Tim Blair

BUT it was legal.

Under international law, when a truce of peace fails to become a treaty of peace - as Saddam clearly albeit obstinately wished - the prior state of war resumed.

There was nothing "illegal" about the War against Iraq except that only the UN could never find any "sericou consequences" to justify their dozen years of bloviating nonsense.

In fact, the two Gulf Wars are more clearly and obviously continuations of the sdame war than the Second World War was the continuation of the First, as most historian believe.

BUT it was legal.

Under international law, when a truce of peace fails to become a treaty of peace - as Saddam clearly albeit obstinately wished - the prior state of war resumed.

There was nothing "illegal" about the War against Iraq except that only the UN could never find any "serious consequences" to justify their dozen years of bloviating nonsense.

In fact, the two Gulf Wars are more clearly and obviously continuations of the sdame war than the Second World War was the continuation of the First, as most historian believe.

From London: More pointed stuff on the protests that may be of interest:

"What Do They Want?"

I Bought The Guardian Today - So You Don't Have To.

If the whole war was so illegal, where are the world court cases?

She would have also been leaving the scene of an accident.

Damn you, Bickford -- I just got over your "wa" line about Margo and now you hit me with this? Give me some warning, man!

marty, the world court would have no jurisdiction to hear such a case, even if iraq was in a position to bring it [which it isn't on account of it not having an independent government].

the world court [aka ICJ] is based on the idea that it can only hear cases involving parties that consent to appear before it [so as to ensure the sovereignty of nations]. the main way consent can be granted is via an "optional clause" declaration, which is an opt-in system that allows countries to make a general statement that they accept as compulsary the jurisdiction of the world court. the united states withdrew its declaration after the nicuargua case went against them.

and jurisdiction would still be lacking even if the U.S.'s declaration was still on foot. if iraq sought the assistance of the world court, the court would refuse to hear the matter because iraq also [to my knowledge] has no current optional clause declaration. for state A to take advantage of state B's declaration, state A has to have made a declaration as well [so as to prevent countries making opportunistic use of the optional system].

so even apart from the practical problems, the various jurisdictional issues would make it impossible for Iraq to have taken the U.S. to the world court.

Rumsey is a perfect bureaucrat.

It wasn't illegal. Foreign treaties and foreign bodies do not take precedent over the American Constitution. Doing so would surrender national sovreignty.

"He might be a very nice man; removing Saddam Hussein may have been a worthy ambition, but the point is that it was illegal."

Call for the law to be changed then!

Then what did Richard Perle mean when he recently stated that the Iraq war was illegal?

Orson Olson and Josh,

it was indeed an illegal war.

No resolution authorised the extension of the first Gulf War after Iraq withdrew from Kuwait, but the US never stopped its low-intensity warfare, under the guise of a no-fly zone (which had no legal basis) and punitive sanctions (which had a UN fig leaf).

No resolution authorised the present attack and occupation of Iraq. It wasn't self-defense. George Bush lied to get Congressional approval, counter to their constitution.

Last but not least, the conduct of the war violates international law, as does the manner of the occupation.

"No resolution authorised the present attack and occupation of Iraq. It wasn't self-defense. George Bush lied to get Congressional approval, counter to their constitution.

Last but not least, the conduct of the war violates international law, as does the manner of the occupation."

Examples? And don't you even dare try that "imminent threat" lie.

Oh, ever so sorry! We'll promptly glue the Husseins' moldering carcasses back together, set right that thoughtlessly vandalized statue, and round up all those people who we illegally freed from the children's prisons and torture chambers. Would you like us to kill some convenient Kurds and Marsh Arabs before we leave, just to get the average monthly numbers back up to their usual high standards?

Lordy, some people are dense. The war was not illegal. And if this war were, hypothecially, against the law, then, to quote Mr. Dickens, the law is an ass.

Fatfingers,

You write that "No resolution authorised the extension of the first Gulf War after Iraq withdrew from Kuwait, but the US never stopped its low-intensity warfare..."

Surely you see the inherent flaw in this argument? First, the terms of the surrender were not limited to withdrawing from Kuwait. They included the documented destruction of all WMD as well as a slew of other conditions. Saddam did not meet these conditions as promised in the truce that stopped the fighting. That is - the (temporary) truce did *not* become a (permanent) treaty and the war was not formally ended in the legal sense. So, yes, it is perfectly true that the U.S. did not end the low-intensity conflict. It is also true that the U.N. did not declare the conflict resolved either. Indeed, the U.N. continued passing resolutions against Iraq and even implemented a trade embargo on Iraqi oil. Why do you ignore the context of the conflict - Saddam's continuing belligerence and the ongoing genocide against the marsh Arabs - and paint the U.S. as the aggressor?

In your willingness to paint a false picture, are you not betraying a commitment to the cause of a genocidal tyrant? At its root, what is it that the U.S. does or represents that makes you prefer the likes of Saddam Hussein? Surely your grievance is not actually the war or your arguments would not be so shallow. No, it is clear that your anti-US commitment precedes your argument. What is the root of this commitment?