On Why the Iraq Invasion is Illegal.

[Decker]

Here is the explanation why the invasion of Iraq is illegal. These excerpts are from a statement from a collection of law professors. This is not flaming Bush. Bush deserves to be roundly criticized b/c he is accountable to the entire country for attacking Iraq. Don???t think so? Try to recall that every breath Clinton took was dissected ad nauseum by his critics???I was one of them.



???Our Constitution provides that treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate are part of the Supreme Law of the Land (i.e., the constitution). The United Nations Charter, which our nation wrote in large part, and signed and ratified as a treaty in 1945, provides that???except in response to an armed attack???nations may neither threaten nor engage in warfare without the authorization of the UN Security Council. President Bush swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Yet he advocates a right to ignore our treaty obligations and to visit the scourge of war upon Iraq, with or without the approval of the United Nations.???



Preventive war is illegal. Pre-emptive war as a matter of self-defense, absent an imminent threat, is not legal???for further reading see the Nuremberg Trial, Article VI sec. a. Crimes against Peace.



???. . .the President ignores the fact that a US war, unleashed without the approval of the UN Security Council, against a country that has not attacked the United States, would itself be an unlawful act, in defiance of America???s treaty obligations, and a violation of US and international law.???



Bush???s authorization for bombing Iraq prior to the UN Weapons Inspector's determination whether Iraq had WMDs is evidence that the invasion was Preventive not Pre-emptive. No discernible threat existed from Iraq and the Inspections were showing that, so Bush attacked b/c his legal rationale for pre-emptive war based on self-defense was crumbling. And the UN never authorized the attack. Therefore the invasion was not justified in any legal sense.

 

[007]

 

[Chain Link]

Here is the explanation why the invasion of Iraq is illegal. These excerpts are from a statement from a collection of law professors. This is not flaming Bush. Bush deserves to be roundly criticized b/c he is accountable to the entire country for attacking Iraq. Don???t think so? Try to recall that every breath Clinton took was dissected ad nauseum by his critics???I was one of them.

I hope, and pray to god(s) I dont believe in, that you have not read these statements.

???Our Constitution provides that treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate are part of the Supreme Law of the Land (i.e., the constitution). The United Nations Charter, which our nation wrote in large part, and signed and ratified as a treaty in 1945, provides that???except in response to an armed attack???nations may neither threaten nor engage in warfare without the authorization of the UN Security Council. President Bush swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Yet he advocates a right to ignore our treaty obligations and to visit the scourge of war upon Iraq, with or without the approval of the United Nations.???

#1-
"???except in response to an armed attack???"

Kuwait anybody? perhaps the actual treaty says an armed attack against *US* I dont know, but remember, this was written by professional law professors.

#2-
"President Bush swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Yet he advocates a right to ignore our treaty obligations and to visit the scourge of war upon Iraq, with or without the approval of the United Nations."

Advocating a right to ignore the treaty is not a crime. Advocating most things is not a crime. Except in like China, where you're only allowed to advocate power of the government

#3-
"nations may neither threaten nor engage in warfare without the authorization of the UN Security Council."

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
Its a good start for some light reading. Saddam never met what the requirements the UN agreed on at the deadline. The rest of the UN then laid out their cards and admitted bluff. The US said,"Fuck you" and now our kids are over there dying(almost) alone. Thanks for the statue France, good to see you're good for something.. oh.. and sorry about cutting off your discount oil from that country you have a trade embargo on.

#4
???Our Constitution provides that treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate are part of the Supreme Law of the Land (i.e., the constitution). The United Nations Charter, which our nation wrote in large part, and signed and ratified as a treaty in 1945, provides that???except in response to an armed attack???nations may neither threaten nor engage in warfare without the authorization of the UN Security Council."

Its funny, I could have sworn our constitution guaranteed that "the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Where can I buy my new full auto FAMAS again?
I also want to carry it around town when I go to downtown St Pete.. I would be bearing arms, so thats ok, too.
But whats this about your gun going bye bye forever as evidence, with no compensation if you use it to shoot somebody in defense? Dont I have a right to *keep* and bear arms?

Ill make you a deal, Once you start defending the constitution, Ill let you bitch about people breaching it.

Preventive war is illegal. Pre-emptive war as a matter of self-defense, absent an imminent threat, is not legal???for further reading see the Nuremberg Trial, Article VI sec. a. Crimes against Peace.

