Anarhistični portal


1. Neznanec/ka 21.3.2003	Pred slovenskim parlamentom naj se izobesi crna zastava, slovenska naj se spusti na polovico ali pa celo zamneja s crno. Nalim

2. Neznanec/ka 21.3.2003	Komu naprej veselo v crno danko rinemo, da nam ne bo smrdelo si masko gor nadanemo..

3. McHrozni 21.3.2003	In čemu naj bi bila potrebna taka žalitev državnih simbolov in institucij? McHrozni

4. Neznanec/ka 21.3.2003	Ne vem zakaj bi bio izobesanje crne zastave zaljenje drzavnih simbolov in instuticij. Nestrinjanje z vojno ne razumem kot zaljenje drzavnih institucij..... Nalim

5. IKRA 21.3.2003	>Pred slovenskim parlamentom naj se izobesi crna zastava, slovenska naj se spusti na polovico ali pa celo zamneja s crno. > >Nalim Rad bi videl heroja,ki si upa

6. McHrozni 21.3.2003	>Ne vem zakaj bi bio izobesanje crne zastave zaljenje drzavnih simbolov in instuticij. > >Nestrinjanje z vojno ne razumem kot zaljenje drzavnih institucij..... Ah, ja. Jaz pa ne pojmujem črne zastave pred parlamentom kot nasprotovanje vojni, ampak žaljenje države in vseh njenih državljanov. McHrozni

7. krakrarjev 21.3.2003	Integriteta nacionalnega simbola ni sama na sebi, temvec je vedno v relaciji s kvaliteto, ki jo brani. Razen, ce si svecenik sakralnosti same, seveda. Ker pa zadnje case Slovenija izpricuje najoblj gnile instinkte, kar jih clovek premore, tako v zunanji in notranji poolitiki, tako vlada kot prebivalstvo, potem je blatenje reprezentativnega se toliko bolj na mestu. Tukaj si dovolim reci, da se tudi sam pridruzujem zasmehu slovenskih simbolov.

8. McHrozni 21.3.2003	>Integriteta nacionalnega simbola ni sama na sebi, temvec je vedno v relaciji s kvaliteto, ki jo brani. Razen, ce si svecenik sakralnosti same, seveda. Ker pa zadnje case Slovenija izpricuje najoblj gnile instinkte, kar jih clovek premore, tako v zunanji in notranji poolitiki, tako vlada kot prebivalstvo, potem je blatenje reprezentativnega se toliko bolj na mestu. Tukaj si dovolim reci, da se tudi sam pridruzujem zasmehu slovenskih simbolov. Ha, počakaj. Od kdaj pa je tvoje mnenje univerzalno? Saj je še podpora Natu skoraj dvakrat višja od nasprotovanja in še to povečini zaradi Iraka. Gnili instinkti? Gnila država? Prej bi rekel gnil folk, pa brez zamere. McHrozni

9. krakrarjev 21.3.2003	Moje mnenje ni univerzalno. To je razvidno ze po tem, da mi kdo nasprotuje. Moje mnenje je le pravilno. Vsak narod, ki gradi svoj politicni interes na podlagi mnozicnega poboja, je gnil do kosti.

10. McHrozni 21.3.2003	>Moje mnenje ni univerzalno. To je razvidno ze po tem, da mi kdo nasprotuje. Moje mnenje je le pravilno. In kdo si ti, da 'veš' da imaš prav? Če si karkoli manj kot bog, ti ne verjamem. Če pa si bog, potem pa tako veš kaj sledi. >Vsak narod, ki gradi svoj politicni interes na podlagi mnozicnega poboja, je gnil do kosti. Recimo... Irak? McHrozni

11. krakrarjev 21.3.2003	Ker nisem tvoj ucitelj, ti bom samo izpisal kljucne besede: Doumi: -razlocek med slovenskim in iraskim zivljenskim standardom -razlocek med irasko druzbo, prezeto s tradicijo in fundamentalizmom -razlocek med slovensko in irasko historicno pozicijo izpelji: - dojemljivost slovenske mentalitete za vojno nastrojenost oziroma upravicenost do nje -isto za irasko druzbo Razsvetljenje prinasa s sabo tudi odgovornost do razumne in eticne odlocitve! V tem jaz prepoznam zrel narod- kjer ste pa slovenci zagotovo pogrnili.

