Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

doesnt say that the war is illegal, or that we acted unilaterally.

oh this is just an excerpt you can find the rest of the law in other places on the net but i chose the source;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Doesn't matter what's true or not, the sheeple will believe what they are told by the liberal pansies, because they have to be supplied thoughts, seeing they're devoid of original thought.

ouch,,, well hopefully the sheep will wake up, its not the same when they just lay there.

so your the cause of the decline of virgin wool supplies..

'armydoc4u', you first suggested:



That might be the script for a Sci-Fi movie, and 'self-defense' would represent a legal foundation to declare war against another sovereign nation, but it unfortunately has no foundation in fact. 'W' himself has come to terms with the fact that NO WMD were found.
And for your script to suggest that 'the use of force' against Iraq was justified based on some delusion that Iraq could represent a 'serious threat' (self-defense) towards the United States, is squarely cowardly, and most 'unamerican'!

While you are entitled to your opinion, your own government would never consider using these claims to justify a 'sef-defense' status for their invasion of Iraq.

This leaves a UNSC sanctionned military action, to justify a legal war. The UNSC never sanctionned any military action against Iraq. And yet you seem to imply in your comment below, that military action was fully justified. Nothing could be firther from fact.


The problem with this part of your Sci-Fi 'script' is as follows:

- It is exclusively up to the UNSC to rule on non-compliance issues, and subsequent 'appropriate' action, and NOT AT ALL up to Congress, nor the President of the US.

Here is an excerpt from a legal opinion articulated by a large group of US jurists, which was handed to Congress on the matter:


“… It is clear from the resolution that NO INDIVIDUAL MEMBER STATE IS AUTHORIZED TO USE ANY VIOLATION BY IRAQ, whether very minor and technical or more serious, AS LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO ATTACK IRAQ.

The resolution requires the Security Council to meet immediately and decide what to do about an Iraqi violation--a requirement inconsistent with member states taking unilateral action. Indeed, France, Russia and China, which provided the critical votes to pass the Resolution, issued a statement upon its enactment that "Resolution 1441...excludes an automaticity in the use of force" and that only the Security Council has the ability to respond to a misstep by Iraq. Mexico's Ambassador was explicit in casting his country's vote for the resolution. He stressed that the use of force is only valid as a last resort, "with the prior, explicit authorization of the Security Council."

As law professors and practicing lawyers, we are encouraged that the Security Council has placed itself front and center for the resolution of this issue concerning the disarmament of Iraq. The United Nations charter is a treaty binding on the United States and is part of our supreme Law of the land, by virtue of Article VI of the United States Constitution. We urge the Bush administration to comply with the Constitution, to comply with the UN Charter, and not unilaterally attack Iraq.

(Full article at:
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0212lawyers_body.html ) ...”


You finally added the following claim:



The problem with this part of your Sci-Fi ‘script’, is as follows:

- The US is legally bound, through the Constitution, to respect International Law, as represented by the UNSC.

Here is the conclusion of a legal opinion articulated by a large group of US jurists, which was handed to Congress on the matter:

“… Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits any nation from using force. The Charter contains only two exceptions: when such force is employed in self-defense or when it is authorized by the UN Security Council. Thus far the Security Council has been unwilling to authorize a U.S. attack against Iraq. This refusal, reflecting the widespread international sentiment against war with Iraq, makes any unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq illegal under international law…”


Here are the signatories:

Richard L. Abel
Connell Professor of Law
UCLA Law School

Linda M. Beale
Professor of Law
University of Illinois College of Law

George Bell
Professor of Law
University of Illinois
College of Law

Leslie Bender
Associate Dean & Professor of Law & Women's Studies
Syracuse University College of Law

Robert Benson
Professor of International Law
Loyola Law School- Los Angeles

George E. Bisharat
Professor of Law
Hastings College of the Law

Susan H. Bitensky
Professor of Law
Michigan State University-Detroit College of Law

