Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Czar
DashRiprock,
I have said this probably about hundred times on the forum. UN wording for authorizing military action is "any means necisery" not "serious consiquences"

UN resolution 1441 recalls resoultion 687 which is the ceasefire agreement between Iraq and Kuwait. Iraq is in violation of 687 which means the ceasefire agreement is broken and thus war will resume.

War on.

like I said before that is the only possible way to legalize the war, but I'm not going to make up my mind untill legal experts go into this. But when you think of it, it is a rather an odd backdoor to go to war with dont you think?

and even if this way works then did the original un resolution on the gulf war authorize member states to enforce a regime change in Iraq?

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: jetaime
Monumental Rip-Off?
Allegations of Widespread Corruption Involve Saddam Hussein, U.N. Senior Officials

By Brian Ross
ABCNEWS.com

April 20 ? At least three senior United Nations officials are suspected of taking multimillion-dollar bribes from the Saddam Hussein regime, U.S. and European intelligence sources tell ABCNEWS.
Click Here

One year after his fall, U.S. officials say they have evidence, some in cash, that Saddam diverted to his personal bank accounts approximately $5 billion from the United Nations Oil-for-Food program.

In what has been described as the largest humanitarian aid effort ever undertaken, the U.N. Oil-for-Food program began in 1996 to help Iraqis who were suffering under sanctions imposed following the first Gulf War.

The program allowed Iraq to sell limited amounts of oil, under supposedly tight U.N. supervision, to finance the purchase of much-needed humanitarian goods.

Most prominent among those accused in the scandal is Benon Sevan, the Cyprus-born U.N. undersecretary general who ran the program for six years.

In an interview with ABCNEWS last year, Sevan denied any wrongdoing.

"Well, I can tell you there have been no allegations about me," he said. "Maybe you can try to dig it out." And in a Feb. 10 statement, Sevan challenged those making the allegations to "come forward and provide the necessary documentary evidence" and present it to U.N. investigators.

But documents have surfaced in Baghdad, in the files of the former Iraqi Oil Ministry, allegedly linking Sevan to a pay-off scheme in which some 270 prominent foreign officials received the right to trade in Iraqi oil at cut-rate prices.

"It's almost like having coupons of bonds or shares. You can sell those coupons to other people who are normal oil traders," said Claude Hankes-Drielsma, a British adviser to the Iraq Governing Council.

Investigators say the smoking gun is a letter to former Iraqi oil minister Amer Mohammed Rasheed, obtained by ABCNEWS and not yet in the hands of the United Nations.

I Bet the UN helped Saddam get the WMD's out of Iraq before the war to make the US look bad.

Maybe my sarcasm meter is broken, but this is a joke, right?

 

[Genx87]

like I said before that is the only possible way to legalize the war, but I'm not going to make up my mind untill legal experts go into this.

It is a pretty big possible way and not negotiable. Go read the resoultion yourself and not rely on somebody elses interpretation.

But when you think of it, it is a rather an odd backdoor to go to war with dont you think?

Odd backdoor? Hardly a backdoor but more a threat levied against Saddam after the 1st Gulf War to get him to comply with the weapons inspections. He played with fire and got burned.

and even if this way works then did the original un resolution on the gulf war authorize member states to enforce a regime change in Iraq?

It authorized the use of force through the ceasefire agreement. That typically means hostilities will erupt again and you can bet your bottom dollar we wouldnt just screw around but remove the problem.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Also note that John Kerry would have taken the same "illegal" action. Buahahahahaha.

Like an additional moron makes the Bush disaster OK.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Also note that John Kerry would have taken the same "illegal" action. Buahahahahaha.

Like an additional moron makes the Bush disaster OK.

Who are you voting for?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Genx87

like I said before that is the only possible way to legalize the war, but I'm not going to make up my mind untill legal experts go into this.

It is a pretty big possible way and not negotiable. Go read the resoultion yourself and not rely on somebody elses interpretation.

But when you think of it, it is a rather an odd backdoor to go to war with dont you think?

Odd backdoor? Hardly a backdoor but more a threat levied against Saddam after the 1st Gulf War to get him to comply with the weapons inspections. He played with fire and got burned.

and even if this way works then did the original un resolution on the gulf war authorize member states to enforce a regime change in Iraq?

It authorized the use of force through the ceasefire agreement. That typically means hostilities will erupt again and you can bet your bottom dollar we wouldnt just screw around but remove the problem.

1. I have read that part of the resolution and the previous resolutions. This is more complex than for us to get a clear picture of.