Yeah, if we ever have any issues with pre-emptive, or Preventive war the UN is gonna throw a fit... Whats that have to do with anything on subject?

Since Im not a robot, I can guess you're bringing this up because some people have claimed the war was pre emptive.. Wtf? Iraq never threatened us with anything, how in the hell would preemptive come up? Reguardless of claims-

As my measly brain seems to remember, Saddam made an agreement, which included allowing the weapons inspectors in.. The UN Weapons inspectors, whos abilities were continually impeded(Hans Blix said so himself), and then they were kicked out; which alone was breach of treaty and reason enough to continue the war that had stopped only because of the agreement/treaty.)
Sadly, The UN didnt want to do take any action, and it would have been politically disadvantageous for Clinton, so he didnt say anything. "What they kicked them out of Iraq? That sucks, go do a poll to see if we should take action, and.. Get on line 3 and tell them I said to let tha Bin laden guy go."

Bush could have just said,"Well, you fucked up, broke the treaty, here we come." or better yet hit him by suprised and saved some lives. Instead, he got the UN together, and they came to an agreement that Saddam needed to account for his weapons.. Admit where they are so we can take care of them, or show us proof you dissassembled and discarded them. Saddam said,"Heres a list of my weapons! " and the UN was happy.. That list did NOT account for said weapons, and Saddam knew the UN would take that over war.. What he also counted on was that the president was someone like a,"Law professor" who would also eat his shit and say,"Umm, Ice cream!"
Not Bush though, hes a back woods primitive redneck and told Saddam where to shove it.
That was neither pre emptive, nor preventative, it was just the continuation of a war that was put on hold in the hopes that politics could work with a caveman like Saddam.. Politics failed miserably, as did the UN.
As for Kuwait, Despite having done no research and it being out of my time, Im sure the UN agreed on liberating them.. One could bitch perhaps that invading Iraq was not part of the deal... Yeah, the US has so much money lying around, we can just let dictators invade countries, then we'll liberate them again, and all will be well..

???. . .the President ignores the fact that a US war, unleashed without the approval of the UN Security Council, against a country that has not attacked the United States, would itself be an unlawful act, in defiance of America???s treaty obligations, and a violation of US and international law.???

#1
Yeah he probably does ignore that since hes tired of hearing idiots tell him that even though we have not so. As we did in fact aquire authorization from the UN security council. Whether they want to hone up to it, and admit it is another story.

Bush???s authorization for bombing Iraq prior to the UN Weapons Inspector's determination whether Iraq had WMDs is evidence that the invasion was Preventive not Pre-emptive. No discernible threat existed from Iraq and the Inspections were showing that, so Bush attacked b/c his legal rationale for pre-emptive war based on self-defense was crumbling. And the UN never authorized the attack. Therefore the invasion was not justified in any legal sense.

#1
"Bush???s authorization for bombing Iraq prior to the UN Weapons Inspector's determination whether Iraq had WMDs"

Yeah.. Those inspections were working so well between those damn flat times, engines breaking, and the fact that for the last few years they had to be done from LONDON, as the inspectors werent allowed into the country.

#2
"No discernible threat existed from Iraq and the Inspections were showing that"
:Shock: Do we have a smiley for :shock:? We should, I need it. I cant believe that we didnt find anything between completely random incidents stopping/slowing the Inspectors from arriving at the sites who were expecting them, and the fact that that.. well, yes. The inspections were probably showing they didnt find anything even suspicious in Iraq from England, with a beer, on a couch, in front of a TV, where the inspections had to take place.

#3
"so Bush attacked b/c his legal rationale for pre-emptive war based on self-defense was crumbling."

Uh.. yeah. Suprisingly enough, it actually doesnt matter what that idiot says, as long as there is an actually reason(such as breach of treaty, or maybe failure to comply with UN security council resolution 1441) We could also sit around and recall the good ole times when he accused them of training Al queida, and we found Al Quieda training camps in the US.. I lol'd there too
And Bush didnt attack anyone, he did order it though.

#4
"And the UN never authorized the attack."

This is the third time thats been said.. I guess if you say it enough somebody else will believe it.

#5
"Therefore the invasion was not justified in any legal sense."
http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
Failure to comply






But I really just wasted my time writing this.. I could have whored several hundred posts by now..

