Why is the Iraq war NOT illegal?

[mudesi]

I'm looking for an explanation as to how the Iraq war is legal in any conceivable way.

- It was not sanctioned by the U.N.

- Iraq did not attack the United States of America and did not attack any other country, and Saddam Hussein did not threaten to attack the United States nor did he threaten to attack any other country.

- While it was alleged that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction, there was no clear evidence of the existence of such weapons, (and their existence has been subsequently disproved), despite repeated assertions to the contrary by the United States of America.

Where, exactly, did the United States obtain any legal authority to invade, overthrow, and occupy a sovereign nation? How does it not make Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and Mr. Rumsfeld war criminals?

[Kelly Rupert]

1. This is obviously not the place to ask n/t

[Brigid]

5. Good point.

Try this one on some Freeper site, and have some fun watching them try to wrap their brains around it. :evilgrin:

[LakeSamish706]

2. I think that you had it in your opening line... It is illegal, but no one...

(UN) or other wise would know what to do about it. Thats just my take on it.

[againes654]

3. Good question

IMPEACH, INDITE, IMPRISON....NOW TODAY

[Kelly Rupert]

4. The word is spelled "indict." n/t

[againes654]

14. LOL

sorry, didn't catch that. Thanks for spell checking me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. It is legal by the thinnest of threads

the UN Security Council did sanction it... in a vote after Powell's testimony. So that resolution is part of the cover

The US House and Senate authorize military operations... granted it was not war and you could make an argument that it is not

Oh and finally... and this is word smithing, the moment the President declared combat operations over, it was right before the War Powers Act would go away and he'd have to ask congress for an actual honest to goodness declaration of war.

So they did cover their legal needs, even if for the most past they are fig leaves.

Spelling

[sandnsea]

18. I don't think so

What resolution was passed after Powell's testimony, I don't remember it.

There's no declaration of war on Afghanistan, I think you're wrong on combat operations.

The Congress authorized disarming Iraq - not Operation Iraqi Freedom to liberate Iraq.

I don't think it's legal in any way and I think there's one person standing in the way of the Democratic Party saying so. Because there's one person who COULD say it at any time, and noticeably won't.

[Zodiak]

19. It was UN resolution 1441

You don't remember Bush repeating it over and over and over and voer and over again before the bombs started dropping?

It's the only UN resolution number I know.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. 1441

and when you read it, this is the cover used by the administration

It is the thinest of cover, but cover nonetheless

[sandnsea]

31. nov 8 2002

1441 was before Powell's February testimony, isn't that right?

1441 was the resolution to force inspections, the one that the IWR was designed for.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. lets look for a chronology

Here is your congressional cover

October 10, 2002 Congress passes the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. (White House)

And here is 1441

November 8, 2002 The UN Security Council unanimously approves resolution 1441 imposing tough new arms inspections on Iraq and requiring Iraq to declare all weapons of mass destruction and account for known chemical weapons material stockpiles on pain of "serious consequences." Iraq accepts the terms of the resolution and UN inspectors return. (Iraqwatch)

And the requiiste link

http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/muriel/path_of_war_timeline_613.htm

Oh and yes it precedes Powell you are right... but it is still used for cover, the UN security has not pulled back from that and it is the fig leave used by the administration

Granted, the UN Security Council should have passed soemthing after the hearings were found to be false, but they didn't, partly we hold a veto

[sandnsea]

63. But does it support an invasion

I don't think 1441 supports an invasion. I've argued it in the past, frankly I'm tired of getting the quotes because nothing is ever going to come of it. There are those in Congress who have been willing to go after the war lies - and those with all the power who always stop any war lie attack in its tracks. Maybe code pink could start showing up at campaign rallies and confront the candidates with the Downing Street Memo.

[The Stranger]

33. Not even close.

Even by your own admission.

[merh]

45. The UN never sanctioned the invasion.

And how can you go to force UN resolutions when your actions, your invasions are violating the UN resolutions and the Joint Resolution that required UN approval and support?

Iraq war illegal, says Annan

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

-snip-

'Valid'

"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community," he added.

He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.

And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.

When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm

See the Joint Resolution

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

[leftofthedial]

7. it certainly IS illegal

several international bodies have declared it so

but might makes right in the post-raygun era

[cali]

10. When you make a claim such as yours

without any evidence, it's hard to agree or disagree. I think the Iraq war is morally deplorable, the wrong thing on many different levels, but I'm not aware of international bodies that have declared it so. If you have links, I'd love to see them.

[coalition_unwilling]

25. Kofi Annan, secretary general of the U.N., declared it 'Illegal'. Granted

he does not speak for the General Assembly of the U.N.

[The Stranger]

36. That an "international body" has not declared it so does not make it legal.

It means only that no "international body" has declared it to be what it is -- an illegal war.

[leftofthedial]

70. there is a shitload of evidence

google is your friend too

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. What bodies have declared it ilegal?

If you mention the UN, they haven't, what they did in '05 was RECOGNIZE the new Iraqui Governemtn, but at no time have they declared it ilegal

The closest they came was a resolution in the general assembly also in 2005

Oh and the International Red Cross, they didn't declare the war ilegal, but our treatment of POWS questionable... that is a world of difference

On edit, the ICRC does not deal with the totality of legality in a war, but individual events, such as Abu Ghraib and Guantamo

[goodhue]

27. What bodies could declare it illegal?

eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. The UN Security council, fat chance, we have veto power in

it

The International Court of Justice, we don't recognize it, but they could.

And you can bet right now, as I type, the ICRC is collecting evidence that could be used in that body

Oh NATO, we are members, fat chance

The European Community... perhaps, if they want a break with the US

The Organization of American States, fat chance, we are members

So your best bet would be the International Court

[goodhue]

39. Yes but the ICJ deals with disputes submitted by states or questions from UN

There is no realistic way I can think of that the ICJ would rule on illegality of Iraq War.
The war is nonetheless illegal.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. In your opinion, and I respect your opinion

but the ICJ can also deal with ilegal acts and ilegal wars

Now do you think anybody is going to bring this to the ICJ?

Wait, some folks are doing just that.

So far we have had a case against Rummy in a Gernam Court, which potentially could end in the ICJ

[goodhue]

53. Only nation states or the UN has standing in ICJ

My point is that there is no body that is likely to declare the war illegal, but that doesn't mean that the war is legal. In fact the consensus opinion is that war is illegal under international law.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. Ok, so let me explain this slowly for you

until the war is declared ilegal and treaties are involved, (like the Genocide Convention) it is YOUR opinion, and my opinion, but does NOT have any legal force. They covered themselves with the barest of legal cover. Read ONCE AGAIN LEGAL COVER

[goodhue]

60. No need to slow down

I understand what you are saying, I just think it is entirely off point. No one here is talking about legal force of the opinion that Iraq War is illegal.

Also, I agree the opinion is not necessarily worth much. It is however correct, something that has not been widely acknowledged or explained to the American public.

[The Stranger]

37. That an "international body" has not declared it so does not make it legal.

It only means that no "international body" has declared it to be what it is -- an illegal war.

[goodhue]

47. amen

eom

[merh]

65. The Joint Resolution itself makes the invasion illegal

as we failed to comply with the terms of same.

Relative to a body declaring it illegal - I can murder you and destroy your body, just because I get away with the act doesn't make the act legal.

Seriously, go look at the UN Charter that says only the UN can authorize an invasion or use of force to make member nations comply with UN Resolutions. We violated the constitution that authorized the UN treaty/charter that we signed as founding members, the constitution which provides that the UN treaty is "supreme law of the land"; we violated the Resolutions authorizing the use of the military when not obtaining UN approval and when we violated the UN Charter by invading without the authority.

The invasion was illegal any way you look at it.

.

[Gregorian]

8. I understand it as being out of focus. Smeared around.

It's how the Bushes operate. A shell game. And it's no different here. Correct me, someone, if I'm wrong. But Congress gave Bush a vote to combat acts of terrorism. (I'm really going off the top of my head here. I'd go to Wiki and look up the Iraq War Resolution for more details.) And it had stipulations. But they didn't give him a blank check to go to war. At any rate, it took the burden off of Bush and onto Congress. THEY abrogated their responsibility. So it's no longer really Bush's problem, but theirs.

