Why is war legal?

[bobweaver]

[shoelace414]

1. Because those in power decide what's legal.

[BlueEyedSon]

2. The question is "When is war legal?"

And the answer is outlined by the UN and in other historical treaties.

You can start here:
Just war theory
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_3_63/ai_101261140
Essay on article 51 UN Charter
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thread/13036

[iverglas]

5. exactly

Just like "when is homicide legal?" When it's committed in self-defence.

"Legal", in the sense of not subject to punishment under national laws, in the case of individuals. "Legal", in the sense of not subject to the sanctions that the international community may apply under international law (e.g. treaties), in the case of states.

States, like individuals, are considered to have a right of self-defence.

(Somebody needs to tell the author of that article, though, that law has "tenets", not "tenants".)

When it comes to the actions of individuals, it is not so clear-cut whether individuals may kill to protect third parties. Ditto, in the case of states, whether they may wage war to protect people other than their own nationals (intervention on humanitarian grounds, as in Kosovo). In both cases, there can be a fine line between nobility and vigilantism. It can be difficult to determine whether the stated reason was the real reason for the intervention or the actor was really acting out of self-interest; and in both cases the actor may lack necessary information (that a person/state defending itself would more likely have).

[ArkDem]

41. Well, in the author's 'defence'......it was a typo.

[SouthernDem2004]

3. Because sometimes force is necessary. Unfortunately you...

can not reason with everyone. Take Bosnia for instance. War should be the last option. It was not in Iraq but that does not meant war should be illegal.

[JaneDoughnut]

4. Aggressive war IS illegal

According to international law.

You could also argue that the current war was illegal under US law because Congress does not have the right to turn the power to make war over to the President.

Not that this bunch has any respect for the rule of law.

[theresistance]

6. Yes, it stems from the first two counts against the Nazis

at Nuremberg. Conspiracy to wage aggressive war (planning etc) and an unjustified war of aggression or "crime against peace". By definition, the Iraq war fits into these two indictments. That's why the UN charter calls up "self-defense" as legitimate war. However, the whole point is the neo-cons have changed the definition of "self-defense" to include "pre-emptive strikes" and thus the Iraq war. Hitler justified his invasion of Russia as a pre-emptive strike in "self-defense", a claim the Nuremberg tribunal dismissed in one sentence.

[SouthernDem2004]

8. In my opinion the Iraq war was ill conceived but not illegal.

The U.N. passed those vague resolutions that threatened Iraq for not complying.

Also, Iraq violated the cease fire from the first Iraq war.

I do not think calling it illegal is going to help anything.

[neweurope]

10. Hm. In our opinion over here it WAS and IS illegal. While the UN

negotiated the USA took the law into their own hands. That's illegal.

-----------------

Remember Fallujah
Bush to The Hague!

[SouthernDem2004]

12. I am not sure who you speak for but...

I still do not see how it is illegal. The UN was unable to get anything done. They past resolution after resolution that did nothing. I am not making an argument for the Iraq war because I do not think it should have happened but the UN negotiating means little.

The US had legal justification just based on the first Iraq war cease fire. It also had those pointless resolutions. Remember, the first war was backed by the UN and the resolutions did leave an open door to war.

[GarySeven]

15. What do you mean the UN was unable to get anything done????

The UN was responsible for disarming Iraq. There were no weapons in Iraq. The UN told Bush there was no arms in Iraq, he went anyway because he beleived his own intelligence, which was wrong and based largely on what Saddam believed, which was also wrong.

[SouthernDem2004]

16. Remember Iraq I...

The UN was unable to accomplish anything. The US and Allies did what had to be done. The UN did not disarm anyone. Anyway, this thread is about war in general not Iraq II.

[GarySeven]

20. You're right about Iraq I, wrong about Iraq II

The UN was extraordinary effective. If you want the thread to stay on target stop making absurd statements that require sidebar corrections.

[SouthernDem2004]

22. Please...

The argument can be made that Iraq II is a continuation of Iraq I since they violated the cease fire. Therefore it is still valid under the original UN resolutions allowing for force to expel Iraq from Kuwait.

Wrong but not illegal.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SouthernDem2004]

26. Even though you are being insulting...

I suggest you reread my previous posts. I never said the war was the right thing to do. I repeatedly stated the opposite. Try again.

[GarySeven]

30. Even though you are being overly sensitive

I agree with you that the war was not the right thing to do. Your statement that the UN was ineffective is what started this kerfluffle. The effectiveness of the UN is what made the war the wrong thing to do.

[wuushew]

27. That argument is factually and legally wrong

Resolution 678 (1990), which authorized the use of force in the 1991 Gulf War, can be invoked unilaterally at any time by individual Council members to authorize force in response to a material breach by Iraq of any of the conditions in any of the relevant resolutions, especially cease fire Resolution 687 (1991).

Resolution 678 specifically invoked the two exceptions to the Charter's prohibition against force- Chapter VII and the self-defense-while authorizing members to use "all necessary means" to reverse the Iraq's illegal occupation.52 This is the Council's recognized diplomatic term for authorizing force, identical to language later used in Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti.53

But Resolution 687 terminated the force authorization and declared that "a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and member states cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678." Moreover, the Council decided "to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the region."54 This language places the future approval of force expressly within the mandate of the Council acting as a whole and not in the hands of any individual members.

The same issue arose during Security Council discussions on Resolution 1154 (1998), which warned Iraq of "severest consequences in the event of noncompliance" with UNSCOM, the previous weapons inspection regime. The Council used weaker diplomatic language than "all necessary means," and again made explicit that it alone retained authority to "ensure implementation of this resolution and peace and security in the region."55 During the debate, a majority of Council members disputed U.S. and U.K. contentions that previous resolutions gave them the right to take unilateral military action against Iraq in response to a material breach. 56 Russia stated that "any hint of such automaticity with regard to the application of force has been excluded; that would not be acceptable for the majority of the Council's members."57

http://www.american-buddha.com/tearing.rules.htm

[SouthernDem2004]

29. The cease fire was between the Allies and Iraq. The UN had nothing

to do with the military action.

[wuushew]

32. Look Gulf-War #1 was U.N. authorized

the United States and other coalition members were free to use military force in the name of removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The legal authority to do so expired from a legal standpoint when the cease fire was signed.

Breaches of that ceasefire material or otherwise can only be acted upon after the U.N. has further deliberated and authorized new use of force. Since inspections would have cleared Saddam of pocessing WMD no invasion would have happened.

[SouthernDem2004]

38. Well, the UN did not invade Iraq and...

the war did not end the second we retook Kuwait. The war ends when the party(s) conducting the conflict decides it ends.

Either way like I said, bad idea but not illegal. We could always move onto the argument who determines what is legal but I am hungry. Time for some Outback.

[K-W]

35. ANY argument can be made, no matter how bad it is.

Which you just proved.

[LynnTheDem]

36. Bullshit.

When did America have the right to determine how UN resolutions will be enforced???


It's up to the UN to decide how UN resolutions are to be enforced; NOT up to the US. Invasion of Iraq is ILLEGAL. Get over it.

[SouthernDem2004]

17. Remember Iraq I...

The UN was unable to accomplish anything. The US and Allies did what had to be done. The UN did not disarm anyone. Anyway, this thread is about war in general not Iraq II.

[wuushew]

14. please support your arguments

International legal experts regard Iraq war as illegal

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/ilaw-m26.shtml


Blix: Iraq War was Illegal

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2004/0305blixillegalwar.htm


Iraq War was Illegal and Breached
UN Charter, Says Annan

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2004/0916illegal.htm

[SouthernDem2004]

18. Sorry, I stopped reading when I read the first links website title.

[wuushew]

23. Just admit you are a neo-liberal and be done with it

If you don't like my links then here is one from the Center of Economic and Social Rights.

http://cesr.org/node/view/523?PHPSESSID=68aedd2ad3368485afc13ec9703d57e3

Can you give me any good reasons why the invasion was legal since 1441 didn't not authorize the use of force against Iraq. Or perhaps why Bush violated the terms and language of the IWR and should have been impeached?

Is your defense going to be the ends justify the means? Kosovo was also illegal by the way.

[SouthernDem2004]

25. Sorry, I am not sure what the term neo-liberal actually means..

Seriously, I guess it is an insult but I have no idea. I consider myself a moderate Democrat.

At the end of Iraq I there was a cease fire. Iraq repeatedly violated the cease fire from day one almost. No other justification would have been needed to strike Iraq again. Iraq II... Wrong Yes, Illegal no.

Your last sentence is meaningless.

[K-W]

37. Your arguments on this thread are not just wrong, they are funny.

The best of the best of Hawk straw grasping.

A continuation of the first gulf war? Are you really trying to argue that?

Bush isnt even silly enough to try and claim that. (and since he doesnt, you really cant argue it, the whitehouse sees this as a different war, so deal)

It is a justification that can only be taken seriously by people who desperately want to believe in the Iraq war.

[SouthernDem2004]

39. Reread my post.

I stated REPEATEDLY that the second war was wrong. Wrong, not illegal. Please reread my posts several times and try again.

[K-W]

42. You can state that all you want, you are still wrong.

The second war was not in any way shape or form legal. And your contortions of international law arent going to change that. The fact that the US doesnt claim that this is a continuation of the first war is a pretty good indication that your argument holds no water.

If the Bush administration were standing by you on this, you might at least have something, but the fact that the US went to the UN to present a case for an entirely new war based on the immenent threat of Saddams weapons means that this is indeed a new war which required security council approval that was never recieved.

Why would you be so attached to such a convoluted justification for war?

[SouthernDem2004]

45. The US is not arguing the legality of the war but the justification.

Your question does not apply. No one is trying to justify the war. The thread was about the legality.

Relax and try not to be so insulting in your posts. People would respond more...

[LynnTheDem]

46. Some people shut their minds if they dislike one source, won't even bother

to read the other links or check for other sources, so here's other sources for you to use against closed-minded individuals, especially rightwingnuts;

Iraq war illegal, says Annan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm

Iraq war illegal say legal experts and Kofi Annan
http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve04/1199iraq.html

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

And like it or not, ONLY the UN can determine how UN resolutions will be enforced. The UN said NO to invading Iraq. Period.

And where in the United States Constitution does it say preventive invasions are ok?

The invasion of Iraq was illegal by the USC, by the UN, and by every international law and treaty. bush and the rightwingnut bushbots can declare otherwise until the cows come home; the invasion of Iraq was and is illegal, immoral, unjust and bloody wrong.

[LynnTheDem]

33. Bullshit.

Those "vague resolutions" were US-written, and the US was asked OUTRIGHT at the UN did the resolutions contain "any hidden triggers for war", because if so they would NOT be passed.

The US SPECIFICALLY said NO, they contained NO hidden triggers for war:

U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte publicly moderated the Bush administration’s position: “As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no ‘hidden triggers’ and no ‘automaticity’ with respect to the use of force.”

It is up to the UN to decide how the UN resolutions are enforced; it is NEVER up to the US to determine how to enforce UN resolutions.

The invasion of Iraq is ILLEGAL.

The UN has declared the invasion ILLEGAL.

Of course it's illegal. And of course you would argue it isn't.

[GarySeven]

9. Aggressive war, if properly directed, may be a moral imperative

Once you have determined war is necessary and committed your forces, it seems that prosecuting the war aggressively is a moral imperative. You should aggressively destroy the enemy's ability to make war, quickly and decisively, starting with their assets in the field and working down to logistical infrastructure. Doing this aggressively means quickly - and the quicker the enemy is reduced, the loss of life of civilian and combatant alike is reduced. This does not mean, of course, that loss of life will be inconsiderable; there may be tens of thousands of the enemy killed, for example. But the quicker the enemy has no ability to wage war, then the less chance that the loss of life must expand into other theaters - thus it becomes a question of whether you kill 10,000 now or must see the loss of 100,000 later.

All this depends, of course, on people making proper moral choices and choosing proper military targets. The noteworthy aspect of the Iraq campaign is that NO effort has been made to dominate the war zone with enough arms and personnel to both destroy the enemy's fighting capacity and - and this is very important - to convince them that resistance (to borrow a phrase) is futile. The Bush administration has literally been trying to make the Iraqi people suffer which is a very different thing than trying to get them to put down their arms and accept surrender. This says something about the motives of the people who started this war and who are prosecuting it. In the strange moral world of warmaking, making people suffer is immoral - killing them quickly to prevent escalation is more "moral."

[JaneDoughnut]

44. I think we are using "aggressive" differently

I understand it to mean "without a credible need for self-defense."

Of course, from what I understand, a war that is not specifically self-defense may be legal if it is authorized by the Security Council.

Our invasion of Iraq met neither criteria.

[ArkDem]

43. I've always wondered how you would fight a passive war...

[coloradodem2005]

7. I don't know.

So people can legally kill other people probably.

[slackmaster]

11. Because all power flows from the barrel of a gun

It's just as true today as when Mao said it in 1949.

[mopaul]

13. even monkeys have wars

well documented that chimps take sides and have wars. it's primal in us, and it's there for a good reason, but humans have wars for no good reason at all. usually.

[aquart]

19. For the same reason alcohol and tobacco are.

[AG78]

21. Because we're human?

We like killing each other. It's the most successful endeavor in human history. We're at our point in time because of war. Everything you see, is a result of war. Every war has lead to this moment in time. War shapes our past, present, and future.

Why is it legal to pay someone $0.20 an hour just to make a bigger profit?

Why is it legal to keep "3rd world" debt alive when you know those countries can never pay it back?

Because we're spinning around the sun with no destination and making it up as we go along?

[leftofthedial]

28. because the people fighting it

have lots of really big guns

[billyskank]

31. Because it's good for business. n/t

[JoshK]

34. War has ALWAYS been great for US industrial profiteers. The

US economy itself is now mostly a war machine (& has been, ever since Truman). If you cut military spending by 30%, it would have no effect at all on our ability to defend ourselves, but would throw the economy into a depression. The US is economically dependent on maintaining the war machine, and couldn't stop feeding it even if TPTB wanted to. And they don't want to.

The people at the top of the MIC are doing very nicely with this arrangement. They happen to own almost all of Congress, of both parties. Therefore, this aspect of the status quo is not likely to change.

[K-W]

40. Military spending.

The best way for the government to funnel money to corporations with as few working people as possible benefitting.

[Lost147]

47. because it's inevitable! NT

NT