How was the Iraq War illegal?

[Proletariat]

Refuted.

In the 1990s, the military looked for ways to get outside help handling the logistics associated with foreign interventions. It came up with the U.S. Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, or LOGCAP. The program is a multiyear contract for a corporation to be on call to provide whatever services might be needed quickly.

Halliburton won a competitive bidding process for LOGCAP in 2001. So it was natural to turn to it (actually, to its wholly owned subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root) for prewar planning about handling oil fires in Iraq. "To invite other contractors to compete to perform a highly classified requirement that Kellogg Brown & Root was already under a competitively awarded contract to perform would have been a wasteful duplication of effort," the Army Corps of Engineers commander has written.

Then, in February 2003, the Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton a temporary no-bid contract to implement its classified oil-fire plan. The thinking was it would be absurd to undertake the drawn-out contracting process on the verge of war. If the administration had done that and there had been catastrophic fires, it would now be considered evidence of insufficient postwar planning. And Halliburton was an obvious choice, since it put out 350 oil-well fires in Kuwait after the first Gulf War.

Link.

You really don't think someone would've tried Cheney for something regarding this in my country if there was a substantial accusation? Look what we do over blowjobs.

Say what you want about the UN's authority or the BA's evil neocon agenda, but the Halliburton claims are just Moore-esque.

Essential further reading on US DOD contracting.

[Papewaio]

How is that refuting it?

A 'secret no-bid contract' awarded to the Vice Presidents 'former' company? You see that as transparent, above board and in no way biased or corrupt?

[kiwitt]

Actually PJ the UN is made up of around 200 countries. So the "Food-for-Oil" official's were corrupt, that doesn't mean all these 200 countries and their officials who make up the UN are corrupt.

I believe there was another IRAQ operation that wasn't corrupt. i.e. the "Weapons Inspectors". I do not think they were corrupt. They just didn't produce results that met other countries expectations.

Given the fact that one operation was corrupt and one was not, doesn't that give the UN the "benefit of the doubt" for it's other operations.

If the "United Nations" is continually undermined and sidelined, I believe our long term hope for future peace will go the same way as the "League of Nations" and we will have much larger wars and invasions.

[Proletariat]

How is that refuting it?

A 'secret no-bid contract' awarded to the Vice Presidents 'former' company? You see that as transparent, above board and in no way biased or corrupt?

They did bid for the 2001 LOGCAP. They were also the only company capable of handling the war. Who are the other companies that got screwed out of bidding?

But in fact, investigators from the General Accounting Office (GAO) found Halliburton's no-bid contracts to be legal and probably justified by the Pentagon's wartime needs. Furthermore, Pentagon auditors have yet to make any final determination of whether payment should be denied to Halliburton for gasoline or meals for troops. Those billing disputes are still being negotiated.

Fact check.

[Papewaio]

That and other contracts that they have been awarded.

So it is okay to have a secret no bid contract if there are no other contenders? Even if the contracts are normally broken down and given to subcontractors (like the Oil Fires which are given to a subcontractor which has a strategic alliance with Halliburton). Doesn't a monopoly of this nature fly in the face of a free enterprise and a level playing field... surely other suppliers could have competed... maybe even Walmart...

It is also alright to have a bid specifications made by the bidder not the buyer?

You find nothing wrong in a system that has awarded so many contracts that have not been bid on to a company formerly headed by the Vice President (and will in all probablity pick up his contract in one form or another after his political reign)?

[Spetulhu]

Besides, may I add that....
WE ARE NOT AT WAR

There has been no formal declaration of war against Iraq, Usama Bin Laden, or any of those guys. None. Therefore, we are not at war. In fact, we haven't been since WWII.

So what do you call well-equipped armies camping out in another country? A voluntary field trip? Or are these soldiers acting without orders, perhaps?

BTW, would the soldiers be "illegal combattants" if there's been no declaration of war?

[PanzerJaeger]

Well the not-so-proven accusations about Vice President Cheney have been thoroughly refuted for a long time, that is why I initially asked for proof because i knew Papewaio couldnt produce.

Now then to a discussion that hasnt been finished long before it started..


If the "United Nations" is continually undermined and sidelined, I believe our long term hope for future peace will go the same way as the "League of Nations" and we will have much larger wars and invasions.

I believe that in fact the world will become much safer when the UN is finally trashed. Coalitions of nations working together have proved much more efficient than the clumsy, corrupt UN.

