-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
All good and well Hurin - but neither of those statements take in consideraton the Hague Conventions of 1907 - which are always refered to as the Rules or Laws of War.
It also does not mention that there was a cease fire signed in Safwon by American, British, other collation members - and Iraq, before the UN Security Council Resolution was passed.
Feb 27, 1991 President Bush orders a cease fire effective at midnight Kuwaiti time.
Mar 3, 1991 Iraqi leaders formally accept cease fire terms
Followed by the date of the UN Security Council Resoultion 687.
RESOLUTION 687 (1991) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting, on 3 April 1991.
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
So are you saying, Redleg, that the ceasefire the Americans signed is a separate ceasefire?
You also seem to be saying that the US signed a ceasefire with Iraq, but the fact that American generals were leading the operation does not necessarily mean that it was a treaty between the USA and Iraq; the US was leading a coalition under UN auspices. There were British, French, and other nationalities' generals there too. Did the US congress ratify the treaty? What I'm wondering is whether we should see US soldiers fighting under a UN banner as represenatives of the US or the UN. It seems to me the latter is more reasonable.
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
So are you saying, Redleg, that the ceasefire the Americans signed is a separate ceasefire?
Yep it was - the United States was in overall command of Desert Storm and the treaty was signed initially in March in Safwon - I should know since I pulled security along with other companies from 2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division.
Quote:
You also seem to be saying that the US signed a ceasefire with Iraq, but the fact that American generals were leading the operation does not necessarily mean that it was a treaty between the USA and Iraq; the US was leading a coalition under UN auspices. There were British, French, and other nationalities' generals there too. Did the US congress ratify the treaty? What I'm wondering is whether we should see US soldiers fighting under a UN banner as represenatives of the US or the UN. It seems to me the latter is more reasonable.
I see United States soldiers as members of the United States Military and representives of the United States - just like you do when you allude to other situations ie GITMO and Abu Griab.
No the cease fire was not ratified by the United States congress - but the United States Congress did not declare war either - if you stick with that arguement about the declartion of war - you actually have a better arguement concerning the war being illegal then the United Nations Charter and Resolution - BTW.. However the cease fire signed at Safwon was honored by the United States Forces that were in theather in 1991, and therefor it has presendence over the United Nations Resolution 687. Resolution 687 confirmed all the aspects of the ceasefire - that the United States forced upon Iraq as conditions to stop the fighting.
No the United States was leading a collation under the auspices of the United States with approval from the United Nations to use force. No United Nations personal at any time was ever in charge of the operation. The United Nations Flag was not represented on any part of the battlefield that I saw.
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
It still doesnt make it illegal. You guys remind me of Don Quixote.
Whether you like it or not, the shoe is really on the other, um, windmill?... ~:cool:
Despite the legal creativity displayed by some, there is the obstinate fact that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes treaties into which the U.S. has entered 'the supreme Law of the Land'. The U.S. was a signatory to the UN Charter and had no legal authority under the Charter to go to war in 2003. Attempts to justify that war as a sequel to the first one (1991) on the basis of UNSC resolutions that were superseded by later resolutions ruling out the use of force without UNSC authorisation, don't bear closer scrutiny, as do the claims (WMD, terrorist ties) that were used to underpin them.
It seems to be the consensus among Conservative members here that the U.S. is not bound by its UN Charter obligations. I think the U.S. has amply demonstrated this sort of contempt and notice has been taken by the rest of the world, including the 'rogue' states who will avail themselves of nuclear weapons no matter what the U.S. declares about their legality. The Iraq war has served as an object lesson to them: whether they have such weapons or not, they may be attacked by the U.S. anyway. The world has taken notice that the U.S. Provisional Authority in Iraq has illegally squandered at least $8 billion of that country's oil revenue on fraudulous or no-bid contracts. The world has taken notice of the 'fixed' intelligence and cooked reports about Saddam's WMD and terrorist connections. The detention, 'rendition' and torture of captured irsurgents and innocents alike in illegal U.S. camps on the instruction of the highest authorities have shown that Washington flouts humanitarian law with ease. And if the whole Iraq episode ends in disaster -- a possibility now envisaged by American generals and serious analysts (though not by all syndicated columnists or bloggers) -- no other government in its right mind will want to have any part of America's foreign entanglements in the foreseeable future.
