No ruling is required, just an ability to read the Charter.
Perhaps prematurely. see below.
This is disingenuous to the point of absurdity. Saddam fled because the US was trying to kill him. The first strike of the invasion was a direct attack at the palace where he was believed to be in residence. Trying to kill another head of state is illegal. We also went in with the expressed, explicit goal of removing Saddam from power.
Yes. Resolution 3314: Article 5: Section 1
Read the entire resolution. Nothing but direct self defense is legal. Actually, it looks like pretty much the whole military action was illegal:
Oh, please. We fully intended to make them into a puppet state and a colony. We rewrote their laws to benefit us and to adhere to American right wing values, we deliberately let as much damage as possible happen to their museums and historical monuments in an attempt to create a blank slate we could write on, and we fully intended to stay there indefinitely. We built bases and embassy buildings that we designed for decades of occupancy by large numbers of American troops and officials, to administer our new conquest and prepare for the next victims on the neocon list. The fact that we failed because the Iraqis didn’t fall to their faces in gratitude like we expected and actually resented being slaughtered and tortured makes what we did no less of a war of conquest.
No, it wouldn’t. The order was not illegal. It was authorized by Congress. Congress has the authority to declare war. It can declare war against Canada because the Senate Majority Leader doesn’t like the Canadian National Anthem, if it wants.
I agree that it’s very hard to argue that the orders to deploy to Iraq were illegal. Soldiers are entitled to think a war is illegal, but that doesn’t mean their orders are unless and until it’s established by some meangingful authority that the action they’re engaged in is illegal. Illegal orders are meant to apply to things that are patently and clearly known to be illegal to both parties involved. It’s meant to refer to things like orders to kill non-combatants or commit other acts expressly forbidden by the UCMJ.
Here’s what seems deeply troubling to me, and correct me if my understanding is wrong.
It is impossible for the United States to have its actions declared illegal, no matter how patently illegal they actually are. The U.S can always veto the Security Council resolution that would seek to declare it illegal.
Pretty fucked up system, if you ask me. It’s like requiring a unanimous jury verdict to convict a defendant, and the defendant himself is on the jury. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Article 42 of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter states:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 was adopted on November 8, 2002. This authorized member states to use force to make Iraq comply with the terms of previous resolutions.
Only if the Security Council approved it, which it did not.
It did not authorize regime change.
Let’s see a cite for this garbage.
Regards,
Shodan
No such authority is necessary. The controlling statement is as follows
Regards,
Shodan
Here’s an analogy: a cop sees a car pulling away from a known drug house. They decide to see if the driver bought any contraband, so they follow the car. Twelve blocks later, the driver changes lanes without signaling, and the police pull the driver over for that offense. During the ensuing conversation, the driver admits to having bought drugs.
The officer readily admits that his assignment is drug interdiction, not traffic enforcement, and if he saw thirty cars on the interstate change lanes without signaling, he wouldn’t pull over any of them.
That’s perfectly legitimate.
A pretextual traffic stop is valid, as long as the underlying pretext is an actual offense.
So, too, here. We had valid military reasons for attacking Iraq, and the mere fact that we ALSO hoped for a regime change is not relevant.
The soldier has no legal grounds to refuse that order.
The Resolution does not say “if the Security Council fails to act decisively…” The closest the resolution comes to this sort of statement is warning Iraq not to attack or threaten anyone working to carry out UNSC 1441 or any of the other resolutions.
Ambassador Negroponte was engaging in what is known as “bullshit.” The resolution simply does not say what he says it does. It’s like trying to argue with people who think that the Constitution makes English our national language.
We didn’t “hoe” for regime change. It was one of th reasons for the invasion.
Sure, just like the traffic stop’s reason was the drug house visit. But the legal justification for the stop was the lane change.
Your analogy is bad. The AUMF is like a warrant. The warrant says “look for drugs”.
I realize this may not be the popular view, but I am of the opinion that the Charter does not prohibit the toppling of governments; rather it is intended to put a stop to wars of conquest or colonization.
If we place the discussion in the historical context, it would certainly be odd to have the victors of World War II, who shed so much blood to rid the Axis powers of its fascist governments, design a treaty which would tie their hands against ever again destroying a future government that sought conquest and genocide. To the contrary, I believe that the prohibition on threatening the territorial integrity or political independence of other states is a reaction to the Axis powers’ conquests in Europe, Manchuria, Southeast Asia, etc., in which those countries were absorbed into an empire. Do you really think that the US and the Soviet Union really got together and said, “We shouldn’t have toppled Hitler… that was wrong, and we should outlaw what we did.”
Notwithstanding the views of some that the US intended to make Iraq a vassal state. And, setting aside Joe Biden’s plan to carve Iraq up into three countries, the US did not alter the territorial integrity of Iraq.
In short, I do not believe that the US violated Article 2 of the Charter. OTOH, I think it’s quite clear that the US violated Chapter VII.
Yes it is.
The US did not attack Iraq in self-defense and Iraq was not a threat.
Also, enforcement of the resolution did not include regime change.