"How is the Iraq War illegal?" Some freeper sent me that question on one of my youtube animations

[yurbud]

what's your best answer, not from columns but actual laws, treaties, and such?

[wake.up.america]

1. Well, here are some thoughts.

Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has stated 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.

[lligrd]

2. Iraq Was A Sovereign Country And As Such Saddam Was

the official "Decider" in Iraq. As the official "Decider," he had the right to do whatever he wanted and to refuse to explain a thing. Isn't that the power Bush is seeking? Just trying to put it in terms they might understand.

[hwmnbn]

3. Pre-emptive war based on a hunch......

is against all international law. You can't attack a sovereign nation because you feel like it.

There were no WMDs, so there was no threat.

[zbdent]

13. Not just "because you feel like it" but

BECAUSE YOU CAN ...

[Terri S]

4. no question... illegal then, illegal now....

There are only two conditions in which a war is legal under international law: when force is authorized by the U.N. Security Council, or when the use of force is an act of national self-defense and survival. Apart from these conditions, war is an act of aggression. The U.N. Charter, based on the Nuremberg Conventions, prohibits war "as an instrument of policy." And the war in Iraq is just that - a war of choice. The Constitution is unambiguous. Article VI states: "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." The United Nations Charter, which our nation wrote in large part, and signed and ratified as a treaty in 1945, provides that—except in response to an armed attack—nations may neither threaten nor engage in warfare without the authorization of the UN Security Council. President Bush swore to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Articles 41 and 42 of the UN Charter make clear that war is a matter of last resort. International law traditionally allows for preemptive strikes, but only in the event of an imminent threat. There was NO such threat, despite lies and manipulating facts to fit the policy, particularly with the presence of UN weapons inspectors in the country. Imaginary visions of future mushroom clouds conjured in the minds of war profiteers do not constitute imminent threat.

The US and British governments claimed that the invasion was justified by UN Security Council Resolution 1441 which required Iraq to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction. But that 1991 resolution stated that the Security Council “decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution.” The Security Council—not the United States, Britain or other council members acting on their own—must decide on further use of force. They did not. Nor, as most of us knew then, and all of us with half a brain know now, did Iraq have weapons of mass destruction.

The war was and is illegal. Period.

[watrwefitinfor]

5. Excellent. n/t

[yurbud]

6. that's something I can work with

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

7. Do remind the drooling knucklehead...

That a treaty is just another name for a law. Once ratified by Congress, it is a law.

[yurbud]

15. "treaties is what pussies make with furners cuz they's cowherds."

[Hosnon]

23. Illegality depends first on what law you are referring to. If you really

want to show off and cover all your bases, discuss that as well. See my post below for more.

[gaspee]

9. Perfect summation

I think I'm going to copy this and use it, if that's all right with you. It's short, to the point, and dead on accurate.

My explanations as to the illegality of this war always cause my audience's eyes to glaze over. It takes me about 10,000 words to say what you said in three paragraphs.

[cali]

14. Fantastic. Hope it's OK

if I copy this and keep it on hand. Thanks so much.

[Hosnon]

20. One edit: International law recognizes military action as legitimate if

it is to stop a global crisis, e.g., genocide.

[karlrschneider]

24. Good summary.

:kick:

[wake.up.america]

8. The House voted 296-133 to give Bush the authority to use U.S. military force to make Iraq comply wi

The House voted 296-133 to give Bush the authority to use U.S. military force to make Iraq comply with U.N. resolutions requiring it to give up weapons of mass destruction. Across the Capitol, a companion measure cleared a procedural vote by a wide margin earlier Thursday and drew the support of the chamber's Democratic leader.

Claims that Iraq had WMDs proved to be fabricated

[yurbud]

16. Hitler claimed Poland was a threat too.

[WinkyDink]

19. The U.S. Congress cannot over-ride the U.N. Charter.

[Hosnon]

22. It most certainly can.

In reference to U.S. law, not international law.

An Article VI treaty has the approval only of the President and 2/3 of the Senate. A statute has the approval of the President, the majority of the Senate and the majority of the House.

The Supreme Court has held that the Last-in-Time rule governs, i.e., whichever came last is the governing law in U.S. courts.

[karlrschneider]

25. That's true but depends on a rather tenuous conflation of "war" with "invasion."

I would much prefer that the Constitution held precedence, de jure and de facto.

[Hosnon]

28. I am referring to the idea generally.

If an Article VI treaty states that you can't do X in the U.S. and Canada and the Congress passes a statute later that states you can do X in the U.S., X is legal (under U.S. law).

[karlrschneider]

32. Agreed. It really boils down to whether any nation is willing to comply with

international law and if it doesn't, who has the legal (and actual) authority to do anything about it.

[WinkyDink]

29. I was answering in the context of the OP.

[Hosnon]

31. Oh ok...I was speaking generally. NT.

[mmonk]

10. You may want to mention

the DSM, Office of Special Plans, and the Niger forgeries in your explanation as well.

[Boo Boo]

11. Don't think you'll like this answer, but...

Kofi Annan said that the war in Kosovo was illegal but legitimate, whereas the Iraq war was legal but illegitimate. It's an interesting distinction, but basically he's saying that even though the 'I's and 'T's were dotted and crossed, so to speak, the war in Iraq does not adhere to the principles of Just War.

