The U.S. invaded Iraq (illegally), murdered over 1 million of its citizens, destroyed its infrastructure, drove millions more from their homes, installed a puppet government, and orchestrated deals to take their oil -- but the Iraqis are at fault for "not taking responsibility for themselves."

Their infrastructure was destroyed long before we got there in 2003. Millions were drove from their homes long before we got there. Saddam needed to be deposed, whether you agree with us doing it or not doesn't change that fact.

 

We wont have peace with the arab world until we leave the region(militarily) and cut ties with Iraq. This is not a conflict of values or how we live our lives, it is a conflict of foreign policy. They dont hate us for being American, they hate us for our government. The second we leave the region the Jihad against our nation ceases. No one in our government realises this, just like they don't realise that our relationship with Israel is counterproductive.

what valuable interest did we have in seeing saddam dead though? did it help our economy? did it really make the world a better place? good god no...

 

and i completely agree with what you said in the second part here...but...our government is well aware that if we left, we would be left alone...but...really...what fun is that...we like throwing rocks at bee hives

Regardless of the position one may have on the war, illegal is not a term that applies to it.

I like the way you are taking the Mitt Romney approach to the legality of warfare. That is claiming that a team of attorneys is necessary to determine whether or not proper authority is issued.

 

I don't think we are submerged quite enough in globalism yet to subvert our entire rule of law to the United Nations. Bush essentially went to war under UN resolutions and some creative legislation signed into law under the Clinton years.

 

Although the US Congress might consider it to be anachronistic I personally do not believe that Article I Section 8 of the Constitution is obsolete. We have not declared a war since World War II and we have not won a war since World War II. Clearly these wars are not meant to bring in immediate victory; they are meant to linger on to no end. It's not a matter of whether or not Bush should be tried in a courtroom but a matter of what is truly American and in the interests of her people.

 

For the most part, I think I can spot the differences between the two approaches, assuming, of course, that they plan on governing as articulated in the campaign. I can't prove whether or not Obama's rhetoric will match his actions, but I think it probably will.

I agree with that statement. I think going into Iraq the way we did was wrong. I think we rightly went after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, although we could have done a much better job. I realize you think we should have gone in there with tactical forces, taken them out, and then gotten the hell out of there altogether. Like I told you before, I am open to that position, but I do not yet know enough to form a strong position. I will take you up on your recommended reading.

Regardless of the position one may have on the war, illegal is not a term that applies to it.

I like the way you are taking the Mitt Romney approach to the legality of warfare. That is claiming that a team of attorneys is necessary to determine whether or not proper authority is issued.

 

I don't think we are submerged quite enough in globalism yet to subvert our entire rule of law to the United Nations. Bush essentially went to war under UN resolutions and some creative legislation signed into law under the Clinton years.

 

I only referred to the UN resolutions to preempt any "International Law" accusations, which it naturally did not because people like talking points rather than facts. The only international law that the US is subject to is as a result of any treaty ratified by the Senate, since there is nothing ratified by the Senate that would prevent us from attacking a nation that violated a cease-fire agreement that the US is the primary party to, it doesn't even apply.

 

The War Powers Act of 1973 is not from the Clinton years. The authorization for the use of force passed by the US Congress authorizes the President to use force against Iraq at his discretion. Regardless of your agreement with the action in Iraq, it is legal.

Authorization to use force and authorization to engage in a war are not the same thing.

 

They are the same, and which of the links are you reading, because the act of Congress gives the President complete autonomy as regards war with Iraq.

No, that is not correct. Your position is essentially supported by very few constitutional lawyers, namely people in the Justice Department and the White House.

 

As far as the international law thing goes, you show your ignorance with your response to Penguino. There is customary international law and then there is treaty based/UN resolution international law. Under customary international law, you are not allowed to start a war the way we did. Pre-emptive war in the way we did it is illegal under customary international law. I think you're out of your league here, so just stop pretending to know much simply because you can provide links.

No, that is not correct. Your position is essentially supported by very few constitutional lawyers, namely people in the Justice Department and the White House.

 

As far as the international law thing goes, you show your ignorance with your response to Penguino. There is customary international law and then there is treaty based/UN resolution international law. Under customary international law, you are not allowed to start a war the way we did. Pre-emptive war in the way we did it is illegal under customary international law. I think you're out of your league here, so just stop pretending to know much simply because you can provide links.

 

Typical liberal elitism... Talk about ignorant? When you don't agree with someone they must be too dumb to understand the topic at hand.

No, that is not correct. Your position is essentially supported by very few constitutional lawyers, namely people in the Justice Department and the White House.

 

As far as the international law thing goes, you show your ignorance with your response to Penguino. There is customary international law and then there is treaty based/UN resolution international law. Under customary international law, you are not allowed to start a war the way we did. Pre-emptive war in the way we did it is illegal under customary international law. I think you're out of your league here, so just stop pretending to know much simply because you can provide links.

 

Typical liberal elitism... Talk about ignorant? When you don't agree with someone they must be too dumb to understand the topic at hand.

 

I didn't say it's out of his league (as in he's incapable of understanding). He's just obviously wrong. It's like someone saying 2+2 if 5. It just isn't. Sometimes people want to debate on matters they have very little knowledge of and pretend like they know what they're talking about. Penguino, for example, has been talking about his position in Afghanistan, and I have stated quite clearly that I don't know enough to have a strong position either way, and that I am going to read some of the material he suggested for me and only then will I state a clear position. If you think that's being elitist, go right ahead. I think it says a lot about a person when they acknowledge ignorance rather than try to argue about things they are not very knowledgeable about.

 

And if I am an elitist, it has nothing to do my liberalism. It has to do with my own personality. Having said that, I am not elitist in the least bit.

No, that is not correct. Your position is essentially supported by very few constitutional lawyers, namely people in the Justice Department and the White House.

 

As far as the international law thing goes, you show your ignorance with your response to Penguino. There is customary international law and then there is treaty based/UN resolution international law. Under customary international law, you are not allowed to start a war the way we did. Pre-emptive war in the way we did it is illegal under customary international law. I think you're out of your league here, so just stop pretending to know much simply because you can provide links.

 

 

Without using any links at all I'm going to resolve the international law issue. Article 2(4) of the UN charter which the U.S. ratified, prohibits aggression and armed conflict by any nation, unless it is in self-defense (This provision is in article 51) or unless there is security council authorization. We had neither in Iraq. A nation can also request from a third nation to assist them in defending against an unlawful use of force (collective self defense, article 52 or 53, i forget which). This does not apply to situaitons where there is no current armed conflict and the conduct to be defended against must reach the level of armed conflict (U.S. v Nicaragua, ICJ). The Rome Statute, which we do not have any legislation rendering it valid as to the U.S. also defines aggression and makes it unlawful, although no jurisdiction can currently hear an aggression case.

 

Now, if you want to argue for the legality of the war. Under customary internaitonal law there seems to be an exception to the prohibition on the use of force called humanitarian intervention. HI applies when there is no lawful means under UN charter law, but to stop deplorable human rights violations, an outside country can intervene. Analyze that as you will in terms of Iraq, but thats the exception.

 

There is also the issue that the 1991 resolutions that allowed the conflict did not end b ythe case fire, so they remained open and upon Iraqi violations of the post war treaties, foregin troops can reenter under that previous authority.

1. Humanitarian Intervention was not the basis upon which we invaded Iraq. I think it would be disingenous to make that kind of argument now after we clearly stated were going in for WMDs.

 

2. What kinds of violations under the treaties you mention would trigger authority for the U.S. to re-enter? In addition, what kind of authority was it? Just war to make them comply, topple the entire regime, occupation? More than likely, there would be authorization to use force and end Iraqi violations of the treaties, but no authorization to completely topple the regime and replace it with a handpicked government.

 

Based on what you said, my conclusion is that the U.S. could only legally enter Iraq based on 2 above and the extent of its occupation is limited to bring Iraq into compliance with the treaties/resolutions. As such, we went too far.

No, that is not correct. Your position is essentially supported by very few constitutional lawyers, namely people in the Justice Department and the White House.

 

As far as the international law thing goes, you show your ignorance with your response to Penguino. There is customary international law and then there is treaty based/UN resolution international law. Under customary international law, you are not allowed to start a war the way we did. Pre-emptive war in the way we did it is illegal under customary international law. I think you're out of your league here, so just stop pretending to know much simply because you can provide links.

 

Typical liberal elitism... Talk about ignorant? When you don't agree with someone they must be too dumb to understand the topic at hand.

 

Or in the typical conservative's case - too unamerican to understand.

1. Humanitarian Intervention was not the basis upon which we invaded Iraq. I think it would be disingenous to make that kind of argument now after we clearly stated were going in for WMDs.

