I don't believe this one: Perle Says Iraq Invasion Was Illegal

[rjain]

No, this isn't only about the assertion being made that the president is above the law. That's a separate issue.

War exists outside of laws. The American Revolution was illegal. It was treason against the British government. But as a result, a new government was created where the revolution was legal. War is fought because you disagree with the way the government works. Overturning any government's intrinsic systems is, of course, illegal in the context of that government. All wars are illegal by some laws or another.

However, there is also the issue that the war was allegedly fought in violation of the treaties we have, which are considered law according to the Constitution. Whether those treaties were declared broken by the mere action of us going to war is also an interesting question. However, since Congress approved the war, as must happen with all wars, they are also guilty of breaking the law if this action is deemed illegal.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: LunarRay
There is the Constitution of The US which also controls in this situation.
The Treaty regarding the UN was ratified and therefore, is part of the US law. If we violate its provisions we violate our law.Ya might read this essay..

International Law seems impotent because you can't point at the cop or the prosecutor... but, it exists! It is as impotent as the member states wish to make it or as strong. In this case we are the cops the prosecutor and the criminal.

To view the international rule of law that we defend when it suits us, use when it is to our advantage but, ignore when we wish, makes us hypocrites in the eyes of the world.

who doubted the law's existence ? we know who the stewards and enforcers are, at least by name, certainly not by deed. these 'cops' and 'prosecutors' are guilty of systemic incompetence.

XZeroII opened his post with that notion. I spoke to the impotence of international law and notwithstanding this, it does exist and we should follow it.

the one person who most abused the existence of these very laws was saddam hussein. knowing he could not win a conventional battle, he employed the west's own feeble regulations as his chief diplomatic weapon. he stalled, juked his good-willed opponents, and came out ahead as dr. david kay's preliminary report found. he reaped billions in illicit profits through blatant circumventions of the sanctions regime, which his criminal partners (turkey, syria, and jordan) openly admitted.

That is true. The remedy is through the UN Security Counsel. We floated a draft resolution to legitimize an invasion but, were turned down. The international court of proper jurisdiction spoke and we ignored it.

bush jumped over failed diplomacy, failed institutions, and failed persons who would've
continued in their soft ignorant ways, indirectly helping saddam rack up huge profits, depriving his people of basic humanitarian care, and making a horrible farce worse.
u.n. member states continued pressing a failed program with one end of their mouths while the other side spoke of long overdue reform. that would be the very definition of hypocrisy. this hardly constitutes a whimsical intervention on the part of the bush administration.

The President may have violated the law, our law and that of the International community. The factors you mention serve to mitigate the severity of the violation and that is proper but during the punishment phase. Even if you fully support The President and his direction regarding the Iraqi invasion you must also support the International Rule of Law because The President swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the US, part of which either explicitly or by codification makes ratifed treaties part of our law and part, therefore, of his oath.
You may wish to deem his actions justified because of the conditions underwhich they occured. But, I cannot. The rule of law must be protected under all conditions. If we invaded illegally then all the rightious occurances that flow from that are based on a foundation with out legal substance. We abhor that.. or should. In my opinion

 

[seti920]

Originally posted by: Czar
are there any laws in the US that prevents the president from waging illegal wars?

War Powers Act

 

[Witling]

But please note, this Iraq mess isn't a war. But I think the War Powers Act does limit the amount of time troops may be dispersed. Unfortunately, in October 2002, Congress said, "Go at it as you feel necessary, Mr. President."

 

[rjain]

Hell, if you let Bush slide on this one, you have to let Clinton slide on his violation of the law. Clinton's sexual relations are none of our business, so he was acting "correctly" in not divulging that information.

 

[LunarRay]

Dealer,

LR, this is precisely the point I've been making all along, only the pro-war folks like to waffle and suggest that UN Res 1441 had some implied thread of actual force and then the lawyers step in and really muddy the waters. The hypocrisy is going to the UN to ask for a new UN Res that explicitly authorizes force and when you don't get one because the UN doesn't support it, you go and use force anyway pointing to previous UN Resolutions as your basis for doing so.

You're right in that you can't point to the cop or prosecutor, because he is us! It's like the bad cop that brutalizes some punk on the street for the sheer hell of it. What are you gonna do about it?

