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.

 

Legality of IraqInvasion

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 08:16 AM
link   
ts amazing how people like to post links which seem to support thier beliefs without reading it throughly enough to see if they do.
explanation-guide.info...
No it wasn't illegal.
The UN s not a "world government" therefore even if the charter is a treaty it becomes a matter of domestic law which is trumped by the US constitution and the powers given to the President and congress.
Congress authorised the use of force in IRAQ therfore the war is legal.




posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 12:10 PM
link   
"no distinction between terrorists and the people who harbour them"?
so america should invade ireland,britain,germany,france etc because they have terrorists in them?
now it says on that site that because they no proof was shown they were to be invaded is this right?
even worse"you are with us or you are with the terrorists" WTF!!

[edit on 18-10-2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 12:21 PM
link   
It's also amazing how people will post a link which actually contradicts their point.


With particular regard to the Iraq War, supporters find further support in Article 41 and 42 of the UN Charter, which lay out the gradual approach to "threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression." Article 42 states that should the peaceful sanctions provided for by Article 41 be "inadequate or proven to be inadequate", military force may be used. They argue that after 10 years of ineffectiveness, the UN sanctions under Article 41 have proven to be ineffective and measures provided for under Article 42 should be enacted. However, this view was not shared by a majority of the Security Council, which is the only body that is allowed to decide about such matters.


I accept your point about the constitution of the US, however, this just means that the war was legal under US law and is still illegal under international law since we did not have the backing of the security council.

If you're not going to accept international law when it goes against what you want, why did you sign the charter in the first place?



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Congress also would not have approved of it if they weren't lied to about the cause. And there is no way evidence goes from "100% Irrefutable" to "bad" without lying. Keep in mind we're talking about the same people who kept Noriega on the payroll while fighting the war on drugs. The same line of people who illegally sold weapons to Iran who they claim are terrorists. The same people who pardoned Orlando Bosch after he blew up a plane. Yes these are the ones who will legally protect us from terrorism.

Like someone just said, because it is legal to one country, does not make it legal internationally.



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331

The UN s not a "world government" therefore even if the charter is a treaty it becomes a matter of domestic law which is trumped by the US constitution and the powers given to the President and congress.
Congress authorised the use of force in IRAQ therfore the war is legal.

no but does that give america the right to invade IRAQ? no it doesnt with that thinking you can attack any country with a rifle.
actually to america it was legal to the world? NO , illegal since they are supposed to preserve peace not bomb a country, i mean come on the weapons inspectors where there and didnt find anything, is it right for the world powers to bully the less powerful ones?




 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join