 

[tryintogetbig]

we can do whatever we want WE ARE THE FUCKING US OF A



















seriously though you don't have to agree with what is decide for the country as a whole, but you should support or elected president, and congresses decision. Espically support our troops who give there lives and have given there lives fo rour country

 

[Du]

Is this a bodybuilding / fitness site? If not, can someone give me a link to where that site has gone?

 

[bio-chem]

and yet can we deny that with sadam out of power the world is safer.

im really not up to date so much on the un. i think there are too many problems with it. but was iraq a member of the UN? what are the requirements to non-Un countries? is the UN then a higher power then our own federal government? for instance if the UN does not authorize a war when we as a people feel it is necessary. and by that i mean the congress we elected are we then to submit to UN rule?

 

[themamasan]

Is this a bodybuilding / fitness site? If not, can someone give me a link to where that site has gone?

This is open chat. Go to the main page and you will find the "training" section and "diet nutrion" section and so on. It seems like you would know that with that many posts on record.

If you were opposing the topic at hand, then it was a pretty lame attempt.

 

[maniclion]

George W. Bush isn't a bodybuilder so fuck him with an olympic sized barbell.

 

[Decker]

I hope, and pray to god(s) I dont believe in, that you have not read these statements

I did read them and those statemenst were in laymens terminology.

#1-
"???except in response to an armed attack???"
Kuwait anybody? perhaps the actual treaty says an armed attack against *US* I dont know, but remember, this was written by professional law professors.

Justifed defense of another country under attack is not the issue here. What decade are you referring to anyway?

#2-
"President Bush swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Yet he advocates a right to ignore our treaty obligations and to visit the scourge of war upon Iraq, with or without the approval of the United Nations."

Advocating a right to ignore the treaty is not a crime. Advocating most things is not a crime. Except in like China, where you're only allowed to advocate power of the government .

You play with semantics. Bush's crime is attacking a country w/out adequate justification. Like China?, hell that sounds like the current administration's line.
The rest of your contentions are based on a misunderstanding of Resolution 1441. Here's an excerpt explaining why.

First of all, 1441 lays out the process to be followed. Any alleged Iraqi violations are to be reported to the Security Council, which will then "convene immediately ... in order to consider the situation." Only the Council can then decide what to do next.

Secondly, 1441 does not authorize the use of "all necessary means"--the only language recognized as authorizing force. The U.S. and U.K. tried to get this phrase into the resolution, but other Security Council members rejected it. The replacement language, "serious consequences," is not, and was not intended to be, synonymous.

Third, after 1441 was adopted, every Security Council member--including the U.S. and U.K.--affirmed that it did not provide for "automaticity"--the automatic resort to force. It was this very issue over which the Council struggled for weeks. It's simply fraudulent to now claim that 1441 incorporated automaticity.

As U.S. ambassador John Negroponte said at the time, 1441 contained "no hidden triggers and no automaticity with the use of force. The procedure to be followed was laid out in the resolution."

Fourth, any Security Council authorization for the use of force must be unambiguous, to avoid exactly the present disagreement. Clearly, 1441 is not.

Fifth, only the Security Council itself can authorize the use of force under Article 42 of the Charter. The Council cannot cede that decision to individual member states.

And sixth, an authorization for the use of force always specifies the intended objective of that force. U.N. resolutions do not empower nations to use force for whatever reasons they wish. Even if 1441 did authorize the use of force to enter Iraq and detect and destroy Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, that would not authorize the stated--and quite different--purpose of this invasion: the removal of the present government from power.

In fact, Security Council resolutions cannot authorize "regime change." The U.N. Charter gives the Council no such power, and even the Council may act only within the limitations of the Charter.

#4???Our Constitution provides that treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate are part of the Supreme Law of the Land (i.e., the constitution). The United Nations Charter, which our nation wrote in large part, and signed and ratified as a treaty in 1945, provides that???except in response to an armed attack???nations may neither threaten nor engage in warfare without the authorization of the UN Security Council."

Ill make you a deal, Once you start defending the constitution, Ill let you bitch about people breaching it..

I'm not sure what to make of this...apples and oranges? The Constitution is not a perfect document, but by your rationale, 'if everything's not perfect, then to hell with it all." Sorry, but that's not how the legal system works.

Yeah, if we ever have any issues with pre-emptive, or Preventive war the UN is gonna throw a fit... Whats that have to do with anything on subject?..

Reread my posting re 1441 and you'll see how ridiculous this statement is.