International law may not have the remedy we'd normally seek to punish a violator when it is us, the super power, doing the violating. But, to them who are lesser and not our current friends or stategic allies we hold their feet to the flames.
We still have remedy against the folks who perpetrated the invasion, though. The Grand Jury is the House where a bill of indictment (impeachment) should be drawn up and sent to the Senate. If it is as clear as I think it is that The President violated the law, our law, then I wonder what oath they (The Representitives) took upon entering office on January 3, of '03.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Our Father, who art at Enron, Kenneth be thy name . . .

 

[rjain]

How is Enron involved in the Iraq War?

 

[GrGr]

The leaders of Mega-banana republics do not believe in inconvenient laws. The only approved laws are laws that furthers the agenda. International law is a great inconvenience to militaristic aggression:

"The dire prospect that opens, therefore, is that America is going to become a mega-banana republic where the army will have more and more importance in our lives. It will be an ever greater and greater overlay on the American system. And before it is all over democracy, noble and delicate as it is, may give way. My long experience with human nature - I'm 80 years old now - suggests that it is possible that fascism, not democracy, is the natural state.

Indeed, democracy is the special condition - a condition we will be called upon to defend in the coming years. That will be enormously difficult because the combination of the corporation, the military and the complete investiture of the flag with mass spectator sports has set up a pre-fascist atmosphere in America already."

Norman Mailer

 

[LunarRay]

The rule of law is what preserves our democracy. We should fight tooth and nail to insure it controls the actions of leaders. We the people are the government so long as they, the leadership, obey the laws. They will surely see to it that we do. Remember democracy in this Democratic Republic is designed to protect all the people. When the people who agree with the leadership's violation of the Rule of Law propound their rhetoric they are saying, in effect, what Mailer suggests.

Our Congress is so polar and protective that they enable a violation to become a political tool. It is a crime and from the grave Madison cries out to right this wrong!

 

[chess9]

America doesn't have a good track record when it comes to keeping its word. I mean its word as represented by the treaties it has made. Ask the American Indians....

The neocons hate the U.N., World Court, and all those tree hugging environmentalists who want to keep our factories from doing what God intended-polluting our environment. They'll claim U.N. resolutions were violated but they won't follow the U.N.'s Charter's rules. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways and NOT be called a hypocrite.
-Robert

 

[seti920]

We still have remedy against the folks who perpetrated the invasion, though. The Grand Jury is the House where a bill of indictment (impeachment) should be drawn up and sent to the Senate. If it is as clear as I think it is that The President violated the law, our law, then I wonder what oath they (The Representitives) took upon entering office on January 3, of '03.

Back up a step -- what US law did the admin supposedly break in sending troops to Iraq? It was authorized by Congress pursuant to constitutional requirements, and the WPA.

 

[Miramonti]

I was expecting the link to be an article posted on the Onion.

 

[miguel]

Here's the root of the problem (from the article text):

The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has questioned that justification, arguing that the security council would have to rule on whether the US and its allies were under imminent threat.

So, while the UN debates the "imminent threat" the threat would have passed, leaving bodies in it's wake. Simply amazing.

 

[Witling]

Miguel, you're winning. I'm thinking of quiting this board. You're fairly new so you probably missed my "Against stupidity the very gods themselves strive in vain." signature phase. Do my eyes deceive me? Are you asserting that Iraq was a "threat" to us. Sort of like the now much, much discredited British claim that they could attack in 45 minutes. Say it isn't so, Miguel. Say that when you said "if we took it to the U.N. we'd have a body count," was just a literary turn of phrase (although I doubt that). Threat? What in th 'ell are you talking about?

 

[rjain]

They were threatening to provide a model for secular government. Can't have that when you're trying to make this a Christian nation.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Miguel, you're winning. I'm thinking of quiting this board. You're fairly new so you probably missed my "Against stupidity the very gods themselves strive in vain." signature phase. Do my eyes deceive me? Are you asserting that Iraq was a "threat" to us. Sort of like the now much, much discredited British claim that they could attack in 45 minutes. Say it isn't so, Miguel. Say that when you said "if we took it to the U.N. we'd have a body count," was just a literary turn of phrase (although I doubt that). Threat? What in th 'ell are you talking about?