2. If it wasnt a back door then the 1441 resolution should have stated "by any means necisery" which was how it was originaly worded if I remember correctly but it was changed to get support.

3. Did the original resolution that the 1441 refers to authorize a regime change? or did it authorize kicking the Iraqi army out of Quvait?

 

[Moonbeam]

I think I'll vote for Dean.

 

[Genx87]

1. I have read that part of the resolution and the previous resolutions. This is more complex than for us to get a clear picture of.

Hardly is it complex. It is in plain english. If you dont comply the ceasefire will be broken.

2. If it wasnt a back door then the 1441 resolution should have stated "by any means necisery" which was how it was originaly worded if I remember correctly but it was changed to get support.

1441 was really worthless and just a token gensture. The simple fact is 687 was still in effect and was even recalled in 1441. That is all you really need to worry about. 1441 does not in anyway override 687.

3. Did the original resolution that the 1441 refers to authorize a regime change? or did it authorize kicking the Iraqi army out of Quvait?

678 authorized the booting of Saddams Iraqi army from Kuwait. 687 is the ceasefire agreement that if broken will lead to hostilities. Obviously if you break a ceasefire agreement you can expect to be removed from power if you cant defend youself. Saddam played with fire and got burned. He shouldnt have violated 17 UN resolutions and kicked the UN weapons inspectors out in 1998. On top of that after knowing about our no fvcking around attitude he shouldnt have been fvcking around with UN inspections when he knew a 120,000 man US force was massing on his southern border.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: GrGr
You fail to see the point. The point is if Bush broke the UN Charter he broke US law. The UN charter is part of the supreme law of the land. If President Bush broke the supreme law of the land he is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours.

The UN Charter is not....I repeat NOT part of the "supreme law of the land" for the United States. Oh the UN and some of the far left libbies would like it to be, but that is not the case.

Law Professors? Statement Challenging US War Plans

A US War Against Iraq Will Violate US and International Law and Set a Dangerous Precedent For Violence That Will Endanger the American People

President Bush maintains that Iraq?s "decade of defiance" of United Nations resolutions justifies a war against Iraq. But the President ignores the fact that a US war, unleashed without the approval of the UN Security Council, against a country that has not attacked the United States, would itself be an unlawful act, in defiance of America?s treaty obligations, and a violation of US and international law.


Our Constitution provides that treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate are part of the "supreme Law of the Land." The United Nations Charter, which our nation wrote in large part, and signed and ratified as a treaty in 1945, provides that ? except in response to an armed attack ? nations may neither threaten nor engage in warfare without the authorization of the UN Security Council. President Bush swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Yet he advocates a right to ignore our treaty obligations and to visit the scourge of war upon Iraq, with or without the approval of the United Nations.


The dangerous path America is treading will only lead to more suffering by Americans, as well as by others. The international rule of law is not a soft luxury to be discarded whenever leaders find it convenient or popular to resort to savage violence. The international rule of law is a bulwark against the horrors of warfare that we Americans have so recently felt first-hand.


Every nation that has ever committed aggression against another claimed to be "defending" itself. The United States helped establish the United Nations precisely in order to impose the rule of law on such claims, to make it unlawful for nations to strike against others unless they were themselves under armed attack. The United States is not under armed attack by Iraq.


Lawless international violence only breeds more killing of innocent people. The massive civilian deaths, the scarred and maimed children, the ruined and starving peoples, whose suffering is inseparable from warfare, can only spawn new generations of embittered peoples, new hate-filled leaders, new enraged individuals, determined to answer violence with violence.


The American people are not made safer by the unilateral use of force, in violation of the "supreme Law of the Land" and the United Nations Charter. We are further endangered. Lawless violence generates recruits for terrorism.


We, teachers of law at American law schools, protest the Bush administration?s illegal plan to conduct a war against Iraq. We call upon our government to step back from the brink of war and allow the United Nations to resolve the crisis peacefully, patiently, and lawfully.

------------

I think these experts in US law have a clue about what is US law and what isn't.

Law Professors? Statement Challenging US War Plans

 

[Makromizer]

Originally posted by: Genx87

What a simple world some of us live in.

A. 2 genocides in Sudan

So why don't we just invade Sudan by ourself?
[ ] Because we care what the UN says! It's not like we asked yet but they will reject it anyway, the're corrupt, you know
[ ] Because it's not as bad as Iraq?
[ ] Any reason, not including "they don't have a fcking big amount of the world's oil-reserve and we are a nation that depends on oil like no other and our industry would crumble if we don't assure oil-resources for the future"?

 

[Genx87]

So why don't we just invade Sudan by ourself?

I thought we were talking about the failings of the UN here? What does the US have to do with that? If we are going down that road then why havent France, Germany, or Russia done the same?

 

[Michael]

GrGr,

It was brought to court more than once in the US and tossed out each time. Bush had all the legal authorization he needed to go to war.

Michael

 

[jetaime]

Who made the UN the 'LAW'? The UN even has Syria which supports terrorism as a member, and that should tell you something about the credibility of the UN.

 

[Makromizer]

Originally posted by: Genx87

So why don't we just invade Sudan by ourself?

I thought we were talking about the failings of the UN here? What does the US have to do with that? If we are going down that road then why havent France, Germany, or Russia done the same?

If there's no one proposing a resolution, the U.N. won't do sh*t about it. France and Germany are unlikely gonna do something outside Europe without U.N. or some other strong support, Russia is ruled by a patriarchic KGB-dude, not interested in much more than getting as much power as possible.
But it's not like everyone is proposing resolutions concerning Sudan and some Veto-Nations are denying them, there are'nt any proposals yet.
Annan criticized the behavior of the member-countries, but He's not that powerfull, he can't do that much without the Support of the member countries. I think the UN-nations should get their arse off the soft chair and really take care of Sudan. Take care doesn't mean sending in some observers and do nothing else. But the U.S. is highly hypocrite by waiting for an U.N. resolution while taking out Iraq whitout any qualms.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: jetaime
Who made the UN the 'LAW'? The UN even has Syria which supports terrorism as a member, and that should tell you something about the credibility of the UN.

The US, GB, Russia and France made UN the LAW.

It is silly to think that the UN is against the US when US is the most powerful member in the UN.

The world will not do what GW wants, it will not jump when he says jump and it will not believe obviously falsified evidence even if he jumps up and down and cries about it.

That is the mental image the world has of GW, a spoiled brat who wanted to invade no matter what and who broke the rules when he didn't get what he wanted. Not even Blair remains by his side, he is uncomfortable to be associated with GW these days and i do not blame him at all.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Michael
GrGr,

It was brought to court more than once in the US and tossed out each time. Bush had all the legal authorization he needed to go to war.

Michael

The judiciary is reluctant to encroach on the legislative area. This is not so much a matter for the courts as it is a matter of impeachment.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: Michael
GrGr,

It was brought to court more than once in the US and tossed out each time. Bush had all the legal authorization he needed to go to war.

Michael

The judiciary is reluctant to encroach on the legislative area. This is not so much a matter for the courts as it is a matter of impeachment.

Yep, I've been saying that for months. This is an impeachable offense, hands down. Falsifying evidence in order to invade a country is definitely worse than what got Clinton in trouble. A million times worse.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Genx87

1. I have read that part of the resolution and the previous resolutions. This is more complex than for us to get a clear picture of.

Hardly is it complex. It is in plain english. If you dont comply the ceasefire will be broken.

2. If it wasnt a back door then the 1441 resolution should have stated "by any means necisery" which was how it was originaly worded if I remember correctly but it was changed to get support.

1441 was really worthless and just a token gensture. The simple fact is 687 was still in effect and was even recalled in 1441. That is all you really need to worry about. 1441 does not in anyway override 687.

3. Did the original resolution that the 1441 refers to authorize a regime change? or did it authorize kicking the Iraqi army out of Quvait?

678 authorized the booting of Saddams Iraqi army from Kuwait. 687 is the ceasefire agreement that if broken will lead to hostilities. Obviously if you break a ceasefire agreement you can expect to be removed from power if you cant defend youself. Saddam played with fire and got burned. He shouldnt have violated 17 UN resolutions and kicked the UN weapons inspectors out in 1998. On top of that after knowing about our no fvcking around attitude he shouldnt have been fvcking around with UN inspections when he knew a 120,000 man US force was massing on his southern border.

1. Normal laws are in plain(whatever language you speak) but reading them makes you no expert on the subject.

2. I agree, it was just a filler material trying to please everyone.

3. It all falls down to this text that is refered to so very often in the resolutions regarding Iraq. "restore international peace and security in the area".

Now lets go over the resolutions

660 - http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0660.htm
"2. Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all s its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;r"

678 - http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm
"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 above-mentioned 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;"

687 - http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
Goes on about the process of ending the war and how it should be done, Iraq's requirement to dismantle their wmd's and so on.

