<Cabinda: Prospects for an Oil Insurgency in the Angolan ExclaveThe Oil DrumDrumBeat: May 14, 2007>

49 comments on Things of Note

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

GLT149 on May 13, 2007 - 7:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hi Devon. Although Mr. Vail has been quite involved in the Iraq war, as have many military officers, I am not sure that you can draw the conclusion that he has done so "unapologetically." And although I was never in favor of the invasion of Iraq, the "illegality" of the war is far from established. In any event, I believe it is his current position in the Dept of the Interior that makes Mr. Vail an interesting addition to the contributors list. He should have some very interesting insight into the state of energy in the US and the world. Whether he can tell us everything is another question. Hopefully he can be very candid. FYI, I was also a military intelligence analyst many moons ago [not energy related unfortunately].

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Aniya on May 13, 2007 - 8:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hi GL,

Thanks for your comment. One thing I'm interested in, if it doesn't detract from gratitude toward the editors and contributors here (of course)...

re: "...the "illegality" of the war is far from established."

I'm curious about your opinion on the following: What would be required, one way or the other, to establish the "illegality"? (Or, legality, for that matter?)

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mr f on May 13, 2007 - 9:51pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The war is entirely illegal. No UN Security Council authorization. The vast majority of the worlds *population* was and is against it.

As Richard Posner has made a strong case for, laws are not writ in stone by gods. Laws are simply made by people, and for them to work people must agree on them. The world is in agreement. The Iraq was is illegal.

[edit] Let me add a caveat to that... By US law the war is certainly not "illegal", since it was authorized by the CONgress. So, as usual, terms like "illegal" come down to petty semantics. What really matters here is not that the war is illegal, but that it is a catastrophe. Whatever window dressing you put on it... Hell, even Bush, I believe, said it is "a successful catastrophe" or something along those absurd lines.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
GLT149 on May 14, 2007 - 3:22am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hi Aniya. I suppose I overstated it by saying the illegality of the war is far from established. What I meant, is that there has been no final adjudication of its legality. As far as I am concerned, however, the war in Iraq violates international law, whether or not the US Congress approved it. I don't think that its "legality" can be "established" however absent a trial and adjudication by a sanctioned international court. That may not ever happen. Although I am a lawyer, I am not an expert in international law and I just do not have the time to do the exhaustive research to give citations. :)

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Devon on May 13, 2007 - 10:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hi GLT149 - I've scoured his bio and can't find an apology, only a resume loaded with references to his "targeting" expertise. I agree that his position at Interior can provide insight and I'm not suggesting he shouldn't be on staff, only that the exploration of energy issues, of which TOD is providing admirable leadership and quality analysis, should never lose site of the sobering and tragic human suffering caused by our involvement in this war, a war thats very clearly about control of the last remaining oil reserves. 655,000 innocent Iraquis have died since the beginning of our latest involvement, which brings the total to well over a million since Bush One's foray. I normally appreciate how TOD sticks to the energy facts, but I believe it's time we all pull together to end this thing and this community has a lot to say about why we might concievably be there in the first place. As far as the legality vs, illegality of the war. I know the U.S doesn't recognize International law anymore but the Nuremberg judgement spelled it out pretty clearly. Agressive wars are illegal. This is an aggressive war.

"The Nuremberg judgment, encoded into international law, is sharp and clear. Aggression is the 'supreme international crime,' differing from others in that it encompasses all the evil that follows; all the evil. The US-UK invasion of Iraq is a textbook example of aggression, as defined by US Justice Robert Jackson in opening the Tribunal, also encoded into international law. Justice Jackson's final words were also sharp and clear. We are handing those convicted at Nuremberg a "poisoned chalice," and if we sip from it, we must be judged by the same principles, or else the proceedings are no more than farce. One prime responsibility of an aggressor is to hold the perpetrators accountable. If state power is unwilling to meet this responsibility, it falls to others to do so: to the citizens of the country carrying out the crimes, more than any others."

--Professor Noam Chomsky

For those interested, I'd also check out the status of the Lt. Ehren Watada trial
http://thankyoult.live.radicaldesigns.org/content/view/206/

Seems as if the government doesn't want his defence to be able to argue legality at all. I wonder what they're afraid of.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.