12. McHrozni 21.3.2003	>Ker nisem tvoj ucitelj, ti bom samo izpisal kljucne besede: >Doumi: >-razlocek med slovenskim in iraskim zivljenskim standardom >-razlocek med irasko druzbo, prezeto s tradicijo in fundamentalizmom >-razlocek med slovensko in irasko historicno pozicijo >izpelji: >- dojemljivost slovenske mentalitete za vojno nastrojenost oziroma upravicenost do nje >-isto za irasko druzbo > >Razsvetljenje prinasa s sabo tudi odgovornost do razumne in eticne odlocitve! V tem jaz prepoznam zrel narod- kjer ste pa slovenci zagotovo pogrnili. Ker očitno nisi bog, ti bom dokazal, da se motiš: - Irak pred Saddamom je bil bogatejši od Slovenije v tistem času - Iraška družba ni prav nič prežeta s fundamentalizmom, pa tudi ne z tradicijo - razlika med Slovensko in Iraško zgodovino je precej manjša kot namiguješ, edina izjema je vera Torej, sedi! Nezadostno, prvošolček! McHrozni

13. Fric 21.3.2003	>Torej, sedi! Nezadostno, prvošolček! Meni je nerodno ko gledam kakega bedaka delaš iz sebe McHrozni.

14. Neznanec/ka 22.3.2003	> >Ah, ja. Jaz pa ne pojmujem črne zastave pred parlamentom kot nasprotovanje vojni, ampak žaljenje države in vseh njenih državljanov. > >McHrozni Ne vem zakaj bi izobesanje crne zastave bilo koaga zalilo. Res ne vem. Tu gre za nasprotovanje vojni in kritiki nase oblasti.(podpis vilneuske deklaracije). Gre za simbolicno gesto ki izkazuje solidarnost z iraskim ljudstvom. Nihce ne mara biti bombandiran, pa naj bo namen se tako plemenit. Tudi ne razumem zakaj bi bila crna zastava zaljiva, ce je kdo uzalil Slovenijo je to nasa zunanja politika, ki je javno rekla da se pozvizga na mednarodno pravo(sicer sedaj skusa resiti svojo dostojanstvo). Tam kjer ni prava zal vlada Texas Lp Nalim

15. McHrozni 22.3.2003	>Ne vem zakaj bi izobesanje crne zastave bilo koaga zalilo. Res ne vem. Tu gre za nasprotovanje vojni in kritiki nase oblasti.(podpis vilneuske deklaracije). Proti črni zastavi nimam nič. Tudi proti izobešanju ne. Ampak ne pa pred parlamentom. Če že moraš nekako protestirati, potem to delaj tako, da ne žališ vseh drugih državljanov. To je v zadnjem času največji problem demonstracij proti vojni. Trdijo, kako vsi stojijo za njimi in kako skrbijo za Iraške civiliste. To pa pač ne drži. >Gre za simbolicno gesto ki izkazuje solidarnost z iraskim ljudstvom. Nihce ne mara biti bombandiran, pa naj bo namen se tako plemenit. Vprašljivo. Šiiti na jugu Iraka so pozdravili Američane in Britance kot osvoboditelje. >Tudi ne razumem zakaj bi bila crna zastava zaljiva, ce je kdo uzalil Slovenijo je to nasa zunanja politika, ki je javno rekla da se pozvizga na mednarodno pravo(sicer sedaj skusa resiti svojo dostojanstvo). Tam kjer ni prava zal vlada Texas > >Lp Nalim Če nekdo naredi napako, lahko narediš ti še hujšo napako? Bojim se da ne. McHrozni

16. Neznanec/ka 22.3.2003	Krakar:meni ni razumljivo to:...na vseh medijih so poznavalci povedali da se v primeru iraške vojne gre predvsem za nafto.Kako da potem v komentarjih prevladujejo vsi mogoči drugi razlogi.V Drnovškovih komentarjih še enkrat nisem slišal besedo,nafta.