1441 - http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
"Recognizing the threat Iraq?s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

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,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,"

Ok, now lets go through this again.
660 demands Iraq withdraw from Quvait.
678 demands Iraq fullfill 660, sets a deadline for Iraq to comply or it authorizes the use of force.
687 says how Iraq was supposed to after the war
1441 recalls 678 that authrizes force in light of Iraq not leaving Quvait as in 660
1441 recalls 687 as demanding Iraq meet those obligations with disarmament

So after going through this further I must say 1441 does not authorize force in any means or way since Iraq had fullfilled 678 at the time 1441 went through the SC.

so yes... war off

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: Michael
GrGr,

It was brought to court more than once in the US and tossed out each time. Bush had all the legal authorization he needed to go to war.

Michael

The judiciary is reluctant to encroach on the legislative area. This is not so much a matter for the courts as it is a matter of impeachment.

Yep, I've been saying that for months. This is an impeachable offense, hands down. Falsifying evidence in order to invade a country is definitely worse than what got Clinton in trouble. A million times worse.

"This administration may be due for a scandal. While Bush narrowly escaped being dragged into Enron, it was not, in any event, his doing. But the war in Iraq is all Bush's doing, and it is appropriate that he be held accountable.

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

- John Dean


Link

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106
Didn't bush go to war with Iraq to support a UN resolution?

Zephyr

The Resolution was not a "Resolution to go to War".

Bush forced a rag tag false coalition that has been falling apart like his Regime will in 47 days.

 

[jetaime]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: jetaime
Who made the UN the 'LAW'? The UN even has Syria which supports terrorism as a member, and that should tell you something about the credibility of the UN.

The US, GB, Russia and France made UN the LAW.

It is silly to think that the UN is against the US when US is the most powerful member in the UN.

The world will not do what GW wants, it will not jump when he says jump and it will not believe obviously falsified evidence even if he jumps up and down and cries about it.

That is the mental image the world has of GW, a spoiled brat who wanted to invade no matter what and who broke the rules when he didn't get what he wanted. Not even Blair remains by his side, he is uncomfortable to be associated with GW these days and i do not blame him at all.

I'm glad I have a president that does NOT do what's popular but instead, does whats RIGHT.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: jetaime

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: jetaime
Who made the UN the 'LAW'? The UN even has Syria which supports terrorism as a member, and that should tell you something about the credibility of the UN.

The US, GB, Russia and France made UN the LAW.

It is silly to think that the UN is against the US when US is the most powerful member in the UN.

The world will not do what GW wants, it will not jump when he says jump and it will not believe obviously falsified evidence even if he jumps up and down and cries about it.

That is the mental image the world has of GW, a spoiled brat who wanted to invade no matter what and who broke the rules when he didn't get what he wanted. Not even Blair remains by his side, he is uncomfortable to be associated with GW these days and i do not blame him at all.

I'm glad I have a president that does NOT do what's popular but instead, does whats RIGHT.

In this case, your "Right" was ILLEGAL. That means AGAINST THE LAW.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: jetaime

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: jetaime
Who made the UN the 'LAW'? The UN even has Syria which supports terrorism as a member, and that should tell you something about the credibility of the UN.

The US, GB, Russia and France made UN the LAW.

It is silly to think that the UN is against the US when US is the most powerful member in the UN.

The world will not do what GW wants, it will not jump when he says jump and it will not believe obviously falsified evidence even if he jumps up and down and cries about it.

That is the mental image the world has of GW, a spoiled brat who wanted to invade no matter what and who broke the rules when he didn't get what he wanted. Not even Blair remains by his side, he is uncomfortable to be associated with GW these days and i do not blame him at all.

I'm glad I have a president that does NOT do what's popular but instead, does whats RIGHT.

if it was right, wouldnt you think it would be popular?

 

[Genx87]

So after going through this further I must say 1441 does not authorize force in any means or way since Iraq had fullfilled 678 at the time 1441 went through the SC.

Read it from the horses mouth. More importantly read sections 8,9, 20-24. Not only was he in non-compliance due to not letting inspectors in. He was in non-compliance for purchasing weapons in the black market from countries like France and Russia.

687

And then read this and tell me they were in compliance.


And then read the following from the UN regarding Iraqs timeline on the issue.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom...gy/chronologyframe.htm

 

[Genx87]

if it was right, wouldnt you think it would be popular?

Was desegregation right? Was it popular?

Doing what is right and doing what is popular are not one in the same.