It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iraq: The war was illegal

page: 4
43
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
I think the biggest crime that was committed was not the invasion itself. The biggest crime was the execution of Iraq's president Saddam Hussein. Yes Saddam was an ass. Yes he may have been evil and bad but that gave us no right to execute the standing leader of a nation.


Two days prior to the execution, a letter written by Saddam appeared on the Ba'ath Party Web site. In the letter, he urged the Iraqi people to unity and to not hate the people of countries that invaded Iraq, like the United States, but instead the decision-makers. He said he was ready to die a martyr and he said that he was at peace with his death sentence.[7] In the hours before the execution, Saddam ate his last meal of chicken and rice, with a cup of hot water and honey. He then said prayers and verses from the Qur'an.[8]


I don't like Saddam, but I also don't think we had any right to kill him. AT ALL!




posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
The vast majority of Americans voted to end the war. What did we get... an escalation and a continuation of all the previous fascists policies.

All is quiet on the anti war front for the most part because everyone is praying Obama will do SOMETHING! Alas it appears the MIC is running the show completely.

Yes it is illegal to attack a nation that has done nothing to you.

GOD says we must attack!

GOD = Guns, Oil, Drugs



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Great information here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Peace.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
I don't like Saddam, but I also don't think we had any right to kill him. AT ALL!


We had to! Had to make sure he kept quiet about his 'weapons of mass distruction'.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Of course it was illegal.
Iraq attacked no one.
Iraq had nothing.
The intelligence was cooked, and the government knew it.

Look at us, 6yrs later, you don’t hear a word from Iraq any more.... and why?

Because all the corporations who were, and are in bed with Bush and his family setup the oil rigs, setup the pumps and setup the 100,000+ merc army to protect them.

America will pay for its crime, they will pay.



I think people have conformed with the fact that it was all for the resources in Iraq.

They will just stick their head in the sand and continue on.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 




These three articles describe the conditions under which the Security Council may authorize the use of armed force.


Yes but the SC did authorize the use of force in Resolution 678. Article 51 has nothing to do with the legal case; nor does the issue of “serious consequences”.

The Security Council gave authorizing for member states to use any necessary means to enforce certain resolutions should Iraq be found to be in breach of them. 1441 found Iraq to be in breach of these. Deciding to reconvene does not preclude member states from taking this action and there was nothing in 1441 that required further SC deliberation.

It's no good just saying “but there was an understanding that 678 wasn't enough”, law is a formality not a general understanding. Precedent shows that the argument for 678 (Op Desert Fox) is one that the international community has not had a problem with before.


As discussed below, although the other resolutions are condemnatory of Iraq, none of them come close to adopting terminology which authorises the use of force.


678 authorized the use of any necessary means to uphold resolution 660 and all relevant, subsequent resolutions. 1441 found Iraq to be in breach of those resolutions. Nothing more than 678 is required.

The issue of whether 678 was still in effect is, again, clarified by Operation Desert Fox and the lack of any criticism of its legality based on 678.

The paragraph you quote, imo, does not require member states to gain further authorisation and Op Desert Fox suggests that this is the case.




It may be a technicality, the decision to go to war may still have been a disastrous and the conduct of politicians before and after deplorable; I wouldn't disagree with any of those points, but the war was nevertheless legal.


Ultimately the the conventions and processes governing war are so flimsy, ill defined and arbitrarily enforced as to make the whole concept pointless. As has happened in the past a war is determined to be legal or legal based on politics not law; look at NATO intervention in Kosovo for example, a thoroughly illegal war based on any argument used again the Iraq war.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Iraq had Gold, Iraq had oil, Iraq is a powerful place, Iraq had artifacts unknown to man but know to governments.
There were many agendas.

Now more proof as to who the real terrorists are, the government is the terrorist, I say when will people stand up for what is right and quit passing the buck on what was done wrong before it is too late for us all.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


I have already said about resolution 678 here, including the resolution 687 which terminated use of force by any individual member without the consent of UNSC. Please do go through it.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
I don't like Saddam, but I also don't think we had any right to kill him. AT ALL!

Guess you missed the televised trial of the Iraqi courtroom where Saddam was convicted by his own people. There were a few delays because lawyers and judges were murdered in the process.
If you missed that then you probably missed the tapes of prisoners being thrown off buildings, hanged and beheaded too under the Hussain regime.
Maybe you also missed the Christians killed when they protested in Iran recently. And since Iran has illegal nuclear facilities maybe the thought of defending international law seems illegal too?

