Actually Roy has no clue and his response proves it, but it is true the war is illegal.
The Constitution (Article ONe, Section 8) says the power to declare war is Congress's. By all rights, the President screwed up badly in NOT forwarding a request for a formal declaration of war to the House for debate and and up or down vote. I think he would have gotten both, but both Congress and he failed miserably in not following the law as written. There would have been no way any of them could have gotten away with all this whining IF they had done their jobs.
Anyway, it is true its an illegal war. Presidents have always had the right (forget the War Powers Act) to use US forces for rescues, suppressing pirates, and combat short missions. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq fit those descriptions.
and the rest of you can have your oppinons but I don't have to agree and I have my oppinion your wrong the Americans aren't the one killing millions of inoccent people.The A mericans are trying to make a better life for those peopel,and we did that job but were still trying to make it a little better then ours!!!!
Can't anyone give me a legal reason why the war is "illegal"?
Everyone knows that this is not a declared war. Congress did give the President the authority to use force.
Ron....Scott McClellan is a non-issue (he's on a get-rich-quick gig). As for Internatiional Law and War Crimes, I found nothing conclusive. Just another "wolf" cry.
I'm disappointed, though I figured they wouldn't show, that some of the biggest "illegal war" criers have ignored this article.
I can give the legitimate reason why this Invasion and occupation is illegal . . . it's NOT, by definition, a war. However . . . I need your word that absent profanity I will not be deleted. Also . . . a definition of profanity. Otherwise, I'll NOT waste my time (again). Mod. Pubic-less KNOWS this is illegal and why and it has nothing to do with anything I have read here yet!
As I said at the beginning, it's a simple question.
If international law applies, HOW? State your references. Don't hide behind blanket statements.
Doyle... I'm sure you can express your thoughts without the use of expletives but to give you an idea, Tony S. is walking a thin line.
Tony...it isn't the point of legality I am asking about. You spout a lot of words but are ignoring the title question...Why is the war in Iraq illegal?
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
There is an old saying, 'It isn't illeagal unless you get caught'. OK. This is your chance to "catch" the culprits. Answering the question with a question is, as Mickey says, avoiding the question.
Whoa! SNAP. That's it Joseph. This nation has, in violation of of Article II of the United Nations Charter, invaded a soveriegn nation without UN authorization. That makes the invasion (it's, by definition NOT a war) and subsequent occupation illegal under international law and by extension also illegal under constitutional and federal law.
Very cool. I've never cared about legal and illegal when it comes to war. Both kinds are usually stupid, brutal, and don't solve anything. (OK, there have been "good" wars.)
I suspect that various nutjobs and yo yos will be quick to point out that signatories to the UN Charter are exempt from following the charter when their national capital is Washington, DC.
"I suspect that various nutjobs and yo yos will be quick to point out that signatories to the UN Charter are exempt from following the charter when their national capital is Washington, DC"
yeah...that'll basically sum it up, Nippy. But, that's the law. Pretty simple.
"I suspect that various nutjobs and yo yos will be quick to point out that signatories to the UN Charter are exempt from following the charter when their national capital is Washington, DC. "
BZZZZZT! Wrong! The US Constitution is QUITE clear on this. First, our sovereignty is intact since NOTHING can pass in the UN without our approval. We are one of the few countries that can veto anything we disagree with.
Second, and I quote:
Article VI This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Congress, which SOME claim allowed this action, has NO authority to violate the US Constitution.
On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
but: (from an article by Bruce Ackerman, professor of law and political science at Yale, written in 2002) According to judicial precedents, treaties like the United Nations Charter can be trumped only by subsequent legislation. The Charter would lose its status as governing domestic law if Congress explicitly authorizes the president to make war in violation of its terms.
A narrowly written Congressional authorization for action against Iraq, however, would not violate the United Nations Charter and would not change the legal status quo. (Congress authorizing use of force was not in violation of the Constitution. Rather, it seemed to be on conformance with)
then there's the question of "criminality of the war": In February 2006, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the lead prosecutor for the International Criminal Court, reported that he had received 240 separate communications regarding the legality of the war, many of which concerned British participation in the invasion. In a letter addressed to the complainants, Mr. Moreno-Ocampo explained that he could only consider issues related to conduct during the war and not to its underlying legality as a possible crime of aggression because no provision had yet been adopted which "defines the crime and sets out the conditions under which the Court may exercise jurisdiction with respect to it." In a March 2007 interview with the Sunday Telegraph, Moreno-Ocampo encouraged Iraq to sign up with the court so that it could bring cases related to alleged war crimes. Luis Moreno-Ocampo also stated that his extensive investigation found no evidence for any war crime or any crime against humanity.
"The Charter would lose its status as governing domestic law if Congress explicitly authorizes the president to make war in violation of its terms. "
Congress simply cannot authorize a violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. There is absolutely NO wiggle room on this one and to think so shows serious flaws in your understanding of constitutional law.
"A narrowly written Congressional authorization for action against Iraq, however, would not violate the United Nations Charter and would not change the legal status quo." That's absurd. Article II of the UN Charter is QUITE clear. You saying something doesn't make it true.
"Congress authorizing use of force was not in violation of the Constitution." More loose talk with no meaning. It's a violation of the very constitution they swore to protect and uphold.
Forget your International Criminal Court stuff . . . Neither Iraq NOR the US has agreed to their jurisdiction so clearly he has no standing. Why do you suppose he asked Iraq to sign up (with their American installed government) and will be considering the British? We have violated international, constitutional and federal law and so long as we have a UN veto there's not a damn thing they can do about it. Lack of recourse doesn't make our actions legal, ethical or justified . . . and we STILL can do something about it ourselves.
Incidentally I cited published sources from original documents and you responded with NO citations and opinions. None of them indicate we're not in violation of international law.
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
Please select the part of the post you are reporting.
Please select why you are reporting this content.
Please enter a description.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 44
The Constitution (Article ONe, Section 8) says the power to declare war is Congress's. By all rights, the President screwed up badly in NOT forwarding a request for a formal declaration of war to the House for debate and and up or down vote. I think he would have gotten both, but both Congress and he failed miserably in not following the law as written. There would have been no way any of them could have gotten away with all this whining IF they had done their jobs.
Anyway, it is true its an illegal war. Presidents have always had the right (forget the War Powers Act) to use US forces for rescues, suppressing pirates, and combat short missions. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq fit those descriptions.
Congress has given the authorization for the use of force. That has been a sufficent qualification upheld by courts since Vietnam
The group: We Comment Back
Everyone knows that this is not a declared war. Congress did give the President the authority to use force.
Ron....Scott McClellan is a non-issue (he's on a get-rich-quick gig). As for Internatiional Law and War Crimes, I found nothing conclusive. Just another "wolf" cry.
I'm disappointed, though I figured they wouldn't show, that some of the biggest "illegal war" criers have ignored this article.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
It must be those damn Australians.
Don't forget the coalition of the willing included TWO whole people from Iceland! No one's sure when they left but they did. :)
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
If international law applies, HOW? State your references. Don't hide behind blanket statements.
Doyle... I'm sure you can express your thoughts without the use of expletives but to give you an idea, Tony S. is walking a thin line.
Tony...it isn't the point of legality I am asking about. You spout a lot of words but are ignoring the title question...Why is the war in Iraq illegal?
Tony S,
Good job avoiding the question.
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
I suspect that various nutjobs and yo yos will be quick to point out that signatories to the UN Charter are exempt from following the charter when their national capital is Washington, DC.
yeah...that'll basically sum it up, Nippy. But, that's the law. Pretty simple.
BZZZZZT! Wrong! The US Constitution is QUITE clear on this. First, our sovereignty is intact since NOTHING can pass in the UN without our approval. We are one of the few countries that can veto anything we disagree with.
Second, and I quote:
Article VI
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Congress, which SOME claim allowed this action, has NO authority to violate the US Constitution.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
but:
(from an article by Bruce Ackerman, professor of law and political science at Yale, written in 2002) According to judicial precedents, treaties like the United Nations Charter can be trumped only by subsequent legislation. The Charter would lose its status as governing domestic law if Congress explicitly authorizes the president to make war in violation of its terms.
A narrowly written Congressional authorization for action against Iraq, however, would not violate the United Nations Charter and would not change the legal status quo. (Congress authorizing use of force was not in violation of the Constitution. Rather, it seemed to be on conformance with)
then there's the question of "criminality of the war":
In February 2006, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the lead prosecutor for the International Criminal Court, reported that he had received 240 separate communications regarding the legality of the war, many of which concerned British participation in the invasion. In a letter addressed to the complainants, Mr. Moreno-Ocampo explained that he could only consider issues related to conduct during the war and not to its underlying legality as a possible crime of aggression because no provision had yet been adopted which "defines the crime and sets out the conditions under which the Court may exercise jurisdiction with respect to it." In a March 2007 interview with the Sunday Telegraph, Moreno-Ocampo encouraged Iraq to sign up with the court so that it could bring cases related to alleged war crimes. Luis Moreno-Ocampo also stated that his extensive investigation found no evidence for any war crime or any crime against humanity.
Congress simply cannot authorize a violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. There is absolutely NO wiggle room on this one and to think so shows serious flaws in your understanding of constitutional law.
"A narrowly written Congressional authorization for action against Iraq, however, would not violate the United Nations Charter and would not change the legal status quo."
That's absurd. Article II of the UN Charter is QUITE clear. You saying something doesn't make it true.
"Congress authorizing use of force was not in violation of the Constitution."
More loose talk with no meaning. It's a violation of the very constitution they swore to protect and uphold.
Forget your International Criminal Court stuff . . . Neither Iraq NOR the US has agreed to their jurisdiction so clearly he has no standing. Why do you suppose he asked Iraq to sign up (with their American installed government) and will be considering the British? We have violated international, constitutional and federal law and so long as we have a UN veto there's not a damn thing they can do about it. Lack of recourse doesn't make our actions legal, ethical or justified . . . and we STILL can do something about it ourselves.
Incidentally I cited published sources from original documents and you responded with NO citations and opinions. None of them indicate we're not in violation of international law.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Well, he did a pretty crappy job. I found that in about 10 minutes.
Doyle provided some useful info.
Come back and leave a comment every day, Tony. Your repetitive rants roll off like water on a duck's back. I enjoy the chuckles.
BRING IT ON!!!