The Iraq War is Illegal...Isn't it?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we've heard it all before. War Powers Act of 1973 is supposed to take the place of the Constitutional responsibility to issue a formal declaration of war. If Congress and the President were so sure that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were such a threat to the safety and security of the United States, why did they skirt around the issue of a formal declaration of war and just write the President a blank check for Iraq? Is it because they didn't want the accountability with the voters for the quagmire in which we now find ourselves?

Further, since you seem to enjoy slagging Democrats--as if there is a hair's width of difference between the Republicans and Democrats anymore--which party had control of Congress from 1994 to 2006? For as much as you believe that Bush shouldn't get all the blame for where we find ourselves today, Bush had to go to Congress with a report before Congress could authorize military action under the War Powers Act, so he initiated the whole fiasco. (For the record, I am a registered Independent and have been since 1997, so drop the whole accusatory "Dude, you must be a Democrat because only Democrats don't like Bush and are opposed to the Iraq War" charade.)

How many wars has the United States military won since the last war in which a formal declaration of war was issued: World War II? None.

It is simple. Bush jumped into the sh*tpuddle with both feet and both the American and Iraqi people got splattered. You seem to think that more troops killed and more billions of dollars wasted is okay as long as we are operating under the color of law. Let me ask you something. Do you consider the Iraqi people to be non-human? Do you believe the average, everyday Iraqi--who might be trying to earn a living and scrape by, just like the average, everyday American--deserves to die? Because, that is what is happening over there, whether you choose to ignore it or not.

When I asked you in that other thread if you've had your "Aha!" moment, you answered that yes you did and slagged anyone that doesn't believe in "kill first, ask questions later" by dismissing them as "leftists". You've even taken shots at MoveOn.org without stopping to think that Cindy Sheehan is doing what she feels necessary not to mention she lost her son in Iraq. What is missing from your equation and, apparently, lacking in your character is humanity. Saddam Hussein is dead. There are no WMDs, despite that being a primary reason for us being in Iraq according to Bush. The Iraqi people who are dying by the dozens everyday don't want us there. The American troops, many of whom are beginning their fourth and fifth tours over there, don't want to be there anymore. (Try actually answering some of the issues being raised by troops WHO WERE THERE instead of falling back on "um, um what about all the troops who still support the war?)

Let me ask you another question. Is the resistance to our presence in Iraq diminshing or growing? It is growing by the day and more Americans and Iraqis continue to die in the grist mill that Iraq has become, all because Bush jumped in with both feet without an Exit Strategy and without the will to consider the long-term consequences and repercussions before acting. Bush is going to be out of office before our troops are out of Iraq, not to mention we're still in Afghanistan for who knows how long.

The only thing you've proven with your continued support of the failed Iraq War is that you are willing to let the government get away with anything as long as it signs its own permission slip first.

Oh, and if your little "RAH! RAH! GO BUSH GO!" speech at the end of your little spiel isn't the same rhetoric which you've repeatedly attacked me for making, I don't know what is. ::rolleyes::

jdubhub...

You never cease to amaze me.

Great byte Pub. Good info and references. I would never dispute that Iraq is legal war. I say that it was sold to us by Dems and Repubs as Saddam's refusal to limit his manufacture WMDs and his refusal to allow UN inspectors to inspect. WMDs did not exist and gave everyone a reason to say we should not have gone in. I have to believe that the US took on too much in Iraq too quickly. We should have gotten more from the UN. I believe Saddam should have been removed but there had to be better ways. At the very least more international troops.

My thoughts for what they are worth

wHATUP...

Thanks for your time and for the comment.

I agree that there could have been a better way to execute the war. We definitely should have had more troops in order to secure the borders and to suppress any form of anarchy once the Iraqi military was defeated. But hindsight is 20/20.

The problem with the U.N. and international support was, many of our "allies" or countries involved in the decision making processes in the Security Council were on the take in the Oil-for-Food scandal - including Kofi Annan's own son and allegedly even Kofi's personal advisor, Maurice Strong. We weren't going to get the support from our traditional "friends". But we did have a coalition of other nations, including Canada, Australia, Spain, Italy, and the UK.

