Anti War Protests

[canon]

In other words, once we are no longer an occupying power we are not bound by the laws governing an occupying power (why does seem so obvious to everyone but you?). In addition there is no prohibition in the Geneva Conventions or anywhere else against us leaving, regardless of the situation.

I gotta give credit to the administration for not making that ridiculous argument, can you imagine President Bush getting on TV and saying "My fellow citizens, I was planning to bring the troops home, but my Legal Team has just informed me that we can't because it would be a violation of International Law"

Take Care

Look, not sure if you noticed, but we are still an occupying power. We are still bound by international laws in that respect. And posting the geneva convention does you no good if you can't understand it. How about from Amnesty International since you didn't like Human Rights Watch (do you see a pattern here, these are organizations directly associated with international law).

Amnesty International

Clipped from article:

Iraq
Responsibilities of the occypying powers

Despite appearances, the present situation is not a "legal vacuum". The forces of the USA and UK, as occupying powers under international law, have clear obligations to protect the Iraqi population. These obligations derive from international humanitarian law, which has long defined the rules on belligerent occupation, complemented by human rights law, which binds any state exercising jurisdiction or control over a territory. The USA and UK must fulfil their obligations and continue to do so for as long as they exercise military authority over Iraq.

By definition, however, the authority of the occupying powers is transitional and limited to providing protection and assistance to the occupied population in the emergency created by war. The USA and UK cannot, for example, change the legal system or introduce the radical reforms in the Iraqi criminal justice system that are needed to ensure respect for human rights. Only a newly established Iraqi government, or a United Nations (UN) transitional administration set up by the Security Council, would have such authority under international law.

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20080905040113/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140892003 tells you everything you need to know along with citations from where each is derived.

American Society of International Law

Clipped from article: The U.S. as Occupying Power Over Portions of Iraq and Relevant Responsibilities Under the Laws of War

Generally, the responsibility of the United States to restore law and order and public life in areas under effective control of its military is reflected in Article 43 of the Annex to the Hague Convention of 1907, which requires that the occupying power "shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

***and*** (You might remember this one, you highlighted the points and completely missed the meaning.)

Article 6 of the Geneva Civilian Convention also states:
The present Convention shall apply from the outset of any conflict or occupation mentioned in Article 2....
In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 61 to 77, 143.
(When it says "for the duration of the occupation", it means we're responsible as long as we're there... and we're there until we restore the ability of the govt to protect its people.)
"

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20110107234612/http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh102.htm Big article. Good stuff.

This relates to the italic in the above post:

The application of Geneva IV ceases "one year after the close of military operations" (Article 6), with the exception of those Occupying Powers which exercise the functions of government in which case several core provisions of Geneva IV continue to apply until that role has ended (Article 6).

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/03/1086203557559.html

U.S. Army’s Field Manual 27-10

The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety

If you want me to provide a copy/paste definition of "restore" I can. But the short version is that we must return Iraq to the point where it can resonably defend itself and protect the citizens.

Crimes of War Project

Clipped from article: The Law of Belligerent Occupation

Occupation formally ends with the reestablishment of a legitimate government (or other form of administration, such as that by the U.N.) capable of adequately and efficiently administering the territory.

They can't adequately and efficienly administer anything if they can't even defend themselves. If you look at what we're doing there: Establishing an elected govt and training their military. Sounds to me like we're following international law
Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20101214124251/http://crimesofwar.org/special/Iraq/news-iraq5.html


You're only hurting your own image by refuting what is so widely known. International law dictates we must return Iraq to the ability of being able to take care of the citizens. We wiped out their means of defending against attack, it is our responsibility to fix it.

If you need further reading, try here: http://www.google.com/

 

[canon]

Canon,

I have reread your postings and have come to the conclusion that nothing I can say can sway your support of the present administration. Those who want war will find ways to justify it.

It's not the support of the administration I'm looking for you to address. My support or condemnation of Bush is irrelevant to ending the war. As I've stated repeatedly, assigning guilt does nothing to bring the troops home.

If you would so kindly, and knowing that I respect your position on what you see as America's illegal actions, address the solution to the war. I've posted time and time again the sources and interpretation of international war outlining our responsibilities before leaving Iraq. The question remains: What would you do differently now to bring the troops home?

I have a feeling everyone is intentionally dodging this question because to answer it would admit we're doing exactly what we're supposed to be doing at present time. That would ultimately mean you're supporting not ending the war, and we all know that isn't going to happen.
So... please answer the question.


I stand by my original statement of wanting the war to end, but knowing it can't until Iraq is ready to care for its citizens.

