Was the Iraq 'war' legal?

[M14 Shooter]

Translation:
You have no idea of what the answer might be and don't want to have to admit it.
Do you have an answer that actually addresses the question, or not?

No, it's just a stupid question!

You and I both accept the fact that you cannot tell us who determines if a war, or an act of war is in self-defense.
Thank you.

Which then necessitates that the UN is the sole source of international law and the sole arbiter thereof.
Show this to be true.

No it doesn't necessitate that.
You have the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Statutes, Nuremberg Principles and they all make up what is referred to as International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

So... the UN is NOT the sole source of international law and the sole arbiter of same.
Thank you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you are attacked, it's pretty obvious your actions are in self-defense.

This doesn't tell me who determines if a war is in self-defense

When the US became a member state.

How did the US (or any other state) becoming a member of the UN nullify any and every other means of creating and arbitrating international law?

How can you cite "international law"?
How is the US answerable to any other country as to it's behavior?
See how that works?

Um... not sure of your point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Was the Iraq 'war' legal?

No.

Was it illegal?
If so, based on what?

 

[hortysir]

This doesn't tell me who determines if a war is in self-defense

How did the US (or any other state) becoming a member of the UN nullify any and every other means of creating and arbitrating international law?

How can you cite "international law"?
How is the US answerable to any other country as to it's behavior?
See how that works?

Um... not sure of your point.

Seemed like an exercise in futility, s'all.

You were questioning how we should be answerable to the UN, but then you mention International Law.
It seems you can't have 'International Law' without a body designed to enforce it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How can you cite "international law"?
How is the US answerable to any other country as to it's behavior?
See how that works?

Um... not sure of your point.

Seemed like an exercise in futility, s'all.
You were questioning how we should be answerable to the UN, but then you mention International Law.
It seems you can't have 'International Law' without a body designed to enforce it.

That's the thing about international law - it is enforced by the parties involved.

 

[there4eyeM]

The 'body to enforce' it is Congress, obviously.
They have to approve all treaties.
The US is a signatory.
The international laws thus assimilated become law like the constitution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 'body to enforce' it is Congress, obviously.

Assume you are correct, and Congress is indeed the proper body to make that determination.

Congress clearly did not consider the war to be illegal as it gave its consent for said war, and continued to give its consent thru specific appropriations that provided the funding for same.

Thus, the war is not illegal.


I bet you'd like to try again.

 

[there4eyeM]

Is it being seriously proposed that Congress is never contradictory or that it never acts extra-constitutionally?
Remember the CDA back under Clinton in the 90's? They voted a clearly unconstitutional act and Bill signed it immediately. The A.C.L.U. took it to the first Federal judge they found and, of course, the act was nullified.
That Congress thought the act legal did not make it so.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That Congress thought the act legal did not make it so.

I laugh at you.
You just said that Congress determines if a war is illegal.
Now you try to argue that just because Congress determined the war was legal does not mean it was legal.
I laugh at you again.

 

[there4eyeM]

The poster is seeing things that are not there. It was never stated that Congress decides if something is legal. It approves all treaties and they become law. There is a nuance.

But laughter is good for you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The poster is seeing things that are not there. It was never stated that Congress decides if something is legal. It approves all treaties and they become law. There is a nuance.

Ah.
Thought you responded to the 'who determines if a war is illegal question', which, of course, still stands.

 

[there4eyeM]

The poster is seeing things that are not there. It was never stated that Congress decides if something is legal. It approves all treaties and they become law. There is a nuance.

Ah.
Thought you responded to the 'who determines if a war is illegal question', which, of course, still stands.

The question about the men in the bar addressed that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The poster is seeing things that are not there. It was never stated that Congress decides if something is legal. It approves all treaties and they become law. There is a nuance.

Ah.
Thought you responded to the 'who determines if a war is illegal question', which, of course, still stands.

The question about the men in the bar addressed that.

No it doesn't.
So - who determines if the war is illegal? Who are "the police"?

 

[there4eyeM]

If a parable like that isn't clear, there is not much that can be done.

The police symbolize any objective view of the situation, especially in light of accepted law and custom.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If a parable like that isn't clear, there is not much that can be done.

Translation: you know you cannot answer the question.
I am sure that you will continue to prove this with your responses to follow.

The police symbolize any objective view of the situation, especially in light of accepted law and custom.

No....
The question is who, in terms of international law, has the authority to determine if an act/war is in self-defense?

In your example, the police make the determination because they have the authority to do so. In terms of international law, who - what person, what body, what entity - has the authority to make the determination?

 

[there4eyeM]

The family of nations signatory to the laws, of course. In this case, they acknowledge that Iraq II was illegal. They just can't do much about it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The family of nations signatory to the laws, of course.

Ah. The UN.
In which resolution did the UN declare the 2003 Iraq war illegal?

 

[there4eyeM]

Not necessarily the UN. Congress should admit it was wrong and prosecute the guilty.

But in what case does a legislature declare that a person broke the speed limit? There are limits in place and exceeding them is illegal.

Is that not evident?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not necessarily the UN.

Remember, we're duiscussing "seff defense" as the term is used in the UN charter, and who makes the determination as to if a particular war/act of war qualifies as such.

If not the UN, then what other entity has the authority to make the determination, and where did they get that authority? We're not looking for who has the authority to offer an opinion of thematter, we're talking about the authority to make a binding determination.

 

[there4eyeM]

"Customary international law

The traditional customary rules on self-defence derive from an early diplomatic incident between the United States and the United Kingdom over the killing on some US citizens engaged in an attack on Canada, then a British colony. The so-called Caroline case established that there had to exist "a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation,' and furthermore that any action taken must be proportional, "since the act justified by the necessity of self-defence, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it." These statements by the US Secretary of State to the British authorities are accepted as an accurate description of the customary right of self-defence."