Iraq war "Illegal"?

[Tweek]

Without opening the whole Iraq war debate I've got a question:

I have heard some criticize the war by saying that it was "Illegal". My question is, what law was broken? Congress appoved military action in Iraq, no president can independently make our country declare or make war. Maybe some are referring to international laws that were broken. I would respond that the united states dosen't fall under any foreign jurisdiction, so I will repeat. What law was broken?

Once again I don't want to open the debate again, but rather point out the fallacy in the argument that the war was Illegal.

[Avenger]

Well of course it's a bloody fallacy if you refuse to acknowledge the existence of the laws that were broken...

[Tweek]

What laws am I not acknowledging? That was my question.

Its ok to disagree with the iraq war, I'm just trying to point out an inaccuate argumnent.

[XT]

JUST SAY NO TO YET ANOTHER "WAS THE IRAQ WAR ILLEGAL" THREAD!! This has been done countless times. The search function is your friend.

For what its worth, a case can be made either way to the legality or illegality of the Iraq war. Its all a matter of perspective, as well as convoluted and esoteric legal mumblings from opposing sources. Its enough to give one a headache. I really urge you to just search out the myriad threads where this has been done before and check out the arguements on both sides. Frankly I seriously doubt the heavy hitters on the board who know this legal crap will be willing to write it all out on both sides yet again...

-XT

[Tweek]

Sorry, I'm new to the boards. I didn't realize you guys already exhusted yourselfs over this topic. I had a conversation along these lines today and needed to share my insights.

[PatriotX]

The simplistic answer is that the invasion violated one of the treaties that the US duly ratified. As a duly ratified treaty, it is the "supreme law of the land", as per Article VI of the US Constitution.

[Tweek]

What treaty is that?

[Patty O'Furniture]

War on Iraq illegal...who will enforce this?

[PatriotX]

Originally Posted by Tweek

What treaty is that?

This one:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/decade/decad029.htm

[PatriotX]

Here's a link to some discussion of this matter.

Reposted from here:

Originally Posted by SimonX

reposted from here

Chapter VII of the Charter.

"The Security Council shall determine...what measures shall be taken...to maintain or restore international peace and security

Originally Posted by SimonX

," and "The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council...shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine,"


reposted from here:

This is part of the reason why the Iraq war was endorsed in terms of the threat to the US from Iraq.

If Iraq was an imminent threat to the US then the war is not an agressive war. It is part of a long sanctioned tradition of "preemption "Upon detecting evidence that an opponent is about to attack, one beats the opponent to the punch and attacks first to blunt the impending strike."

As we all know, "For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack."

IMHO, one could make the case that the need to "adapt the concept of imminent threat" as laid out in the National Security Strategy Chapter V*, led to the actual adaptation the "concept of imminent threat," in the national security strategy of the USA to include the threat presented by "rogue states and terrorists" and thus a change in what qualifies as preemption.


If Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US then the war may've been an example of a "preventive war". Preventive war is based on the concept that war is inevitable and that it is better to fight now while the costs are low rather than later when the costs are high. It is a deliberate decision to begin a war."

[Dogface]

Is it legal for a President to wage a war, even with "authorization" of Congress, if that war is not properly and formally declared.

I say no. I say that everything from Korea onwards has been illegal activity on the part of presidents with overweening monarchical aspirations. It is time that we restored strict Constitutionalism to the US government.

[Tweek]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I read that treaty was basicly the US was ratifying the charter of th UN. Basicly putting our rubber stamp on it. I didn't see anything saying that we are to fall under their laws.

More to my overall point. My major beef with the "Illegal" argument is 2 fold. One, it's wrong. The only laws the US is obliagted to follow are our own, and congress appoved the war. Two, to suggest the president broke laws declareing war on Iraq is a very serious charge. One that should not be made lightly and once made should be taken very seriously. If he did indeed break the law then he should be thown out of office and put in jail. Yet people who make this charge often do not suggest this course of action.

Once again, I don't wanna open the whole debate again. Just wanted to point out an incorrect argument.

[Johnny L.A.]

My major beef with the "Illegal" argument is 2 fold. One, it's wrong. The only laws the US is obliagted to follow are our own, and congress appoved the war.

I disagree. Here is Chapter I, Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations:

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and. justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

Under the Charter, the United States agreed to refrain from agression and threats. We agreed that we would abide by international law.

But there are exceptions. Basically, it comes to this: A nation may make a pre-emptive strike against a nation when there is an imminent threat. In the case of Iraq, the Central Intelligence Agency reported that Iraq was [i]not[/b] a threat to the U.S. unless it was provoked. The Bush administration asserted that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that it planned to use against the U.S. This assertion is refuted by the CIA report and, as we have seen, no WMDs have been found. If Iraq was not an immediate threat to the U.S., then our attack on a soveriegn nation was illegal under international law.

Two, to suggest the president broke laws declareing war on Iraq is a very serious charge. One that should not be made lightly and once made should be taken very seriously. If he did indeed break the law then he should be thown out of office and put in jail.

I wouldn't haul Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al away in chains; but I would urge all law-abiding Americans to vote Bush out of office and allow the UN to take whatever action they deem reasonable; up to and including imprisonment. If we don't respect the law, why should any other country?

[PatriotX]

Originally Posted by Tweek

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I read that treaty was basicly the US was ratifying the charter of th UN. Basicly putting our rubber stamp on it. I didn't see anything saying that we are to fall under their laws.

You are taking the position that the Charter is not the ame thing as a treaty, correct?


Because if the Charter is a treaty or the equivalent of a treaty, then it has had the necessary ratification of two thirds of the Senate,
["AND WHEREAS the Senate of the United States of America by their Resolution of July 28 (legislative day of July 9), 1945, two-thirds of . the Senators present concurring therein, did advise and consent to the ratification of the said Charter, with annexed Statute;"],

and the required ratification of the PotUS,
["AND WHEREAS the said Charter, with annexed Statute, was duly ratified by the President of the United States of America on August 8, 1945, in pursuance of the aforesaid advice and consent of the Senate; "]

as required by the Constitution Article Two, Section 2:
"He [the PotUS] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"

So if you did think it was a treaty, or the equivalent of a treaty then it would be both obviously and blatantly, irrefutable that it had been "made, under the authority of the United States" as per Article VI of the US Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. "


Am I right about this?
Your position is that the Charter is not a treaty, nor the equivalent of a treaty as discussed in the aforementioned Article VI of the US Constitution?

Originally Posted by Tweek

...to suggest the president broke laws declareing war on Iraq is a very serious charge. One that should not be made lightly and once made should be taken very seriously. If he did indeed break the law then he should be thown out of office and put in jail.

Very true, very true.
I'd appreciate it if you'd stop by here for some discussion:
Put an End to the Well-Founded Rumors Surrounding GWB Admin's Use of Intel re Iraq?

Originally Posted by Tweek

More to my overall point. My major beef with the "Illegal" argument is 2 fold. One, it's wrong. The only laws the US is obliagted to follow are our own, and congress appoved the war.

The simple argument I've presented demonstrates how one could sensibly argue that the invasion was illegal in regard to "our own" laws. Therefore, is unrebutted, (and therefore decidedly unrefuted), by your assertion, "The only laws the US is obliagted to follow are our own."

Second, there's another argument that revolves around the idea that Congress is not authorized to turn the decision to make war over to the Pres as it did in Public Law 107-243:

Public Law 107-243
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

And since the Congress isn't authorized by the Constitution, (short of an amendment), to delegate it's Constitutional authority to make war, it could not delegate its Constitutional authority to make war.

Originally Posted by Tweek

Once again, I don't wanna open the whole debate again. Just wanted to point out an incorrect argument.

If you "don't wanna open the whole debate again," posting in Great Debates is an astoundingly and mind-bogglingly...uh...odd decision on your part.

Am I right about this?
Your position is that the Charter is not a treaty, nor the equivalent of a treaty as discussed in the aforementioned Article VI of the US Constitution?

[blowero]

We are a member of the U.N., and we signed the U.N. Charter, therefore it is binding on us. What exactly is there not to understand?

[PatriotX]

I'll take bets on Tweek coming back to this thread.

Currently @ 5 : 3 against

[rjung]

Am I the only person who finds it a little scary that Tweek believes that the only purpose for the United States to ratify the UN charter was "[to put] our rubber stamp on it"? Almost like the US was doing nothing more than giving the UN (and, by extension, the rest of the world) permission to play according to a set of rules which the US wasn't bound to? It's this gross ignorance of international law that creeps me out...

[XT]

I'd love to see the evidence that the 'rest of the world' was bound to the charter either. I've seen none so far. Seems to me that nations violate the charter pretty much at will, and if they are in the elite club they get away with it, and the US is no better or worse than most other nations in that elite club. Even if they aren't in the elite club, if they have a big enough blackjack (like North Korea) to hold over the worlds head, they get away with it too (at least for a time, as was the case with Saddam before the first gulf war). This thread seems to be populated mostly with the anti-war crowd singing kumbiya though as I suspected...I think all the legalistic types and heavy hitters on this subject are tired of re-hashing this over and over again. From the myriad threads I've seen I think, again, a case can be made either way depending on your interperetation of international law and how it effects Congress's powers, as well as precidence of other nations also violating the Charter when they felt they have too (Bosnia and NATO/US comes to mind as a good counter example off the top of my head).

What I want to know is...don't you folks ever get tired of this particular subject? Its literally been done to death on this board, and IMO there has never been a clear winner...nor is there ever likely TO be one as the legal wrangling and esoterica are unbelievably intricate and complex. I.E. there really IS no quick and easy answer to this question, and the legal beagle types can endlessly wrangle over this subject and get no where.

At any rate, carry on with the circle jerk...

-XT

[AZCowboy]

[/b]

xtisme, of course UN members are subject to the "law" (read: UN Charter and SC Resolutions).

I don't argue your supporting points, however, in that the law was applied unevenly and inconsistently. The procedures to determine actions worthy of prosecution and the criteria to establish guilt were flawed. The entire system was imperfect.

Much like all systems of laws - or systems, generally. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

This system depends appreciably on the benevolence of the powerful, in meting out justice by committee.

But it was the best we had. And I bet this administration privately laughs in pride at the verb tense of the last sentence.

[Atticus Finch]

xtisme, the posters to this thread did tell the OP that the topic had been done to death in a variety of other threads. Most of the substantial material here has been reposts from older threads. They have got tired of it and they have moved on.

[blowero]

Originally Posted by xtisme

I'd love to see the evidence that the 'rest of the world' was bound to the charter either. I've seen none so far. Seems to me that nations violate the charter pretty much at will, and if they are in the elite club they get away with it, and the US is no better or worse than most other nations in that elite club
-XT

I don't get this line of reasoning. How does saying "everyone else does it" prove that it's not illegal? Does the fact that people commit murder prove that murder is not illegal?

[PatriotX]

What conclusions about xtisme should one reach based soley upon his participation in this thread so far?

Given that rather than provide links to any of the "myriad" of threads where the "legalistic types and heavy hitters" participated he chose to offer derisive comments about his fellow posters masturbatory habits.

Instead of addressing any of the points recently re-rehashed in this thread he chose to make derisive commments about his fellow dopers being naive.

Then, in his only apparent attempt to generally address the issue at hand, he resorts to a logical fallacy.

What is one to think?





I'm not sayin', mind you, I'm just sayin' 'sall.

[XT]

Originally Posted by blowero

I don't get this line of reasoning. How does saying "everyone else does it" prove that it's not illegal? Does the fact that people commit murder prove that murder is not illegal?

I know you don't get it. We went through the same exact arguement in another thread. I didn't win then, and I'm not going to win now either. You and I both know that you know a hell of a lot more about this stuff than I do, blowero. I'll make one drive by analogy and then I think I'll bolt....the topic leaves me slightly ill.

Lets say that in some alternate reality that murder is a crime. However if you are rich enough and have a good enough lawyer you can get off even after clearly murdering someone (er, wait...this is real reality). But if you are poor and caught murdering someone (or if someone trumps up charges against you even) you are going to jail or the gas chamber. So...is murder really a crime? Sure it is. But if those who are very rich are going to get off scott free because they have the money and the power to do so, then the laws and the process itself is flawed. If you can't enforce a law and make it stick at all levels, not just to the poor, then there IS really no justice for all in your system. If those rich people choose to kill, then they will. If they choose not too, then they won't. But its up to THEM to decide whats best for themselves, as there is nothing to hold them responsible for their actions. Of course, in the real world the Rich don't quite have to power of a nation state and the system that lets them off is not quite so out in the open, nor do they always get off, so the analogy is imperfect. Its actually worse at the international level unfortunately.

As far as the UN charter goes, of course precidence matters...its key to all law from what I understand. And I'll even say that, from my earlier reading of the situation, the US has been one of the major ones to set that precidence, along with the old Soviet Union. But frankly the rest of the SC has done their share too. So, why SHOULD the US suddenly honor a set of 'laws' which frankly can't and aren't enforced against the major powers, and are disreguarded pretty much at will when one of them gets the whim? Just because we are supposed to be better or something? As I said before, we AREN'T better.

The entire legalistic arguement hinges on this matter of precidence, just as laws themselves do. That and a few loopholes in the charter which allow a nation to launch aggressive war if they think they are being directly threatened. The terminology is vague enough that nations can and have used this fig leaf in the past to justify and make quasi-legal their actions, and past precidence has set the stage for allowing the powerful nations the leeway to pretty much do what they want. NATO used this. The Soviets used this. And the US has used it and is using it again.

Ya, it doesn't stand up under scrutiny. There WERE no WMD. However, the US is using the previous precidents of aggressive warfare along with the claim that they THOUGHT there were WMD, to do what they want...again. Whether this was trumped up or just a fuck up in intellegence is besides the point. If there is no method to enforce a law, then there IS no law...only an honor system that can be and has (repeatedly been) used or disreguarded at the will of those with the power to do so...or enforced to the letter against those without said power. In effect its a propaganda tool, no more...one that is just being used against the US right now, as they have used it against others in the past.

SimonX, if you want to claim that there are no threads about this subject in GD, then thats your affair. No, I'm not going to hunt through the message board to find them all for you...search for them yourself. Try "Was the Iraq war Illegal" if you don't have the imagination to do a search yourself. You'll even find a thread who's OP was written by me in there somewhere. I've been in or seen at least 10 threads about this subject since I've been on this board. Go knock yourself out reading through em.

Originally Posted by SimonX

Instead of addressing any of the points recently re-rehashed in this thread he chose to make derisive commments about his fellow dopers being naive.