 

2. What kinds of violations under the treaties you mention would trigger authority for the U.S. to re-enter? In addition, what kind of authority was it? Just war to make them comply, topple the entire regime, occupation? More than likely, there would be authorization to use force and end Iraqi violations of the treaties, but no authorization to completely topple the regime and replace it with a handpicked government.

 

Based on what you said, my conclusion is that the U.S. could only legally enter Iraq based on 2 above and the extent of its occupation is limited to bring Iraq into compliance with the treaties/resolutions. As such, we went too far.

 

 

Some people, such as Yoram Dinstein, argue that a cease fire does not end the state of armed conflict, but it is merely a conditional stoppage in the hostilities. So, based on that argument the cease fire after Gulf 1 was conditioned on Iraq fulfilling their portion of the agreement, part of which was to allow the UN inspectors to enter and inspect different facilities. Hussein refused to let the inspectors in when they were scheduled to go in and violated the no-fly zone provisions. Based on Dinstein's argument, the violation of those conditions allows the parties that were previously authorized to enter Iraq, to once again do so and fulfill the objective of ensuring that there would be no WMD. In this argument you dont need new resolutions, because the 1991 resolutions were still active and were reactivated by Iraq's failure to comply with cease fire provisions.

 

 

The truth is the war was most likely unlawful, but what is even more fascinating to me is the fact that countries, not just the U.S., but a lot of countries, do in fact respect the rule of internaitonal law, because even when they break it they do so under color of law. Little by little this enshrines the certain princuiples, so it continues to be a step in the right direction.

1. Humanitarian Intervention was not the basis upon which we invaded Iraq. I think it would be disingenous to make that kind of argument now after we clearly stated were going in for WMDs.

 

2. What kinds of violations under the treaties you mention would trigger authority for the U.S. to re-enter? In addition, what kind of authority was it? Just war to make them comply, topple the entire regime, occupation? More than likely, there would be authorization to use force and end Iraqi violations of the treaties, but no authorization to completely topple the regime and replace it with a handpicked government.

 

Based on what you said, my conclusion is that the U.S. could only legally enter Iraq based on 2 above and the extent of its occupation is limited to bring Iraq into compliance with the treaties/resolutions. As such, we went too far.

 

 

Some people, such as Yoram Dinstein, argue that a cease fire does not end the state of armed conflict, but it is merely a conditional stoppage in the hostilities. So, based on that argument the cease fire after Gulf 1 was conditioned on Iraq fulfilling their portion of the agreement, part of which was to allow the UN inspectors to enter and inspect different facilities. Hussein refused to let the inspectors in when they were scheduled to go in and violated the no-fly zone provisions. Based on Dinstein's argument, the violation of those conditions allows the parties that were previously authorized to enter Iraq, to once again do so and fulfill the objective of ensuring that there would be no WMD. In this argument you dont need new resolutions, because the 1991 resolutions were still active and were reactivated by Iraq's failure to comply with cease fire provisions.

 

 

The truth is the war was most likely unlawful, but what is even more fascinating to me is the fact that countries, not just the U.S., but a lot of countries, do in fact respect the rule of internaitonal law, because even when they break it they do so under color of law. Little by little this enshrines the certain princuiples, so it continues to be a step in the right direction.

 

Yep. I agree with both paragraphs.

 

I still wonder, though, what kind of authorization that gives the U.S. Surely, it didn't give the U.S. license to change regimes in Iraq. That would seem disproportionate.

1. Humanitarian Intervention was not the basis upon which we invaded Iraq. I think it would be disingenous to make that kind of argument now after we clearly stated were going in for WMDs.

 

2. What kinds of violations under the treaties you mention would trigger authority for the U.S. to re-enter? In addition, what kind of authority was it? Just war to make them comply, topple the entire regime, occupation? More than likely, there would be authorization to use force and end Iraqi violations of the treaties, but no authorization to completely topple the regime and replace it with a handpicked government.

 

Based on what you said, my conclusion is that the U.S. could only legally enter Iraq based on 2 above and the extent of its occupation is limited to bring Iraq into compliance with the treaties/resolutions. As such, we went too far.

 

 

Some people, such as Yoram Dinstein, argue that a cease fire does not end the state of armed conflict, but it is merely a conditional stoppage in the hostilities. So, based on that argument the cease fire after Gulf 1 was conditioned on Iraq fulfilling their portion of the agreement, part of which was to allow the UN inspectors to enter and inspect different facilities. Hussein refused to let the inspectors in when they were scheduled to go in and violated the no-fly zone provisions. Based on Dinstein's argument, the violation of those conditions allows the parties that were previously authorized to enter Iraq, to once again do so and fulfill the objective of ensuring that there would be no WMD. In this argument you dont need new resolutions, because the 1991 resolutions were still active and were reactivated by Iraq's failure to comply with cease fire provisions.