Superficially at least, this suggests an interesting reversal of roles. The U.S. used to be a nation of traders and proponents of a peaceful, global legal system who wanted to avoid foreign entanglements, particularly in Europe; whereas nowadays Europe is looking for a similar role and wants to avoid becoming involved in American foreign adventures.
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
Quote:
Despite the legal creativity displayed by some, there is the obstinate fact that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes treaties into which the U.S. has entered 'the supreme Law of the Land'. The U.S. was a signatory to the UN Charter and had no legal authority under the Charter to go to war in 2003.
It does?
Quote:
U.S. Constitution - Article 6
Article 6 - The United States
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
How does that make treaties the law of the land? No one has legal status over the US we are a soverign state. There is no question of legality here. Who makes the rules? Treaties are merely a diplomatic tool with no real basis in law. Countries will honor them only as long as they see a benefit in them. The US is not alone in this matter. Every nation behaves this way. We are the 800lb gorrila so our actions are far more visible and influential.
Quote:
It seems to be the consensus among Conservative members here that the U.S. is not bound by its UN Charter obligations.
Its not. People have said that if we dont want to go by their rules we should withdraw from the charter. I say we cant do so quick enough. And get your damn members out of my city.
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
How does that make treaties the law of the land?
I'll give you three guesses. The answer is in the quote you just posted.
Quote:
People have said that if we dont want to go by their rules we should withdraw from the charter. I say we cant do so quick enough. And get your damn members out of my city.
It's not happening. Why would that be?
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
Quote:
I'll give you three guesses. The answer is in the quote you just posted.
You mean this
Quote:
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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
So then once a country signs a treaty they are bound by it until the end of time by your reasoning. We are only bound by the treaty as long as our government wishes us to do so. The federal government does not have the power to give our soverignty to anyone. We are only bound by a treaty as loong as we see fit. Its the same for everyone else as long as their willing to face the consquences of their actions.
Quote:
It's not happening. Why would that be?
For the same reason as illegal imigrants keep pouring accross our borders. Its still useful as a tool to some. I and many others say get a new tool this ones shot.
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
The federal government does not have the power to give our soverignty to anyone.
Nobody says so, my friend. But your Constitution states that the treaties you enter into are the supreme law of the land. If you want out, you'll have to cancel them. And I believe you and I agree that your country has cancelled the UN Charter de facto. Hence my question: why does Washington keep coming back to seek the approval of the Security Council and the assistance of its members?
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
Quote:
But your Constitution states that the treaties you enter into are the supreme law of the land. If you want out, you'll have to cancel them. And I believe you and I agree that your country has cancelled the UN Charter de facto. Hence my question: why does Washington keep coming back to seek the approval of the Security Council and the assistance of its members?
It says our constitrution is the supreme law of the land. Treaties are only good as long as our government chooses to go by them. They are the signatories of the treaties. Many countries break treaties without withdrawing from them. Again its merely a politcal tool and nothing more. Bye the way youve just showm why the UN is a powerless and useless organization. We use the UN to rubber stamp our actions. If they refuse we do what we like anyway. Its nice to get their approval but far from called for by our constitution.
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
The article should be read as
"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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Despite the legal creativity displayed by some, there is the obstinate fact that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes treaties into which the U.S. has entered 'the supreme Law of the Land'. The U.S. was a signatory to the UN Charter and had no legal authority under the Charter to go to war in 2003. Attempts to justify that war as a sequel to the first one (1991) on the basis of UNSC resolutions that were superseded by later resolutions ruling out the use of force without UNSC authorisation, don't bear closer scrutiny, as do the claims (WMD, terrorist ties) that were used to underpin them.
Lets look at the actual wording of the United Nations Charter which you are attempting to state makes the United States actions regarding Iraq as illegal.
Quote:
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.
This is the preamble - now notice the items highlighted in bold - it all flows together.
Now where does it say that a soveriegn nation can not enter into warfare?
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
Wait you are probably trying to refer to Article two of the UN Charter.
Quote:
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
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. my words: lets see Iraq violated this condtion when it refused to honor the initial cease fire resolution. Once again I refer you to the Hague Convention which governs the rules of war - not the United Nations
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
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. shall refrain - does not equate to will not use
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. Care to list the number of nations which violated this principle of the United Nations - over and over again
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.
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 Vll.
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
Or are you trying to allude to this article
Quote:
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Treaties are only good as long as our government chooses to go by them.
I know your government has this Mussolini approach to treaties; and they have recently applied it to various treaties and institutions the U.S. once instigated, such as the U.N. and the WTO trade regime. That's one of the reasons why I'm happy the EU is now a trade bloc that can take a U.S. president by the apples and oranges and make him comply with WTO arbitration like it did in 2003 over steel tariffs.
Quote:
We use the UN to rubber stamp our actions.
I know, and I appreciate your frankness about it. So don't complain about being alone out there, losing allies, being 'misunderstood' by the world and seeing other countries cancel their commitments to the U.S. To simplify the matter: the 'world' understands your position very well, I am amazed that you don't seem to understand the hostile or indifferent reactions it elicits.
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
.I know, and I appreciate your frankness about it. So don't complain about being alone out there, losing allies, being 'misunderstood' by the world and seeing other countries cancel their commitments to the U.S. To simplify the matter: the 'world' understands your position very well, I am amazed that you don't seem to understand the hostile or indifferent reactions it elicits.
Now - should we begin to mention all the other countries that do the exact same thing that the United States is doing, however because of their size they are not noticed - or because of the focus on the United States their actions are overlooked by most of the world community.
You act like the United States is the only nation that does what you have been stating. The truth is that every nation on this planet does things in their own self interest - just look at Iran and the numerous violations of the IEA and other nuclear treaties. I don't see you complaining about their approach to the world in these threads.
When you start blasting away at every nation's government that does exactly what the United States is doing - then maybe I won't counter your arguements against the United States - however your complaining seems to be just selective now doesn't.
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
What I'm talking about are things like this, as pointed out by the Australian Parliament...
The position you are espousing is a distinctively conservative American one.
My goodness, there has been some activity since my last visit.
Alright Master Hurin I see where you're coming from. There are some key distinctions that need to be made. The base question was whether the Iraq War was/is illegal. My answers have been that such is a domestic concern, meaning for purposes of focusing on the U.S.'s role it can only be answered by said nation. I have also answered that treaties (whether it be the UN charter or other fare) do not trump the U.S.'s base sovereignty and therefore do not alter the standard political/domestic/ or legal stricture of the U.S. In short: the UN has no extra-territorial authority over the U.S.
Now, if you wish to argue the U.S. is in breach of the UN Charter you can make that argument, but that is different from my basic point. To state in other language: the U.S. is an independent state and no treaty trumps that independence. To say the U.S. violated a treaty or didn't follow a treaty is an argument one can reasonably make, but that is not a legal question (treaties do not have oversight authority nor do they have enforcement in and of themselves). It is a question of fidelity to a particular treaty nothing more.
Arguing whether the U.S. has honored the UN Charter I think also fails given the Articles of the Charter, but I can understand why one might argue a contrary view. Even so, that is an issue separate from legality.
If you thought I wasn't giving proper due to UN Charter fidelity arguments (as I will dub them) I understand, but such do not relate to the basic legal question. Does that make sense?
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Despite the legal creativity displayed by some, there is the obstinate fact that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes treaties into which the U.S. has entered 'the supreme Law of the Land'.
The meaning of Article VI is explained in my post #54 though perhaps I didn't do it well enough: Regarding treaties and international law: treaties are 'law' only for domestic purposes, international obligation only applies to political expediency. Part of what this means is a treaty, once ratified, acts as any other Congressional act. It does not circumvent the ratifying body's authority nor any other legal/political stricture. In practical terms a treaty can impact a citizen's actions. For example: American Joe wants to do some activity X in nation Y. A treaty can determine that actions' legal standing: international marriage would be a good example. Treaties determine whether other states recognize such. The "supreme law of the land" clause refers to this. It is domestic in orientation. It does not apply to foreign policy. This has been reaffirmed by U.S. Supreme Courts repeatedly over a long course of Judicial history. I noted some of the case law in my post #54.
Treaties cannot trump the ratifying authority and are constantly subject to that authority. The ratifying authority can reject, amend, nullify or ignore such at any time. This applies to all independent nations.
Quote:
It seems to be the consensus among Conservative members here that the U.S. is not bound by its UN Charter obligations. I think the U.S. has amply demonstrated this sort of contempt and notice has been taken by the rest of the world, including the 'rogue' states who will avail themselves of nuclear weapons no matter what the U.S. declares about their legality. The Iraq war has served as an object lesson to them: whether they have such weapons or not, they may be attacked by the U.S. anyway.
Foreign Policy decisions may certainly have negative impact. The prudence or imprudence of policy are not the same as legality. Legality is determined through law and law is the byproduct of those governed by that law. It is therefore necessarily state specific.
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
The truth is that every nation on this planet does things in their own self interest - just look at Iran and the numerous violations of the IEA and other nuclear treaties.
Well, you can't very well complain that Iran is practicing what you preach, can you?
It'll be interesting to see what happens if the Europeans bring the Iranian breach of its NNPT obligations up before the Security Council. Are we going to see John Bolton bang the table and demand that Iran comply with international law? According to your next UN ambassador, the UN doesn't even exist.
Iran might become the biggest embarrassment for this U.S. administration yet. If the matter is referred to the Security Council, Iran will drop out altogether from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and declare that a nuclear weapons capacity is henceforth in its national interest. If it doesn't have a nuclear capacity + effective delivery system yet, which would surprise me, it will have one within a few months.
The only country that might want to go to war with Iran over this is the U.S. The UK will not participate; Jack Straw has said 'No way, forget it' five times in the past six months. Turkey won't so much as open its air space to American Awacs this time round, let alone to anything else that flies. I recall us, here in the Backroom, wondering a couple of weeks ago about the high sales figures of Hitler's Mein Kampf in Turkey. I've asked around and made some calls since then, and was told that it had nothing to do with Hitler's views on Jews or Communism, but with Turkish interest in the mindset of someone who set out to confront the U.S. on his own. Turkey is fast becoming as anti-American as Greece. That's another erstwhile staunch ally you've lost over the past three years.
So will the U.S. go it alone, risk a huge upsurge of trouble in Iraq at the same time, as well as the first strategic alliance of Shiites and Sunnis that the region has witnessed since the days of Ali?
Oh, and Iraq ranked 56th on the list of world military powers in 2003; a country languishing after decades of tyranny, a costly eight-year war against Iran, a brief but devastating war in 1991, over a decade of sanctions, countless hairbrained economic schemes amd continuous internal strife and unrest. Iran is a different cup of tea. Read Kenneth Pollack.
I think that Iran war is not going to happen. Iran will be subjected to sanctions. Iran will have nuclear weapons nonetheless. After that, other states in the region wil give the U.S the finger.
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
Quote:
Well, you can't very well complain that Iran is practicing what you preach, can you?
Nope and you and they cant complain when we practice it on them. They have the right to do as they please but like I said before they have to be willing to face the consequences of their actions. Were facing ours having to listen to all of you bitch about what were doing.
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Well, you can't very well complain that Iran is practicing what you preach, can you?
And neither can you - since the arguements you are complaining about concerning the United States applies to even more countries then Iran - however it seems you rather focus on only the United States. If I decided to dig and research - I am willing to bet I can find several treaties and instances of violations of your country of the UN Charter. However I see you are most often mute on everything other then when it concerns the United States. However I remember a discussion where I pointed out exactly where Iran was violating international treaties - and you took the position that it was okay - which once again show a baised in your arguements.
Quote:
It'll be interesting to see what happens if the Europeans bring the Iranian breach of its NNPT obligations up before the Security Council. Are we going to see John Bolton bang the table and demand that Iran comply with international law? According to your next UN ambassador, the UN doesn't even exist.
It will be even more interesting to see if the same individuals that scream that the United States is conducting an illegal war will scream that Iran is pursueing their nuclear technology in violation of even more treaties then what you claim the United States is its invasion of Iraq - will you stand up and say that Iran is in violation of international law - and demand that they comply with the treaties that they signed. I am willing to bet you won't. However once again the Hague Treaty does allow for nations to go to war over broken Treaties if they so desire. The United Nations according to its charter is suppose to insure nations comply with certain aspects of international treaties and agreements - if I remember correctly the IAE is part of the United Nations - however once again I don't see you screaming about how Iran is violating International law in its pursuit of Nuclear weapons.
Quote:
Iran might become the biggest embarrassment for this U.S. administration yet. If the matter is referred to the Security Council, Iran will drop out altogether from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and declare that a nuclear weapons capacity is henceforth in its national interest. If it doesn't have a nuclear capacity + effective delivery system yet, which would surprise me, it will have one within a few months.
Which will allow several nations to decide if its worth going to war with Iran for its violation of International Treaties.
Quote:
The only country that might want to go to war with Iran over this is the U.S. The UK will not participate; Jack Straw has said 'No way, forget it' five times in the past six months. Turkey won't so much as open its air space to American Awacs this time round, let alone to anything else that flies. I recall us, here in the Backroom, wondering a couple of weeks ago about the high sales figures of Hitler's Mein Kampf in Turkey. I've asked around and made some calls since then, and was told that it had nothing to do with Hitler's views on Jews or Communism, but with Turkish interest in the mindset of someone who set out to confront the U.S. on his own. Turkey is fast becoming as anti-American as Greece. That's another erstwhile staunch ally you've lost over the past three years.
Turkeya staunch ally over - they have been an ally yes - but staunch not likely. There are some things the world doesn't know - concerning the United States and Turkey.
Quote:
So will the U.S. go it alone, risk a huge upsurge of trouble in Iraq at the same time, as well as the first strategic alliance of Shiites and Sunnis that the region has witnessed since the days of Ali?
If no-one wants to help - we might the issue of nuclear poflieration is becoming that important.
Quote:
Oh, and Iraq ranked 56th on the list of world military powers in 2003; a country languishing after decades of tyranny, a costly eight-year war against Iran, a brief but devastating war in 1991, over a decade of sanctions, countless hairbrained economic schemes amd continuous internal strife and unrest. Iran is a different cup of tea. Read Kenneth Pollack.
I am willing to bet I know as much as whats in his book - no-one has ever claimed Iran would be the same as Iraq that knows anything about warfare.
Quote:
I think that Iran war is not going to happen. Iran will be subjected to sanctions. Iran will have nuclear weapons nonetheless. After that, other states in the region wil give the U.S the finger.
Iran will find itself isolated and people like you supporting their violation of Treaties while you complain about the United States violating treaties.
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Treaties cannot trump the ratifying authority and are constantly subject to that authority.
I have no issue with that part of your statement. But treaties, once entered into by your country, are the supreme law of the land according to U.S. Constitution as long as the U.S. choses to abide by them. This applies to the Charter just as well as to treaties dealing with private law. It would be absurd to state that the Charter doesn't qualify because it is public in nature. The difference is merely one of jurisdiction.
U.S. Courts have traditionally not take a stance on war or foreign policy challenges to Congress and the Executive, but referred them back to Congress, which is where they belong. As the Supreme Court pronounced in the Head Money cases, a treaty 'depends for the enforcement of its provisions on the interest and honor of the governments which are parties to it. If these fail, its infraction becomes the subject of international negotiations and reclamations, but with all this the judicial courts have nothing to do and can give no redress.'
So Congress decides how to interpret treaties as 'the supreme law of the land', and it is up to the President to (re)negotiate its terms if so desired. And at any rate, if the U.S. choses not to abide by a treaty it automatically loses the right to hold others to account under the terms of said treaty. This is the operative principle here: do unto others...
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
Quote:
I have no issue with that part of your statement. But treaties, once entered into by your country, are the supreme law of the land according to U.S. Constitution as long as the U.S. choses to abide by them.
How many times are you going to beat this dead horse. I and others such as Pindar have explained that your wrong on this issue.
Quote:
So Congress decides how to interpret treaties as 'the supreme law of the land', and it is up to the President to (re)negotiate its terms if so desired.
Hey you finally got somethimg correct. Guess who authorised the use of force against Iraq?
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
However I see you are most often mute on everything other then when it concerns the United States.
Certainly not. But a thread on the legality of U.S. wars tends to focus on the legality of U.S. wars, doesn't it? You, Panzerjager or Gawain may not like my opinion, but since you've asked for it I don't understand your complaint about reading it. And instead of getting personal and going on about what you think of me, you might consider answering my points.
