Dean and the "permission" quote

[thissideup]

This is what the other side will use against Dean. I think he'sa loser because of quotes like this.

<snip>
"Dean said he 'would not have hesitated' to launch an attack on Iraq 'had the United Nations given us permission and asked us to be part of a multilateral force.' "

He believes it is the obligation of the United States to beg the United Nations for a "mother-may-I" first.

In the '90s, the flaming nutcases on the right were convinced that Bill Clinton wanted to relinquish sovereignty to the United Nations. Now the worst fear of the hard-right crazies is a campaign promise from the Democrats' front-runner. Look for Dean to start taking helicopters to his campaign appearances. Black ones!

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1071817041273940.xml

[brainshrub]

1. Welcome to DU!

I liked the part about if Saddam was getting advice from the French.

Welcome to DU. :toast:

[thissideup]

2. Funny. No "Dean defenders" on this one.

[Cheswick2.0]

5. some things are just too silly to bother with

:shrug:

[thissideup]

7. Right, when BushCo uses it next fall it will be like Dukakis

Real silly huh?

[Padraig18]

9. Maybe if you posted it in context.

We're getting weary of responding to 'Are you still beating your wife?" out-of-context quotes, like this one...

[thissideup]

15. He used the word permission dude

He said we need to have the UN's permission If he gets the nom expect to see his words thrown back at him again and again. And expect a third party challenge.

[Padraig18]

17. Context is everything.

What's the point? :eyes:

[thissideup]

25. Does the US need permisson? Yes or no.

By what source do you say it does?

[Padraig18]

31. It's not a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

If we are threatened with imminent attack, we obviously don't. Otherwise, yes, we do.

[thissideup]

32. What is the source of your opinion?

There is no US law that says we ever need permission from the UN to do anything. We bombed Serbia without it.

[Padraig18]

35. Actually there IS such a law.

The UN Charter is a treaty which was ratified by the Senate; as such, it is US law.

[thissideup]

43. So the UN is sovereign over the US? LOL

[Padraig18]

51. Umm, no.

But OUR law is; the UN Charter *is* US law, since it was ratified by the Senate:

U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[bowens43]

61. No, of course not

but the UN charter , along with the US Constitution, is the "supreme law of the land". If you don't like , have the Constitution amended.

[bowens43]

57. Not only is it law,

but according to the Constitution it is the Supreme law of the land. That's pretty straight forward.

[bowens43]

53. Yes. In this case.

By what source? How about the Constitution of the United Sates of America? Is that good enough for you? Read Article VI. The US signed a treaty saying that it would not launch an unauthorized attack on any nation except as an act of defense. Article VI plainly states that treaties are the law of the land. That puts them on par with the Constitution.

Article VI

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; "

[Scott Lee]

12. Guess you spoke too soon, huh?

[thissideup]

16. Guess Dean will lose huh?

[Padraig18]

23. Wanna make a friendly wager on that?

Say, a case of beer, winner's choice? :hi:

[TLM]

52. Did you have a pick triangle avatar last night?

[bowens43]

63. He might , if Americans aren't bright enough

to understand and support the Constitution.

[Scott Lee]

75. And then you woke up.

[bitchkitty]

22. Easy answer -

this thread is crap. It's stupid, asinine, and typical. Buh-bye.

[thissideup]

27. I see, calling Dean on his words is out of bounds with you.

[Padraig18]

60. Dean's words expressed an accurate understanding of applicable law.

Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US, so self-defense was not a legitimate basis for attacking Iraq.

[bowens43]

44. I'll defend him.

Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions, that was the reason given for the attack. Only the UN had the authority to decide the punishment for violating the resolutions. Pretty simple , isn't it?

[HFishbine]

3. Actually, the flaming nutcases on the right

deplored unilateral action when Clinton took it.

And Dean is right that we should have had UN permission for THIS war. It's a transaparent shame to say we were going to war to enforce UN resolutions when the UN had not authorized war.

[thissideup]

4. "Permission"?

Since when does the U.S. need permission from anyone? Makes Dean look weak.