Er, I think you misunderstood or read too much into my previous post (I was thinking people would, but alas...). I'm merely talking about the concept of a council to debate an "imminent threat." That's like calling the police saying there's a guy with a gun pointed at me and they say "we'll look into it" or "we need to investigate before acting." Hindsight is indeed 20/20, as they say. Yes, it's now discredited that the attack could come in 45 minutes, but that was NOT the point of my previous post.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: seti920

We still have remedy against the folks who perpetrated the invasion, though. The Grand Jury is the House where a bill of indictment (impeachment) should be drawn up and sent to the Senate. If it is as clear as I think it is that The President violated the law, our law, then I wonder what oath they (The Representitives) took upon entering office on January 3, of '03.

Back up a step -- what US law did the admin supposedly break in sending troops to Iraq? It was authorized by Congress pursuant to constitutional requirements, and the WPA.

OK.. I'll try again.. maybe if you read this link it will be clearer. It's not long and does put the law and the event into the same context and environment.
Link

 

[Witling]

What law did the U.S. break? That's a good question. I'll do a bit of research, but if the U.N. Charter has the status of a treaty in the U.S., then we broke the law. When I come back on this I'll give you the charter article. I don't know it off the top of my head.

 

[zephyrprime]

To call any way illegal you have one document to work from and that is the US Constitution. If you can't find a clear violation it isn't illegal.

Alright, how about this? :

US Constitution Article 1 section 8 clause 10
"to define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;"

Your argument, Hoffcorp, that international law cannot apply to the US becuase the Constitution is the highest law in the United States is correct. But the constitution itself says that if congress so choose, it can make the nation subject to such law. When the US congress ratified the UN charter long ago, it choose to make itself fall under the jurisdiction of the international law that Perle is now talking about.

 

[rjain]

Well, they're both defining and punishing, then. If they don't punish, you can assume that they didn't define that action as being illegal.

 

[sandorski]

International Laws exist for a reason. WW1/WW2 were the catalyst for our current set of laws, though the Cold War had great influence as well. Without these laws there would be chaos, Saddam would have succeeded in the invasion of Kuwait and perhaps other neighbours (for eg).

Let us consider what the US has done here. Nations make up the enforcers(Police), the US being the main nation of the bunch. The UN is setup where the Security Council is the Court(in this situation) and requires a certain level of agreement before Guilt/Innocence is determined. Now, the US acting as a Cop decided to act without the Courts' approval, can you imagine what chaos would reign in the streets if your local Police acted when, how, and where they wanted with no regard to the Law? What power would the Courts have to stop them? The Police have the guns afterall.

The US has put the cart before the horse and worse then that, they have been unable to prove their suspicions of Iraqs' Imminent Threat. It is not up to the Police to decide Which laws or How to enforce those Laws, for a good reason.

 

[Witling]

Yeah, It's like the Day the Earth Stood Still (circa 1957). Gort, the killer robot who is the policeman, isn't allowed to destroy the earth unless a certain set of circumstances exist. Thank God for "Klatu boradda nicto" (necessary to stop Gort).

 

[chess9]

zephyrprime:

Yes, that was my point. Hoffcorp is out on cloud nine like Szyg. Been reading "None Dare Call It Treason", and listening to talk radio.

Anyway, the U.S. thumbed its nose at the U.N. because it can. It if had been Jesse Helms instead of Bush, they would have gotten the finger. Not that it makes much difference.

I find it gratifying to think that the neocons who are so big on personal responsibility and obeying the law just don't give a s*** about our committments as a nation. These were the same guys who screwed over the Indians. I guess that's why most of these Unabomber types are ultra right wingers. They're ALL self-absorbed nuts. And, query, who did more damage, the Unabomber or Bush? Seems like an easy question.

-Robert

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Yeah, It's like the Day the Earth Stood Still (circa 1957). Gort, the killer robot who is the policeman, isn't allowed to destroy the earth unless a certain set of circumstances exist. Thank God for "Klatu boradda nicto" (necessary to stop Gort).

Was that directed at me, Whitling? I honestly expected more of a response.