Politics failed miserably, as did the UN.

'Failed miserably'? Where are the WMDs. 'Let dictators invade countries'...again what decade are you referring to? Thank you George Bush for saving all our lives from a broken two bit dictatorship.

As we did in fact aquire authorization from the UN security council. Whether they want to hone up to it, and admit it is another story.

Just don't like reality? Well then create your own 'facts'. No authorization was given.

Your contention that the inspections of Iraq were being carried out in London is interesting considering the inspectors were on the ground in Iraq and had to be flown out before Bush started the bombings. So what if tests had to be completed in London. How does that invalidate the results?

#4
"And the UN never authorized the attack."

This is the third time thats been said.. I guess if you say it enough somebody else will believe it.
#5
"Therefore the invasion was not justified in any legal sense."
http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
Failure to comply .

Yes Chainlink is right and the law professors are wrong and I'm wrong too...I'm also a lawyer. Please reread the comments re 1441.

But I really just wasted my time writing this.. I could have whored several hundred posts by now..

Save your time then. Nowhere in your rambling dissemblance did you come close to refuting anything I wrote.

 

[Decker]

and yet can we deny that with sadam out of power the world is safer.

im really not up to date so much on the un. i think there are too many problems with it. but was iraq a member of the UN? what are the requirements to non-Un countries? is the UN then a higher power then our own federal government? for instance if the UN does not authorize a war when we as a people feel it is necessary. and by that i mean the congress we elected are we then to submit to UN rule?

I agree w/ what your saying to an extent. The world is now a more dangerous place due to the instability of the region and the explosion of terrorist's ranks. But rules are rules and laws are laws. Like it or not, an excellent case is made that the law was violated. Please reread my original post to understand the chain of legality in executing a justifiable military response b/c the answer to many of your questions happens to be 'yes and no.'

 

[Pepper]

 

[Du]

Well said.

 

[Decker]

You guys really do not care that Bush is a likely criminal and, at least, an incompetent president.

My allegiance is to the constitution and this country...not to a political party or partisan politics. I fear that few of you share that ideal.

I like to debate these things but since you equate the illegal invasion of a foreign country--with the attendant murder and destruction on a grand scale--to be beating a dead horse, well then I guess it's over. History is over.

Now for something more in line with contemporary tastes:

 

[DOMS]

Decker, I'm usually on the other side of all our discussions and they sometimes turn vitriolic, but given your previous post, I'm on your side.

 

[bio-chem]

I agree w/ what your saying to an extent. The world is now a more dangerous place due to the instability of the region and the explosion of terrorist's ranks. But rules are rules and laws are laws. Like it or not, an excellent case is made that the law was violated. Please reread my original post to understand the chain of legality in executing a justifiable military response b/c the answer to many of your questions happens to be 'yes and no.'

my questions were intended to be rhetorical. while the language may indicate that the answers may be yes and no, i was hoping to get those reading this to think a little bit about the situation. whatever the legal technicalities may present, any interpretation that places the US into a subserviant role or takes away from our sovierenty in any way to the point that it prevents us from protecting ourselves is ridiculous.
now i am going to hear about how we had faulty information that led us to war. hey hind sight is 20/20. our president had information he felt was reliable and congress agreed. i for one am happy they took the initiative and acted upon it. i feel second guessing them on this point is asinine. we are there now and must do what we can to ensure a positive outcome. i for one am still optimistic for a resolution to the situation that benifits both the iraqi people and the region, helping to keep us in greater safety.

 

[maxpro2]

Is this a bodybuilding / fitness site? If not, can someone give me a link to where that site has gone?

http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3

Here you go.....

 

[Decker]

Decker, I'm usually on the other side of all our discussions and they sometimes turn vitriolic, but given your previous post, I'm on your side.

Thank you. The reason I joined this site was b/c of people like you who don't just 'talk the talk' about being critically open minded but actually show it. Well, that and the weightlifting stuff.

You've diffused me w/ one sentence....hahaha

It's difficult to communicate the complexity of these things we talk about in this format. I wish I had more patience for it.

 

[DOMS]

Thank you. The reason I joined this site was b/c of people like you who don't just 'talk the talk' about being critically open minded but actually show it. Well, that and the weightlifting stuff.

You've diffused me w/ one sentence....hahaha

It's difficult to communicate the complexity of these things we talk about in this format. I wish I had more patience for it.

Thanks for the compliment!

