Is the Iraq war illegal? (1 Viewer)

[kal-el]

Below is the Congressional authorization for force that Bush used to launch the invasion of Iraq. However, if you read Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited, and appear to be created by the Pentagon Office at the heart of the latest Israeli spy scandal.

Therefore, under United States law, the war in Iraq is illegal. And We The People are not under any legal or moral obligation to pay for it, let alone let our kids be killed in it.

If anything, Bush and his pro-war Neocon buddies should be required to reimburse the treasury for their private use of government property. I leave the question of civil lawsuits for wrongful deaths to the families of the dead American service people, and the live service people still suffering from depleted uranium.


Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)

HJ 114 EH

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;



www.whatreallyhappened.com/iraqwar

 

[Billo_Really]

Iraq war is completely illegal. This is the first time I have read this resolution. And it is total bullshit!

Congress JOINT RESOLUTION H. J. RES. 114:
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

They are refering to resolutions 578 and 1441. Which the UN has said the US had no legal justification to resurrect them for Iraq war.

Congress JOINT RESOLUTION H. J. RES. 114:
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Hans Blix final report says they didn't have the capability for making any WMD's since 1992.

Congress JOINT RESOLUTION H. J. RES. 114:
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

The Iraqi defector is the guy they call "Curveball" which the British government says could not be trusted. This was told to Bush, but he blew it off and ran with the story anyway.

Congress JOINT RESOLUTION H. J. RES. 114:
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Well, UN Inspectors were back after this and had to get out this last time because Bush said he couldn't guarantee their safety.

Congress JOINT RESOLUTION H. J. RES. 114:
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

This is in violation of Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Congress JOINT RESOLUTION H. J. RES. 114:
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

None of this has any validity. Unless you believe Bush's lies.

Congress JOINT RESOLUTION H. J. RES. 114:
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Now this is true.

Congress JOINT RESOLUTION H. J. RES. 114:
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Against the Iranians, yes, against the Kurds, maybe no.

Congress JOINT RESOLUTION H. J. RES. 114:
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

They had every right to shoot at us, since this was actually the start of the war by Bush, under the cover of no-fly zone enforcement. Which is an impeachable offense.

 

[cnredd]

[Moderator mode]

No poll...moved to "War on Terror"

[/Moderator mode]

 

[kal-el]

Right from the start of this bloody campaign, I always knew it was illegal. Even though the media did their job of keeping the lie going, the evidence of Bush's wrongdoings and lies were always apparent. Any yahoo who knows how to type can find all the facts on the internet.

In regards to this war, Bush dosen't have a plan to leave, because he dosen't intent to. Lies just build up and snowball, and you have to keep lying to justify the original lie. I mean sure, Saddam was a bad guy, but hell, not everybody in this world has a halo on their head. We back alot of these "evil" dictators, and one can find pics on the net showing Rummy and Saddam holding hands.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

If you base what is illegal, on international law, then clearly the War in Iraq is illegal. But whether or not it is immoral or moral to invade a country to get rid of dictator is a whole other kettle fish. Especially if the U.S supported him in the first place.

 

[Occam's Butter Knife]

Section 3 paragraph B:

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

The bold emphasis is mine. Bush was not required to provide any absolute proof of anything, only his determination that these conditions existed.

As to the entire question of legality in the Iraq war it can be easily argued that resolution 1441 was sufficient to revive resolution 678. 678 is the one that authorized the UN to use force to remove Iraq's army from Kuwait. Resolution 687 (the cease fire) only suspended the autorization to use force in 678. Now look at this from 687:

H

32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;

It is a fact that Saddam supported Ansar al-Islam (a branch of al-Queda) for the purpose of terrorizing the Kurds and that Saddam paid thousands of dollars of blood money to families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Then there is the humanity issue with mass graves to bear witness, the same issue we used to justify Kosovo that has not been challenged on an international level. So why challenge this issue any differently, unless perhaps you are getting some good kickbacks from the oil-for-food program?

The UN needs to go back to being an organization that manages treaties and stop trying to be a global government by using the ICC for a world court and Kyoto Protocol for a world tax.

 

[teacher]

I always knew it was illegal. Even though the media did their job of keeping the lie going, the evidence of Bush's wrongdoings and lies were always apparent.

And what a very narrow portion of the "media" it is that you must listen to, view, and read. Not to pick on you but, ah, who the hell am I kidding, I'm damn sure picking on you. Live in a cave do you? How the fuc*k can you be smart enough to spell and yet say the media only supported W. Love that sig kal-el, but.......

 

[kal-el]

And what a very narrow portion of the "media" it is that you must listen to, view, and read. Not to pick on you but, ah, who the hell am I kidding, I'm damn sure picking on you. Live in a cave do you? How the fuc*k can you be smart enough to spell and yet say the media only supported W. Love that sig kal-el, but.......

Directly after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, no one wanted to be labeled "unpatriotic" or other nonsensical things. The fact is W wrapped everything in red, white, and blue, so even if it was deceiving, one could not question it. (Patriot Act)

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Below is the Congressional authorization for force that Bush used to launch the invasion of Iraq. However, if you read Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited, and appear to be created by the Pentagon Office at the heart of the latest Israeli spy scandal.

Therefore, under United States law, the war in Iraq is illegal. And We The People are not under any legal or moral obligation to pay for it, let alone let our kids be killed in it.

If anything, Bush and his pro-war Neocon buddies should be required to reimburse the treasury for their private use of government property. I leave the question of civil lawsuits for wrongful deaths to the families of the dead American service people, and the live service people still suffering from depleted uranium.


Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)

HJ 114 EH

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;



www.whatreallyhappened.com/iraqwar

Please show me were it says anything has to be proven. These are a list of reasons thought to be fact. There is no burden of prof required. So again it is legal

 

[DivineComedy]

Iraq war is completely illegal. This is the first time I have read this resolution.

I would love to point out the intent of John Kerry to commit a deliberate act of betrayal by pointing out what John Kerry said on October 9, 2002, where he lamented the DEFEAT of the Biden-Lugar amendment specifically limiting the authorization to disarming Saddam of his WMD, and its relevance to the legality of the war, but with that stamp of ignorance on your forehead it would be a waste of time and casting pearls before...

Read and weep:

“Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,
1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so;
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;” http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/20030220UNRes678.asp

“Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,” http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/

What part of those laws that did you not understand? Don’t tell me that you have read them. Learn to read the law, when it comes up, and maybe you can remove that stamp of ignorance from your forehead.


*****

“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,” http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/

“H
32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;
I
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);” http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

“March 5, 2003: Bus bombing in Haifa. U.S. citizens killed: Abigail Leitel, 14, who was born in Lebanon, New Hampshire.” http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/usvictims.html

“The suicide bomber was 20 years old, a student of the Hebron Polytechnic University (from which a large number of suicide bombers have emerged) and a member of the Hamas terrorist organization.” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/861590/posts

March 13, 2003: “(CBS) Saddam Hussein has distributed $260,000 to 26 families of Palestinians killed in 29 months of fighting with Israel, including a $10,000 check to the family of a Hamas suicide bomber.

In a packed banquet hall on Wednesday, the families came one-by-one to receive their $10,000 checks. A large banner said: ‘The Arab Baath Party Welcomes the Families of the Martyrs for the Distribution of Blessings of Saddam Hussein.’“ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/world/main543981.shtml

“SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

 

[kal-el]

Please show me were it says anything has to be proven. These are a list of reasons thought to be fact. There is no burden of prof required. So again it is legal

Chaos, if you read Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited, and appear to be created by the Pentagon Office at the heart of the latest Israeli spy scandal.

 

[MSgt]

Same crap, different thread. After this thread gets beat up, someone will start another thread and all of the same crap will come out as if some grand new enlightenment will be brought that will sway the masses, but in the end it will be the same information.

 

[nkgupta80]

yeah... the evidencedoesnt do ****... you're eitherfor or against and thats how itll be...

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Di...Com...
What part of those laws that did you not understand? Don’t tell me that you have read them. Learn to read the law, when it comes up, and maybe you can remove that stamp of ignorance from your forehead.

Do you want to talk smack, or debate? It doesn't matter to me.

The UN has already said the US did not have the right to ressurrect 678 which was regarding the invasion of Kuwait, not the invasion of Iraq. Since this does not apply, why do you try to still factor it in the equation?