17. McHrozni 22.3.2003	Hm, kakšni strokovnjaki pa so bili to? Namreč menim, da je ideja "gre za nafto v Iraku" huda, huda poenostavitev. McHrozni

18. Neznanec/ka 22.3.2003	Mccroni Nisem trdil da se Iracani ne veselijo padca Sadama. Trdim pa da nihce ne mara biti bombardiran. Kjer se nahajam imamo moznost govoriti z Iracani. Nihce od njih ne mara Sadama, vendar ne marajo bombandiranja tudi. Kar se tice veselja AMericanov, njih nihce ne mara. Govoris o veseljju, vendar se Iracani veselijo Amerike tako kot Sadama. Ali bi bilo izobesanje crne zastave res zalitev? Tukaj mi nisi odogovril na vprasanje. Nasa politika je PODPRLA napad na Irak brez RESOLUCIJE varnostnega sveta. Kaj to pomeni. Po menenju vrhunskih britanskih pravnih strokovnjakov je taksni NAPAD ZLOCIN. Ce nasa drzava podpira ZLOCIN si NE zasluzi kaj drugega kot crno zastavo. Stalisce drzave je stalisce drzavljanov. ALi smo potlej tudi MI zlocinci.. Lp Nalim

19. Neznanec/ka 22.3.2003	Dejstvo je, da amerika napada samo in le zaradi nafte. Iraski rezim je izgovor le zato, ker ne izpljune dovolj nafte dovolj poceni. Tako je in . pa ce se takoj vsi na trepalnice vrzete.

20. McHrozni 22.3.2003	>Mccroni > >Nisem trdil da se Iracani ne veselijo padca Sadama. > >Trdim pa da nihce ne mara biti bombardiran. Kjer se nahajam imamo moznost govoriti z Iracani. Nihce od njih ne mara Sadama, vendar ne marajo bombandiranja tudi. Tu pridejo ven prioritete. Tudi ti najbrž ne ljubiš davkov, a se ti zdi to vseeno manjše zlo, kot brezvladje, ko te lahko vsak poči za sendvič in paketek žvečilnih gumijev. Nekako tako je to razmerje. >Kar se tice veselja AMericanov, njih nihce ne mara. Govoris o veseljju, vendar se Iracani veselijo Amerike tako kot Sadama. Hmm. "Bush, ne Saddam" so vpili. Hudo posploševanje je, da Ameriko kar vsi sovražijo. >Ali bi bilo izobesanje crne zastave res zalitev? Pred parlamentom? Še vprašaš, ali kaj! >Tukaj mi nisi odogovril na vprasanje. Nasa politika je PODPRLA napad na Irak brez RESOLUCIJE varnostnega sveta. Kaj to pomeni. Po menenju vrhunskih britanskih pravnih strokovnjakov je taksni NAPAD ZLOCIN. Ce nasa drzava podpira ZLOCIN si NE zasluzi kaj drugega kot crno zastavo. Tu je pa vprašanje, če ni bil napad odobren s strani VS. Jaz osebno mislim, da je bil odobren in upravičen tudi brez resolucijo 1441. Zelo enostavno je: Irak je sprejel prekinitev ognja, eden izmed pogojev je, da sprejme in spoštuje resolucije VS o Iraku. Irak je kršil 17 resolucij VS. Tega ne zanika nihče. Katerakoli izmed njih je dovolj, da se veljavnost prekinitve ognja prekliče. To so besede britanskega ministra za zunanje zadeve, ki je zanesljivo t.i. vrhunski strokovnjak in je zanesljivo dobro utemeljil to stališče. Podaj kako avtoriteto, ki bo utemeljila drugačno stališče. McHrozni

21. McHrozni 22.3.2003	>Dejstvo je, da amerika napada samo in le zaradi nafte. Iraski rezim je izgovor le zato, ker ne izpljune dovolj nafte dovolj poceni. Tako je in . pa ce se takoj vsi na trepalnice vrzete. Zakaj so pa potem leta 1999 napadli Srbijo? Zaradi nafte, kaj? =) McHrozni

22. Neznanec/ka 22.3.2003	>>Mccroni >> >>Nisem trdil da se Iracani ne veselijo padca Sadama. >> > >Tu pridejo ven prioritete. > >Tudi ti najbrž ne ljubiš davkov, a se ti zdi to vseeno manjše zlo, kot brezvladje, ko te lahko vsak poči za sendvič in paketek žvečilnih gumijev. > Ce bos sel v Afriko, savdsko arabijo, skratka drzave kjer Amerika zagotavlja mir bos videl da so bogate z oljem, vendar da imajo tamkajsni prebivalci dokaj malo od tega. Torej iz ene bede v drugo bedo.. > > >>Kar se tice veselja AMericanov, njih nihce ne mara. Govoris o veseljju, vendar se Iracani veselijo Amerike tako kot Sadama. > >Hmm. "Bush, ne Saddam" so vpili. Hudo posploševanje je, da Ameriko kar vsi sovražijo. Busha in Blaira ne marajo niti svoji ljudje. Tukaj govorim predvsem o politiki. Osebno sem se pogovarjal z Iracani, sami so mi povedali da sicer NE marajo Sadama, vendar Busha pravtako. > >>Ali bi bilo izobesanje crne zastave res zalitev? > >Pred parlamentom? >Še vprašaš, ali kaj! > >>Tukaj mi nisi odogovril na vprasanje. Nasa politika je PODPRLA napad na Irak brez RESOLUCIJE varnostnega sveta. Kaj to pomeni. Po menenju vrhunskih britanskih pravnih strokovnjakov je taksni NAPAD ZLOCIN. Ce nasa drzava podpira ZLOCIN si NE zasluzi kaj drugega kot crno zastavo. > >Tu je pa vprašanje, če ni bil napad odobren s strani VS. >Jaz osebno mislim, da je bil odobren in upravičen tudi brez resolucijo 1441. > >Zelo enostavno je: >Irak je sprejel prekinitev ognja, eden izmed pogojev je, da sprejme in spoštuje resolucije VS o Iraku. >Irak je kršil 17 resolucij VS. Tega ne zanika nihče. Katerakoli izmed njih je dovolj, da se veljavnost prekinitve ognja prekliče. > >To so besede britanskega ministra za zunanje zadeve, ki je zanesljivo t.i. vrhunski strokovnjak in je zanesljivo dobro utemeljil to stališče. > >Podaj kako avtoriteto, ki bo utemeljila drugačno stališče. > >McHrozni Britanski ustavni sodniki so podali mnenje da je napad na irak brez 2. resolucije krsenje mednarodnega prava in zlocin. Kdo se trdi da je napad zlocin: Papez,Nemcija, Francija, Rusija, Kitajska int.... Kar se tice amerikancev in nacelnosti. Vzameno za dovoljenej uporabe turskega zracnega prostora , so dali Turkom proste roke da vkorakajo v Irak in pospravijo Kurdski problem Lp Nalim

23. McHrozni 22.3.2003	>Ce bos sel v Afriko, savdsko arabijo, skratka drzave kjer Amerika zagotavlja mir bos videl da so bogate z oljem, vendar da imajo tamkajsni prebivalci dokaj malo od tega. Torej iz ene bede v drugo bedo.. Savdova Arabija je vseeno na boljšem od Iraka, pa niti ne tako malo. Za to so krivi le in samo Arabci sami. >Busha in Blaira ne marajo niti svoji ljudje. Tukaj govorim predvsem o politiki. Osebno sem se pogovarjal z Iracani, sami so mi povedali da sicer NE marajo Sadama, vendar Busha pravtako. Dokaži. Pokaži mi znanstveno raziskavo javnega mnenja, v kateri se je več kot 2/3 Američanov opredelilo proti Bushu. >Britanski ustavni sodniki so podali mnenje da je napad na irak brez 2. resolucije krsenje mednarodnega prava in zlocin. Zanimivo, da tega niso objavili niti nasprotniki vojne. No, morda sem spregledal - imaš kak link? >Kdo se trdi da je napad zlocin: Papez,Nemcija, Francija, Rusija, Kitajska int.... Papež ima Alzheimerja in je zaverovan v mir za vsako ceno... kar je točno tisto, kar je njegovi Poljski prineslo toliko trpljenja. Nadalnje tri imajo svoje interese v Iraku. >Kar se tice amerikancev in nacelnosti. Vzameno za dovoljenej uporabe turskega zracnega prostora , so dali Turkom proste roke da vkorakajo v Irak in pospravijo Kurdski problem Kolikor se spomnim, so si želeli družne invazije s severa. Turki so to sicer potrdili, ampak ne z zadostno večino. Kaj so jim dovolili in kaj ne je pa tu vprašanje. Najbrž so za to vedeli, ustaviti pa tako ali tako niso mogli. McHrozni

