Seems to me that there is a lot of chattering about the illegality of the US led action against Iraq. While the UN never gave its sanction, neither did it declare the action “illegal.” So while “not legal” it is also not “illegal.” Comments.
Also, given the widespread support among the EU and Nato members, what degree of “illegality” or “not legality” should be apportioned to them?
Finally, given that the UN now legally approves of the US occupation of Iraq, what are we to conclude regarding the “not legal” matter of the invasion? AND if the US occupation is not UN approved and “legal” should those nations that are doing nothing about helping the UN achieve its aims in Iraq be determined to be acting “illegally?”
[quote=“fred smith”]Seems to me that there is a lot of chattering about the illegality of the US led action against Iraq. While the UN never gave its sanction, neither did it declare the action “illegal.” So while “not legal” it is also not “illegal.” Comments.
Also, given the widespread support among the EU and Nato members, what degree of “illegality” or “not legality” should be apportioned to them?
Finally, given that the UN now legally approves of the US occupation of Iraq, what are we to conclude regarding the “not legal” matter of the invasion? AND if the US occupation is not UN approved and “legal” should those nations that are doing nothing about helping the UN achieve its aims in Iraq be determined to be acting “illegally?”[/quote]
Oh shut up for fuck’s sake! It’s boring and all this crap you are coming out with now just adds to the endless right wing rubbish you are attempting to swamp the forums with to obscure the fact that you have fucked up and your country is screwed for the next few decades. The only good thing is that we are having a good old laugh at you, the omniscient Yanks drowning in your incompetence.
[quote=“fred smith”]Oh I doubt that Broon Ale. Oh I doubt that. Yippee!
Fred[/quote]
It’s boring Fred. It adds nothing to a topic that hasn’t been covered in every aspect elsewhere. It really is a big yawn now. The responses will only contradict your previous de jure vs. de facto arguments made elsewhere and will only show you to be a contrary failing nincompoop, which of course, you are.
Whatever, Fred. I don’t even know what you said (apart from what BroonAle quoted), since you are the only one on my ignore list.
However, whether or not it was illegal is completely moot, since the law appears to make absolutely no difference at all when it comes to (U.S. and A.) presidential decision making.
To answer the topic question, my understanding is that the legality of the invasion hinges on whether Iraq constituted an imminent threat to the United States, the United Kingdom, and the other countries whose forces participated in the invasion. The notion of imminence has always been temporal. If country (A) mobilizes its armies against country (B), then country (B) has the right to launch a preemptive strike against country (A). Remember how the Bush Administration was bandying about the term “imminent threat” in the days leading up to the invasion? That’s because Article 51 of the UN Charter, while strictly speaking only addresses self-defense, has always been considered to include preemption action in the event of an immediate and unavoidable attack from another country or group of countries. That concept long pre-dated the creation of the Charter.
Other than that no state has any right to attack another unless the UN Security Council approves it, which they didn’t. So the question is, did Iraq pose an immediate and unavoidable threat to the United States and the other members of the Coalition? I don’t think anyone really believes they did. Richard Perle didn’t. Don’t you remember what a stink he made when he conceded the US invasion was illegal?
The Administration’s argument is that Iraq’s violation of the UN resolutions granted it the right to invade Iraq, but the problem with that is the US would still have had to get final authorization from the UN Security Council. And it did try. The fact that it tried signals to me the Bush Administration was aware of the legal requirement and was trying follow the law if it could. When it did not get the answer it wanted, it…well it invaded anyway.
Regarding your “not legal” and “illegal” comment, I’m not sure how to respond. I’ve never seen those terms used as anything but synonyms.
My understanding is that if any of them participated in the invasion, the same test applies to them as applies to the United States. Did Iraq pose an imminent threat to them?
Now, as to those who gave financial or “moral” support, without actually sending troops, I have no idea how the law affects them. Maybe one of the lawyers on here could answer that one.
I didn’t know the UN had declared the occupation legal. Was that recent, or am I way behind?
