Legality of IraqInvasion

Sorry if this has been discussed to death.

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?).

I was wondering what peoples take on this was. I of course am biased and agree that it was illegal, but am curious to hear the other side.

Would a scenario like this hold up in court? I mean can you getaway with shooting and killing a man because you you knew for fact he was going to kill you. Even if you found out later that it was untrue, a friend gave you bad info? What if you said "I don't need anyone elses permission to defend myself"? What if theguy had been making threats against you?

What if Iraq had invaded Iran and claimed they were doing it because they had proof Iran was going to attack them, they just couldn't show any proof for reasons of national security? What if they said they didn't need the UN's permission to defend themselves and werent going to wait to see a mushroom cloud? Would we consider it illegal?

Now one argument is that he was breaking the law by violating the no-fly zone rules and firing on the US planes. Definitely something that should be punishable, but is this enough to justify an invasion? Especially when it was not the main reason we were told for the invasion? The UN drew up the resolution and shouldn't it be the UN as a whole to make a decision? And wouldn't it be technically illegal to violate that?

Aw darn, I am really interested in this subject. I am sure there are pints I am missing. There needs to be more right-wingers on this site.

actually, there is a law in some states that says you cannot kill in defense of others and i would imagine that also goes to say you cannot kill in advance of a threat on your life.

having said that, i still agree that invading Iraq was necessary for numerous reasons, although, perhaps there were mistakes made in the carrying out of the invasion. some may include the security of Iraq's borders and security of weapons sites, including places where the Iraqi national guard simply left their posts and weapons unattended for anyone to loot. some say these were GWB's mistakes, i say they were the commanders mistakes, but without proper intel to know where all these spots were, who do you really blame?

[edit on 12-10-2004 by fledgling666]

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

They argued that only the UN had the authority to order action. But when the UN ordered sanctions on Iraq, it was the very same corrupt and cowardly French that broke the sanctions regime.

This neutralised the natural authority of the UN - how could it have any legal authority if a principal member of the misnamed "security council" was undermining it?

So those who opposed terror in the ME formed a coalition of countries willing to remove the danger.

Given that the primary global institution to adjudicate on the legality of the action had been undermined, there was no competant authority to declare the action illegal.

WHAT COURT!?!?!

Soverign Countries usually do what they wish, as there is no international governing body to rule over them ( A really, really bad idea to have one anyways) . If enough countries disagree with a policy, the usual route of dissent is sanctions. I'd roll on the floor laughing if I started seeing sanctions AGAINST the U.S.

The U.S. will never recognize international restrictions or opinion on issues for national security, so the point is moot.

As far as the U.N. is concerned, they have NO power without the backing of its representative countries, so they are sort of like an English Bobbie without a gun...

"STOP!!! OR I"LL SAY STOP AGAIN!!!"

Anyways, Koffi Annan and his son we so deep into the Oil for Food scandal I'm suprised their heels aren't black with crude oil and their pockets overflowing with cash...

But...he won't be there long, Clinton wants his job...

[edit on 10/12/2004 by soulforge]

The allied action in Iraq cannot be "illegal". That is - there is no recognised authority to determine it as legal, illegal or bananas...

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

They argued that only the UN had the authority to order action. But when the UN ordered sanctions on Iraq, it was the very same corrupt and cowardly French that broke the sanctions regime.

This neutralised the natural authority of the UN - how could it have any legal authority if a principal member of the misnamed "security council" was undermining it?

So those who opposed terror in the ME formed a coalition of countries willing to remove the danger.

Given that the primary global institution to adjudicate on the legality of the action had been undermined, there was no competant authority to declare the action illegal.

And how did the French break the sanctions. And yes there is an international court of law. We also have conventions (geniva, etc). One of the purposes of the UN is to uphold such international laws (to an extent) no?

Wow this subject shouldn't even be questioned by now but somehow Americans still don't know. That just proves how busy we are with our lives working and taking the kids to soccer, football practice whatever.

I am just going to show article 41 and 42 of the UN Charter which we drafted and signed in 1945 as did 50 other countries. Any other research is entirley up to you, but I'm sure you'll be too busy to care anyway.


Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

CHAPTER VII
ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article
41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.


Here is a quick summary. Based on article 41 the Bush administration lawyers could not of course prove that the UN wasn't doing all it could against Iraq in sanctions da ta da because we did and the UN did as well. So they went for article 42 but they had to have viable proof of a threat to procced on our own. This is where the illustrious alluminum rods came in to play which could supposedly be used to make uranium. We know now that the rods were worthless in use for uranium but Cheney with the support of the CIA, and not the support of the department of energy informed the president and congress that Iraq did indeed have the ability to make nuclear weapons. Cheney himself stated publically a dozen times that he knew FOR SURE Iraq was making uranium which of course they were not.

