Question for the Lawyers

[velocet]

First, we should all take a moment to thank mvscal for bringing the Democratic Underground board to our attention in the past.

In one thread there, about the "disproportionate force" commentary from Krauthammer, a poster (Maat) uses a "legal" argument to give a basis for his refusal to support the actions of Israel:


(The posts by "barb", with whom he was arguing, I left out, and his posts are separated by ==============.)

Israel experienced agression from a CRIMINAL group.

I believe that its invasion of a SOVEREIGN NATION is illegal, and a violation of international law. Israel was not in imminent danger of deadly force at the hands of a SOVEREIGN NATION, nor was the invasion authorized by the U.N. Furthermore, the level of its response to CRIMINAL ACTIVITY was unconscionable (criminal activity needs to be addressed in cooperation with the sovereign nation in which the criminal activity takes place)...


===============================================

In my opinion, the way in which a sovereign nation
addresses the crimes going on within its borders does NOT represent a legal reason for invasion.

I did not deny that Israelis were in danger, but the manner of their response violates international law.

Israel is supposed to work with the Lebanese government and the U.N. in address CRIMINAL ACTS, which do NOT represent the acts of the sovereign nation's government...


==============================================

As I said, a county has a right to respond with deadly force ..
applied to a sovereign nation ... when a SOVEREIGN NATION is threatening that country with deadly force. The sovereign nation that Israel attacked was not threatening Israel with deadly force prior to the invasion. The fact that the sovereign nation did not properly control its criminality does not make what Israel did legal, or provide a legal basis for the invasion and bombing of a sovereign nation.

Now, once again, explain to me how what Israel did was legal. So far you haven't...


===============================================


Please explain how Israel's actions are legal.

If they are illegal, I cannot support them in any way.

===========================================


Self-defense is only legal against the specific attacker using

the deadly force. Lebannon was NOT that specific attacker.

Yes, they are criminals, for they certainly are NOT government officials.

Lebannon's failure to stop the attacks is NOT a justification for breaking the law.

I suggest a re-read of the Geneva Conventions for you as well, for they do not authorize a deadly attack against a sovereign government which did not authorize the initial deadly force.

And, with that, I will conclude that, for the reasons I've previously articulated, I cannot support Israel's actions (particularly the bombings, the use of white phosphorus on civilian areas, and the wanton destruction of vital infrastructure and the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians).

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

The question I have: what do you wanna bet this guy is NOT a lawyer?

[lk_pick1]

Amazing. A liberal who has absolutely no idea what the fuck he's talking about. That's something you don't see every day.

Fucking A. Rack!

[Moving Sale]

Van can field this for you. He should be along after he gets out of court for the day.

[Van]

Or, TVO could just defer to Terry, per usual.

[Mister Bushice]

That looks like a watered down LTS TRN 2 post to me.

I believe that its invasion of a SOVEREIGN NATION is illegal, and a violation of international law. Israel was not in imminent danger of deadly force at the hands of a SOVEREIGN NATION, nor was the invasion authorized by the U.N. Furthermore, the level of its response to CRIMINAL ACTIVITY was unconscionable (criminal activity needs to be addressed in cooperation with the sovereign nation in which the criminal activity takes place)...

Criminal activity supported in full by said sovereign nation. QED.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

It wasn't criminal activity. It was an act of war.

So was this...



...on the day OBL and assoc. decided to hit a legitimate military/economic target.

Grow up, you babies.

[Mister Bushice]

In any event, it is inarguable that Lebanon has no responsibility for these attacks. That just isn't going to fly.

Or Syria or Iran, for that matter.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

You gotta smash a few kebbeh naiehs to make an omelete.
'Sall I'm sayin'.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Mmmm...Mmmmm...wash that kebbeh naieh down with some Molson's...

Good times...

:)

[BSmack]

Shut up.

She's all yours.

[RadioFan]

If Lebanon cannot or will not control Hezbollah than it is de facto not a sovereign nation.

Of course all of this ignores the fact that Hexbollah holds seats in Parliament which, technically makes part of the Lebanese government.

In any event, it is inarguable that Lebanon has no responsibility for these attacks. That just isn't going to fly.

$



Oh, and Marty, STFU.

The WTC, a military target?

Pretty idiotic, even for you.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Oh, and Marty, STFU.

The WTC, a military target?

Pretty idiotic, even for you.

Is it a center of commerce? Does capital drive your war machine?

Yes?

Legitimate target. As legitimate as a TV station in Belgrade, or a hospital in Fallujah. By my reasoning, even more so.

[RadioFan]

By my reasoning

To wit. Nevermind.

Israel isn't targeting Hezbolla's social services' outlets, dumbfuck.

Unless, of course, members of their miltary wing are using them as shelters from which to fire rockets.

But by all means, link me up to that time when we used the WTC from which to fire rockets and artillary.

[BSmack]

If Lebanon cannot or will not control Hezbollah than it is de facto not a sovereign nation.

Of course all of this ignores the fact that Hexbollah holds seats in Parliament which, technically makes part of the Lebanese government.

In any event, it is inarguable that Lebanon has no responsibility for these attacks. That just isn't going to fly.

$

Oh, and Marty, STFU.

The WTC, a military target?

Pretty idiotic, even for you.

Amongst other casualties...

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/04/i ... ia.office/

[RadioFan]

Amongst other casualties...

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/04/i ... ia.office/

It's among not "amongst," dipshit.

Seriously, B. Have you gone off the deep end, or just pulling a Dins all-day higher today?

Jesus.

[BSmack]

Amongst other casualties...

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/04/i ... ia.office/

It's among not "amongst," dipshit.

Seriously, B. Have you gone off the deep end, or just pulling a Dins all-day higher today?

Jesus.

I just like making people think. Did it hurt?

[RadioFan]

I just like making people think.

About what?

How much higher 87 or 96 stories are than 7?

Take another bong hit and say goodnight. Give it a rest, B.

[socal]

Evidentally there aren't any rolling blackouts in the U & R. Dinsdale will not be pleased.

[Moving Sale]

Or, TVO could just defer to Terry, per usual.

Hey Vantard. I didn't need Terry. You were looking the fool the second you retorted with anything but "Oooops I guess I fucked up the definition of slander."

:D