Very , very interesting take on why the Irqi invasion was illegal.

[slojim240]

Any attorney out there who can comment on the validity of these arguments?


"This is the Congressional authorization for force that Bush used to launch the invasion of Iraq. However, if you read Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited, the product of the Pentagon Office at the heart of the latest Israeli spy scandal.

Therefore, under United States law, the war in Iraq is illegal. And We The People are not under any legal or moral obligation to pay for it, let alone let our kids be killed in it.

If anything, Bush and his pro-war Neocon buddies should be required to reimburse the treasury for their private use of government property. I leave the question of civil lawsuits for wrongful deaths to the families of the dead American service people, and the live service people still suffering from depleted uranium."
www.whatreallyhappened.com

[Randi_Listener]

1. Impeachment Proceedings

Impeachment must start in the House. Without a majority, there is no chance of that happening.

[BlueEyedSon]

2. Illegal by international law too,

UN Charter, article 51
Treaty of Westphalia
Geneva Convetion
etc...

[shraby]

3. According to our constitution, any treaty

signed by our government becomes the law of the land.

[Maple]

4. US started and signed

UN charter.

[immoderate]

5. And it must be ratified.

Now I know what rats are good for.

--IMM

[seemslikeadream]

9. Santiago Treaty signed by George Bush Sr. in 1991

We were obligated to come to the aid of the democratically elected government of Haiti.

[durutti]

6. Yes, it is valid...

Yet this argument has been made against every war since Vietnam, and been ignored for just as long.

[slojim240]

7. Well, isn't it time for some "American hero" to raise this issue and file

a law suit? Seems to me that our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness has been negated by this Iraqi invasion. And if we must, file a suit (inretrospect) about the Viet Nam War.

[K-W]

10. Only congress can hold the president accountable.

Impeachment is our systems method for holding presidents accountable to the law.

[KlatooBNikto]

13. If a President commits war crimes he is accountable to other

prosecutors worldwide just as Pinochet was declared a criminal by a Spanish prosecutor.

[K-W]

11. dupe, ignore

dupe

[K-W]

8. Perfectly valid argument. The war Bush waged was never authorized.

And once you realize that it clears up Kerry's Iraq war stance alot.

[charlie]

12. Naw

There's enough latitude in the resolution for him to weasel out of those charges:

"However, if you read Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11."

Proof wasn't necessary:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

Bush had a choice, either show the US was imperilled by Saddam or that Saddam was "not likely" to honor the UN resolutions. Bush opted for both, but the "not likely" clause saves his ass.

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

All he had to do was insist that invading Iraq was a part of the War on Whatever. The phrase "including those nations, etc..." made nations actually complicit in 911 a subset and allowed him to broaden his discretion to countries that he deemed to be terrorist "organizations". Having Blair by his side satisfies the "other countries" clause.

It was a fucked up resolution and it gave Dubya the cover he needed.