Was the invasion of Iraq illegal?

[theorist]

Just be honest.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. Legalities.....

www.brusselstribunal.org

* Report of Fallujah crimes presented to UN Commission on Human Rights (March 25 2005)

* Reports on the devastating effects of the US Assault of Fallujah (January 14 2005) :

Letter to Kofi Annan - War Crimes committed by the US Army - Situation of the Refugees

* Iraqi National foundation Congress - Concluding statement English and Arabic (May 20 2005)

* Articles from sources inside Iraq

* Relevant articles on the "Free Elections" of Jan. 30 2005

* Breaking reports and articles about Iraq

* Selected writings of members of the BRussells Tribunal

* Reflections on Fallujah

[Maestro]

2. We have three Freeper lurkers I see

Hey Freepers I saw your grandma kicking the baby again because it beat her in checkers again.

[mikehiggins]

15. To hell with Iraq--where did you get that granny pic? eom

[Maestro]

17. Man, I can't remember

I nicked off someone's FTP. Google Granny and Owned and I bet you will find it. Better yet, just right click my pic and steal it from me. ;)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

20. now we have 6 of them

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KnightoftheRepublic]

4. You have a point.

But it SHOULDN'T be like that. International Laws were put into place for a reason after all.

[wuushew]

5. Well I would favor economic sanctions on this country

to punish us for our poor choice in leadership.

Being such a large debtor nation the consequences for our belligerence and arrogance would be quick and satisfying.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

7. What about the Geneva Conventions?

We should just ignore Gitmo and Abu Gharib too, but that rationale.

[still_one]

8. the reality is this

we invaded a country that DID NOT ATTACK US

The reason given was based on a lie

We are in the middle of a civil war in Iraq and do not even realize it. It will eventually become a Shiite theocracy which is draining our resources both economically, and in American lives

If you find international law silly, then the concept of genocide must be silly to you also, since international law is very clear on this

We are NOT alone in this world, and if we act as if we are, and do not work with other countries, we will have some extremely difficult burdens to bear

[TahitiNut]

9. 'Realpolitik', huh? Are the Geneva Conventions "quaint" then?

:eyes: Or is it Weltpolitik?

Is the U.S. Constitution "silly" when it states that Treaties (the entire basis for "international law") shall have the force of law?

[Minstrel Boy]

13. "International law? I'd better call my lawyer."

Guess you're not alone.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1212-05.htm

[RoyGBiv]

22. Yeah, silly ...

Sorta like the Constitution is silly, particularly this part:

Article VI.

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

I mean, it's only the flippin' Supremacy Clause. What a joke that is, eh?

[theorist]

24. This is even more hilarious!

Article II. Section 1. Clause 8.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I guess his defense would be that he wasn't actually elected that first time through, so it doesn't count.

[gumby]

31. How about NAFTA and GATT?

THOSE International Treaties are upheld with the utmost rigor.

That's 'cause dollars, instead of lives, are involved. hey!

[wli]

6. international law was ratified as US law

Bush's erasure of signatures from the treaties have no force whatsoever. Acts of Congress are required to withdraw from them.

[gumby]

11. Exactly. The International Laws that the U.S.

signs onto are U.S. laws. That's my understanding.

BTC, you're correct, it seems that Bush can do whatever he wants whenever he wants it. We are now a nation without laws.... except those imposed on us "fodder units" (G.H.W. Bush).

BTW, BTC reminds me of BTK.

[Swamp Rat]

18. Mine too.

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Article. VI.

Clause 1: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

(snip)

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

[etherealtruth]

10. Illegal, immoral and illconceived .... n/t

[Imagevision]

12. With Joe Wison's Niger info & the DSM - why is Bush impeached??

do you know?? - does anyone? emember, "fixing the policies surrounding the lead up to the War!

[Redstone]

14. Of course it was. Did anyone hear about a declaration

of war by the Congress?

I didn't, either.

Redstone

[uppityperson]

16. Exactly. My sen told me she voted to give * the power to threaten, not go

Ms. Cantwell (dem, more or less, WA)(actually she has gotten overall better in recent couple yrs, but still not great yet) said that based on the evidence she was given and saw, she had no option but vote to give Mr.bush the power to threaten Saddam, but not to actually go to war. I told her she was seriously deluded or some such if she truly thought he would not go to war.

Now we know about the evidence, and about how he took the power to threaten to actually do it.

[theorist]

27. This is technically correct.

But a breach of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution">War Powers Resolution has never been contested.

It's just a fact of life that when the Republicans control the Legislative and Executive branches, http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war.html">we're going to get our war on.

[barb162]

29. Didn't the same thing happen with Vietnam and Korea

no declaration

[proud patriot]

19. Constitutionally ???? YES !

:grr:

[CantGetFooledAgain]

21. Well, if by illegal you mean...

...against both United States and international law then...
yes, of course it was.