That's how I see it. The buck stops over here, and over there, and nowhere.

[goodhue]

9. It is Illegal

eom

[cali]

11. links please n/t

[goodhue]

16. okay

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6917.htm

http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Ok, Kofi Annan stated HIS OPINION

not that of the UN... perhpas readying is in order

And the second is a link to Professors in International Law, NOT an international body

It is their learned opinion that the war breaks major standarsd and should be ilegal. I share the sentiment, but I will repeat this

NO INTERNATIONAL BODY WITH STANDING, SUCH AS THE UN OR THE INTERNATIONAL COURT HAS DECLARED THE WAR ILEGAL

Should it be declared ilegal? In my opinion absolutely.

Until that happens, the Bushes, to my chagrin, have the thinnest of coverage they need LEGALLY

[goodhue]

26. I didn't state that any authoritative international body has declared it illegal

There simply is no authoritative body on international law. The war is nonetheless illegal under norms of international law. But obviously the US can flout international law.

I've simply provide links to well established opinion of experts in international law that war in Iraq is illegal in the sense that it blatantly violates international law. Believe it or not.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. The war can be declared ilegal using standards

and until it is declared ilegal, all opinions are just that, opinions without any force of law

There are organizations, chiefly the International Court at the Hague that have the jurisdiction (even if we don't recognize the court) to declare it ilegal and give people LEGAL cover

And that is a fine, but very important distinction

[The Stranger]

42. Utter and complete bullshit.

Opinions ARE law. That is what courts and those with authority do -- they issue legal opinions. That Kofi Annan stated it is illegal does not simply mean it is "his opinion."

That is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever read. If a Supreme Court justice issues an opinion -- of course it is "their opinion" -- but this false and fabricated notion that it is "without any force of law" is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard.

[mudesi]

64. Not to mention who Kofi Annan is...

I tend to think that if Kofi Annan, former Secretary-General of the United Nations, has the opinion that this war is illegal, then this war is illegal.

It's not like Mr. Annan is some schmuck off the street.

[goodhue]

43. I didn't suggest there was any FORCE of law behind legal opinion that war is illegal

Nonetheless the legal opinion that the Iraq War is illegal under international law is correct IMHO.

I'm curious if you actually read Peterson's analysis to its end. It starts with Annan but hardly ends there. I commend it to your attention . . .

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6917.htm

[The Stranger]

41. That is absolute nonsense.

There is no coverage to conduct an illegal war. If someone is being raped in the street and no one does anything about -- IT IS STILL AN ILLEGAL ACT.

(You don't seem so chagrinned about it, either.)

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Ok, let me tell you something I learned by

working for a body that did things like take evidence of war crimes

You need the force of an indictment, and street opinoons are hearsay

It may give you trouble, but this is why troops have such a helll of a time trying to stop deployment orders, for example

And I think there IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE for a body, such as the ICJ to take the first steps

In fact, give me ten minutes and I can tell you why I BELIEVE the war is ilegal, but my OPINION has no bearing on the fact they have the thinnest of cover

[goodhue]

52. Who said there would be any indictment or that anything would come of illegality of war?

The only thing original post was asking was the basis for the opinion that the war is legal.
But why not take 10 minutes and tell why you believe the war is illegal?

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. Look you need to believe that your opinions

have more force than just hearsy, go for it

Now in MY OPINION, NOT FORCE OF LAW, JUST OPINION this war is ilegal is because it breaks Indictments one through four of the Nuremberg case

1. Conspiracy to commit crimes against peace (PNAC and the intention to plan and go to war since at least 1998)

2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression (PNAC, see above)

3. War-Crimes ( Guantamo, Abu Graibh and others)

4. Crimes against humanity (This is the least provable, but many of the caused casualties were not necessary and you could make an argument for an intent of genocide, if not by our forces directly by our allies... aka the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad)

Yes it is that simple...