[HFishbine]

10. Okay, I gotcha

We're the badest asses on the block and fuck the rest of the world. Permission? We don't need no stinking permission. I gotcha.

I'll tell you when we need permission. We need permission when the threat of immenent danger, state ties to Al Queda, and posession of WMDs are all lies and the only credible reason left standing is to enforce UN resolutions, then, my friend we are lawbreakers if we don't get permission from the governing body whose rules we claim to be enforcing. Got it?

[HFishbine]

41. Chirp, chirp, chirp.... (n/t)

[thissideup]

46. Waiting for your proof

[HFishbine]

59. Right-o Buckaroo

You advance that notion next year -- that there's no proof we need UN authorization to enforce UN repolutions. You'll be surprised how capable the American people are of thinking.

First, you might want to read this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=14700#14978

[TLM]

64. Proof we need permission when not acting in defense...

U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


The UN charter is such a treatie, and it clearly states that if not acting in defense of a direct threat, we need to get permission from our the international community... ie the UN, which is the organization whose resoltions we were supposedly using as the justification for attackign Iraq in the first place.

Can't exactly violate international law as a way of enforcing that same law.

[TLM]

58. The US needs permission for international military action where the US

is not under any direct threat.

Do you understand the difference. We need no permission to defend ourselves... however when there is no threat to our nation... a military action in another nation requiers international support.

At least that's been the standard for the last 50 years... and when we did not follow it we ended up with shit like vietnam.

[bowens43]

66. Since the US joined the UN,

that's since when. The United States does not need permission to defend itself (no UN Nation does) , it does however , need permission to enforce UN resolutions.

[thissideup]

6. Definition of permission

Consent, especially formal consent; authorization.

The US is a soveriegn nation and needs no authorization from any other poltical entity.

[ibegurpard]

8. And that type of thinking

is what is making us enemies all over the world and solidifying terrorist support against us. That is George Bush's foreign policy.

[thissideup]

13. It isn't a type of thinking

It is a fact. Not open to interpretation. Unless you can show where the U.S. has given up it's national sovereignty.

Also, you seem to be blaming America for the terrorist attacks. Are you?

[ibegurpard]

18. Don't be ridiculous

But I am blaming the foreign policy of George W. Bush for squandering the international good will that the U.S. received after 9/11, for turning allies against us, and for solidifying terrorist resolve and thus having the effect of making us LESS safe. No we don't have to check in with the U.N. for everything but we also need to realize that we aren't the only people in the world and that when our actions affect millions of others around the globe we need to work with the international community to arrive at solutions that work the best for everyone.

[thissideup]

21. So you rebuke Dean for saying that then?

Or do you agree with him that we need permission from the UN to do anything?

Which is it?

[ibegurpard]

24. Oh so we're playing "gotcha" now?

In that case find me a quote from Howard Dean where he said (in your words) that "we need permission from the UN to do anything."

[thissideup]

26. Dean is the one who said "permission" Slice that word is thin as you want,

[ibegurpard]

28. Not "permission" but "permission from the UN to do anything."

waiting....

[thissideup]

30. Waiting for you-do you agree with Dean or not?

[ibegurpard]

33. First of all we need to agree on the terms of what I'm agreeing with

"permission from the U.N. to do anything?" or just "permission?" And if you can find me a quote where Howard Dean said we need "permission from the U.N. to do anything." then I will gladly say that I disagree with that. And attempts to spin something else into that do not count.

[thissideup]

37. Do you agree or disagreew ith the quote form the article? Keep dancing

[ibegurpard]

50. Okay, now we're getting somewhere

Yes, I DO agree with the quote of Dean in the EDITORIAL (let's be clear it's not an article). And although there may be nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says we have to ask the U.N. for permission to attack another country it is just wise to work with your allies to come up with international agreements. We are now paying the price for George Bush's cowboy diplomacy.

[TLM]

68. Dean did not say we need permission to do ANYTHING.

Rather we need permision in accordance with US law and the US constitution for international military action not done in defense of the US.

Next?

[Saudade]

19. Silly

"The US is a soveriegn nation and needs no authorization from any other poltical entity."