This had to be done to get past article 42 to engage Iraq. Many people like to say that, "oh we couldv'e just went in there anyway,' actually no we couldn't not without ample proof of a threat which we now know was ficticious due to the fact that the united states signatory on the UN Charter also calls for criminal prosecution and sanctions against a nation that breaks that charter which we have upheld many times.

We are the most powerful nation on the earth and we also have a moral way of operating by crossing our t's and dotting our I's and is exactly what the administration did to get this done be it illegally.

Yes the war in Iraq is illegal and could be proven illegal in a court of law - but that hearing will never take place.







[edit on 12-10-2004 by vincere7]

I found a few very interesting sites that analyzes using our constitution and Uks also about the legality of going into war with another country, No state of war in the legal sense is capable of existing between the United State of America and terrorists because terrorists do not possess any sovereignty.

TextLegality of the US-UK Invasion of Iraq in International Law

Prior to the invasion of Iraq there was concern expressed both in the USA and the UK as to the legality of the war.

Although the UN Charter allows for self-defence in the case of an armed attack, the consensus of legal opinion was that international law did not make lawful a pre-emptive strike against Iraq.

A good analysis of the position was given by Professor Stephen Zunes in "Seven Fallacies of US Plans to Invade Iraq" a scholarly paper published in Foreign Policy in Focus which seems to us to be a good analysis of the international law position.

www.eurolegal.org...

All that UN Charter stuff is all well and good, but if you cannot enforce your rules then they dont really mean anything. If there was a law against smoking and no cop ever enforced it or had the power too its not really a law.

The UN is a toothless tiger that cannot enforce its own charter.

The very notion of wars as legal or illegal is

Its funny how someone earlier quoted the UN charter but didn�t bother to look up the 16 or 17 resolutions�.clearly the end to gulf 1 was dependant upon several conditions which later the UN Security Council found iraq in violation of�.therefore the negotiated end to gulf one is invalidated. If for no other reason than the fact that there is no end to gulf 1 then the invasion�.or re-invasion if you will, would not be a convictable event in a court of law�however the court of law thing is silly on the face of it�none of the conventions bar it, the only thing that addresses it would be the UN. We are not a signatory to the world court farce�.and the only people at the UN who call it illegal are the give�em a few more hugs bunch�oh and the fill my pockets quick the Americans are coming bunch.

I love it when people try to argue reality. Like OJ simpson the glove didn't fit right? When it comes to international laws that we ratified saying the glove doesn't fit gives us the same amount of respect OJ gets - zero. C'mon and smooth talk me keholmes you'll still come away with the same results - zero. Humans have a tendency to SEE THOUGH THE BULLSH#T and when you back that up with facts and law it can't be much more clear.

The CIA created a terrorist nation 20 years ago and now they have done it again. They certainly have a poor track record of 'keeping America safe.' I know the director could come on right now and point out fifty things they got right which made this nation safe but two strikes in the same category? That�s not a mistake that�s FUBAR.

But we were talking about laws and how we get around breaking them. We invaded a nation without being attacked by that nation which we clearly made known to the world that you cannot do such a thing with out the hammer of American justice falling on you... The evidence used to support an attack on that nation was falsified and erroneous and completely documented. Those who believe the laws, which we signed in 1945, can be made to our specifications or present desires, are immoral, unjust, and not fit to reside over matters of law.

Those who break the laws, upheld for nearly 60 years, deserve the same punishment the law demands - criminal prosecution. No one has the priviledge of interpreting the laws for their own beliefs nor their own benefit the same goes for the Bush administration running the white house.

Man, what are you guys going to do WHEN we have to go into North Korea or Iran? John Kerry himself said we might...

Iraq was not involved with 9/11(though you CAN make a good case for Oklahoma City had an Iraqi as John Doe #2). They DEFINITELY were involved with international Terroism, that fact cannot be disputed. AlQueda is in over 60 countries(John Kerry's quote), they were in SOUTH FLORIDA and BUFFALO!!! But they weren't in IRAQ!?!

They violated terms of a cease fire, and war continued as a result.

The fact that we are arguing over whether a war is legal or not shows the insane state of the world where lawyers and judges have more power than the elected officials. Modern Lawyers are a pox on society, and they are not doing as intended. Putting them in charge of the whole damn country is a nightmare. Now excuse me while I spill my McDonalds coffee on my lap...