Francis A. Boyle
Professor of Law
University of Illinois College of Law

Melinda Branscomb
Associate Professor of Law
Seattle University School of Law

Mark S. Brodin
Professor of Law
Boston College Law School

John Burroughs
Executive Director
Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy, New York

Emily Calhon
Professor of Law
University of Colorado School of Law

Camilo Perez Bustillo
Professor of International Human Rights LawW.Haywood Burns Memorial Chair in Civil Rights Law
CUNY School of Law

Craig W. Christensen
Professor of Law
Southwestern University School of Law
Los Angeles

Rhonda Copelon
Professor of Law & Director
International Women's Human Rights Law Clinic (IWHR)
City University of New York School of Law

Frank E. Deale
Professor of Law
CUNY Law School

Jeffrey D. Dillman
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Milton A. Kramer Law Clinic
Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Pamela Edwards
Professor of Law
CUNY School of Law

Marvin Fein
Associate Professor of Legal Writing and Director of the Civil Litigation Certificate Program
University of Pittsburgh School of Law


Brian J. Foley
Professor of Law
Widener University School of Law

Professor Caroline Forell
University of Oregon
School of Law

David H. Getches
Raphael J. Moses Prof. of Natural Resources Law
University of Colorado School of Law

Phyllis Goldfarb
Professor of Law
Boston College Law School

Peter Halewood
Professor of Law
Albany Law School of Union University

Kathy Hessler
Professor of Law
Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Wythe Holt
University Research Professor of Law
University of Alabama School of Law

David Kairys
James E. Beasley Professor of Law
Beasley School of Law
Temple University

Eileen Kaufman
Professor of Law
Touro Law School

Walter J. Kendall III
The John Marshall Law School

Andrew Lichterman
Program Director
Western States Legal Foundation

Holly Maguigan
Professor of Clinical Law
New York University School of Law

Roger Normand
Executive Director
Center for Economic and Social Rights

Mary Ellen O'Connell
William B. Saxbe Designated Professor of Law
Michael E. Moritz College of Law and the
Mershon Center for International Security
The Ohio State University

Alan Pemberton
Adjunct Professor of Constitutional Law
Georgetown University Law School


Peter Pitegoff
Vice Dean for Academic Affairs & Professor
University at Buffalo Law School
State University of New York
Michael Ratner
President, Center for Constitutional Rights

Florence Wagman Roisman
Professor of Law and Paul Beam Fellow
Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis

Thomas L. Shaffer
Robert and Marion Short Professor of Law Emeritus
University of Notre Dame

Margaret A. Shannon, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
State University of New York-Buffalo Law School

Marjorie A. Silver
Professor of Law
Touro Law Center

Beth Stephens
Rutgers-Camden Law School

Peter Weiss
President
International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms

Mark E. Wojcik
Associate Professor of Law
The John Marshall Law School, Chicago

Jeanne M. Woods
Professor of Law
Loyola New Orleans School of Law

Richard W. Wright
Professor of Law
Chicago-Kent College of Law
Illinois Institute of Technology

Mitchell Zimmerman
Law Professors For the Rule of Law





Your Sci-Fi script doesn't say that the war is illegal, or that the US acted unilaterally.

Unfortunately, it's a Sci-Fi script and has nothing to do with reality.

Reality, through the legal opinion of 45 prominent US jurists, suggests, according to International Law, which binds the US through the Constitution,

… that the US DID ACT UNILATERALLY, AND
… THE ATTACK DOES CONSTITUTE AN ILLEGAL WAR UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW


And the debate goes on from there!!!

Actually that paper is a real document. Not sci-fi. Apparently you didn't read his other article about WMDs either. I also posted how 40 countries also sent in troops. That sounds like a lot of support to me. We also know he has used WMDs before (can you say mustard gas?) He wouldn't let us inspect which implies he is hiding something.

Wow what an impressive list of names one thing I noticed that was absent was the title of Judge behind any of them. Lawyers have opinions, Judges have decisions. If any of those Lawyers were worth the paper their diploma was written on why don't they take the matter to court? Action talks and bull **** walks.

