Leader

Perfect.

__________________

troung

If we win and succed in keeping Iraq a free democracy... yes it would have been "legal"...

If we fail and Iraq goes back to the way it was or worse... if it was "legal" or not will be debated for years to come...

If we really fail and Iraqi Sunni rebels sack DC and put our leaders to the sword... I really guess it wouldn't have been "legal"...

All depends how it ends and how American history writes it up...

But hell who cares a little late to care I would say...

Praxus

The the long bloody history of the middle east would have ended in fire, far before that would happen.

troung

Oh that was a light hearted comment...

Basically the winners decide if something was legal was my whole point...

Praxus

Yah I know, I was just giving you a hard time.

troung

Alright you scared me for a moment...

Praxus

KIWI

The US broke International Law.

The United Nations Charter is a treaty of the United States under the Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. Therefore the US is obligated under international law to comply with the UN Chater.

Iraq had not attacked any state, and it did not appear that an attack by Iraq towards the US was imminent – therefore self-defense does not justify the use of force against Iraq by the United States or any state. The US tried to deceptively justify their unlawful use of force by abusing the right of self-defence provided by Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which constitutes a breach of International Law.


Furthermore, the Bush administration attempted to radically expand the concept of self-defense to include possible ‘preemptive strikes’ arising from possession or development of weapons of mass destruction and links to Al-Qaeda, despite the fact that Saddam Hussein did not support Al-Qaeda and upon inspection there was no discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Moreover, the Bush administration’s reliance on the need for ‘regime change’ in Iraq as a basis for the use of force is a breach of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter.

Shek

I'm not too smart on the UN, but I seem to recall that in meetings last year, a UN commission (it was one that was setup to recommend UN reforms in the wake of Iraq as well as the Oil for Food scandal) came to the conclusion that preemptive strikes were permissible and that the language correlated very close to the US-Iraq situation. Does anyone recall this and know the actual language used and how it would apply to Iraq in Mar 2003?

KIWI

It does not matter that a UN commission came to the conclusion that preemptive strikes were permissible.

Because it does not make it international law.... therefore, US actions were still illegal.

Furthermore, even if it did, you say it was last year (2004) - even if it was legal as a result of the UN commission that you refer to, it was after the US led war in Iraq and therefore illegal as a result.

Confed999

Prove that and you may have a small case. It's going to be tough though, nobody has done it yet.
I remember it, but do not remeber exactly.
It would to the UNSC, the ones who would be deciding.
Investigations come after an act, to decide if it was legal or illegal. Your belief that it was illegal doesn't really matter, it's the UNSC that matters. You are also forgetting the cease-fire. A material breach of Resolution 687 "removes the basis of the ceasefire and revives the authority to use force under resolution 678." The UNSC noted Iraq was in material breach more than a few times. Either way, without a UNSC declaration indicating it's illegality, it isn't.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Shek

I wasn't trying to use the report that I heard as proof that it was legal for the obvious reasons that you point out, but rather as an interesting quandary for the argument the preemptive strikes should never be allowed (if it's okay today, why wasn't it okay yesterday). Like I stated earlier, I don't know that the commission or panel's recommendations would specifically support the US actions in regards to Iraq, but I do find that possibility interesting.

I did do a little digging on the internet and found some legal analysis by real international lawyers that found that the US led war on Iraq was legal. One such example is below. Also, I found a debate between international law lawyers and the one that believes that the US led war on Iraq is legal acknowledges the written law of the UN Charter but also points out some customary law that has also developed (the best example of customary law has been the development of the law of the sea over time; a specific example would be the distance for territorial waters extended from a coastline, which used to be 3-5 miles because that was the maximum range of coastal artillery fire and thus the maximum distance that they could defend - if you got into range of coastal artillery, they could sink you!). Some of the customary law that has developed involves the following military operations where the operation has been considered to be legitimate and legal despite the lack of a UN Security Council Resolution - the Korean War, peace keeping/enforcement operations in Liberia and Sierra Leone by West African nations such as Nigeria and Ghana, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. In the first example, the UN General Assembly was used since the USSR would have vetoed any resolution in the Security Council. In the later two examples, regional organizations were used to legitimize the operation. The radio segment didn't have enough time to develop these thoughts further, but the arguments to this non-lawyer seemed feasible.

In the end, I can come to the following conclusions now:

1. There are smart lawyers that argue both sides of the issue and cannot come to agreement.
2. Non-lawyers tend to lose arguments to real lawyers (to include me if I were to try to use any of the pro-legal arguments against pro-illegal lawyers), so such a technical topic probably doesn't have much utility on a message board.
3. We went to war with Saddam Hussein's regime over two years ago, so whether it was legal or illegal, it doesn't matter much now.
4. I don't think you will find too many people sad to see Saddam removed from power (although seeing the pics of him in his scivvies made me have second thoughts ).
5. We are in Iraq now under a UN Security Council Resolution.
6. The Iraqi government has asked the UN to extend our mandate to remain in Iraq.

http://www.hwcn.org/link/mkg/app_5.html

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
PROFESSOR JOHN CAREY - ADJUNCT PROFESSOR
OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AT NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
To the Editor:
Christopher Wren's article "U.N. Resolutions Allow Attack on the Likes of Iraq" does not get to the bottom of the question whether the US is authorized to bomb Iraq without further Security Council authorization.

It is correct that resolution 687 of April 3, 1991, brought about a cease-fire upon Iraq's notification that it accepted destruction of its weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's breach of its obligations has already been officially declared by the Security Council on January 12 in its statement finding "a clear violation of the relevant resolutions."

