World Trade Center.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Saxon, Aug 29, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

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

  1. Bit of a morbid note, but watched the World Trade Center Film last night, and have to say it was really moving. If any of you folks havent seen it I would really recommend it. With all the politics surrounding the possible withdrawal of our lads in Iraq/ Afghanistan, It at least reminded me of what the lads are out there for, and full credit to them for it.

    Also, its amazing to see the everyday hero's potrayed in the film (firemen etc) I can only hope that if put into the same situation I would have the courage to show that kind of bravery and resolve.

    Anyways, sorry to bring the mood down, but though a couple of you might be interested in the film and wanted to share my thoughts on it. I for one get really despondant reading about our lads(both sides of the pond) losing their lives in the middle-east, and it was good to be reminded of why we are there.

    Anyhow, cheers for now!will be sure to make my next post a slightly happier one! :thumright:
  2. I must have missed something. Why exactly are the British in Iraq? Please explain your revelation that links the illegal invasion of Iraq with events at the WTC.

  3. LOL - don't be mean Bergs - you know we get all types in here :w00t:
  4. ... including me ... :w00t:
  5. Did they show the part where 2/3rds of the volunteer fire fighters (those not officially employed by the Government) are now suffering from severe respiratory problems, are not covered by their private health care, and are now being denied help by the state? Many have been forced to sell their homes to pay for the medical care they require, often having to leave the city they acted on behalf of. Makes me sick!
  6. I visited where the World Trade Centre should have stood last year when i went to New York.

    Theyve got a memorial area / museum next to the derelict site. I have never been so moved in all of my life, by the time you finish walking around the museum and looking at all the artefacts left behind no one has a dry eye.

    The most touching moment is where you see the wall of photographs with people asking if anyone has seen this person, and old ID cards and bits and bobs that were all left behind.

    My heart and soul goes out to all of those affected by 9/11. RIP.
  7. Bergs I think either BLiar or the Shrub might have infiltrated Rum Ration!!

    No disrespect Saxon - The images of 9/11 still haunt me and probably will for the rest of my life, but the invasion of Iraq has got feck all to do with that or any other terrorist attack in the US or UK.

    Edited to add: Good post CrystalTips. I hope to visit NY later this year and will most definitely make a point of paying my respects.

  8. Well the sisters nipper would tend to disagree… He's convinced he's stuck out on the Basra Airport 'Ducks in a Barrel' shooting gallery because some cnut named B'Liar sent him there.
  9. I haven't been the NYC since 9/11, but I personally find the Vietnam memorial in D.C. to be quite moving. Not that I knew anyone who's name is up there, but the solemnity of the memorial and the pride and sadness of those visiting it combine to make one shed a tear. Maybe I'm just getting soppy in my old age. It's not nearly the same as the many war memorial we have scattered throughout the UK. Maybe it's just having the names of all those KIA or MIA in a single place drives home the numbers involved.
  10. Ok guys, here some questions for you, and Im buggered if i can find any clear answers: What law(s) did we break by invading Iraq? Before you all get on your high soap boxes and try to lecture me with some of the dribble that I have recently read on RR, Im sitting firmly on the fence here, I dont believe we should be there, but we should support our troops that are there.
    So, illegal invasion of Iraq? really?
    What court of law has stated it is illegal? Please provide the reference and not just another persons opinion on the subject.
    UN Charter is contradictory and doesn’t work, as for so called International law! What the hell is that?
    What laws and what organisation are responsible for enforcing them, (because the UN cant) and where is the International court of law, that will try these illegal actions?
    I don’t think there is a answer, I believe most people disagree with the invasion, but there is clearly divided opinion whether legal or political over the legality of this conflict, hence Mr T Blair will never come to trial, because who would try he?

  11. Was The Iraq War Legal, Or Illegal, Under International Law?

    "Advantage is a better soldier than rashness." -Montjoy in Wm. Shakespeare's Henry V, 3.6.120

    Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D.

    09/17/04 "ICH" -- During a BBC radio interview on Wednesday, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan created a controversy by reiterating his long-held position that the Iraq War was illegal because it breached the United Nations Charter. [1] On Thursday, the imperial leaders of the "Coalition of the Willing" retaliated by vehemently arguing that their Iraq War was, to the contrary, legal. [2]

    Obviously, this dispute raises a legal question: "Whose opinion is correct, and whose is incorrect?" Additionally, we should be asking ourselves: "Who decides? (i.e., 'Whose jurisprudential opinion shall be dispositive for purposes of resolving this dispute?')"