Every point in this thread has been made, addressed, countered, etc. There is nothing new here. In fact, all of the above that I wrote I pretty much wrote (and blowero disputed) at least twice before in other threads. It was a waste of my time to type it in again, as he'll most like just shred it....again. But I know how he loves when I make this arguement...its like fresh blood in the water to him.

-XT

[blowero]

Originally Posted by xtisme

I know you don't get it.

Ha, ha - cute. I don't know why the gloves always have to come off with you, xtisme - I guess you like it that way. "I don't get it" is a tactful way of saying that your argument, xtisme, is full of shit. Clear now?

We went through the same exact arguement in another thread. I didn't win then, and I'm not going to win now either. You and I both know that you know a hell of a lot more about this stuff than I do, blowero.

Again I don't get it (read: your argument is full of shit). If you don't want to rehash it, then DON'T. What makes you think you can just post some drive-by fallacy and that it's gonna go unchallenged? I appreciate your suggestion that I know more, but I really don't - I just tried to debate it, 'cuz that's what we do here. I'm about as far from an expert on international law as you get.

Lets say that in some alternate reality that murder is a crime. However if you are rich enough and have a good enough lawyer you can get off even after clearly murdering someone (er, wait...this is real reality). But if you are poor and caught murdering someone (or if someone trumps up charges against you even) you are going to jail or the gas chamber. So...is murder really a crime? Sure it is. But if those who are very rich are going to get off scott free because they have the money and the power to do so, then the laws and the process itself is flawed. If you can't enforce a law and make it stick at all levels, not just to the poor, then there IS really no justice for all in your system. If those rich people choose to kill, then they will. If they choose not too, then they won't. But its up to THEM to decide whats best for themselves, as there is nothing to hold them responsible for their actions.

O.K., but this is just a long-winded way of saying, "If you get away with it, then it wasn't illegal", with which I vehemently disagree. In your analogy, the UNITED STATES is the "rich guy" who's getting away with murder. The point stands: just because you got away with it doesn't mean it wasn't a crime.

As far as the UN charter goes, of course precidence matters...its key to all law from what I understand. And I'll even say that, from my earlier reading of the situation, the US has been one of the major ones to set that precidence, along with the old Soviet Union. But frankly the rest of the SC has done their share too. So, why SHOULD the US suddenly honor a set of 'laws' which frankly can't and aren't enforced against the major powers, and are disreguarded pretty much at will when one of them gets the whim?

We ARE the "major power"; if we don't follow the rules, then nobody's going to. It's circular reasoning; you're saying the most influential power (which happens to be the U.S.) isn't following the rules, therefore nobody has to follow the rules, therefore the U.S. doesn't have to follow the rules. But that's where we started.

Just because we are supposed to be better or something? As I said before, we AREN'T better.

So are our actions self-justifying? We don't have to be better because we aren't?

And BTW, nations are NOT allowed to invade each other willy-nilly. Iraq most certainly didn't get away with invading Kuwait.

The entire legalistic arguement hinges on this matter of precidence, just as laws themselves do. That and a few loopholes in the charter which allow a nation to launch aggressive war if they think they are being directly threatened. The terminology is vague enough that nations can and have used this fig leaf in the past to justify and make quasi-legal their actions, and past precidence has set the stage for allowing the powerful nations the leeway to pretty much do what they want.

You used this argument in the other thread, and I didn't like it any better there. The language in the U.N. Charter is quite clear. It is NOT a "loophole". I'm sorry, but there is no amount of sophistry in the universe that would convince me that the U.S. acted in self-defense vis-a-vis Iraq.

NATO used this.

NATO is not a country; how could they invoke self-defense?

The Soviets used this.

And we opposed them.

And the US has used it and is using it again.

Yes, hence the problem.

If there is no method to enforce a law, then there IS no law...

Wrong. Was Al Capone a murderer? By your definition, he wasn't; he was just a tax cheat.

Every point in this thread has been made, addressed, countered, etc. There is nothing new here. In fact, all of the above that I wrote I pretty much wrote (and blowero disputed) at least twice before in other threads. It was a waste of my time to type it in again, as he'll most like just shred it....again. But I know how he loves when I make this arguement...its like fresh blood in the water to him.

Said the man holding a bucket of chum.

Gee, xtisme - sorry you don't get a free pass to post your propoganda without getting challenged. I can see that really cheeses you off. You sure did a lot of typing for a guy who thinks it's a waste of time. It's cracking me up how you guys want to keep harping on this "The war wasn't illegal" thing, then you get mad when people say you're wrong.

[XT]

Originally Posted by blowero

Gee, xtisme - sorry you don't get a free pass to post your propoganda without getting challenged. I can see that really cheeses you off. You sure did a lot of typing for a guy who thinks it's a waste of time. It's cracking me up how you guys want to keep harping on this "The war wasn't illegal" thing, then you get mad when people say you're wrong.