Its not because your ignorant.

 

[kal-el]

yeah... the evidencedoesnt do ****... you're eitherfor or against and thats how itll be...

No, if you even have 1 shred of intellect, you would realize that this "war", if you wanna call it, is indeed wrong. As the likes of Rush Limbaugh forcibly spoofeed you, and you lap it all up with a smile, you will continue to be for this bloodshed. It's like he's holding your hand, telling you what to think or something. You just spit everything he says back out like a ****ing parrot. The truth is there were no Iraq-Al Qeada links, Iraq wasn't behind 9/11, Sadamm was'nt a threat to his neighbors, or us,and it's clearly obvious he didn't have WMDs. It's funny, Bushed claimed Iraq was in violation of countless UN resolutions, but he himself violated the articles of the UN charter.

 

[DivineComedy]

Do you want to talk smack, or debate? It doesn't matter to me.

The UN has already said the US did not have the right to ressurrect 678 which was regarding the invasion of Kuwait, not the invasion of Iraq. Since this does not apply, why do you try to still factor it in the equation?

Its not because your ignorant.

I prefer debate and valid arguments.

*****

You’re not reading the law. The biased propaganda of an individual that considers the killing of Hamas leaders an “extrajudicial killing,” and considers terrorist Hamas to be a viable negotiating partner, is not the United Nations. So the United Nations has not said that “the US did not have the right to ressurrect 678,” as the United Nations did recall all of the relevant resolutions and therefore “resurrect” them.

The Secretary-General‘s biased opinion and propaganda, especially in the light of the Oil for Food scandal, has no weight in law.

I will add:

“The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,” http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/

And since you did not read it all:

“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,
Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,” http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/

The operative phases are that “a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,” and that there be “full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991),” I repeat “without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under 687:”

“H 32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;
I 33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);” http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

Since Resolution 1441 recalled all of resolution 687, and “the obligations on Iraq contained therein,” and Iraq did not fully and immediately comply, therefore no further resolution was required under the law. We were authorized by the phase “Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions.” Since no resolution was ever passed by the United Nations that said that Iraq was in compliance with UN resolution 687, therefore the governing standard in LAW was only that “Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991),” consequently we were authorized when Iraq failed this “final opportunity to comply.”

I repeat:

March 13, 2003: “(CBS) Saddam Hussein has distributed $260,000 to 26 families of Palestinians killed in 29 months of fighting with Israel, including a $10,000 check to the family of a Hamas suicide bomber.

In a packed banquet hall on Wednesday, the families came one-by-one to receive their $10,000 checks. A large banner said: ‘The Arab Baath Party Welcomes the Families of the Martyrs for the Distribution of Blessings of Saddam Hussein.’“ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in543981.shtml

“SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021002-2.html

The war was legal, and what we and the Iraqis need now is help to stop the terrorists that are deliberately murdering Iraqis and attacking shrines in violation of the rules of warfare.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by DivineComedy:
I prefer debate and valid arguments.

I just want to say that it is quite refreshing reading a post from someone that has taken the time to present a logical pragmatic arguement while keeping the emotional rhetoric to a minimum. I would like to thank you for that.

With that being said,

Originally posted by DivineComedy:
You’re not reading the law. The biased propaganda of an individual that considers the killing of Hamas leaders an “extrajudicial killing,” and considers terrorist Hamas to be a viable negotiating partner, is not the United Nations. So the United Nations has not said that “the US did not have the right to ressurrect 678,” as the United Nations did recall all of the relevant resolutions and therefore “resurrect” them.

I respectfully disagree with the inference that the "...biased propaganda of an individual...is not the United Nations" because he is, afterall, the Secretary General of that organization. If anyone can make a statement on behalf of that organization, it is Kofi Annan. However, I do agree his opinion is biased. I also disagree with his position on Hamas. But his opinion on the position on the UN, carry's far more weight than yours or mine.

Originally posted by DivineComedy:
The Secretary-General‘s biased opinion and propaganda, especially in the light of the Oil for Food scandal, has no weight in law.

Although, I have no arguement here, I will say as far as OFF, the US is not without blame. As a permanent Security Council member, we new everything that was going on and just looked the other way. And what the Security Council does, is the law.