Soulforge I understand your point of view, but the reason we have international laws is so sovereign countries can have protection from illegal wars with not provocation on their soil, if the international communities have free will it will be a mess of big countries swallowing the more small less defended ones.



If you look into the history of the world you will see that it has been done before, when great conquerors ruled the world.

[edit on 13-10-2004 by marg6043]

Originally posted by snoopy
And yes there is an international court of law. We also have conventions (geniva, etc). One of the purposes of the UN is to uphold such international laws (to an extent) no?

The international law court does not recognize war as a crime. Neither does the geneva convention. The UN itself has 'approved' of some wars. And the UN does not recognize non-approved wars as illegal. What law states that war is illegal?

Vincere7
I am just going to show article 41 and 42 of the UN Charter which we drafted and signed in 1945 as did 50 other countries.

None of that means that nations are not permited to go to war unilaterally or build alliances for war either. It describes the actions of the UN as a whole, it describes when the UN itself is permited to approve war and use peacekeepers for war, not individual member nations. No nation would've agreed to sign the charter if it removed that ability, and it would've required a series of constituional ammendments in the US if it was to be taken that way.

[edit on 13-10-2004 by Nygdan]

But....ALL wars can be considered illegal because usually at least one side doesn't want it. Mutual war is almost an impossibility. I'm not a big fan of a justified war, but I see countries reserving the right to start wars to defend themselves preemptively or retaliatory. Agressive wars are obvious, and cannot be defended (WW2, All Roman Wars, Hundred Year Year, Etc.). They usually involve an absorbtion of countries by a neighbor. The fact that we can argue whether the war on Iraq was "just" or not means it was. Iraq will retain soverignty, and will not become the 51st state.

After all, since the UN has no standing army or power, we ARE living in a world of countries all jockeying for power and resources. World History is merely a list of wars, with intermittant peace between them. To be frank, the last 100 years have been an abberation in world history, with more stablized countries and more peace than at any other time in history. The only downside is that the weapons are exponentially more dangerous.

Originally posted by soulforge
, All Roman Wars,

Not all roman wars were mere conquest, often they were responding to a threat on their borders. Also, in the punic wars, would you say the carthiginians or romans were agressors? If the romans were, weren't they justified?

What if Saddam said that he felt Kuwait was a threat? Would that then make his actions perfectly acceptable? I mean they broke a treat, but to what extent does that justify war> They shot at a few plains and crossed some no fly zones.

I dont think the UN is a toothless itger just because they don't just bow down and do whatever the USarogantly wants. SO next is Iran, then NK, then someone will eb next because we know terrorism won't be eliminated and they must go somewhere. The only logical ending could be invading every country in the world. Where do you draw the line?

It's getting hard to be proud of our country with our current foreign policy/enforcement) (that's obviously an opinion).

Actually I found this link with every good information on modern wars, actually I was very surprise that it has not been a declared war since World war ll.

TextIn fact, no major power has declared war on another state since World War II because of the terms of the Charter of the United Nations under which the use of force as a means for dispute resolution between nation states is declared unlawful save in certain narrowly defined circumstances. Instead, signatories to the Charter are obliged to bring their disputes before the Security Council of the United Nations which, in defined circumstances, may authorise the use of force.

Instead, to circumvent the ban on the use of force, there is much government use of euphemism to avoid calling a spade a spade.

The "Korean War" was a Chapter VII Action under United Nations auspices.

The "Vietnam War" was technically military assistance to the friendly foreign government of South Vietnam.

The US bombings of Laos and Cambodia, or its mining of the ports of Nicaragua were (as we shall see) purely and simply unlawful as a matter of international law (as was the British, French and Israeli invasion of Suez in 1956).

In relation to Suez (which is a good precedent for Iraq) it is worth recalling the position of the then US Administration which had the good fortune to be headed by the late President Dwight D. Eisenhower. When in 1956, France, Israel and the United Kingdom sent troops to the Suez Canal without the authority of the United Nations, President Eisenhower addressed the American people. He said this:-

www.eurolegal.org...

Vincere,

I�m not even really sure which laws you are referring to as they go unnamed�but I did notice the little line that anyone who disagrees with you are immoral, unjust, and not fit to reside over matters of law�.I guess that makes it easy�you don�t need to have all the facts. The point is simple, if they disagree with your point of view whether they have fact or not, they have disagreed and are therefore not fit to reside. I disagree so I guess by your logic I�m not fit to argue, so I won�t�.I guess?