Never thought I would get a free pass from you on this blowero ole boy. Part of the fun was typing it in again just to cheese YOU off. I'm actually quite calm about it. See, if you read what I said, and even the other threads we clashed in, I never DID say I thought the actions were legal...OR illegal. What I said was, a case could be made either way. As you guys were all circling around making the 'illegal' case I just figured I'd join in the fun by argueing with you. I LOVE to argue.

Personally, I find the legality of the whole thing besides the point (as I told you in the other thread...or the one before that, I don't remember). The war was simply the wrong thing to do, no matter whether it was 'legal' or 'illegal'. But if you want to amuse yourself by thinking I'm all pissed off or affronted, knock yourself out old man...glad I could be of service.

Originally Posted by blowero

Ha, ha - cute. I don't know why the gloves always have to come off with you, xtisme - I guess you like it that way. "I don't get it" is a tactful way of saying that your argument, xtisme, is full of shit. Clear now?

Thats 'caus you are an uncivilized barbarian. But I still like you...you are an amusing fellow, really. And the feeling is pretty much mutual...I also think that your arguements are full of shit too, and guided by your political partisanship and an almost witch hunt like zeal to throw GW into the fire. You WANT the war to be illegal so you can justify that its wrong. Myself, I don't feel the need to justify that it was wrong...it was simply wrong and the legality or lack there of has nothing to do with the wrongness. Let me put it another way...if the UN had of approved the US to invade Iraq, it would STILL have been the wrong thing for the US to have done at that time. Clearer?

Originally Posted by blowero

Again I don't get it (read: your argument is full of shit). If you don't want to rehash it, then DON'T. What makes you think you can just post some drive-by fallacy and that it's gonna go unchallenged? I appreciate your suggestion that I know more, but I really don't - I just tried to debate it, 'cuz that's what we do here. I'm about as far from an expert on international law as you get.

Honestly I chimed in with this post because you did. Frankly, I love setting you off and watching the explosions.

I think you underestimate yourself...I thought you did pretty well on the internation law bit in the thread I made earlier as anyone did. Ravenman though was the true champ of that thread...that guy really knows this bs. Sailor also does pretty well I thought. And John Mace had some good arguements. I think everyone (but you maybe ) is tired of this subject.

Originally Posted by blowero

O.K., but this is just a long-winded way of saying, "If you get away with it, then it wasn't illegal", with which I vehemently disagree. In your analogy, the UNITED STATES is the "rich guy" who's getting away with murder. The point stands: just because you got away with it doesn't mean it wasn't a crime.

Its not simply a matter of 'getting away with it' in the international arena though...there is nothing TOO get away with, as there are no consequences for the chosen few (and this ISN'T simply the US...its the entire SC and several other nations as well). What I'd really like you to describe is exactly why you feel that, if a law is unenforced and unenforcable that you feel that the law should be respected. Why have a 'law' if everyone does as they choose...and if everyone (or at least the select few) do whatever they choose, is there really law?

Originally Posted by blowero

So are our actions self-justifying? We don't have to be better because we aren't?

And BTW, nations are NOT allowed to invade each other willy-nilly. Iraq most certainly didn't get away with invading Kuwait.

Exactly. Of COURSE our actions (and those of the other select few nations) are self justifying. I'd think this was thunderingly obvious by now. Thats exactly how it plays out in the real world. The Soviets want to invade Afghanistan? They invade Afghanistan. NATO wants to intervene in Bosnia? They intervene. The US feels the need to invade Iraq? We invade Iraq. We are no better or worse than the other select few nations...because we don't have to be. There are no teeth in the Charter, so nations honor or ignore it at their whim.

Please try and read what I said, my man. I specifically addressed this. Of COURSE not every nation is allowed to invade others. Silly boy. Only those nations that CAN are allowed...the SC and a select few others. Other nations, not so privilaged, are held to the accord by the very real teeth of the powerful nations on the SC. As I said, its all propaganda...all fluff with no substance. Personally I like this probably less than you do, but to deny reality thats right in front of you is fairly sad. Ideals are all well and good, but this is the real world, and this is (currently) the way things actually work.

Originally Posted by blowero

We ARE the "major power"; if we don't follow the rules, then nobody's going to. It's circular reasoning; you're saying the most influential power (which happens to be the U.S.) isn't following the rules, therefore nobody has to follow the rules, therefore the U.S. doesn't have to follow the rules. But that's where we started.

We are certainly the pre-eminent power, but we are far from the ONLY power in the world. Nor are we the only nation with the power to pretty much do as we like, though I'll agree that we get away with a lot more than any nation since the Soviets fell. As to your circular logic foray, yep...it is. Its also the way it is. The powerful nations on the SC and a few other do whatever they like, AND they expect the other nations to follow the rules, and spank them harshly with sanctions, embargo's, even invasion if they get too far out of line. Not very fair is it? But again, its reality. Want to change it? I'm with you 100%. But wanting something doesn't make it a reality.

Originally Posted by blowero

You used this argument in the other thread, and I didn't like it any better there. The language in the U.N. Charter is quite clear. It is NOT a "loophole". I'm sorry, but there is no amount of sophistry in the universe that would convince me that the U.S. acted in self-defense vis-a-vis Iraq.

