OT; afghan war illegal?
 

after the attack the afghan gov of the time was in agreement that if the US gov bring proof that binladen was connected to the attacks they will judge him or deport him for trial in the US

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPh6Iv2GbcA

and why was Iraq illegal?

I dont consider either of them a war, they are both occupations. Iraq was
just a big mistake, never should have gone in there. Afghanistan is a policing
action.

Did Bin Laden not admit the attacks on the WTC? If he went around saying he did then he most likely was responsible, plus he had the means. Also why have terrorist training camps for Al Qaede all over Afghanistan, were they some sort of holiday camps for lonely nutters?

Generally the 2003 Iraq invasion is seen as illegal and the Afghanistan invasion is seen as legitimate.

If you want to get technical about it, its impossible for any military action by the United States to be declared "illegal" in the United Nations as the US has veto power in the security council. Any attempt to declare a US military action illegal can simply be vetoed by the US.

On the other hand, if the 2003 invasion had been conducted by anyone other than a security council member with veto powers, the action would likely have been denounced as illegal as regime change is NOT a legitimate reason for invasion and the other claimed reason (WMD) was a fabrication based on suspect testimony gathered mainly from sources connected with Iran. Basically the Bush administration decided to invade and then went looking for legal loopholes to make the invasion legitimate.

Bush and Cheney should have been arrested for war crimes!!

Seems like an odd statement

Iraq was an attack war on wrong arguments (nuclear weapons ...) give nto the public. Thus the war in Iraq was and is in general understoodment and due the rights of Den Haag (?) an illegal movement towards an independant state (one can think about Iraq and Saddam what ya want).

For the same reason Serbia was called guilty and its leaders were arrested.
In a perfect world Bush & Cheyney should be send to the court in Den Haag.
For the same reason Wehrmacht generals like Manstein were send for 10 yrs to prison, although this last comparison is a kind of flawed, as several other
charges were made also, next for leading the attack war ( imho it was a preventive attack into the east, but my opinion doesnt count here)


At the end a reason for the antipathie towards US in the past years compared to the years before.

My opinion:
Hang the cowboy high.

Well, some could see it as "illegal" and some don't, but correct me if I am wrong; the US Constitution does allow for The US to defend against any attack on her, perceived or otherwise, on her soil or overseas.
Soveriegn law overirides international law.

Anyways though, this topic really can't be discussed without going deeply into politics.

I am reffering to the approval of waterboarding aka torture. Illegal and a war crime. Bush administration approved of torture.

Ibtl

As usual AOA had to come and pi$$ on some wall to leave his stain :rolleyes:

it is a very delicate topic, there's no question that one can't fully justify the invasion of Iraq nor Afghanistan: the former was based on nothing, and as it turned out was managed in the most incompetent and sinister of ways
(if you're never watched it, have a go at this http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0912593/)

the invasion of Afghanistan didn't bring the hoped results, and it still remains that it's likely that Bin Laden spent most of his time in Pakistan than Afghanistan. The sad truth is that as usual the collateral damage caused to the civilians was dramatic: 10 years on in the occupation, there are around 30k civilian casualties, not to mention the various war crimes that have been committed over the years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilia...%80%93present)). You can appreciate why the Islamic world is not too impressed with this, and I really think we don't get an understanding of what it really means to be occupied by a military force for a decade and risking your life daily because of the ongoing conflict..

food for thought, but truth is that few or little things have changed, the only thing raising is the death toll and the costs for us all.

The former was to protect the "petrodollar" (the US dollar "reserve currency/ Fiat" that never sees home) and yes, it was conducted very poorly... sure the "shock and awe" was there, but that was let down by only half the number of troops/ assets being in place for after the shock and awe circus passed on by.

They should have locked down each town on their way in, instead of just running shielding... it was akin to a gridiron play.

No idea about the legal mumbo jumbo but regardless that only works for Afghanistan.

Iraq had no connection with sept 11.

Taco Bell had no connection to Mexico.

i dont present my point very well at all. ill try again:



The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the United States and thus part of US law. Under the charter, a country can use armed force against another country only in self-defense or when the Security Council approves. Neither of those conditions was met before the United States invaded Afghanistan. The Taliban did not attack us on 9/11. Nineteen men – 15 from Saudi Arabia – did, and there was no imminent threat that Afghanistan would attack the US or another UN member country. The council did not authorize the United States or any other country to use military force against Afghanistan. The US war in Afghanistan is illegal.
— Marjorie Cohn, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of the National Lawyers Guild


also, bin laden (he was in pakistan all the time like you said) is dead now.
i thought that was the main "reason" to ocuppy afghanistan.

to put it in perspective it would be the same situation if usa invades mexico becouse of the drugs cartels with no connections at (at least oficcials) with the gob of mexico.
or if china invade usa couse of the chinese mafia operating in usa.

ps. i think that we can mantain this civ enougth to keep it open.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/

Do you really think that the Terrorist oraganisation that was responsible, which was in Afghanistan was not going to be attacked after 9/11?

Do you think the most powerful military force on the planet was going to ask for a resoltuion after being humbled in such a way?

What was the United Nations going to do about a US war that was illegal? Declare war on the US! With what? Pull dirty faces?

As Darth Sidous said `I will make it,legal`.

Legal or illegal, the collateral benefits are a flow of trillions in the pockets of the military-industrial complex, and out of the wallets of taxpayers. As they use to say, follow the money ...

Actually, international law overrides national laws (well, it's a bit more complicated, you have monist and dualist conceptions of the IL). BTW, the UN Charter prohibits aggression wars (Chapter VII if I recall correctly). Only attacks in self-defense or attacks that have been approved beforehand by the Security Council can be considered legal.

From a pure theoretically POV, not really. Conventions that prohibit war crimes (like the Geneva ones 1949) have been recognised by the ICJ as erga omnes. It means they must be respected by any country, whether it has ratified or not those conventions. And, the different statuses of international tribunals (like the ICC, Nuremberg tribunals, ICTY, etc) include the international penal responsibility of individuals (including head of state) when it comes to that kind of violations : war crimes, genocide, crimes against peace...

Of course, in reality, Bush and Cheney have nothing to worry about. Unlike African or Eastern Europe dictators.

That's the way it is.

You're gonna need a whole lot of rope
 

For reference.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d6...an/00part1.jpg
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d6...an/00part2.jpg
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d6...an/00part3.jpg

"The law of nations is a part of the law of the United States unless there is some statute or treaty to the contrary. International law is a part of the law of the United States only for the application of its principles on questions of international rights and duties. It does not restrict the United States or any other nation from making laws governing its own territory. A State of the United States is not a "state" under international law, since the Constitution does not vest it with a capacity to conduct foreign relations."


http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/international_law





Powers of The Congress:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8






(Iraq round two)
International law
Further information: United Nations Charter and International law

'[/i\\i]There have been no findings by any legal tribunal with both legal authority and legal jurisdiction that any laws were violated. There are only two legal tribunals with both authority and jurisdiction to make such a finding: (1) The US federal courts and (2) the United Nations. Advisory opinions are prohibited in US Courts and are also prohibited by the UN Charter unless the security council authorizes them. There are no relevant advisory opinions or legal finding regarding the legality. The United Nations security council has made no findings on the issues.

[edit] International law - right of pre-emptive self defenseThere is no requirement in international law that the United States (or any nation) seek permission to initiate any war of self defense.[44] "The United States government has argued, wholly apart from Resolution 1441, that it has a right of pre-emptive self defense to protect itself from terrorism fomented by Iraq.[45] Although this position has been intensively criticized, without any legal finding for support, claims for legality or illegality are merely debates. To prove illegality it would first be necessary to prove that the US did not meet the conditions of necessity and proportionality and that the right of pre-emptive defense did not apply.[46]'[/i]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_R...s_Against_Iraq


(also keep in mind that Iraq (round one) ended in a conditional ceasefire)




"The origins of al-Qaeda as a network inspiring terrorism around the world and training operatives can be traced to the Soviet war in Afghanistan (December 1979 – February 1989).[2] In May 1996 the group World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders (WIFJAJC), sponsored by Osama bin Laden and later reformed as al-Qaeda, started forming a large base of operations in Afghanistan, where the Islamist extremist regime of the Taliban had seized power that same year.[3] In February 1998, Osama bin Laden signed a fatwā, as the head of al-Qaeda, declaring war on the West and Israel,[4][5] later in May of that same year al-Qaeda released a video declaring war on the US and the West.[6][7]

Following the bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania,[8] US President Bill Clinton launched Operation Infinite Reach, a bombing campaign in Sudan and Afghanistan against targets the US asserted were associated with WIFJAJC,[9][10] although others have questioned whether a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was used as a chemical warfare plant. The plant produced much of the region's antimalarial drugs[11] and around 50% of Sudan's pharmaceutical needs.[12] The strikes failed to kill any leaders of WIFJAJC or the Taliban.[11]

Next came the 2000 millennium attack plots which included an attempted bombing of Los Angeles International Airport. In October 2000 the USS Cole bombing occurred, followed in 2001 by the 11 September attacks.[13]"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror


Agreed Procedure for the Opening of Hostilities

"The Hague Convention (III) in 1907 called "CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE OPENING OF HOSTILITIES"[23] gives the international actions a country should perform when opening hostilities. The first two Articles say:-

Article 1
The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.[24]

Article 2
The existence of a state of war must be notified to the neutral Powers without delay, and shall not take effect in regard to them until after the receipt of a notification, which may, however, be given by telegraph. Neutral Powers, nevertheless, cannot rely on the absence of notification if it is clearly established that they were in fact aware of the existence of a state of war.[25]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war

I don't think the national law of the US can authorize them to do anything they want anywhere in the world. Yeah States are sovereign on their own soil. That's a principle of International law. Yet, it doesn't allow them to do everything. The war crimes issue is interesting. If there are war crimes committed in a country, by its own government, well... one could say since it's on their soil, it's a sovereignty issue. Therefore other countries can't do anything. Of course in reality it's different. There were, in the past, interventions to protect civilian populations. So, on the international scene, that's even truer. I know the US aren't very "fan" of International law but still, I don't think they can act like there is no international law at all. Even though, if there's one country that can ignore it to the largest extent, it's definitely the USA.

The point is, we still don't know if the Iraq War is legal or not. Of course, since we're speaking about the USA, there's little doubt that we'll know the truth, one day. I don't expect them to allow international organizations to investigate on the legality of this war.

lets be serious here, even assuming Iraq WAS illegal ...

(1) The US federal courts

... and this US court action against the US Bush administration was going to be prosecuted by what part of the US government ????

(2) the United Nations. Advisory opinions are prohibited in US Courts and are also prohibited by the UN Charter unless the security council authorizes them.

uh huh ... and the US has absolute veto power in the security council.

the truth is we live in an anarchy in which the strongest imposes the rules, lets not decieve ourselves

That's right... some assume it was illegal

If Saddam trading in Euro had of strengthened OPEC to do the same, like Iran was promising not that long ago by and subsequently declining opening her own bourse (there's a hint there of what is going on there with the sabre rattling and sanctions), the USD would almost certainly have crashed overnight.
Illegal? no... immoral,? possibly... to defend, even pre-emptively against an economic warfare?
Iraq is the perfect setting to convince OPEC not to go that route.. especially with the US pulling her base out of Saudi.
Crashing a country's economy, could quite easily and without hestitation be called an act of terrorism
Keep in mind though, that Iraq round one, ended in a conditional ceasefire. Open inspections were part of that condition.


@bugmenot... you can bet your bottom doller though, that if the (US) Democrats thought there was even the slightest chance to nail The Republicans over it, they would have. ;)

you call it pre-emptive war, some call it speculation. It's very dangerous to assume we (as in "the Western world") are always right.

For once I agree with Raaaid when he says: "the truth is we live in an anarchy in which the strongest imposes the rules, lets not deceive ourselves".

LMAO! been there? So all the people who gave up their lives to try to free that country and protect the rest of the western and eastern world from harm died for nothing?

And to the rest :
"We know he has them, we just have to catch him with them, thats the tough bit because we know he keeps moving them" - Hanz Blix

Sadam was a despot murderous monster that killed thousands of people, not only in his own country but in neigbouring countries because he didnt like their culture or religion, the nation he controlled lived under the heel of his boot and he wasnt afaid to crush his people and did so on many occasions.

Its sad that the US didnt want to wait for the UN, but Sadam is gone and the country is now free to start again as it was supposed to when Saddam was empowered in the first place to fight off Iran.

Basically yes. And they were never protecting "our" freedom. They were over throwing a dictator. And wheather it was legal is still up for grabs. Not one american soldier has had to fight for our freedom since WWII.

i'm sorry, i don't want to antagonize you, but you display the utmost ignorance on a real sensitive issue like war; wake up to reality, the US intervention was a crime, lots of civilians died for nothing, they created the situation and later dealt with it on its own terms and agenda, acting only for US's leader elite interests, most ppl know about this, that's why US's image abroad is so degraded. it's well known US's main business is war, they just need some excuse every now and then to wage it. US's main industry is arms production, that must keep flowing; after all, if no one's fighting who'd be buying?

about the legal aspect of a war, it would be important to know who's casting judgement on this and on what terms; we have been lied over and over again by our leaders, as we where with the WMD and many other excuses before.

above all, i don't care if it's illegal or not as much as if it's right or not. legality is also a form of bureaucracy and is as corruptible as anything else. death penalty is legal on some places; i don't care about that, for me it's wrong plain and simple, not an issue that 'legality' can whitewash.

You are right , legality is a burocracy and can be bended.
its not the best guide of whats "good and bad" but is the only one that exist.
and its the only tool we as common people have to control our "leaders"

its the only way to have cheney or other war criminals on trial (in our dreams maybe but its posibble tecnicaly speaking).

thats why i try to put the legal part on the topic.
we all know that its wrong (i hope we do) , if we know its also illegal we can at least dream to see the responsables on trial.


S! thanks for all the responses. its a very interesting topic for me and i learn a lot reading all the opinions and povs

Well lets hope america never has the need for anyone to over throw any of its government, because imagine if the world had your attitude,"if its not at my door i dont care".
This may come as a supprise to you but what happens around the world affects your freedoms and your countries freedoms. Its called commerce.

My friends died for a just cause, wether that's Iraq's populas's freedom or countries sounding Iraq's security and European and North American security.

Freedom is maintained its not perminent, thats what all the U.S soliders deaths since WW2 has achieved for you, the liberty to say it was all for nothing.

It always amazes me how the people how never had any direct experience of the instance have the most opinions about it which are mostly based upon a media outlet used for the furthering of their own particular cause, in this case a headline story.

I'm done with this BS thread.

I think everybody is missing the point. Wether something is legal or illegal is best left to lawyers. From what I understand of the American legal system. Someone can be tried for murder in a US court for a crime that was committed off the Great Barrier Reef that was found guilty in that country`s soverign court (Australia`s state of Queensland) for manslauter.

A skewd interpretation of the right to bear arms permits any citizen in the US to have arms whatever the situation, when the original intention was a very narrow and specific use of arms.

Whether anything is legal or illegal can only be tested in court. But who`s court?

The International Military Tribunal featured leaders of a soverign state charged with crimes that prior to 1948 were not international crimes. The Tribunal should have and did punish those charged and found guilty for turly horrible crimes. But as a legal study retroactive charging has been conviently forgotten about. It was noted at the time by senior allied military figures that thanked the creater of the christian church that they were on the winning side.
The charges of Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity could leveled with some justification at the Soivet government, It was with some chargin to the Nazis`s that when the asked about planning for the Poland invasion of September 1939 the Soviet delegation would often want the questioning stopped or only asked in such a way that the answer could not involve them.

The only international body that has any claim of the right to try anyone of any country it is the International Crime Tribunal, which does excellant work.

Will Colin Powell, Tony Blair, Bush Senior and Jr be taking a vacation to The Hague I doubt it. As the ICT would like to ask them a few questions .

Tell that to the Kurds in Northern Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

i don't understand the point you're trying to make; seems like you're picking on one single phrase and putting it out of any context, then confronting it with facts trying to make it come up as false; plus you're not making any sense: if that gas attack counted as an argument, there would be no need to seek evidence of what was already known by everyone. it wasn't the gas that was being referred as WMDs by 2003, but i'll get to that later.

let me tell you about the Kurds, i'm well aware of that monstrosity and when i saw that Iraq dictator hanged like a pig i thought he got what he deserved; but when it took place in 1988 not only the US didn't move a straw to take him down, they even tried to put it on others hands, knowing full well what had happened; so US governments DID lie.

US took as argument an occurrence in 1988, in which they lied trying to blame Iran (you can read it in the article you refer btw), to justify an act of war in 2003 by switching the blame to Iraq.

concerning WMDs, of course such gas attacks classify as a weapon capable of mass killing and proved real enough, but let's be honest, that wasn't what was being used as argument; of course the attack on the Kurds in 1988 and the inaction by the US rendered that single argument useless as an excuse by 2003, so what went on the table was rather the capability of deploying such weapons at great distances, plus additional programs to build strategic and nuclear weapons, the International Atomic Energy Agency got involved, Iraq was invaded, but evidence of all that was never found.

hope i made myself clear.

:grin:

so you think this is funny? shouldn't even bothered...

my goodness what a distorted capitalistic mentality :shock:
I'm sorry, but that's arrogant and delusional at the same time. Who are you to tell another country what's right or wrong? Your standards are not the world's standards, can you appreciate that?
I think soldiers who die in wars deserve all the respect in the world, but thinking that they paid the highest price for a just cause is something we like to tell ourselves to comfort ourselves that the decisions we took were right. It doesn't make much of a difference to them, since they're dead, but it's good for us to think that G.I. Joe died for a good reason, even if often it's not the case.
what amazes me is that there's still a very powerful country that totally disregards other people's lives for the sake of their integrity and wealth.. points of view I suppose..

Keep drinking the militarys coolaid. I respect everyone who serves our country. Its a shame that they had to die invane in some shit hole of a country for a no good reason. Our country (USA) hasnt had our freedom threatened since WWII. Your mistaken about all wars since have maintained our freedom, thats complete BS. We better attack China as they are a threat to our freedom

Totally and completely false. The ignorance level concerning US firearm laws is staggering.



--Outlaw.