[onlooker]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... _have.html
Presidents since Truman have paid little heed to any constitutional requirement to obtain approval from Congress for War.

[Plantagenet]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/09/what_war_powers_does_the_president_have.html
Presidents since Truman have paid little heed to any constitutional requirement to obtain approval from Congress for War.

Yes. Thats why Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973 --- it codifies the constitutional requirement for a president to seek congressional approval to go to war.

President Obama hasn't sought congressional approval for his new Iraq War and is therefore in violation of he War Powers Act of 1973, i.e. Obama's war in Iraq is unconstitutional and illegal.

Its amazing to me that today's liberals, who supposedly oppose illegal wars on principle, don't protest Obama's illegal war because Obama is a D. During the VietNam War liberals had a lot more guts---they opposed LBJ on his illegal war because it was illegal, and the fact that LBJ was a D wasn't enough to make them forget their basic beliefs.

Cheers!

[Newfie]

Plant,

I think the difference is simpler. In Nam there was a general draft and next door kids, I.e. Liberals kids, were being sent over. Today we have a "volunteer" army drawn from a different class. The liberals are not sending their kids, they are sending poor kids.

[Plantagenet]

Plant,

I think the difference is simpler. In Nam there was a general draft and next door kids, I.e. Liberals kids, were being sent over. Today we have a "volunteer" army drawn from a different class. The liberals are not sending their kids, they are sending poor kids.

Good point.

These days only poor kids go into the Army and fight in illegal wars in the middle east---the rich kids take a gap year from college to learn how to be a mime.

[ennui2]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/09/what_war_powers_does_the_president_have.html
Presidents since Truman have paid little heed to any constitutional requirement to obtain approval from Congress for War.

Exactly. The ship sailed on the War Powers Act a long time ago and people usually whine about it simply because they don't agree with a particular use of force.

As for Nobel, Obama earned it by virtue of winning the award, plain and simple. It's like, I can argue that NWA or Ice Cube don't belong in the R&R hall of fame, but they make the call, not me. Any talk about corruption is just tinfoil.

BTW, as for what kinds of demographics serve in the military, one thing Obama has done is try to open it up to LGBT and women.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ry/481056/

[vox_mundi]

Is Endless Corruption Leaving Iraq a Failed State

Property prices in central Baghdad are as high as London’s, even though Iraq’s national income is down by 70 percent since the collapse of oil prices. Islamic State bombings regularly devastate parts of the capital and still the real estate market booms. Why?

Because there is so much “dirty money” in Iraq that needs to be laundered. If you lack the political clout to get your stolen money out of the country, then the safest course is to put it into residential property. But then that’s not a very safe bet either when the entire pseudo-democratic system bequeathed to Iraq by the U.S. invasion is on the brink of collapse.

Intrusion late last month by thousands of angry Iraqis into the Green Zone, the vast blast-walled government compound in Baghdad, was probably the beginning of the end of the current dispensation in Iraq. They stayed for two days, only leaving after delivering an ultimatum calling for wholesale reform of the government but vowing to return if it does not happen.

It will not happen, and they will be back in the streets soon. Former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, forced from power in 2014 after Islamic State forces conquered the western half of Iraq, has been plotting a comeback with other parties in parliament. He may not succeed, but he and his allies are certainly able to block the passage of most measures they do not like.

The cement binding Maliki and the other plotters is their determination to retain the utterly corrupt system that has allowed them to loot the country’s oil wealth for so long. The oil wealth is a great deal less now, but it is still practically Iraq’s only source of income and they have no intention of giving it up.

... changing the figureheads in the government ministries will not end the looting of public funds, which permeates the system from top to bottom. Indeed, you might say that corruption is the system in Iraq. Like several other oil-rich countries, Iraq distributes some of the cash flow to the citizens by means of paying them to do non-jobs. Most of the rest is stolen by the 25,000 or so people who hold senior administrative, political or military positions, leaving a small amount for public works.

There are 7 million government employees in Iraq — a large majority of the adult male population — and most of them do little or no work. Indeed, some of them don’t even exist, like the “ghost soldiers” whose pay is collected by their officers. Collectively they were paid around $4 billion a month, which was all right when monthly oil income was up around $6 billion.

The oil revenue is now down to $2 billion a month. The central bank has been making up the difference from its reserves, but those are now running out. The country’s economic crisis is now more urgent and more dangerous than the military confrontation with Islamic State, but that does not seem clear to many of the major players in Iraq’s dysfunctional political system.

Iraqi security forces use tear gas as protesters try to storm Green Zone - Again

BAGHDAD — Iraqi security forces used tear gas and water cannons to push back protesters attempting to storm the fortified Green Zone in Iraq’s capital on Friday, as political tensions reignited.

Footage aired on Iraqi television showed canisters being shot over the concrete blast walls that line the secured area of central Baghdad, home to parliament and foreign embassies.

... After the first breach last month, Abadi replaced the head of security for the Green Zone and said he would not allow a similar incident, which resulted in lawmakers being assaulted as they tried to flee parliament. But he is no closer to meeting the demands of the street and has not managed to gather enough lawmakers for parliament to reconvene, necessary in order to legislate any changes.

Meanwhile, anger is growing. Sadr City, a stronghold for Sadr’s supporters, was struck Wednesday by the second large market bombing by the Islamic State in a week, and many Iraqis blamed the government for failing to protect them. The families of the dead were among the protesters who gathered on Friday.