When your supposed "allies" are receiving money from and selling weapons and technology to the Iraqi regime, they really aren't your allies...and you probably shouldn't expect much support from them by disrupting their profits.

When your supposed "allies" are receiving money from and selling weapons and technology to the Iraqi regime, they really aren't your allies...and you probably shouldn't expect much support from them by disrupting their profits.

Indeed. What do you have to say about this inconvenient history:

U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup: Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds
How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them
Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984

Rummy Getting Chummy With The Butcher of Baghdad

US Companies sold Iraq Billions of NBC Weapons Materials

For all of the political handwringing and moral outrage by the Bush administration before the events that precipated the invasion of Iraq in 2003, they quickly forget that much of Saddam Hussein's NBC-making capability was supplied and even encouraged by the United States government. Most media sources have chosen to ignore this history because it knocks Bush and Company down from their self-proclaimed moral high ground for the invasion and for the regime change/killing of Saddam Hussein.

This should tell us two things:

1. Bush hasn't and still isn't giving us the whole story about the Iraq situation.
2. Nobody in Washington seems capable of understanding that we should not be getting involved in Middle Eastern politics because our allies today (ally in the sense of a common enemy) may be an enemy of convenience tomorrow. The same goes for the fact that the United States via the CIA armed and funded many of the same militant Muslims in Afghanistan--Osama bin Laden included--that Bush blames for 9/11 and other acts of "terrorism".

I have that question, and this; When is the war over?

I'm getting bored with you, jdub...

"But still no formal Declaration of War...

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we've heard it all before. War Powers Act of 1973 is supposed to take the place of the Constitutional responsibility to issue a formal declaration of war."

You seem to be fixated on a part of the Constitution that doesn't exist. The War Powers Resolution does not "take the place" of any Constitutional responsibility. It actually defines the powers granted to the Congress. It defines the appropriate use of the Armed Forces. Show me where the Constitution states that the Congress must draft a "formal declaration of war"? You can't. It reads as follows:

"Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power

11. To declare War..."

That's it. No "must". No "formal declaration". They simply have the power to declare it. Do you want to know why? OK, I'll tell you.

The founders did not want one person (the President) to be able to enter into wars based on his own pursuit of grandeur (like a king). They did not want any of the individual States to be able to declare war on another nation. They did not want any organizations or groups to be able to declare war. These would undermine the constitutional rights and powers of the federal government. They wanted the national (federal) government to be the authority when deciding on matters of national defense and raising and funding of national armies. The Congress was granted these powers, so naturally, the will to go to war was also vested in the same branch of government that appropriations for the military are vested in.

This also does not mean that the Armed Forces can only be used when Congress declares war. At the time the Constitution was written, Congress only convened once a year. They understood that the President would need to be able to call on the military if attacked when Congress was not in session. So, when you ask this question:

"How many wars has the United States military won since the last war in which a formal declaration of war was issued: World War II?"

It really is pointless since the "formal declaration" is neither required by law, nor is it feasible during a state of an immediate threat or attack. My question to you is, how many times has the United States formally declared war, period? The answer: five. However, we have entered into over 200 incidents/conflicts/wars in which the military was used.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is - you have absolutely no contextual understanding of our Constitution.

"Further, since you seem to enjoy slagging Democrats..."

Really? Where did I do that?

"For as much as you believe that Bush shouldn't get all the blame for where we find ourselves today, Bush had to go to Congress with a report before Congress could authorize military action under the War Powers Act, so he initiated the whole fiasco."

Is that what I believe? And just so you're aware, every "formal declaration" of war by Congress was asked for by the President at the time. All five times.

"For the record, I am a registered Independent and have been since 1997, so drop the whole accusatory 'Dude, you must be a Democrat because only Democrats don't like Bush and are opposed to the Iraq War' charade."

I don't recall mentioning anything about Democrats. Where did this take place?

"What is missing from your equation and, apparently, lacking in your character is humanity.

Try actually answering some of the issues being raised by troops WHO WERE THERE instead of falling back on 'um, um what about all the troops who still support the war?'

The only thing you've proven with your continued support of the failed Iraq War is that you are willing to let the government get away with anything as long as it signs its own permission slip first.