Originally posted by DivineComedy:
I will add:

“The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,” http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/

And since you did not read it all:

“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,
Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,” http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/

The operative phases are that “a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,” and that there be “full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991),” I repeat “without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under 687:”

“H 32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;

I 33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);” http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

This is all about Kuwait!

Originally posted by DivineComedy:
Since Resolution 1441 recalled all of resolution 687, and “the obligations on Iraq contained therein,” and Iraq did not fully and immediately comply, therefore no further resolution was required under the law

Could you please explain what you based this conclusion on?

Originally posted by DivineComedy:
We were authorized by the phase “Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions.” Since no resolution was ever passed by the United Nations that said that Iraq was in compliance with UN resolution 687,

There was no resolution that says they weren't.

Originally posted by DivineComedy:
...therefore the governing standard in LAW was only that “Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991),” consequently we were authorized when Iraq failed this “final opportunity to comply.”

No one in the UN, with the exception of the US and UK, have said it was legal to apply 687 or 678 to the Iraq situation now. They were specifically for the incident with Kuwait. In fact, the entire world, not just Kofi, has condemned us regarding the Iraqi occupation.

Originally posted by DivineComedy:
I repeat:

March 13, 2003: “(CBS) Saddam Hussein has distributed $260,000 to 26 families of Palestinians killed in 29 months of fighting with Israel, including a $10,000 check to the family of a Hamas suicide bomber.

In a packed banquet hall on Wednesday, the families came one-by-one to receive their $10,000 checks. A large banner said: ‘The Arab Baath Party Welcomes the Families of the Martyrs for the Distribution of Blessings of Saddam Hussein.’“ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in543981.shtml

In light of this statement, would you say that Lee Harvey Oswalds' wife is guilty of assassinating Kennedy? Are the family members of these psycho's terrorists as well? Just because my uncle is an asshole, does that make me one? You don't half to answer that last one.

Originally posted by DivineComedy:
“SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021002-2.html

There are only two legal ways a country can attack another country, and we had neither. We were not attacked by Iraq. And we did not have UN Security Council authorization to do so. And Iraq was no threat to anyone. We made sure of that in the first Persian Gulf war by bombing them back to the stone-age. They barely have running water and electricity. They only have 8-12 hours of power per day now! If you look at pictures of that country, it looks like your taking a step back in time to a bunch of sheep-herders. Now we come in and drop more ordinance than all the bombs combined from WWll! Your OK with that?

Originally posted by DivineComedy:
The war was legal, and what we and the Iraqis need now is help to stop the terrorists that are deliberately murdering Iraqis and attacking shrines in violation of the rules of warfare.

I do not agree the war is legal, but I respect your opinion that it is. I want to stop all the killing on both sides. But I hope you realize that we do our share of attacking mosques. Were not the great satin they make us out to be, but we certainly do not have halo's on our heads either.

 

[teacher]

Do you want to talk smack, or debate?

teacher-I prefer debate, followed by smack. It's a good thing.

The UN has already said

teacher-The UN? The UN? Good lord all mighty. Tell me you don't give credence to what those lying, cheating, break their own resolutions, caught with their hand in the cookie jar, only reason for now being is to shake down the US for cash, Saddam bed partners, French loving, bastion of corruption says.

That's just weak Billo.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by.......you figure it out:

Do you want to talk smack, or debate?

teacher-I prefer debate, followed by smack. It's a good thing.

The UN has already said

teacher-The UN? The UN? Good lord all mighty. Tell me you don't give credence to what those lying, cheating, break their own resolutions, caught with their hand in the cookie jar, only reason for now being is to shake down the US for cash, Saddam bed partners, French loving, bastion of corruption says.

That's just weak Billo.

This gives me an idea for a newsletter. Think I'll call it, "The Billo Weakly". This weeks topic, "If your gonna be for Bush, you gotta use a Condy!"

 

[teacher]

Originally posted by.......you figure it out:
This gives me an idea for a newsletter. Think I'll call it, "The Billo Weakly". This weeks topic, "If your gonna be for Bush, you gotta use a Condy!"

The humor (yes I chuckled) gives your sidestep a pass, by the hair of you chinny, chin, chin.

One of these days forehead, one of these days, pow, zoom, to the moon.

Did you see Vague stick up (kinda) for me on the "Remember 9/11" thread?

Maybe the bit part in the PD soap opera makes him feel all warm and fuzzy towards me.

Nah.

He hates me like poison.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by teacher:
He hates me like poison.

Would that be the rock group Poison or the arsenic and old lace type?

 

[teacher]

Would that be the rock group Poison or the arsenic and old lace type?

Don't talk dirty to me.

Answer-The secretions of one of those little frogs in the Amazon.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by teacher:
Don't talk dirty to me.

Talk slower.....wait.....let me get comfortable.....OK......go ahead......

Originally posted by teacher:
Answer-The secretions of one of those little frogs in the Amazon

I forgot what the question was. I dig that little monkey in the lower right. What's his name? Spankey? I bet he's up for a good froggin'.

 

[DivineComedy]

I just want to say that it is quite refreshing reading a post from someone that has taken the time to present a logical pragmatic arguement while keeping the emotional rhetoric to a minimum. I would like to thank you for that.

With that being said,

I respectfully disagree with the inference that the "...biased propaganda of an individual...is not the United Nations" because he is, afterall, the Secretary General of that organization. If anyone can make a statement on behalf of that organization, it is Kofi Annan. However, I do agree his opinion is biased. I also disagree with his position on Hamas. But his opinion on the position on the UN, carry's far more weight than yours or mine.

Although, I have no arguement here, I will say as far as OFF, the US is not without blame. As a permanent Security Council member, we new everything that was going on and just looked the other way. And what the Security Council does, is the law.

This is all about Kuwait!

Could you please explain what you based this conclusion on?

There was no resolution that says they weren't.

No one in the UN, with the exception of the US and UK, have said it was legal to apply 687 or 678 to the Iraq situation now. They were specifically for the incident with Kuwait. In fact, the entire world, not just Kofi, has condemned us regarding the Iraqi occupation.

In light of this statement, would you say that Lee Harvey Oswalds' wife is guilty of assassinating Kennedy? Are the family members of these psycho's terrorists as well? Just because my uncle is an asshole, does that make me one? You don't half to answer that last one.

There are only two legal ways a country can attack another country, and we had neither. We were not attacked by Iraq. And we did not have UN Security Council authorization to do so. And Iraq was no threat to anyone. We made sure of that in the first Persian Gulf war by bombing them back to the stone-age. They barely have running water and electricity. They only have 8-12 hours of power per day now! If you look at pictures of that country, it looks like your taking a step back in time to a bunch of sheep-herders. Now we come in and drop more ordinance than all the bombs combined from WWll! Your OK with that?

I do not agree the war is legal, but I respect your opinion that it is. I want to stop all the killing on both sides. But I hope you realize that we do our share of attacking mosques. Were not the great satin they make us out to be, but we certainly do not have halo's on our heads either.

It is war so I expect emotion to run as high, and do find myself unable at times to be civil. I especially get upset when I have to repeat myself or explain something due to an inadequate reading comprehension, it can mean that further debate is a waste of time. Now, I have to go do that in another topic.

There are two other legal ways to attack a country:

1) Use Article 51 to defend yourself, like from terrorist sponsoring nations that have biased supporters with a veto power in the United Nations (of tyrants too).

2) Respond to the breaking of a cease-fire, like resolution 687.

Our troops only attack Mosques when they are being used to attack our troops, as our troops follow the rules of warfare or they are subject to getting punished by the command structure and nation above them. If any American (including a soldier) has any evidence of a specific crime they are obligated to bring it to the attention of the appropriate authorities, or they should stop spreading propaganda.

If Lee Harvey Oswalds' wife had told her husband that she would give money to his favorite charity only IF he was killed for assassinating Kennedy, then yes she would have been guilty just like Saddam was guilty of sponsoring terrorism. Saddam was not giving money to the Palestinian authority to use for fighting according to the rules of warfare, but he was supporting the terrorists in violation of the CEASE-FIRE. The military barracks of the Palestinian terrorists should be destroyed…oops, they wear civilian clothes to carry out attacks in violation of the rules of warfare, so their barracks also look like civilian dwellings, too bad.

Kofi Annan’s opinion on the position of the United Nations (of tyrants too) has more weight for propaganda in the saloons and barbershops of the world, but the July 4, 1776 principle of “consent of the governed” is why we must have a veto power, so in reality We the People have greater weight and power as to the legality of the war than he does.

You are right the US is not without blame in the Oil for Food situation. But, considering the numbers of those murdered, between 500,000 (UNICEF) to one million (Saddam/Osama), due to the intransigence and aggressiveness and attitude of Saddam’s Iraq prior to George W. Bush taking office, surrender to reasonably expected more of the same could not be an option. Surrendering to Saddam’s “attitude and analysis,” support for terrorism, and repression of his people, could never respect the United Nation’s purposes to do things with respect to equal rights and self-determinations of peoples.

I am not OK with all the lukewarm “liberal” arts of war, enough is enough!

Soothing or expelling what we relate,
Truth lies in life as in debates:
Order to accept the tyrants or not?
Playing with torrents or dribbling snot,
We cry for blood in drops or lots.
Arm it or stop it, the stomach rules,
Ready to throw-up for other fools.
Never to finish the liberal rants,
Over with war the conservative chants:
War forever or kill the tyrants!

{That was penned in response to “liberals” saying that containment was working.}

Iraq could have complied with the cease-fire obligation not to “commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism,” far easier than it could have complied with the WMD disarmament provisions.

This was NOT all about Kuwait! It is about the purposes of the United Nations! Remember Gorby saying, “that is far enough,” well it was not far enough!

Remember what the law deplored:

“Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population…” http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/

The purposes of the United Nations would be made irrelevant, in light of the obligations contained in UN resolution 687, if we had ended the sanctions and appeased Iraq by surrendering to their sponsoring of terrorism. The veto powers work both ways, and there could be no resolution removing the obligations on Iraq contained in the cease-fire resolution 687 unless we agreed to it. Simply not having another resolution does not remove the conditions of CEASE-FIRE!

Only the removal of the threat to the peace that was manifest in the terrorist supporting Saddam regime, which had usurped power from the sovereign Iraqi people and continued to repress the Iraqi people, could bring Iraq into compliance with UN resolutions and the purposes of the United Nations Charter. The war was legal, and those that are against it are not fulfilling the purposes of the United Nations.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.htm

PS. I once emailed your favorite O’really about a comment he made about a National Sales Tax. I was certain that he did not know about the valid old argument in British Parliament with regard to landed estates and the consumer paying a disproportionate share of the taxes. Understanding that, I do not know if that forehead speaks well in a debate.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
...which had usurped power from the sovereign Iraqi people and continued to repress the Iraqi people,

I can very easily prove this statement, that infers we care about the Iraqi people, is bullshit.

But first, a few words from people in the know:

The Occupation of Iraq: What International Law Requires Now

International lawyers around the world advised their governments on March 19 that the US-led invasion of Iraq was in violation of fundamental international law.[1]

Two features distinguish this invasion: Iraq has considerably more assets outside US control than has been the case in the past, and the US policy behind the invasion, the doctrine of preemptive force, challenges the international legal system in a way the US has never before attempted.

These features will create greater demands on states and organizations to consider their legal obligations in reacting to the invasion. Current obligations include the following: First, if states wish to preserve the current restrictions on the use of force, they will not condone the invasion, even while they condemn Saddam Hussein’s criminal acts and failure to comply with UN Security Council mandates. Second, the United Nations can legitimately administer Iraq, not the representatives of an unlawful occupying power. For the UN to administer, the Security Council must authorize it to do so in a new resolution. Ideally, the Council would also authorize a major peacekeeping and police force from states that did not take part in the war. The precedents for these steps are found in the examples of Cambodia, Bosnia, East Timor, Kosovo, and Afghanistan.