[Cid_Yama]

Yesterday, the Chilcot report was published after seven years, £100million and interviews with over 100 witnesses. It revealed that the former prime minister had told his US counterpart, George W. Bush, that he was ‘with you, whatever’ regarding military action in Iraq and deliberately exaggerated the threat posed by dictator Saddam Hussein.

Today, the former prime minister faces mounting calls to be taken to court for the ‘terrible’ decision of committing British troops to the US-led invasion in 2003.

The shadow Commons leader Paul Flynn said the findings of the Chilcot report represented an ‘utter condemnation’ of Blair’s decision to go to war. The former Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, said that Mr Blair should be investigated by the International Criminal Court for a crime of aggression and face parliamentary action to stop him from holding public office in the future.

link


Tony Blair is now facing the prospect of legal action over his decision to go to war in Iraq

Tony Blair is today facing the threat of legal action over his decision 13 years ago to take Britain into a disastrous war in Iraq.

The long-awaited Chilcot Inquiry report into the conflict delivered a damning verdict, setting out a catalogue of failures in the planning, conduct and aftermath of the 2003 invasion.

Jeremy Corbyn said Sir John’s long-awaited £10 million report made clear that the UK Parliament had been misled and that the invasion was "an act of military aggression based on a false pretext".

While the Labour leader did not mention Mr Blair by name during a two-hour Commons debate, he later apologised on behalf of his party for the former premier’s decision to go to war in Iraq, saying it was a "stain" on Labour and the country.

Paul Flynn, the newly-appointed shadow Commons leader, said: “There should be serious consideration of Tony Blair being prosecuted for this."

“Parliament is on trial. It wasn't just Tony Blair, it was most of the Labour backbenches, it was all the Tory backbenchers except[for] half a dozen...There were three select committees that were gung-ho for war; the leader of the opposition was gung-ho for war…This was a terrible decision."

Rose Gentle from Glasgow, whose 19-year-old son, Gordon, a Royal Highland Fusilier, died when a bomb exploded under his Land Rover in Basra in June 2004, said the report meant Mr Blair had "got his comeuppance”.

Expressing satisfaction with its findings, she said: "I didn't think we were going to get that verdict today but I'm really pleased. I hope Tony Blair goes to his bed and thinks: 'What the hell have I done?' because he will never be forgiven.”

Ms Gentle added: "He will be remembered not as a prime minister but as a person who sent them on an illegal war. I would love to see him in court."

link

Tony Blair must be held accountable to the UK Parliament and “in the court of public opinion” over the decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003, David Cameron has told MPs.

The Prime Minister made his comment in response to an intervention during a Commons debate on the Chilcot report from Alex Salmond, who seized on a remark made by the former premier in a memo to the then US President George W Bush eight months before the invasion, in which he said: “I will be with you whatever.”

The former First Minister said he did not understand, in light of that remark, how it was “in any way compatible with what was said to Parliament and people at the time”.

The Gordon MP added: "Amid all this stuff about improving processes, which is fantastically important and I acknowledge it, is it not at the end of the day people who make decisions and, in our search for responsibility, wouldn't it help if individuals responsible were held accountable?"

Senior Tory MP, David Davis, picked up on another part of the memo, saying: “Later on…it says: 'The reason for this is getting rid of Saddam Hussein,[it] is the right thing to do.' Regime change, not WMD...This actually amounts to a deceit and a misleading of this House of Commons.”

Jeremy Corbyn, who was a staunch opponent of the Iraq war at the time, condemned the decision to invade, branding it an "act of military aggression launched on a false pretext," that had long been regarded as illegal by most international legal opinion. But during some of his contribution he was heckled by his own MPs.

Denouncing the war as a “catastrophe,” the Labour leader said it had "fuelled and spread terrorism" instead of improving security at home and abroad.

link


The Obama Administration denied us the same satisfaction. The World Court needs to be sending an extraction team to Dallas. That F_er needs to be in that docket just like Milosevich.

[GHung]

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, all those smug, arrogant sociopath assholes; try them for war crimes and string 'em up. Better yet, slow public stonings in Baghdad, broadcast live. Everyone invited.

[Cid_Yama]

Rumsfeld already had a crime against humanity in his portfolio for using his influence in government to push through quick approval of aspartame while he was CEO of Searle, the maker of aspartame. You see, in the late 70's scientists were warning that aspartame was unstable, especially in acidic liquids, at temperatures commonly found in grocery stock rooms (think Diet colas, coffee). Aspartame, through hydrolysis, broke down producing methanol, then further on to formaldehyde and formic acid, which causes brain lesions. You've all heard the warnings against alcohol contaminated with methanol, the killer in 'bathtub gin' during Prohibition.

And it's still in Equal. (I don't think it's in diet sodas anymore. I seem to remember them switching back to saccharin when all the bad publicity came out.)

Searle and Rumsfeld made a killing on that one.

The FDA said that Aspartame itself was not dangerous at tested levels. Searle's lawyers said how it was used was the liability of those using it.

[GHung]

Pepsi relaunches Diet Pepsi with aspartame following sharp decline in sales

Monday, 27 Jun 2016 | 1:26 PM ET

Pepsi to reintroduce aspartame in some beverages.

So maybe it wasn't the aspartame after all.

