Legality of IraqInvasion

It is illegal if viewed under the charter of the UN, especially given the wording of each of the successive resolutions, and specifically that which required the security council to make further determination.

It was legal in that the US has declined to join the ICC and therefore has decided it can and will do as it wishes and as congress supports.

It was illegal in that it failed the majority of the 7 requirements for a Casus Belli.

It was illegal in that the US constitution was circumvented.

More importantly, it was morally wrong.

[edit on 10/13/04 by SomewhereinBetween]

Originally posted by keholmes
Vincere,

I�m not even really sure which laws you are referring to as they go unnamed�

I guess the UN Charter doesn't count as law as signed by the united states. Keholmes maybe you should contact an attorney they will help you out in the matter, oh wait thats right according to your opinion those are not laws or legal decrees that we have abided by for the last 60 years. Contacting a lawyer wouldnt help you as you quoted to prove me wrong I have pointed out no laws. I merely quoted article 41 and 42 and said the rest of the matter was for your own research. What part of that did you not understand? I know you didn't understand the law part so the rest you have obviously ignored as well. It's easy for you to clear up the matter. If I am wrong call an atorney for free counsel or read international law for yourself that will help you in your quick to bash opinion and pro bush stance.

That with 10 zillion resoutions that authorized "Grave" and "stern" talk....That with saddams middle finger pointed at the USA, With his known support of global terrorism.................


Well take a guess........


Plus there are to damn many lawyers these days....

Sorta like Isreal's middle finger pointed at everyone? I think weare above pride any ways, we're bigger than that and bring the only super power left we have to have more responsibility than to worry about pride.

Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950

Principle Vl

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:

1. Crimes against peace:

Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

2. War crimes:

Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

3. Crimes against humanity:

Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Principle VII

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law.



www1.umn.edu...



Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the UN Charter:

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations"





See also

chargejohnhoward.tripod.com...



[edit on 14-10-2004 by thepresidentsbrain]

Vincere,

As for my supposed pro-bush stance, it is more of a lack of ignorance stance�.concentrate now, if there is no ceasefire, then the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq must still be in effect. the UN security council found Iraq in non-compliance more than once read the resolutions yourself. I don�t need a lawyer to explain, that if you violate a cease fire resolution�.which clearly states that resuming the conflict will be the end result, resumption of hostilities is a possible course, duh. Unlike you, a disagreement with the president based on policy will not make me start telling lies, or trying to spin something that is not true.


[edit on 14-10-2004 by keholmes]

It's interesting keholmes how you presume to know more about law than lawyers from dozens of nations, including our own. Thats a fantastic interpretation but sorry the war has already been condemned as illegal - so yes your conclusions are wrong.

Originally posted by vincere7
It's interesting keholmes how you presume to know more about law than lawyers from dozens of nations, including our own. Thats a fantastic interpretation but sorry the war has already been condemned as illegal - so yes your conclusions are wrong.

And as I said before that would be your OPINION, and the OPINION of some other dimwits...however it would NOT be a legal decision, just an opinion. And as the senate approved the use of force and the white house lawyers all cleared it then I can not understand from your previous statement how you presume to know more than them�.so if not daring to differ with �experts� from the field is your motto�then you should save your opinions for something more suiting of your expertise, like needlepoint.

There were also plenty of legal opinions floating around that you subscribed to during the Clinton saga like no-one would ever be convicted for offenses similar to his�.you should try to fly that lead balloon with ms. Stewart�I think she would tell you and your army of lawyers how intelligent that legal opinion is.

As I said before and you keep conveniently ignoring�.when two nations are at war, and sign a ceasefire agreement; what would you and your bevy of stellar legal minds think was the logical conclusion for a country which violates that agreement more than once. You can spin by talking about all the buddies that you have that agree with you, it doesn�t mean your right, it just means you�re not alone. I�m sure the captain of the titanic and his crew all agreed (if they had been asked) that going the speed they were was safe. So the claim that you have other instant submarine skippers on your side doesn�t exactly prove anything.


[edit on 14-10-2004 by keholmes]

Originally posted by crossfire
Any argument that the action was illegal was negated by the actions of the French.

Again???

I swear I have yet to see a post where you don't blame something on the French! It's an obsession!

As for the international processes agreed upon at the UN - if the tiger has no teeth, it's because the members of the Security Council decided it wouldn't have any. I would ask what role the United States - a permanent member of the Security Council - played in crafting those processes.

Or maybe, to please crossfire, we can say it's France's fault once again.

Another thing to remember is this - if we forfeit the rules of international cooperation laid down at the UN, however flawed they may be - then anything is allowed, by any country. You cannot give the right of pre-emptive strike to the United States and not to other countries. As Nietzsche said, "If God is dead, then everything is allowed."

Given the choice of living in a world where flawed but at least existent rules govern what a country can or cannot do, and a world where there are no international arbiters and it's everyone for himself, I'll take the flawed rules anyday.

You're right about this subject being run into the ground. But, here you go with my answer.

War in Iraq=Legal for those who love America and have high morals!

War in Iraq=Illegal for those who hate America and have no morals!

And that's the news, see you at 11!

Originally posted by snoopy
I was just reading anarticle on the Fox News site saying how wrong it is of Annan to call the Iraq invasion Illegal and continues to berate him for his claims (Fair and Balanced?).

You know, Annan can call anything he wants illegal, but he's certainly not going to do anything about it. Even if the Iraq invasion was illegal, which it wasnt, it should have been done long ago, by the UN! Annan is all talk. There have been any number of violations of int'l law that the UN has done absolutely nothing about. Iraq is just one of them.

Annan has no place judging what is illegal and what is not, if he is not willing to enforce his own UN 'rule'.

Originally posted by Intelearthling
You're right about this subject being run into the ground. But, here you go with my answer.

War in Iraq=Legal for those who love America and have high morals!

War in Iraq=Illegal for those who hate America and have no morals!

And that's the news, see you at 11!

I know you are only joking, but what really scares me is that some people actually think that way. That we as an indiidual country can take the world law into our own hands (so to say). And that anyone who disagrees is anti-american (which is an oxymoron if you think about how our country was started).

Someone mentioned that Iraq was in violation, which I don't think anyone can deny. But does the punishment fit the crime? If a guy robs a bank, we don't execute him, we give him a fitting sentence. Maybe not a great analogy, but you get the idea. Does testing the limits of a no fly zone and firing at some well defended planes require a complete invasion. Now of course the issue isn't so black and white, but that factor probably could have been delt with some sort of other punishment. What exactly I don't know, but I can't imagine invasion is the only answer.

Originally posted by snoopy
������... That we as an indiidual country can take the world law into our own hands (so to say). And that anyone who disagrees is anti-american (which is an oxymoron if you think about how our country was started).

I haven�t seen anyone post that it is Anti-American to disagree with the war, I�m just wondering if you have that link? However, back to the topic at hand I have not seen anyone show a single �world law� rule or whatever you want to point to, beyond the UN charter�..and that would require ignoring all resolutions; although, those would be the interpretation of the UN charter by the governing body. Not that the UN would matter as the world Law�.law only exists if it is upheld.

Originally posted by snoopy
�����������. Does testing the limits of a no fly zone and firing at some well defended planes require a complete invasion. Now of course the issue isn't so black and white, but that factor probably could have been delt with some sort of other punishment. What exactly I don't know, but I can't imagine invasion is the only answer. �����..

and saying that those two things are all that transpired would be to ignore a lot of what Iraq did. And if you have no idea what would be a better answer, what makes you think that invasion wasn�t the correct one?

Originally posted by keholmes
[And as I said before that would be your OPINION, and the OPINION of some other dimwits...however it would NOT be a legal decision, just an opinion.

Thats the problem keholmes, your mental ascertation of the Iraqi invasion being legal, is merely based on your OPINION or how you FEEL about interpretations and manipulations of those avoiding criminal prosecution. Are you a lawyer? How then can you voice anyone being a DIMWIT as you yourself are not a lawyer and unable to interpret law? So the worldwide dimwits you refer to are educated lawyers, what does that make you who base judgments off what you see on tv and newspaper ads?

You have condemned yourself in your own words.

I will lay it out simply so a child can understand.

There was a book that everyone agreed to sign. They all agreed to sign the book to insure peace for all nations. In the book it said that a nation would not be allowed to attack another nation to setup a government in that country. Everyone agreed that they would not take over another country unless they were attacked by that country. And the reason they signed the book was because in war people get hurt and die and they didn't want any country to suffer in war.

So they signed the book and were happy. Throughout the years many countries had asked for our help because others were breaking the rules of the book and attacking other countries and they were killing and hurting many people. So we helped them by fighting those countries who hurt them.

Then one day our country broke the rules and ignored the book and we also attacked another country and hurt and killed many people.

I hope a child can understand this.


















[edit on 15-10-2004 by vincere7]

I was going to make a very long post but, bottom line:

Its a Dog eat Dog world isnt it?

The US accuseing Cuba for violation of Human rights,.....

The US having "alleged" terrorists in Guantanamo (CUBA FOR GOD SAKES) without proper trial no, representation and basically a nightmare of human rights violations....

Everybody puting down Iran and N korea for their nuke programs and the US developing bunker buster mini nukes....

Mexican government saying that we live in a democracy and the nationalized Oil company is "our property" and we pay gas, oil, diesel and gasoline 45% higher than the US or Canada.......

See my point? ITS A DOG EAT DOG WORLD.......IMHO the invasion of Irak was Illegal and IS a mistake, but what the hell its a rat race isnt it?

excellent point kix

our leaders have taken on the mentallity that has plagued man kind for centuries. its either them or us. sadly this mentallity is the end of all other mentallities. if you take out one possible threat, you might as well take out all of the possible threats. a never ending struggle that will ultimatly be the end of us.

:/

just pray we stay on good terms with the big boys ie china, india, russia

Originally posted by keholmes
Vincere,

As for my supposed pro-bush stance, it is more of a lack of ignorance stance�.concentrate now, if there is no ceasefire, then the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq must still be in effect. the UN security council found Iraq in non-compliance more than once read the resolutions yourself. I don�t need a lawyer to explain, that if you violate a cease fire resolution�.which clearly states that resuming the conflict will be the end result, resumption of hostilities is a possible course, duh. Unlike you, a disagreement with the president based on policy will not make me start telling lies, or trying to spin something that is not true.


[edit on 14-10-2004 by keholmes]

Kindly explain for me. Was there a ceasefire, and what part of; "decides to remain seized of the matter" is unclear?

to hell with all of the charters, legalities BS

the ultimate question is, was this a morally justified war?

the answer is no!

saddam wasnt going to hurt anyone, we could systematically strike down any and all military infrastructure for the next 100 years with our prescicion weaponry, we could have insured his crippled military status with out ever having a ground invasion.

ground invasion = secured oil contracts

imo...

[edit on 15-10-2004 by sturod84]

Originally posted by kix

Everybody puting down Iran and N korea for their nuke programs and the US developing bunker buster mini nukes....

By accord of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act (NPT), of 1970 which N Korea and Iran both signed they are not allowed to have nuclear weapons or try to make them.

Only United States, Britain, Russia, China and France are allowed to have them. You didnt have to sign the treaty Cuba and Israel are two examples that didnt. But both Iran and N Korea did sign it.

thats why everyone is puting down Iran and N korea for their nuke programs

Ok,Ok,Ok, Ok.....Sadddam wasn't going to hurt anyone!?!?!

All anti-war stances lead to Saddam and his sons staying in power, which to me is the most UNCOMMPASSIONATE thing we could have done. Sure, leave the crazy man and and his murdurous sons in power. At least no one would have been killed by U.S. bombs. Acid, wood choppers, knives, and good old bullets sure, but not by an illegal war...


Let's just agree that Saddam was an evil man who was unwilling to step down, and if he did, his even more evil sons would have risen to power. Let's agree that no amount of sanctions would have caused him to lose power. I'll even give you that there were no physical WMDs, though I bet for sure that he thought he had them, and no one was willing to risk their life to tell him that. Bill Clinton himself argued for regime change, and above all else I think that is the goal of the war, regardless of legality.

Can anyone argue that we should have left Saddam in power?

And for anybody that doesn't believe in Regime Change, isn't that your whole reason for painting the war illegal? To get a regime change in Washington?

[edit on 10/15/2004 by soulforge]