Is the Iraq War illegal?

Hmmm I have my opinion on this but let's hear some p.o.v on this. If it is illegal what does this mean for us as a country?

I'm going to have to report you to Homeland Security.

Good job defending our freedom, citizen.

Unless another country decides to do anything about it, nothing.

Laws are useless without enforcers, and since we have pretty much provided most of the "world's policeman" role, there are no other "cops" to keep us in line

The war was poorly planned, executed, and oversaw, but not illegal.

A war based on deliberate misinformation, manipulation of congress, executive unilateralism isn't unconstitutional? Have you even read the constitution?

One would hard pressed to find a point of demonstrable violation of the letter of the law in the prosecution of this war. The question is not, "Was this wrong and fucked up?" but rather "What can we take to court?"

And it is a violation of international law, inasmuch as it's a war of aggression, which violates the UN Charter. But this:

Pretty much takes care of that line of reasoning.

It means our country is fighting an illegal war.

The real question is have you read the constitution? You can't prove any of what you claim, not in court anyway. The real truth wasn't that Bush deliberately tried to misinform us it was that they cherry picked intelligence reports because Bush surrounded himself with yes men. They thought they what they were saying was true and so did other countries like the UK. Congress using the same information voted to go to war. The executive branch did not act unilateral, they got congress's approval first.

I can understand being against the war but what I don't understand is the need to exaggerate what actually happened.

Right then. The man cherry picked the intelligence reports to show congress in order to lead them to a specific conclusion. Fraud in a deliberate attempt to mislead congress, I believe, an illegal war makes. Beyond this, I must say that I find it hard simultaneously accept that Bush had this agenda (a known preexisting desire to invade Iraq), this position with the entire U.S. military at his disposal AND happened to be so conveniently 'genuinely mistaken' about the situation in Iraq.

Of course, I can't prove this, so it's neither here nor there in terms of what we can charge people with.

As to the issue of unilateral executive action, this is a bit of a catch-all. Most on-point to the discussion, however, is the use of the fear caused by the terrorist attacks to initiate a war, not against a specific sovereign nation, but against "terror". Once the umbrella war had been established, the president claimed the executive authority%u2014provided for the president in a time of war%u2014in the pursuit (with some congressional head-nodding, but without specific deceleration of war) of his neo-con pipe dream. This is an undermining of congressional consent and the constitutional procedures established for invading a foreign nation are, I believe, clear enough violation to call the war illegal. However, as it stands now the war is about as legal as The Administration's warrantless wiretaps.

It also means that we've manifestly increased hostilities toward our country, thereby weakening our national security, and by extension, world security.

Major stuff.


Hadees, you're wrong on this issue. For one thing, we didn't have the votes in the Security Counsel precisely because other countries disputed our claims. Congress didn't simply vote an emphatic "yes" for this "war" ( I know because I watched every moment of the "pre-war" hearings in The House, The Senate, and The U.N.. Both houses of congress voted to authorize the president to take military action, if certain conditions were present.

Do you remember the 48 hr ultimatum he issued to Saddam Hussein? I actually remember that the bombs started earlier than the 48 hrs. Do you remember the way that dissent was smashed? I do.

There was a massive document dump on congress that there were supposed to read, decipher, and act on in a ridiculous rush. Remember imminent threat? It's a lie to say that the administration thought that they were operating on legitimate intelligence. It's just a plain, dirty, rotten lie. That's no exaggeration. In fact, it understates how atrocious the administrations actions were.

To our undying shame.

There was no intent. Fraud requiers intent. The administration cherry picked the reports not because they knew they were false and tried to pull one over on Congress but rather because they already thought Saddam had weapons and the favored the reports that told them that. We and other countries had all kinds of conflicting information about Saddam's weapons because no one had people on the ground.

His preexisting agenda was a severe dislike of Saddam. It might have blinded him to other points of view but that doesn't exactly prove he knowingly mislead us. Like I said before there were all kind of conflicting reports about his weapons. Bush didn't fabricate them, they came from our intelligence experts. I find it hard to accept that Bush would knowingly go into a war based on bad intelligence because he had nothing to gain from it and everything to loose. I guess unless you believe those conspiracy theories that he did it all to help Halliburton.

Finally we are getting somewhere. You have the right to believe what you want but unless you can prove something it is a conspiracy theory and ranks right up there with the inside job on 9/11.

Yes, he capitalized on the fear but that doesn't prove anything or make the war illegal. I still don't see the undermining of congressional consent you claim. Congress voted for the war, they consented. The intelligence was obviously flawed but since no one has been able to get any proof that the administration knew it was flawed then there is no justification to claim Congress was out of the loop.

Bush lied, and only loons and apologist still assert that he didn't.

I don't understand what you are getting at. Those conditions weren't met. Saddam didn't give into the U.N. resolutions.

So you mean it was like every other vote in Congress done by both parties? Even if dissent want smashed that doesn't equate to an illegal war. Congress still gets to vote, if you think they caved too quickly then elect someone else.

Yes I do, it is unfortunately par for the course. Look at the immigration bill, Representatives routinely vote on things they don't read. It is a major flaw in our system. Still doesn't make the war illegal. It makes politicians morons but not the war illegal.

Not it is a lie to say the war was illegal. There is zero proof. I am not defending the war just history. The war was a huge mistake. We didn't plan well enough for it and our intelligence on Iraq was remarkably poor but you are simply taking that and hearsay to claim something that there is no proof for.

Where is your hard evidence that would stand up in court?

I could give a rats ass about Bush I just don't like overreaching statements.

Sure there is another way to put it, like "Hearsay and Conjuncture".

Bullshit!

What laws are written that would dictate whether this law is legal or not? I'm not aware of any.


So as far as I'm concerned, that's a stupid question.

If it is bullshit then prove me wrong and show me some evidence that would stand up in court.

Since this conversation seems to have become actually serious, I'd like to present a couple question to anyone interested in answering them:

• 1) Is there actually an established definition for a legal war? Is their precedent in international law?


• 2) If there isn't an already established definition then what should the criteria be? An international standard? Or does the judgment of legal stem from the originating country (i.e. without the consent of Congress in the case of the United States)?

Are you nuts?! Our country is at war because of he reckless lies of Bush Co., and you're accusing me of making overreaching statements?! Lies! The evidence is there, and you apparently don't want to hear it. Which is why I won't waist my energy trying prove anything to you.


I don't like what's been done to my country. That's way bigger than whatever issues you have.


Plus, pay for this crap! That's what you apologist need to do.

But his point is, can you prove it? I mean can you? I've been thinking about it, and it just seems to come back to opinion. The evidence seems to be entirely circumstantial at best. I mean shit, I'd loved to try Bush for an illegal war, but that desire doesn't mean it's actually possible (to prove). You'd have to somehow obtain communication from within the administration that explicitly stated they didn't care that they were operating on faulty intelligence, and if anything it seems to be more by design of the administration than by an overt policy of lying (or really, believing what you want to believe, sort of like an evidential Rorschach Test) . They maybe guilty of being complicit, or guilty of not caring enough to be thorough, but you'd have to demonstrate knowledge of fabrication to convict them of an illegal war (if that's even possible).

Links for peple who actaully give a fuck about our country. And, here. More.

I could go on.

To my knowledge the closest thing to the definition of a legal war is in the U.N. charter on the use of force.

Although as with all things in the UN it seems to be arbitrarily applied and thus I don't think there really is any real definition of a legal war. I think it basically comes down to world opinion and if any other nation wants to stop the aggressor.

I don't know if there should be anything more then what the UN already has. I think each conflict should be evaluated on it's own terms.