Just as the thread title asks. Myself, I really don’t know.
The mind boggles.
Well, starting an aggressive war against a smaller nation with desirable natural resources on manufactured pretexts (sold to the internal populace of the nation governed and doing the invading as The Absolute Truth, which we can’t prove for National Security reasons), resulting in incitement of hatred against an ethnic minority, endorsement of legislation backing a particular ideological view and working harm against another minority… I’m fairly sure that these are contrary to International Law as specified in a certain series of court cases. But there’s no way I could prove my thesis without violating Godwin’s Law.
[nitpick] You cannot violate Godwin’s Law, you can present an example of its application, but you cannot violate it. [/nitpick]
“Did Bush commit war crimes?” (Editorial relating to the treatment of prisoners/detainees, not to whether the war itself was illegal.)
Wiki article on Legality of the Iraq War. Pretty thorough.
Well, you can if you run a rancorous debate that fails to elicit a Nazi reference.
The short answer is No. The longer answer is No, and not any US law either.
The Security Council could declare the invasion of Iraq illegal, but hasn’t. They’re the only ones who can do it.
Regards,
Shodan
Doesn’t the law merely say that the probability approaches 1, not that it ever reaches it? In that case, failure to reference Nazis is not a violation of Godwin’s law. Unless your thread is infinitely long, that is, but that seems unlikely.
The Bush Administration hasn’t broken any law, of any kind, any of them, at any point in their tenure?
Wow. Here I was thinking that at the very least they’d bypassed mandated procedures for handing out contracts or something, but nope; not even a single speeding ticket amongst the lot of them. Who knew!
Actually, the International Court of Justice could declare a violation of the UN Charter, but the US basically hasn’t recognized the ICJ since we violated international law by mining Managua’s harbor back in the 1980s.
Depends on who you ask I guess. Most backers will of course deny, deny, deny…
However:
Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan
International Law Aspects of the Iraq War and Occupation
Bet that makes some of you proud, huh?
[**International legal experts regard Iraq war as illegal**
For the religious (specially Catholics) amongst you:
Iraq War, Unjust, Illegal and Immoral; Just War Theory Condemns Invasion
Finally, the Silver Bullet that many/most of the Create Their Own Reality Crowd still choses to ignore:
Complete Set of Downing Street Documents
Bolding/highlights mine. Factual conclusions based on evidence presented can only lead to one conclusion.
Bushbots excluded of course.
To the extent that there is something called “international law”, and to the extent that the UN charter falls under that umbrella, I don’t think we have many presidents in the modern era who did not violate it. Bush would certainly be on that list with the invasion of Iraq. I don’t see how there can be any question about that.
The real question is: who is going to enforce that law against a sitting or ex US president? Answer: no one. So, in that sense, you could argue that the law is de facto nonexistent.
Pretty much. A law is no law if it isn’t enforced. It’s just wind. And I am not seeing any hue and cry by The World™ or the International Community (all rights reserved) to enforce this law against the US or Bush et al (I suppose you’d have to go after Congress as well).
-XT
Well, you wouldn’t have to, but you certainly could. In fact one might argue that Congress is more responsible, under international law, since it has the sole power to authorize the use of force as they did for Iraq.
For that matter, you might as well throw all the leaders of NATO countries in the slammer for what was done in Bosnia. International law: it’s only for losers.
At risk of sounding Clintonesque, I would say the answer is: “It depends on what you mean by ‘violated’ and ‘international law’.”
A strict application of the phrase yields the answer ‘no’ – there has been, after all, no finding of guilt in any ajudication in which the US has had a clear statement of charges presented and a chance to defend itself against those charges.
And my use of “Clintonesque” in offering that standard is not without meaning, since the same defense was pointed out when anyone would say that former President Bill was a perjurer. I find it humorous that many of the same people who vigorously objected to calling Clintona perjurer based on the lack of any trial or conviction now fall all over themselves to declare that the US is guilty of violations of international law… but that’s how the game is played.
So let’s ask ourselves if there’s another, more reasonable meaning. Here’s what I came up with when discussing Clinton: “There is sufficient evidence for the charge, such that, if a reviewing court were asked if a guilty verdict could stand on the record, would undoubtedly answer ‘yes’ – that is, if a conviction had happened, and an appeals were asked to overturn that conviction for insufficient evidence, they would not.”
Now, the standards of international law are a bit more fluid – unlike American criminal law, there’s no body of precedent that lays out elements of crimes and standards of proof. But in essaying a fair and even-handed weighing of the evidence, I would say the standard I suggest above would most likely be met: if all the evidence were on the record, and a conviction had happened, a reviewing court would likely conclude that the Bush administration did violate international law, and there was sufficient evidence to uphold such a conviction.
Fully agree, John.
Though I’ll throw in my own caveat: sure there’s certainly no real organization that can stand united VS the wishes of the US – thus much less deter them/you – but what we can and should do is educate, illustrate and prove why said invasion contravened all procedures in place to prevent such a tragedy. And then it is up to each and everyone of us to take a stand against actions such as this one regardless of nationality, creed, color and/or gender.
Pie in the sky you might rightly say. But what else have we got if not the power of unity against injustice? Putting our arms up and saying “we give” is not much of a protest or revoke.
Sure. But it’s just not the US. I don’t see any calls for the leaders of the UK, Spain or Italy to be brought before any International Court. They weren’t the leaders of the Iraq War, but they were participants. It’s not just the US which is immune. I think most Western Democracies would be granted wide latitude, provided they didn’t lose.
Leaving aside all of the Clintonesque flailing (IOW, most of your post) hats off for reaching the only logical (and I mean that beyond the legal sense and point to your excoriating of Clinton as an example of what the “law” can and cannot do – which is very little in the latter sense) conclusion that can be reached from a common sense stand-point.
Again, cotton-clouds territory, but I really think we could be a better world if we reached for them a bit more often – even if it is not easy and one has to put up a heck of a fight.
Thanks for your final honesty all the same. That’s what’s finally given me the respect for you I’ve clearly shown for all these years. Wheat from the chaff, Bricker, wheat from the chaff…and FWLIW, you’ve made the cut in fine fashion. Especially considering where you were a short 3/4 years ago.
Good on you.