Because without sufficient evidence of a crime you can't even take someone to court. Does some judge want to waste his time listening to lawyers just to make a ruling so people like us can have more things to argue about lol.

reality being what reality is, your 45 "prominent"jurist have nothing to do with the war.

the sci fi script as you call it is a direct excerpt from the whitehouse, check the link.
we DID NOT act unilaterally, no matter what you would have others believe. or how else would you explain al the different uniforms floating around in iraq,,, you can reasearch that one im tired of arguing with elitist who are actually acting like a highschool kid who gets picked on for being in the chess team. Spain, Polland, Australia, Great Britain, Korea, Japan, Belgium (sorry for the others I left out)..... any of the places ring a bell to you.


"W" has come to grips with the fact that know matter what happens there you people are going to say the opposite and have your media cronies follow suit... you did write a rather long piece here, so I will try to keep up with your "wisdom" as best I can.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=07b_1186980879

Links to the UN itself saying that WMDs were there and were in FACT found. once again, a year later you and I are bumping heads on this same topic.
When weapons grade material degrades, which it does over time, then it is no longer considered viable as a weapon, there for bearing that in mind, your side decided to run with the theme that there were no WMDs there at all. It is a flagrant LIE and should be considered gross negligence by the dumb ass democrats who continue to perpetrate the fraud.

/////The problem with this part of your Sci-Fi 'script' is as follows:

- It is exclusively up to the UNSC to rule on non-compliance issues, and subsequent 'appropriate' action, and NOT AT ALL up to Congress, nor the President of the US.

Here is an excerpt from a legal opinion articulated by a large group of US jurists, which was handed to Congress on the matter:


“… It is clear from the resolution that NO INDIVIDUAL MEMBER STATE IS AUTHORIZED TO USE ANY VIOLATION BY IRAQ, whether very minor and technical or more serious, AS LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO ATTACK IRAQ.

The resolution requires the Security Council to meet immediately and decide what to do about an Iraqi violation--a requirement inconsistent with member states taking unilateral action. Indeed, France, Russia and China, which provided the critical votes to pass the Resolution, issued a statement upon its enactment that "Resolution 1441...excludes an automaticity in the use of force" and that only the Security Council has the ability to respond to a misstep by Iraq. Mexico's Ambassador was explicit in casting his country's vote for the resolution. He stressed that the use of force is only valid as a last resort, "with the prior, explicit authorization of the Security Council."

As law professors and practicing lawyers, we are encouraged that the Security Council has placed itself front and center for the resolution of this issue concerning the disarmament of Iraq. The United Nations charter is a treaty binding on the United States and is part of our supreme Law of the land, by virtue of Article VI of the United States Constitution. We urge the Bush administration to comply with the Constitution, to comply with the UN Charter, and not unilaterally attack Iraq.//////


The problem with what you are saying here is that it was going to take another resolution to certify, no wait, re certify something that had already been passed..... see the problem besides the fact that the UN is completely useless and irrelevant anymore, is that you legal types have been spinning words around for so long that you forget wher it all started from in the first place.

resolutions were passed authorizing "what ever means necessary" to force saddams compliance.

finally you stated that the US is BOUND CONSTITUTIONALLY to adhere to international law? where in the 26 page of the constitution does it say that, please i would love to know that we are to do what the international community tells us to do!!!

think I already covered the by any means nec. part so im not going to rehash when commenting on your signatories. All very learned people I am sure, all have also secured their little one line names for prosperity in the history book, good glad for them. They do not however run the country or the congress or the whitehouse for that matter, yeah they give advise of counsel, whoopy, when it is all said and done theirs is just an opinion on an action- and no fault will have ever landed at their feet.

I could give to hoots less about whether or not you believe in your min in conjuction with you signitory people that we are in violation of "international law" oh my. Bring up some charges bring up some kind of hard evidence (and Im not talking about rearranging words in a sentence to make them fit either, the way lawyers do.) Bring us in front of a judge and let us be sentenced or , have a nice cup of shut the hell up, with all due respect to you fine sir.

