It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The war in Iraq had "no basis in international law"
...[T]he United States asserted that the invasion was lawful because it was authorized by the Security Council.12 That authorization was not issued in 2002-03, but rather in 1990, when the Security Council adopted Resolution 678,13 and thereby authorized a coalition of states to repel Iraq from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area. Although the 1990-91 war against Iraq ended with a UN-mandated cease-fire, Iraq violated its obligations under that cease-fire, which thus, according to the United States, amounted to a "material breach" of the cease-fire conditions that had the effect of "reviving" the earlier authorization to use force.14 The same legal theory was asserted by other members of the U.S.-led coalition.15 ...
This Article demonstrates, however, that the legal theory actually deployed by the United States is not persuasive. The text of Resolution 678, and those resolutions that followed, along with the associated negotiating history and subsequent practice, individually and collectively demonstrate that the United States and its allies did not have Security Council authorization in March 2003 to invade Iraq. Moreover, regardless of whether one regards the U.S. legal theory as persuasive, the complexity of the theory (with its reliance on Security Council decisions taken years earlier to address different circumstances) and the clear resistance of a majority of Security Council members in March 2003 to the deployment of force against Iraq, combined to strip the invasion of Iraq of the collective legitimacy sought by the United States...
On the U.S. interpretation, Resolution 678 authorized the use of force for a material breach of Resolution 687. Certain aspects of Resolution 678, however, suggest that such an interpretation is unpersuasive...
...The U.S. legal theory is that Resolution 687 implicitly indicates that international peace and security has not yet been restored to the area, that the provisions of Resolution 687 must be fulfilled before such restoration occurs, and that the Resolution 678 authorization to use force generally remains viable until such conditions are fulfilled.54 There are three principal problems with this interpretation...
Originally posted by Dermo
reply to post by redeyedwonder
Was I replying to you? Did you say that you supported it and that it was fine because the US congress decided it was fine? No?
Then what are you on about? I was clearly talking to that other Chauvinist fool.
Also - quote & /quote inside [ ] 's are the tags you should use when quoting if you don't want to make a mess of your post.
And yes.. if there are a 50 million Jingoistic, prejudice, chauvinist and excessively crass Americans who are in regular contact with the rest of the world through the internet and whatnot.. that does paint a bad picture of the rest of you.. The fact is that even though I have plenty of friends from the US.. I find it hard to want to get to know new people from your country for fear that I might be subjected to a wall of ignorance and insult for being a lesser human being because I wasn't born inside your borders.
Obviously I know 150% that these kinds of individuals are but a sizable minority in your country.. but they are definitely well represented and act as if they speak for the rest.
[edit on 13/1/10 by Dermo]
Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by GovtFlu
Who are the Dutch? What is international Law, for all of you the US Constitution, The Executive Branch(President), The Congress, and The Supreme Court of the Untied States of America, are without a doubt the be all, end all In America. Not Interpol, not the UN, Not the Dutch, not the Hague, Not Iran, Nor the U.K, E.U, (am I missing anyone). The war in Iraq was not illegal due to the US Congress authorizing the use of force to overthrow Saddam. International Law has no Law authority in the USA.
Originally posted by ChrisF231
The Dutchies claim that the Iraq war is illegal? So is THEIR continued colonization of Aruba, Curacao, St Martin, Saba, St Estatius, and Bonaire.
Where is the self determination for the people of those islands after hundreds of years of brutal, oppressive colonial rule?
[edit on 14-1-2010 by ChrisF231]
Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
Who are the Dutch? What is international Law, for all of you the US Constitution, The Executive Branch(President), The Congress, and The Supreme Court of the Untied States of America, are without a doubt the be all, end all In America.