The buzz is growing about Kansas Republicans’ interest in drafting Gen. Richard Myers, outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to challenge Gov. Kathleen Sebelius next year. One of Myers’ assets is thought to be his lack of a legislative voting record. But the Kansas State University graduate certainly has another kind of record. As Kansas City Star columnist Steve Kraske asked Sunday, “wouldn’t it be interesting if a simple little Midwestern governor’s race became explosive with arguments over missing weapons of mass destruction and the handling of the war?”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
29 Comments
Yes, Gen. Richard Myers, a K-State graduate, appears to have done a commendable job for the President as Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon.
But NO, we do not need him as Governor of Kansas. The office of governor of Kansas is not a throne for retiring national political figures nor movie stars as in California.
The best source of good Kansas governors over the years has been from our legislature, the Kansas Senate and House of Representatives. Unfortunately we get to many mediocre governors and wannebes from the elected Kansas departments such as the Insurance Commissioner (Sebelius), Secretary of State (Graves), and candidates from the attorney general’s office and state treasurer’s office. These expensive political plum offices should be eliminated and placed in a professional state finance department to be headed by a top finance man selected on merit and appointed by the governor and legislature.
If he doesn’t get elected there will be some DC buddy in power to appoint him somewhere, undoubtedly in a position he has no expertise in.
JWink? Have you seen the crop of State Representatives that we have?
Retired Car dealers, mediocre real estate agents, retired filing clerks, farmers, and a few spinkles of DUI/Divorce/Bankrupsty lawyers. Not exactly the cream of the crop in leadership nor background.
Most get elected by belonging to a partucularly large church and they just take marching orders from their party leaders. They have no voice or independent thought, plus hardly anybody knows who their own representatives are.
Agreed… the last thing we need here is a governor who helped launch the US into an illegal and unjustified war.
how is the war illegal?what laws does it violate?
Pointy, it’s against international law to start a war. Hello?
what is international law?there is no such thing.what is the source of international law?
No such thing as international law? Ok pointy, what ever you say. Please move away from the balcony.
no, seriously. I am willing to listen and consider and argument, and you may even convince me or some other folks.I may just not be smart enought to understand the concept of international law.explain that? or just hurl insults, whatever you decide is fine with me, but I expect folks to defend their opinions.
Joe Williams: You have to admit that a legislature made up of used car salesmen, real estate people, retired clerks and Kansas farmers is much preferable to a legislature full of lawyers.
The Kansas legislature is like a pack of hungry howling wolves gathered from every corner of Kansas to tear into state wide issues to reach the best compromise solution they can come up with.
Pointy,If you aren’t smart enough to understand the concept, just how do you expect someone to explain it to you? You just have to accept the fact that there will be a lot of things you’ll never get!
Joe Williams: You have to admit that a legislature made up of used car salesmen, real estate people, retired clerks and Kansas farmers is much preferable to a legislature full of lawyers.
The Kansas legislature is like a pack of hungry howling wolves gathered from every corner of Kansas to tear into state wide issues to reach the best compromise solution they can come up with.
No Wink,The Kansas legislature is like a herd of turtles trying to do the least possible work, and still protect their phony- baloney jobs. Any compromise happens strictly by accident!
Ignore the question, Jed, that is fine. do whatever you wish.if anyone wants to actually discuss theses issues, feel free to post something, otherwise I continue to waste my time with Jed/et al.
Pointy, it’s not that I don’t want to discuss…let’s just not re-invent the wheel, ok? Do you acknowledge the Geneva Convention? That’s international law.
Now Pointy, I didn’t “hurl insults” per your acusation, and I took the time to answer your question on the assumption that just maybe you’re not being stupid. But if you low ball me again, I’ll get cranky. If you make me cranky, I’ll let Vlad or Ben Dover have you.
oh boy, I surely don’t want those guys after me.
Sure, the Geneva Convention rules do apply. But for something to be deemed illegal, there must be some kind of enforcement mechanism involved. Right now, that god, there is no enforcement of so-called ‘international law’
the u.s. does recognize the geneva convention, but that does not rise to the level of calling a ‘war’ illegal. acts during war can be against the geneva convention, but that doesn’t make a ‘war’ illegal.
Ok Pointy, you’re going to make this difficult. So here it is.
Under UN Charter, it is illegal to start a war (Prohibition of Force). The US is a signatory to this prohibition. “There are only two exceptions to the prohibition of force in the United Nations Charter, the right to self-defence, and authorisation from the Security Council (SC) under article 42 in Chapter VII of the UN Charter.The right to self defence cannot be invoked to attack Iraq. Since the invasion of Kuwait, over 12 years ago, no armed attack by Iraq has taken place against any member of the UN, nor is any such an attack imminent”.
Article 25The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.
Article 39The 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.
Article 40In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.
Article 41The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Article 46Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.
Now Pointy, I’ve included a link providing the entire UN charter. I know you’re going to have a tough time reading it, but I don’t want to hear any accusations that I left something out. You know how to do a google search, don’t you? I shouldn’t have to hunt down relevant info for you.
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
Darn conservatives! They always talk about wanting to discuss the issues, but when you give them issues, they dissapear. I lose more conservatives that way.
What we have here is a failure to communicate, you see there’s some men you just can’t reach.
And…there’s some reach you just can’t men.
(remember who told you that)
Captain P.Since there is no true international government, there is no true international law. All that really exists are international treaties, of which the UN Charter is but one.
Furthermore, the notion of the UN Charter as being part of “international law” has no meaning because the Charter and the resolutions and statutes of the UN are routinely ignored by its members, and never enforced. Furthermore, as a result of its inability to keep peace anywhere, its sad history of coruption and neglect, and its wilfull complicity in the Oil for Food Scandal, the UN has no credible standing in international law.
In particular, when the UN Secretary General and at least two veto-wielding members of the security council were up to their eyeballs in collusion with Iraq over the Oil for Food scandal, it became impossible for the UN to process inrternational law in any rational manner, especially with regard to actually forcing Iraq to meet its obligations under the Gulf War cease-fire agreement. Of course, when it came time to show its backbone on this issue, the UN didn’t.
When the charter of an organization is not enforced because of rampant corruption, it effectively cease to exist; so the notion that the spineless, corrupt UN has any standing in international law is both laughable and pathetic. Quoting from its charter is, to be kind, incredibly naive and wilfully misleading.
But for those who want to belabor the point, The UN Security Council pased several resolutions that threatened Iraq with a resumption of hostilities due to Iraq’s failure to meet the requirements of the Gulf War cease-fire. From a legal standpoint, then, the Iraq War was just finishing the Gulf War.
Legal analyses by coalition countries believe that these UN resolutions made the Iraq war legal. Legal analyses by muslim countries, countries involved in the Oil for Food scandal, and habitually anti-US countries come to a different conclusion. None of these legal analyses has a greater standing in the international community than any other, which proves two things: 1. International “law” is for sale to the highest bidder, and 2. There is no concensus on either the meaning or the existence of international law.
Which is to say – International law does not actually exist. Yes, there are treaties that are regularly ignored, but there is no settled, worldwide-voter-approved international law of any kind. None.
So it is not possible for the Iraq War to be “illegal”. It’s just another anti-war smoke screen to say that it is illegal; and the point is entirely irrelevant, because the war IS, and no international body is going to do a thing about it.
Someone had better inform Slobodan Milosevic that his trial at the Hague is a fantasy. Too bad Goehring, Hess, von Ribbentrop, Tojo, and the rest didn’t make that objrction, too.
And I guess, the International Court of Justice,
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/igeneralinformation/icjgnnot.html
whose web site says:
“The Court decides in accordance with international treaties and conventions in force, international custom, the general principles of law and, as subsidiary means, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists.”
is functioning under a delusion.
Assuming that the court is at least minimally well-constituted and established..and seeing as how people are being convicted and imprisoned for the commission of aleeged international crimes, I wonder how the court manages since Judge Joe says there is no international law ? Judge Joe must think like a Christian fundamentalist. We know they deny the existence of natural law..they even say it is unenforceable….hmmm.
A federal big-wig moving back to Kansas to live among the “real people.”
Excuse me just a sec . . .
hehahaHA HOHO AHHAAAHHHAAA!!!
(wipes tears from eyes)
I don’t think so.
Galahad, now you ave me doing it..roflmao :-}
To call The Hague “international law” gives the impression that there are internationally accepted laws ratified by the people of all nations, as well as effective police and judicial procedures for universally administering speedy justice throughout the world.
There is nothing of the sort.
The Hague only processes trials on those people that NATO or countries in Europe hand over to them for show. The Hague is ignored by most of the world, and vice-versa. It is over-burdened with bureaucracy, has no real teeth of its own to set or enforce a proper legal agenda, and it is mind-numbingly slow. How many years has Milosevic been “on trial”? That’s “international law” at work.
Milosevic would not even be on trial at The Hague if the USA, through NATO, had not intervened in Yugoslavia. The UN never lifted a finger, just as it does nothing in Africa but send “peacekeepers” to rape the oppressed peoples there.That’s “international law” at work.
So that’s how the “court” manages. To call its ad-hoc and piecemeal collection of unevenly ratified and often-conflicting treaties “international law” is to dignify it with a stature it does not deserve.By the way — no this is the central point, actually — has this “court” ever bothered to rule on the legality of the Iraq War? Will it ever?
Until then, calling the war “illegal” is a completely empty assertion.
Whether the Iraq war is legal or not, it was supremely bad judgement for the Bushllits to go in with that cutesie-pie attitude of “We’ll just invent some WMD’s, blow up Saddam, be outta there in two weeks, tops, and democracy will flower, all by itself!”As bad as Saddam was, it’s worse now, with no possible end in sight as long as we stay there, and the civilians just keep dying!Let future generations debate the legality. We’re up to our eyeballs in shit over there, and to our knees in it everywhere else. We need to figure a way to get out of it, and salvage at least a little of our former respect!We may end up having to turn Bush & crew over to The Hague in order to become a respectable member of the world again, like Serbia did, but for now, let’s concentrate on getting the hell out!
Judge,
Granted the status of “international law” is much weaker than “national laws”, but it seems to me the case you make is true for national laws too. If drivers in NYC decide to ignore red lights and police are unwilling or unable to enforce “the law”, how is that any different from national governments committing to treaties, etc., and then roundly ignoring these committments because they decide to and because there is no effective enforcement mechanism?
For a law to be a “law”, those party to the “law” must consent to being governed by it..and further there must be swift and effective action taken when the “law” is broken. Laws require consent from the parties under those laws, and they further require the element of “power” inherent in swift enforcement.
Just because “international law” has no effective enforcement mechanism doesn’t mean there is no such concept as “international law”. It means that for the “international law” toi be effective, national entities must agree to abide by these laws (treaties) and they must further be subject to swift action when they don’t abide by them.