A legal war against another sovereign nation can only be declared under th two following legal claims:

1) Self-defence, as definned by International Law

and,

2) An official UNSC resolution, sanctioning 'proportionate' military action.

Under the Constitution of the US, that is the law of the land that the US is bound to.

THAT'S IT!!! Anything else is personal opinion!

It ways self defense. WMDs in a country that has no problem just launching them and killing people. Its a preemptive strike.

This is a fact? is it really?
so weve been breaking all kinds of laws over the years havent we.... no no no, let me start again...

if an illegal war breaks out , then who duty or obligation is it to put a stop to it? do we stand on a podium and declare they must quit and wait for their reply, so that we can stand up on a podium again and say it with a more stern voice? someone will be accountable for the atrosities caused by that man, Mr. Hussien, and by god he was. hell by your condemnation and definition of illegal war, then the man (saddam) should have been taken out years before he was, I give you, kuwait, and I give you Iran, bith under your definition would be illegal. Where were you people at on those wars huh, hell where were you on kosovo, where are you now on jafar, and the countless other regions in the world whee genocide is taking place all of which, by your definition, are illegal. Please stand on your podium and with a stern voice tell them to stop.

the problem that elitist and have is they forget a lot of the times that we live in a real world and not a paper one that you can move about at will by simply replacing a comma with a period. we dont live in the courtroom or the classroom, we pop the hood and get our hands dirty for a living. you people, your really just support personnel for those who really work and make the world go round, thanks, can I get some whiteout now, my grammar has been terrible in the rant.

Oh, I see when I am gone you want to call me out publically huh?

One: there is no such thing as a self defense preemptive strike. One nation must show that they are going to strike or have struck another country. So this is illegal

Second: Congress stated that two things must be proven for the strick, one, that there is WMDs in which to strike us and two, that there was a connection to 9/11 of which both are not true nor has anyone proven them.

Sooooooo, the bushies, are failing yet again to defend their illustrious leader and it will continue to happen because he IS WRONG FROM THE GROUND UP.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam is not bin laden. Iraq is not the center of command for world terrorists, etc......

The only questions Americans need an answer to are: WHERE THE HELL IS THE PERPETRATOR OF THE GREATEST CRIME PERPETRATED ON AMERICAN SOIL????? WHERE IS THE VINDICATION FOR 9/11??????

Until those questions get answered, bushies have no defense for the great burning shrub.

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

How did they have capability and willingness to use WMDs that they DID NOT HAVE??? Silly silly people. It only takes a little brain power, so come on strain.

really congress stated that we had to prove saddam was a direct link to 9/11? I missed that, can you provide me with a link to said such claim, or are you trying to write your own history book here?

The inspectors could not find WMDs because THERE WASN'T ANY, had the illustrious shrub played well with the UN we would not have been in Iraq because there WHERE NO WMDs.

For your information:

"... The United Nations charter is a treaty binding on the United States and is part of our supreme Law of the land, by virtue of Article VI of the United States Constitution..."

It is through the UNSC and such International organizations, that the 'rule of law', foundation of our democratic societies, has any chance of maintaining a minimal standard of shared 'ethical' and 'moral' practices and conduct around the globe.

In a country which obides by the 'rule of law', the Constitution of US, the law of the land, is far more consequent than anyone's opinion, including yours, however much you may have a right to it!

are you serious? Alzheimer setting in? He gased his own people to the north, the kurds, and he gased Iran. Hell just on the news today there talking about the execution for Chemical Ali being set and approved, we're not killing him for all the daths, his people are. hundreds of thousand of men women and children, when are YOU going to pull your head out and wake up.

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

The great jester of the world, shrub, would not let the inspections happen because he wanted to invade them and he WANTED SADDAM FOR THREATENING HIS DADDY. So we never complied with the UN at any level so how can they use the UN as a way to justify themselves?????

article vi says we have to do what the UN tells us, funny, the UN wasnt around when that particular part of legislation was written.

Here is what Article VI, paragraph 2 actually stipulates on the issue: "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution [of any State] or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

key word notwithstanding.