 

[cheryl]

Moreluck suggested this video:

 

[canon]

Moreluck suggested this video:

Excellent video, thanks moreluck and cheryl. I noticed the patch on one of the uniforms: Tropic Lightning. 25th Infantry Division. My old stomping grounds.

 

[av8torntn]

Those guys are great. When I came home for my R and R they may have been the best thing that I saw. Someone had brought their twin girls about five or six years old. We were walking down the line shaking everyones hand and they just ran through the crowd and grabbed my legs and wouldnt let go.

 

[Slothrop]

The question remains: What would you do differently now to bring the troops home?

1) I would significantly draw down our forces.
2) I would place law enforcement responsibilities in the hands of clan and tribal leaders, under the direction of UN forces(see 6 below)
3) I would redeploy our remaining troops to the borders to insure that arms and fighters are not being smuggled in.
4) I would ensure the Iraqi government that there will be no permanent military bases in Iraq.
5) I would hold accountable those who were/are responsible for the disappearance of billions of dollars.
6) I would endeavor to convince those most affected in the region to bring in trained police forces under the UN to take up the role of training the Iraqi forces. By this I mean Egyptian, Saudi, Jordanian, Moroccan, forces.
7) I would try the Bush cabal for war crimes at the courts in The Hague, to prove to the world that the United States has no plans for world domination, and to restore our standing in the world community.

From your comments I would infer that you would ‘stay the course’, or do you have a plan of your own?

PS---If you want to apply the Geneva Conventions, you need to apply them completely, not just where it suits you. Therein lies the rub.

 

[Slothrop]

Why thank you!!


I know we've previously discussed your use of ad hominem arguments. I guess you can't dispute the information so you're trying to discredit the source.

tonyexpress,
From your article by the hack historian:

In contrast, George Bush, not Al Gore, ran for the presidency in 2000 promising to end Clinton's humanitarian interventions, whether in the Balkans, Haiti or Somalia. As then-candidate Bush put it, "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."

Isn't that just the opposite of what Bush really did? Isn't the latest reason for the adventure in Iraq 'nation building'?

Say what you will about 'ad hominum' attacks. I simply pointed to an article that attacks Hansens credibility. You post right wing drivel, I dispute the veracity of said drivel.

 

[Jones]

Canon,

You seem to be trying to confuse the issue by citing sources which are irrevelant to your original argument that there exists in International Law a set of preconditions for an occupying power to to leave the country which is the subject of it's occupation. There are none, and it's notable here by the fact that you have so far failed to provide any evidence that such a set of preconditions exist.

What Human Rights Watch says is NOT International Law.

What Amnesty International says is NOT International Law.

What the US Army field manual says...well, you get the picture.

Having said that though, not one of those sources, in any way shape or form, supports your contention that it would be a violation of International Law for us to leave Iraq. In fact they clearly contradict it.

From Amnesty International:

The USA and UK must fulfill their obligations and continue to do so for as long as they exercise military authority over Iraq.

Once we cease to to excercise military authority over Iraq(ie, we leave), we are no longer bound by these obligations. Note that nowhere on Amnesty International's site does it say that the US is prohibited from leaving Iraq before meeting a set of preconditions. Nowhere.

You did refer to Article 6 of the Geneva Conventions (good job!), but when the text of the article didn't support your argument, you added your own little caveat to the end:

When it says "for the duration of the occupation", it means we're responsible as long as we're there... and we're there until we restore the ability of the govt to protect its people.

You were correct right up to the point at which you tried to insert your own precondition for leaving.
Sorry, but what Canon says is NOT International Law.

The application of Geneva IV ceases "one year after the close of military operations" (Article 6), with the exception of those Occupying Powers which exercise the functions of government in which case several core provisions of Geneva IV continue to apply until that role has ended (Article 6).

This is just hand waving, it makes no mention of any preconditions for us leaving Iraq.

U.S. Army’s Field Manual 27-10

The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety

More hand waving, once again there is no mention of any preconditions.

Crimes of War Project

Clipped from article: The Law of Belligerent Occupation

Occupation formally ends with the reestablishment of a legitimate government (or other form of administration, such as that by the U.N.) capable of adequately and efficiently administering the territory.

That's an opinion from an editorial, NOT International Law. You did read the article all the way to the end right?

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. or German governments.[/FONT]

If you had spent one tenth the time thinking about WHY there are no preconditions in International Law for an occupying power to leave the country it has occupied as you have wasted trying to find them, you would have figured it out pretty quickly (you do seem like a fairly smart fellow). I'll give you hint- noone wants to give an occupier more excuses not to leave.

Everytime Bush or Cheney defends our occupation of Iraq, they give all kinds of rationales for us not being able to leave. One thing they never do is cite International Law. Wonder why? It's because they are being advised by a legal team, not some guy on an internet message board.

