What is the difference between 'Legal' and 'Legitimate'?
Ian Jackson
Jeremy Greenstock said today the invasion was "legal, but of
questionable legitimacy". Is there really much of a difference between
the meanings of the two words?
--
Ian
Partac
"Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:EJuKj7Bq...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
You could probably draw parallel with the outcry over the fiddling MPs.
Remember, when they said that claiming for duck houses and moat cleaning was
'within the law' - still didn't make it right, though.
Personally, I think that anyone who cannot see that something
which is downright wrong but goes on to justify it by saying it is 'within
the law' really shouldn't be in a position of trust or power.
Usenet Nutter
Does Legal not mean " allowed to by Law" but "Legitimate" refers to
the reason for doing so being a reasonable one . I suppose something
could be considered legal but unreasonable or reasonable but
illegal!!!
DB.
"Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:EJuKj7Bq...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
I have an icon on my desktop which leads to Chambers dictionary at
http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main
or
http://tinyurl.com/tbwfp
The meanings I imagine Sir Jeremy had in mind are:
legal >> lawful, allowed by the law
legitimate >> conforming to an accepted standard
--
DB.
Big Les Wade
Considering that the statements "The invasion was legal" and "The
invasion was legitimate" are both bare-faced lies - no there isn't.
--
Les
If by creating a police state we can save just one child, then it will all have
been worthwhile.
Iain
news:EJuKj7Bq...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
The Times reports that he remains uncertain as to the legality of the
invasion:
"Sir Jeremy Greenstock, then Britain's ambassador to the United Nations,
said that it was still unclear if the conflict had breached international
law but he said "there was a failure to establish legitimacy" in the eyes of
the world."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6934797.ece
If I remember the section of the news correctly, it was also very
questionable as to whether the majority of the UK was in favour of the
action anyway. Therefore it could be argued that the action taken was not
democratic and so certainly was not in the spirit of true representation of
the country. He could in this context have been referring to the
'reasonableness' or 'validity' of the invasion. (This is all referring to
the 'legitimacy')
Iain
Philip
Legitimate = conforming to established practice, usage or behaviour.
"Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:EJuKj7Bq...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
Nobby Anderson
Consider: "Theft is a legitimate means of illegally depriving someone of
their money"
In the original context of the war, it may have been legal under the laws
of the UK or international law, but not legitimate under some commonly
established reasons for a country invading another. (Not expressing an
opinion on anything other than the use of the words).
Nobby
Dave
So that rules out any laws that have been introduced by our present un
elected PM then?
Dave
Colin Jackson
"Iain" <sp...@smaps.net> wrote in message
news:7nac1aF...@mid.individual.net...
It seems to me that the Government is passing numerous 'laws' that many
of us would query whether they are 'legitimate'
Thinking of the two WPC's who were taken to task for looking after
each others child when the other was working on the basis that they should
have been registered and complied with Child Minders Laws
Colin
Smurf
I would have thought that much of the British Constitution is based around
'reasonable' test, afaik the test for whether the PM acted within the powers
given to him on behalf of HMG, is on good faith, and reasonableness, as
there is no document that specifically declares the powers of a prime
minister.
the Omrud
> of us would query whether they are 'legitimate'
>
> Thinking of the two WPC's who were taken to task for looking after
> each others child when the other was working on the basis that they should
> have been registered and complied with Child Minders Laws
Surely it was later demonstrated that this was not against any law.
Ofsted were acting too prescriptively in their interpretation of their
remit.
--
David
S.P.
I firmly believe that a look at this comment in context provides the answer
you seek, without resorting to outside sources or speculation.
Prior to making the statement you quoted, Sir Jeremy had already said he
believed existing UN resolutions provided "sufficient legal cover" for
future action but only if Iraq was found to be in material breach of its
disarmament obligations.
He'd also stated that there were different opinions on the legality of the
war and that a "final and conclusive" verdict was never likely to be made.
He then added, "If you do something internationally that the majority of the
UN member states think is wrong, illegitimate or politically unjustifiable,
you are taking a risk in my view."
"I regarded our participation in the military action against Iraq in March
2003 as legal but of questionable legitimacy in that it did not have the
democratically observable backing of a great majority of member states or
even perhaps of a majority of people inside the UK".
"There was a failure to establish legitimacy although I think we
successfully established legality in the UN... to the degree, at least, that
we were never challenged in the UN or International Court of Justice for
those actions."
Does that answer your question?
Regards
S.P.
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:20:17 +0000, Ian Jackson
>
> would be able to explain the particular distinction he had in mind.
His miraculous love child by Tony Blair would be legal if the birth
had been registered, but it would only be legitimate if he'd married
its father.
--
Culex -- the Infamous Culex
archytas
and that we are in a crisis of it. To say the war was legal is to say
the law allowed it (though did it, and who decided this - if we'd been
able to get it into judicial review would the judges have supported
it?) The questionable legitimacy angle merely tells us many issues
outside the law bring its justness into question. I doubt the
legality of this war as much as I doubt Suez.
Denis McMahon
Well, if the government genuinely believed that the uk was under threat
of a first strike with 45 minutes warning of nbc weapons, then it was
legal to go to war. The government has an obligation to protect the
country, and that includes pre-emptive strikes.
If their belief turns out to be wrong, it wasn't legitimate.
