Legality of IraqInvasion

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits any nation from using force. The Charter contains only two exceptions: when such force is employed in self-defense or when it is authorized by the UN Security Council. Thus far the Security Council has been unwilling to authorize a U.S. attack against Iraq. This refusal, reflecting the widespread international sentiment against war with Iraq, makes any unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq illegal under international law.

This is from the above link. US was in violation of international law. If the US doesn't want to abide by international law then please don't invoke article 5 next time you're attacked.

a. I didn't, however the Russians did warn of impending attacks....so.
b. I�m sure that the next president faced with a very important decision will say to themselves ya know Chris something or other and a bunch of guys who teach lying for a living have told us not to....I can just hear their knees knocking together now.

41 says that they are in breach and that all means must be used . Yes. That is not in disagreement, its the part where it does not say military force has to be used. It says the UN has to determine that all non-military means have to be sought first. Had all this been done, we would have been better prepared, and we would have had the support of everyone else, thus making it much safer and less costly (if it even came down to military action).

We jumped right into war and now we will have to deal with the consiquenes (well, not all, we are above the law (opinion) along with Israel.

Originally posted by keholmes
and going back to your overwhelmingly agreed�.who gives a crap if you�ve got four people in agreement�.if it was soooooooo overwhelmingly agreed to then the US would be facing charges�..maybe you can link to that story as I haven�t seen it yet�.if it is sooooooo overwhelmingly agreed to when does the trial start�..whoops, most probably your going to stamp your feet take your ball and go home. Oh well, I guess your as good at teaching me as you were your previous charges. I�m sure your thinking right now it�s my fault.
[edit on 16-10-2004 by keholmes]

Four people in agreement, try 400 million. There again for the third time your faulty thinking persists. There are not going to be any charges as we are #1 in the world. Koffi Annan has already internationally stated THE WAR IS ILLEGAL but of course he is just the secretary general a nobody right?

You say the war is legal the UN and the world says it's not. The majority always rule.

Also, despite it being technically legal/illegal. I wonder about the concept of how somethign equivelant to our countries due process would not hold up the same.

I mean what if our law enforcement started using pre-emptive enforcment of laws? What if we could be arrested (w/o trial) because they felt we were likely to commit a crime? That sounds pretty crazy, yet it seems acceptable on an international level between countries. Of course it's ot so black and white, but I am just trying to add some perspective.

[

Originally posted by vincere7
Four people in agreement, try 400 million. There again for the third time your faulty thinking persists. There are not going to be any charges as we are #1 in the world. Koffi Annan has already internationally stated THE WAR IS ILLEGAL but of course he is just the secretary general a nobody right?

You say the war is legal the UN and the world says it's not. The majority always rule.

And again we hear the stomping feet. So did you poll those 400 million yourself or is that just something else you�ve made up? And wow, overwhelmingly�..6% of the world population�.wow, overwhelmingly�just a hint, when you are making numbers up you should at least try to pick impressive numbers. Koffi Annan, is that the bribe taking scumbag head of the UN?

Actually the majority rarely rule, most countries are not democratic unless you count countries like the democratic peoples republic of korea. And if you�re an American then you should understand that to be especially false here, for the US is a republic��the protections against majority rule in America were put in place exactly for that reason�.our forefathers understood the saying �be careful of stupid people, be especially careful of stupid people in large groups.� I�m also beginning to understand why you failed as a teacher.

Yeah thats the problem snoop. The whole thing of anticipatory defense and pre-emption has been whacked out of proportion for power hungry feins to do as they will.

If you look at the beginnings of pre-emption you'll find it documented to 1837. A Canadian naval force attacked an American ship called the Caroline, which was being used to ferry supplies from New York to a group of rebels plotting the liberation of French Canada from an island on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls.

Secretary of State John Forsyth remonstrated that the attack on the Caroline was an "extraordinary outrage committed from Her Britannic Majesty's Province of Upper Canada on the persons and property of citizens of the United States within the jurisdiction of the State of New York." Still, the United States, then led by President Martin Van Buren, did nothing.

