How is the war in Iraq illegal?

Question

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

And how the **** can a war be legal, or illegal?

Hey notme, the executive branch can place the troops or go to war with someone else without congress's approval for (60 or 90 days, I don't remember which). Congress must approve then, so, I don't get what you are saying

Wolf, that goes back to another question of mine, Why are there rules in war?

****! Humanist, if that is the "exact law" than it needs revising because it is not working too well. So in other words, if that law would hold, there would be no wars or fighting what so ever? Than why the **** are there, and the US is the only one in question? I think you need to step away a little bit. You really don't know as much as you think

Answer 1

I knew you'd get an Abu Graib answer. Actually, yes that was a crime and it has been prosecuted. However, the War in Iraq was already happening so it's illogical to state that as the reason it was illegal. Also, Congress did authorize the use of military force. That is how War is declared.

It was not illegal. Member of the UN say it was illegal, because they believe that Resolution 1441 did not authorize military force. The coalition disagreed and said that it did authorize military force. yada yada yada

Answer 2

"International Law Aspects of the Iraq War
and Occupation"
{This section examines the legality of the 2003 US-UK war on Iraq. Shortly before the outbreak of hostilities, UN Secretary General stated that the use of force without Council endorsement would "not be in conformity with the Charter" and many legal experts now describe the US-UK attack as an act of aggression, violating international law. Experts also point to illegalities in the US conduct of the war and violations of the Geneva Conventions by the US-UK of their responsibilities as an occupying power. The section also looks at wartime violations on the Iraqi side.}
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm

International law supercedes U.S. law. But President Bush wants the U.S. to be an imperial power that can violate international law based on its own, selfish motivations. This is why the world hates us and attacks us.

The Republicans still haven't learned this lesson after all these years of imperialism and counter-imperialism.

Answer 3

People who don't understand what the word illeagal means allways trip me out something fierce.

il·le·gal (-lgl)
adj.
1. Prohibited by law.
2. Prohibited by official rules: an illegal pass in football.
3. Unacceptable to or not performable by a computer: an illegal operation.

Most people complain about the Iraq war's legality becuase the decision to go to war wasn't ratified by congress as per the United States articals of war but President Bush orderred the military into action against the laws of his office anyway. Some also complain about our violation of the Geneva Convention, the laws of warfare as it is. Our administration has condoned civilian attacks, interfered with enemy combatants medical forces and used torture against prisoners of war.
There are laws for war, those laws were broken in Iraq

Answer 4

Action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.
I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community. There should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.
From the charter point of view, it was illegal.

Answer 5

First we go in under the auspices of the UN resolution (WMD's) when that proved to be a fallacy. We were obligated to withdraw. Iraq could have sued in the World Court for compensation for damages.

Second we stayed changing the reason to something not approved by UN resolutions. that puts America out on a limb and financially responsible for all that follows.

Our only chance to redeem this debacle is to install a puppet Government that will invite America to stay and relax for a while.


Go big Red Go

Answer 6

According to the ICJ, such “a war waged without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force.” The commission emphasises that Security Council Resolution 1441 does not authorise the use of force. The ICJ standpoint contradicts that of US President Bush, who has continually sought to use this resolution as the basis for war.

The ICJ added: “The competency of the Security Council to authorise the use of force is not unlimited. It may only do so to ‘maintain or restore international peace and security.’” The evidence presented by the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and Spain is “less than convincing,” the ICJ declared.

On March 20 the ICJ once again issued a statement and condemned the attack on Iraq as “a great leap backward in the international rule of law.”

The ICJ was founded in 1952 in Berlin and in its early years concentrated on denouncing breaches of human rights in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The commission later broadened its work beyond the framework of the Cold War, and today consists of 60 experts on international law and human rights from all over the world. It has autonomous national sections in a total of 97 countries with affiliations to legal organisations in 70 countries. It is one of the most prominent international legal organisations.

Many other prominent experts on international law have joined the ICJ in denouncing the aggression against Iraq as illegal. At the centre of their argument is the general ban on force stipulated in the Charter of the United Nations, for which there are just two exceptions: self-defence against an armed attack and a definite decision on the part of the Security Council. Neither of these provisions is applicable to the war against Iraq.

The rule governing self-defence applies only when an enemy attack has already taken place or is imminent. There is no legal sanction for a preventive war. Should a state regard itself as threatened by another a state, although no hostilities have taken place, the threatened state is obliged to call on the Security Council—the only body authorised to legitimise military action in such a case.

Answer 7

each and every physique knew it replaced into unlawful while Blair twisted it and Conservatives supported the conflict at that factor. This replaced into the view of Lib-Dems for all of the time. Lord Goldsmith admitted it replaced into no longer legal at that factor yet he replaced into silenced Few actual politicians like Robin cook dinner, Clair short and Galloway attempt to protest yet all human beings, British fools listened to Blair. yet certainty could be triumphant.

Answer 8

Well the way I look at it, is that Bush was misinformed about a few things. His advisers did not give him the full story. But as always if the Libs and Dem's do not like it, it must be wrong, therefore illegal!

Answer 9

International law states that you can only declare war on a Sovereign State if they attack you or threaten to attack you. Neither I believe was part of the Iraqi's plan.

You despicable 'Moral Majority' would like to forget that whilt America is a great place to be, we are all governed by the commonality of International Law.

I know you take your lead from a President that doesn't believe in the Geneva Conventions or the American Constitution for us Homies, but you must stop yourself from being herded like sheep to the slaughter.

Answer 10

Only the congress can declare war. This would at best be described as a police action.

The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.
James Madison