Question about the legality of the war in Iraq

[theHandpuppet]

Could someone here please explain to me what, specifically, makes the invasion of Iraq illegal both by domestic and international law? I myself have used the term "illegal war" but if someone ever challenged me to explain that I don't believe I could, really.

Any help with this would be appreciated.

Also, exactly what qualifies someone to be brought before the Hague on war crimes? I'm all for murderous thugs like Saddam and Milosevic standing trial for what they've done, but why is what we've done to Iraq exempt from equal contempt and prosecution under international law?

Finally, does anyone know if there has been any party (not political party) which has taken this issue up with the Hague? And why has the U.N. not demanded that we end the occupation of Iraq? There's something about this legal hypocrisy I'm not getting.

[firefox]

1. There are only two allowances for war

There either has to be an eminent threat of attack or it has to be approved by the UN. I think it is important that Secretary-General Annan said in no uncertain terms that the Iraq War is illegal.

Here are Google results for "Secretary" "General" "Annan" "illegal war"-http://tinyurl.com/d9fcp This is the BBC coverage of September 16, 2004 of Annan's opinion that led to the personal attacks on Annan by the US media quoting the talking government heads - http://tinyurl.com/4ndcw

[DemsUnited]

2. Not to mention it's illegal to lie to Congress

which Bushco did in the run up to war.

[theHandpuppet]

4. Well that's certainly an impeachable offense

But we know that's not gong to happen, is it.

[theHandpuppet]

3. So if the U.N. considers this an illegal war...

Are they going to actually do anything about it? When I think of countries whose people have suffered terribly due to U.N. sanctions, I have to wonder if the crime we have committed doesn't deserve some measured response.

Also, just what kind of war crime do you have to commit before someone decides to take the issue to the Hague?

Thanks for the links, BTW.

[firefox]

5. The UN has no enforcement mechanism

The UN itself has no enforcement capabilities. The Haque is concerned with the World Court and the US has not signed onto that.

[Nikki Stone 1]

6. But Britain has signed on to the World Court

Is anything being done about the UK's involvement?

[firefox]

7. Very good question

The legality of the war was a big debate up until the election of Blair. Then all of a sudden there is no mention of the legality of the UK involvement. It really makes you wonder what is going on.

There is also the Geneva Conventions that have been breached by the use of incendiary phosphorus and napalm. The use of depleted uranium sure is worthy of a trial. It sure is not the harmless material the US bullshits it to be. There is also the War Crimes Act from like 1996 that I first read about in Chomsky's works.

But it all brings into focus that the lie that we are governed by laws. We are governed by power and the laws that are enforced are those that keep the status quo where the wealthy keep their victory position in the class war. The World Court ordered a settlement of a billion dollars or so in a limited scope that Nicaragua could sue under. We just ignored it the way we ignore the $5 billion the NAFTA courts ruled we illegally took from Canada on softwood tariffs.

[Wizard777]

8. No! There must be an attack. The UN's hands are tied at point. The Country

is to defend thier sovereignty. They are also allowed as UN peace keeping mission upon the approval of the security council. The paricipating countries are not allowed attend the Security Council vote on the Mission.

[Wizard777]

9. Opps! Reply to wrong post n/t

[Wizard777]

10. From the US Constitution and UN Charter. W/ a lil Nuremburg for spice.

This obligates us to the UN Charter we have formed and International Law.

US Constituttion. Article 1, Section 8.
"To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;"

The law of nations is what we now call International Law.

From the UN Charter.

Chapter 1, Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

Chapter VII, 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."

The Full UN Charter It's a good read. But the intro is plagerized. No Doubt! That is our baby that Nazi Bush is fighting against. The "Two Wars" is WWI and WWII. This Document was written by the Allies after Nuremburg.

Also "War of Agression" (without first being attacked)is a War Crime under the Nuremberg Accord. That was one of the Grave Breaches of Peace we prosecuted the Nazi Party of Germany for. Also Genocide. War Crimes Charges have no statutes of limitations. We still have people hunting the escaped Nazi's to this very day.

The theory of "Premptive Strike" Is an unratified by the Security Council of the World Body Concept of Nuclear War. With Niclear proliferation there can be no winner in A Nuclear War. Only Global Holocuast (great burning.)The only way to win a nuclear war is to prevent it from Begining. The Theory is widely accepted. But this is not yet legal under International Law. Bush may killed any passage on it with his abuse of this IAEA Theory. It is not a "Bush Doctrine." It's closer to being a Jimmy Carter Doctrine. Our Former Hill Billy and damned proud of it President Jimmy Carter is a world wide respected Nuclear Physicist. At least the theory began around that time.

This is why Bush was hot on the Uranium and nuclear weapons accusation. He used that to introduce the Theory of Preemptive Strike. Once the Nuclear allegations were disproven. Bush kept running with the Preemptive Strike part. It's a classic Bait and Switch Con. Okay so we never did have THAT EXACT car. But since your here. Let me sell you this one instead. It's close enough for us. It has a Higher cost and lesser value. What's not to like?

Remember the Pentagon thinks toilets seats cost 800.00 each and we let them buy this War. UGH!