    It seems eminently reasonable -- even for the disputants -- to conclude that the optimal source of guidance on this question of international law would have to be the world's foremost experts in the field of international law. Hence, the UN's chief and the coalition's leaders need to know how the world's top international law experts would resolve their jurisprudential dispute. And we, the people, need to know who's right and who's wrong here.

    Realistically, one cannot seriously expect the disputants -- much less their national electorates -- to wade through numerous legal documents, most of which contain rigorous and not-occasionally tedious reasoning, to find the correct answer. Thus, it seems prudent to proceed directly to the world's most authoritative answer to our pressing question du jour: "Was the Iraq War legal, or illegal, under international law?"

    And The World's Most Authoritative Answer Is ... Among the world's foremost experts in the field of international law, the overwhelming jurisprudential consensus is that the Anglo-American invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq constitute three phases of one illegal war of aggression. [3]

    Moreover, these experts in the international law of war deem both preventive wars and preemptive strikes to be euphemistic subcategories of outlawed wars of aggression.

    And the experts' answer would hold true regardless of whether their governing legal authority was: (A) the UN Security Council Resolutions that were passed to implement the conflict-resolution provisions of the UN Charter; or (B) prior treaties and juridical holdings which have long since become general international law. [4]

    Readers who need to "trust but verify" (i.e., to corroborate) for themselves that the experts' overwhelming opinion is exactly as stated above should read a document entitled "15 January 2003." (Find it by scrolling down approximately one-fourth of the way, after you've clicked onto this ES website: "The Legality Of The Iraq War" .) Why?

    That document was drafted and signed by the world's foremost international law experts -- the prestigious International Commission of International Law Jurists -- to provide ultimate proof of their authoritative opinion concerning the legal status of war against Iraq. Furthermore, this large body of eminent international law experts explicitly stated that they'd drafted their legal document in order to advise Messrs. Bush and Blair prior to the invasion: (1) that it would be blatantly illegal under international law for the Anglo-American belligerents to invade Iraq; and (2) that their joint decision as Commanders-in-Chief to commence hostilities would constitute prosecutable war crimes.

    Skeptical readers who don't regard this highly-authoritative conclusion as an adequate answer are invited to undertake the legal reasoning for themselves at the ES website. Note that every applicable Article in the UN Charter, and every relevant UN Security Council Resolution, is cited and analyzed therein. And readers who continue to scroll down the ES website will find a succession of articles which summarize the opinions of noteworthy individual experts on international law. These, too, strongly confirm that the invasion of Iraq constituted an illegal war of aggression under international law. [5]

    Finally, ambitious readers will learn what non-credible source was most responsible for propagating the fictitious pre-war claim that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon (hint: yet another uncredentialed neocon think-tanker from the thoroughly-discredited American Enterprise Institute).

    Three Conclusions It is the overwhelming consensus of the world's foremost international law experts that: (1) UN Secretary General Annan's opinion is correct (i.e., true) because the Iraq War was, indeed, illegal; and

    (2) the opinion of the "Coalition of the Willing's" leaders is incorrect (i.e., false) because their Iraq War was NOT legal.

    (3) Therefore, Americans must break free of the neocons' self-delusional groupthink mentality by learning to differentiate between fact and truth, which are all-too-easily confused. For instance, it's an undeniable fact that Messrs. Bush and Cheney have been arguing along the campaign trail that "The Iraq War was legal!" Nevertheless, the mere fact that they've been vehemently arguing that point certainly does NOT make it true! Their argument is flawed by a logical fallacy called an ipse dixit (i.e., "something asserted but not proved"). As we've already seen, their argument is just plain WRONG AS A MATTER OF LAW! Therefore, Messrs. Bush and Cheney are making a false argument (i.e., deceptively asserting something that is untrue).