[goodhue]

61. My opinion is not hearsay, as I know it firsthand

It may well be heresy however

[The Stranger]

38. Wow, so cali you are asking for links that the war is illegal?

You don't believe the war is illegal?

[cali]

56. Yes I believe it should be adjudicated as illegal

but it hasn't been. That may seem like nit-picking, but I'm funny about using words with precision. Beyond being illegal, it's immoral and a complete travesty.

[mmonk]

12. It is illegal by previous American standards and by current

international standards. We are an international belligerent. We follow no laws and our leaders follow no laws or constitution unless it suits them. It's all a sham right now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. This is opionion, and one I happen to share

but it does not meet legal standards.

[mmonk]

22. I know you share this opinion

but what legal basis or argument is there for it being legal? Curious as I'm unfamiliar. I just know about Nuremberg and subsequent attempts since 1945 to make it stand internationally.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. UN Resolution 1441

passed just after Powell's lying circus

And of course the House and Senate's war resolutions in 2001

Yep the now infamous IWR

That is all the LEGAL cover they needed

[mmonk]

32. I thought we were still required to go back to the UN

under 1441 before launching hostilities.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. Look at the time line

http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/muriel/path_of_war_timeline_613.htm

And I certainly hope that the war is found ilegal by a body, but that will happen I fear, until after the Ameircan empire lays in ruins

[Poiuyt]

20. Kofi Annan said that Bush's war was illegal in 2004

Iraq war illegal, says Annan

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

==

He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.

And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.

When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

more -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm

September 16, 2004

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. That was HIS opinion

please refer me to the UN Security Council Resolution stating same

[goodhue]

28. There is no resolution, but nonetheless Annan was correct

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Once again

Opinoons have no force of law

The question asked by the OP was a technical question, is this war legal and why? Not whther I agree with Annan or not... and HIS OPINION

HIs opinion does not have the force of law

Got it now? It is as good as mine in a court... hearsay

[goodhue]

44. Who here is talking about FORCE OF LAW other than you

eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. Sorry if I was trained in LEGAL terms

when dealing with victims of another ilegal war... one that actually saw sanctions against the US
years later (for the mining of the ports of Nicaragua)

Not that naybody has been able to enforce them, and the reason why I think the US refuses to enter the International Court Standard and sign the treaty

[goodhue]

59. No need to apologize

I was "trained" in legal terms as well. I know that Iraq War is illegal under international law as it was taught by law professor in law school. But I also learned international law is not always worth that much--it's often just unenforceable opinions, albeit codified in international conventions, declarations and treaties.

[tuckessee]

40. Call me old-fashioned or silly...

...but I consider any war/police action/peace keeping involving US military to be patently illegal without an actual Declaration of War from Congress.

Forget the War Powers Act, resolutions, etc.

[Dark]

51. Technically speaking, none of those are requirements for a "legal" war.

As long as Congress gives the OK, the U.S. can go to war, which Congress did.

The U.N. doesn't have to approve of a war.

It is ILLEGAL, however, because Bush lied to Congress to get us involved. What's that called? Perjury?

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Now that is a good case and should be part of the IMPEACHMENT

and CONVICTION of George W Bush and his people.

Oh wait, we don't have the votes, they tell us

But they were careful to gives thesmelves the two covers

The UN... we hold veto power

And the US... well they are cowed

[Cha]

58. Cause the buSHITS and the

corporatemediawhores SAY IT'S NOT!

[damntexdem]

62. Nor was it ever declared.

And the 2002 resolution that theoretically authorized the war did not actually do so.

[NNN0LHI]

66. Its not a war. Its a brutal occupation

Need to get these words right.

Don

[WinkyDink]

67. It is illegal.

[truebrit71]

68. It is.

End of story.

[Disturbed]

69. The invasion of Iraq was Illegal, as is the US Occupation.

"Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections."

Saddam was complying to weapons inspections or was Hans Blix a figment of my imagination? The inspections were ongoing until Busholini demanded that Blix and his team had to exit Iraq. In fact, Iraq was destroying certain weaponry during that time frame. The Busholini Regime has successfuly altered actual History of that time period.