thanks for replies guys, pretty interesting

thetenken wrote:

That'll only happen when aliens invade, or something.

Krees or Skrulls? Bwhahah.

thetenken wrote:

I guess I just got a wrong impression of your previous post. My apologies.

You don't have to apologize, sir.

thetenken wrote:

Let's hope this debate doesn't get as nasty, hah!)

Ah, it won't. We are gentlemen.

I dunno, I guess this'll sound like a cop-out: our disagreement on "pre-emptive" is subjective; yes, "pre-emptive" was used as a legal term (I suppose; I believe you, thetenken, but, something tells me if you went up against another legal mind of your brilliance, you may very well end up with an argument). But, in my defense, look at my initial post(s) in this thread before I responded to your own, thetenken. NOWHERE do I ever mention "pre-emptive" anything. I haven't researched the legal nuances of that compound word anyway. Notice I don't even mention "lefties" or "righties" or "liberal" or "conservative" while ya'll's at it. Go ahead, go look (be mindful of any "edited on MM/DD/YY" stamps).

I suppose I didn't mention "pre-emptive" because there's a lot more to why Iraq needed to be invaded than "pre-emptive"-nesses. Sure,

thetenken wrote:

The U.S. used the following three reasons for why they wished to invade Iraq: 1) Self-defense (U.N. Charter Article 51) 2) Violating U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 3) Humanitarian intervention . . . The threat was no [sic] overwhelming: Iraq has no real military left to speak of that can in any way rival the United States. The threat of Iraq was not breathing down our neck in an overwhelming manner.

YOU know that laws are "used" to "do stuff"; or am I to believe telemarketing companies did not start looking for loopholes at the premonition of even 100 people signing on to that "do not call" registry. And, c'mon, Saddam Hussein had the infrastructure to create weapons of mass destruction (aha! Something WORSE than actually retaining weapons of mass destruction for your own country because if you have the ability to create weapons of mass destruction, guess what? You can SELL them) and he was being more than dishonest regarding the "oil-for-food program" (I'm being conservative in saying this; go research how much he potentially gained by doing so. And, what? He was gonna' buy a houseload of new pants suits with that money? No). Only the U.S. seemed to be concerned and they cited these three existing laws (as you're stating that you -- and I'll admit I, too -- believe in, like you previously mentioned), because laws are there to use, to respond to a grave threat.

If what the U.S. did was SO WRONG in going into Iraq, then, Kerry should be mentioning all what you're saying left and right; all he keeps doing instead is say "the president was wrong" (so tell me "why," Mr. Kerry; like how thetenken does) and that "I have a plan" (which I don't even know what is, yet; he's mentioned stuff that the current Bush Administration is already doing). He has a law degree, right? Well, there you go -- the practice and application of law in the real world is different from what's taught in law school. Or does every straight-A law student pass the bar on the first try? I suppose . . .

thetenken wrote:

. . . the law should work most of the time.

. . . and twists and turns from its original form in doing so. Is the law working most of the time with these recent, and seemingly, judges creation of laws? Does the law work most of the time in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals? Or is the law needed to amend their rulings (this is an appeals court, now) making it the most overturned court in the nation?
Above all, maybe when you get your first "lawyer" job (if you don't have one already), you come back to our fair forum and tell us how cut and dried things end up in ya'll's profession compared to what you're learning now in school. You can tell us if the law works better for a millionaire or a middle-class person, even (notice that I didn't even need to say "homeless person"). Sometimes "one needs to be ready to accept the consequences" when they can't "afford" the law. A rich person w/expensive legal help is "ready to accept the consequences," best believe. I think a rich person might be uber confident in stating that the law works "maybe not 100% of the time, but most of the time."

Weapons inspector Charles Duelfer confirmed just yesterday there were no "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. He also stated that the world was better off without Saddam Hussein in power. Ergo, what the U.S. did was a good thing. But, are you saying, thetenken, the law might not support that? What I'm saying that now that the weapons inspector who is admitting that there were no "weapons of mass destruction" -- along with the U.S., and a lot of other folks who're ragging on the "no weapons of mass destruction, see????" tip while also admitting that the removal of Saddam was a great thing -- is saying that the removal of Saddam's regime was good thing. In the same breath.