24. Neznanec/ka 22.3.2003	McHrozni kot ponavadi... Kurdi prav gotovo niso zaprosili da bi Turki korakali po iraku( povej mi link) Ko govorim da so Britanski pravni strokovnjaki podali mnenje, da je vojna brez resolucije zlocin www.channel4.com v Brskalnik potem vtikpkaj war on iraq oziroma kar ta naslov http://www.channel4.com/apps26/news/news_story.jsp?storyId=342560 Videl bos tudi mnenje Vatikana, pa naj bo papez se tako senilen. Trdis da imajo Francija, Nemcija int... interese v Iraku. Imajo jih tudi ZDA in VB. Vendar ali se ti zdi vredno destabilizirati celotno obmocje. Posledicno je to tudi Evropa saj meji na ta obmocja.Torej destabilizacija Arabije je tudi destabilizacija Evrope.. Prilagam Pismo v celThe government promised today that any British action in Iraq will be consistent with international law. But that, it seems, depends upon which lawyer you speak to. The Prime Minister met with his top legal advisor the Attorney General as more and more legal experts are warning that a war against Iraq would be illegal. All this, just as the new International Criminal Court is opened in the Hague. Our Home Affairs Editor Mark Easton examines whether a war in Iraq without a second UN resolution could put Mr Blair in the dock: Are they about to commit a war crime? Just hours after Kofi Annan's warning that impending military action against Iraq might be illegal, members of the Prime Minister's so-called War Cabinet emerged from Number Ten today - among them the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith who must advise Tony Blair on whether international law makes a second resolution essential to any invasion. Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary: They would need a second resolution authorising the use of force...it seems unlikely that this would happen. As British troops were training in the sands of Kuwait today, Channel Four News learned that a number of Law Lords think any real fighting may be illegal under the United Nations Charter. Military aggression by a UN member state is effectively forbidden except in self-defence or with clear authorisation from the security council. So the question is whether - as Tony Blair's official spokesman insisted again today - Resolution 1441 is in itself the authorisation the soldiers need. Mark Littman QC, Barrister "The existing resolution is too vague to justify the use of force, therefore it would not be lawful for force to be used without a second resolution that specifically and unambiguously authorises the use of force." Legality matters. These days lawyers decide where bombs fall. During the war in Kosovo, the then Attorney General John Morris was rung day and night throughout the conflict to make instant rulings on the legality of operations, including the bombing of a television station. Legal opposition: So it is that human rights lawyers and opponents of war are hoping the courts will achieve what protest hasn't. A group called Legal Action Against War has appealed to the High Court for an injunction. Sixteen law professors have written to Tony Blair advising him that there is no legal justification for force. Read letter here. And CND has sent a legal opinion on military action to every member of the Security Council arguing that the history of 1441 demonstrates that a second resolution is required. UN Resolution 1441: The first draft of 1441 authorised member states to use "ALL NECESSARY MEANS" to restore international peace and security in the area. Objections from France, and Russia saw the final resolution remove any reference to "all necessary means" replacing it with a much softer line that Iraq will "face serious consequences" after the Security Council has met to "consider the situation". Colin Powell explained the process: "if (Saddam) doesn't comply this time we are going to ask the UN to give authorisation for 'all necessary means'. " Yesterday though, Jack Straw told the Commons that "serious consequences" included an all-out military attack. Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary: "A consensus is required for any military action. As far as the legal base is concerned 1441 does not require a second resolution." Trouble is there are some pretty high-powered lawyers who don't agree - including a former senior law officer from a Blair government. And that makes soldiers on the front line nervous. Might they find themselves open to prosecution for following orders? Sir Timothy Garden, former assistant chief of dfence staff: "To be comfortable with the legality of this operation one would want to know that the Security Council was generally in agreement with it, and so that underlines the importance of a new resolution." Kofi Anan, UN Secretary General: "It is a warning to people who will commit these crimes that impunity will not be allowed to stand and they will be made to account, idividually and not hiding behding a vboernment or leader saying 'I was following orders'." He wasn't talking about our boys of course, but Kofi Annan, today inaugurating the new international criminal court in the Hague seemed to be reminding the world that the UN Charter is a great deal more than some optional political nicety. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Letter in full Full text of letter from 16 law professors, as published in The Guardian newspaper: "We are teachers of international law. On the basis of the information publicly available, there is no justification under international law for the use of military force against Iraq. The UN charter outlaws the use of force with only two exceptions: individual or collective self-defence in response to an armed attack and action authorised by the security council as a collective response to a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression. There are currently no grounds for a claim to use such force in self-defence. The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence against an attack that might arise at some hypothetical future time has no basis in international law. Neither security council resolution 1441 nor any prior resolution authorises the proposed use of force in the present circumstances. Before military action can lawfully be undertaken against Iraq, the security council must have indicated its clearly expressed assent. It has not yet done so. A vetoed resolution could provide no such assent. The prime minister's assertion that in certain circumstances a veto becomes "unreasonable" and may be disregarded has no basis in international law. The UK has used its security council veto on 32 occasions since 1945. Any attempt to disregard these votes on the ground that they were "unreasonable" would have been deplored as an unacceptable infringement of the UK's right to exercise a veto under UN charter article 27. A decision to undertake military action in Iraq without proper security council authorisation will seriously undermine the international rule of law. Of course, even with that authorisation, serious questions would remain. A lawful war is not necessarily a just, prudent or humanitarian war. Prof Ulf Bernitz, Dr Nicolas Espejo-Yaksic, Agnes Hurwitz, Prof Vaughan Lowe, Dr Ben Saul, Dr Katja Ziegler (University of Oxford), Prof James Crawford, Dr Susan Marks, Dr Roger O'Keefe (University of Cambridge), Prof Christine Chinkin, Dr Gerry Simpson, Deborah Cass (London School of Economics), Dr Matthew Craven (School of Oriental and African Studies), Prof Philippe Sands, Ralph Wilde (University College London), Prof Pierre-Marie Dupuy (University of Paris) oti Lp Nalim