You're only hurting your own image by refuting what is so widely known.

Widely known by who? You? Widely known according to what? The Law according to Canon?

Current events don't even support you. You have noticed that the Brits are pulling out right? Despite the fact that the Pentagon, in its most recent quarterly report to Congress, listed Basra as one of five cities outside Baghdad where violence remained "significant," and said the region was one of only two "not ready for transition" to Iraqi authorities.
So where's the outrage? Where's the hue and cry from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and anyone else who cares about International Law that the Brits are in clear violation? They are, after all, an occupying force right?

We can leave anytime we want to Canon, it ain't hard, and it's not against the law. We just walk back out the same door we walked in. The only thing stopping us is ....us.

 

[canon]

Canon,

You seem to be trying to confuse the issue by citing sources which are irrevelant to your original argument that there exists in International Law a set of preconditions for an occupying power to to leave the country which is the subject of it's occupation. There are none, and it's notable here by the fact that you have so far failed to provide any evidence that such a set of preconditions exist.

What Human Rights Watch says is NOT International Law.

What Amnesty International says is NOT International Law.

What the US Army field manual says...well, you get the picture.

Having said that though, not one of those sources, in any way shape or form, supports your contention that it would be a violation of International Law for us to leave Iraq. In fact they clearly contradict it.

From Amnesty International:
Once we cease to to excercise military authority over Iraq(ie, we leave), we are no longer bound by these obligations. Note that nowhere on Amnesty International's site does it say that the US is prohibited from leaving Iraq before meeting a set of preconditions. Nowhere.

Yes, once we leave we are no longer bound. In order to leave however, we must make sure Iraq can defend itself. When it is determined Iraq can, then we can pull out. From each site, the geneva convention and hague doctrine outline the responsibility of the occupying powers to protect the civilians. Wiping out the military removes Iraq's ability to protect, therefor it is our duty. I don't know how else to say it. If you don't believe it, that's a reflection on your ability to comprehend. It is international law. Not because Amnesty International says so, nor HRW.

Google it yourself and then come back with what you believe the real rules of war are if you're saying everything posted so far is false. We can't leave them vulnerable for the power vaccuum because that is what international law dictates. You have to make sure the innocent people are protected since we eliminated that source of protection.

You did refer to Article 6 of the Geneva Conventions (good job!), but when the text of the article didn't support your argument, you added your own little caveat to the end:
You were correct right up to the point at which you tried to insert your own precondition for leaving.
Sorry, but what Canon says is NOT International Law.

This is just hand waving, it makes no mention of any preconditions for us leaving Iraq.

More hand waving, once again there is no mention of any preconditions.

That's an opinion from an editorial, NOT International Law. You did read the article all the way to the end right?
If you had spent one tenth the time thinking about WHY there are no preconditions in International Law for an occupying power to leave the country it has occupied as you have wasted trying to find them, you would have figured it out pretty quickly (you do seem like a fairly smart fellow). I'll give you hint- noone wants to give an occupier more excuses not to leave.

OMG. Are you serious? Then since you don't believe it is the occupying power's responsibility to protect the citizens and ensure they are protected after we leave, POST SOMETHING TO THE CONTRARY. We are allowed to leave, but only after we've returned Iraq's govt to the ability to protect its citizens.

Your "I don't believe you because it doesn't fit my argument" case is about as juvenile as it gets. There ARE international laws dictating the responsibilities of any belligerent occupation... if you don't believe these, it is your duty in this argument to cite a souce opposing that view. Otherwise, you're as victorious as Iraqi's defeated army who can no longer keep the peace and protect the citizens. Post "your version" of the occupying powers responsibilities or don't bother to reply.

 

[canon]

The question remains: What would you do differently now to bring the troops home?

1) I would significantly draw down our forces.
2) I would place law enforcement responsibilities in the hands of clan and tribal leaders, under the direction of UN forces(see 6 below)
3) I would redeploy our remaining troops to the borders to insure that arms and fighters are not being smuggled in.
4) I would ensure the Iraqi government that there will be no permanent military bases in Iraq.
5) I would hold accountable those who were/are responsible for the disappearance of billions of dollars.
6) I would endeavor to convince those most affected in the region to bring in trained police forces under the UN to take up the role of training the Iraqi forces. By this I mean Egyptian, Saudi, Jordanian, Moroccan, forces.
7) I would try the Bush cabal for war crimes at the courts in The Hague, to prove to the world that the United States has no plans for world domination, and to restore our standing in the world community.

From your comments I would infer that you would ‘stay the course’, or do you have a plan of your own?

PS---If you want to apply the Geneva Conventions, you need to apply them completely, not just where it suits you. Therein lies the rub.

Ahh cool. Many thanks. Now we're getting somewhere.

1) Drawing down the forces leaves the remaining forces more vulnerable and spread too thin to be effective in trying to combat the insurgents during the transitional process. I'm afraid that is only going to allow MORE violence until Iraq is capable of REPLACING our troops as we withdraw.

"III. OBLIGATIONS OF THE USA AND THE UK AS OCCUPYING POWERS

1. Duty to restore and maintain law and order

The occupying power has the duty to restore and maintain public order and safety in the territories controlled by its forces, in accordance with Article 43 of the Hague Regulations." Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20080905040113/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140892003
If you wish to read Article 43 of the Hague Regulations, you're more than ecnouraged to. I'm getting tired of doing people's research for them.
Sorry, but item 1 vetoed by reality.



2) Placing law enforcement in the hands of tribal leaders will guarantee you a civil war. The "UN" isn't the occupying force. By law, we have to establish a funtioning govt capable of exercising normal governmental functions.

"Even though the objective of the military campaign may not be to control territory, the sole presence of such forces in a controlling position renders applicable the law protecting the inhabitants. The occupying power cannot avoid its responsibilities as long as a national government is not in a position to carry out its normal tasks."

Item 2 vetoed by legal responsibility.



3) I'm going to dismiss this statement because you've already started downsizing our presence there in Item 1. This would be a suicide mission and impossible to complete given the smaller number of troops.
Item 3 vetoed for silliness.


4) I don't think you would "assure" the Iraqi govt anything they don't want. If they welcome a US military presence it then becomes a matter of strategic importance as to wether or not we accept. I would think it in the best interest of everyone concerned if we had a base that close to Iran. If not, we can hit Iran without a presence there if need be. And if we're only there as a military base, we're no longer "at war" and your argument ceases to exist... or are you simply opposed to military bases? We have bases all over the world where no fighting is happening.. maybe you should retrain your attention to those.
Item 3 vetoed again. Item 4 vetoed for irrelevance to any cease fire.



5) Are you talking about Enron? What in the world does that have to do with bringing the troops home? Yes, we should find out what happened to the money, who killed OJ's wife, and where Jimmy Hoffa is. It's too bad Leonard Nimoy isn't around to do more of his In Search Of episodes.
Item 5 supported.


6) That's an interesting idea. Brings up a different point: Why can't the middle east police itself? But going to have to disagree with you on this point. It's not their mess to clean up. As much as I want to get our troops out of harms way, I'm not in favor of trading deaths to those not responsible for the current mess we created. Those people have families too. Unfortunately, it's a price we have to pay.
Item 6 vetoed for callousness.


7) That's a mighty noble cause, but has nothing to do with getting the troops home any earlier. Trying Bush isn't going to prove the US has no plans of world domination, and what would you tell the world if he is found not guilty? I think you've already convicted him and he's not had his day in court. Besides, everybody already knows Canada is the one out for world domination. If Bush is guilty of crimes, then that will be determined by lawyers on both sides of the issue in a court. But he should not be tried simply to prove a point.
Item 7 vetoed for being unAmerican.


Yes, I'm in favor of staying the course. Not because I want war, but because we've had enough death on our hands. Leaving too early will only cause more, this time to the remaining civilians. If it were up to me, I have to ask "how do we silence the violence to the point we can get Iraq up to par faster and finally be done with it?". Bush's recent request for more troops appears to be one answer to that question. Is it the only answer? Probably not. But since we can't just leave, I'd much rather think the troops there are as safe as possible. If you were there, would you feel safer in numbers? I would.

PS---If you want to apply the Geneva Conventions, you need to apply them completely, not just where it suits you. Therein lies the rub.

What rub is that? You feel that because there were some violations that we no longer have to abide by the ones that would keep us there? If you're going to advocate application of the Geneva Convention accross the board, then it also applies to staying the course for the sake of protecting the civilians. You said it best... apply them completely. I'm glad you're finally onboard.

 

[canon]

Edit: Slothrop, I went to your jurist site and found a link to one of the articles cited earlier in my posts (scroll up).
The jurist site listed this portion of the article:

"Some within the Bush administration seem to be arguing that the United States is not an occupying power with respect to any portion of Iraq because the U.S. is on a “liberation” mission. Others might argue that the U.S. is not an occupying power of any portion of Iraqi territory because the U.S. has not formally proclaimed that it is an occupying power and/or that some fighting is still taking place in certain portions of Iraq. However, regardless of the purpose of the overall mission, the lack of formal admission, and the fact that some fighting is still taking place, the United States is an occupying power with competencies and responsibilities under the laws of war concerning occupied territory in each portion of Iraqi territory that falls within effective control of its military."

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/2011031....pitt.edu/paperchase/2003_04_25_indexarch.php
The name of the article linked to jurist AND cited in above in my post to Jones: The U.S. as Occupying Power Over Portions of Iraq and Relevant Responsibilities Under the Laws of War

Gotta love that Jurist site... those crazy college kids sometimes get it right.

 

[Jones]

Yes, once we leave we are no longer bound.

Good start.

In order to leave however, we must make sure Iraq can defend itself.

Bad ending. Once again, that's just your opinion, it's NOT International Law.

From each site, the geneva convention and hague doctrine outline the responsibility of the occupying powers to protect the civilians.

They sure do, as long we are an occupying power. Refer back to your first quote for for a concise, to the point explanation of when those responsibilities end. Go ahead and scour the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Doctrine (I know you already have) and see if you can find any preconditions for ending an occupation. We both already know that you have tried and failed. But here ya go, give it one more shot:

Geneva Conventions

Hague Conventions

OMG. Are you serious? Then since you don't believe it is the occupying power's responsibility to protect the citizens

Like, OMG, is that yet another straw man?

It is our responsibility to protect the citizens as long we are an occupying power, I've never denied that and it is clearly part of our obligations under International Law.

and ensure they are protected after we leave....We are allowed to leave, but only after we've returned Iraq's govt to the ability to protect its citizens.

And now here we go, back to you making up laws again when the the existing ones don't fit your argument. As I stated earlier, there is a very good reason that no set of International Laws includes the preconditions that you keep making up and trying to add in. Because they would give occupiers who really didn't want to leave an excuse not to. That's why you didn't hear Syria using International Law as an excuse to stay in Lebanon, or why you don't hear Israel citing the constraints of International Law as a reason to occupy the West Bank. It's a ludicrous argument, and the fact that you seem to
be the only one making it should tell you something.

There ARE international laws dictating the responsibilities of any belligerent occupation

Absolutely, that's never been in doubt.

if you don't believe these, it is your duty in this argument to cite a souce opposing that view.

Cripes, he's off in the corner swinging at his straw man again...

Post "your version" of the occupying powers responsibilities or don't bother to reply.

One more time for the learning impaired:

Geneva Conventions
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm
Hague Conventions

Take care

 

[canon]

Jones, let's approach this one more time.
You agree there are rules of war.

You agree we have to protect the people.

By law, when we remove the country's ability to protect their people, it becomes the responsibility of the occupying country to fill that position and continue to do so until the conquered nation can. If we leave before they can provide security, we have failed to protect the people. It IS international law. It is derived from hague doctine and geneva conventions. If you can't see that, or if you can't post a reference which offers a CONTRARY INTERPRETATION to international law which contradicts sources I draw from such as Human Rights Watch, International Red Cross, Amnesty International, Jurist (thats slothrops link), Crimes of War Project, American Society of International Law.... then you lose.

You're right... the links to geneva convention and hague doctrines support my position on international law. In agreement with me are the sources above. You have yet to post any in support of your position.

 

[canon]

And now here we go, back to you making up laws again when the the existing ones don't fit your argument. As I stated earlier, there is a very good reason that no set of International Laws includes the preconditions that you keep making up and trying to add in. Because they would give occupiers who really didn't want to leave an excuse not to. That's why you didn't hear Syria using International Law as an excuse to stay in Lebanon, or why you don't hear Israel citing the constraints of International Law as a reason to occupy the West Bank. It's a ludicrous argument, and the fact that you seem to
be the only one making it should tell you something.

I could have left it alone, but felt like dragging you thru the mud a bit more. You are confusing "occupiers" with conflicts. By definition, when a country is occupied, the Occupying Power serves as government and security because they've defeated/overthrown the existing one.

Jones, did Syria "conquer" Lebanon, or was there a military withdrawl leaving the military and government intact?

Jones, did Israel "conquer" Palestine, or was there a military withdrawl leaving Palestinian security forces and government intact?

Jones, did America "conquer" Iraq, leaving the country without a military or a government?

If you're going to draw a parallel, draw from one that resembles the current situation. I suspect there is a reason you omitted Afghanistan. Had either one of those situations resulted in being "conquered" and left without govt or security, yes, they would be required to follow international law. Don't make me school you on the logical fallacy of False Analogy.

Incidently, this is also why we didn't need to stay after the first war in Iraq. We didn't conquer them. Only expelled them from Kuwait as per UN resolutions. It would have been quite different had we knocked out their military and unseated the government.

 

[Jones]

By law, when we remove the country's ability to protect their people, it becomes the responsibility of the occupying country to fill that position

Good start!

and continue to do so until the conquered nation can. If we leave before they can provide security, we have failed to protect the people. It IS international law.

