Was the Iraq 'war' legal?

[M14 Shooter]

Customary international law...

This doesn't answer my question. Please try again.

If not the UN, then what other entity has the authority to make the determination as to what qualifies as "sefl defense" under the UN charter and if a particulart war/act of war qualifies as such? Where did they get that authority?

If you cannot answer those questions, then we're left with the UN having that authority.
As asked before: In which resolution did the UN declare the 2003 Iraq war illegal?

 

[there4eyeM]

There is no need to specifically declare something illegal if it already is.

 

[chikenwing]

And all this pissing for distance matters how??

 

[Borillar]

To paraphrase Jesse "The Body" Ventura, It's only illegal if you get caught and are held accountable. We don't hold Bush, Cheney, Obama, etc accountable for war crimes. That's for the Lynndie Englands of the world.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is no need to specifically declare something illegal if it already is.

:
I see that your bigoted, partisan preconceptions get the better of your intellectual honesty.
Back on ignore with you.

 

[there4eyeM]

There is no need to specifically declare something illegal if it already is.

:
I see that your bigoted, partisan preconceptions get the better of your intellectual honesty.
Back on ignore with you.

Thank you.

 

[there4eyeM]

So, by all objective standards, the Iraq 'war' was and is illegal.

 

[Billo_Really]

Congress clearly did not consider the war to be illegal as it gave its consent for said war...

Congress only gave consent if Iraq was a threat to our national security, which it never was.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Congress clearly did not consider the war to be illegal as it gave its consent for said war...

Congress only gave consent if Iraq was a threat to our national security, which it never was.

Apparently you have not read the relevant resolution as the condition you state does not exist.
See Sec 3 in particular:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Full Text of H.J.Res. 114 (107th): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - GovTrack.us

So... Congress clearly did not consider the war to be illegal as it gave its consent for said war.

 

[there4eyeM]

And congress, not for the first time, as has been pointed out, passed a resolution that was illegal by definition according to the constitution.

 

[Billo_Really]

Apparently you have not read the relevant resolution as the condition you state does not exist.
See Sec 3 in particular:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Full Text of H.J.Res. 114 (107th): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - GovTrack.us

So... Congress clearly did not consider the war to be illegal as it gave its consent for said war.

I read it and there is no way anyone can argue they were a threat to our national security!

The notion of that is just absurd!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Apparently you have not read the relevant resolution as the condition you state does not exist.
See Sec 3 in particular:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Full Text of H.J.Res. 114 (107th): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - GovTrack.us

So... Congress clearly did not consider the war to be illegal as it gave its consent for said war.

I read it and there is no way anyone can argue they were a threat to our national security!
The notion of that is just absurd!

Congress gave the President, not you, the power to make that determination.
...thus...
Congress clearly did not consider the war to be illegal as it gave its consent for said war.
No way to honestly argue otherwise.

 

[Billo_Really]

Congress gave the President, not you, the power to make that determination.
...thus...
Congress clearly did not consider the war to be illegal as it gave its consent for said war.
No way to honestly argue otherwise.

Congress did it with the condition Iraq was a threat to our national security and you cannot argue they were.

 

[there4eyeM]

Which has more legal weight, Congress or the constitution?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Congress gave the President, not you, the power to make that determination.
...thus...
Congress clearly did not consider the war to be illegal as it gave its consent for said war.
No way to honestly argue otherwise.

Congress did it with the condition Iraq was a threat to our national security and you cannot argue they were.

Congress gave the President, not you, the power to make that determination.
You can disagree with his determination all you want, but your opinion doesn't matter.
...thus...
Congress clearly did not consider the war to be illegal as it gave its consent for said war.
No way to honestly argue otherwise.

 

[there4eyeM]

bump

Which has more legal weight, Congress or the constitution?

 

[Franticfrank]

I always thought an action without U.N. authorisation was illegal, none moreso than one based on lies about a threat and weapons of mass destruction that never existed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I always thought an action without U.N. authorisation was illegal...

The UN charter specifically allows a state to act - to go to war- in its own sef defense.
Who has the power to make a binding determination as to if a given war/act of war is in self-defense, and where did they get that power?

 

[there4eyeM]

I always thought an action without U.N. authorisation was illegal...

The UN charter specifically allows a state to act - to go to war- in its own sef defense.
Who has the power to make a binding determination as to if a given war/act of war is in self-defense, and where did they get that power?

Ultimately, then, the one who has the most power and can prosecute once the 'war' is over.

As General Lemay said after WWII, "It's a good thing we won, or we would be on trial."

 

[Billo_Really]

Congress gave the President, not you, the power to make that determination.
You can disagree with his determination all you want, but your opinion doesn't matter.
...thus...
Congress clearly did not consider the war to be illegal as it gave its consent for said war.
No way to honestly argue otherwise.

The President could not argue they were.