A bit like a drunk scotsmen with a table leg in a carrier bag hearing
shouting behind him and turning round to see what the noise is all about.
It was legal to shoot him, it wasn't legitimate.
Personally I think the whole war on iraq thing was bush jnr on a crusade
that he pushed through at home on the back of the 9/11 attacks despite a
total lack of evidence of any connection between the two, and we got
dragged into it because tb didn't have what it takes to say "no, this is
wrong, there is no strong evidence to support this course of action"
..... and it's become clear there wasn't any strong evidence, because if
there was we'd have found proof after we invaded.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Big Les Wade
>Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> At the inquiry into the background of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Sir
>>Jeremy Greenstock said today the invasion was "legal, but of
>>questionable legitimacy". Is there really much of a difference between
>>the meanings of the two words?
>
>Well, if the government genuinely believed that the uk was under threat
>of a first strike with 45 minutes warning of nbc weapons, then it was
>legal to go to war.
Nonsense. France could easily strike us with nuclear weapons with less
than 5 minutes warning, let alone 45 minutes. Does that mean it is legal
for us to start a war with France?
>The government has an obligation to protect the country, and that
>includes pre-emptive strikes.
Nonsense. Pre-emptive strikes are specifically outlawed by the UN
Treaty, for very good and very obvious reasons.
Dr Zoidberg
> Denis McMahon <denis.m....@gmail.com> posted
>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>>> At the inquiry into the background of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Sir
>>> Jeremy Greenstock said today the invasion was "legal, but of
>>> questionable legitimacy". Is there really much of a difference
>>> between the meanings of the two words?
>>
>> Well, if the government genuinely believed that the uk was under
>> threat of a first strike with 45 minutes warning of nbc weapons, then
>> it was legal to go to war.
>
> Nonsense. France could easily strike us with nuclear weapons with less
> than 5 minutes warning, let alone 45 minutes. Does that mean it is legal
> for us to start a war with France?
There's ability and likelihood to be be considered though.
France would meet the ability criteria but not the likelihood.
As is now known , Iraq was pretty dubious on both counts.
--
Alex
"I laugh in the face of danger, then I hide until it goes away"
Cynic
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:40:09 +0000, Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> Denis McMahon <denis.m....@gmail.com> posted
>>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>
>>>> At the inquiry into the background of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Sir
>>>> Jeremy Greenstock said today the invasion was "legal, but of
>>>> questionable legitimacy". Is there really much of a difference between
>>>> the meanings of the two words?
>>>
>>> Well, if the government genuinely believed that the uk was under threat
>>> of a first strike with 45 minutes warning of nbc weapons, then it was
>>> legal to go to war.
>>
>> Nonsense. France could easily strike us with nuclear weapons with less
>> than 5 minutes warning, let alone 45 minutes.
>
>Straw man down, he wrote "under threat".
>
>> Does that mean it is legal
>> for us to start a war with France?
>
>No, because that does not amount to placing us being under a threat.
Nor was Iraq. AFAIK Iraq has never threatened to bomb the UK.
--
Cynic
Old Codger
>
> Personally I think the whole war on iraq thing was bush jnr on a crusade
> that he pushed through at home on the back of the 9/11 attacks despite a
> total lack of evidence of any connection between the two, and we got
> dragged into it because tb didn't have what it takes to say "no, this is
> wrong, there is no strong evidence to support this course of action"
Nah! He wanted to emulate Thatcher. He tried crushing a trade union
and failed so he wanted to succeed in war. Failed there also.
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
Big Les Wade
>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:40:09 +0000, Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> Denis McMahon <denis.m....@gmail.com> posted
>>> of a first strike with 45 minutes warning of nbc weapons, then it was
>>> legal to go to war.
>>
>> Nonsense. France could easily strike us with nuclear weapons with less
>> than 5 minutes warning, let alone 45 minutes.
>
>
>> for us to start a war with France?
>
Well, what *does* amount to us being "under a threat", and to what
extent could Iraq be said at the time to fulfil that criterion?
The whole thing was ludicrous. I might almost say nonsense.
>>> The government has an obligation to protect the country, and that
>>> includes pre-emptive strikes.
>>
>> Nonsense. Pre-emptive strikes are specifically outlawed by the UN
>> Treaty, for very good and very obvious reasons.
>
>I hope you have an extended warranty on your "Nonsense" key :-)
I've assigned the same macro to all the function keys, so when one packs
up I've got plenty more :)
Steve Walker
> Anthony R. Gold <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> posted
>> I hope you have an extended warranty on your "Nonsense" key :-)
>
> I've assigned the same macro to all the function keys, so when one packs
> up I've got plenty more :)
Now *that* was funny..... :o)
Nogood Boyo
wrote:
Didn't you listen to his explanation of the difference? He went to
some lengths to explain...
--
Nogood Boyo
archytas
> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:10:32 +0000, Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > I've assigned the same macro to all the function keys, so when one packs
> > up I've got plenty more :)
>
>
> Tony
Too be fair, we don't even know whether David Kelly was murdered or
not. Some new attempts are being made to open an inquest. What
bothers me in all this is that we seem to be treated as so gullible by
the government and the press is so hapless. I've no idea why we went
to war, whether Kelly was murdered (though I can make plenty of
guesses), but am sure there was no need to hornswaggle me - the truht
would have done.