And it sure as heck looks like it was the U.S. who spearheaded and applied the law to enact a greater good. GREATER GOOD. Why do I sense that that you are equating the steps taken to invade Iraq with supposed wanton "invasions" in the future? A greater good (agreed on by the majority of the planet) was done with the invasion of Iraq; the fact that the U.S. and/or its president ain't charged (credibly, at least) with war crimes now or in the future confirms this good. We'll have to see the goal with these supposed wanton "invasions" in the future (and, really, what the heck is there to prevent them from doing so anyway, laws be damned?).

Law is law; I don't confuse it with "truth" or "good." But, you're gonna' be able to confirm this, thetenken, once you start working in your profession. The law isn't an Agent Smith (ugh. I hated making a The Matrix reference) everywhere you go. It's applied differently depending where you are.

Here's a situation where the law was involved and good came out of it. The law must be obeyed, but we gotta not allow it to blind us from what's really going on.

I'm not advocating lawlessness, of course. I'm just saying that the law sometimes works better for some and for others and, in that sense, the "bigger picture" (hate to use a clich�) when getting through this thing called life (glad that I can paraphrase a Prince lyric ) needs to be kept in mind.

If we're gonna say

thetenken wrote:

if you create the international precedent, then ANY nation may use it as a justification to strike just about anywhere. Although you may trust the U.S. government, are you ready to trust every government out there? That is the danger I speak of.

and

thetenken wrote:

The United States is one tough son of a gun . . . .

Well, then, it looks like the latter's there as a deterrent from any nation "wanting to strike just about anywhere." What? The U.S. as the world's police? Yeah, yeah, I've never heard that phrase used before. Usually "The U.S. as the world's police" is preceded or followed by a ranting complaint. But, when it's to intervene between two hotheads it's OK that U.S. is the cops? Ah, the folly, ah the humanity.

"Precedent" or not, there is little to stop a crazed nation's desire to turn another into a glass parking lot. Realistically speaking.

thetenken wrote:

True, but with plenty of qualified candidates out there for the Supreme Court, the President determines the names on the ballot. "As of 2004, 148 people have been officially nominated to the US Supreme Court. The Senate has rejected twelve, taken no action on five and postponed votes on three. The President has withdrawn his nominee on six times. Seven others have declined the nomination." - from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeated_nominees_to_the_U.S._Supreme_Court

This, I'm gonna' try to put to rest already. My point is, a president's party affiliation is not directly proporational to his (or her; yes, I'm objective) U.S. Supreme Justice appointee.

12 oz. black tea this morning. That's it.
And, I just wanted to reiterate that sometimes when you're debating, arguing w/someboty, whatever, things can sometimes get heated and, well, I honestly don't think we're there yet and I don't think we'll ever get there, but, we'll be sure to let each other know, yes, thetenken, and to all of you millions out there. Much respect to you, sir.

The Man wrote:

Krees or Skrulls? Bwhahah.

Kryptonians. =)

Quote:

I dunno, I guess this'll sound like a cop-out: our disagreement on "pre-emptive" is subjective; yes, "pre-emptive" was used as a legal term (I suppose; I believe you, thetenken, but, something tells me if you went up against another legal mind of your brilliance, you may very well end up with an argument). But, in my defense, look at my initial post(s) in this thread before I responded to your own, thetenken. NOWHERE do I ever mention "pre-emptive" anything. I haven't researched the legal nuances of that compound word anyway. Notice I don't even mention "lefties" or "righties" or "liberal" or "conservative" while ya'll's at it. Go ahead, go look (be mindful of any "edited on MM/DD/YY" stamps). I suppose I didn't mention "pre-emptive" because there's a lot more to why Iraq needed to be invaded than "pre-emptive"-nesses.