It is painfully evident that you have no comprehension of the role of international law in global affairs.

[thissideup]

29. Where in the US constitution are we subject to International law?

[HFishbine]

38. Article VI, Section 2

Gonna dole out some edjukation today:

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[Padraig18]

42. LOL!

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzing! :P

[desi]

62. I think you need to find all the treaties

...that the US has entered into to see what International Laws we need to adhere to.

[HFishbine]

65. You do it for us

okay?

[desi]

34. I think you may be missing a couple of very important points

...yes we are a sovereign nation...and so was Iraq. Both the US and Iraq, among all members, are signators to the UN Charter which clearly lays out how disputes among member nations are to be resolved. Normally, disputes are debated and votes taken amongst memebers of the UNSC and then if needed, the entire body takes up the dispute. Quite similar to Congressional Commitees who iron out differences and then both chambers make the final decision. By all standards of the UN we are engaged in an illegal war and occupation.

[thissideup]

40. We are not bound by UN standards, which change from year to year

And depend on political affiliation.

[Padraig18]

47. We are bound by the UN Charter.

It's a treaty ratified by the Senate; as such, it is the suprteme law of the land. Government 101.

[TLM]

67. Wow, talk about being ignorant of basic civics...

This soveriegn nation has a constitution which in part says any treaties that this nation adopts become the law of the land, and the UN charter is such a treatie. We adopted it, passed it, and according to our constitution it is now US law.

Part of that law is that if we're not acting in defense of the US, we're obligated to get support for any international military action from the UN. It is a good way to keep some power mad oil hungry dickhead in the whitehouse from invading any natioan he wants. I for one am glad to see that Dean not only understnds the US law and constitution, but is willing to abide by them, unlike Bush.


U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[Scott Lee]

11. Wow, are you a UN hater like Kerry?

The "mother may I" swipe outted you as such. You use the same verbage as the most rightwing xenophobic UN haters I've ever witnessed.

Was that intentional?

[thissideup]

14. It was a quote from the article dude.

[Sean Reynolds]

20. And you don't agree with it, dude.

So you believe the United States has the right to attack ANY nation on the face of the earth? That makes a whole lot of sense.

[sandnsea]

39. Any country has the right of self-defense

No country has to get "permission" from the UN if it believes it is threatened.

In addition, the U.S. is a leader in world affairs. We don't sit back and wait for permission from the UN to move forward on issues like weapons proliferation, terrorism, rogue nations, etc. We lead.

Which is not the same thing as having the right to attack nations any time we want and nobody is saying that.

This kind of leaping "logic" is not going to work in the general election. America will laugh at a candidate who says we must get permission from the UN to act.

[bowens43]

69. Are you seriously trying to say that Iraq

presented a threat to the US? That's ridiculous. If America laughs at the Constitution then America is a fucking fool and they deserve bush. Your are argument is an attempt (a very poor attempt) to smear a candidate who obviously knows more about and cares more about our Constitution and the rule of law then John Kerry and his supporters.

[sandnsea]

76. More leaping logic

I said the U.S. doesn't sit around waiting for permission from the UN on world issues, whether it be Iraq or Kosovo. We lead. Which isn't the same thing as heading off into an illegal invasion.

And if Iraq was no threat, why does everybody support containment as a continued solution?

[TLM]

70. Iraq and the US are both UN member nations...

to attack a member nation when there is no direct threat and without UN permission is a violation of the UN charter which, as a treaty passed by congress, is US law.


It is a shame to see Kerry and his supporters so eager to throw out the UN for a policy of imperialistic conquest.

No wonder he has lost teh support of the democratic base.

[sandnsea]

72. Any nation has the right to self-defense

That's in the UN charter too. So right off the bat, Dean's statement is stupid in light of the UN charter itself.

Second, if we sat around waiting for the UN to take the lead on anything, we'd be blown off the planet. That's reality. I'm sure even Howard Dean knows it, even though he says stupid shit to pander Democratic partisanship.