But Islam trumps all laws, so carrion.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
To be honest the war in Iraq, while in my opinion not necessary and not moral was perfectly legal, at least for the USA. The allied powers from the first gulf war were in a condition of cease fire with Iraq, so technically, still in a state of war. The cease fire was conditional and Iraq was not living up to the conditions, therefore a resumption of hostilities, while not good, was not illegal.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


687 did not terminate 678; I discussed this in my original and subsequent posts. Proof of this is found in Operation Desert Fox which was based on Iraq's non compliance with 678; this was not challenged at the time, the operation was not deemed illegal nor, as far as I'm aware, was any attempt made to declare it so. I accept that some people disagree with this and it is only my opinion but as of yet I have not heard these people address the case of Op DF.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by December_Rain
 


687 did not terminate 678; I discussed this in my original and subsequent posts. Proof of this is found in Operation Desert Fox which was based on Iraq's non compliance with 678; this was not challenged at the time, the operation was not deemed illegal nor, as far as I'm aware, was any attempt made to declare it so. I accept that some people disagree with this and it is only my opinion but as of yet I have not heard these people address the case of Op DF.


The United States and the United Kingdom used Resolution 688 to justify enforcing the Iraqi no-fly zones and launching Operation Desert Fox, though the resolution contains no language explicitly authorizing those actions.

What is important to note here there was a Vote in favor of the resolution of "majority" of UNSC members. In laymans words US & UK had to go thru UNSC and had to vote to launch the operations.

Vote was 10 votes in favor, 3 votes against (Cuba, Yemen, and Zimbabwe), and two abstentions (the People's Republic of China and India).

So you cannot justify a resolution which was "voted" earlier to take action for any member to simply disregard. It is not "autonomous".



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


Desert Fox used 678 to directly justify the operation, 688 may have been involved but it is not what gave the US and UK authority as it related to humanitarian issues with regard to the Shia and Kurds. Op Desert Fox was mainly a strike against Iraq’s ability to manufacture NBC weapons which could only be justified by 678.


The United States and the United Kingdom used Resolution 688 to justify enforcing the Iraqi no-fly zones and launching Operation Desert Fox, though the resolution contains no language explicitly authorizing those actions.


That makes the idea that the 2003 war was illegal even more ridiculous; 688 didn’t even mention the aims of Desert Fox let alone given permission to use force yet somehow this makes Desert Fox legal while Iraqi Freedom is illegal?

If 688 makes something like Desert Fox legal then anything can be claimed to be legal.


By the way it would be helpful to provide a link when you copy from another website

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


So are you ignoring the fact that it was "voted" earlier to act upon by "majority of UNSC members", and it did not "automatically"allowed any member to enforce the resolution without prior approval from UNSC members?

This is what I said in my previous as well but I saw you completely skipped of the "voting process" which is required to act upon on this resolution.


What is important to note here there was a Vote in favor of the resolution of "majority" of UNSC members. In laymans words US & UK had to go thru UNSC and had to vote to launch the operations.

Vote was 10 votes in favor, 3 votes against (Cuba, Yemen, and Zimbabwe), and two abstentions (the People's Republic of China and India).

So you cannot justify a resolution which was "voted" earlier to take action for any member to simply disregard. It is not "autonomous".



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by spirit_horse
I was in the US Army in 1988 and we were told our next war was going to be in Iraq or North Korea. Now back then I was paying attention to current events and International News. I was struck with wonder of how they figured our next war would be in Iraq.


This may intrigue you. Maynard James Keenan (best singer in the world) of Tool talking about his army service and Vietnam protests:


You would think that based on what had happened in that jungle setting, that we would be doing that tropical/jungle training. And we weren't. In 1982, we were doing desert training. There was an agenda back then for this area. They're so far ahead of us in what they're telling us and not telling us.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


You were talking about 688 which is irrelevant to any point that I’m making. 688 did not authorize the use of force and I don’t claim that it did but it doesn’t need to because it was a resolution deploring Iraq’s treatment of the Kurd and Shia populations.

There is nothing in or relating to 688 that require member states to go through the UN to launch any operation against Iraq. Desert Fox was built on resolution 678; 688 was incidental from a legal perspective.

What exactly are you saying? That because the UN voted on 688 then Desert Fox was legal and the argument for the use of 678 is invalid? If so that, as I have said, does not make sense since 688 contained nothing that would have allowed DF to take place. If 688 is enough to allow the use of force then 1441 most certainly is.

You can’t make a legal case for Desert Fox without reaching back to 678 which is the only resolution allowing the use of any necessary means. In the specific case of Desert Fox there were no further resolutions, 688 included, that explicitly reaffirmed 678 or gave authorisation to use forces; which is worse that was the case in 2003.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by December_Rain
 




These three articles describe the conditions under which the Security Council may authorize the use of armed force.


Yes but the SC did authorize the use of force in Resolution 678. Article 51 has nothing to do with the legal case; nor does the issue of “serious consequences”.

The Security Council gave authorizing for member states to use any necessary means to enforce certain resolutions should Iraq be found to be in breach of them. 1441 found Iraq to be in breach of these. Deciding to reconvene does not preclude member states from taking this action and there was nothing in 1441 that required further SC deliberation.

It's no good just saying “but there was an understanding that 678 wasn't enough”, law is a formality not a general understanding. Precedent shows that the argument for 678 (Op Desert Fox) is one that the international community has not had a problem with before.


As discussed below, although the other resolutions are condemnatory of Iraq, none of them come close to adopting terminology which authorises the use of force.


678 authorized the use of any necessary means to uphold resolution 660 and all relevant, subsequent resolutions. 1441 found Iraq to be in breach of those resolutions. Nothing more than 678 is required.

The issue of whether 678 was still in effect is, again, clarified by Operation Desert Fox and the lack of any criticism of its legality based on 678.

The paragraph you quote, imo, does not require member states to gain further authorisation and Op Desert Fox suggests that this is the case.




It may be a technicality, the decision to go to war may still have been a disastrous and the conduct of politicians before and after deplorable; I wouldn't disagree with any of those points, but the war was nevertheless legal.


Ultimately the the conventions and processes governing war are so flimsy, ill defined and arbitrarily enforced as to make the whole concept pointless. As has happened in the past a war is determined to be legal or legal based on politics not law; look at NATO intervention in Kosovo for example, a thoroughly illegal war based on any argument used again the Iraq war.



Re: 1441 the US / UK argued 1441 was NOT an authorization for war... BOTH the US and UK agreed further action was needed. quotes below.

Specifically the UK argued "..If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion.."

The issue did return to the UN, where further bush arguments were rejected by the UN which led the sect general to call the iraq war "illegal"

In addition, if this was a legal case or a fair due process was in place, the evidence for passing 1441 would easily be thrown out on appeal since we now know iraq was mostly innocent.. the bush et al were lying i.e manufacturing evidence.. which would be a kin to prosecutorial misconduct... 'fruit of the poison tree' and all that.

Would you like it if you could prove the police lied to put you in prison, but all they did was shrug and leave you to rot because it was ruled legal at the time?

The UK guardian agreed in the atricle below, in a nut shell "the opposite view that, as things stand, there is no actual or imminent threat from Iraq that would justify a "self-defence" response by the UK and that nothing in resolution 1441, or any other UN resolution, authorises the use of force without a further resolution giving clear authority to do so."

"Sorry, Mr Blair, but 1441 does not authorise force"
www.guardian.co.uk...

John Negroponte, said:
“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12..."

UK ambassador:
“We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12..."

en.wikipedia.org...

If the US and UK.. the bush and his poodle, have nothing to hide and are standing on solid legal ground, there would no harm in a nuremberg 2.0 where they can clear their names... and clear US / UK troops of possible future war crimes charges.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
War in Afghanistan maybe illegal too. But were there. What now? Buh Bye Taliban.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GovtFlu
 


Thank you that was what I was trying to state, the resolution cannot be automatically made to be use by an UNSC member without UNSC approval through majority vote. I am not a lawyer and will admit that I may not be aware of further technicalities but when even the UN General openly stated Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan will I believe him or believe Bush regime and Blair's advocates who even "fabricated" the reason of the whole war.

Can any of you deny this and say with a straight face the war was not a "illegal conspiracy" right from the start?
*Bush Advisers Planned Iraq War Since 1990s
*Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President
*Bush 'plotted Iraq war from start'
*Wolfowitz Admits Iraq War Planned Two Days After 9-11

This was nothing except Criminal Conspiracy with intent to cause destabilization on a major scale in Middle East. It was Bush & Blair's "Final Solution" just for profits and business interest, nothing more and nothing less. The greed of money and power covered their eyes soo much they continued committing
* War crimes (Mass murder of civilian population & POWs, rape, looting)
* Crimes against humanity (On Civilians and POW aka Abu Gharihb and other black sites)
* Crimes of Genocide (Intent to destroy in whole or in part)
* Crimes against peace (Waging war of aggression and violation of international treaties)
* Crime of torture (planning, authorizing torture,deliberately disregarding their duty to take adequate steps to prevent atrocities)

Sure many people can, but when the "whole world says it's illegal then the whole world is not wrong".

[edit on 1-12-2009 by December_Rain]

[edit on 1-12-2009 by December_Rain]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by JJay55

Originally posted by die_another_day
When it comes to war, rules don't exist.

It's all about who has the bigger dick.

Hahahhahahaha. How true.
The West uses the Roman Rules of War. Islam uses the Koran. Both are entirely different... based on size of course.


HaHa as always you are wrong again. West or to be politically correct as you Christian uses Biblical quotes to wage war

Iraq war briefings headlined with biblical quotes, reports US magazine

Pentagon Briefings Carried Bible Verses

Don ald Rumsfeld's holy war: How President Bush's Iraq briefings came with quotes from the Bible

That's why it's always good to check your facts.



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join