And bad ending. Again . It is NOT International Law. You have consistently been unable to point out where it says, in black and white, that an occupying power must meet certain preconditions before they leave. Once again, here are the original sources:

Geneva Conventions

Hague Conventions

Read them. Then read them again. There are no preconditions for ending an occupation. None. Nada.

if you can't see that, or if you can't post a reference which offers a CONTRARY INTERPRETATION to international law which contradicts sources I draw from such as Human Rights Watch, International Red Cross, Amnesty International, Jurist (thats slothrops link), Crimes of War Project, American Society of International Law

Once again, this all just hand waving. Your strategy seems to be posting a whole lot of links and names of organisations and then claiming, without a shred of evidence (and plenty to the contrary), that they all somehow support your argument. They don't. Read the the original sources:

Geneva Conventions

Hague Conventions

There are no preconditions for ending an occupation. None. Nada.


It's the reason that you are the only one trying to make this ridiculous argument. Even Ari Fleischer wouldn't try it

Take care

 

[Darlene]

Bush and Cheney lied to get us into this war. Why should not everyone on each side protest this unjust war. There where no weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqis did not attack us. It was the the Saudies our government should be after. Although, Bush vacations with the Bin Ladens, and he really does not care if we ever get Osama!!!

I don't blame everyone for protesting. Bush lied and people died.

 

[Jones]

By definition, when a country is occupied, the Occupying Power serves as government and security because they've defeated/overthrown the existing one.

This sounds like another one of your "made up" definitions, tailored to fit whatever point you're trying to make.
I prefer a real one

Belligerent military occupation occurs when one nation's military occupies all or part of the territory of another nation or recognized belligerent.

did Syria "conquer" Lebanon, or was there a military withdrawl leaving the military and government intact?

did Israel "conquer" Palestine, or was there a military withdrawl leaving Palestinian security forces and government intact?

Your understanding of Middle East conflict seems pretty weak, to the point where your statements have no basis in the actual situation nor any relation to the point I was making. I'll try to be brief here, and rely on Wiki for the sake of brevity.

Syrian occupation of Lebanon

By most common definitions, Syria had a military occupation in Lebanon. Dispute that if you want to though. When they left, under intense international criticism (starting to sound familiar?), Lebanon had no military worthy of the name, and a barely adequate police force. Half the country was(and still is) firmly under control of Hizbollah, and a former Prime Minister had just been assasinated in a car bomb attack. Syria most certainly did not want to leave, and if there were any preconditions in International Law like the ones you keep lobbying for, they would not have hesitated in trumpeting them as an excuse to stay and "stabilize" the country.

Israeli occupation of the West bank

Perhaps not quite so clear cut, but:

it is considered by the United Nations Security Council,[1] the United Nations General Assembly,[2] the International Court of Justice,[3] and the International Committee of the Red Cross[4] to be Israeli occupied.

They haven't left yet. They give a lot reasons for staying(I don't dispute most of them), but considering all the turmoil and violence that goes on there on a daily basis, it must come as quite a shock to you that they don't claim they can't leave because it would be a violation of International Law.

And that was my point. Because if International Law actually contained the preconditions that you keep lobbying for, they most certainly would be claiming them as legitamate reason for continuing the occupation.

Take care

 

[canon]

This sounds like another one of your "made up" definitions, tailored to fit whatever point you're trying to make.
I prefer a real one

Yeah, I made it up. Right after reading it in the Hague doctrine. Come on now, that's my favorite definition and one I've been posting the whole time. From your link to the definition of Military Occupation:

These were clarified and supplemented by the Hague Conventions of 1907. Specifically "Laws and Customs of War on Land" (Hague IV); October 18, 1907: "Section III Military Authority over the territory of the hostile State"[1]. The first two articles of that section state:
Art. 42.
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
Art. 43.
The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

You intentionally left that part out when you posted the definition of the nations army taking control of the land. You need to know, that once they have taken control, they are the authority and responsible for keeping international law. If conflict comes to a cease fire or withdrawl of troops, the responsibility of the citizens returns to the still-existing govt. This wasn't possible in Iraq.

I want you to scroll up and count the number of times I've posted this, and how many times I've said the exact same thing. I'm glad you're posting links now, but your argument suffers for it. The Lebonese govt invited the syrians to help protect the christians (as per your link), the syrians changed their position and were booted out (as per your link). Now, for them to have been considered an Occupying Power, they would have to be the official authority in Lebanon. They weren't. America IS in Iraq. Untangle those noodles.

Your understanding of Middle East conflict seems pretty weak, to the point where your statements have no basis in the actual situation nor any relation to the point I was making. I'll try to be brief here, and rely on Wiki for the sake of brevity.