Of course, even if the invasion was illegal, who is going to prosecute the United States? Law does not mean much without power to back it up. Also, I don’t think history’s judgment of the American-led invasion and occupation is going to focus on the legality of the events as much as their actual impact on the world. Was the Hussein regime a threat to the region and to the world? Was the level of violence and chaos in Iraq greater before or after the invasion? Did the American presence have a predominantly positive or negative long term effect on the Middle East? There are a lot of questions to ask now and a lot more that will be asked later. Whether the invasion was technically legal or not is probably not going to be foremost among them.
Why was it necessary for the US to go to the UN to declare Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait unlawful and therefore illegal in 1991 if as you say such an action would automatically be deemed “illegal” anyway? Set a precedent no?
I wonder what it is that really motivates your interest in Iraq one way or another Broon Ale. Given that your nation is directly and “intimately” involved and has been from the very beginning, why don’t you save your protests for Blair and now your Scottish friend? er Broon of a different kind? Regardless, both names have the same exact shared quality: they are the color of shit.
Not really: I thought my spoonerism was much better. Your threats to my enjoyment of FFIV will come to nowt as I have discovered that without a keyboard you are feeble in the extreme. Bring on Foodfight IV.
The UN is as much a political animal as it is a legal one. It isn’t likely that our allies in the UN are going to destabilize relations with us by holding a formal hearing. They certainly wouldn’t try to punish us, so what’s the point. However, my reading of the law is that the US invasion was illegal. Sorry, was that not the answer you were looking for?
The U N Secretary General at the time, Kofi Annan, has declared the invasion of Iraq illegal and a violation of the U N charter but, as Fred has noted, that’s beside the point. The point being that might makes right.
Well, Kofi can say what he likes. We all know why he and Sevran were so eager to see any invasion put off don’t we? Anyway, I will grant you that the invasion could be “not legal” but it was not “illegal” or will Kofi be telling us then why in past situations (precedents) it was always necessary to go to the UN to have such and such an action declared “illegal?” Why would this be necessary if the action taken without the approval of the UN would automatically be “illegal?” hmmm
Everyone likes to play these legalistic games, so there is one. Ceasefire broken. Past precedent in both Bosnia (no UN approval but with Kofi’s approval) and the US going to the UN to declare Saddam’s first invasion “illegal.” Precedent counts for nothing now?
I’d say the occupation may well be illegal or “not legal,” but it’s largely a moot point. I don’t think U.N. law is by any means controlling as regards the actions of a President with the approval of Congress. It’s really more like violating an unenforceable contract than it is a violation of law.
Yes, only one nation is going to matter when it comes to real fight and that nation will decide on its own ultimately as will all other nations.
For example, while many nations such as Germany and France and their citizens are very much against the war and very much resent the US invasion given that it did not have UN approval, can we not come back to them with the same anger and resentment to say that when the UN does approve of something, they are no where to be found? I mean, here we have the UN approving an operation in Darfur. Are the Germans, French, Belgians now moving rapidly to comply with the UN request for troops? No? Interesting, eh? Does their non-compliance count as “illegality” or “non-legality” or is commission of acts without UN approval worse than omission of acts at the UN’s bequest? Of course, I doubt that Rascal and others would like to debate this as this would be a bit inconvenient in their usual anti-American, anti-Bush rants. But there you are…
I would agree but technically the US signed the UN treaty so it is ultimately though not enforceably ceding certain powers to the UN. That was done in 1952. The fact is that if the US wanted to, it could merely drop its willingness to accede to this. This would no doubt lead to a stampede and a collapse of the UN. The truth is that the “norm” and “precedent” that have been set far before the US invasion of Iraq is that nations which do not agree with UN pronouncements simply ignore them. We have the Human Rights and Disarmament Commissions becoming a joke of epic proportions and no one says anything about the UN “not following the law.” Would such placement as Zimbabwe, Cuba and others and Iraq on Disarmament! not count as “illegal?” One wonders.
