What are the legal requirements according to U.S. law in order to declare war and invade a country??

Question

As always when you post such a question, there are several brainwashed bush loving freaks with limited knowledged and zero respect for democracy that will either try to silence the person writting the question, or make a blanket statement about terrorist and 9-11. What im seeking here is an intelligent, educated response that explains what is required in order to legally make a case for war. well we cant go to war because we dont like another country, or because they are ruthless dictators. So what are the only LEGAL reasons the U.S. can invade a country and go to war? If later it is discovered that the legal requirements for going to war were not met, then has a crime been commited? And if this is the case, should we accept simple reasons, like oops, we made a mistake? We jail our citizens here for breaking the law, why not government officials? Other countries do. Shouldnt the same rules they make for us apply to them? Ever told the IRS oops, made a mistake?

ah yes, congress. well if you ask most anyone in congress what their thoughts on it now are, they will tell you they trusted the presidents statements as being true. they will tell you they were lied to as well as the american people. do some of you work for fox? cuz that wasnt even a clever spin of the question.......

RKO- below, thanks for showing me that there is still intelligent life here on yahoo!!! great, honest, answer.......

Answer 1

Only congress can declare war. However, that being said any president can commit troops to any action that he deems in the interest of America. He has 90 days to sell this to Congress who will vote to approve or disapprove the deployment. The current military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have both been approve by Congress. The only way that the troops can be pulled out is when the President pulls them out or Congress repeals the law they put into affect that allows the action to go through.

No crime has been committed in the case of war in Iraq because Congress has approved the action through law. The Dem's who are in control of Congress as of today must repeal that law and Bush refuse to pull troops out before a crime has been committed.

I find it interesting that you attack the "Bush loving freaks" and claim they have no knowledge, yet your question has an underlying message hoping to have Bush impeached, convicted and sent to prison. You seem to fall into the realm of a Pelosi/Mertha loving freak who has no knowledge of what is required to meet the requirement of high crimes and misdemeanors. Bush has not violated the law in any way when it comes to U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Answer 2

Well, its a fundamental right of any nation to be able to wage war. Of course, in today's world, such an act might bring about serious consequences at the hands of the international community and any country seeking to wage war must consider that.

There is no letter of law really. In the United States, as long as Congress doesn't reject the President's decision he can go ahead.

As far as the international community, any attempt to wage war likely would have to go through the United Nations and a resolution would have to be passed. If a country skipped that step, the other member states would likely react.

I'm going to assume you are talking about the Iraq war because the war on Afghanistan was heavily supported by the international community and Afghanistan had been seized by a rebel group anyway so no real government was in place.

With respect to the Iraq war though, all laws were adhered to. Congress gave its go ahead and more importantly, so did the U.N.

Resolution 1441, which plainly stated that if Iraq did not completely disarm, they would face consequences at the hands of the United States, was passed by the international community.

Saddam Hussein did not comply with the disarmement which gave legal right for the United States to impose consequences which included invasion.

Nice try though.

A+ for effort son.

Answer 3

Well, you've made this a biased question. Anyone that supports Bush you are automatically going to go against.
The REAL answer to your question is this:

Only Congress can declare war, not the President.

The President can send troops wherever he wants whenever he wants. There have been laws in the past that limit the number of days the President can keep troops in a location without the support of Congress.

We like the approval of the UN, but it is not necessary.
There is nothing in writing nor are there certain requirements that must be fulfilled in order to invade or start an attack.

The leader of an invading Army can be tried for war crimes like anyone else, but again they have to be crimes as stated in the Geneva Convention.

Answer 4

Technically, the only legal requirement is that the President orders the military action.

If Congress disagrees, they have the right to try and impeach him.

In the case of Iraq, we had numerous UN Security Council Resolutions which taken alone would justify removing Saddam from power. Add that to the War Resolution Act Congress passed authorizing Bush to use force, and he is well within any definition of legal. Even if the WMD intel was wrong.

By the way, read the Resolution. It lays out the reasons for this War very well.

Answer 5

It may be very viable you've got a legitimate factor right here notably in the event you seem again in our early years as we went to battle with Natives amongst others. We just about have constructed to wherein we are actually via drive. However, I wonder whether we could be ready to have this unfastened flowing dialogue if it hadn't been that approach? We are a waring individuals. If you do not believe so ask your self why we spend such a lot of our nation's price range on protection. But as soon as once more, I'm no longer definite I could wish it any extraordinary. Just a suggestion.

Answer 6

Hmmm the president can send troops anywhere for any reason only Congress can declare war. Yep that's about It. we tend to Like to get UN support on it most of the recent times but not a requirement under US law.

Answer 7

Article I, Section 8, #11 of the U.S. Constitution, clearly states: "Congress hall have power.......to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water..."
Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution clearly states:
"The President, Vice-President and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors..."
Note that it sasy "SHALL", not "might" or "should" or "can".
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and all 535 members of the most incompetent, cowardly, arrogant, contemptible, evil, corrupt Republican-led Congress in U.S. history [which turned its back and allowed George Bush to attack a sovereign nation that in no way threatened, provoked or attacked the United States and violate our laws and ignore our Constitution] should be tried in an international tribunal for high crimes against humanity, and - if convicted - should hang just as they arranged to hang Hussein.
The Bush administration had every intention of invading Iraq from the very first day it took office for three really 'lame' reasons:
1) The Bush family had a personal vendetta against Hussein ever since the days of Desert Storm when George H.W. Bush was criticized, ridiculed and humiliated for 'not finishing the job' and ousting Saddam at that time;
2) Dick Cheney wanted all that OIL so his Exxon-Mobil buddies could get richer and richer and richer feeding America's addiction to cheap, easily-accessible foreign OIL;
3) Ever since World War II, the giant U.S. military-industrial complex (which Eisenhower warned us about) saw how profitable 'war' could be. So it bought up all the politicians, hired pricey lobbyists, and formed special interest groups to encourage and promote more 'war'. Thus, we became entangled in the Korean Conflict; the Cuban Missile Crisis; the Cold War; Vietnam and Desert Storm. A new 'war' was necessary to boost the sagging profits of corporations such as McDonnell-Douglass, Lockheed-Martin and Sikorsky, not to mention those two newest government contractors, the Carlyle Group and Halliburton, both of whom have direct ties to the Bush-Cheney White House.
Surely Satan has reserved a special oil-soaked, blood-stained corner of Hell for these cretins who have accepted no responsibility for the deaths of 675,000 Iraqis and 3,500 U.S. soldiers. This was was illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral because it conned American troops into believing
they were bringing democracy to Iraq and they were fighting the 'evil empire' of terrorism. In truth, this 'war' has been - from its very first day - all about OIL and WAR PROFITEERING. -RKO- 06/06/07

Answer 8

All they need to do is decide they want to go to war, for whatever reason. They could declare war on Lithuania because it's Wednesday if they so chose. Why do you need legal reasons to go to war, when war usually involves massive killing or use of force, which is against human rights?

Answer 9

You need a damn good reason to go to war. Pearl harbor, Vietnam war, and 9/11 were few of the reasons to go to war. I hope we don't see any more reasons to start another war.

Answer 10

I think I recall that we invaded Granada, Bosnia, South Korean, Viet Nam, Kuwait, Germany twice - is that what you mean? Are, or you only concerned about hating Bush?