Clinton didn't wait around for "permission" on Kosovo. He built a coalition and took the lead. That's what a President does.

[ibegurpard]

73. That's right

Clinton built an international coalition that gave credence to what might otherwise have been considered questionable. George Bush said "It's my way or the highway" and we are paying the price. Why would you want to defend this poster's defense of George Bush's foreign policy?

[sandnsea]

78. Clinton didn't get UN permission

Did you notice that?? It's about Howard using stupid words like permission when talking about foreign policy. It is not in any way remotely about George Bush or his unilateralism. It's about Howard Dean. HE is the one who made the stupid comment and him alone.

[TLM]

79. And since Iraq was not a threat to the US, the self defense argument

is baseless.

So right of the bat, that statement is stupid in the light of the fact that Iraq posed no threat to the US.


I wish I could say I was surprised to see a Kerry supporter mouthing Bush lies about Iraq being a threat in order to defend an indefensible action. But I can't because I've only seen it now about 50 times.

Maybe if your guy stood up against Bush lies, instead of proping them up to cover his own ass, he wouldn't be polling dead fucking last.

[thissideup]

36. Notice the level of attack

Whenever Dean is even mildly criticized. It reminds me of the Church of Scientology members.

Our party is being taken over by fanatics from the outside. they must be stopped.

[poskonig]

49. Our party is decaying under DLC leadership.

And yes, if Dean does lose, any candidate is going to want his list of 500K+ supporters.

[HFishbine]

54. Notice the misdirection

When arguments are revealed as illogical and ignorant of the facts it becomes an "attack."

[ibegurpard]

56. Yes, indeed....have noticed that.

n/t

[TLM]

74. Pretty typical troll tactic...

In fact responding to a factual refutaion of a troll's claims, by calling it an attack and then attempting to act as if the very attempt to refute the claims is, in and of itself, evidence of the validity of the claim... that's first day of trolling 101.

This one is, without a doubt, a freeper troll.

[Padraig18]

55. Refuting your arguments with facts is not an 'attack'. n/t

[TLM]

71. What happened to your pink triangle?

I've noticed that the freeper trolls who come to DU to attack the dem frontrunner and try to foment hostility between the dems, seem to think if they use the pink triangle or disabled avatar, that somehow makes them more believable as a liberal.

Really gives one a peek into the mindset that liberals must be a bunch of crippled homos... or at least that we're less likely to call you out as a repuke troll if you claim to be gay or disabled.

Sorry but the stink of troll does not wash off simply by switching avatars.

[poskonig]

45. Why did Bush go to the UN?

If he didn't care for their opinion, it doesn't make sense to try to get a resolution. Duh!

Bush argued that Hussein needed to be "disarmed" and that the threat was imminent. This argument was buttressed on stacks of lies, and Dean's judgment on the issue was clearly superior.

In addition, Dean believes we can act unilaterally, but only in cases where there is an imminent WMD threat or the supporting of international terrorist groups by a state.

[Scott Lee]

77. Like John Kerry, Bushhole was unsure whether he loved or hated the UN

So he kept trying both ends. Bushhole eventually decided he hated them. I'm not sure what side Kerry has come down on yet. Then again, maybe Kerry isn't sure either. He still has his finger in the wind on this.

[TLM]

48. If one has even a basic understanding of the context...

Which Kerry prurposfully distorted as ususal to prop up his attacks on Dean and the UN... you can see that what Dean was saying was very clear.

If Iraq had risen to the level of being a threat to the US, Dean would act with or without the UN. He said that several times. However since Iraq did not rise to that level of a threat to the US, and was instead only a threat to the region, it was a call for the UN.

Do you understand the difference. It is really very simple.

If a nation is a threat to us, Dean would act to protect us from that threat with or without the UN.

If a nation is not a threat to the US, but does pose some threat to their neighbors and does need to be dealt with, that would be a job for the UN and Dean would want to work within the international community.

Clear enough?

[mzmolly]

80. Don't muddy the waters with the truth TLM.

They can't handle the truth! ;)

[Moderator]

81. I am locking this.........

The author has been banned.


DU Moderator