Syrian occupation of Lebanon

Yeah, that was a tough one. From your link, first lines:

"The Syrian occupation of Lebanon is one of several terms for the period 1976-2005 when Syria had a military presence in and significant control over Lebanon.[1] Some dispute the term "occupation", especially since Syria originally entered the country at the request of the Lebanese government.
During the Lebanese Civil War, Lebanon requested Syrian assistance as an Arab peacekeeping force. The Arab League agreed to send a peacekeeping force mostly formed by Syrian troops. Initially Syria's mission was to protect the Christians; two years later, in 1978, Syria changed its position and sided with the PLO."


By your definition, Iraq occupied Kuwait. Your example still doesn't fit. Syria ceased to be a "peacekeeping" force and therefore violated the terms of their invitation.

By most common definitions, Syria had a military occupation in Lebanon. Dispute that if you want to though. When they left, under intense international criticism (starting to sound familiar?), Lebanon had no military worthy of the name, and a barely adequate police force. Half the country was(and still is) firmly under control of Hizbollah, and a former Prime Minister had just been assasinated in a car bomb attack. Syria most certainly did not want to leave, and if there were any preconditions in International Law like the ones you keep lobbying for, they would not have hesitated in trumpeting them as an excuse to stay and "stabilize" the country.

We know why they left... they stopped being a peacekeeping force. Or do you now want to retract your link?

Israeli occupation of the West bank

Perhaps not quite so clear cut, but:
They haven't left yet. They give a lot reasons for staying(I don't dispute most of them), but considering all the turmoil and violence that goes on there on a daily basis, it must come as quite a shock to you that they don't claim they can't leave because it would be a violation of International Law.

And that was my point. Because if International Law actually contained the preconditions that you keep lobbying for, they most certainly would be claiming them as legitamate reason for continuing the occupation.

Take care

Again, apples and oranges to Iraq. From your link:

The signing of the Oslo II agreement in 1995 by Yasir Arafat and Yitzak Rabin marked a change in the administrative policies in the West Bank. According to the Oslo Accords West Bank land was divided into 3 administrative categories, areas A, B and C (these areas are not contiguous throughout the territory), and 11 Governorates (districts). Currently, the jurisdictions of areas A, B and C represent 17%, 24% and 59% of West Bank territory respectively. The Palestinian Authority has full civil control in area A, area B is characterized by joint-administration between the PA and Israel, while area C is under full Israeli control. 98% of the Palestinian population reside in Areas A and B.[citation needed] Israel maintains overall control over Israeli settlements, roads, water, airspace, "external" security and borders for the entire territory.

You claim international law does not establish rules for becoming an occupying power. All the links I've posted support my claims based on the interpretation of the geneva conventions and hague doctrine. And now, you show up with your handful of wikipedia links which only further support mine. Once again, you need to show something a bit more substantial before you discredit the sources I've posted and their interpretations. I suspect you can't because international law is interpreted and used by the very organizations I listed.

You're in check... post your next move to actually counter interpretations of international law and the very laws themselves as stated in Hague IV, Section III, Articles 42 and 43 or admit checkmate.

 

[canon]

Bush and Cheney lied to get us into this war. Why should not everyone on each side protest this unjust war. There where no weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqis did not attack us. It was the the Saudies our government should be after. Although, Bush vacations with the Bin Ladens, and he really does not care if we ever get Osama!!!

I don't blame everyone for protesting. Bush lied and people died.

That's kind of catchy... I like this one:

Bill lied and Gore cried.

There's only one bin Laden who is responsible for the attacks, the rest are successful business owners and condemn his actions (unless you can provide proof stating otherwise). We haven't found the wmd material known to have been in the country at the time the weapons inspectors left, all we can assume is Saddam was secretly complying with the resolutions (yeah right). I'm not sure why we should be after the Saudi's... we have a base there and good relations. And if you think Bush doesn't care about catching bin Laden, I believe that would be a wrong assumption on your part. That's about the only thing at this point that would turn his ratings around outside of removing troops from Iraq.

Darlene, I respect your position on the war, but it really doesn't get us home any faster. Not even if you add more exclamation points to the end of your sentences.

 

[canon]

Read them. Then read them again. There are no preconditions for ending an occupation. None. Nada.



There are no preconditions for ending an occupation. None. Nada.


It's the reason that you are the only one trying to make this ridiculous argument. Even Ari Fleischer wouldn't try it

Like I've said, you're confusing "preconditions of ending occupation" with "responsibilities of the Occupying Power" which are derived from the hague and geneva conventions. Our responsibilities become conditions if that's how you want to look at it:

Responsibility: One of the responsibilities of the belligerent is to restore and ensure the safety of the populace. (Govt and functioning security force)
Condition: Once that condition is met, we can leave without endangering the population. It's the same thing, we have to protect the civilians.

