Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
The Security Council said no, therefore 678 cannot be used to legally excuse the invasion. The invasion was a breach of Article 51 of the UN Charter, which is a valid US treaty and as such is US law. Under the UN Charter, there are only two circumstances in which the use of force is allowed:
1) in self-defense against an actual or imminent armed attack
2) and when the security council has authorized use of force
Neither of these situations existed in 2002 or 2003.
The reality is that the UN can't do shit when it comes to a member of the security council so all they could do was say "Don't say we didn't warn you, you idiots" and watch the whole thing go to hell in a hand basket.
|
It never came to a vote before the Security Council. The US/UK dropped their proposal when it became clear that it was would get vetoed by one of several permanent members. 678 is still valid international law and in the absence of said explicit no, it would still validate the action. Point is, regardless of whether you agree with the legal argument or not, I don't think Congress is blame for the illegality of the initial action they had no say in nor the later illegalities that came as a result of White House (or otherwise executive) policies.