    The Bottom Line Americans should reject the temptation to vote for Messrs. Bush and Cheney, because: (1) both men were advised beforehand that their decision to commence the invasion of Iraq would be blatantly illegal under international law; (2) they invaded nonetheless, and now they're cynically attempting to mislead the public again by falsely arguing that "The Iraq War was legal!"; (3) however, their argument is legally-meritless nonsense -- the current equivalent of their earlier false argument that torture is a legal method for the US military's interrogation of prisoners; (4) they've repeatedly demonstrated their disdain for universal human rights and democratic governance under the rule of law; and

    (5) the 21st-century world isn't Tombstone's OK Corral and they certainly aren't Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday -- however much they might wish us to believe that they are! [6]


    [1] Read this 9-16-04 PI article by clicking on these blue words: "UN Says Nothing New In Annan's 'Illegal War' Comment". Also see this 9-17-04 GU article, which contends that UN Secretary General Annan's statement wasn't his long-held opinion, but is new and belated:,00.html "The War Was Illegal"

    [2] Read this 9-17-04 JO article by clicking on these blue words: "Bush Joins Coalition Leaders In Defending War Against Iraq"

    [3] Read the 9-15-04 ES's indispensable analysis by clicking on these blue words: Legality of the Iraq War. If the click-on doesn't link, paste this URL into your webserver: [Skeptical readers should not read to confirm their biases, but instead should set their biases aside until they've finished reading all of the legal arguments on this website, which will take awhile.]

    [4] There seems to be one relevant omission from the ES website. General international law could have been be cited as an alternative basis for proving the Iraq War's illegality by analyzing these authoritative precedents: (A) the Kellogg-Briand Pact of Paris (1928); and (B) the Charters, Principles, Indictments, and Holdings from the International Military Tribunals at Nüremberg and Tokyo (1945-48).

    [5] Generally speaking, legal opinions offered by government attorneys are NOT considered to be authoritative because: (a) they're drafted in the adversarial mode of an advocate, often under self-interested political pressure from the executive branch; (b) even at its best, their reasoning tends toward casuistry, reflecting Cicero's injudicious maxim,"salus populi suprema lex esto" (De Legibus, III, 3.8: "Let the welfare of the people be the supreme law!" Or the Bushites' tortuous translation thereof: "We feel that we can legally torture our prisoners now if it might save our people later!"); and (c) for an apt example, see the history of the Third Reich's attorneys Hans Frank and Wilhelm Frick, whose pre-war legal advice to Reichsführer Hitler was that Germany could use the pretext of an imminent threat to "preemptively" invade Poland, for which war crime they were both tried, sentenced, and hanged to death by the International Military Tribunal at Nüremberg. Note bene, Attorney General Ashcroft and Bush administration "torture memo" attorneys Bybee, Chertoff, Gonzales, Haynes and Woo!

    [6] Read Douglas Jehl's 9-16-4 CD/SPI article by clicking on these blue words: "CIA Analysis Holds Bleak Vision For Iraq's Future". Also see the 9-16-04 Dreyfuss Report column: "Annan For President"

    Author: Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D., is the Executive Director of the American Center for International Law ("ACIL"). <[email protected]>
  12. Thanks but it is not this can so many others have the idea its legal then?

    1 March 2005 , the attorney general made very clear to the House of Lords, that the view set out in his parliamentary answer of 17 March 2003 was his own genuinely held independent view, that military action in Iraq was lawful

    Authorities in the UK, Australia, Poland, Bulgaria and Japan said the war was backed by international law.

    Mr Howard insisted the invasion was legal.
    Labelling the international body (UN) "paralysed", he said it was incapable of dealing with international crises.
    "The legal advice we had - and I tabled it at the time - was that the action was entirely valid in international law terms," he said.
    Randy Scheunemann, a former advisor to US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, accused Mr Annan of trying to influence the outcome of the forthcoming US presidential election.
    "I think it is outrageous for the secretary general, who ultimately works for the member states, to try and supplant his judgement for the judgement of the member states," he told the BBC.
    "To do this 51 days before an American election reeks of political interference," Randy Scheunemann said.
    He said the UN's failure to act in Sudan, and in other areas around the world, was proving that effective multilateralism may be a contradiction in terms.
    The British government - which has argued that UN resolutions provided a legal basis for intervening to topple Saddam Hussein - said the 2003 invasion was "not only lawful but necessary".
    "We spelt out at the time our reasons for believing the conflict in Iraq was indeed lawful and why we believed it was necessary to uphold those UN resolutions," Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt told the BBC.
    Japan's top government spokesman, Hiroyuki Hosoda, told a news conference that he would be seeking clarification about the exact significance of Mr Annan's words.
    Polish Foreign Ministry spokesman Boguslaw Majewski said the "decisions which at that time were made by the international community in Iraq, did have legal basis".
    And Bulgarian spokeswoman Guergana Grantcharova cited previous Security Council resolutions which, she said, supported the case for war.

    and lastly in answer to the comment above by Evan Augustine Peterson III "Generally speaking, legal opinions offered by government attorneys are NOT considered to be authoritative because...." Sadly they are, and have been acted upon by the High Court, to dismiss out of hand is dangerous. Its certainly not as clear as Mr Peterson would like us to believe....

    But putting the author in context also, Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D, this is the man who believes that the Bush administration are a dysfunctional authoritarian cult that is taking the country down the same totalitarian path that was followed under Hitler's Germany. And is a leading member of the Environmentalists against war, 'go solar not ballistic' is their moto.

    sorry for the cut and paste in places. Im still confused. Its still not clear and I dont know if I trust Mr Peterson III.

  13. And they would be the occuping powers…
  14. FlagWagger

    FlagWagger Book Reviewer

    The problem is that the legal-illegal question only has two answers, neither of which are palatable to a large number of people - this means that whatever decision is reached, there will be continuing argument about the decision's validity.

    The occupying powers will continue to assert the legality of their actions; can you imagine the Shrub-Bliar axis saying to the UN "Ooops, sorry, we made a mistake - can you please punish us appropriately"?
  15. True, so are they lying?
    They must be right surely? To still be so adamantly sticking to their guns...This is bloody confusing and the answer seems to depends upon who you speak to and whats their political agenda. I dont think we will ever have an answer, unless you choose to believe one side or the other.
  16. but who would punish them? Their own people, as proved in the last elections they didnt.. And the International Criminal Court is unable to:

    The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an independent, permanent court that tries persons accused of the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The ICC is based on a treaty, joined by 104 countries.

    The ICC is a court of last resort. It will not act if a case is investigated or prosecuted by a national judicial system unless the national proceedings are not genuine, for example if formal proceedings were undertaken solely to shield a person from criminal responsibility. In addition, the ICC only tries those accused of the gravest crimes.

    International law, the UN etc, seem to be nothing more than Tigers with no teeth.
  17. There are a couple of films, the whole situation and the aftermath is quite thought provoking though.

    I'd argue that the reasons for being in Iraq and Afghanistan are very different though, the timing was merely convenient with respect to Iraq. It was easy for Shrub and Blair to persuade a public who were ill-informed, and largely disinterested in becoming informed, that the two were related.

    Afghanistan I have little issue with, but I'd suggest that using the attacks in NYC as justification for attacking Iraq was wholly disingenuous. Even before Telic started both the US govt and No10 had walked back from any AQ links and were groping around to find another justification.

    Personally I believe that if we'd focussed resources on Afghanistan then we'd be in a much better position there than we are now. Iraq was a sideshow which has now started to significantly contribute to the problem it was asserted to have been related to.
  18. Exactly, Saddam wasn't going anywhere (if anything Iran was more culpable then Iraq, thats another topic...), had we concentrated on the Taleban, this would almost be over by now and Afghanistan would be able to carry on, on their own, also we wouldn't be relying on a suspect ally (Pakistan) to help along the borders.

    Emotions were at there highest after 9/11 and Bush and Co. played it out to their advantages, I believe if America had to put up with decades of terrorism like most European countries, their response would have been different, they treated 9/11 like another Pearl Harbour....outright shock that they could be the victims of such an atrocity, meanwhile they stood back for years and watched other countries having to deal with their own brand of terrorists...(in some cases abetting their causes).
  19. lol oh dear, should have seen this coming :p

    I honestly wasnt trying to make a point regarding whether we should or should not be in Iraq/Afghanistan, I simply wished to point out how moved I was by the film, and how it reminded me that our boys are still dying in the middle-east as a result of it (regardless of whether the war is justified or not)

    Hope this makes my feelings more clear :thumright:
  20. Levers_Aligned

    Levers_Aligned War Hero Moderator

    Okay. If it isn't 'illegal', per se. then the fact that the whole reasoning that Bush and Blair licensed such action on Wepaons Of Mass Destruction and their inherent failure to find these slightly suspicious. The war chant was trumped up, the motive to secure Iraqi oil for the good ol USofA, and if you don't commit your troops Tony, you'll get **** all from it. We were lied to, decieved and wholly led up the garden path. If governments can do that to their people and get away with it, the democracy is faltering.


Share This Page