Pepsi ditched the controversial sweetener last August in a move to placate health-conscious consumers looking to cut unnatural chemicals from their diets. Aspartame had been linked to cancer in lab mice, and industry executives blamed the decline in sales on unfounded concerns people had about the artificial sweetener.

In announcing the earlier decision to drop aspartame in April 2015, Pepsi vice president Seth Kaufman said: "Diet cola drinkers in the U.S. told us they wanted aspartame-free Diet Pepsi and we're delivering."

Now, Pepsi is reversing course and bringing back the sweetener. Pepsi saw diet soda sales plummet almost 11 percent in the first quarter and received consumer feedback that indicated its aspartame-free sodas weren't quite as tasty as the original recipe. .....

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/27/pepsi-re ... sales.html

[Cid_Yama]

Maybe people are too stupid to know or care. (Notice nobody EVER mentions the true threat from the methanol metabolites and bioaccumulation of formic acid.)

Vision loss

The mechanism by which the methanol causes toxicity to the visual system is not well understood. Formic acid, the toxic metabolite of methanol, is responsible for ocular toxicity in animal models and is rightly presumed to be responsible in human studies. (See Etiology and Pathophysiology.)

Serum methanol levels of greater than 20 mg/dL correlate with ocular injury. Funduscopic changes are notable within only a few hours after methanol ingestion and range from retinal edema in the perimacular region to the entire fundus. Optic disc edema and hyperemia are observed within 48 hours.

Visual injury may be prevented with prompt antidote therapy or via elimination of the metabolites from the system with hemodialysis; however, this is not always the case. (See Treatment and Medication.)

Movement disorders

Parkinsonian motor impairment has been described in some long-term survivors of methanol poisoning. This is thought to be due to formic acid’s predilection for accumulating in high concentrations within the putamen, but the reasons for this phenomenon are unclear. One proposed reason is that formic acid has the ability to impair dopaminergic pathways and increase enzymatic activity of dopa-B-hydroxylase. (See Etiology and Pathophysiology.)[3]

Symptom onset is usually delayed several weeks after methanol exposure. Common parkinsonian symptoms, such as tremor, cogwheel rigidity, stooped posture, shuffling gait, and hypokinesis, have been well described. In addition, the development of dystonia and corticospinal tract signs has been established.

link


Being warned doesn't seem to have affected those that use impotence treatments. They are warned up front by Cialis, (Although they say contact your doctor, not that the vision loss is permanent, in their voluntary warning label.)

From 2013:

The possibility of a link with blindness was raised publicly earlier this year, when Dr. Howard Pomeranz of the University of Minnesota reported in an ophthalmology journal seven patients who reported NAION vision loss occurring within 36 hours of a Viagra dose.

“A definite causal relationship cannot be established at this time,” Pomeranz wrote.

Viagra and its competitors work by slightly dilating arteries so that blood flow in the penis increases. Whether it affects blood flow to the eye isn’t known, but Pomeranz argued that some effect on the optic nerve is plausible.

So he urged that ophthalmologists ask NAION patients whether they use impotence drugs, and report any additional cases. Also, Viagra users who suffer NAION in one eye should be cautioned that continued use might raise the risk of vision loss in the other eye, Pomeranz wrote.

The loss of vision is permanent.

Pomeranz told MSNBC Friday that "the drug is doing something to alter the circulation of blood to the optic nerve and in turn causing an injury to the nerve resulting in a loss of vision."

Anybody who risks permanent vision loss to have sex is a fool.

Ain't Dead Yet

[Cid_Yama]

Back on topic.

There is a much wider picture here, which is that from the time of the September 11 attacks the Bush administration was determined to link the attack with Iraq, although there was absolutely no foundation for doing so. (We now know it was Saudi Arabia.)

The initial victim of the “war on terror” was Afghanistan, which was quickly occupied and the Taliban defeated.

The US then turned its attention to other countries, most notably Iraq. The determination to go to war with Iraq was non-negotiable for the Bush administration and the neocons behind it.

Interestingly, Chilcot reveals that the original plan for a British dossier on WMD was to focus on four countries, loosely linked to Bush’s “axis of evil” — North Korea, Libya, Iran and Iraq.

However, Iraq was not the most threatening in terms of alleged possession of WMD, and as foreign secretary Jack Straw said, this might lead people to think Iraq less of a threat than the government claimed.

So the solution was found: concentrate the dossier on Iraq alone and avoid any difficult questions about threats from other countries.

Thirteen years after the war, the Middle East is in flames, Britain is a more dangerous place than it was and the threat of terrorism across the region is greater. Chilcot makes clear that this was a catastrophe both foretold and avoidable.

Suppose that...the Iraqis feel ambivalent about being invaded and real Iraqis, not (just) Saddam’s special guard, decide to offer resistance,” wrote British Prime Minister Tony Blair to US President George W. Bush in December 2001, two years before the US and the UK invaded Iraq. At least Blair had some doubts, but neither man could really imagine that the Iraqis would see them as conquerors, not liberators.

Another 13 years have now passed, and at last we have the Chilcot Report, an impartial official investigation into why Britain joined the US in that invasion. (There is no equivalent American document.)

There are some juicy documents about the pre-war connivance between Bush and Blair, like Blair’s promise in 2001 that “We are with you, whatever.” But there is comparatively little on the scale of the disaster that the invasion inflicted on innocent Iraqis: thirteen years of war, up to 600,000 Iraqis killed and a country effectively destroyed. So this is a good time to recall the fate of the city of Fallujah.

