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 war was illegal, Dutch panel rules

page: 3
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   

The war in Iraq had "no basis in international law"


This was the conclusion I reached in my international law class largely due to this article:

Assessing the Legality of Invading Iraq
Georgetown Law Journal, Jan 2004
by Murphy, Sean D


...[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...



Special attention should be paid to the following sections:

A. WHAT DID RESOLUTION 678 AUTHORIZE?


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...


B. DID RESOLUTION 687 PRESERVE THE GENERAL AUTHORIZATION IN RESOLUTION 678?


...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...


See also C & D.

In a nutshell: Resolution 678 did not authorize use of force for breach of 687.




[edit on 13-1-2010 by someotherguy]




posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 


Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam and of course all the conflicts provoked by the CIA the last 70 years. And by America I don't mean its brainwashed population but their Zionist elite.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by GovtFlu
 

I am with you in wishing we could expect that the truth would come out and those guilty parties held accountable, but I think they will get away with it. It's like everyone at the time knew the CIA killed JFK, but to this day no one has ever served a day in jail for it. I wish things were different, but thats how it is.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   
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]



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Dermo
 


I conceded the war was illegal earliar...Was there ever a Legal one?

Do I support it... NO, I would never support any war. I would never condone murder. But I was never asked before it was called...

Im sorry you met a few bad examples from the US, im sure there are no bad people where you are from. I just did not appreciate American bashing. You did your friends injustice.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
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]



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   

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]


I just wanted to repost your nice long post about how nasty America looks by their presence on the internet. I think it is important to highlight just how pleasantly you come across. I cannot wait to meet a bunch of you.

People that are nasty and correct people's grammar/spelling are usually wrong.

People that argue that sources and facts are BS are usually the ones with nothing to show for themselves.

Apparently, nasty little boys write nasty little posts about how rotten All Americans are. Is everyone there like you or did you grow up in America?



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   

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.


Ummm, my big problem with your statement is this. What was the overthrow order based on? *lies* And how does the U.S. Constitution have oversight in Iraq? I thought they were a sovereign nation of their own.

So, since the U.S. government decided to attack this sovereign nation based on hokey lies, well, I can understand WHY international law would apply.

Oh yeah, that same government that you are trying to say has their own rights, well, they kind of signed this little document stating that they would adhere to INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Okay, hope this helps.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   

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]



Whaha oh man. I recommend you visit these islands and ask the inhabitants what they feel about the Dutch ruling there, i bet 9 out of 10 wants us to stay there, specially giving them their annual pocket change.Otherwise it would have been some third world banana republic[propably confiscated by Venezuela]
I mean really you should ask them...



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet
 


You're incorrect.

Many of the international laws which we violated when we went into Iraq were laws we helped to create afters World War 1 and 2.

The issue isn't even the laws. The issue was the fact that our government lied to us, through their teeth (as usual) and said that there were reasons, there were WMDs, that Iraq was involved some how in 9/11.

Look, it's all bull, it's no different than the "Babies in the Incubators" story from the Gulf War. They created a grand scheme to make us want to go to war.

In reality, we spend 8 years in a country FOR NO REASON.

Even the reason of Oil is a failed one, because now we are so far in debt, and our economy is so far down the crapper that no amount of oil is going to fit what a war for oil caused.

I agree that Bush and Cheney are war criminals, I don't know what we can possibly do. I do think that the United States Congress needs to get off their fat lazy asses and take these bastards to court for an inquery after the financial crisis is dealt with.

Hell, we pay these jerks a lot of money to do nothing, the least they can do is punish the people who screwed up their lives and ours for 8 years.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by redeyedwonder
 


Believe me, there are plenty of assholes where I am from. And i did not set out to bash the US.. just that other poster. I realize I was a bit crass. No offense meant



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


Crazy thing is , this 'poedxsoldiervet ' is supposedly some half indian that abhors the europeans colonalization of his land , but forgives those europeans decendants that became americans of any such crimes , owing to the fact they won a war against said europeans , and thereby became absolved of any such acts of criminality , all of which must be passed onto their european ancestors... and descendants that did not make the voyage across the Atlantic . He made a post about that . All very Surreal . Anyway , here he is again . Supposedly a put upon and hard done by , by colonization native american , proposing the very same ideologies that brought the evil white man to overcome his alleged race in the first place .
You can see Geronimo the Apache turning over in his grave with this one .

[edit on 15-1-2010 by Gun Totin Gerbil]



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by GovtFlu
 


Iraq war was illegal, Dutch panel rules

So finally the Dutch panel woke up and joined the masses...it's better late then never.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   

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.

Your argument falls flat on its face because you either have forgotten or intentionally omitted the fact that the war in Iraq, as the name implies, didn't occur in America.

Did you honestly forgot that little detail, or are you implying that the United States Congress and Constitution give the United States legal authority over independent foreign countries?

[edit on 15-1-2010 by converge]



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join