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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 not* 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.
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?
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?
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:
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.
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?
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…
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.
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.
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.
This has been done countless times. The search function is your friend.