked my opinion?
You had better stop posting on a public forum then, just send PMs to those that agree with you - it would save you a lot of stress and heartache.

No-one said to agree
where did we get this notion the UN has jurisdiction over this country?
what peeves most of us is this third world, no truth, no precedence mind set that I dont even know where you people get this stuff

To start with the UN has 0000000000000000000 jurisdiction over us
show me one link that states it does

What do you mean by 'jurisdiction'?

do you know how to Google anything?
okay, go with your smart ass remark
Jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility. The term is also used to denote the geographical area or subject-matter to which such authority applies.
Jurisdiction draws its substance from public international law, conflict of laws, constitutional law and the powers of the executive and legislative branches of government to allocate resources to best serve the needs of its native society.

 

[JakeStarkey]

International law, JRK, does have jurisdiction over US violations of international treaties and obligations and the rules of war.

We broke them, and the US will be held accountable.

 

[JRK]

International law, JRK, does have jurisdiction over US violations of international treaties and obligations and the rules of war.

We broke them, and the US will be held accountable.

again for the 1000th time
provide me a link to this violation and exactly who is it that holds the warrrent

 

[idb]

No-one said to agree
where did we get this notion the UN has jurisdiction over this country?
what peeves most of us is this third world, no truth, no precedence mind set that I dont even know where you people get this stuff

To start with the UN has 0000000000000000000 jurisdiction over us
show me one link that states it does

What do you mean by 'jurisdiction'?

do you know how to Google anything?
okay, go with your smart ass remark
Jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility. The term is also used to denote the geographical area or subject-matter to which such authority applies.
Jurisdiction draws its substance from public international law, conflict of laws, constitutional law and the powers of the executive and legislative branches of government to allocate resources to best serve the needs of its native society.

Anyone can look up a dictionary.
What do you mean by 'jurisdiction' in respect to the UN's powers or otherwise over the US?

Do you mean jurisdiction over the US' right to declare war maybe?

 

[JRK]

What do you mean by 'jurisdiction'?

do you know how to Google anything?
okay, go with your smart ass remark
Jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility. The term is also used to denote the geographical area or subject-matter to which such authority applies.
Jurisdiction draws its substance from public international law, conflict of laws, constitutional law and the powers of the executive and legislative branches of government to allocate resources to best serve the needs of its native society.

Anyone can look up a dictionary.
What do you mean by 'jurisdiction' in respect to the UN's powers or otherwise over the US?

Do you mean jurisdiction over the US' right to declare war maybe?

I am not going to get sucked into another childish tit for tat discussion with you
as I have said and will continue to say, this is a joke to you

 

[idb]

do you know how to Google anything?
okay, go with your smart ass remark
Jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility. The term is also used to denote the geographical area or subject-matter to which such authority applies.
Jurisdiction draws its substance from public international law, conflict of laws, constitutional law and the powers of the executive and legislative branches of government to allocate resources to best serve the needs of its native society.

Anyone can look up a dictionary.
What do you mean by 'jurisdiction' in respect to the UN's powers or otherwise over the US?

Do you mean jurisdiction over the US' right to declare war maybe?

I am not going to get sucked into another childish tit for tat discussion with you
as I have said and will continue to say, this is a joke to you

I've seen you level that same accusation to others that try to discuss with you.
The other good one is..."I feel sorry for you, I really do".

 

[JRK]

Anyone can look up a dictionary.
What do you mean by 'jurisdiction' in respect to the UN's powers or otherwise over the US?

Do you mean jurisdiction over the US' right to declare war maybe?

I am not going to get sucked into another childish tit for tat discussion with you
as I have said and will continue to say, this is a joke to you

I've seen you level that same accusation to others that try to discuss with you.
The other good one is..."I feel sorry for you, I really do".

There are some on this message board I do feel sorry for. you just a smart ass. Trying to discuss with me the definition of jurisdiction is not a discussion
In the context it was used if your not smart enough to figure that out, going beyond that would be a waste of time

 

[idb]

I am not going to get sucked into another childish tit for tat discussion with you
as I have said and will continue to say, this is a joke to you

I've seen you level that same accusation to others that try to discuss with you.
The other good one is..."I feel sorry for you, I really do".

There are some on this message board I do feel sorry for. you just a smart ass. Trying to discuss with me the definition of jurisdiction is not a discussion
In the context it was used if your not smart enough to figure that out, going beyond that would be a waste of time

It's a perfectly valid question.
You asked a rhetorical question "Does the UN have jurisdiction over the US?".
Now, I understand that it refers to the Iraq issue (don't all of your posts?), but what does it mean?
Does it mean that the US had the right to carry out any action they wanted and claim that they had the sanction of the UN - despite that not being the case?

Do you see JRK?
You do have to think about 'facts'.

 

[JRK]

I've seen you level that same accusation to others that try to discuss with you.
The other good one is..."I feel sorry for you, I really do".