No, I think you only mentioned pre-emptive in response to when I mentioned it. I just wanted to clarify that the legal term pre-emptive in this sense may be different than the layman's term. Not to beat a dead horse, but the only reason I got so much into the term pre-emptive is because it was used that way, and only for the U.S. reason of self-defense.

As for what you're saying the law can or cannot accomplish, I agree with you. There are flaws with the legal system. As I mentioned in my first post, I'm not here to say whether invading Iraq was right or not, but merely to say it was illegal. As you know, legality/illegality doesn't always correspond to justice/rightness. Or else, why do we read books about costumed vigilantes? =)

The world may recognize what you say. Removing Saddam from power was a "good" thing. But doing so without proper legal steps was illegal. The law doesn't always get things right. But to throw away the rule of law is to return to a state of nature. Although I love my costumed vigilantes, I recognize that the law plays an important role, basically to give order to society with rules that can check both good and evil men. If we had an enlightened and benevolent dictator, that person may rule better than any democracy. But the laws made by the people are more likely to remain stable from regime change to regime change.

Quote:

This, I'm gonna' try to put to rest already. My point is, a president's party affiliation is not directly proporational to his (or her; yes, I'm objective) U.S. Supreme Justice appointee.

Ah, that's what you meant. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. =) Conservative presidents will usually nominate conservative-moderate judges. Liberal presidents will usually nominate moderate-liberal judges. I guess it just depends what end of the spectrum we're starting on.

This, I'm gonna' try to put to rest already. My point is, a president's party affiliation is not directly proporational to his (or her; yes, I'm objective) U.S. Supreme Justice appointee.

12 oz. black tea this morning. That's it.
And, I just wanted to reiterate that sometimes when you're debating, arguing w/someboty, whatever, things can sometimes get heated and, well, I honestly don't think we're there yet and I don't think we'll ever get there, but, we'll be sure to let each other know, yes, thetenken, and to all of you millions out there. Much respect to you, sir.[/quote]
_________________

"...but it was my integrity that was important. Is that so selfish? It sells for so little, but it's all we have left in this place. It is the very last inch of us...but within that inch we are free." - V for Vendetta

I don't like Bush, but I'm certainly not voting for Kerry. I'd vote for a third party candidate, but I don't want to throw away my vote.

SO BUSH IT IS!

Oh, and Michael Moore sucks dong. It's true.

blender1184 wrote:

SO BUSH IT IS!

I thought you didn't wanna throw away your vote.....

blender1184 wrote:

I don't like Bush, but I'm certainly not voting for Kerry. I'd vote for a third party candidate, but I don't want to throw away my vote. SO BUSH IT IS!

Alright!
Kerry is like a washing machine. I don't trust that guy at all.

blender1184 wrote:

Oh, and Michael Moore sucks dong. It's true.

Pin Pon! Another one for Blender1184!
_________________

ahochaude wrote:

I don't trust that guy at all.

I feel the same way about Bush.

bmwracer wrote:

I feel the same way about Bush.

Kerry is wishy washy. Does something and then does something that totally condradicts what he'd done previously. At least Bush goes in a straight line rather than being like a weaving road.

Kerry is a double standard prick.
_________________

ahochaude wrote:

Kerry is a ...

I'd like request that we please put a hold on the name calling. There's plenty of names I'd like to call Bush for all the bad things I think he's done, but since that only makes me feel better, I'll only do it in front of my dog, who agrees with me.

ahochaude wrote:

At least Bush goes in a straight line rather than being like a weaving road.

That's what happens when you do things wearing blinders.

ahochaude wrote:

Kerry is wishy washy. Does something and then does something that totally condradicts what he'd done previously. At least Bush goes in a straight line rather than being like a weaving road. Kerry is a double standard prick.

Yes in go straight in the wall, straight in the stupidity, growing up hatred against USA in the world...

It's really amazing in America, how lobbies, tv and can influence your vote...

Then your way to vote for a president really sucks.

Woah woah woah...let's stick to the facts, shall we? Name-calling never really gets a debate anywhere...just alienates both sides...
_________________

bmwracer wrote:

I thought you didn't wanna throw away your vote.....

