Latest Breaking News

The Magistrate

(96,043 posts)

74. And You May Feel Free To Cite Something Establishing It Is Not Legal, Sir

Thu Sep 11, 2014, 08:11 PM

Sep 2014

It is clear you cannot engage the facts of the matter, which I am not inclined to repeat yet again.

I will point out, however that it was you who brought up the legality of the incursion into Cambodia, with your post above:

"It is also not that legal.

Nixon invoked that spurious line of reasoning to invade Cambodia in 1970, with glorious consequences.

It's dismaying this pap is being recycled 40-odd years later. "

Your opening stated it was not legal, you then stated that Nixon employed the same reasoning, and complained that reasoning was being used many years later to argue a similar action is legal. For you to claim that is not 'mentioning a crime' is not going to carry you very far, especially in the context of your taking up a position in agreement with a claim the action would be aggression without U.N. sanction, since, after all, waging aggressive war is a crime under international law.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

113 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Russia Says Air Strikes In Syria Would Be Act Of Aggression Without U.N. Vote [View all] Purveyor Sep 2014 OP

That, And a Dollar Fifty, Sir, Might Get You a Cup Of Coffee The Magistrate Sep 2014 #1

No, he has a point. rug Sep 2014 #11

Same basis as we used to get OBL in Pakistan. TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #13

I asked for the legal basis, not the jingoistic basis. rug Sep 2014 #16

It's not jingoism, it's US policy under Obama. TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #17

So, no legal basis, then, is the answer. n/t JimDandy Sep 2014 #24

What is meant by "legal basis"? You mean AUMF, or UN/international, or what? TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #38

Legal basis re U.N., as the other poster also inquired. JimDandy Sep 2014 #45

They could get a vote, Russia and China would object, and we'd do it anyway. TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #48

Right, we do what we want, they can now do whatever they want Cayenne Sep 2014 #51

We all already do what we want. The UN is toothless and meaningless. TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #52

Legal basis? We're the Goddamned United States of 'Murica. Hugabear Sep 2014 #15

It Is Not That Complicated, Sir The Magistrate Sep 2014 #20

I agree. red dog 1 Sep 2014 #32

It is also not that legal. rug Sep 2014 #61

A Thing May Be Foolish And Fail, Sir, Without Being A Crime The Magistrate Sep 2014 #63

Foolishness is a given here. rug Sep 2014 #65

It Is Not That Difficult, Sir The Magistrate Sep 2014 #68

Apparently citing the international law which holds that is that difficult. rug Sep 2014 #71

And You May Feel Free To Cite Something Establishing It Is Not Legal, Sir The Magistrate Sep 2014 #74

How about Article 39 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations? rug Sep 2014 #76

Try Article 51, Sir The Magistrate Sep 2014 #78

That's correct. "Self"-defense is an inherent right of the state attacked. rug Sep 2014 #79

Note The Word 'Collective', Sir The Magistrate Sep 2014 #80

I did. rug Sep 2014 #83

Apparently Not, Sir, Since You Ignored Its Meaning In Your Comments The Magistrate Sep 2014 #84

You have a habit of making wrong inferences. rug Sep 2014 #85

The Iraqi Government Meets Every Standard Of Legitimacy, Sir The Magistrate Sep 2014 #87

The nation has a seat, run by this sham. rug Sep 2014 #88

None Of That, Sir, Affects The Fact That It Is Recognized As The Legitimate Government, By The World The Magistrate Sep 2014 #92

No, the point at issue is whether Russia has a point about going to the UN. rug Sep 2014 #108

And It Does Not Have A Legitimate Point Of Complaint, Sir The Magistrate Sep 2014 #109

Saying it doesn't doesn't make it so. rug Sep 2014 #110

That, Sir, Is Advice You Might Want To Take Yourself.... The Magistrate Sep 2014 #112

Oh, do go on. rug Sep 2014 #113

Please Sir 4Q2u2 Sep 2014 #106

You apparently don't know the definition of "unilateral." tabasco Sep 2014 #55

Lol, no, I didn't forget Poland. rug Sep 2014 #62

You are Right sir...only the US is "Exceptional"..sir Billy Budd Sep 2014 #54

The Fact That You Neither Know Nor Understand The Rules, Sir, Does Not Mean Someone Else Breaks Them The Magistrate Sep 2014 #59

is that the US excuse sir Billy Budd Sep 2014 #81

This is from a guy who invaded another country and took a part of its land? Iliyah Sep 2014 #2

As the "Leader of the free world" we set the standards. newthinking Sep 2014 #3

They are beheading people dvduval Sep 2014 #22

He has no room to talk. However air strikes against Islamist militants in Syria without Autumn Sep 2014 #4

I suspect Syria will give us permission....just not publicly. PragmaticLiberal Sep 2014 #19

That is the crux of it. I suspect that many, many back-channel negotiations are underway LanternWaste Sep 2014 #27

+1, n/t RKP5637 Sep 2014 #56

I suspect you are right karynnj Sep 2014 #111

Problematic DustyJoe Sep 2014 #5

Well goodness, I guess Beloved Pootie Poot should have encouraged Assad to TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #6

Because most people don't care about others until it hits close to home. Iliyah Sep 2014 #10