Daniel Webster secretary of state contended only under very specific circumstances can one nation stage an attack upon another in the name of self-defense:

"Under these circumstances, and under those immediately connected with the transaction itself, it will be for her rules of national law the destruction of the "Caroline" is to be defended. It will be for that government to show a necessity of self-defense, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, no moment for deliberation. It will be for it to show, also, that the local authorities of Canada, even supposing the necessity of the moment authorized them to enter the territories of the United States at all, did nothing unreasonable or excessive; since the act, justified by the necessity of self-defense, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it. It must be shown that admonition or remonstrance to the persons on board the "Caroline" was impracticable, or would have been unavailing. It must be shown that daylight could not be waited for; that there could be no attempt at discrimination between the innocent and the guilty; that it would not have been enough to seize and detain the vessel; but that there was a necessity, present and inevitable, for attacking her in the darkness of night, while moored to the shore, and while unarmed men were asleep on board, killing some and wounding others, and then drawing her into the current above the cataract, setting her on fire, and, careless to know whether there might not be in her the innocent with the guilty, or the living with the dead, committing her to a fate which fills the imagination with horror. A necessity for all this the government of the United States cannot believe to have existed. All will see that, if such things be allowed to occur, they must lead to bloody and exasperated war."

On September 28, 2001, a mere 17 days after the September 11 attacks, changes the responsibility of member States. Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, Resolution 1373 states that all states shall �[r]efrain from providing any form of support, active or passive,6 to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to
terrorists.�

The UN charter does not support anticipatory self defense so of course you have 1373. So why did we atack Iraq when Syria and Saudi Arabia amply supplies terrorists and when North Korea was aggressively seeking nukes?

Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism or supplying terrorism as an imminent threat to the United States. So many argue NOW that we had warned Sadaam of action if he did not comply. That however was not the basis for war for it was already a fact the sanctions were stopping Iraq from being aggressive so the US could not engage on that premise, thus the ficticious aluminum rods.

As Arnold says, "So you cooked up a story and dropped us in a meat grinder."

The whole basis of invading Iraq was derived from false evidence to support resolution 1373 and to get around article 41 and 42 of the UN Charter.

So what we have here is an administration who damaged not only America's credibility with the world but we have made of no effect the Un Charter and deem international law a mere floundry of words that we can manipulate when power deems fit.

In the past we say to the Russians,"what you are doing in Chechnya is not containing terror but committing crimes against humanity," which of course the response now is - "It's pre-emption baby."

Originally posted by keholmes
And again we hear the stomping feet. So did you poll those 400 million yourself or is that just something else you�ve made up? And wow, overwhelmingly�..6% of the world population

Go back and look at your previous statements. You are now running in circles. You'd say there were four tits on your sister if you thought it would make you right and justify ya.

[

Originally posted by vincere7
Go back and look at your previous statements. You are now running in circles. You'd say there were four tits on your sister if you thought it would make you right and justify ya.

I�m not quite sure what circles you see...but it doesn't surprise me that you would want to focus on anything other than fact. I did notice your reference to a resolution, so for some things we look at resolutions for other we are supposed to ignore the 900 pound elephant and defer to the opinions voiced by paid liars and ignore the opinion of other paid liars? Speaking of circular.

Has keholmes answered this question which I posted earlier as of yet?

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

[edit on 10/17/04 by SomewhereinBetween]

BTW, while I disagree with keholmes, I think he brings great points and more than valid arguments, I don't think anyone should resort to name calling regardles of which side (not pointing fingers) they are on. OK, I'll but out now! :-)

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Has keholmes answered this question which I posted earlier as of yet?

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

[edit on 10/17/04 by SomewhereinBetween]

Yes I did, I asked what the heck you meant. I don't know if that makes sense to you but I have absolutely no idea what you�re trying to say? Additionally if you had read my posts, I also pointed to the part of 1441 that acknowledged the ceasefire and also acknowledged that Iraq was in and had been in material breach of said ceasefire.

As for the legality of this war....even the links provided by Chris earlier prove my point.....one relies on what they believe was implied, Poppycock. one of the points to the fact that most of the ambassadors felt the need to then explain that they weren't actually voting for what they voted for....why would they need to explain it if was so obvious.