Blah!

thetenken wrote:

...just alienates both sides...

But that's what I'm good at.

I'll leave now then.

blender1184 wrote:

Blah!

Heh, you left yourself wide open for that... I would be remiss if I didn't take advantage...

vibius wrote:

I'd like request that we please put a hold on the name calling. There's plenty of names I'd like to call Bush for all the bad things I think he's done, but since that only makes me feel better, I'll only do it in front of my dog, who agrees with me.

mans best friend. too true buddy, too true

you seem like a pretty mature guy, even more mature since you have a dog. i have a dog.

Xavio wrote:

Then your way to vote for a president really sucks.

The same can be said for people who don't agree with your way.
_________________

Xavio wrote:

It's really amazing in America, how lobbies, tv and can influence your vote...

It's all part of freedom of speech and living in a (somewhat) free society... How else can we find out information on each candidate without the media?

Quote:

Then your way to vote for a president really sucks.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but what other way is there to vote???

Oh, lordy! This thread is still h-h-h-h-h-h-here. I wanted to give thetenken the last word, as he IS so brilliant; and I'm not being joking or sarcastic here. But, seeing that I'm just Hello Kitty happy with this English degree/Corporate fiend (moi) v. law student (thetenken), I'll just say the following, 'specially because I see a large crowd a-forming in the board this evening .

I, and I think thetenken, too, are Hello Kitty happy (well, I am "Hello Kitty happy"; perhaps thetenken wants to use his own words to describe his own happiness) that we were able to bring the debate to you fine folks, and, maybe it's time to wrap it up.

Or maybe not .

thetenken wrote:

I'm not here to say whether invading Iraq was right or not, but merely to say it was illegal . . . Removing Saddam from power was a "good" thing. But doing so without proper legal steps was illegal. The law doesn't always get things right. But to throw away the rule of law is to return to a state of nature.

But, we don't know what was illegal yet; if no one man can dictate what is illegal with the intent of completely and utterly punish another, expecting the law to be behind him. People deserve a defense where law is recognized and respected. It seems that the law might state it, but law needs to be interpreted before someone pay for a crime (or should we just allow police to make the sole decision? There goes the jobs of millions of lawyers and judges if that's the case). Plato, Republic, book X: "one and the same object appears to vary in size depending on whether we're looking at it from up close or far away." The law represents.

Yes, yes, thetenken, law profs ALL over the country probably state the same thing that you do; but, I bet there are those who don't. One of my first questions -- I'm not a law student, remember this; and, yes, I understand that to a certain extent, not being a law student doesn't matter, because as U.S. citizens, we cannot cite ignorance of the law as an excuse -- was "name names," because I know these guys deserve their day to defend themselves if in fact this is the case. And then, lemme ask this: are there any law profs (and others in the legal profession) who saying the invasion WASN'T illegal, and can cite black letter law in doing so?

Here's my point: charges can be filed, the court of popular opinion (I've gone through that, yes?), and a whole lot of other things -- even law students and law professors and the legal profession -- can call the invasion of Iraq as illegal. They can only CALL it that. Whoever's responsible (I'm still asking for a name here) still deserves to be heard. Deserves a defense, if we're talking about interjecting the discipline of law into this matter.

Let's look at a popular legal case NOT INTENDED TO IMPLY ANYTHING to help us illustrate. When the, well, let's call it the "199_s O.J. Simpson situation" was going on, a lot of folks (let's keep bare bones here) stamped his "purported offense" as illegal. But, the law eventually said he is innocent. I'm first in line, glad living in this country -- a country based on laws, yes? -- to say that a civilized society, like ours, cannot live without laws. Everything seemed to point to O.J.'s guilt. But, the law said O.J. is innocent; so, he is, in the eyes of criminal law. He will not spend a day in jail. He has not committed any offense -- the law, the ruling says so.

thetenken wrote:

Or else, why do we read books about costumed vigilantes? =)

OooooHOOOOOOO, yes. Yes.

Yikes. Double post. Didn't mean to .