Fallujah was a city of a third of a million people, less than an hour’s drive west of Baghdad, that was occupied by US troops in April 2003. It was the first place where American troops fired on Iraqi civilians (they were protesting against the takeover of a local high school by the US 82nd Airborne Division). It had fallen under the control of Iraqi resistance forces by the end of the year. That was the “First Battle of Fallujah.”

Fallujah was recaptured in November 2004 by US forces, at a cost of 95 American dead and 560 wounded. An estimated 1,350 insurgents were killed in this “Second Battle of Fallujah.” A large but uncounted number of civilians also died, as the American offensive involved massive artillery bombardments including white phosphorus shells. 9,000 of the city’s 39,000 homes were destroyed in that battle, and more than half were damaged.

The city was never properly rebuilt, but by 2006 about two-thirds of its residents had returned. Despite constant attacks on the occupation forces by the group that later turned into Daesh, the US returned Fallujah to Iraqi government control in 2008, or perhaps we should say Iraqi government occupation, for by now the American-backed government in Baghdad was almost entirely Shia, and Fallujah is a Sunni city.

Sunni insurgents took back control of Fallujah in January 2014, six months before rest of western Iraq fell to the forces of Daesh virtually without a fight. The pattern was the same: The new Iraqi army built up by the US at a cost of $26 billion simply collapsed and ran away.

The “Third Battle of Fallujah” began in May of this year. Iraqi government forces (mostly Shia, of course), supported by Iranian troops and American air strikes, took almost six weeks to recapture the city, which by the end of the fighting contained only a few tens of thousands of civilians. More will return in due course, mainly because they have nowhere else to go, but most of the city is just ruins.

Other cities in Iraq are less comprehensively wrecked, but none of them are safe places to live in. The most recent bomb attack in Baghdad, on Saturday evening, killed at least 250 people. When the current Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi, visited the scene of the bombing on Sunday, he was chased away by a crowd hurling stones, shoes and insults. And there is no end in sight.

Thirteen years, half a million excess deaths or more, millions of refugees, general impoverishment and insecurity, and an astoundingly corrupt government that is strongly and successfully resisting Abadi’s attempt to reform it. It is no wonder that even most of those in Iraq who suffered under Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical rule now wish he had never been overthrown.

“Saddam has gone, and we have one thousand Saddams now,” said Kadhim Al-Jabbouri in a recent interview with the BBC. Jabbouri, who became famous for taking a sledgehammer to a statue of the dictator as American forces entered Baghdad in 2003, added: “It wasn’t like this under Saddam...We didn’t like him, but he was better than those people...There was no corruption or looting. You could be safe.”

The cautious ruminations of the Chilcot Report underplay the most important fact about the invasion of Iraq, which is that all these appalling consequences were entirely predictable. People who had any real knowledge of the political, ethnic and sectarian politics in the region and especially in Iraq DID predict them, including the relevant experts in the US State Department and the British Foreign Ministry.

Never mind whether or not the decision to invade Iraq was a war crime (though it was, under international law). What shines through is the sheer arrogance and ignorance of those who brought this calamity down on the Iraqis, who must now live out their lives in misery and terror. Thanks, guys.

link

And what about the Torture. Do these modern day Nazis just get to live out the rest of their lives in peace as if nothing happened?

[Cid_Yama]

Almost as if it were planned, former U.S. President George W. Bush rang in his 70th birthday on Wednesday with a remarkable gift: a reminder of his seemingly eternal impunity for war crimes committed in Iraq and beyond.

The long-awaited publication of the Chilcot Inquiry—the UK government's investigation into the lead-up to and execution of the Iraq War—amounted to a searing indictment of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, accusing him of deceiving the public and British Parliament about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction and following the United States blindly into an "illegal" war.

And at the very same moment that calls for justice—and Blair's head—echoed across London, Bush celebrated his landmark birthday mountain biking with wounded American veterans.

The Chilcot Inquiry did not spare Bush. In fact, the U.S. president was depicted throughout as the aggressor, pushing Blair towards military action in Iraq, despite a failure to win support from the remaining members of the UN Security Council.

The fact that former Prime Minister Gordon Brown pursued some measure of truth and reconciliation is notable when compared with the "reckoning," or lack thereof, that Bush has faced for what many say are war crimes.

"The former US president most responsible for the foreign policy catastrophe has led a peaceful existence since he left office. Not only has he avoided any post-administration inquiries into his conduct, he has inexplicably seen his approval ratings rise (despite the carnage left in his wake only getting worse)," wrote Guardian columnist Trevor Timm on Wednesday.

After taking office, U.S. President Barack Obama dismissed the idea of prosecuting Bush administration officials for the torture conducted under the so-called War on Terror, saying: "This is a time for reflection, not retribution. [...]We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."

"While Bush was the invasion's prime architect, and Blair his all-too eager henchman—lapdog, as half the British people saw him at the time—their relative fortunes since stepping down from office would suggest the opposite relationship," he continued.

While the former British prime minister faces "renewed calls for him to be impeached," as Pilkington put it, "Bush, by contrast, has been left largely in peace to pursue his tranquil approach to a post-presidential life." He added:

Though far more American military personnel died in Iraq than their British brothers and sisters – 4,497, according to the website antiwar.com – Bush is more likely to be accosted in public these days about his simulated nude appearance in a Kanye West video than about any enduring responsibility for the carnage.

