# Iraq war "Illegal"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 15, 2004, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-war-illegal/234483 "2004-03-15T18:50:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Tweek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e19b73/32.png) [@Tweek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tweek)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-war-illegal/234483/1 "2004-03-15T18:50:30Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-war-illegal/234483/2 "2004-03-15T19:12:31Z")
Well of course it’s a bloody fallacy if you refuse to acknowledge the existence of the laws that were broken… ---
**Author:** ![Tweek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e19b73/32.png) [@Tweek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tweek)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-war-illegal/234483/3 "2004-03-15T19:18:44Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-war-illegal/234483/4 "2004-03-15T19:18:51Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![Tweek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e19b73/32.png) [@Tweek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tweek)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-war-illegal/234483/5 "2004-03-15T19:24:00Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-war-illegal/234483/6 "2004-03-15T19:29:14Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Tweek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e19b73/32.png) [@Tweek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tweek)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-war-illegal/234483/7 "2004-03-15T19:33:26Z")
What treaty is that? ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-war-illegal/234483/8 "2004-03-15T19:38:05Z")
[War on Iraq illegal…who will enforce this?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=170989) ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-war-illegal/234483/9 "2004-03-15T19:38:28Z")
> [@Tweek](#): > > What treaty is that? This one: [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/decade/decad029.htm](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/decade/decad029.htm) ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-war-illegal/234483/10 "2004-03-15T19:40:48Z")
\*\*[Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4481109&highlight=treaty#post4481109)’s a link to some discussion of this matter. Reposted from [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4481135&postcount=15): > [@SimonX](#): > > reposted from [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=219080&page=4) > > [Chapter VII of the Charter](http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm). > > “The Security Council _shall determine_…what measures shall be taken…to maintain or restore international peace and security\*\*,” 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](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=4401205&highlight=honoring#post4401205): > > 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](http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/si/aug02/middleEast.asp)** “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](http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html), 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](http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html)\*, 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](http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/si/aug02/middleEast.asp) 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." ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-war-illegal/234483/11 "2004-03-15T19:48:09Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Tweek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e19b73/32.png) [@Tweek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tweek)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-war-illegal/234483/12 "2004-03-15T19:55:05Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-war-illegal/234483/13 "2004-03-15T20:28:05Z")
> [@](#): > > 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](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm): > [@](#): > > 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 _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. > [@](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-war-illegal/234483/14 "2004-03-15T20:57:12Z")
> [@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](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section2): “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](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html) 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](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html) of the US Constitution?** > [@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?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=242238)** > [@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](http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107): > [@](#): > > 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. > [@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](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html) of the US Constitution?** ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-war-illegal/234483/15 "2004-03-15T22:07:12Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-war-illegal/234483/16 "2004-03-15T22:18:21Z")
I’ll take bets on **Tweek** coming back to this thread. Currently @ 5 : 3 against ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-war-illegal/234483/17 "2004-03-15T22:51:01Z")
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… ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-war-illegal/234483/18 "2004-03-15T23:03:02Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2004, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-war-illegal/234483/19 "2004-03-16T03:20:08Z")
\*\* **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. ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2004, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-war-illegal/234483/20 "2004-03-16T03:38:43Z")
**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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-war-illegal/234483.md?page=2)