Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And you haven't proved anything. Congress and the President are the authority. They can and do, on a regular basis determine what a treaty means and whether or not we will follow it or abridge it.
And you haven't proved anything. Congress and the President are the authority. They can and do, on a regular basis determine what a treaty means and whether or not we will follow it or abridge it. You haven't a leg to stand on. No US Court has ruled the Congress and the President violated US law. There you have it ALL 3 branches of our federal Government have accepted that the Invasion of Iraq was legal and authorized thus you have NO standing to claim other wise.
Please correct me if I am wrong. Provide a court case or a resolution from Congress or a declaration from the executive. Failing any of those your claim is flat out false. The US Government followed the Constitution and our laws in authorizing and conducting the Invasion of Iraq. They continue to follow our Constitution and our laws in authorizing continued military action and presence in Iraq.
You can make all the ignorant claims you want, they hold no legal basis in fact. You can't even provide an order from the UN condemning the action, declaring the action a violation of the UN Charter. So even on those grounds you fail miserably.
The US was clear why it was within its rights within the UN Charter to conduct the Invasion, absent any denouncement from the UN one must assume they are correct.
You have failed across the board.
As for Panama, I suggest you check the UN Charter again, the body that makes resolutions that are binding is the Security Council, the General assembly has no power, per the rules of the Organization. I am waiting still for a UN Resolution that condemned the Panama Invasion as well.
It sucks to be totally wrong, but do keep pretending otherwise.
Top Bush Advisor Admits war was illegal:
"International law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone , and this would have been morally unacceptable.” -- RICHARD PERLE, top Bush Defense Policy advisor; a top architect of the Iraq War.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
"I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it (Bush’s Iraq War) was illegal." -- KOFI ANNAN, UN Secretary General
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1305709,00.html
“Iraq War Was Illegal” - HANS BLIX, Chief Iraq WMD Inspector
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0305-01.htm
1) UN Charter:
"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…(except in the case of) self-defence if an armed attack occurs …" -- Unites States 1945 signatory, and pledged to abide by obligations of UN Charter
2) US Constitution , 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.
http://usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=603681&postcount=146
The plain language of the UN Charter is CRYSTAL CLEAR: you can't attack and invade a sovereign nation, unless they attack you first, or at best, are on the imminent verge of attacking you. The fact that NeoCons in our government and in our congress chose to ignore that clear language, is irrelevant:
Nothing more than opinion. You have stated as FACT we violated the UN Charter, yet you can not provide any declaration from that Body we did any such thing. You have stated as FACT the US violated its own laws and I have shown your totally wrong on the issue. Every step of the way the President and Congress have been involved and have followed the Constitution and the law.
You have no facts, all you have are opinions. A couple bucks and an opinion will get you a coffee some places.
You do have a lot of sand....when was the last time you even saw the light of day?
You have been give a very clear set of facts and you just like to pretend they dont exist. Hilarious!
Nothing more than opinion. You have stated as FACT we violated the UN Charter, yet you can not provide any declaration from that Body we did any such thing. You have stated as FACT the US violated its own laws and I have shown your totally wrong on the issue. Every step of the way the President and Congress have been involved and have followed the Constitution and the law.
You have no facts, all you have are opinions. A couple bucks and an opinion will get you a coffee some places.
What fact?
Do you have a UN Resolution number?
Do you have a Court case in US Court?
Do you have a ruling or opinion from the Congress on the Issue? Have the suddenly stopped funding the war? And no one told us?
Do you have an executive order on the matter?
The UN voted on the US invading Iraq, remember that or were you deep in the sand for that too? They voted NO, it would not be a justified invasion.
Deadcandance has laid the facts out clearly..our own laws and international law.
Turning a blind eye or burying your head in the sand dosent change the facts, neither will wishing super duper hard.
was the bloody glove OJ's?
The fact that we violated the UN charter is no less of a fact because the UN has failed to slap our hands for it.
They cant even really do anything about it. They condemed the panama invasion by the US...it did NOTHING. Its a waste of time. The US wont sign onto the international court, but even if we were (as britain is) it is doubtful that powerful nations such as those on the security council will ever actually be held to the same standards as everyone else.
For instance, the UN has condemned Russia for its excessive force in Chechnya. But nothing will be done and nothing will change and thats because of Russia is one of the powerful nations. You will see this also in regards to Israel (they get US protection, they have more resolutions against them than ANY OTHER nation), China, Russia , France, and Britain.
Only 3rd world countries are subject to enforcement of UN resolutions and condemnations. Powerless nations against the powerful...pretty old story and it hasnt changed. Justice isnt handed out based on principles but rather on WHO you are and how much POWER you weild.
Another one of your unproven "facts" I repeat cite the UN resolution number for the condemnation of the US Invasion of Panama. A general assembly "resolution" is meaningless, that body has no power to make Binding resolutions. It would be akin to the Republican caucus of the House declaring the Speaker of the House is no longer Speaker.
You were already provided that info.
You have a pattern, you ask for proof and you are given proof and then you claim it isnt. Its just plain weird.
