What is an illegal war?

[PomonaCA]

I'm just curious. Place your vote and then tell us what you voted. Be careful, some posters might be intolerant of your opinion.




WARNING!

Intolerance will not be tolerated!

[Ben]

Was The Iraq War Legal, Or Illegal, Under International Law?

"Advantage is a better soldier than rashness." -Montjoy in Wm. Shakespeare's Henry V, 3.6.120

Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D.

09/17/04 "ICH" -- During a BBC radio interview on Wednesday, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan created a controversy by reiterating his long-held position that the Iraq War was illegal because it breached the United Nations Charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/). [1] On Thursday, the imperial leaders of the "Coalition of the Willing" retaliated by vehemently arguing that their Iraq War was, to the contrary, legal. [2]

Obviously, this dispute raises a legal question: "Whose opinion is correct, and whose is incorrect?" Additionally, we should be asking ourselves: "Who decides? (i.e., 'Whose jurisprudential opinion shall be dispositive for purposes of resolving this dispute?')"

It seems eminently reasonable -- even for the disputants -- to conclude that the optimal source of guidance on this question of international law would have to be the world's foremost experts in the field of international law. Hence, the UN's chief and the coalition's leaders need to know how the world's top international law experts would resolve their jurisprudential dispute. And we, the people, need to know who's right and who's wrong here.

Realistically, one cannot seriously expect the disputants -- much less their national electorates -- to wade through numerous legal documents, most of which contain rigorous and not-occasionally tedious reasoning, to find the correct answer. Thus, it seems prudent to proceed directly to the world's most authoritative answer to our pressing question du jour: "Was the Iraq War legal, or illegal, under international law?"

And The World's Most Authoritative Answer Is ... Among the world's foremost experts in the field of international law, the overwhelming jurisprudential consensus is that the Anglo-American invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq constitute three phases of one illegal war of aggression. [3]

Moreover, these experts in the international law of war deem both preventive wars and preemptive strikes to be euphemistic subcategories of outlawed wars of aggression.

And the experts' answer would hold true regardless of whether their governing legal authority was: (A) the UN Security Council Resolutions that were passed to implement the conflict-resolution provisions of the UN Charter; or (B) prior treaties and juridical holdings which have long since become general international law. [4]

Readers who need to "trust but verify" (i.e., to corroborate) for themselves that the experts' overwhelming opinion is exactly as stated above should read a document entitled "15 January 2003." (Find it by scrolling down approximately one-fourth of the way, after you've clicked onto this ES website: http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm "The Legality Of The Iraq War" .) Why?

That document was drafted and signed by the world's foremost international law experts -- the prestigious International Commission of International Law Jurists -- to provide ultimate proof of their authoritative opinion concerning the legal status of war against Iraq. Furthermore, this large body of eminent international law experts explicitly stated that they'd drafted their legal document in order to advise Messrs. Bush and Blair prior to the invasion: (1) that it would be blatantly illegal under international law for the Anglo-American belligerents to invade Iraq; and (2) that their joint decision as Commanders-in-Chief to commence hostilities would constitute prosecutable war crimes.

Skeptical readers who don't regard this highly-authoritative conclusion as an adequate answer are invited to undertake the legal reasoning for themselves at the ES website. Note that every applicable Article in the UN Charter, and every relevant UN Security Council Resolution, is cited and analyzed therein. And readers who continue to scroll down the ES website will find a succession of articles which summarize the opinions of noteworthy individual experts on international law. These, too, strongly confirm that the invasion of Iraq constituted an illegal war of aggression under international law. [5]

Finally, ambitious readers will learn what non-credible source was most responsible for propagating the fictitious pre-war claim that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon (hint: yet another uncredentialed neocon think-tanker from the thoroughly-discredited American Enterprise Institute).

Three Conclusions It is the overwhelming consensus of the world's foremost international law experts that: (1) UN Secretary General Annan's opinion is correct (i.e., true) because the Iraq War was, indeed, illegal; and

(2) the opinion of the "Coalition of the Willing's" leaders is incorrect (i.e., false) because their Iraq War was NOT legal.

(3) Therefore, Americans must break free of the neocons' self-delusional groupthink mentality by learning to differentiate between fact and truth, which are all-too-easily confused. For instance, it's an undeniable fact that Messrs. Bush and Cheney have been arguing along the campaign trail that "The Iraq War was legal!" Nevertheless, the mere fact that they've been vehemently arguing that point certainly does NOT make it true! Their argument is flawed by a logical fallacy called an ipse dixit (i.e., "something asserted but not proved"). As we've already seen, their argument is just plain WRONG AS A MATTER OF LAW! Therefore, Messrs. Bush and Cheney are making a false argument (i.e., deceptively asserting something that is untrue).

The Bottom Line Americans should reject the temptation to vote for Messrs. Bush and Cheney, because: (1) both men were advised beforehand that their decision to commence the invasion of Iraq would be blatantly illegal under international law; (2) they invaded nonetheless, and now they're cynically attempting to mislead the public again by falsely arguing that "The Iraq War was legal!"; (3) however, their argument is legally-meritless nonsense -- the current equivalent of their earlier false argument that torture is a legal method for the US military's interrogation of prisoners; (4) they've repeatedly demonstrated their disdain for universal human rights and democratic governance under the rule of law; and

(5) the 21st-century world isn't Tombstone's OK Corral and they certainly aren't Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday -- however much they might wish us to believe that they are!

[Ben]

Ron Paul explicates it pretty well:

YouTube - This War Is Illegal! Ron Paul Afghanistan War Debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyiOGVLfy7w)

[Ben]

The Deputy PM of the U.K. Nick Clegg saying and I quote: "... the ILLEGAL invasion of Iraq."

YouTube - Illegal War - Iraq - Nick Clegg - PMQ's 21.7.10 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fo-TV5aLTM)

[Ben]

Only Congress has the power to declare war. It never did with respect to Iraq.
More from Ron Paul.... On certain things, well, Ron Paul is very good. On other things, well, he befuddles me. But he knows his stuff here...

YouTube - Ron Paul on attacking Iran and the Constitution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPD-icGuvAk)

[russtafa]

any war that america gets involved with because they lack the guts to see it till the end.china would win any war it started .china does not have a bunch of hippies waveing banners or they would be dead hippies

[Silcc69]

any war that america gets involved with because they lack the guts to see it till the end.china would win any war it started .china does not have a bunch of hippies waveing banners or they would be dead hippies

They also don't have the type of military equipment we have.

[yosi]

is there such a thing as Legal war? :confused:

innocent poeple are getting killed for REAL in any kind of war..........

[PomonaCA]

is there such a thing as Legal war? :confused:

innocent poeple are getting killed for REAL in any kind of war..........


Can you define 'legal'?

[russtafa]

no war is legal until the victor wins and then it becomes a righteous war

[Ben]

is there such a thing as Legal war? :confused:

innocent poeple are getting killed for REAL in any kind of war..........

As Noam Chomsky has stated: the issue should be morality.... Is it moral to wage wars?

[circ]

I wonder what America, and for that matter the world would be like had Chomsky been elected president for life in the 60's. Anyhow, seeing as how every war ever fought has been about resources and not some high and mighty patriotic bullshit or freedom, I really can't get behind this war thing. Now if we were to be invaded by some evil asshole aliens from Uranus, then maybe. Provided Al Gore, GW and Obama join me in the trenches.

[hippifried]

War's just a stupid way to settle things. It's childishness to an extreme.

Morality is circumstantial. There's no fight until somebody starts one. If a fight escalates to war, it just means there's no grownups in charge.

[russtafa]

wars have always been and shall ever will be

[NYBURBS]

no war is legal until the victor wins and then it becomes a righteous war

Quoted for truth

[trish]

Naw. Wars are declared righteous from the get go. That's how you con people into fighting them for you.