The same goes for you: you actually try to back up your position with logic, which puts you ahead of 95% of the people I've seen debating politics on this site, or just about any other site for that matter.

*sigh* I kinda miss bonecrusher. He couldn't take my harsh criticism, but he had some good debating skills.

On a side note: do you work out too or just do the Open Chat thing?

 

[Decker]

i for one am happy they took the initiative and acted upon it. i feel second guessing them on this point is asinine. we are there now and must do what we can to ensure a positive outcome. i for one am still optimistic for a resolution to the situation that benifits both the iraqi people and the region, helping to keep us in greater safety.

This flies in the face of our country honoring its historical foundation as a nation based on laws and not individual opinion and whim. So you are essentially saying, 'forget the crime, deal with the aftermath.' That is unacceptable. Deal with the crime and manage the aftermath is more like it. As noted, worldwide terrorism is on the rise 400%--not all due to the mishandling of Iraq, but it's big player so we are not safer b/c of the invasion and occupation.

 

[Decker]

On a side note: do you work out too or just do the Open Chat thing?

I do work out. I'm 6'1" 215#. Currently I BP about 370, deadlift 425, and squat about 300 (I w/o at home and have no squat rack plus I've always been weak in that area). I intended to post pics but I got sidetracked this summer b/c my wife got sick and I've been sporadic with my w/os....i.e., I don't feel I'm in the best shape I could be for posting a pic yet.

 

[DOMS]

Damn you're built. I only bench around 175 and squat around 220. I'm 220 lbs at 5'10" (I've got wide shoulders).

I workout at home too. I bought my squat rack used for just $70. I bought it at Play It Again Sports. You have one in your area. Unfortunately, they don't have any used squat racks on hand. You can put yourself on a call list if one comes in though.

 

[Decker]

Damn you're built. I only bench around 175 and squat around 220. I'm 220 lbs at 5'10" (I've got wide shoulders).

I workout at home too. I bought my squat rack used for just $70. I bought it at Play It Again Sports. You have one in your area. Unfortunately, they don't have any used squat racks on hand. You can put yourself on a call list if one comes in though.

Yeah, I couldn't imagine w/o at a gym w/ other people around. Thanks for the info about the squat rack. I was going to buy one earlier this summer but then everything came to a standstill b/c of my wife's condition. Earlier this year, after doing the bulk of my w/os on a shitty Sears bench for years, I bought a parabody bench and all new olympic weights. I love the balance of the olympic weights and the size of the bar--very comfortable on the hands--but I hate the bench. The bench wobbles...I guess that ensures that I have solid base when BPing.

 

[DOMS]

I bought my first bench from Sears also. The damn welds started to break! I purchased a new one (I forget the make/model) that it 100% stable and has post at the end with both a leg extension and a preacher bench add-on for $115. Check around, you can find some good stuff out there for a good price.

Sadly, you don't have much of a choice for sporting equipment in your area.

AMERICAS FITNESS WAREHOUSE INCORPORATED, carries two lines of benches:

Tuff Stuff and York. The York site doesn't seem to be working correctly. The guy at AFWI was friendly and helpful though. AFWI doesn't have their own website.

NORTH EASTERN WISCONSIN FITNESS EQUIPMENT does have a website. They have a new squat rack for $150, but it doesn't list the max weight for this product. They have a wide selection of benches, but I can't find one similar to my own.

Also, I hope your wife is feeling better!

 

[Decker]

I bought my first bench from Sears also. The damn welds started to break! I purchased a new one (I forget the make/model) that it 100% stable and has post at the end with both a leg extension and a preacher bench add-on for $115. Check around, you can find some good stuff out there for a good price.

Sadly, you don't have much of a choice for sporting equipment in your area.

AMERICAS FITNESS WAREHOUSE INCORPORATED, carries two lines of benches:

Tuff Stuff and York. The York site doesn't seem to be working correctly. The guy at AFWI was friendly and helpful though. AFWI doesn't have their own website.

NORTH EASTERN WISCONSIN FITNESS EQUIPMENT does have a website. They have a new squat rack for $150, but it doesn't list the max weight for this product. They have a wide selection of benches, but I can't find one similar to my own.

Also, I hope your wife is feeling better!

Thanks for all the information, I'll look into it. And thank you for the kind words about my wife, she needs all the support and luck she can get to make it.

 

[DOMS]

Glad I could help.

One of the best (and free) things you can do to help someone who is ill is to make sure that they get plenty of (indirect) sunlight. It's a psychological thing. Sunlight has a positive effect on humans. Doctors have leaned that a person's mindset can greatly help if they have a positive outlook.

Good luck man!

 

[bio-chem]

This flies in the face of our country honoring its historical foundation as a nation based on laws and not individual opinion and whim. So you are essentially saying, 'forget the crime, deal with the aftermath.' That is unacceptable. Deal with the crime and manage the aftermath is more like it. As noted, worldwide terrorism is on the rise 400%--not all due to the mishandling of Iraq, but it's big player so we are not safer b/c of the invasion and occupation.

im not saying forgett the crime. im saying i disagree with your interpretation of the law stating a crime occured. and if a crime did happen to pin it on bush is a waste. congress voted to go to war and it is the american people who voted for both bush and the members of congress. so if you really want to charge someone with a crime i suggest you start with the american people as a voting consenses. the truth is a disagree with any interpretation of law that places the US in a subserviant role to the UN. an if the UN wishes to do something about it, let them place economic sanctions on us. i mean hell it worked with sadam in iraq right?

 

[Chain Link]

#1-
"???except in response to an armed attack???"

Kuwait anybody? perhaps the actual treaty says an armed attack against *US* I dont know, but remember, this was written by professional law professors.

Justified defense of another country under attack is not the issue here. What decade are you referring to anyway?

Early 90's, Desert Storm. After reading more(Yeah I just deleted my previous response after reading 1441, 678, some of 687*Its long!*, and 660), The cease fire treaty with Iraq had many requirements of which Iraq never met.

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq???s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

And then Several years later kicking out inspectors, in direct violation of the requirements of the cease fire treaty would thus void the cease fire treaty. Im curious if the UN ever passed a resolution *removing* authorization to take Saddam out? As a Cease fire treaty obviously means at some point we had permission to go, and as he breached it, then we be back to where we were with authorization..

Then again I guess only the UN can decide the treaty is void. Until then they can breach all they want. Sucks, but legally I guess thats all there is to it.

#2-
"President Bush swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Yet he advocates a right to ignore our treaty obligations and to visit the scourge of war upon Iraq, with or without the approval of the United Nations."

Advocating a right to ignore the treaty is not a crime. Advocating most things is not a crime. Except in like China, where you're only allowed to advocate power of the government

You play with semantics. Bush's crime is attacking a country w/out adequate justification. Like China?, hell that sounds like the current administration's line.

I dont mean to play with semantics. While that quote does prove Bush is a great example of a flip flopper, Advocating something is not a crime. I was merely pointing out the failure of that line to make any argument that Bush was a criminal, or engaging in anything illegal.

The rest of your contentions are based on a misunderstanding of Resolution 1441. Here's an excerpt explaining why.

First of all, 1441 lays out the process to be followed. Any alleged Iraqi violations are to be reported to the Security Council, which will then "convene immediately ... in order to consider the situation." Only the Council can then decide what to do next.

Secondly, 1441 does not authorize the use of "all necessary means"--the only language recognized as authorizing force. The U.S. and U.K. tried to get this phrase into the resolution, but other Security Council members rejected it. The replacement language, "serious consequences," is not, and was not intended to be, synonymous.

Third, after 1441 was adopted, every Security Council member--including the U.S. and U.K.--affirmed that it did not provide for "automaticity"--the automatic resort to force. It was this very issue over which the Council struggled for weeks. It's simply fraudulent to now claim that 1441 incorporated automaticity.

As U.S. ambassador John Negroponte said at the time, 1441 contained "no hidden triggers and no automaticity with the use of force. The procedure to be followed was laid out in the resolution."

Fourth, any Security Council authorization for the use of force must be unambiguous, to avoid exactly the present disagreement. Clearly, 1441 is not.

Fifth, only the Security Council itself can authorize the use of force under Article 42 of the Charter. The Council cannot cede that decision to individual member states.

And sixth, an authorization for the use of force always specifies the intended objective of that force. U.N. resolutions do not empower nations to use force for whatever reasons they wish. Even if 1441 did authorize the use of force to enter Iraq and detect and destroy Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, that would not authorize the stated--and quite different--purpose of this invasion: the removal of the present government from power.

In fact, Security Council resolutions cannot authorize "regime change." The U.N. Charter gives the Council no such power, and even the Council may act only within the limitations of the Charter.

If thats true, and Ill assume it is, than my ignorance betrays me. I had always taken it that 1441 authorized use of force in event of noncompliance from Iraq.. Perhaps I should read that page myself *Edit* I did now

#4
???Our Constitution provides that treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate are part of the Supreme Law of the Land (i.e., the constitution). The United Nations Charter, which our nation wrote in large part, and signed and ratified as a treaty in 1945, provides that???except in response to an armed attack???nations may neither threaten nor engage in warfare without the authorization of the UN Security Council."

Its funny, I could have sworn our constitution guaranteed that "the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Where can I buy my new full auto FAMAS again?
I also want to carry it around town when I go to downtown St Pete.. I would be bearing arms, so thats ok, too.
But whats this about your gun going bye bye forever as evidence, with no compensation if you use it to shoot somebody in defense? Dont I have a right to *keep* and bear arms?

Ill make you a deal, Once you start defending the constitution, Ill let you bitch about people breaching it.

I'm not sure what to make of this...apples and oranges? The Constitution is not a perfect document, but by your rationale, 'if everything's not perfect, then to hell with it all." Sorry, but that's not how the legal system works.

Thats not what Im saying at all. In fact Id like the 2nd to be rewritten and fixed as I have a feeling our founding fathers didnt understand what a Nuclear ICBM is, and that in technicality they were authorizing everyone to have them
But "if everything's not perfect, then to hell with it all." is not my rationale. Its the rationale of these people(As your political affiliation seems to be Democrat, I assume(d) yours as well) is that Ammending the constitution reasonably would then leave a 2nd amendment thats less objectionable; and therefore harder if not impossible to remove for a total firearms ban later. So instead of pushing a movement to update and fix the 2nd, these people(Primarily Democrats) continually push new laws in that are completely unconstitutional. (and they get upheld because if SCOTUS says they're unconstitutional, then they open the floodgates for everyone to own whatever bomb(s) apache helicopters, F16 ect that they want until the 2nd is fixed(And removing it would be impossible in the current political setting.)

As I said, Im assuming you agree with this pushing of further firearms laws, thats why I bring it up when you claim Bush to be breaching the constitution.. My way of saying,"Hypocrite!"

Also as I wrote this I was still confidently backed by R 1441 which you seemed to have bunked. If my Kuwait theory falls through then Im going to have to admit; you're right in the fact that the war is illegal unless someone comes up with something stating otherwise. But with Bush's failed *other* reasons ranging from Al Quieda links, to,"Weve found WMDs, we have proof they're there" which was followed up by,"Oooops, bad intelligence" Then it became an issue of liberating the Iraqi people.. I dont have much confidence in that theory anymore *edit* and now having read 1441, my Kuwait theory is pretty dead

'Failed miserably'? Where are the WMDs.

I never claimed Iraq had them, I said they failed to meet the requirements of 1441, which I believed to authorize use of force in event of such an outcome. To the best of my knowledge Iraq did supply documents to the UN, however they were insufficient in meeting the requirements of 1441.

Just don't like reality? Well then create your own 'facts'. No authorization was given.

Hey , I got those facts from Rush Limbaugh fair and square.

Your contention that the inspections of Iraq were being carried out in London is interesting considering the inspectors were on the ground in Iraq and had to be flown out before Bush started the bombings. So what if tests had to be completed in London. How does that invalidate the results?

They had to be let back in before they could be flown out. That they were kicked out was a good sign that inspections werent working very well.. And while they were sitting at home, having tea time, and watching Manchester United, the inspections were probably not working very well.
Hans Blix himself said that even while they were there, far too many incidents came up accidentally delaying them from reaching the inspections site who knew they were coming beforehand.

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998

And they didnt *Have* to be flown out, I mean.. really. Plenty of Americans went over to Iraq as human shields... damn, that was funny.. I miss the good ole days


My sole defense for Bush has been that despite all the bs reasons he threw out, they were all just supplementary, as 1441 was a binding resolution authorizing use of force. Well, I just read through 1441 after reading your post, and..

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

*noting the lack of authorizing anything*

You're completely right.


...


.....

Damn it! I hate being wrong. But thats why I choose to debate people on things like this.. when two people disagree one is bound to be wrong, and I learned something.. Thanks for posting this article and taking the time to counter me

In all rational, reasonable ways of thinking, after 10 years of non compliance with a ceasefire treaty based on Iraq's compliance, we should have invaded their asses.. I mean.. The nerve!

