Just the facts mam...Legality of Iraqi war

[constanze]

However the U.S., Britain and Spain all saidat the time and say now, and have competent legal authorities who said, that the previous resolutions made the invasion legal (hussiaen did not in fact comply at the last minute).

In a legal sense, you need somebody neutral - like a judge - to decide who of the attorneys with their conflicting interpretations is right. In this case, you’re citing legal experts from states that attacked Iraq. I have heard from experts (which I can’t find cites for) from neutral European countries - those that weren’t bought or pressured into the coalition of the willing - that said that the Attack was illegal, and I tend to believe them more in this matter, just as I didn’t believe the official US lies about WMD before the war.

[John_Mace]

@Ravenman

Keeping this discussion within the confines of GQ, those who disagree with those two arguments point out the following: the 1991 cease fire agreement was, for the purposes of the UN, concluded by the Secretary General and Iraq in relation to Resolution 678, which pertained only to the liberation of Kuwait. The US would have no more a right to determine that that cease fire had failed than I have a right to dispute how much you paid your dealership for your last car. In any case, UNSC Resolution 678 did not authorize force for the purposes of disarming Iraq, rather the disarmament was part of the cease fire (and Resolution 687). There quite simply was no existing UN authorization to use force to disarm Iraq.

It should also be noted that the US and Britain (and, I think, France) used UNSC Resolution 688 to justify setting up the no fly zones, when that resolution provided no such authorization-- it condemned the treatment of the Kurds and the Shi’a, but that’s it. The no fly zones were established in 1992 and expanded in 1996. It would appear that the Great Powers have a history of ignoring the UNSC when it suits them, and that muddies that water as to whether the UNSC is the arbiter of what is legal under International Law or not. Frankly, the idea that it does makes little sense, given the composition and voting rules of that body.

[jimmmy]

@Ravenman

Second, the argument that 1441 actually authorized force only surfaced AFTER the war began. At the time of its passage, US Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, stated: “As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no ‘hidden triggers’ and no ‘automaticity’ with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.” Thus, before the war, the position of the US government was that 1441 DID NOT authorize force. That position only changed when it became evident that the Security Council would not pass a second resolution proposed by Britain.

That is categorically false It was a political tactic, not a legal one and for Blair that they even entertained the idea of a 2nd resolution.
The U.S. position has been consistent but it is clear to see why the folks making the “war is illegal” argument would need to make this blatant falsification… The U.S.position is that did not need a second resolution. Anyone not locked into a position painting themselves into a rhetorical corner with sneering asides on a message board is going to admit that it is not nearly as cut n’ dried as you portray here. There is ample evidence – ample agreement even among some “International Law” scholars – that the Resolution could be read to authorize force. If the U.S. position is a sound one under International Law, and it clearly is, then Interpretation, judgment and adjudication is needed to say that position is “illegal” (because it isn’t a clear matter without that). To the OP it was not an “illegal” act and while that may be frustrating and maddening to folks – it is the GQ answer.

@Ravenman

If one disagrees, it may be frustrating. But there’s nothing wrong with saying the Iraq war is illegal, no more than people repeatedly saying “George Bush is the worst President ever,” or “Barry Bonds is a steroid user.” None of these statements has been determined by consensus, or established as irrefutable fact, but they are all statements that appear to rest on a coherent and logicical reasoning, even if some may disagree.

Absolutely true but on the SDMB-GQ you need to provide a cite. You have not done so – you have given, at times rational and well thought out arguments and repeated the arguments and opinions of others – but you haven’t shown that this is an “illegal war”. While others on the other side have shown, in a GQ way, that this is certainly not “illegal" under ‘international law’ even as amorphous as that phrase is.

constanze - I tried to answer the OP an the substantive arguements in a GQ - to the extent I seem to ignore your post it was because I couldn’t do that in a GQ way

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=jimmmy]
That is categorically false Your cite does not substantiate that claim. Powell was quoted in March, on the eve of war, and long after the decision was made not to go the the UNSC for a vote. It’s unlcear to me how the US and the Brits ever thought they’d get a war resolution passed in the UNSC. Had they simply asked me, I’d’ve saved them a lot of time and trouble.

[Bookkeeper]

I would question whether there is actually any such thing as international law for the most part. While we tend to think of such things as the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, and the Law of the Sea as “international law”, as I understand it they only apply to the signatory nations, not to the world as a whole. Absent a set of laws that unambiguously apply to every nation, with an effective enforcement structure, “international law” is basically what the major powers say it is, and the US is significantly the majorest at the moment. On this basis, the Iraqi war is legal until the US, or enough other nations to out-enforce it, says otherwise. (Perhaps more of a GD than GQ question.)