Clark gave a talk on this subject at UCLA:
http://www.international.ucla.edu/bcir/news/article.asp?parentid=63248
(Podcast link at beginning of article)

"We went to war on legally sufficient grounds both nationally and internationally," Clark explained. "The problem was legitimacy." U.S. actions struck at the heart of the "just-war theory," which is codified in international law and which seeks to restrict the destructiveness of war, protect the innocent and inhibit the use or threat of war as instruments by nation states, he said.

"By February 2003, the president had begun talking about his aim of establishing democracy (in Iraq), undercutting the just-war purpose of the operation, which was directed at enforcing the United Nations Security Council resolution about weapons of mass destruction," Clark said. "States in the region understand that the United States was going into Iraq as a first step, not a last step, and that it wasn't about weapons of mass destruction — it was about broader geostrategic issues."

The attacks on civilians further damaged U.S. legitimacy. "Finally, there is this standard in just-war theory that, after all is said and done, the operation has to be successful or effective, otherwise it is manifestly unjust," Clark said.

"So by virtually every standard — purpose, effectiveness, the use of minimal force, protection of the innocent, proportionality, last-resort — we have undercut the legitimacy that should have been derived from the legal authority to undertake these operations," he said.

So, when someone tells you that there's simply no question that the Iraq war was illegal... they might just be talking out their ass. You might not be able to win this argument with your Freeper.

Whatever. Just because Bush was able to finesse the question of legality, that doesn't change this simple fact: it was still wrong. Furthermore, just because the war might have been entered into on "legally sufficient grounds," that doesn't mean that crimes haven't been committed.

[bunkerbuster1]

12. Be sure to add--"It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

Freepers love to hear that thrown back at them.

[karlrschneider]

26. Thereby demonstrating the limitations of many "laws,"

Ask people if it's LEGAL to kill somebody. Most will say no, but when you broaden the question to include "to keep them from killing you or your family" it will change drastically. And obviously it's "legal" for a government to kill one (or a million) people given sufficient rationale - which is determined by...guess who? The guys doing the killing.

[oblivious]

27. Iraq war illegal, says Annan

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.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

Excerpts: Annan interview
The United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has said he believes the American-led invasion of Iraq last year was illegal and he cast doubt on plans to hold elections there in January.


Q: So you don't think there was legal authority for the war?

A: I have stated clearly that it was not in conformity with the Security Council - with the UN Charter.

Q: It was illegal?

A: Yes, if you wish.

Q: It was illegal?

A: Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661640.stm

[Cabcere]

17. How is it NOT illegal?

:shrug:

[WinkyDink]

18. U.N. Charter, to which we are a signatory: Crime against peace. War crime of aggression.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/GAres3314.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-war-crimes

"A crime against peace, in international law, refers to the act of military invasion as a war crime, specifically referring to starting or waging war against the integrity, independence, or sovereignty of a territory or state, or else a military violation of relevant international treaties, agreements or legally binding assurances.

The definition of crimes against peace was first incorporated into the Nuremberg Principles and later included in the United Nations Charter. This definition would play a part in defining aggression as a war crime."
http://www.answers.com/topic/crime-against-peace

WAR CRIME. Bush committed a WAR CRIME.

[Hosnon]

21. Illegal in respect to what law? That is the primary question one must answer.

If referring to international law, the poster above explains it quite well.

However, if referring to U.S. law, the question is much more complicated. A conflict exists in the Constitution. Allow me to explain:

Article VI states that all treaties shall be the supreme law of the land. The U.N. Charter is a treaty. Therefore, the U.N. Charter is the supreme law of the land. (Don't you just love simple syllogisms.) The U.N. Charter allows for military action in two circumstances: approval and defense. (International law recognizes a third: humanitarian crises.) There was no Security Council approval and the defense argument is tenuous at best (though not ridiculous). Based on the U.N. Charter, working as an Article VI treaty, the war was illegal under U.S. law.

However, there are limits to the authority of an Article VI treaty. The Constitution has an explicit process of amendment. As such, no other method can be used, e.g., an Article VI treaty. As a result, any authority of the President that is minimized by the U.N. Charter has no effect under U.S. law. The President has the authority to defend the country - and the presumption is most likely on his/her side. If Bush, especially in good faith, believed that he was defending the U.S. against a threat, he is acting within his Constitutional authority and the war is legal.

In my opinion, there is a high likelihood that the war is illegal under international law and a low likelihood that it is illegal under U.S. law.

[Terri S]

30. That is a really good point

"The President has the authority to defend the country - and the presumption is most likely on his/her side. If Bush, especially in good faith, believed that he was defending the U.S. against a threat, he is acting within his Constitutional authority and the war is legal."

I wonder how important the 'in good faith' is in determining his authority. In this case, I think it could be argued rather strenuously that he did not act 'in good faith' but then again, that really does go to the bottom line of all these hearings ... the lies and manipulations used to start the war.

I'm also a bit unclear as to Clark's distinguishing 'legal' from 'legitimate'. Yes, Annan did eventually say it was illegal, but the difference between legal and legitimate sounds kinda like 'that depends on what your definition of 'is' is. ??

Legitimate:
Being in compliance with the law; lawful

Legal:
Of, relating to, or concerned with law


Can someone please enlighten me to the apparent nuances between the two? I ain't getting it

[karlrschneider]

33. IANAL but it seems to me it's the (somewhat nebulous) distinction between the 'letter'

and the 'spirit' of the law. Which is of course why we have billions and billions of lawyers arguing those points ad nauseum. :eyes: