Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seaver
How is the legality of the war in question? Our military answers ONLY to the U.S. Government. There was NO part in this war which was handled illegally...
Our military does not answer to foreign powers unless specifically ordered to BY THE U.S. Military OR GOVERNMENT. So why does it matter to the military if a war is deemed illegal by the UN? The UN has no power over the US military which the US military does not allow them to have. So what legality is he arguing about? That's like arguing Canadian Law in the US as a defense, it holds no water...
|
Under the Constitution of the United States all international treaties and resolutions adopted by the United States Congress is the law of the land. We answer to the UN through our adoption of certain charters and conventions that we agreed to and we can not renig on just because we feel like it. Our adoption of international agreements, like the Geneva Convention, are binding law and to simply disregard them because it is convienent is a violation of not only the international agreement but, by way of the Constitution, also a violation of American law.
So, yes Seaver, our military does have to answer to foreign powers because we have agreed to certain ways of conducting our military operations internationally. Our occupation is Iraq may well be illegal because of accusations being made about US forces violating the Geneva Convention both in our military engagement and in our treatment of prisoners resulting from the war. Furthermore, our initial invasion may be illegal because of certain standards agreed upon via our position on the UN Security Council.
I'm sure you've noticed that both of those arguments conclude in that we 'may' be acting illegally. The only reason there is a 'may' about it is because there has been few trials held against the US or its troops either at home or internationally because for the most part we won't allow it. Even in
Hamdi and
Rasad the Supreme Court was very sure to touch only enough on the international law issues to say that the Geneva Convention did amount to binding law and that the military tribunals needed fixing to be legal. The problem then and now is that finding something illegal sometimes won't change a thing. Even if certain aspects of this administrations approach in Iraq were found to be illegal (and they most likely would be) it would have almost no effect on the war. At most we could cart a few people off to prison but that would just spend more money and not stop the 'illegal' war from continuing. Only after the war itself is over might these types of charges actually make any difference in an attempt to restore legitimacy to the executive office.
So I guess the question about the legality of the war comes down to whether a law has to be immediately effective in halting a crime to be truly considered law. Many would say it does, but I happen to think that just because the law was too weak in the frontier west, a little over a hundred years ago, doesn't mean that all the bank robbers, cattle thieves, railroad bandits, and outright murderers were still criminals even though they were never brought to justice because their gangs were stronger than the law.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
By that logic, removing Iraq from Kuwait was a pre-emptive war.
Was Iraq posing a direct threat to the US by invading Kuwait?
Did the US, by way of the UN, have any business interferring militarily in a conflict that allegedly was not a direct threat to it?
Was the invasion of Kuwait a direct threat to America?
|
That isn't exactly what pre-emptive war means. The Iraq War I was retaliatory against Iraq's aggression against Kuwait. The principle of pre-emption doesn't have to be against a direct threat to self it's about attacking because we don't want our targets to attack first (either us or a third party). Attacking Iran because we are afraid they might attack us or Israel would be pre-emption. Attacking Iran if they had actually attacked Israel would not be.