[LSdemocrat]

23. Does any significant number of Americans care either way?

[theorist]

25. Well....

Maybe, if there is a possibility that he could be impeached over it.

In other words, no.

[leftofthedial]

26. illegal

war crimes

crimes against humanity

murder

terrorism

[rfkrfk]

28. what statute was broken?

note that the US is not a party
to the International Criminal Court,
Which I assume is the basis for some {uniformed}
people to comment about 'legality'.

Since all US former presidents (since FDR}
have committed acts of war without UN
approval, I guess shrub didn't want to be left out.

[shanti]

30. thank you for calling it like it is

it was not a war, it was definitely an INVASION! and yes, it was illegal.

[OneBlueSky]

32. so who are the seven morons who voted yes? . . .

identify yourselves, and tell us what convoluted reasoning led you to your conclusion . . .

yeah, I know it won't happen . . . people like that are too cowardly to publically stand up for their "convictions" . . .

[Fescue4u]

33. In a strict sense it was legal

Legal in the sense that there is no legal authority that says the US cannot.

Another way of looking at it, is that the US is a soveign nation and there is not "super soveignity" that either Iraq or the US belong to.

If there was a legitimate world government that the US was subservent to, this would be a different story.

No law was broken hence its not illegal.

Now did it break treaties, moralitys etc? Thats a different question and is akin to civil vs criminal law.

[LynnTheDem]

35. Wrong.

But hey, the vast majority of the world know bush's invasion was the supreme crime war of aggression and in fact was illegal.

[Fescue4u]

36. OK...who's prosecuting them?

They broke a law, so the keeper of this "supreme" law must be on their way to enforce the law right?

(on edit: Don't think Im defending these yahoos, we're just arguing technicalities, not whats right and wrong)

[wuushew]

42. Surely the invasion was illegal under IRAQI law?

once we crossed the border were not the thousands of soldier's and their relevant chain of command guilty of mass murder, terrorism and other crimes?

The fact that the Republic of Iraq was effectively destroyed does not erase the historical accuracy of the crime.

[Fescue4u]

44. Well thats proably true

Except that Iraqi law doesnt apply to the US, or any other country.

Look, the invasion was wrong in virtually every sense EXCEPT that of legality. There is simply no law that makes it illegal for two nations to go to war.

[wuushew]

45. Thats ridiculous

foreign born terrorists are guilty of domestic crimes when and if they use violence in the United States. By the same token American tourists or missionaries are at the mercy of foreign legal systems when they travel abroad.

Are you arguing that the concept of law does not exist when it comes to matters of foreign policy? Since every solider joined up by choice in the armed services each one of them made the conscious decision to disregard Iraqi sovereignty when committing acts of war against the people of Iraq.

[Fescue4u]

46. Then you should easily be able to answer this question

What chapter of verse and what body of law did the US violate?

I'd like to know so that we can nail Bushies ass to the wall with it.



btw, you brought up "foreign born terrorist, being gulty of domestics crimes". Yes I totally agree. But as we know terrorist do not operate under the flag of a nation, nor as a tool of foreign policy.


Of course its all semantics anyway. Nations have been waging wars for thousands of years and that will also be true.

[bridgit]

34. gee, ya'think...

:shrug:

[Zinfandel]

37. Invading a sovereign nation, that NEVER attacked or threatened us...

with lies of WMD, to invade, occupy and steal another country's resources, to make Bush a war-time president, to promote fear all around the world in order to get a corporate fascist agenda passed.

Illegally invading a much, much weaker nation we had under total control and security, that had little or no army, no air force, navy, or any weapons a monster super power could be threatened by?

Forcing our way of life on Iraq, so as to justify the draining of our tax dollars and economy for the republicans and their corporations?

The mass killings of innocents of that country and our own soldiers for financial gain and military games...Simply because we could?

That's not America, that's absolute imperialism!

[Erika]

47. Agreed

Corporate greed is not a legal reason for invading and occupying a non threatening country.

[ConfuZed]

38. How can I not vote NO?

[ngGale]

39. Yes, it is illegal and that means ...

the soldier's don't have to fight and we don't have to pay taxes to pay for it. But, then - this is Bushworld.

[volitionx]

40. It was illegal in a number of ways...

One of the main ways in which the war is illegal is that you can't legally invade a country with the aim of overthrowing its leader. When Bushmaster said "we want regime change", etc. etc., that's ILLEGAL. Of course the rationale for war shifted rapidly, so he'd deny that was the main reason, but we all know he used it...

[Spock_is_Skeptical]

41. Yes, of course it was illegal.

[stevietheman]

43. Forget international law and the UN for a second...

isn't it illegal to produce a wide array of lies to Congress to convince reps and senators to vote for a war? Isn't this "contempt of Congress"? or worse?