Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Johnny Rotten
The Geneva Convention and U.N. Security Council specifically forbid the military action we have taken in Iraq. It doesn't matter what intel you have; it was and is in violation of international law. That's why Obama gave that speech in 2002 against the war. There was no clear and present danger, no imminent threat, and no evidence of import. Obama made a call based on judgment and backed by the rule of law and the Constitution.
That's why Obama said in the last debate that it was important to be right on day one, not merely ready.
|
I'm certainly not going to defend the 'rightness' of the war in Iraq, but legally it is solid as far as the United States Congress is concerned. The Geneva Convention has undoubtedly been violated by our conduct in Iraq, but that has nothing to do with Senator Clinton's vote. Security Counsel Resolutions 1441 & 1483 respectively found Iraq in violation of its Kuwait resolutions and implicitly authorized the US & UK to stabilize Iraq as occupying forces. Even without either of those Resolution 678 granted the US the authority to use all necessary force to bring international peace and stability to the region. Lastly, Bush may have violated the Constitution by acting without initial Congressional authority, however Congress did ultimately authorize the action and, perhaps more importantly,
Doe v. Bush effectively cleared the 2002 Resolution of Constitutional challenge.
Now, I'll be the first to tell you that the war has been conducted illegally and without regard for law or human rights. But that isn't the fault of any legislator simply for voting to pass the 2002 Authorization of Military Force.