Why is it a crime?

[Disturbed]

The US & the UK invaded Iraq, a sovereign nation. When an Iraqi that was formerly in the Iraqi military kills a US or UK soldier why would that be a crime? I don't recall any formal surrender of Iraq to the US or the UK. What gives the US or the UK the right to not designated soldiers of Iraq as POWs even now a year after major invasion occured? In my view as long as the US & the UK or any other force remains in Iraq as the Occupier, the Iraqis have the right to resist occupation of their country. This "new" Govt. is nothing but a Puppet Govt. forced upon Iraqis. Since no WMDs were found, the main reason for the invasion, does that not negate any legal standing that the US has in Iraq?

[Droopy]

1. You're correct in saying that we don't have any legal standing

We never did. The whole deal was in violation of international law. As for the Iraqis still resisting, I don't know if they have a legal right to shoot at U.S./U.K. forces. But I would say that it is in their best interests that they stop doing so. Their not going to force anybody out. Both Bush and Kerry have made that much clear.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

2. Are you suggesting we have no legal standing in Iraq?

Murder is a crime, but in combat when soldiers from either side die, it's part of the rules of war. Certainly you're not suggesting that Iraqi insurgents have the legal right to kill U.S/U.K forces, are you?One could disagree with the reasons for going to war, but I find it hard to argue that the war was illegal. Saddam's regime violated international law. We had the UN resolution (1441) backing us up. Am I wrong?

[HawkerHurricane]

3. U.N. rules and Geneva Convention both...

make it 'illegal' to launch a preemptive war.

U.N. didn't think 1441 was violated. And it wasn't. So, the war was illegal.

And that's not the question. The question is whether or not the 'insurgents/partisans/guerrillas' in Iraq are soldiers and therefore covered under the "Rules of Warfare" or if they are criminals.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

7. What's your point?

If the rules of war apply, they we have every right to defend ourselves in prevent our troops from dying. Either way, we don't want American soldiers dead.

[iangb]

8. The point is.....

......that under International Laws the invasion of Iraq was illegal.

Therefore the occupation itself is illegal and Iraqi citizens are justified in resisting the occupation.

Would you argue that the French Resistance who fought the Germans occupying their country in WWII did so illegally?.......and further that the Vichys who supported the German occupation were in the right?

I do not want to see US soldiers being killed........but I do not hold the Iraqis responsible for their deaths. That responsibility lies much closer to home.

[iangb]

5. The war was illegal.

The only legal justification would have been if the US and its allies could show that Iraq was an imminent threat to them......hence the 'boogie man' stuff about 'mushroom clouds over Manhattan' and 'millions dying from vials of anthrax' in the lead-up to war.

Un Res 1441 in no way authorised war ....the UN charter makes it impossible for the UN to do so.

[iangb]

4. The Coalition holds only one 'POW'....

..Saddam. The thousands of other detainees are being classified as 'Security Detainees' or some such. None of them have been formally charged, and the UN Human Rights Commission has expressed concern at their status.

The short answer to your question (why is it a crime?) is 'because we say so'..........but that is the way of the World these days.


More on the Iraqi detainees at: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2004/05/un-rights-official-says-iraqi.htm

[Disturbed]

6. Iraqi Rights

Saddam was complying with the Hans Blix Inspection team. It was BushCo that stopped the inspection effort not Saddam. Since the charge was harboring WMD and none have been found the US is illegally occupying that country.

The "abuse" and torture of Iraqi citizens are War Crimes and the US Govt. is guilty of commiting such.

"Certainly you're not suggesting that Iraqi insurgents have the legal right to kill U.S/U.K forces, are you?

Yes, I am suggesting that, exactly!

If a MIlitary Force is illegaly Occupying a country the citizens have a right to engage in combat with that force.

[zmdem]

9. Geneva conventions

they spell out who is a legitimate combatant and who is not. The reasons for the invasion are irrelevant to this issue.