[Ravenman]

@jimmmy

The U.S. position has been consistent but it is clear to see why the folks making the “war is illegal” argument would need to make this blatant falsification… The U.S.position is that did not need a second resolution.

That is not what Ambassador Negroponte said upon the passage of 1441. I don’t understand how one can dispute that.

There is ample evidence – ample agreement even among some “International Law” scholars – that the Resolution could be read to authorize force. If the U.S. position is a sound one under International Law, and it clearly is, then Interpretation, judgment and adjudication is needed to say that position is “illegal” (because it isn’t a clear matter without that). To the OP it was not an “illegal” act and while that may be frustrating and maddening to folks – it is the GQ answer.

I’m rather amused that your citation provides an excellent summation of various opinions on the war, and you go on to claim that the war has been proven not illegal. (And I like the turn of phrase that there is “ample agreement among some… scholars.” I’ve got to use that sometime myself.)

Absolutely true but on the SDMB-GQ you need to provide a cite. You have not done so – you have given, at times rational and well thought out arguments and repeated the arguments and opinions of others – but you haven’t shown that this is an “illegal war”.

I’m happy to provide citations, but I’m afraid you may have misinterpreted what I’ve written. I have not claimed that there is a factual answer to the question, I quite clearly have written that it is an unresolved issue which is subject to opinions and debate. For example, I stressed in one of my points that Annan’s views were not an official declaration, but an opinion of someone who has considerable experience in such matters (who also does not have a vested interest in justfying his own actions).

I have also objected to a proposal that people should not call it “an illegal war” because the debate on that is still ongoing. So long as people use that term as an assertion grounded in facts and reason, I think it is silly, PC-nonsense to propose that people should somehow be condemned for using those words.

[John_Mace]

@Ravenman

I have also objected to a proposal that people should not call it “an illegal war” because the debate on that is still ongoing. So long as people use that term as an assertion grounded in facts and reason, I think it is silly, PC-nonsense to propose that people should somehow be condemned for using those words.

I don’t object so much to claims that it was illegal under international law, since that’s an arguable position. What I object to are claims that it was illegal under US law. There aren’t a lot of people who make that claim on this board, but they do exist.

[jimmmy]

@Ravenman

I’m rather amused that your citation provides an excellent summation of various opinions on the war, and you go on to claim that the war has been proven not illegal. (And I like the turn of phrase that there is “ample agreement among some… scholars.” I’ve got to use that sometime myself.)

Rather glad to rather you amuse you. What I actually was trying to claim was that there is no such thing as a clear opinion – even among scholars that the war was illegal. Because many people here have boldly claimed that there was a canon of immutable natural law that needed no judicial interpretation (usually but not always this was the violation of the UN Charter) – and that by the invasion the U.S. had acted “illegally” –which is hogwash

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
That is not what Ambassador Negroponte said upon the passage of 1441. I don’t understand how one can dispute that.

I’m rather amused that your citation provides an excellent summation of various opinions on the war, and you go on to claim that the war has been proven not illegal. (And I like the turn of phrase that there is “ample agreement among some… scholars.” I’ve got to use that sometime myself.)

QUOTE]

You position was nuanced – but you did make the claim “that the argument that 1441 actually authorized force only surfaced AFTER the war began” to dismiss my rather amusing and I am sure oddly syntaxed demonstration that there is scholarly opinion that muddied the water and required some kind of adjudication before the U.S. action could be termed “illegal”. That claim that it happened AFTER the war began is erroneous (for John Mace: as demonstrated in the second cite in the sentence you cut) and really, is beside the point of the OP and was a red herring from the point you raised it.

There is a factual answer to the question: If by is the war illegal the U.S. has broken some “international law” GQ answer as things stand now is definitively “NO”

@Ravenman

I’m rather amused that your citation provides an excellent summation of various opinions on the war, and you go on to claim that the war has been proven not illegal. (And I like the turn of phrase that there is “ample agreement among some… scholars.” I’ve got to use that sometime myself.)

@Ravenman

I have also objected to a proposal that people should not call it “an illegal war” because the debate on that is still ongoing. So long as people use that term as an assertion grounded in facts and reason, I think it is silly, PC-nonsense to propose that people should somehow be condemned for using those words.

And I agreed – as long as the charge is used with cites in GQ
– though condemned isn’t the wording I would use.