There are some on this message board I do feel sorry for. you just a smart ass. Trying to discuss with me the definition of jurisdiction is not a discussion
In the context it was used if your not smart enough to figure that out, going beyond that would be a waste of time

It's a perfectly valid question.
You asked a rhetorical question "Does the UN have jurisdiction over the US?".
Now, I understand that it refers to the Iraq issue (don't all of your posts?), but what does it mean?
Does it mean that the US had the right to carry out any action they wanted and claim that they had the sanction of the UN - despite that not being the case?

Do you see JRK?
You do have to think about 'facts'.

You fool.
Bush used the UN as a justification for going into Iraq, that's what it has to do with the US.

those are your words as to say the UN has some say in us going into Iraq, you want to keep playing?
go right ahead, all of this is a joke to you

 

[idb]

There are some on this message board I do feel sorry for. you just a smart ass. Trying to discuss with me the definition of jurisdiction is not a discussion
In the context it was used if your not smart enough to figure that out, going beyond that would be a waste of time

It's a perfectly valid question.
You asked a rhetorical question "Does the UN have jurisdiction over the US?".
Now, I understand that it refers to the Iraq issue (don't all of your posts?), but what does it mean?
Does it mean that the US had the right to carry out any action they wanted and claim that they had the sanction of the UN - despite that not being the case?

Do you see JRK?
You do have to think about 'facts'.

You fool.
Bush used the UN as a justification for going into Iraq, that's what it has to do with the US.

those are your words as to say the UN has some say in us going into Iraq, you want to keep playing?
go right ahead, all of this is a joke to you

Don't you see?
It was important to the US administration to get the UN's sign-off - they put a hell of a lot of effort into presenting a case that would result in a go-ahead from them.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You ignore that our country waged war illegally without the authorization of the UN. Our country was not authorized to use UN 1441 as legal grounds for war. The fact remains that the US waged pre-emptive and offensive warfare in violation of the UN's actions.

Your opinion is only that of a war crimes apologist, Shakles.

You continue to ignore the corruption in the United Nation. A clear fact that stands at the core reason the United Nations refused authorization. You can't rebutt this fact can you? You can continue to ramble on about your "opinion", but the proven FACT of corruption within the United Nations remains.

Shak he will never stop, he has no reason nor proof to back up 1 claim he has made

Well when presented with the evidence, JakeStarkey (and apparently idb as well) has chosen to take on one of two positions:

1. that it's irrelevent that the UN had been bribed. That those members 'on the take' can still formulate an objective opinion when it comes to sanctions placed upon Iraq, even when they themselves benefit from the very country they are trying to hold compliant.

2. that it's perfectly acceptable to bribe a public official.

Either case is very troubling, in fact I have serious doubts they could possibly know what a "bribe" is or perhaps the consequences that it may bring to someone's judgement on a case.

Where was Jake or idb when Pete Rose was looking for a criminal defense lawyer?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You ignore that our country waged war illegally without the authorization of the UN. Our country was not authorized to use UN 1441 as legal grounds for war. The fact remains that the US waged pre-emptive and offensive warfare in violation of the UN's actions.

Your opinion is only that of a war crimes apologist, Shakles.

The UN 1441 resolution, was approved by the UN to put consequences to Iraqs actions, with language that does not disclude the possibility of a military strike. You have provided no facts to the contrary.

You continue to ignore the corruption in the United Nation. A clear fact that stands at the core reason the United Nations refused authorization. You can't rebutt this fact can you? You can continue to ramble on about your "opinion", but the proven FACT of corruption within the United Nations remains.

There are two camps. The first takes the view that military action can be justified without a further resolution either on the basis of self-defence or on the basis that previous UN resolutions, including resolution 1441, authorise the use of force. The second takes the opposite view that, as things stand, there is no actual or imminent threat from Iraq that would justify a "self-defence" response by the UK and that nothing in resolution 1441, or any other UN resolution, authorises the use of force without a further resolution giving clear authority to do so.

The government has been advised on the issue by Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general. His advice is to be disclosed today. All the prime minister has been prepared to say so far is that the UK will not take any action that does not have a "proper legal basis", as he made clear in his answers in parliament last week.



Keir Starmer: Sorry, Mr Blair, but 1441 does not authorise force | Politics | The Guardian

The government has a point when it grumbles about permanent members of the security council, such as France and Russia, threatening to veto any further UN resolution. But that does not justify the US or the UK acting outside the UN. It merely highlights the need for reform of the undemocratic security council structure which they put in place at the end of the second world war. Article 2 of the UN charter requires all states to refrain from the threat or use of force that is inconsistent with the purposes of the UN, which emphasises that peace is to be preserved if at all possible.

I have read the case about the "two camps", and if you go further you will see this is precisely the kind of wording France wanted to see changed. The language in Resolution 1441 becomes vague in that a military option, without further resolution, can be made as Iraq would have fallen deeper into noncompliance by breaking yet ANOTHER UN Resolution.