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
I dont mind your opinion but it has no basis in fact. Your perfectly allowed to hold any opinion you like. But dont complain when we point out the error of your position.
Quote:
And instead of getting personal and going on about what you think of me, you might consider answering my points.
You have no points. Your being shut out here. ~D
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Guess who authorised the use of force against Iraq?
Congress, in breach of international law. Not U.S. law, but an international treaty signed by your President and Congress on behalf of the American citizens. That's what we're on about. The fact that Congress doesn't like a treaty or that U.S. courts do not recognize or arrogate jurisdiction over them doesn't mean that all treaties are null and void. And the fact that your country is so powerful that it doesn't suffer immediate consequences for breaching the Charter doesn't mean that it is OK either. It will suffer consequences from its choices in the long run which I have tried to point out, though. From someone like you, who couldn't care less if the UN disappeared tomorrow, I would expect a plan B with regard to, for instance, Iran, but so far I've seen very little of it.
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
You have no points. Your being shut out here. ~D
Ah, you're such a darling. And I'll tell you what, with or without the UN your town is going to be the #1 apple of the world for a long time, Gawain, warts and inedible pizza's and all!
:bow:
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
Quote:
Congress, in breach of international law
No its not. Please point out the law we violated and by whos authority are we bound by it? Why havent we been brought up on charges?
Quote:
The fact that Congress doesn't like a treaty or that U.S. courts do not recognize or arrogate jurisdiction over them doesn't mean that all treaties are null and void.
It does as far as were concerned and your country is no different.
Quote:
And the fact that your country is so powerful that it doesn't suffer immediate consequences for breaching the Charter doesn't mean that it is OK either.
Youve failed to even show we have breached it. Also we are suffering immediate consequences of our actions. At least were big enough to admit it.
Quote:
From someone like you, who couldn't care less if the UN disappeared tomorrow
You couldnt be more wrong. I pray the UN dissapears tommorow. Im far from uncaring on the matter. ~:)
Quote:
Gawain, warts and inedible pizza's and all!
Now I know your full of bull ~D
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Now I know your full of bull ~D
Ah get a life, meshugana oyle! I'm off to bed.
http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/brush_2.gif
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Certainly not. But a thread on the legality of U.S. wars tends to focus on the legality of U.S. wars, doesn't it? You, Panzerjager or Gawain may not like my opinion, but since you've asked for it I don't understand your complaint about reading it. And instead of getting personal and going on about what you think of me, you might consider answering my points.
When one argues to the point that the message is either not being heard - or in some cases ignored. Then it spirals down to the personal level.
Actually the points have all been address - however it seems you chose to ignore several things that I have posted that counters most of what you have stated about violating the United Nations Charter.
-
Re: How was the Iraq War illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Actually the points have all been addressed (..)
You have explained your considerations why the U.S. was right to go to war in 2003. But the discussion is over whether the U.S. had the legal right to do so, no matter what considerations -- military, Constitutional or otherwise -- led to that decision, and over whether the stated threats of wmd and terrorism (the reasons stated by your country, not you) were vindicated. The answer to both is no.
I fully agree that states have the capacity to ignore treaties for whatever reasons they chose, be they constitutionally sound or not. That's a factual no-brainer. However, such action is a breach of international law and in particular peremptory law (ius cogens) whose over-arching principle since Roman times has been that states should observe the treaties they sign: pacta sunt servanda.
Under the UN Charter rules, your country was obliged to observe resolution 1441 (November 2002) which stated that further action against Iraq was dependent upon 'subsequent resolutions of the Council'. Period. And what you think about The Hague or any other convention is neither here nor there, because we're not asking why Redleg went to war against Iran. We're asking if your representative Colin Powell was right to make his legal case on the basis of resolution 1441. Which he wasn't.
You will agree that if this principle of obligation under treaty is not merely quietly suspended, but openly ignored by the most powerful state on earth, it has consequences far beyond the scope of the present Iraq imbroglio. And it will possibly lead to a suspension or break-down of other major treaties besides the UN Charter. Hence my question to American proponents of this course of action: are you prepared to envisage those consequences and what is your plan B to face them?