25. Roberto 22.3.2003	>McHrozni kot ponavadi... > >Kurdi prav gotovo niso zaprosili da bi Turki korakali po iraku( povej mi link) > >Ko govorim da so Britanski pravni strokovnjaki podali mnenje, da je vojna brez resolucije zlocin www.channel4.com v Brskalnik potem vtikpkaj war on iraq >oziroma kar ta naslov http://www.channel4.com/apps26/news/news_story.jsp?storyId=342560 > >Videl bos tudi mnenje Vatikana, pa naj bo papez se tako senilen. > >Trdis da imajo Francija, Nemcija int... interese v Iraku. Imajo jih tudi ZDA in VB. Vendar ali se ti zdi vredno destabilizirati celotno obmocje. Posledicno je to tudi Evropa saj meji na ta obmocja.Torej destabilizacija Arabije je tudi destabilizacija Evrope.. > > >Prilagam Pismo v celThe government promised today that any British action in Iraq will be consistent with international law. But that, it seems, depends upon which lawyer you speak to. > > > >The Prime Minister met with his top legal advisor the Attorney General as more and more legal experts are warning that a war against Iraq would be illegal. > > > >All this, just as the new International Criminal Court is opened in the Hague. Our Home Affairs Editor Mark Easton examines whether a war in Iraq without a second UN resolution could put Mr Blair in the dock: > > > >Are they about to commit a war crime? Just hours after Kofi Annan's warning that impending military action against Iraq might be illegal, members of the Prime Minister's so-called War Cabinet emerged from Number Ten today - among them the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith who must advise Tony Blair on whether international law makes a second resolution essential to any invasion. > > > >Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary: > >They would need a second resolution authorising the use of force...it seems unlikely that this would happen. > > > >As British troops were training in the sands of Kuwait today, Channel Four News learned that a number of Law Lords think any real fighting may be illegal under the United Nations Charter. > > > >Military aggression by a UN member state is effectively forbidden except in self-defence or with clear authorisation from the security council. > > > >So the question is whether - as Tony Blair's official spokesman insisted again today - Resolution 1441 is in itself the authorisation the soldiers need. > > > >Mark Littman QC, Barrister > >"The existing resolution is too vague to justify the use of force, therefore it would not be lawful for force to be used without a second resolution that specifically and unambiguously authorises the use of force." > > > >Legality matters. These days lawyers decide where bombs fall. > > > >During the war in Kosovo, the then Attorney General John Morris was rung day and night throughout the conflict to make instant rulings on the legality of operations, including the bombing of a television station. > > > >Legal opposition: > > > >So it is that human rights lawyers and opponents of war are hoping the courts will achieve what protest hasn't. > > > >A group called Legal Action Against War has appealed to the High Court for an injunction. > > > >Sixteen law professors have written to Tony Blair advising him that there is no legal justification for force. > >Read letter here. > > > >And CND has sent a legal opinion on military action to every member of the Security Council arguing that the history of 1441 demonstrates that a second resolution is required. > > > >UN Resolution 1441: > > > >The first draft of 1441 authorised member states to use "ALL NECESSARY MEANS" to restore international peace and security in the area. > > > >Objections from France, and Russia saw the final resolution remove any reference to "all necessary means" replacing it with a much softer line that Iraq will "face serious consequences" after the Security Council has met to "consider the situation". > > > >Colin Powell explained the process: "if (Saddam) doesn't comply this time