Re: Watada update...


[mod note: I know.. too many of these lately... but let's reel this back
into a discussion that's Hawaii/Watada topical, not war legality in
general.]

okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Jerry Okamura) wrote:
"Dan Birchall" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It's a Security Council resolution. Which means the Security Council
gets to determine what is "necessary."

NO!!! The Security Council "could have" made it clear in their
resolution, that no member states can use force, without the
prior approval of the Security Council, they did not do that.

Why would they do that, when the UN charter those member states signed
already prohibits it? I fail to see how vague wording in a UNSC
resolution somehow erases the obligation of member states to abide by
the UN charter.

Besides, it really does not matter what the Security Council said,
the US Senate in their Iraq Resolution, also gave the President the
authorization to go to war.

What the Security Council says does, in fact, matter when one is discussing
what the Security Council says. :) Which, if you read earlier messages, is
what happened. Donut said they had approved of the war; I said they hadn't
and provided evidence to support my statement.

--
Screaming in Digital - http://scream.org/ - Queensryche fandom since 1991.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT Good News from Iraq!
    ... that "serious consequences" would lead to war if Saddam didn't come clean. ... > read the UN Charter and the relevant Security Council ... > US law. ... The entire Security Council approved a resolution to go to ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • Re: Am I Wrong?
    ... As for it being the primary commitment taken by all member States, it may be a primary committment, but it is not a committment that has to be followed forever. ... Here is the text of the UN Security Council resolution on the subject matter: ... For your argument to be valid, the UN Security Council should have notified that Iraq was still in violation of its international ogbligations in March 2003. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Bank of England names suspected terrorists
    ... This resolution imposes obligations on UN Member States to freeze assets ... associated with Al-Qaida in UN Security Council Resolution 1390 ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Bank of England names suspected terrorists
    ... the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1267. ... This resolution imposes obligations on UN Member States to freeze assets controlled by the Taliban. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Am I Wrong?
    ... As for it being the primary commitment taken by all member States, it may be a primary committment, but it is not a committment that has to be followed forever. ... The UN Charter gives the member states the right to resort to war. ... Here is the text of the UN Security Council resolution on the subject matter: ...
    (soc.retirement)