And yet, it was Bush’s decision to invade a sovereign nation without a United Nations mandate and with no up-to-date intelligence of an immediate threat by Saddam Hussein to attack the west with weapons of mass destruction. Bush may have had a team of loyal and ideologically driven neocon advisers goading him on – notably vice-president Dick Cheney and then secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld – but the decision to dispatch troops was his alone.

link

They launched an illegal war of aggression, in violation of international law, committed torture, also in violation of international law, resulting in almost 5,000 dead service men and women and a hell of a lot more maimed and disfigured for life, for what?

They need to be prosecuted for their crimes against humanity, no less than the Nuremburg defendants or the Serbians who committed genocide.

[SeaGypsy]

I have 3 close friends served there, 2 American, & an Aussie. One guy was the most damaged. Started off as a Marine sharp shooter, became a sniper, served 3 extended tours, mostly in Fallujah. He stopped counting how many people he assassinated at 33 in his second tour. Each tour ended with an IED blowing up his vehicle, hospital, medical evacuation. The last one left him with 108+ pieces of shrapnel stuck in his body, 6 rods in his spine, pieces of his best friend's ribs embedded in his chest & neck, a reconstructed pelvis & metal hip, permanent chronic pain, severe PTSD, episodes of paranoia, full blown hallucinations. He was 24 when he was told he must retire. He was a country boy from Arizona. I learned a lot from him, about the war. The other two were both lucky.

Since moving to Melbourne last year I have met a few people from Iraq, both Sunni & Shia, all really pleasant people.

The damage these people are guilty of is incalculable. The entire neocon agenda is a failure with Iraq a primary exhibit. Will they face justice? Almost certainly not.

[radon1]

Back in 2003 or so, Pu proclaimed at the UN assembly that Iraq's invasion was going to be "a big political mistake". Now they are chasing Blair over it.

Looks like Pu had a point.

[sparky]

.
The Chilquot inquiry well stop of saying Blair was a criminal or deliberately falsified report .
the inquiry is to whitewash all the parties , Blair is left smelling bad , but that's always was the case
Blair can claim he acted on intelligence reports , it's pure facade , the reports were written then hand-picked to show what the government wanted .
there is no ground whatsoever for him being taken to court for treason or misdemeanors
maybe some private lawsuits ,but except costing him plenty of time and money in lawyers he will be OK

the main reason is that he acted with the approval of parliament passed by 412 to 149 votes
thus getting a lot of politicians complicit .
that's a link to the whip report on the vote .
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.p ... llpossible
the intelligence agencies will have an inquiry of course , lasting 4 years and recommending some change ,
some guy already retired or close to will be severely reprimanded , he will write a book about it and make money .

[Cid_Yama]

Treason isn't the problem (even though he did betray his country and it's people), He took his country into a 'war of aggression' which is a violation of international law.

He also allowed British intelligence to facilitate kidnapping and torture through 'extraordinary rendition'. Another violation of international law. Both are crimes against humanity.

Nazi leaders were hung for their 'war of aggression'.

There was a man at a local store that had a PTSD episode during the fireworks on the night of July 4th. I'll bet he wasn't the only one across the country. So many lives ruined.

[sparky]

.
Britain do not recognize the concept of a war of aggression ,they did quite a few in their time
the prime minister is the Crown loyal servant , his (her) action are under the legal cover of the sovereign
the "country" as you imply ,do not exist legally and the prime minister can start a war without parliament approval
it's called the Royal prerogative .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative
if the queen didn't dismiss him , that's that
high treason is treasonable action against the crown .
Certainly I believe Blair should suffer the full treatment
be eviscerated , his inwards ,still attached to his body , burnt in front of him
then hung slowly ,quartered and the body parts exposed in the kingdom major cities with the head on London bridge

Ahh ! those were the days !

[Cid_Yama]

Cute, but no, not since the 1800s.

Aggression in international law is defined as the use of force by one State against another, not justified by self-defense or other legally recognized exceptions. The illegality of aggression is perhaps the most fundamental norm of modern international law and its prevention the chief purpose of the United Nations. Even before the UN, the League of Nations made the prevention of aggression a core aim; and the post–World War II Allied tribunals regarded aggression as a crime under the rubric crimes against peace.

The most authoritative definition comes from the UN General Assembly. (The UN Charter never defines the term, instead banning the threat or use of force.) In 1974, it completed a twenty-year project to define aggression. Member States claimed that a definition would help the UN—principally the Security Council, charged by the charter with addressing aggression—in responding more consistently and promptly.

The definition begins by stating that “[t]he first use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter” constitutes prima facie evidence of aggression. The definition is somewhat limiting, and perhaps circular, in that the first use of force by a State would not be aggression if undertaken in a way consistent with the charter. Thus, for example, the deployment of U.S. forces to Somalia in 1992, while the first use of force, would not be aggression because it was authorized by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the charter. A number of States have accepted that a State’s first use of force to extricate its citizens from another State when they are in imminent danger, and the other State is not able to protect them, is not aggression (e.g., Israel’s 1976 Entebbe raid) and may be a form of self-defense.