What is an illegal war? All wars are innocent until found guilty. Oops! I meant to say: all wars eradicate innocence and benefit the guilty.

[PomonaCA]

As Noam Chomsky has stated: the issue should be morality.... Is it moral to wage wars?


Ask the slaves in the American Civil War.

After all, that was a righteous war.

[circ]

Had it actually been about slaves, then maybe. As it is, neither Lincoln or the majority of northerners gave a crap about the slaves.

[PomonaCA]

Had it actually been about slaves, then maybe. As it is, neither Lincoln or the majority of northerners gave a crap about the slaves.


Tell that to the slaves who are free this very day.

[trish]

The U.S. Civil War, like all wars, was righteous in the evil sense. It pit family against family, brother against brother and a nation against itself. Firing on Fort Sumter was just South Carolina behaving like a spoiled child. Eventually the slaves were freed by a declaration known as the Emancipation Proclamation, not by a war. In its wake, the war brought hatred, distrust and political/ethnic divides that persist to this day.

[PomonaCA]

The U.S. Civil War, like all wars, was righteous in the evil sense. It pit family against family, brother against brother and a nation against itself. Firing on Fort Sumter was just South Carolina behaving like a spoiled child. Eventually the slaves were freed by a declaration known as the Emancipation Proclamation, not by a war. In its wake, the war brought hatred, distrust and political/ethnic divides that persist to this day.


I was talking to this former slave the other day. He said that the minute the Emancipation Proclamation became law, he walked off the job and didn't get shot or nothin'.

[trish]

The point is that slavery in the U.S. was on its way out. It was already gone in Great Britain and waning in the western world. The U.S. Civil War was quite unnecessary. Slavery would've ended in the U.S. in the mid-nineteenth century regardless of whether a war was fought or not. It's the Proclamation that marks the end of slavery in the U.S. Ask any historian. It's the Proclamation that grants that freedom its legal force and authority. The war means shit.

[PomonaCA]

The point is that slavery in the U.S. was on its way out. It was already gone in Great Britain and waning in the western world. The U.S. Civil War was quite unnecessary. Slavery would've ended in the U.S. in the mid-nineteenth century regardless of whether a war was fought or not. It's the Proclamation that marks the end of slavery in the U.S. Ask any historian. It's the Proclamation that grants that freedom its legal force and authority. The war means shit.


Then I talked to another slave, the very same day. He said that the minute the emancipation proclamation became law, he said he felt free (at least symbolically). Then the slave master cracked the whip on his black ass. When that happened he agreed that there was no need for the American Civil War.

[trish]

Well in point of fact, you didn't talk to any slaves. So how would you know what they did or didn't feel after the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation? The fact is the war was irrelevant; the slaves were destined to be freed regardless. The South decided it wouldn't be done without bloodshed. So there was bloodshed. There needn't have been.

[PomonaCA]

Well in point of fact, you didn't talk to any slaves. So how would you know what they did or didn't feel after the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation? The fact is the war was irrelevant; the slaves were destined to be freed regardless. The South decided it wouldn't be done without bloodshed. So there was bloodshed. There needn't have been.


How can you say I didn't talk to slaves? What exactly is a slave and what qualifies as "talk"?

Point in fact, I did talk to slaves. Just the other day I saw a slave in Compton and he was telling me to go to the Slauson Swap Meet and buy some chrome rims. He also said that the civil war was unnecessary because he just walked off the job and signed up for workers compensation.

[trish]

Well there you have it from the slave's mouth, "the civil war was unnecessary." He's right, quite a few did walk off the job and attempted the long and dangerous routes north. Instead of making jokes, tell us why you think the war was necessary and why the useful ends you claim it accomplished would not have happened anyway. Do you really think that without the Civil War there would still be that kind of open slavery in the U.S. today?

[hippifried]

The Emancipation Proclamation was limited to those States involved in the treasonous uprising aimed at splintering the nation. The "civil war" put down the southern rebellion, to enforce Article I section 10 of the US Constitution. Amendment XIII outlawed slavery in the US.

[trish]

Thank you for some clarity, hippifiried...that's exactly right. The Civil War did put down a treasonous revolt. Once relative calm was restored, the government could get back to the business of expanding and protecting the rights of its people.

[russtafa]

the goverments of the western world are always trying to find a way of keeping their populations down

[trish]

Oh, so that was the reason South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter...Charleston was over populated and Colonel Chestnut took it upon himself to attack the fort, thinking the return cannonade might reduce the population somewhat.

[NYBURBS]

The point is that slavery in the U.S. was on its way out. It was already gone in Great Britain and waning in the western world. The U.S. Civil War was quite unnecessary. Slavery would've ended in the U.S. in the mid-nineteenth century regardless of whether a war was fought or not. It's the Proclamation that marks the end of slavery in the U.S. Ask any historian. It's the Proclamation that grants that freedom its legal force and authority. The war means shit.


The Proclamation didn't end slavery, the 13th Amendment did.

[trish]

Yes, as hippiefried pointed out, the Proclamation only ended [slavery] in the offending States.

[russtafa]

Oh, so that was the reason South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter...Charleston was over populated and Colonel Chestnut took it upon himself to attack the fort, thinking the return cannonade might reduce the population somewhat.
what a good idea for compulsory population reduction

[hippifried]

what a good idea for compulsory population reduction
Isn't it quicker to just slam planes into buildings?

[dana295]

I'm just curious. Place your vote and then tell us what you voted. Be careful, some posters might be intolerant of your opinion.




WARNING!

Intolerance will not be tolerated!

i'm afraid i got here to late to vote or something but i thought i would put my two bits in.

there no such animal as an illegal war that name only exists under international law which in my view is no law and then it only means your have the political sopport of the security counsol for your actions which again really doesn't mean anything at all. but i am curious about one thing . if Alexander or Ceasar where to have been born in this climate would the world have ever remembered there name ? i think the times we live in will be recorded as the false peace before the great storm . cause frankly i dun think we can all hold hands and sing coom-by-ya with out someone going postal and killing the rest of the circle

[russtafa]

ceasar or alexander would be called a fascist aggressor until they won then they are heroes

[hippifried]

Julius Caesar & Alexander were both assholes, & it killed them.

Justification can be made for Alexander's conquest of Persia, since they had invaded his country. Much is made of his extracurricular exploratory adventure, but the reality is that he didn't actually conquer anything in his move east. He established a few forts in what is now Afghanistan, but with no support, they were quickly assimilated. His trek over Hindu Kush followed an already established trade route. He barely made it out of the Indus Valley, & the wounds he received there are what finally did him in. He never made it home. His exploits were impressive, but their significance is way overblown.

Julius was good at getting his legions to kick ass on poorly led barbarians, but when he decided to end the Roman Republic, he didn't make it out of the Senate chamber. He camped his troops just outside the the gates of Rome & demanded to be made dictator for life. They acquiesced, & his last dictatorial tenure lasted less than an hour. That was the beginning of the end. Once Rome became an empire, it started on its long slow decent into oblivion. Pax Romana was a myth.

War is a stupid way to settle things. It never brings lasting stability or peace. Peace & stability come from open trade & freedom of movement. Every time.

[yodajazz]

Ron Paul explicates it pretty well:

YouTube - This War Is Illegal! Ron Paul Afghanistan War Debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyiOGVLfy7w)

Great vid! Finally someone talking publically about the objectives of the enemy. I always questioned the fact, that if the Taliban were able to hold off the Soviet Union, who had a much much shorter supply route, including direct land routes, how could the US defeat them on a permanent basis. Their strategy was just to go home and wait. You cannot distinguish who is a real friend or foe. It's not that difficult for one of them to infiltrate US security, by pretending to be friendly.

But back to the video. When people display intolerance towards Muslims, it helps Al Queda in it's recruitment efforts. See how the people that we are spending billions and billions rose up in protest over the Koran burning controversy. Not to mention that intolerence goes against the values of our Constitution regarding religious freedom. So I am saying, that the strategy of some Republicans to stir up anti Muslim feelings is directly aiding Al Queda. But I'm also disappointed that Democrats are bringing this out. Obama did say that the proposed Koran burning would put out troops in harms way. But the larger issues have not been brought up.

One more point. If the Taliban are able do a guerilla insurgency in their poor nation, what nation could possibly take over the US? Was there any real possibilty: 1. that Saddam was going to attack the US, even if he had weapons? 2. If he did attack the US that some army was going to come in and take over a passive US public? The US, though attacked on 9/11 was never in any other real imminent danger that required us to invade anywhere. People have just been manipulated by fear, for political power.
Right after 9/11 a candle light vigil was held in Terhan,(Iran), attended by over 100,000 people, I believe in support of the US. Who even remembers this? Yet the media chose to focus on a video of about 10 Muslims celebrating (if its even true that they were actually celebrating 9/11). Anger = political power for the "military industrial complex", who has spent trillions of unaccounted for dollars.

Ron Paul is right on, here.

[circ]

No it wasn't celebrating 9/11 at all. It was taken completely out of context, and if I recall, an Israeli news agency or the like was responsible for the initial clip. People like Woodward, Bernstein, Pilger etc are getting rarer and rarer.

[russtafa]

democracy is the weakness of the west and it enables the radicals to wins

[Ben]

Great vid! Finally someone talking publically about the objectives of the enemy. I always questioned the fact, that if the Taliban were able to hold off the Soviet Union, who had a much much shorter supply route, including direct land routes, how could the US defeat them on a permanent basis. Their strategy was just to go home and wait. You cannot distinguish who is a real friend or foe. It's not that difficult for one of them to infiltrate US security, by pretending to be friendly.

But back to the video. When people display intolerance towards Muslims, it helps Al Queda in it's recruitment efforts. See how the people that we are spending billions and billions rose up in protest over the Koran burning controversy. Not to mention that intolerence goes against the values of our Constitution regarding religious freedom. So I am saying, that the strategy of some Republicans to stir up anti Muslim feelings is directly aiding Al Queda. But I'm also disappointed that Democrats are bringing this out. Obama did say that the proposed Koran burning would put out troops in harms way. But the larger issues have not been brought up.

One more point. If the Taliban are able do a guerilla insurgency in their poor nation, what nation could possibly take over the US? Was there any real possibilty: 1. that Saddam was going to attack the US, even if he had weapons? 2. If he did attack the US that some army was going to come in and take over a passive US public? The US, though attacked on 9/11 was never in any other real imminent danger that required us to invade anywhere. People have just been manipulated by fear, for political power.
Right after 9/11 a candle light vigil was held in Terhan,(Iran), attended by over 100,000 people, I believe in support of the US. Who even remembers this? Yet the media chose to focus on a video of about 10 Muslims celebrating (if its even true that they were actually celebrating 9/11). Anger = political power for the "military industrial complex", who has spent trillions of unaccounted for dollars.

Ron Paul is right on, here.

More rationality from Ron Paul:

YouTube - Ron Paul: Most Powerful Army Fighting War Against People Who Have NO Tanks! NO Planes! NO Ships! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlvJSM5dKoY)

YouTube - Ron Paul & Dennis Kucinich Together! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2MzoawIhy8)

[Ben]

On the left Dennis Kucinich:

YouTube - Over A Million Innocent People Perished In A War Based On A Lie! Congressman Dennis Kucinich (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mafHPre-JgU)

On the far left Noam Chomsky (albeit Noam Chomsky refers to himself as a conservative; and for traditional conservatism you gotta go back 100 years where the emphasis was on morality and traditional values):

YouTube - US Terror - Afghanistan, The Taliban & War (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bugC2RvGBQw)

[Ben]

More from Dr. Ron Paul... the sensible and rational one:

YouTube - Ron Paul: Obama Neutralized the Anti-War Left - 9/17/2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Se04tBNusg&feature=related)

[russtafa]

Julius Caesar & Alexander were both assholes, & it killed them.