we are going to ask the UN to give authorisation for 'all necessary means'. " > > > >Yesterday though, Jack Straw told the Commons that "serious consequences" included an all-out military attack. > > > >Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary: > >"A consensus is required for any military action. As far as the legal base is concerned 1441 does not require a second resolution." > > > >Trouble is there are some pretty high-powered lawyers who don't agree - including a former senior law officer from a Blair government. And that makes soldiers on the front line nervous. Might they find themselves open to prosecution for following orders? > > > >Sir Timothy Garden, former assistant chief of dfence staff: > >"To be comfortable with the legality of this operation one would want to know that the Security Council was generally in agreement with it, and so that underlines the importance of a new resolution." > > > >Kofi Anan, UN Secretary General: > >"It is a warning to people who will commit these crimes that impunity will not be allowed to stand and they will be made to account, idividually and not hiding behding a vboernment or leader saying 'I was following orders'." > > > >He wasn't talking about our boys of course, but Kofi Annan, today inaugurating the new international criminal court in the Hague seemed to be reminding the world that the UN Charter is a great deal more than some optional political nicety. > > > > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > >Letter in full > > > > > >Full text of letter from 16 law professors, as published in The Guardian newspaper: > > > >"We are teachers of international law. On the basis of the information publicly available, there is no justification under international law for the use of military force against Iraq. > > > >The UN charter outlaws the use of force with only two exceptions: individual or collective self-defence in response to an armed attack and action authorised by the security council as a collective response to a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression. > > > >There are currently no grounds for a claim to use such force in self-defence. > > > >The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence against an attack that might arise at some hypothetical future time has no basis in international law. > > > >Neither security council resolution 1441 nor any prior resolution authorises the proposed use of force in the present circumstances. > > > >Before military action can lawfully be undertaken against Iraq, the security council must have indicated its clearly expressed assent. > > > >It has not yet done so. > > > >A vetoed resolution could provide no such assent. > > > >The prime minister's assertion that in certain circumstances a veto becomes "unreasonable" and may be disregarded has no basis in international law. > > > >The UK has used its security council veto on 32 occasions since 1945. > > > >Any attempt to disregard these votes on the ground that they were "unreasonable" would have been deplored as an unacceptable infringement of the UK's right to exercise a veto under UN charter article 27. > > > >A decision to undertake military action in Iraq without proper security council authorisation will seriously undermine the international rule of law. Of course, even with that authorisation, serious questions would remain. > > > >A lawful war is not necessarily a just, prudent or humanitarian war. > > > > > >Prof Ulf Bernitz, Dr Nicolas Espejo-Yaksic, Agnes Hurwitz, Prof Vaughan Lowe, Dr Ben Saul, Dr Katja Ziegler (University of Oxford), Prof James Crawford, Dr Susan Marks, Dr Roger O'Keefe (University of Cambridge), Prof Christine Chinkin, Dr Gerry Simpson, Deborah Cass (London School of Economics), Dr Matthew Craven (School of Oriental and African Studies), Prof Philippe Sands, Ralph Wilde (University College London), Prof Pierre-Marie Dupuy (University of Paris) > > > >oti > > >Lp Nalim Kje si McHrozni?