Second, the definition offers an illustrative list of acts of aggression: invasion, attack, or occupation of whatever duration; bombardment; blockade; attack on another State’s armed forces; unauthorized use of military forces stationed in a foreign State; allowing territory to be used for aggression; and sending armed bands or similar groups to carry out aggression or substantial involvement therein.

Acts of aggression such as these trigger the two key lawful uses of force mentioned in the charter: (a) individual or collective self-defense; and (b) force approved by the UN itself. Thus, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait triggered the right of Kuwait and its allies to engage in self-defense, as well as the right of the UN to approve the use of force against Iraq under Chapter VII.

link

The great command of the Nuremberg Tribunal convened after the Second World War to punish the evil that had shaken Europe was to abolish the “supreme international crime” – the planning and waging of wars of aggression. “War is essentially an evil thing,” the Tribunal held as it passed judgment on German leaders. “Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world.”

Britain was a participant and instrumental in the creation and definition of that convention.

When the war was over in 1945, the world court was recreated under the new name of the International Court of Justice, as the principal judicial organ of the newly established United Nations.

The World Court — as it is usually called — is composed of 15 judges who are elected by an absolute majority of both the General Assembly and the Security Council. No two judges may be from the same state.

The selection of the court members is to be carried out with a view toward ensuring that the body as a whole will be representative of ‘the main forms of civilisation and of the principal legal systems of the world’ (article 9 of the UN Statute concerning the international court of justice). Judges serve in an independent capacity and are, according to the statute bound to exercise their powers ‘impartially and conscientiously’. Judges serve for nine years and may be reelected.

No judge may be removed from office except for cause, and only on a unanimous decision of the remaining judges. The judges are employed on a full time basis and are not allowed to hold additional employment. The International Court of Justice may decide disputes between states, which have accepted the courts jurisdiction and may also give advisory opinions on any legal question upon the request of the Security Council or the General Assembly. The judgment of the court is final and cannot be appealed. Each member of the United Nations is legally bound to comply with the Court’s decision in any case in which it has been a party. If one party refuses to obey a judgment of the Court, the other party may take the matter to the Security Council which may take necessary measures to enforce the judgment.

As we have seen, the purpose of the ICJ is to resolve peacefully disputes between nations and thus prevent such disputes from developing into armed conflicts. As we also have seen, however, the authority of the court rests ultimately with the UN Security Council, in cases when a party fails to comply with a judgment rendered by the court.

This construction brings into focus a serious problem. As we know each of the five permanent members of the Security Council has veto power against any decision by that organ. Consequently, each of the world’s five most powerful nations can prevent any decision of the ICJ from being enforced against that nation, even if such a refusal legally constitutes a violation of the UN Charter. At the same time, it goes without saying, that small and weak nations are the primary beneficiaries of an international legal order where conflicts are solved through peaceful litigation rather than by force. The basic test of the whole system of International adjudication then is whether or not a small state in reality can defeat a superpower in a serious conflict only by means of a superior legal case. The case before the ICJ between Nicaragua and the United States serves as an interesting illustration to this problem.

On April 9, 1984, Nicaragua initiated legal proceedings against the United States in ICJ claiming that certain actions of the US against Nicaragua constituted violations of international law. The actions on which the court was asked to give its opinion included:

1. The organization, training, armament and support of the Contras.

2. The mining of Nicaraguan waters in the early months of 1984.

3. The launching of armed attacks against Nicaraguan territory during 1983–1984, specifically against certain ports, naval installations and oil storage facilities.

4. The preparation of a manual for the Contras, openly encouraging violations of established international law.

Nicaragua also asked for a provisional order from the court to put an immediate stop to these actions and claimed economic compensation for the alleged violations.

The US objected to Nicaragua’s claims. Its initial defense focused on the issue of jurisdiction, that is whether the court had the right to try the case at all. The rules of the court provide that the court can only hear such cases that the parties in question have agreed to bring before the court. An acceptance of the UN Charter concerning the court is considered to constitute such acceptance. The US accepted the Charter in 1946 but on April 6, 1984, three days before Nicaragua filed its application with the court, the US issued a declaration excluding cases involving any Central American state for a period of two years. Such a declaration, according to the Americans, wiped out any prior acceptance.

But as such, a declaration under the procedural rules of the court is only effective with six months notice; this objection was rejected by the court. The court decided in favor of Nicaragua on both the matter of jurisdiction and concerning the provisional order. Consequently, on May 10, 1984, the court issued an order of interim protection indicating provisional measures which were to be followed in order to protect the legal interests of Nicaragua during the course of the litigation. This decision ordered the US to immediately stop laying mines or otherwise blocking or endangering access to Nicaraguan ports and to stop using threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or the political independence of Nicaragua.

Following the provisional order, the proceedings moved into a second stage, where the issues of jurisdiction and inadmissability were further elaborated. At this point the US once again tried to persuade the court to throw the case out. To this end the US repeated its earlier argument that it had withdrawn its consent to be a party to such a trial before the proceedings were initiated. In addition to this it tried to reinforce its position by introducing new grounds for the inadmissibility of Nicaragua’s claim. The substance of these new grounds was that the character of the dispute in reality was not legal but political. According to the US, the court was not equipped to deal with the complex matter of such a conflict.

In a decision on November 26, 1984, the ICJ by a unanimous vote again rejected the arguments of the US concerning jurisdiction and inadmissibility. Particularly interesting in this context was the fact that the American judge on the court, Stephen Schwebel, voted with the other members of the court in their decision that the arguments of the United States regarding inadmissability were without merit.

Up to this point the US had at least basically followed and respected the procedural rules of the ICJ, in as much as it had participated in the proceedings. Furthermore, after the Court’s provisional order, the most blatant violations of Nicaraguan sovereignty had not been repeated and Congress at this point in time showed some reluctance to fund further adventures by the Contras. Up to this point in the proceedings the international adjudication system had basically survived the test. But things were soon to take a sharp turn for the worse.

On January 18. 1985, citing errors and distortions of law and fact in the Court’s November 26 decision, the United States announced that it would withdraw from further proceedings in the case. The decision of withdrawal was combined with a rather remarkable attack on the court:

‘Each of the court’s holdings ignores or seriously misstates the evidence or law relevant to the issues before the court.’ And on October 7 of the same year the United States went one step further in formally declaring its withdrawal altogether from the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. A State Department press release stated:

‘In 1946 we accepted the risks for our submitting to the court’s compulsory jurisdiction because we believed that the respect owed to the court by other states and the court’s own appreciation of the need to adhere scrupulously to its proper judicial rule would prevent the court process from being used for political ends. These assumptions have now proved wrong.’

Obviously, this was an extraordinary development, especially considering earlier US support for the court and for the international legal system. How extraordinary may to a certain extent be illustrated by the recent World Court case of US Diplomatic and Consular staff in Teheran. ln that case the US accused Iran of having violated international law by occupying the American embassy in Teheran and having taken the staff as hostages. Iran boycotted both the proceedings and the subsequent judgment in favour of the US. This Iranian behaviour was at the time sharply — and correctly — criticised by the US government as undermining and jeopardizing the established international legal order. But only six years later in the case against Nicaragua, the US followed Iran’s example and joined that country as an international outlaw. However, the case in the world court continued without the US. The procedural rules of the court did allow it to continue the proceedings, even with one of the parties absent. And even if nobody after January 18, 1985 would continue to argue the American case, the US had already before its withdrawal presented its main objections to the Nicaraguan charges, apart from questions of jurisdiction and inadmissibility. These main objections were two:

1. Collective self-defence

The US claimed that Nicaragua is launching armed attacks against El Salvador by directly supporting and arming the opposition in that country. According to the US. Nicaragua also subjects Honduras and Costa Rica to armed aggression by frequent intrusions into the territory of these neighbouring states. According to the US, its actions against Nicaragua are carried out on behalf of Nicaragua’s neighboring states as a collective self-defence against the armed aggression by Nicaragua.

2. Intervention to establish democracy

This argument, which has also been called ‘the Reagan doctrine’, goes as follows: The government of Nicaragua has failed to fulfill certain basic promises given to the Nicaraguan people and to the Organization of American States in the so called ‘peace plan’ of July 12, 1979, subsequent to the fall of Anastasio Somoza. These promises include the establishment of democracy and the holding of free elections. American actions against Nicaragua are aimed at forcing the Nicaraguan government to fulfill these promises.


In withdrawing from the proceedings the United States chose not to present any evidence in support of its claim of Nicaraguan armed aggressions against its neighboring countries. If the US, as it claimed, really had access to such evidence, its withdrawal becomes even more difficult to understand.

As the proceedings continued, Nicaragua presented substantial evidence to support its case. This evidence included both documents, such as a CIA manual instructing the Contras in guerilla warfare as well as oral testimony. The witness who drew the most attention was perhaps one ex-CIA agent, David McMichael, testifying in favour of Nicaragua. McMichael stated that US accusations of Nicaraguan involvement in El Salvador in 1981 and 1982 were largely invented in order to justify the organising of the Contras.

Finally, on June 27, more than two years after the proceedings were initiated, the final judgment of the World Court was presented.

Predictably the court found in favour of Nicaragua.

In the judgment the court establishes that the US has used direct force against Nicaragua by mining its waters and attacking its ports, naval installations and oil storage facilities. It has also used indirect force by organizing, supporting and training the contras.

According to the court, the direct and indirect uses of force of the US against Nicaragua constitute clear violations of international law, unless there exists legal justification for such actions. The court then proceeds to investigate whether the argument of collective self-defence brought forward by the US constitutes such a justification. According to the court, in case of an established armed Nicaraguan aggression against any of its neighbours such a principle could be applicable. In the case of El Salvador, the court continues, there is evidence — some even provided by Nicaragua itself — that the opposition in El Salvador did indeed receive arms from Nicaraguan territory at least until the early months of 1981. After that period, however, the court finds no evidence that these activities had continued. The court continues to point out that the mere fact that the armed opposition in El Salvador did receive arms from Nicaraguan territory does not automatically make the Nicaraguan government responsible. According to the court, such activities may very well take place without the knowledge of the territorial government.

In any case, says the court, the mere delivery of arms from one state to the opposition in another state does not constitute an armed aggression under customary international law. In tine cases of Honduras and Costa Rica, the court finds that US allegations of frequent, armed Nicaraguan intrusions into the territories of these countries have not been sufficiently proven. The court then concludes that neither the assistance to the opposition in El Salvador nor the alleged intrusions in Honduras and Costa Rica may justify the use of force against Nicaragua in the name of collective self-defence. Furthermore, the court does not find it established that El Salvador, Honduras or Costa Rica have in reality feared any Nicaraguan aggression or formally requested the US to exercise the right of collective self-defence on their behalf.

The conclusion is that as the requirements of collective self-defence have not been satisfied, the US have violated the international legal principle which prohibits the use of threat or force against another state. Neither does the second US objection to this charge, the right to intervene to establish democracy, the so-called Reagan doctrine, meet with the court’s approval. After establishing that there exists no such legally binding Nicaraguan promises, as had been alleged by the US. the court moves on to point out that under international law there simply does not exist any principle allowing intervention in any state only because of its ideology or political system. (So much for the validity of the Reagan Doctrine under international law).

Finally, the court declares that as a consequence of these findings the US will have to pay economic compensation to Nicaragua. The size of this compensation will be decided at a later stage in the proceedings. Nicaragua’s lawyers in the case have indicated that Nicaragua will ask for more than one billion dollars in damages.

The judgment of the court was not unanimous. Most of the findings of the court were supported by a majority of 12 votes against 3, with the American, British and Japanese judges as the most frequent dissenters. In his dissenting opinion the American judge Stephen Schwebel. disagreed with the majority of the court. He finds that U.S. actions Nicaragua were justifiable as acts of self-defence against armed Nicaraguan aggression against its neighbors. Furthermore he accuses Nicaragua of presenting false evidence with the deliberate purpose of hiding the truth and obstructing justice. Nicaragua, states Mr. Schwebel in his dissenting opinion, has not presented itself before the court with clean hands. Such language is unusual in legal opinions and I find it hard to reconcile with the requirements of impartiality that the UN Charter imposes on the members of the court. On one point, however, Mr. Schwebel agrees with the majority of the Court. Faced with the irrefutable evidence of the CIA manual to the Contras, Mr. Schwebel agrees that the content of this manual constitutes a violation of international law.

Even more predictable than the judgment itself was the subsequent reaction of the US government. The spokesman of the State Department, Charles Redman, stated as the judgment was made public: ‘The court is simply not equipped to deal with a case of this nature, involving complex facts and intelligence information.’ Referring to the possibility that the court could order the United States to pay damages to Managua, Mr. Redman said: ‘The court’s decisions are not self-enforcing.’ And only a few days later Elliot Abrams the US Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs wrote in an article in the Los Angeles Times, completely ignoring the judgment: ‘The Sandinistas’ continued refusal entitles the freedom fighters to receive from the United States the support they need to defeat the Sandinistas’ totalitarian design.’ But there were also American voices outside the administration that sharply criticized this attitude. Senator Charles ‘Mac’ Mathias, a Maryland republican, who is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was quoted as saying: ‘I view the decision from the World Court with concern and some sadness. The United States has historically supported the World Court, even helping to create it.’

The critics included both the Washington Post and the New York Times. The Washington Post wrote in an editorial on July 3: ‘In respect to the World Court’s judgment that the United States is violating international law in Nicaragua, the Reagan administration has tried to have it both ways. It chose not to defend itself against Nicaragua’s charges, but now it protests the court’s decision. First the administration looked as if it feared that its case was weak, and now it sounds like a poor loser. This is a dismal performance all around.’

I said earlier today that the fundamental test of the international adjudication system is whether a small and poor country can defeat a superpower only by means of a superior legal case. By thus I mean not only a formal legal victory, but also whether a judgment favouring the small nation is respected and possible to enforce.

It is obvious that in the case which we have examined today the adjudication system has failed the test. US violations of Nicaraguan integrity and sovereignty are continuing and increasing. Clearly there is no intention on the part of the US to pay the damages that the court eventually will award to Nicaragua. And as Charles Redman, the spokesman of the State Department, pointed out in the immediate US reaction to the judgment, the court’s decisions are not self-enforcing.

The late Swedish Prime Minister Olaf Palme wrote in his book ‘Swedish Foreign Policy’ in 1984: ‘For small countries it is always fundamental to uphold the principles of international law. In a world without any common rules — where interaction between nations would approach anarchy — only the big and powerful would prevail. That is why we consider the principles of international law so extremely important — A basic rule of international law is the respect for territorial integrity. This is why we so vigourously have condemned the occupation of Afghanistan as well as the invasion of Grenada.’ If Olaf Palme had lived to experience this World Court case, he would certainly have added the violations against Nicaragua to that list.

By its conduct before, during and after the case in the World Court, the Reagan administration could not more clearly have demonstrated its contempt of international law and its institutions and it could hardly have done more to undermine that system.

For this the Reagan administration bears a very heavy responsibility.

It has demonstrated hostility and arrogance not only toward Nicaragua but also toward all those small nations of the world, that depend on the respect for the principles of international law for their national security.

link


When Britain signed the UN charter, they agreed to abide by international law and accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ.

The US, realizing they did not want to lose their permanent seat on the Security Council did not withdraw from the UN charter but continues to ignore it's obligations under the ICJ.

[sparky]

.
There is no such a thing as International law
there is only international agreements which are THEN embodied in the sovereign law of the land
to be used or abused as one's government see fit .

it's called supreme domain , or the exercise of sovereignty
Her majesty government is only answerable to her ( His ) majesty and the British people
as the most recent Brexit trouble demonstrate , foreigners can rant all they want , they don't vote here
it's called national democracy , or for short "stuff them all we are the law of the land"