I know you didn't...and it gave me great pleasure to put it back into this one. Think of it as my special treat to you.

However, whether the language is clear or not (I don't find it so, but thats beside the point) is meaningless unless there are consequences of going against it. There aren't any. You can put in a Charter that no nation, under any circumstance, can ever go to war with another, any time, any place any way...but if you don't actually DO anything about a nation violating this, what good is it? And if only a select few can violate it at will, but the other nations have to sullenly follow it or get spanked, then you have a situation of monsterous injustice. And thats exactly what we have. Trying to hang all that injustice on the US alone though is pretty ingenuous...its ALL the powerful nations on the SC that do such things and maintain their privilaged positions...and do what they want.

Originally Posted by blowero

NATO is not a country; how could they invoke self-defense?

I'm not sure I understand your point here. Are you saying that, if there is an alliance they don't have to follow the Charter and can wage aggressive war (I'm pretty sure you are NOT saying this...think of it as a retorical question )? Because if you are, then the US was totally 'legal' in its invasion of Iraq because they had an alliance. Hell, there was the US, and Britian and...well, there was the US and Britian. Thats two at least. Perfectly peachy then.

Ok, I know you weren't saying that. However, NATO NATIONS went into Bosnia without UN approval, so in your terms each nation was indivudually in violation of the Charter. Now, it was a good cause (IMO) and all that, but still their actions were 'illegal' in the strict sense and so are the same as those taken by the Soviets in Afghanistan, and by the US in Iraq. Its just one of lots of examples (I'm sure you remember the guy that posted like 30 odd examples of Charter violations by SC memebers in the years since it was signed) of SC members doing pretty much what they liked because they felt they must...reguardless of the charter. And of SC members using the threat of iminent danger fig leaf to quasi-justify their actions.

Originally Posted by blowero

And we opposed them.

Yes we did. Doesn't the charter make for a great propaganda tool? But notice that, at least from the international community, the Soviets actions didn't cost them anything? Of course, they got their ass's kicked by the Afghani's, but thats beside the point. What did the Charter or the SC DO to the Soviets for their invasion? Well, they had some fiery speeches of course denouncing them. That helped a bunch I'm sure.

Originally Posted by blowero

Yes, hence the problem.

But why it is, my good man, that its a problem when the US does such things, but not when the other powerful nations do? To me, the REAL problem is that ANY of them can do what they please with no consequences for their actions. You are on a Bush/US crusade, but don't you find it disturbing that there is a whole group of nations that can act unilaterally if they so choose with no real consequences...all because the Charter has no teeth and the UN has no will to enforce it anyway because of the monopoly held by the SC and the powerful nations of the world? It disturbes ME I'll say.

Originally Posted by blowero

Wrong. Was Al Capone a murderer? By your definition, he wasn't; he was just a tax cheat.

Don't know if ole Al was a murderer or not to be honest. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. In the eyes of the law, he was guilty of tax evasion and was sent to prison for his crimes. However, murder is actually on the books with a specific definition and variable punishments for those convicted, and is probably a bad analogy for the international law/Charter situation.

In parts of the south sodomy is still considered a crime (ammusingly enough). Its on the books at any rate still in a few states. Does that make all homosexual males or those who enjoy alternated ammusement with their wives/girlfriends criminals? If a law isn't enforced, then doing some action, while maybe quasi-illegal, bares no consequences and so is de-facto legal. If 'everyone' does an action thats illegal, then of what use is the law? And once you set a precidence that an action is allowed, its very difficult to single out any individual for breaking that action...it smacks of a witch hunt.

Originally Posted by blowero

Said the man holding a bucket of chum.

And look what I caught!! A blowero! Now I can get it stuffed and put up on my mantle piece, and then I can bounce my grand chillen on my knee and tell them the story of how I caught it...

As alway, it was fun. You get SO emotionally charged when talking about this stuff...and for whatever reason I just grate on you the wrong way. C'est la vie I guess. I actually kind of like you, if you can believe it.

-XT

[blowero]

Gee, thanks for all the juicy bait, xtisme, but I'm really not hungry. I don't swing at sucker pitches when they're that high and outside. You'll have to get your jollies elsewhere.

[XT]

Originally Posted by blowero

Gee, thanks for all the juicy bait, xtisme, but I'm really not hungry. I don't swing at sucker pitches when they're that high and outside. You'll have to get your jollies elsewhere.

Well, I got my ounce of pleasure out of it, thank you very kindly sir. Next time I'll throw a knuckle ball and see if I can get you to swing at that.

Now this thread can sink into obscurity like all the other fruitless threads on this subject. Woohoo!

-XT

[PatriotX]

Unless, Tweek returns.

What are the odds?


2:1 against

[Tweek]

I apologize to those of you who are tired of this debate, but I feel that it is my responsibility to discuss my county's activates in the world. If you are tired of this debate, feel free to stop reading this thread.