 

 

The truth is the war was most likely unlawful, but what is even more fascinating to me is the fact that countries, not just the U.S., but a lot of countries, do in fact respect the rule of internaitonal law, because even when they break it they do so under color of law. Little by little this enshrines the certain princuiples, so it continues to be a step in the right direction.

 

Yep. I agree with both paragraphs.

 

I still wonder, though, what kind of authorization that gives the U.S. Surely, it didn't give the U.S. license to change regimes in Iraq. That would seem disproportionate.

 

I don't remember the text of the resolutions. I'm not really arguing either way, but intl law is one of my favorite topics, especially LOIAC, so I wanted to jump in.

I just want to chime in and say that I am thrilled that legacy is posting again.

No, that is not correct. Your position is essentially supported by very few constitutional lawyers, namely people in the Justice Department and the White House.

 

As far as the international law thing goes, you show your ignorance with your response to Penguino. There is customary international law and then there is treaty based/UN resolution international law. Under customary international law, you are not allowed to start a war the way we did. Pre-emptive war in the way we did it is illegal under customary international law. I think you're out of your league here, so just stop pretending to know much simply because you can provide links.

 

No, I am entirely correct because A) The War Powers Act withstood challenge and B) The AUMF explicitly stated that it qualifies under the War Powers Act. That means, without any ambiguity, that the war was and is legal under US law unless and until the AUMF is repealed. Unless you are restricting yourself to International Law arguments.

 

The Consitution of the United States does not recognize the rule of any other organization, nation, or group of nations and no international agreement not willingly entered into by treaty. It is one of the biggest sticking points that the US runs into when dealing with other nations, they find us to be difficult because we won't go along to get along. There is a movement among some jurists that International Law can be looked to as an influence, but thus far the USSC has come down clearly short of using such as a cause, the closest is Roper and that case merely demonstrated that the court's view that execution of minors constituted an 8th ammendment violation was similar to policies in other nations. My opinion is clearly shared by Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas and with two justices joining in the majority ruling, but writing their own opinion. I think that a Roberts Court will stay away from using International Law as a formal source for quite some time.

 

As for Customary International Law, if we don't keep Iraq it does not qualify as a war of aggression, we are not engaged in genocide, we are not taking slaves, and one has to take the dimmest, most cynical view to consider our acts in that nation as crimes against humanity. All in all, it is hardly an example of a violation of Customary International Law.

 

Therefore:

The action in Iraq is legal under US Law

It is legal under explicit International Law (treaties signed by the US) - in fact the Iraqi violation of the cease fire makes it clearly legal

It is not illegal under implicit / customary International Law unless one thinks that US Soldiers are vicious workers of autrocities and crimes against humanity (you are not making that charge, are you?)

 

Hence, not illegal. I am making no claim of not ill-advised, but it is not illegal.

 

Removal of a foreign head of state is certainly outside the realm of a remedy to the cease-fire violation, but it is a consequence of the action and Saddam was tried, convicted, and excuted by a lawful authority elected by the people of the nation.

Authorization to use force and authorization to engage in a war are not the same thing.

 

They are the same, and which of the links are you reading, because the act of Congress gives the President complete autonomy as regards war with Iraq.

I'm not a lawyer but does the Constitution state that the US Congress has the power to delegate the ability to declare war to the president?

 

No.

Authorization to use force and authorization to engage in a war are not the same thing.

 

They are the same, and which of the links are you reading, because the act of Congress gives the President complete autonomy as regards war with Iraq.

I'm not a lawyer but does the Constitution state that the US Congress has the power to delegate the ability to declare war to the president?

 

I hate the War Powers Act, but it has withstood challenge. Congress should have dropped a pair and declared war, but that hasn't happened in 67 years

I just want to chime in and say that I am thrilled that legacy is posting again.

 

Thanks dude, I just got a new job that leaves me enough down time to post on here a bit.

Of course the 1998 document sent before Bill Clinton was signed by all of the top neo-cons in existence, including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Douglas Feith, and a few others. I think it was also signed by douches like Grover Norquist and others from the far right as well.

Of course the 1998 document sent before Bill Clinton was signed by all of the top neo-cons in existence, including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Douglas Feith, and a few others. I think it was also signed by douches like Grover Norquist and others from the far right as well.

 

that's the far right to you :lol