I only know how to say it in english and I'm sorry you can't see the difference. Add to the list of those in support of my position and who do see the difference:

A couple of clips from the United Nations.

UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Statements and Messages from the President


The United Nations, the United States and the Future of Multilateralism
Lecture Delivered at the National University, Dili, Timor-Leste
by Jan Kavan, President of the 57th session of the United
Nations General Assembly, July 2003.​

Iraq’s post-conflict society is confronted with various problems of instability. These include unresolved issues relating to years of political and religious oppression, violence amongst different clans, dangers stemming from the past totalitarian structures, looting, or abundance of arms in the absence of an effective new local police or security forces. Recent UN experiences elsewhere have clearly demonstrated that a comprehensive strategy to tackle these issues in the immediate post-conflict phase is critical. Furthermore, it has become evident that a strategy for political and economic reforms should be crafted in conjunction with an overall vision for democratization of the Iraqi society.

While it is obvious that the coalition forces are responsible for military and civil administration of Iraq in the current period following the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, I do believe that future substantial involvement of the UN in the transition is inevitable, especially given some of the problems US has to tackle on the ground and the increasing need to internationalise the stabilization forces and to share the burden.

Source: Untitled Document

New York, 24 March 2003 - Remarks by the Secretary-General upon arrival at Headquarters (unofficial transcript)

Q: Mr. Secretary-General, if and when American and British troops start to occupy parts of Iraq, will the UN, when it comes to getting food to the Iraqis, will the UN be able to work with the Americans and the Brits in those particular areas, or will it be entirely a British and American responsibility? That's number one.

Number two: the Americans are now talking about their discovery of a suspected site – chemical weapons. Would the UN be prepared to send Hans Blix's people to verify some sites?

SG: Let me say that on your first question, I have made it clear in my discussions with the Council and publicly, that in times of war, it is the belligerents who are responsible for the welfare and safety of the people. I've also indicated that, in any situation under occupation, it is the occupying power that has responsibility for the welfare of the people. Without detracting from those responsibilities, the UN will do whatever it can to help the Iraqi population. And we would want to resume the oil-for-food as soon as possible. In these conflict situations, it is urgent that humanitarian agencies and actors are given the space to act. And we will be able to act using that space. And I should also remind all concerned that they must respect international humanitarian law, the Fourth Geneva Convention, and the Hague regulation.

On your second question, the position of the Council and the United Nations is that Council resolutions are valid, including the mandate for UNMOVIC [UN Monitoring, Inspection and Verification Commission]. They have only been suspended temporarily because it's inoperable given the situation on the ground. The expectation is that as soon as the conflict is over and the situation permits, they will be able to resume their work, just as we are seeking to resume the oil-for-food scheme.

IMPORTANCE OF HUMANITARIAN AID FOR IRAQ STRESSED, AS SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
VOICE DIFFERENT VIEWS ON DISARMAMENT PROCESS

Council Hears Report of Chief UN Weapons Inspector​

In a morning meeting of the Security Council today, perhaps only hours or days away from military action in Iraq, members debated the wisdom, indeed, the right under the United Nations Charter and international law, to use force to compel that country’s disarmament of mass destruction weapons. Agreeing on the need for humanitarian aid for Iraq’s people in the current situation, the Council also heard the presentation of a work programme by the chief weapons inspectors, whose mission had recently been suspended.

Addressing the impending humanitarian crisis at the end of the debate, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that despite regrets about the suspended inspections process, everyone could agree on the plight of the Iraqi people. The conflict that was “now clearly about to begin” could only make things worse -- perhaps much worse. Everything possible must be done to mitigate that imminent disaster, which could easily lead to epidemics and starvation. Under international law, the responsibility for protecting civilians in conflict fell on the belligerents. Without in any way assuming or diminishing that ultimate responsibility, the United Nations would do whatever it could to help.

Source: IMPORTANCE OF HUMANITARIAN AID FOR IRAQ STRESSED, AS SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBERS VOICE DIFFERENT VIEWS ON DISARMAMENT PROCESS

"Protection" doesn't end when the shelling stops. It is our responsibility to restore and ensure the safety of the civilians, both during the fighting and as a result of our actions as per international law. And that can't be done without returning a functioning government and capable security force. As soon as that happens, then we can pack our bags.

Exactly as I've been saying. I believe this is checkmate. Post your sources or tuck your tail. If it were me, the only way I see out of this is to graciously admit defeat and try to salvage what's left of your dignity. We should play again, after you've recovered.