First off, I will say I understand the argument that since we ratified the U.N. charter we recognized it as a treaty with the U.N., therefore we basically reorganize it as one of our laws. Did I represent that viewpoint correctly? If so, I will advance that the U.S. did not violate anything on that treaty. This is my reasoning:

To end hostilities in the gulf war the Iraqi government signed a ceasefire in which they agreed to submit to inspections to make sure they had no WMDs. Over 12 years they repeatedly refused total access to suspected sites. The president recommended a more aggressive approach to the U.N. regarding the inspections. The U.N. concurred, and passed resolution 1441. After more months of subversion by the Iraqi government the president recommended a military effort to make Iraq comply with the terms of the 1991 ceasefire. The U.N. did not concur, but did not expressly forbid the U.S. from doing so. Then the president opened hostilities because he believed the risk of not acting was too great.

To summarize. I concede that because we recognize the U.N. charter as a treaty with the U.N. we basically acknowledge it as one of our own laws. But I submit that we did not violate the treaty, so therefore we didn’t violate any laws and it is inappropriate to call the Iraq war “illegal.”

As an aside; Before I asked my initial question I did not know that the U.S. recognizes treaties as laws, and I did not know that we recognize the U.N. charter as a treaty. To those who say its no use having these great debates because no minds are changed and one learns anything, I say "So there."

Also when I said I didn’t want to open up the whole debate again. I didn’t mean I wanted no debate. I was just naively trying to narrow the debate down to a specific topic.

BTW, What did the pot get up to on me not coming back to the boards?

[PatriotX]

Originally Posted by Tweek

BTW, What did the pot get up to on me not coming back to the boards?

A very pleased to be wrong red face.

[XT]

Tweek, I'm not sure if you've ever actually looked at the charter or not. Before really pressing home your arguement on this tack, you might want to read through it fairly carefully. Here it is if you have never really read through it carefully. (hint, look especially at Article 39 and 51 first, then go from there).

Another thing you might want to research (or do a search on the board here) is: Precidence US Constitution vs Ratified Treaties. Which takes precidence over the other, or are they co-equal...or does one take precidence over the other in certain circumstances. This is a particularly knotty and deep question and is key to the whole legal/illegal wrangle (it might also be good bait to get blowero back in the thread ).

BTW, I for one am glad you came back if only to make Simon's face red.

-XT

[Atticus Finch]

Ok, Tweek, now that you accept the argument about teh binding nature of the UN Charter, please explain why you think the UN Charter was not violated.

If you are saying that it was not violated because the UN did not specifically stand in the US's way, that would be a fallacious argument because that is not how the Charter works.

Under the Charter, member states may only use force for one of two reasons, both to be found here (SimonX's link):
- When force is authorized by the Security Council (Article 42)
- When member states are defending themselves (or others, arguably) from armed attack (Article 51)

The US used two legal arguments before going to war:
- That they were acting on the basis of old SC resolutions (ie under art 42)
- That they were acting in "pre-emptive self-defence".

Do you agree with either of these US arguments, or are you putting forward somethign different?

[Atticus Finch]

Damn you and your quick typing, xtisme!

[XT]

Well, if its any consolation lambchops you said what I meant better. Though I think Art 39 (which leads into 41 and 42) is the root place to start. I also didn't realize SimonX had linked to the Charter already in this thread.

-XT

[blowero]

Give it up, xtisme - there's no way I'm coming back. The best you can do is ad hominem attacks, ala:

Thats 'caus you are an uncivilized barbarian.
...
I also think that your arguements are full of shit too, and guided by your political partisanship and an almost witch hunt like zeal to throw GW into the fire. You WANT the war to be illegal so you can justify that its wrong.

and shameless backpedaling, e.g.

Personally, I find the legality of the whole thing besides (sic) the point

I mean, how do you answer someone whose argument consists of "I declare that you hate Bush; therefore you're wrong". The only thing that might interest me in getting back into a subject that's already been done to death would be if you came up with a non-fallacious argument, and frankly, it's just not in your repertoire. So kindly quit mentioning me. I'm done here.

[notquitekarpov]

Going back to UN Charter (especially Art.51), here is a link to an analysis of the relevant International Law by Library of Congress's Congressional Research Service

http://www.usembassy.at/en/download/pdf/iraq_intlaw.pdf

Now you may not trust their view any more than anybody elses but surely it is at least of interest that it represents the in-house legal advice on the issue that Congress presumably should have considered when they voted (I'm a Brit so I will not assume to understand exactly their status here).

Anyway, what the authors assert here is that both "necessity and proportionality" are the tests for the "common law" legal use of a pre-emptive military reaction to a threat. By that I mean what can be regarded a precident outwith consideration of the US legal right and obligations under the UN Charter.

The Report concludes that

Iraq did not appear to pose an imminent threat of attack on traditional military terms. As a consequence, it seems doubtful that the use of force against Iraq could be deemed to meet the traditiinal legal tests. But Iraq may have possessed WMD, and it may have had ties to terrorist groups that seek to use such weapons against the U.S. If evidence is forthcoming on both those issues, then the situation necessarily raises the question that the Bush Administration articulated in its national security strategy, i.e. whether the traditional law of preemption needs to be recast in the light of the realities of WMD, rogue states and terrorism.