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is of doubtful relevance since what is being interpreted is not a treaty but Security Council texts. Those texts need to be closely examined to determine what they now authorize without any further enactment.

Upon Iraq's breach of its obligation to allow full inspection of its weapons of mass destruction capability, the cease-fire, enacted by resolution 687, ended. That brought back into play resolution 678 of November 29, 1990, which had authorized the Gulf War to remove Iraq from Kuwait. Since Iraq is now out of Kuwait, the question is whether hostilities can be resumed for any other purpose, such as enforcing inspection.

If the only purpose of hostilities contemplated by resolution 678 had been removal of Iraq, then the ending of the cease-fire would not have authorized force to compel inspection. But 678 went further, allowing the US and others "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

Restoration of international peace and security in the area is exactly our purpose in seeking destruction of Iraq's ability to make and use weapons of mass destruction. But besides that, the authorization of 678 to uphold and implement "all subsequent resolutions" applies to 687, which established the system for inspecting and destroying Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

That system, agreed to by Iraq, is being violated by it, and resumption of hostilities to enforce the system is now authorized, without any further Security Council enactment.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To the Editor:

In order legally to resume military action against Iraq, the United States needs to be acting (a) consistently with its own Constitution and (b) with authority from the United Nations Security Council. The reason Security Council authority is needed is that the UN Charter, a treaty by which we are bound, forbids the use of force except in self-defence or with Council approval.

Three key Security Council resolutions must be examined to determine what authority exists today for the US to bomb Iraq. Resolution 678 of November 1990 authorized the US and other countries "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." That was the UN's green light for Desert Storm. Resolution 660 had ordered Iraq out of Kuwait.

In April 1991 resolution 687 brought about a cease-fire conditioned on Iraq's notification that it accepted the inspection and destruction of its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons as well as the missiles to deliver them. Iraq is now in "clear violation" of those obligations, as the Security Council declared in January. Iraq's violations voided the US obligation to cease firing and brought back into effect resolution 678.

As indicated in the above quote from 678, force is authorized by it not just to get Iraq out of Kuwait but also to uphold "all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." Peace and security in the area are overall US objectives. But in addition, one of the subsequent relevant resolutions is 687 requiring elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. That is the immediate US objective.

It is therefore clear that the US can, so far as international law is concerned, resume hostilities against Iraq both to restore peace and security in the area and to enforce the destruction of its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and their missiles. Whether US constitutional requirements have been met, and whether hostilities would be effective or proper, are questions beyond the scope of this letter.

highsea

I agree. The only thing that matters is that Iraq was in breach. And the only country it matters to, is the US, because we were the only ones that were going to enforce anything. The SC was never going to approve military action against Iraq. France and Russia were already in Saddam's pocket. Hell, france's veto was bought and paid for a year before the US went after Saddam. The question the UN should be grappling with is, how to regain the US's trust, not the other way around.

The fact remains that Iraq was in violation of their cease-fire agreement with the US. We tried the UN way, Saddam ignored what, 17 or 18 SC resolutions? He was shooting at US and British planes daily. He tried to assasinate Fmr. Pres Bush. Hell, as far as I'm concerned that's an act of war by itself. Clinton should have leveled every palace in Iraq after that one. There were tons of proscribed materials flowing into Iraq illegally. The sanctions were only hurting Iraqis, they didn't affect Saddam one bit.

People like to claim that Bush "rushed to war" after 9/11, but that's just not true. We didn't go into Iraq until 18 months after the attacks, after we sent the Taliban packing in Afghanistan. And even then, we gave Saddam an out- we said leave Iraq, take your sadistic sons with you, and we will not go to war. But we all know Saddam didn't care about the Iraqi people, he wanted only power. He thought he was some kind of great Arab leader. He was a murderous thug who killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

It's true, 9/11 did change the attitude of the US towards people like Saddam. The US could no longer sit back and wait for the next attack. Saddam was most certainly a terrorist, even if he wasn't al-Qaeda. 8 years of kid gloves under Clinton made these terrorists complacent. Because they could get away with their bullsh*t with Clinton, they believed the US was weak, that we would no nothing because we were afraid of casualties. It's true that we hate casualties, but it's not true that we are weak or afraid.

So the decision was made to drain the swamp, starting with Afghanistan and Iraq. Hopefully, Iran and Syria are taking note, because there are 150,000 battle hardened US troops on their doorstep. Libya saw the writing on the wall, and made a wise choice. It remains to be seen how this will play out, but the war doesn't end with Iraq.

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

Shek

An ironic choice of words - drain the swamp. The Iraqi marshlands in southern Iraq exist once again today because Saddam is no longer in power. Part of the $18B reconstruction package went to restoring these marshes that Saddam drained to force the Shia tribes that lived off the marshes. In fact, one of the "summer camps" that one of my interpreters attended in high school (he was Shia) was at the marshes where he was forced to cut down reeds in the marshes as part of Saddam's drainage project. But, that was better than the next year when his "summer camp" included a field trip to the Iranian border where he had to haul back dead Iraqi bodies from the front lines and bury them. He was smarter than one of his cousins, though, who wasn't as inspired to attend his mandatory military service. The mukharbat found his cousin, shot him with several bullets, and then sent his cousin's parents a bill for the expended rounds.

highsea

The horrors that were visited on the Iraqi people are unimaginable to those if us who sit here in our homes, safe from that kind of constant terror. We will never hear about these things from the media, only from people like you have been there and talked to the victims personally.

This is a post from an old Marine on another board I visit. It makes me proud that we have people like his son serving in our armed forces.