[Papewaio]

The UN has worked very well to stop the 'top 5' in the security council from going to war with each other.

It has not done so well when the smaller countries are being used as proxies.

Or the issues are below the big fives radar/citizens care factor.

[PanzerJaeger]

I think mutually assured destruction and economics have prevented tangles with Russia and China more than the UN.

[Papewaio]

Cheney said Sunday on NBC that since becoming vice president, "I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years."

Democrats pointed out that Cheney receives deferred compensation from Halliburton under an arrangement he made in 1998, and also retains stock options. He has pledged to give after-tax proceeds of the stock options to charity.

Cheney's aides defended the assertion on NBC, saying the financial arrangements do not constitute a tie to the company's business performance. They pointed out that Cheney took out a $15,000 insurance policy so he would collect the deferred payments over five years whether or not Halliburton remains in business.

Lautenberg, D-N.J., asked the Congressional Research Service to weigh in
Without naming Cheney or Halliburton, the service reported that unexercised stock options and deferred salary "are among those benefits described by the Office of Government Ethics as 'retained ties' or 'linkages' to one's former employer."

Lautenberg said the report makes clear that Cheney does still have financial ties to Halliburton. "I ask the vice president to stop dodging the issue with legalese," Lautenberg said.

Cheney's Halliburton Ties Remain

So Cheney still was not full divested.

Halliburton receives $7B in no-bid contracts in Iraq

Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Cheney, has won contracts worth more than $1.7 billion under Operation Iraqi Freedom and stands to make hundreds of millions more dollars under a no-bid contract awarded by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The size and scope of the government contracts awarded to Halliburton in connection with the war in Iraq are significantly greater than was previously disclosed.

Dick Cheney on Corporations

So can someone explain to me how it is refuted that a company that gets a $7B no bid contract is not in any way beyond reproach.

[JAG]

One big troll...

[bmolsson]

Well liberals and Bush bashers, this is your place to open my mind as to why you constantly call the Iraq War illegal.

Please inform me as to which laws were broken and which crimes were committed. Thanks..

Thy shall not kill.

God made that law, IIRC.......

[Al Khalifah]

Because a bunch of sniveling, overprivaleged monarchs in Europe tell us

What? Besides Britain - a constitutional monarchy where the monarch has no true power - which other major monarchies would you be refering to? The French and Germans are republics. Monaco? Liectenstein? Wouldn't want to go to war without those guys.

America, whom without us Europe would be flying the red banner right now

Yeah and without the French, America would probably still be flying the Union Jack now. Those French cowards, they save us in our War of Indepedance and all they give us are these crappy 'freedom' fries and a big old statue.

Who cares what Europe thinks?

I'm glad my nation doesn't give a rats arse about what a bunch of drunken diplomats on a constant heroine fix think.[/QUOTE]
What is that based on?

Remember, they were America's creation and idea.

And America is Europe's creation and idea. I'm sure they're not overly prowd of the fact. America used to love the U.N in the Cold War because they used to use international opinion against the Soviets, but now they're above all that because Russia has stepped down as a world power.

Ever hear of the league of Nations?

Yeah it was an organisation with the intention of preventing another Great War with millions of casualties for no actual change in borders. They had this great idea that if all the world powers were on board, then no member nation would be able to go to war with any others. But then a major power didn't join because it had enough of war and didn't value freedom enough to intervene in Europe until its own interests were threatened.

[Meneldil]

Anyone noticed that the arguments provided by the UN bashers crew are just the same as those provided by Hitler, Mussolini and *whoever led Japan during the 30's* against the league of Nations ?

Edit : As I don't want to be misunderstood, I'm not saying that US is a fascist country just as the 3 quoted above, but that the whole arguing about the UN being corrupted, and thus unreliable is kinda hypocritical and silly.

As someone said, you were quite happy to use the UN to stop USSR from reaching its goals, though it (the UN) was probably just as 'corrupted' as it is now.

Furthermore, I don't think US is moraly allowed to tell the world who is corrupted and who is not, and to blame something/someone for being supposedly corrupted.

BTW, I don't really know what is all this fuss about. PJ asked a question (Please inform me as to which laws were broken and which crimes were committed.), and he was correctly answered (though he doesn't admit it).

Your country broke the international law, and I won't even speak about the Geneva Convention (sp?) - while I admit torture might have been needed in some cases.
This is called 'illegal'.

3rd edit : AlKhalifat, I think Spain, Belgium, Danemark, Dutchland and a lot of other european countries are Monarchies, though the so called monarchs have way less power than the French or US president.

Yeah and without the French, America would probably still be flying the Union Jack now. Those French cowards, they save us in our War of Indepedance and all they give us are these crappy 'freedom' fries and a big old statue.

And just so Kapo's arguing (the same good old "We saved us during WWII, though I highly doubt Kapo fought on the European soil) sounds even more stupid : 'Without Europeans, America would never have been discovered.'

[bmolsson]

'Without Europeans, America would never have been discovered.'

Or it would have been discovered by Arabian slave traders. Imagine world politics of today......

[Steppe Merc]

Yeah. Of course, the Vkings didn't do to much with America... just sort of found it, and then lost it.

[Don Corleone]

Regardless of what happened during World War II, European nations should, and I would say are morally obligated to follow courses of action which best serve their citizens. If keeping Saddam in power was benefitting the French people, then I would say the French government's actions prior to March of 2003 make sense.

I read article 5 of the Charter to mean that France, Germany, Russia & China were in default on the intent of the charter. Members are required to take necessary means to see resolutions enforced. If dragging the Syrian sponsored anti-Israel resolutions into this debate will help, then fine, I'd be willing to entertain that debate, if that's really the side you want to line up on, but it does not change the basic fact that there were already countless resolutions promising Saddam a military response for his continuing violations. The only mistake the Bush White House made in this whole affair was going back and asking for another resolution. We should have enforced the ones on the books, as they read.

Now, to my Conservative Club cohorts, as for dissolving the UN goes, I don't think you're thinking of the ramifications. Yes, it's corrupt, and yes, it can be used in modes not originally intended to thwart the spread of democracy and human rights. But I'm reminded of that quote by Winston Churchill... "Democracy is the worst form of government there is....except for all the others". While I don't like the current policies of the UN, and I think it is dire need of reform, it is still better than the alternative...everyone acting on their own. You all are apparently still relying on our old friendships with NATO going down the road. I've got news for you...with the exception of the UK, they are no longer our allies. The last holdout (w/ the exception of the UK) was Turkey, and France made certain that the Turks changed sides by telling them that if they supported the US, they would never, ever get into the EU. The Turks listened, and now, they're on their side. This "French are cowards" business is a dangerous mischaracterization... they're not exactly our advesaries but they are most certainly our rivals (and not very friendly ones at that) and if you all continue to write them off and underestimate them, you're going to deliver a nasty surprise to our doors. They're not bosom buddies with the Chinese and selling them every weapons system they can think of because they've got a warm fuzzy for us. Respect them, watch the courses of actions they have pursued for the past 15 years, and be wary. Don't make a joke out of it, that plays into their hands.

[Don Corleone]

Just out of curiousity, can anybody tell me why 1) we didn't need UN approval to attack Serbia and 2) why the American Left & the European intelligensia (two distinct groups, despite what the American Left thinks) didn't scream for Clinton to be brought up on war crimes? Hypocricy?

[Al Khalifah]

3rd edit : AlKhalifat, I think Spain, Belgium, Danemark, Dutchland and a lot of other european countries are Monarchies, though the so called monarchs have way less power than the French or US president.

Yup. None is less than some. Basically they are a rubber stamp to be used whenever someone needs to claim anything legal. They also make a lot of money in tourist income for their respective nations.

Yeah. Of course, the Vkings didn't do to much with America... just sort of found it, and then lost it.

I read something on this recently. Apparently they've found some Viking settlement and burial remains in North America but only in the most coastal regions. The remains suggest that there may have been around for 15 years or so but died out and weren't supported. If only the Vikings had claimed America...

[Ronin]

Just out of curiousity, can anybody tell me why 1) we didn't need UN approval to attack Serbia and 2) why the American Left & the European intelligensia (two distinct groups, despite what the American Left thinks) didn't scream for Clinton to be brought up on war crimes? Hypocricy?

pretty much....

and there were people calling for Clinton´s and Blair´s head´s.....not the majority but still..

[Proletariat]

So it is okay to have a secret no bid contract if there are no other contenders? Even if the contracts are normally broken down and given to subcontractors (like the Oil Fires which are given to a subcontractor which has a strategic alliance with Halliburton). Doesn't a monopoly of this nature fly in the face of a free enterprise and a level playing field... surely other suppliers could have competed... maybe even Walmart...

Is your position an indictment of the process itself, Cheney, or Halliburton?

All I'm saying is that it's perfectly legal.

[Hurin_Rules]

I read something on this recently. Apparently they've found some Viking settlement and burial remains in North America but only in the most coastal regions. The remains suggest that there may have been around for 15 years or so but died out and weren't supported. If only the Vikings had claimed America...

The only confirmed viking settlement in North America is the L'anse aux Meadows site in the Canadian province of Newfoundland. Archaeological digs have proven beyond any doubt that the vikings did have a settlement there. The official site is here:

http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhn-nhs/nl/meadows/index_E.asp

Just FYI.

[Redleg]

This is interesting - but some are making the classic mistake of international law verus national law.

According to the United States Constitution the war with Iraq is legal and fits within the boundries of our governments stated legislative functions.

Congress approved the use of force, Congress sanctions the use of force still, and Congress funds the military to fulfil the military mission in Iraq. Prefectly legal and within the laws of the United States. Futhermore the United States Constitutions clearly states that no treaty with any other nations circumvents or overrides the United States Constitution.

As for illegal under international law - I refer the readers to research the Hague Conventions on warfare. In 1991 the United States, Great Britian and representives from the United Nations signed a cease fire with the nation of Iraq. Iraq failed to fulfill the obligations that they committed to under that cease fire. Under an international treaty that is older then the United Nations, and has an established presedence in international law - a country which violates a condition of a cease fire treaty - is subject to the re-commencement of hostilities whenever the other nations decide that the violation warrants such an action. As signator nations in the orginial cease fire the nations of Great Britian and the United States can resume the conflict if they so chose - without the approval of the United Nations - to resume the conflict.

Now some of you will say then why did Great Britian and the United States go back to the United Nations in 2002-2003 to get approval for such action - that was because both nations were wanting to get approval for such an action - however it was not a requirement for the course of action that both nations chose to go into.

[Pindar]

Those who argue U.S. action in the Iraq War is illegal do not know U.S. law. I posted this on another thread, but it seems necessary to repost.

Regarding U.S. legal stricture: The UN Charter was ratified in 1945. Ratification is a Senate function and applies to treaties. As such, it has no more force than any other Congressional act. The force of a treaty and the Senate's ability to speak to it are determinative by the U.S. Constitution. Consequently the Constitution is the prior legal justification for any standing a treaty is to have. The UN Charter, as a treaty, cannot supersede the legal framework that provides any assumed relevancy. It is subservient to the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law. It cannot act against Constitutional provision or Congressional provision. This same point was further stressed in the 1957 Supreme Court Decision Reid v. Covert where the Court stated: "no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution" and "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty."

Regarding treaties and international law: treaties are 'law' only for domestic purposes, international obligation only applies to political expediency. This was held to be the case from at least 1884 where the Court stated: "(a treaty) is a law of the land as an Act of Congress is, whenever its provisions prescribe a rule by which the rights of the private citizen or subject may be determined." As for the international aspects, the court held clearly that a treaty "depends for the enforcement of its provisions on the interest and honor of the governments which are parties to it." And if they don't work? "If these fail, its infraction becomes the subject of international negotiations and reclamations, so far as the injured party chooses to seek redress, which may in the end be enforced by actual war." Thus there is no extra legal remedy for lack of enforcement outside of war. Treaties are followed because some benefit is assumed. There is no legal enforcement provision. As stated in 1889 in Chae Chan Ping v. U.S .: "whilst it would always be a matter of the utmost gravity and delicacy to refuse to execute a treaty, the power to do so was prerogative, of which no nation could be deprived without deeply affecting its independence." Further treaties are subject to change by acts of Congress as stated in 1871 Supreme Court ruling The Cherokee Tobacco, "an act of Congress may supersede a prior treaty."

The UN does not supercede U.S. law or have authority over U.S. policy. It is legally irrelevant."

[Brenus]

Just out of curiousity, can anybody tell me why 1) we didn't need UN approval to attack Serbia and 2) why the American Left & the European intelligensia (two distinct groups, despite what the American Left thinks) didn't scream for Clinton to be brought up on war crimes? Hypocricy?

Yeap, it is. And you know what, Chirac was in this one. But better, it was to help an organisation which few months before was on the list of the terrorist Organisation (KLA). And you know what? The Mudjaidhin and Al Quaida were in Bosnia, helped by the US in fighting the Serbs and the Croats... Irony of the story?

[kiwitt]

So what you are saying Pindar is that if any country does not write it's treaties that it signs into law, it is not bound to abide by them.

Answer me this;

1) Was the treaty between France, Poland and England signed into law by those countries?
2) Was the NATO treaty signed into law by the US?
3) Was the ANZUS treaty signed into law by the US?

I am sure the US has signed many other treaties, but how many have been signed into law. Not many I suspect. It is simply window dressing.

Then the treaties were not worth the paper they were written on.

I think diplomats should forget about getting treaties signed as they wont be enforceable until the countries actually write them into law.

PS: Did Iraq write the ceasefire agreement into it's laws. It not bound to them as they are subserviant to its national Law. It seemed to abide someway, by not having WMDs.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

So what do you call well-equipped armies camping out in another country? A voluntary field trip? Or are these soldiers acting without orders, perhaps?

BTW, would the soldiers be "illegal combattants" if there's been no declaration of war?

A military operation is not a war.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Just out of curiousity, can anybody tell me why 1) we didn't need UN approval to attack Serbia and 2) why the American Left & the European intelligensia (two distinct groups, despite what the American Left thinks) didn't scream for Clinton to be brought up on war crimes? Hypocricy?

One wonders if a part of it is a mindset that says "Beating up Muslims = bad, beating up Christians = sometimes OK." It may not be that developed, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are some who still feel guilty for the Crusades.

However, I believe the [bad] Serbs really deserved some ass-kicking. Certainly Milosivich and his buddies.

[Don Corleone]

I agree wholeheartedly, and I take my hat off to Clinton for doing it, in the face of a lot of negative domestic pressure. That wasn't my point. I strongly suspect that at least domestically, opposition to the war = "get Bush". Were it Al Gore at the helm and we were in the exact same situation, the war effort would enjoy unparalleled support.

[Demon of Light]

I'm going to take a stab at an analogy and see how it goes.

A guy walks into the store that I work at. He looks really suspicious in a huge trenchcoat, he's muttering under his breath and staring people down. I know this guy. He has a history of violence in the past and I had to beat him up before because he beat the crap out of one of my friends. THe police and I agreed that this guy should be searched regularly. If he refused to submit to a search, we agreed to force him into the search. Now I have this guy here and I KNOW he has a gun and I KNOW the police have been lax in searching him. I try to search this guy but he refuses. What do I do? I call the police.

THe police arrive on the scene and I tell them that I saw a gun on the guy (I didn't) and that he's a member of a street gang that wants to blow up my store (he's not). THe police try to search him but he puts up a whole song and dance about needing to go to the bathroom every five minutes (just like he's done in the past). After a while of doing this, the guy acts all pissed off and refuses to let the police keep searching him. The police are just stupid enough to let this happen. I try to convince the police that this guy has a gun and wants to blow up my store. They aren't buying it. Their brilliant solution is to try and search him again. They say that all they have to do is talk to the guy and we'll search him and be done with it. Alot of things become apparent to me. First, the police force is comprised entirely of weenies. Second, this guy is getting away with flouting the law (we're supposed to be able to search him). Third, if I want anything done, I'll have to do it myself. Further, I personally hate this guy. So I tell everyone that he's an armed gang member, I grab a large heavy object and I beat him to death with it.

After he is a bloody mass on the floor, I search him and I don't find a gun. THe police pipe in by saying that he wasn't even a gang member. Everybody is upset now. Part of crowd feels lied to because they supported to me killing the guy as long as he had a gun. Another part of the crowd never believed me and now they want my head for lying about why I killed the guy. They claim that I just didn't like him and wanted his money. With all these people yelling at me, what am I to do?

My solution is to tell people that killing this guy was necessary because he beat his wife and molested his children. This is true but now everybody wants to tell me that that was none of my business and that I didn't even mention it as a reason until after he was dead. I feel totally fine about killing the guy (not like the police were going to do anything) but everyone still hates me for being a lying bastard (mind you, I am BUT I feel that I'm a lying bastard who did the right thing). THey hate me even more after I move ito the guy's house. His wife starts performing "favors" for me and this pisses off the guys children. His kids are happy that their child molesting father is dead but they hate me for being in their house and for all the favors I'm recieving from the guy's former wife. They want me to leave. I don't see that as a viable option though as I know full well that if I left, the neighborhood pimp would set up shop the next day. I want to make sure that the wife can support the kids before I go.

So, everybody hates me, I can't seem to catch a break but the only thing I know how to do in this situation is to just keep doing what I think is right tell everyone else to go to hell.