Saying NO to the invasion is a very clear statement from the UN that it is not a justified invasion.
Kofi Annan stated it was illegal from the UN perspective.
Honestly, it just dosent get any plainer than that.
I understand you have trouble with the facts so you need to pretend they dont exist and arent staring you in the face. Its a bit strange and weird, but it certainly does indicate your total lack or ability to come up with somthing to refute it.
The one with the problem with facts is you and anyone that makes the same claim as you.
Using your Logic, since Kofi Anan said it and that makes it a UN approved reprimand.... When Bush says something that makes it a US Approved action also. No more pesky need for votes in Congress or those worthless courts interfereing and all.
Lets get simple, you seem to not grasp thebasic concepts of how the UN and the US Government work.
The US has 3 Branches of Government. The Executive, The Legislative and the Courts. In our form of Government the Executive and the Legislative work together to create laws and Treaties. The Courts exists to settle disputes between the other 2 branches ( well and justice and all that stuff ).
In order for something to be ILLEGAL it has to violate a law or Treaty the US has enacted. Well it can also violate rights of people and organizations. The President and Congress determine what is legal for the Government to do and it is so, unless the Courts disagree.
Now please provide me a court case that involves declaring the Iraq war illegal under US law or treaty. I will settle for a Congressional finding supported by a majority vote in either House of Congress also AND I will accept a statement from the president saying said war is illegal. Failing any of those you have NO FACTS to back a claim that the Iraq war violates US law.
Congress supports it, The President Supports and the Courts have ruled in support of it when any case even remotely questioning it has occurred. Each of the three branches of our federal Government have made official statements in writing and in resolutions that the war was legal and continues to BE legal.
Now as to our Violating a treaty.... I will accept an official resolution from the UN declaring the US Violated the UN Charter. Statements from individuals no matter what capacity they hold in the UN are not good enough, they carry no official weight.
The way the UN Works is that any Binding resolution must be passed by the Security Council. Please cite for me a Security council resolution declaring the US in violation of a UN Charter, in any manner. Hell you can not even cite a worthless general assembly statement condemning the US and accusing it of violating the UN Charter. Well except back in 1990 in regards the Panama Incursion.
In other words you HAVE NO FACTS, you have personal opinions from individuals. Those Individuals are so unsure of their opinions they have taken NO action what so ever to even try and make them official.
You're still dodging, and quietly trying to tip-toe away from your ORIGINAL question.
You didn't originally ask if there was a formal UN or Congressional resolution, legally deeming the invasion illegal.
You said there was not a "shred" of evidence in US Law, the US Constitution, and our Treaty obligations that would indicate your war was illegal.
You WERE provided the exact, text from the UN Charter and US constitution, that says in plain, crystal clear, unambiguous language, that war is only justified in a case of self-defense, where your country is under attack, or under the imminent threat of immediate attack. A reasonable person could conclude that the US violated the UN Charter, and by extension, the US constitution. You did NOT ask if there was a formal legal finding by a world body...you only asked that AFTER your original question was completely debunked.
You want laws, RetiredGySgt ?
See the Atricle 2 § 4 of the UN Charta
Then you'll see the strict interdiction of what USA did.
See the article 51, about the self-defence. It's when a soverieg country is attacked by an other. and there are a lot of restrictions to use this article. Isael tried to use it when the israeli army detroyed the Ossirak nuclear reactor, but the UN blame it and refuse the benefit of the article 51 of the UN Charta.
The ONLY solution for USA was the precautionary self-defence : attack before an other attack, an other attack for whitch people KNOW that it will happened.
This solution was born in 1837 with the case of the Carolina ship, a ship sunk by the brits.
US jurists, like John Yoo, William Howard Taft of Todd Buchwald, wanted to legalize the US intervention in Iraq with the precautionary self-defence, with the game of 3 UN Security Council resolutions : 678, 687, 1441. But they failed.
i know well the case, during my third year of law studies, we work about it, I had the role of a US delegation member and I had to legalize the invasion. The US arguments are well found, there is a great jurist work, but it's still illegal. And all the jurists of the wolrd will say it to you, objectivly : The war of 2003 was against the laws.
You want again laws or cases ?
International Justice Court, november, the 6th, 2003, case of the "Oil Decks" - Iran vs USA : The IJC forbides the precautionary self-defence.
Jurists Commission (created by the Un General Secretary) 17-20 march 2003 : if the US invasion is based on the precautionary self-defence, then it is totally illegal.
I hope that now, you're happy. You got your laws, and see now that the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was totally illegal, against all the international laws. And the USA have to respect these laws, they're submit to them.
White House photo by Eric Draper. The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions --
its history of aggression,
and its drive toward an arsenal of terror.
Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction,
to cease all development of such weapons,
and to stop all support for terrorist groups.
The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations.
It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons.
It is seeking nuclear weapons.
you guys keep saying Iraq is Vietnam. But rather than learn the lessons from Vietnam, you want to repeat the mistakes. We pulled out and millions died. You want us to do the same now.