Have you bothered to research and examine exactly how many UN resolutions have been breached, and during what length of time? I believe through the span of that many years the United Nations have been more than gracious. The fact that those that were held in account to oversee these UN resolutions can be bribed, puts into question it's rellevence that the United Nations can be trusted with enforcement. What we have here is a group that has chosen to look the other way, while getting wealthy off Saddam. Why should any other country [Iran] ever take the United Nations serious, or begin to view them as an "enforcement of peace"?

A UN that has a history of, burying its head in the sand "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" may be perfectly acceptable to Jake, but there is no peace or relevance in it. They failed as the watch-dog over Germany that could have prevented World War II, it's only a matter of time before history begins to repeat itself with a rogue nation like Iran. Why sit by and talk about drafting another resolution, when each drafted resolution is only a mere 'piece of paper' . . . nothing more . . . if you coward at the very thought of actually having to enforce something. Oh heaven forbit the United Nations actually grows a spine!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

International law, JRK, does have jurisdiction over US violations of international treaties and obligations and the rules of war.

We broke them, and the US will be held accountable.

Do you have any link to back up your statements? I didn't think so. In fact, you have yet to provide one single form of documentation that I have asked into this thread, to support this opinion of yours that you seem to hold so dear. Why? Well it's become quite apparent to the rest of us, you can't seem to find any. Without supportive documentation, you don't have a case for even beginning to show a UN violation. Sorry to burst you bubble, but you are going to have to start providing some facts in order to bring anything relevant to this discussion.

 

[editec]

International law, JRK, does have jurisdiction over US violations of international treaties and obligations and the rules of war.

We broke them, and the US will be held accountable.

again for the 1000th time
provide me a link to this violation and exactly who is it that holds the warrrent

Sure, no problem, JRK.

Your question is what law makes international treaties THE LAW, right?

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution.


This law establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and Federal Statutes as "the supreme law of the land." .

The above means that if Congress ratifies an international treaty?

It become US law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JRK, like all progressive right wing neo-cons, does not understand the Constitution.

 

[JRK]

International law, JRK, does have jurisdiction over US violations of international treaties and obligations and the rules of war.

We broke them, and the US will be held accountable.

again for the 1000th time
provide me a link to this violation and exactly who is it that holds the warrrent

Sure, no problem, JRK.

Your question is what law makes international treaties THE LAW, right?

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution.


This law establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and Federal Statutes as "the supreme law of the land." .

The above means that if Congress ratifies an international treaty?

It become US law.

So what your stating is congress approved the attack on Iraq in the month Of October 2002 and this is why it is legal?
Think about what you just did, you proved my point better than I ever could
I have for months stated there were WMDs found in Iraq. Those weapons were taken before congress as proof we went there to enforce the resolutions that the UN could not. In addition this article was taken before the courts prior to our invasion and

Doe v. Bush
Main article: Doe v. Bush
In early 2003, the Iraq Resolution was challenged in court to stop the invasion and this challenge failed. Judge Lynch summarized the claims for illegality as: "They argue that the President is about to act in violation of the October resolution. They also argue that Congress and the President are in collusion—that Congress has handed over to the President its exclusive power to declare war."
Judge Lynch summarized the position of the United States Government as: "The defendants are equally eloquent about the impropriety of judicial intrusion into the extraordinarily delicate foreign affairs and military calculus, one that could be fatally upset by judicial interference. Such intervention would be all the worse here, defendants say, because Congress and the President are in accord as to the threat to the nation and the legitimacy of a military response to that threat."
The final decision came from a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Judge Lynch wrote "this issue is not fit now for judicial review" and that the Judiciary cannot intervene unless there is a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress or if Congress gave the President "absolute discretion" to declare war.[64]

any chance of that conflict ended when the DOD presented proof those weapons existed in 2006
Congress gave the declaration of war in 10-2003 and with the follow up up the first funding of the war. Your own link provided the proof I have been telling you for months now and you would not listen
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...6_3PDw&usg=AFQjCNHzpqqyXgikxYXAsqGEscjCGMeUIA

 

[editec]

again for the 1000th time
provide me a link to this violation and exactly who is it that holds the warrrent

Sure, no problem, JRK.

Your question is what law makes international treaties THE LAW, right?

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution.


This law establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and Federal Statutes as "the supreme law of the land." .

The above means that if Congress ratifies an international treaty?

It become US law.

So what your stating is congress approved the attack on Iraq in the month Of October 2002 and this is why it is legal?

Yes it was legal. It was NOT an example of a TREATY, tho.

Think about what you just did, you proved my point better than I ever could

You're welcome.

I have for months stated there were WMDs found in Iraq.

Irrelvant to the question whether WMDs were there. The invasion by Bush II was LEGAL (not necessarily wise, but certainly legal) because it wass authorized by Congress.

FWIW, I was answering your question.

provide me a link to this violation and exactly who is it that holds the warrrent

My answer addressed that specic question, which really has nothing whatever do do with the Iraqi invasion.