But as the UN security council did not authorize it, and as we are supposed to be bound by their authorization.. Id have to agree that the war in Iraq is illegal...

Sadly, the only remaining reason up until now that I could say OK to Bush with the war was that I thought we had Clearance by the UN to do so, and the other members Just did not want to live up to R 1441.
All I can say is I can no longer support Bush in going to war

While I think Iraq in 10 years will be a much better place, and a good influence to the Middle East, thats not justification for war.. If it was I might support a war on Mexico.

Joking aside, Good thread
And...

Thanks!

 

[Chain Link]

congress voted to go to war and it is the american people who voted for both bush and the members of congress. so if you really want to charge someone with a crime i suggest you start with the american people as a voting consenses.

Congress didnt vote to,"Go to war"(Correct me if Im wrong) But instead authorized Bush to do so.. Theres a big difference. By the constitution as Decker stated we either have to be attacked, attacking preemptively, or have the authorization of the UN Security council. As we werent attacked by Iraq, and have yet to find any evidence that they were in fact planning it, We would need the UN's Approval first. What Congress did is authorize Bush to engage the US in war if the United Nations were to authorize us to do so. At least thats how I see it.. I dont think Congress would vote,"Yes, ignore the constitution! And fuck the UN too, Lets go go go!"
Also, When Bush was elected in 2000 nobody was putting their ballot in thinking well just maybe well get a large scale terrorist attack next year, and then Bush will use that to bring up Iraq, and maybe we can attack them May 20, 2003! I mean, it wasnt an issue.
As for congress authorizing him.. I think the majority of the US would agree that if a situation came about where the US was attacked, going to be attacked, or a situation was bad enough that the UN of all people would authorize it- then they would certainly agree congress should authorize it too. They probably did not take into consideration that the candidate may perhaps decide to take Congress' authorization and ignore all the other rules.

the truth is a disagree with any interpretation of law that places the US in a subserviant role to the UN. an if the UN wishes to do something about it, let them place economic sanctions on us. i mean hell it worked with sadam in iraq right?

Among other things, This also bothers me in knowing that the UN then could also agree on a total firearms ban which would probably supersede the US' 2nd ammendment right to keep and bear arms..

 

[Chain Link]

Is this a bodybuilding / fitness site? If not, can someone give me a link to where that site has gone?

Oh god, another bodybuilder looking for BB forums. Seems like we get them every day.. Google seach must be broken or something

 

[bio-chem]

Congress didnt vote to,"Go to war"(Correct me if Im wrong) But instead authorized Bush to do so.. Theres a big difference. By the constitution as Decker stated we either have to be attacked, attacking preemptively, or have the authorization of the UN Security council. As we werent attacked by Iraq, and have yet to find any evidence that they were in fact planning it, We would need the UN's Approval first. What Congress did is authorize Bush to engage the US in war if the United Nations were to authorize us to do so. At least thats how I see it.. I dont think Congress would vote,"Yes, ignore the constitution! And fuck the UN too, Lets go go go!"
Also, When Bush was elected in 2000 nobody was putting their ballot in thinking well just maybe well get a large scale terrorist attack next year, and then Bush will use that to bring up Iraq, and maybe we can attack them May 20, 2003! I mean, it wasnt an issue.
As for congress authorizing him.. I think the majority of the US would agree that if a situation came about where the US was attacked, going to be attacked, or a situation was bad enough that the UN of all people would authorize it- then they would certainly agree congress should authorize it too. They probably did not take into consideration that the candidate may perhaps decide to take Congress' authorization and ignore all the other rules.



Among other things, This also bothers me in knowing that the UN then could also agree on a total firearms ban which would probably supersede the US' 2nd ammendment right to keep and bear arms..

in 2000 americans did not vote for that, yet in 2004 we voted after the fact and still chose the same guy. that says a lot. had americans really been overwhelmingly agaist the war in iraq, believeing Bush went against the constitution when he did so why would they choose to re-elect him? when they voted to authorize us going to war i dont remember them puting the stipulation that the un had to authorize it first.

again i would just like to state that from one legalistic interpretation it may appear as if bush broke the law, i however do not subscribe to that interpretation. the original post spoke of ambiguity in resolution 1440, stating there is more than one point of view legally in which this could be interpreted. i dont feel the war in iraq is illegal.