Justification can be made for Alexander's conquest of Persia, since they had invaded his country. Much is made of his extracurricular exploratory adventure, but the reality is that he didn't actually conquer anything in his move east. He established a few forts in what is now Afghanistan, but with no support, they were quickly assimilated. His trek over Hindu Kush followed an already established trade route. He barely made it out of the Indus Valley, & the wounds he received there are what finally did him in. He never made it home. His exploits were impressive, but their significance is way overblown.

Julius was good at getting his legions to kick ass on poorly led barbarians, but when he decided to end the Roman Republic, he didn't make it out of the Senate chamber. He camped his troops just outside the the gates of Rome & demanded to be made dictator for life. They acquiesced, & his last dictatorial tenure lasted less than an hour. That was the beginning of the end. Once Rome became an empire, it started on its long slow decent into oblivion. Pax Romana was a myth.

War is a stupid way to settle things. It never brings lasting stability or peace. Peace & stability come from open trade & freedom of movement. Every time.
I disagree with your view of Julius Ceasar. Rome helped establish modern western culture and without Ceasar I think the world would be a vastly different place and not for the best.Modern values placed on society at that time would have had that society wiped out.

[trish]

Greece (not Rome) established modern western culture by literally inventing it. Even though Rome conquered Greece, Romans always admired Greek culture, strove to emulate it and even felt a bit inferior in the face of it. Rome did a lot to spread Greek ideas, until the republic got mired in the empire building and lost its vision. If Julius marks the peak of Rome, he also marks the point of descent.

[hippifried]

I disagree with your view of Julius Ceasar. Rome helped establish modern western culture and without Ceasar I think the world would be a vastly different place and not for the best.Modern values placed on society at that time would have had that society wiped out.
The Roman Republic had been around for 500 years before Julius. Yes, they were in disarray, but they'd been in disarray before & pulled out of it. That last batch of dictators before the fall were useless, & Julius had taken his turn previously. He was ineffective too. That's why they'd split up the dictatorship into a triumverate. Julius was just a megalomaniac. What did he accomplish?

The problem with empires is that their strength or weakness, & benevolence or malevolence, is dependent on those same attributes in the emperor. I can't help but wonder if all this "western culture" that so many like to wax poetic about wouldn't have happened centuries faster if the Julian ego hadn't destroyed the republic.

[guyone]

There are those who strive for conquest & progress and those who hide behind cowardice and entropy.

[trish]

... and then there are those who discover new knowledge, invent, further our understanding of the sciences, expand our scientific and artistic horizons and generally increase our informational stores while decreasing entropy.

[Faldur]

http://lifekills.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/entropy.gif?w=465&h=648

[russtafa]

No civiliztion as amounted to anything with out expansion.Without expansion they fade away

[hippifried]

So what's this now?
Conquest is progress?
Expansion is longevity?
War is peace?
Black is white?
Brie is cheddar?
Wine is beer?

Memes Я us.

[circ]

Ya duwd, apparently colonialism was good for those dirty niggers, ragheads and indian scum. In exchange for getting their resources ransacked, women raped and religion forced down their throats with a hot poker they got um.. well shit, I don't know, what exactly did those ancient civilizations get?

[Faldur]

Wine will NEVER be beer..

[russtafa]

Ya duwd, apparently colonialism was good for those dirty niggers, ragheads and indian scum. In exchange for getting their resources ransacked, women raped and religion forced down their throats with a hot poker they got um.. well shit, I don't know, what exactly did those ancient civilizations get?
They got to be around for a thousand years and ad to the knoledge of man kind

[russtafa]

If it were not for the babalonians ,persians,assyrians we would not be where we are to day liveing our comfortable lives