Actually, it's suspected that Assad and ISIS had a tacit understanding to leave each TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #12

Syria struck ISIS when they were still in Iraq KurtNYC Sep 2014 #25

Syria has not seriously fought ISIS. A token airstrike to fend off US involvement TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #39

Obviously NOTHING Assad does will "fend off US involvement" since that involvement is ongoing KurtNYC Sep 2014 #44

You seem completely confused. ISIS may have originated years ago from TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #49

It misses the forest for a couple of trees. Igel Sep 2014 #57

Well, I don't know that we forgot, so much as thought/hoped/wished that somehow TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #70

ISIS controls only the thin black bands within Syria as shown here KurtNYC Sep 2014 #60

I'm sorry, I'm trying to understand what you're saying. Are you saying that TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #73

Seeing that map makes me think, given Obama's decision to deal with ISIS davidpdx Sep 2014 #101

ISIS 4Q2u2 Sep 2014 #105

And no Syrian strikes on ISIS in Syria until last month. I wonder why. pampango Sep 2014 #46

HAHAHAHAHAHA!! B2G Sep 2014 #7

Puty pooo poop sounds like the Republicans in the US riversedge Sep 2014 #8

Personally, I think he SHOULD go to the UN B2G Sep 2014 #9

Agree on both points. riversedge Sep 2014 #36

The US can do whatever the fuck it wants, because we're the good guys. Hugabear Sep 2014 #14

We pick and choose who we fight. DocMac Sep 2014 #23

That ship has sailed... Psephos Sep 2014 #28

Danny Devito said it better in Matilda jamzrockz Sep 2014 #29

I believe this is what you call a "pot to kettle" remark. Xolodno Sep 2014 #18

That would be wonderful. I hope Russia does. Iliyah Sep 2014 #21

Oh, me too............. ballyhoo Sep 2014 #50

Well, you might have some sort of point there, if Putin didn't actually take Crimea for Russia. TwilightGardener Sep 2014 #40

quit making sense qazplm Sep 2014 #64

+ 1000. BlueCaliDem Sep 2014 #102

That may well happen. And if there is a mistaken ballyhoo Sep 2014 #47

Adding Hopes For The Death Of American Service Members, Sir, To Your Usual? The Magistrate Sep 2014 #53

Obama said last August that he would use air strikes against Assad KurtNYC Sep 2014 #26

Yes, and as a result he got Syria to surrender all of its chemical weapons. nt geek tragedy Sep 2014 #43

That fact it comes from the land of Putin the liar who does whatever he pleases makes - CentralMass Sep 2014 #30

Which U.N. vote permitted Russia to invade Ukraine? Blue_Tires Sep 2014 #31

If there was a vote in the Security Council on bombing Syria Russia would just veto it. Louisiana1976 Sep 2014 #33

and shooting down a passenger airline is ....? n/t FloriTexan Sep 2014 #34

UN vote?... KansDem Sep 2014 #35

PLEASE,... PUT YOUR THINKING HATS ON! dawn frenzy adams Sep 2014 #37

"...After all, there are Russian citizens there...." ColesCountyDem Sep 2014 #41

Excuse me? dawn frenzy adams Sep 2014 #67

You're excused. ColesCountyDem Sep 2014 #72

Ethnic Russians... BadtotheboneBob Sep 2014 #75

Which action clearly violates the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, to which Russia is a signatory. n/t ColesCountyDem Sep 2014 #77

LMAO. Putin's the one guy on the planet who cares less about international law than Cheney nt geek tragedy Sep 2014 #42

Do the Russian thing. Igel Sep 2014 #58

Well... dawn frenzy adams Sep 2014 #66

That, Ma'am, Is Incredibly Silly: It Is A Proper And Compact Usage The Magistrate Sep 2014 #69

Good catch . . . another_liberal Sep 2014 #89

"Bomb. Send in troops. Tanks. APCs." another_liberal Sep 2014 #90

He is right, and a hypocrite, too. And Syria as said the same thing. Comrade Grumpy Sep 2014 #82

Germany and UK will not join attacks on IS targets in Syria. another_liberal Sep 2014 #86

ISIS kills two spies, and Obama claims its a reason to go to war quadrature Sep 2014 #91

You Consider Those To Be Legitimate Executions Then, Sir? The Magistrate Sep 2014 #93

a much bigger issue, is that a war is starting, over the killing of 2 people quadrature Sep 2014 #95

I'm sure the thousands of Yazidis starved to death on Mt. Sinjar by IS would disagree NickB79 Sep 2014 #98

That Does Not Answer the Question, Sir: You Said Two Spies Were Killed The Magistrate Sep 2014 #103

answers ... quadrature Sep 2014 #104

In Other Words, Sir, Your Comment Was Simply Bean Breeze The Magistrate Sep 2014 #107

It should also be noted that both of the Americans had been IS prisoners for months . . . another_liberal Sep 2014 #94

there could be 'internal political' reasons for IS ... quadrature Sep 2014 #96

They were vauable just as hostages too . . . another_liberal Sep 2014 #97

excellent point.... nt quadrature Sep 2014 #99

Bad idea. We should send in an uninspected aid convoy instead. pampango Sep 2014 #100