Why do so many Y!A Libs use the phrase "International Law"...?

Question

But then, when asked to quote the law, the treaty, the chapter, paragraph, or line of the law and the authority to enforce the law...all you get from them is...crickets chirping?

Why do so many Y!A Libs use the phrase "International Law", especially when referring to the actions of opposing political parties, and then give no reference to any "law" other than their own opinion?

alphabet soup, you do recognize that your attempt at an answer proves the point don't you?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ai7Ksjz3Mm0VX4j4pTJpfpYjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20071102091859AAaIgUE

volleyballchick...you do recognize that you did not answer the question, don't you?

side out...beach.

Neenie...I note that the answer you reference does not include any "law", unless you cite a source for your quote.

A reasonable answer, Yo, but you do realize that a UN resolution is not a law, don't you?

Poor Neenie, Neenie...I note that the answer she references does not include any "law", unless she cites a source for the quote, and what does she do, she cries, "Never address me directly again. You're a bit too arrogant for my liking or my time. You're the first member I'm ever blocking, and probably the last. You won't even get my answer now. Toodles!"

It would be a better response if she just...you know...answered the question.

Skip F, it is not unusual at all to expect that when someone uses the phrase "International Law" in an attempt to support an argument, that they could at least cite the law that they think justifies their premise.

Right you are ken...I recommend that you type "international law" in your answers search window...use the advanced feature and select "all" questions.

So...while I often find "elimination challenge" quite amusing...I think your answer is...eliminated!!!

tribeca_belle, I beg to differ. My question includes a link to an example, and a description of a method for finding many many uses of the phrase.

tribecca belle...you do realize that your logic is circular, don't you? To use the phrase "international law", and then suggest that an accusation of a violation of that law is supported using only opinion...is a wild non-sequitor.

Tribecca belle, article VI, section 51 trumps your article 2(4), particularly with respect to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and failure to abide by the cease fire agreement. UN resolution 1441 confirms this.

It's not a diatribe, tribecca...it's a simple question...Why do so many Y!A Libs use the phrase "International Law", when they have no idea how the law reads or what it means?

Answer 1

precisely because it is undefined and thus they can claim dang near anything they want ... law, of course, only exists when the people who live in an area have decided that it does.

Answer 2

I wonder that myself, When I make a comment and cite the U.N. Security Council Resolution number or the International Committee of the Red Cross Convention number ("Geneva Conventions"), I generally get 7 or 8 thumbs down.

Answer 3

You’re criticizing liberals for not citing specific international law and yet your question cites no specific examples or specific legal situations to which one could apply a law. What possible logical and rational answer could there be to your question?

In any case, your position is similar to stating that murder isn’t against the law and then demanding that someone cite a specific criminal/penal law statute in order to refute you. That's a bit burdensome.

EDIT: If you are specifically asking about the Iraq war, then international law references would include the UN Charter, Article 2(4), as qualified by Article 51. Instances involving the conduct of the war could invoke the Geneva Conventions and aspects of the Hague Convention.

This is a very complicated area of law with differing opinions, obviously. I think it is unrealistic to expect that when someone states that the Iraq War is a violation of international law that they should list citations. They’re expressing a widely held opinion.

EDIT: If your entire diatribe is about the application of international law to the Iraq situation, which is not clear from the very broad statements in your question, then Article 51 does indeed provide for an individual right but only in the case of self defense in response to an armed attack.

Article 39 provides: "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security." The United Nations Charter is a binding international treaty to which the United States is a party.

Your opinion may differ as to the application of certain aspects of international law in any particular situation but this is not a legal forum and to expect citations for every political view of such violations is unrealistic. It has been stated by individuals such as the Secretary General of the UN, for instance, that the invasion of Iraq was illegal and a violation of International law. For someone to state that opinion without citing specific articles and sections in a short answer forum such as Yahoo Answers is acceptable.

Answer 4

What an odd and accusatory question.

The value in Yahoo Answers is that a person can get political opinions from a very wide range of people living in various countries.

Yahoo Answers is not a forum for legal experts, so you shouldn't expect citations to treaties, UN Resolutions, the Geneva Conventions, or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights here.

Answer 5

Other then the link you provided which does include that term, I have never seen it on here before and I've been around for a little while now. Since you want to be so technical, I'll be a little more general. Why do republicans love to use UN sanctions as an excuse to invade Iraq yet in other matters it's screw the UN? Why do republicans love to utter the phrase the rule of law, all the while our open borders are allowing anyone to walk across and we now have an army of illegals in our country and the government does nothing, six full years since nine-eleven? Does that really equate to being strong on national security? Going half a world away to fight terrorists while Mexico encourages its people to migrate to America and our freaking politicians want to give them drivers licenses??? What's up with that? We're sticking our fingers up our own butts and in our ears while our government does nothing for us but spend our tax dollars on their whims.

Answer 6

You should really give a precise example of this.

Answer 7

Why do so many Republicans listen to Limbaygh?