I think what you are overlooking is that the United States has NO authority to enforce UN resolutions other then what the UN Security Council chooses to delegate to it, and where that explicit delegation isnt granted you simply have no authority at all. The UN is not an agent of the US, more to the point the US is the agent of the UN when it comes to resolutions and serves the Security Council. The Security Council decides how it will enforce it’s own resolutions not the US.
The US quite specifically failed to gain endorsement of the Security Council for its invasion, and when it became apparent that it had no prospect of obtaining even a simple majority for a resolution authorising force it simply chose to drop the infamous ‘second resolution’ and it wasnt even presented to a vote.
So the ingenuous justification of the British Attorney General is akin to a former employee once endorsed to perform a particular task but whose contract has lapsed still maintaining his ability to do, despite his former employer quite specifically and publicly denying him this authority and the manager saying the former employee doesnt work for me and is acting illegally.
The fact remains that 678 did not authorize an attack on sovereignty under any cirmumstances and that the US had no authority to unilaterally enforce any sanctions.
There is absolutely no way to read 678 as a license for regime change, especially when it occurred in defiance of the very body that this argument pretends to derive authority from.
The US breeched the UN Charter. There’s absolutely no way around it.
You may misunderstand me. I’m not personally saying that I think the war was “legal”. I am only saying that there are 2 arguements that can be made, and neither you nor I are the authority in deciding. In fact, there is not a body authorized to make that decision. If this were a matter of US law, we could argue either side, but ultimately the SCotUS decides the matter.
I will readily agree that the war in Iraq violated the spirit of the UN charter. But when you use the term “legal”, then you are talking about the letter of the law, not the spirit of it. And there is, as has been claimed by those waging the war, that the letter of the law contains a clause, or call it a loophole even, that has been used to justify it. Making an absolute claim about the legality of an action, in absence of a judicial ruling, can never be simply more than one man’s opinion. But you are making the claim that the other side doesn’t even have a case, and that is flatly, demonstrably wrong.
I think DtC has pretty well covered all this, but as to this particular statement, I think you missed the point. It’s not just that you cited someone in favor of the war, you cited someone from one of the TWO COUNTRIES THAT WAGED THE WAR (U.S. and England). It’s like asking Al Capone if it’s o.k. to murder people. Or using Dr. Kevorkian as a legal expert regarding assisted suicide. Surely I was clear on that. I mean, are you really not getting my point, or are you just pretending not to?
I think you’re nitpicking. Had it come to a vote, it would not have passed, which is the only reason we “punted”. And it wasn’t for lack of trying on the part of Bush. I don’t know of a clearer way for the UNSC to say “no”. You don’t honestly believe that the U.N. approved of the invasion, do you?
I’m not sure what this is supposed to prove.
We’ve already bantered the whole “if you get away with it then it’s not illegal” idea back and forth to death in numerous other threads. I disagree with that notion, and it’s really just playing games with the meaning of “illegal”, which doesn’t get us anywhere. I don’t know what else to say.
I posted about this in another thread, but leaked documents have just emerged in a conservative British paper that show the UK government was well aware that the war was illegal.
So in fact the US’s key ally agree with Kofi, though the [expletive deleted]s went ahead anyway.
The source of an argument simply has NOTHING to do with an arguments validity. Unless, of course, the *ad hominem[/ii] fallacy is no longer a fallacy.
Yes, I to a certain extent. However, you statement WAS incorrect, unless “explicitly” has a new meaning. Again, we are talking legalities here, where words have precise meanings. You don’t get to change their meanings to bolster your argument.
That reasonable people can disagree over the conclusion on this issue. I’m not arguing that that makes them correct, just that there are two sides to this issue.
Well, I think the US/UK should have never pursued Iraq in the first place…it was a stupid waste of our resources and focus that could have been better spent in Afghanistan hunting AQ initially, and in subsequent hunting of terrorist cells in other countries.
Having said that though, there was no point in continueing the back and forth with the UN on the language or the second resolution…there was no real point. It was pretty clear that at least 2 of the other UNSC members (probably all 3) weren’t going to budge on the thing…they were either going to abstain or veto reguardless. So, if the US/UK thought they had a good case, and that Iraq was in fact a potential threat (or even a potential future threat I suppose), then they did the right thing from their perspectives. They at least paid lip service to APPEARING to try to acknowledge the forms…something that not all UNSC members have always been good about when THEY violated the charter in the past.
As for the whole ‘illegal’ aspect of the war, I’m not going to get into that (again)…its been done to death and I remain unconvinced that it WAS illegal, that the term ‘illegal’ actually has any real meaning as far as international law goes, blah blah blah. The reality is that UNSC members are a law unto themselves…always have been, and always will be until they change rules and makeup of the select circle.
Clearly the War wasn’t “legal” under UN regs. But then that doesn’t mean it was “illegal” either.
The US seems to claim it was an action meant to protect themselves. Such would be legal, even if not authorized by the UN. That claim is rather (OK, extremely )doubtful, but even the Secretary-General cannot unilaterally proclaim that the action was not in “self-defense”. It takes the entire Security Council to do so, and clearly, that vote isn’t going to be lost by the USA. Now, this skirts being “illegal” by a razors edge, I admit. It is a “catch 22” of sorts. Let,s face it, although the war isn’t “illegal” under UN charter, that’s just because the USA has enough pull to stop itself from being condemned. Of course the fact that Saddam was an evil SOB that just about everyone else hated means that he isn’t getting much sympathy either.