26. McHrozni 22.3.2003	Heh, tudi jaz imam druge stvari, ne le prepricevanje tebe, Roberto :) Kaj v tem pismu je takega, da pojasni zakaj je akcija nelegalna? Da, ni tako jasno, kot je to hotel Powell. Ampak dokler mi nekdo ne pokaže kakšnega predloga za t.i. "serious consequences", argumenta ne morem - nihče ne more - jemati resno. Sankcije proti Iraku dokazano ne delujejo, tako da to niso "resne posledice". Poleg tega obstaja samo še diplomatski pritisk (ki tudi ne deluje, pa še neka huda posledica ni) ali pa vojaški napad. Guardian je skoraj tabloid, tako da mi ga raje ne omenjaj. McHrozni

27. Neznanec/ka 23.3.2003	MCHrozni: Nisem govoril o casopisu, marvec o mnenju 20 profesorjev ki poucujejo mednrodno pravo... Lp Nalim

28. McHrozni 23.3.2003	Zadeva ni nikakor črno-bela. Gre se za to komu verjameš. Stališče za je utemeljeno in argumentirano in okrepljeno s precendensi iz preteklosti, stališče proti pravi "ni bilo tako mišljeno". Jaz raje verjamem prvemu. Pa ti? McHrozni

29. Neznanec/ka 23.3.2003	Strinjam se da ni vse crno-brlo Nula regula sine exptioni., vendar ne mores zanikati da vojna na Irak krsi mednarodno pravo(tako trdi da mnozica predavatlejev mednarodnega prava na uglednih Britanskih univerzah). Ni dvoma da se Iracani veselijo padca Sadama, vendar se tudi ameriskega protektorata ne veselijo prevec. Povprecen Iracan se nahaja v dvomih, kajti ne mara nikogar od njiju. Prepricanii so da americanom oni nioso mar, marvec nafta... Lp Nalim

30. McHrozni 23.3.2003	>Ni dvoma da se Iracani veselijo padca Sadama, vendar se tudi ameriskega protektorata ne veselijo prevec. Povprecen Iracan se nahaja v dvomih, kajti ne mara nikogar od njiju. Prepricanii so da americanom oni nioso mar, marvec nafta... Ne dvomim, da je nafta v Ameriškem interesu. Vendar se pa tukaj interesi Iračanov in Američanov križajo. Iračani bodo nafto verjetno res prodajali dokaj poceni, vendar moramo vedeti, da je procentualno profit še vseeno velik (stroški črpanja pri Kirkuku so 1 dolar na sod, tržna cena je zdajle čez 30 dolarjev na sod) in še vseeno bo v Irak prispelo precej več denarja kot ga prihaja sedaj. Ta denar bo tudi koristneje porabljen - namesto za orožje in palače ga bo del vseeno prišel do ljudi. Ne glede na to, kaj se bo zgodilo, položaj se bo izboljšal in to ne malo (npr. Saddam načrtno strada šiite na jugu Iraka). Ne bo pa Irak kar iznenada postal raj, to je res. McHrozni

31. Neznanec/ka 23.3.2003	Se strinjam s tabo...(McHrozni) Lp Nalim