Pending a handover to the UN - or if the US and UK refuse to hand over the administration - the US and UK will remain the belligerent occupiers of Iraq. As such, their conduct is governed principally by the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Regulations.[2] (Yes, the same law Secretary Rumsfeld recently invoked on behalf of coalition forces.) This law requires that the occupying power maintain law and order. HR, art. 43. It requires the occupant to secure the basic human needs of the population. GCIV arts. 55 & 56. Drafters of the Geneva Conventions expected occupations to end within 12 months of the close of hostilities. GCIV, art. 6. Local law may not be changed unless necessary for compelling security reasons (HR, art. 43, GCIV, art. 64) or if it violates international human rights standards-which most agree means eliminating the Iraqi death penalty. Occupants are required to manage resources under the law of usufruct. HR, art. 55. That law calls for managing resources so as to prevent waste. If profits accrue from such management, they may be used to pay for the occupying power’s costs for local administration. An occupying power may not enrich itself from the occupied territory’s resources. With particular relevance to Iraq, the United States has taken the position in the past that an occupant may not award new oil development concessions.[3]

International law generally requires that a state using force unlawfully should pay reparations for the damage caused. Iraq has paid billions of dollars to Kuwait and others for its unlawful invasion in 1990.[4] The same rule requires the US, UK and other members of the coalition to pay for the damage they have caused in Iraq.[5]

Some US and British authorities are and have been well aware of the complicated legal problems resulting from invading Iraq without Security Council authorization. The strenuous efforts to get authorization before the invasion and the attempt to justify the invasion on some legal basis afterward indicate as much.[6] These authorities took international law seriously-in contrast to some other US officials. Governments’ decisions now in confronting the legal issues may well weigh in the balance regarding which officials will lead US foreign policy in the future.

Government decisions will definitely have an impact on the future international law governing the use of force. Making decisions in support of international law will not necessarily be easy. The US is likely to pressure governments to recognize its personnel-American and Iraqi-as the legitimate authorities of Iraq. Responding to this pressure will be part of a choice by the international community between maintaining the current system of international law and tolerating the neo-conservative policies that contradict international law, seen most concretely in the Bush Doctrine of preemptive force.

The Bush Doctrine is at the root of the decision to invade Iraq without Security Council authorization.

...international law prohibits the use of armed force for enforcement. Armed force is permitted only in self-defense to an armed attack (UN Charter, art. 51) or with Security Council authorization (UN Charter, art. 42).

Professor Mary Ellen O'Connell

[1] Anne-Marie Slaughter, during her Presidential address to the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law on Thursday, April 3, 2003, Omni Shoreham Hotel, Washington, D.C., estimated that eight out of ten international lawyers have concluded the invasion of Iraq was unlawful. Many indicators support her estimate. Many international lawyers would have been influenced by Secretary General Kofi Annan’s statement ten days before the invasion that force in Iraq without Security Council authorization would violate the Charter. Patrick E. Tyler & Felicity Barringer, Annan Says U.S. Will Violate Charter if It Acts Without Approval, NY Times, Mar. 11, 2003, at A8.

[2] Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 75 U.N.T.S. 287 [hereinafter GCIV]; Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (1907 Hague Convention IV), Oct. 18, 1907, Annex, 36 Stat. 2277, T.S. No. 539, 1 Bevans 631 [Hereinafter HR].

[3] “International law does not support the assertion of a right in the occupant to grant an oil development concession.” U.S. Dep’t of State, Memorandum of Law (Oct. 1, 1976), 16 ILM 733, 752 (1977).

[4] The Security Council “[r]eaffirms that Iraq, without prejudice to the debts and obligations of Iraq arising prior to 2 August 1990, which will be addressed through the normal mechanisms, is liable under international law for any direct loss, damage, including environmental damage and the depletion of natural resources, or injury to foreign Governments, nationals and corporations, as a result of Iraq’s unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait.” UN SC Res. 687 (1991), para. 16.

[5] The coalition failed in its obligation to protect Iraqi cultural heritage and should pay reparations for this failure as well. “The High Contracting Parties further undertake to prohibit, prevent and, if necessary, put a stop to any form of theft, pillage or misappropriation of, and any acts of vandalism directed against, cultural property.” 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of an Armed Conflict, 249 UNTS 240, art. 4(3). (The US and UK are signatories only to this convention but its basic provisions, such as those in article 4 are considered part of customary international law.) By contrast to the failure to protect the Iraqi National Museum, the coalition was able to protect Iraqi oil facilities, though they apparently have no similar legal obligation to do so.

http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?b=73