And DtC- what Treaty did we violate, and who gets to say we do? Well, in the USA the Courts do, and the Courts have said VERY CLEARLY that the war is legal. Like it or not, Diogenes, you do not get to decide if the USA has broken a treaty no matter how clear it seems to you. :dubious: Because, frankly- no one in the Administration and Court system cares what you think. :rolleyes: Of course, you could bring suit, and I would love to see it. Please do!
You have it backwards. It takes a vote by the Security Council to say that an action is justified for self-defense. Any attack on sovereignty which is not an immediate act of self-defense or which cannot be shown (to the satisfaction of the UNSC) to be a necessary defensive action against an immediate threat is an illegal act of aggression under the UN Charter. We have to prove it is self-defense, they don’t have to prove it isn’t. If you don’t like that system, too bad. It’s a system that we not only signed a treaty to abide by, but we wrote most of the damn thing ourselves.
Actually, the vote was absolutely going to be lost by the US and that’s why Bush aborted his attempt to get UN approval, built a fake “Coalition” of his own and pretended to derive authority from that.
Th UN Charter. You are aware that the UN Charter is a treaty signed and ratified by the US Congress, are you not?
Who gets to say we do what? Violate treaties? No one.
No, you’re wrong, any nation can go to war in self-defense without UN approval. As you just said 'any act which is not an immediate act of self-defence" and that what the US has claimed. Of course, you have the wording wrong, but that’s usual. And now, i suppose you’re going to start quoting sections of the UN charter as if youre an UN Delegate or an expert in International law. :rolleyes:
Sure the UN Charter is a treaty. So? Who says whether or not we have violated a treaty under US law? Why the US courts, of course!
The Federal Court system, which has already ruled on the war and declared it legal. Go back to the first months of the war here, you’ll see several posts with a link to that Court decision. If you say is isn’t legal- how about a cite to a Court Decision that says it is illegal?
The US was not going to war in self-defense and could not prove that Iraq was an imminent threat. The invasion was staged in defiance of the UN and was an illegal act of aggression under both US and intenational law.
Nope. All of the signatories of a treaty are the entities who decide whether a treaty has been violated, not just one of them. That would be like you deciding by yourself if you were obliged to honor a business contract.
Wel, as I said, the argument is mere sophistry. TO THE EXTENT you are arguing that it MUST be a valid argument because someone made it, I have pointed out that that “someone” is not an objective source. The person who made that argument is playing a little game. You and he both know that the U.N. did not sanction the invasion of Iraq. He’s trying to do a little tap dance around the facts, but as DtC pointed out, it’s a bullshit argument.
I’m not saying the argument is invalid because the person who made it is biased; I’m saying the argument is invalid AND the person who made it is biased.
No, that’s wrong. What actually happened is that YOU attempted an appeal to authority and were shown to be wrong.
Not sure what you’re trying to prove. It’s a meaningless nitpick that doesn’t change the point one iota. It’s like the old cliche, “You can’t fire me; I quit!” Bush knew the UN wasn’t going to approve his war, so he withdrew the request.
Actually, y’know what? If you want to continue playing a silly little word game about what “legal” means, disregarding the obvious fact that we violated the UN Charter, be my guest. I don’t really see the point.
Prove it. Show me where the UN Security Council (which is the only body who can rule on this) has said that the USA couldn’t prove that Iraq wasn’t an imminent threat.
Not under the Constitution. The Constitution, (and thus the Supreme Court ofr rulings) is the 'supreme law of the land". The USA cannot sign a valid treaty which over-rules any section of the Constitution.
You made the claim, you give the cite. And, as I am getting tired of repeating- “my post is my cite” is not a cite.
I think there are ligitimate arguments on both sides of the Internarional law debate, although the side claiming that the war was “legal” is a lot weaker. As I’ve said earlier, I can’t dismiss it out of hand as so many posters here want to do.
However, the war was clearly legal from the standpoint of US law. Congress authorized the use of force, as per the Consitution, and the President carried it out. Congress can determine, in any way it sees fit, which country is threat and which country is not a threat to the US. Even if you could **prove **that the US violtated the UN treaty, the Constitutional authority for Congress to declare war trumps any treaty the US may have signed. Once Congress declares war (or, as in this case, transfers that authority to the president), that’s the end of the discussion.
This is a backwards question. There is no “proof” until the UNSC says so. The US has the burden of proof, and a vote by the UNSC is what determines whether the case for aggressive action has been proven. No vote= no proof= no legality. Th
You really have a distorted view of the Supremacy Clause. If you look it up, you will find that Constitution clearly states that any treaty ratified by Congress (such as the UN Charter) is the "Supreme Law of the land. That means that the treaty has the same authoritative weight as constitutional amendment.
US law doesn’t matter anyway. US law is subordinate to international law. Appealing to US law is like appealing to Iraqi law to justify the invasion of Kuwait. It is not a defense to a war crime to say that the war crime is not illegal in your country.
Actually, Sparky, you made the claim. You made an assertion about some “court” or other deciding that the invasion was legal. Cite?
Show me where the Constutution says that either Congress or the President has the right to breech the “Supreme Law” of a ratified treaty.
And I will say again, that US law is irrelevant. Sovereign law is not a defense against breeching international law. It was legal in Iraq to invade Kuwait. It was legal in Nazi Germany to invade Poland and build death camps.
US law means nothing in this case, but it was still violated.
Actually, you’re wrong on this. I’ll have to find the cite, but in another similar thread to this one, one of our resident lawyers cited a Supreme Court ruling that the US Constiution takes presedence over any treaty, when and if they conflct.
Not to get caught in a shit storm or anything, but isn’t it entirely possible to have proof without a vote? Political interests come into play during the call for a vote, as you know.
Dude, are you seriously claiming that treaties supercede the constitution? Really?