[edit on 17-10-2004 by keholmes]

But again, the issue of taking action for the breach is not really in dispute, it's the actions used that are in question.

well to find if its legal or not can anyone answer these questions
1. what was the reason for going in?
2. the proof of the above?
3.had all non military solutions been tried?

actions used are imoral and inhumane!

i cant seem to get the image of the LGB vs Terror out of my head...

i was looking for the link but couldnt come up with it, ya know the one with the 30 men walking down the street, they all blow up and die. i can not possibly imagine saddam inflicting as much horror upon these poor people as we have. entire houses riddle with bullet holes, completely dimolished homes, god only knows what its like in places like fulljah on a daily bases. try to imagine an AC-130 flying battleship roaring through the air circling right over your house in the dead of night when you have work the next morning. having a barrage of gun fire illuminate the sky like brilliant flashes of lighting with sounds peircing your eardrums. your bed rumbles for hours as the 30,40,50 mm? shells spray up and down your block. all my assumption, for i have not been in war, this is all i can imagine after seeing the result of our actions and watching a few gunship infrared operations.

US=




[edit on 17-10-2004 by sturod84]

Originally posted by sturod84
actions used are imoral and inhumane!

i cant seem to get the image of the LGB vs Terror out of my head...

i was looking for the link but couldnt come up with it, ya know the one with the 30 men walking down the street, they all blow up and die. i can not possibly imagine saddam inflicting as much horror upon these poor people as we have. entire houses riddle with bullet holes, completely dimolished homes, god only knows what its like in places like fulljah on a daily bases. try to imagine an AC-130 flying battleship roaring through the air circling right over your house in the dead of night when you have work the next morning. having a barrage of gun fire illuminate the sky like brilliant flashes of lighting with sounds peircing your eardrums. your bed rumbles for hours as the 30,40,50 mm? shells spray up and down your block. all my assumption, for i have not been in war, this is all i can imagine after seeing the result of our actions and watching a few gunship infrared operations.

US=

[edit on 17-10-2004 by sturod84]

they are perfectly humane but hitting the wrong target happens alot.
if you wish i can telll you how they would have faught there with out the geneva or international law or whatever in place. do you want me too?

Originally posted by snoopy
But again, the issue of taking action for the breach is not really in dispute, it's the actions used that are in question.

well, if your only argument is the proportionality of the response then you have no argument......

678 - Authorizes Member States �������������� to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all
subsequent relevant resolutions

from the language used above how can anyone argue that the proportionality was anything but left to the involved nations, as it should be.


[edit on 17-10-2004 by keholmes]

Because in other sections it says that Military force is only to be used if all other means have been exhausted.

I mean what if the death sentence was the answer for all crimes (to draw an extreme)? The whole ordeal could have been done the right way. We all could have worked together, exposed the scndals, patched those holes, etc. No we didn't even think, Bush set out for an agenda of finding a way to invade and wouldn't hear of anything else.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
This thread is about the legality of the invasion, these links give a lawyers view:

www.the-rule-of-law.com...

traprockpeace.org...

www.fpif.org...

Someone said the US does not need to abide by international law, in that case, why did you invoke article 5 of NATO treaty under U.N. Charter's Article 51 immediately after the 9/11 attacks?

You mean the US only abides by international law when it benefits from it?

edit:sp

[edit on 16-10-2004 by Chris McGee]

Essentially yes. The US has no organisaton in authority over it. Therefore the US s bound by international law on a volutary basis. If international law suits our purpose we use it if it doesn't we ignore it.
The war in Iraq can not be illegal because no one but the US has the authority to say its illegal.

That's handy, just a shame you're wrong.

The US signed the UN charter (the first nation to do so, i believe) which, as a treaty, is legally binding.

As a treaty, all signatories are bound by international law to obey the provisions of the Charter. Furthermore, it explicitly says that the Charter trumps all other treaty obligations. It was ratified by the United States on August 8, 1945, making that nation the first to join the new international organization.

explanation-guide.info...