As it turns out there is no evidence of WMD possession and no evidence of ties to terrorist groups seeking to use such weapons against the US. The fact that one may have relied on flawed intelligence is surely no defence to the issue of fact if the evidence turns out to have been wrong. I am no lawyer but would the belief that you were acting in "self defence" get you off a murder charge if it can be shown that that belief (however honestly held) fails the test of "reasonableness" as judged by his fellow men? I suspect not, although it might mitigate come the sentence.

Finally one last point from the Congress paper cited.

Whilst the US may have used the UN Charter "self defence" justification on many occasions in the past (has anybody got any links to exactly which occasions?) I found it interesting that they decided NOT TO in relation to the Cuban Missile Crisis. And for why?

Because, according to Abram Chaynes (Legal Adviser to the State Department at the time)

an article 51 defence would have signalled that the United States did not take the legal issues involved very seriously, that in it's view the situation was to be governed by national discretion, not international law.

Now if known actual WMD systems to Cuba were not thought legal justification for the US at that time it is pretty hard to see how possible WMD systems in Iraq could possibly be legal justification.

[flight]

Originally Posted by notquitekarpov

As it turns out there is no evidence of WMD possession and no evidence of ties to terrorist groups seeking to use such weapons against the US. The fact that one may have relied on flawed intelligence is surely no defence to the issue of fact if the evidence turns out to have been wrong. I am no lawyer but would the belief that you were acting in "self defence" get you off a murder charge if it can be shown that that belief (however honestly held) fails the test of "reasonableness" as judged by his fellow men? I suspect not, although it might mitigate come the sentence.

If you have valid reason to believe your life was in danger that turned out to be wrong (the gun he was pointing at you was a very real looking toy) it is the same as if it was right (as if he was holding a real gun). The test of reasonableness comes into play in determining if reasonable person would believe their life in danger given the available info. So seeing a gun is a valid excuse even if it is a toy, but if they waved their arm at you in a manner that suggested they might have a gun, but you couldn't be sure, that is up to a jury.

To make this analogy we must consider the quality of the intelligence Bush et al had. Was it good solid intelligence that turned out to be wrong, or did they read the information to mean what they wanted it to mean. In one case, by this analogy, they are innocent, in the other guilty. Of course that leaves open the question of how applicable criminal law is to international politics, particularly as it based upon our western legal tradition which does not share much of its background with the rest of the world, and the still unanswered (to my satisfaction) question of the quality of the intelligence.

[notquitekarpov]

Thank you flight for amplifying my post so well. I was trying to keep it open handed, and if I suceeded then that tone has been preserved.

It would be interested in debating both

1. That analogy if indeed valid

2. Also the final point I made comparing the US governments lawyers thoughts on the applicability, or not, of UNC Art.51 to the Cuban Missile Crisis with the stance on Iraq.

On the issue of the quality of intelligence Bush et al had I would have thought it valid to consider whether they ultimate users of the intelligence knowingly influenced the processes by which it was gathered and interpreted. For instance if they say, "Look don't bring me stuff which does not support view XXX" then they cannot turn around and just say, "Yes, but look at what I was shown - what else could we conclude but that WMDs were likely?".

[notquitekarpov]

Oh, I forgot to add I think it is perfectly valid to analyse the UN Charter from the viewpoint of "our western legal tradition which does not share much of its background with the rest of the world" as the thing was written in language and phrases which is taken from that Western legal tradition. How else are we supposed to deduce the meaning?

This is not a common on superiority of one legal tradition over another, just an issue of fact - who most influenced the drafting?

[flight]

Yeah, I just put that in as a caveat since it may influence the applicability of criminal law to the case. I am waiting to see the final verdict on how much intelligence was picked over to produce the desired result. I have seen many posts on this board which strongly suggest this is the case, but I haven't yet seen any really good evidence (though maybe I haven't been here enough, this is the final month of my doctoral dissertation and I only come here for sanity breaks). Any good links on this would be appreciated.

[PatriotX]

Originally Posted by flight

Any good links on this would be appreciated.

Here's one that'll just get better http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=242238

It's about the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which, afaict, is the only formal and official investigation into the Bush Admin's use of the intelligence leading to the invasion of Iraq, specifically dealing with the issues surrounding:

the public statements and reports and testimony regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials made between the Gulf War period and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by intelligence information;
prewar intelligence assessments about postwar Iraq;
intelligence activities relating to Iraq conducted by the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group (PCTEG) and the Office of Special Plans within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy;
and the use by the Intelligence Community of information provided by the Iraqi National Congress (INC).


An intial report from the SSCI is due out sometime between now and May. However, this report won't address "how much intelligence was picked over to produce the desired result." The SSCIS report that will address this is due out some "months" after the initial one, (whose draft is currently circulating in the Senate).