Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,150
    Post Thanks / Like

    Isreal in violation of US law

    Source: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33993

    Quote Originally Posted by Inter Press Service News Agency
    Section 4 of the (U.S.) Arms Export Control Act requires that military items transferred to foreign governments by the United States be used solely for internal security and legitimate self-defence," says Stephen Zunes, professor of politics at the University of San Francisco.


    Israel has a total of over 378 F-16s, considered one of the world's most advanced fighter planes -- besides 117 F-15s, 94 Skyhawks, 110 Phantoms -- all supplied by the United States
    IPS Claim: "Israel is in violation of U.S. arms control laws for deploying U.S.-made fighter planes, combat helicopters and missiles to kill civilians and destroy Lebanon's infrastructure in the ongoing six-day devastation of that militarily-weak country. "

    Question: Will the US impose sanctions against Israel, or otherwise censure Israel for its actions?. If this story replaced "N. Korea" ,"Russia" , or"Iran" for "US", would the US impose sanctions or otherwise censure Isreal for its actions?
    Its turtles, all the way down.

  2. #2
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Isreal in violation of US law

    There's a little more to it than that in section 4...

    Section 4 of the Arms Export Control Act permits U.S. arms sales or leases `solely for internal security, for legitimate self-defense, to permit the recipient country to participate in regional or collective arrangements or measures consistent with the Charter of the United Nations, or otherwise to permit the recipient country to participate in collective measures requested by the United Nations for the purpose of maintaining or restoring international peace and security, or for the purpose of enabling foreign military forces in less-developed friendly countries to construct public works and to engage in other activities helpful to the economic and social development of such friendly countries.' The Managers' amendment to that section makes clear that such sales or leases are also permitted for preventing or hindering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means for delivering such weapons. The urgent and significant nature of these threats to U.S. national security makes it necessary to marshal all available programs, including arms transfers, as appropriate, to halt proliferation.
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquer...el=TOC_470129&

    What does the UN Charter say about it?

    Article 51
    Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
    http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

    Israel was indeed, was the victim of an armed attack. Israel is a member of the United Nations.

    US Law says Israel is good to go.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,150
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Isreal in violation of US law

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    US Law says Israel is good to go.
    The US law requires actions to be consistent with the UN charter. Aside from that reference, the UN Charter is most certainly not US law.

    It appears that Israel is aligned with the UN charter, yet the UN Security Council itself has just accused Israel of using disproportionate force. The US vetoed that resolution.
    Its turtles, all the way down.

  4. #4
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Borneo
    Posts
    2,089
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Isreal in violation of US law

    The US vetoed that resolution.


    SURPRISE!! :oD



    Not.


    P.
    "The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."
    head of MI6

    "The Emory University study proves beyond a doubt that politicians and their acolytes - are lying morons."

    "We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it."
    Justice Jackson Nov. 21, 1945, Nuremberg

  5. #5
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Isreal in violation of US law

    Quote Originally Posted by Zenstone View Post
    The US law requires actions to be consistent with the UN charter. Aside from that reference, the UN Charter is most certainly not US law.
    ...no one claimed that the UN Charter was US Law, I don't know where you are getting that.

    Since US Law demands compliance with the charter, it is important to know what the charter says, no? And if in compliance with the UN Charter, then the law is not broken. Thus, the reporter gots it wrong.

    It appears that Israel is aligned with the UN charter, yet the UN Security Council itself has just accused Israel of using disproportionate force. The US vetoed that resolution.
    This is a red herring fallacy. Whether or not Israel used disproportionate force has no bearing on Israel breaking US arms export laws.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  6. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,150
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Isreal in violation of US law

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    ...no one claimed that the UN Charter was US Law, I don't know where you are getting that.
    No - I was confused.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    This is a red herring fallacy. Whether or not Israel used disproportionate force has no bearing on Israel breaking US arms export laws.
    Well, if the UN agrees that they've violated the charter, then that effectively violated the US law, does it not? I don't think its a red herring fallacy - This leans more on subtleties of law that I don't quite understand.

    Perhaps if (1) the UN decided that they violated the charter and (2) the US supported the resolution, then would they be in violation of US law?

    (Really, I have no position on this because I just don't understand it well enough.)
    Its turtles, all the way down.

  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Isreal in violation of US law

    The question is, just what constitues disproportonate in any case. How many dead Israeli kids = how many dead Lebanese kids and the like - you know, all that 'collateral damage'.

    When it comes to whether the Israelis have violated any agreements on the use of US supplied weapons there will be a 'grey zone' that can always be massaged and stretched; especially if both administrations are hell bent on working things in cooperation.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  8. #8
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Isreal in violation of US law

    Quote Originally Posted by Zenstone View Post
    Well, if the UN agrees that they've violated the charter, then that effectively violated the US law, does it not? I don't think its a red herring fallacy - This leans more on subtleties of law that I don't quite understand.
    If the UN agrees the charter has been violated, then yes, it could consitute breaking of the law. However, disproportionate reaction and illegally using imported arms are two entirely, unrelated variables.

    1) It is possible that Israel legally used the weapons, but used disp. force...in this case, they did not break any laws, but just went overboard.

    2) It is possible that they illegally used the weapons but did not use disp. force...im this case they did break the law, yet did not go overboard.

    3) Lastly, it is possible that they illegally used the weapons and used disp. force, in which case they broke the law and went overboard.

    The 2, have nothing to do with one another. Thus, it is indeed a red herring fallacy as well as a causal fallacy. "Going overboard" has NOTHING to do with breaking or abiding by the law. They are independent of one another Zen.

    Perhaps if (1) the UN decided that they violated the charter and (2) the US supported the resolution, then would they be in violation of US law?
    Yes. The question is however, would it be enforceable? And to what extent would it be enforceable?
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Somalia: Libertarian Paradise?
    By manise in forum General Debate
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: June 13th, 2006, 11:10 AM
  2. Genesis - The Untold Truth of the Beginning
    By 2Pillars in forum Religion
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: July 14th, 2005, 05:39 PM
  3. Love thy Neighbour - in 'law'
    By Montalban in forum Religion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: May 23rd, 2005, 11:37 PM
  4. Religion and America
    By Feefer in forum Religion
    Replies: 331
    Last Post: January 8th, 2005, 09:24 AM
  5. Christian influence continues
    By Montalban in forum Religion
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: November 22nd, 2004, 10:45 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •