Was the war with Iraq a violation of international law?

[Composed Thinker]

Was the war with Iraq a violation of international law?

[judy]

1. Yes, absolutely...

That's if you are a signer of the Treaty of San Francisco, i.e the United Nations Charter (which of course the US is)
The UN Charter IS international law. There is no other.

The only way that a country can attack another according to the Charter is in Self Defense. (Hence the hoopla about WMDs, which turned out oh surprise to be a lie).

However, if you decide that the law is not for you, you can break it. Imagine that you decide that red traffic lights are not for you, and that you start ignoring them.
Does the chaos that follows remind you of something ?

[IndianaGreen]

2. No, GAWD told Bush to invade Iraq and to kill the Hussein family

You can see the light of the Holy Spirit shining through Bush's eyes. Who are we, but mere mortal worms to question the wisdom of GAWD's annointed Second Son, George Bush.

I am so sorry that I doubted our Messiah, dear GAWD!



/end of psychotic rant brought about after eating hallucinogenic mushrooms and reading Carlos Castaneda.

[Gman]

3. Is the Pope Polish?

[are_we_united_yet]

4. I think it is time to move on and frankly the people are moving on

Yeah moveon.org Ari.

[are_we_united_yet]

5. Are there cows in Texas

[tinnypriv]

6. Yes and no

Yes, in the widely understood sense that it violated the UN charter, i.e. customary international law.

No, in the sense that international law doesn't really exist as a defined term. Since attacking Iraq, the U.S. has established a new "norm" of behaviour, i.e. it becomes conventional international law in the future.

You can argue both sides until you're blue in the face. Words on paper don't mean squat. If you want it to have violated international law, it did. If not, it didn't.

[IndianaGreen]

8. International law is like laws back home

Laws are what keeps our civilization together. But the laws only work when you have everyone agree to obey them, and there are people to enforce them, and to render judgment on the law breakers.

What happens if we were to choose to ignore all the laws? Then the only law is the law of the strongest. What is good today, will be forbidden tomorrow, and will be rehabilitated the day after.

This is what we have today! The only international law is no law at all, but whatever Bush happens to fancy at any given time. Showing pictures of war dead is bad, except today. Tomorrow it will be bad again.

[tinnypriv]

11. I agree

With one caveat: I would replace Bush with U.S government.

What I said is accurate precisely because of what you're saying above. This is what the U.S. wants. It has advantages in the domain of force, therefore it will rely on force. That of course will erode international law until the whole framework collapses back into the law of the jungle.

I'm sure other countries would do the same if they had the power though.

[bowens43]

7. Yes.

But more importantly, because of treaties signed and ratified when the US joined the UN , it is also a violation of the US Constitution.

[dragonfish]

9. no not at all

no there is no such thing as international law the only international law is the one of the strongest person
the UN is in valid who else would have Libya as head of the Human Rights Council the former head was that great Human Rights Savior China oh and guess who is head of the Nuclear non_proliferation council Iraq oh wait they were not Iran is. thus further proof that the UN is a joke if you do not believe me go to www.UN.org
yes it is their web site. so in closing international law is a joke because of the lack of enforcement.
nations will only do what is in their best interest.

[tinnypriv]

12. Of course

There is no enforcement around to punish the U.S. for the war of aggression it just committed in Iraq, but that doesn't mean international law is a joke. "Your"* argument is a non sequitur.

* I trust this needs no explanation.

[leesa]

15. Yes and if the US were to head it then it would be the biggest joke

ever since we are the leading terrorists in the world. So you don't honor contracts that you sign right? So your word means nothing right? So you only obey contracts that you sign if someone FORCES you? Then I would have to say that you are uncivilized, much like those you point out. Did your Dad beat you?

[iangb]

10. Well, the last time.....

......a nation pulled this sort of stunt was in 1939.

The Nurenburg judges found Germany's argument that their attack on Poland was 'in response to a threat' to be absolute bollocks......and found the surviving perpetrators guilty of 'Waging a War of Aggression'.

[IndianaGreen]

13. This is what Amnesty International said about Iraq on July 23

You will notice that when the report refers to the conduct of an "officer", it is referring to American military.

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
PRESS RELEASE

AI Index: MDE 14/159/2003 (Public)
News Service No: 176
23 July 2003

Iraq: Continuing failure to uphold human rights

Published

(Baghdad) After more than 100 days of occupation, the promises of human rights for all Iraqis have yet to be fulfilled, Mahmoud Ben Romdhane Amnesty International's head of delegation to Iraq said.

Speaking at the launch of a Memorandum on concerns relating to law and order, he continued: "The Iraqi people have suffered for long enough - it is shameful to still hear of people who are being detained in inhumane conditions without their family knowing where they are and with no access to a lawyer or a judge - often for weeks on end."

Dr Suhail Laibi and his son, Ahmad, were detained on 15 May 2003 for having a pistol in their car. Dr Suhail was released from Abu Ghraib Prison on 14 June 2003 and was told that his son had been transferred to Nassiriya. On his arrival there, he found no information about his son and an officer warned him against going to the prison camp because he might be arrested. Continuing his search on his return to Baghdad, Dr Suhail was finally informed by an officer that his son was in Camp Bucca. But this same officer had no idea where this was. After 66 days in detention, Ahmad was finally released on 20 July.

<snip>

People interviewed by Amnesty International described how soldiers smashed their way into cars and cupboards even when their owners offered keys. There are also numerous reports of confiscation of property, including large sums of money, upon arrest. This property is not returned upon release.

In one case, US officers accepted that there was evidence that a crime had been committed by officers who removed more than three million dinars (2000 US dollars) from a family home. Officers said that redress would be long and difficult as they lacked the means to find out where the division accused of committing the crime was now stationed.

Amnesty International has documented several incidents of shootings at Iraqi demonstrators by US soldiers in disputed circumstances. While it is true Coalition Forces are dealing with complex situations -- they are still engaged in situations of combat and others where the use of force may be necessary, like the dispersal of violent demonstrators - they must still abide by international standards.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde141592003

[IndianaGreen]

14. The War in Iraq and International Humanitarian Law (FAQ)

The War in Iraq and International Humanitarian Law
Frequently Asked Questions on Occupation (FAQ)

(Last updated on May 16, 2003)

Security in Occupied Areas

Question: What are the duties of an occupying force to provide security?

An occupying power has a duty to ensure public order and safety in the territory under its authority. Under customary international law, this duty begins once a stable regime of occupation has been established. But under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the duty attaches as soon as the occupying force exercises control or authority over civilians of that territory -- that is, at the soonest possible moment (a principle reflected in U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10).

Military commanders on the spot must prevent and where necessary suppress serious violations involving the local population under their control or subject to their authority. The occupying force is responsible for protecting the population from violence by third parties, such as newly formed armed groups or forces of the former regime. Ensuring local security includes protecting persons, including minority groups and former government officials, from reprisals and revenge attacks.

Occupying forces may have to be deployed to secure public order until the time local or international police can be mobilized for such responsibilities. Unless such forces are facing hostilities, the use of force is governed by international standards for law enforcement. That is, only necessary and proportionate force may be used and only to the required extent.

Looting and "Shoot on Sight" Orders

Question: May an occupying power issue "shoot on sight" orders to soldiers or police in order to stop looters or otherwise maintain security?

"Shoot on sight" orders are prohibited under international human rights law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the United States is a party, states: "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life." The Human Rights Committee, the body that monitors compliance with the Covenant, has said that the deprivation of life by state authorities, including arbitrary killing by their own security forces, is "a matter of the utmost gravity." A state must strictly control and limit the circumstances in which the authorities might deprive persons of their lives.

The U.N. Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials provides guidance on the use of force and firearms by those enforcing the law, including soldiers. Where the lawful use of force and firearms is unavoidable, law enforcement officials must exercise restraint and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved; they must minimize injury, and respect and preserve human life.

The Basic Principles further provide that the intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made "when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life." Exceptional circumstances such as internal instability or other public emergency may not be invoked to justify a departure from these basic principles.

Under international humanitarian law, the United States as the occupying power in Iraq is obligated to restore and ensure public order and safety. Achieving security must however be in conformity with international human rights law standards. These standards apply to all those acting under U.S. authority, including members of the U.S. and coalition armed forces, Iraqi police and international law enforcement officers.

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/ihlfaqoccupation.htm