Oh, and if your little 'RAH! RAH! GO BUSH GO!' speech at the end of your little spiel isn't the same rhetoric which you've repeatedly attacked me for making, I don't know what is. ::rolleyes::"

Wow. This is turning out to be another great debate, isn't it? I actually work with many military members/veterans (including myself) who have gone to, and are in Iraq. Not one of them has said anything about not wanting to be there (aside from it being hot and sandy) or not believing in their mission. And what was my "RAH! RAH! GO BUSH GO!" speech?

As for your second comment...

Wasn't this argument used in 2002? I recall the fact that many of the companies selling insecticides and such were licensed by the Department of Commerce. The State Department did not know all of the licenses that were issued to all of the companies and what was being sold. In any case, it wasn't the Office of the President selling goods to Iraq. Many of the items were also biological, but they were supposed to be used for things like vaccines. Most of the "civilian" Iraqi companies that bought those products were front companies of the Iraqi military.

We're also talking about the 1980's. In case you haven't noticed, we are currently in the year 2007. I agree that we should not have been licensing companies to sell any biological or chemical agents to Iraq when they had shown the will to use them. But don't be fooled into thinking we were the only country selling them weapons.

Arms Sales to Iraq

Iraqi Weapons Imports

Who Armed Iraq?

Sometimes you have to choose between the lesser of two evils. Kind of like being an ally of Russia during World War II.

"The same goes for the fact that the United States via the CIA armed and funded many of the same militant Muslims in Afghanistan--Osama bin Laden included--that Bush blames for 9/11 and other acts of 'terrorism'."

Yep, sort of the same thing. The spread of communism was a real threat. But why did you put terrorism in quotes as if acts of terror have not been committed by those people?

Oh, and this just in from The New York Times:

A War We Just Might Win

You not only believe that you and you alone have an understanding of the Constitution that no one else can match (even Constitutional scholars), but you continue to beat the same drum in answer to anything said about the declaration of war (or lack thereof). Do you have a law degree or Juris Doctorate in Constitutional Law? Doubtful.

My understanding of the Constitution is actually buttressed by research I have done on works by people who are Constitutional scholars and who apply what the framer's intent was for each section of the Constitution. It doesn't matter to me whether you agree with it or not, because eventualy the "truth will out".

Congress Shall Have the Power to Make War
"The Framers of the Constitution were determined not to grant the president an unfettered power to make war. Having just suffered at King George's hands, they believed that vesting the executive with war-making power almost inevitably led to abuse. Thus they clearly wrote: Congress, not the President, shall have the power "To declare War, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on Land and Water." The President could act without the authority of Congress only to repel sudden attacks. In all other cases, Congress alone had the authority to declare a war.

Clearly, when it comes to war, supporters of presidential power turn a blind eye to the Constitution. Betting they can dodge the restrictions imposed by our national charter, they call the President's exercise of force not war, but "police actions," "surgical strikes," or "limited engagements." This is not constitutional scholarship but constitutional obfuscation. The Framers knew that minor military engagements could quickly escalate into major ones, so they sought to limit presidential power over "small" wars just as much as large ones. The "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" that they empowered Congress, but not the President, to grant referred to licensing government agents to take enemy ships or otherwise frustrate the enemy -- the 18th century method of conducting a "limited engagement."

If any ambiguities about war powers remained, Chief Justice John Marshall removed them in one of the earliest Supreme Court cases on this subject (Talbot v. Seeman, 1801). Congress alone, the court unanimously ruled, had the "whole powers of war," whether that meant authorizing "general hostilities" or "partial war." Much later, Justice Thurgood Marshall referred to this ruling and noted that "nothing in the 172 years since those words were written alters that fundamental constitutional postulate (Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 1973)." "

The Executive Shall Have the Power to Declare War
The U.S. Constitution vests the power to declare war in Congress. What's the point of that if the president may go to war unilaterally? Well, according to "one of the best legal minds of his generation," not only does Congress not have to declare war, it isn't clear that Congress can do anything if the president starts a war illegally:

Referring to a Roberts memo on the invasion of Grenada, Leahy asked Roberts if he thought Congress can "stop a war." Short of exercising its power of the purse, that is an "unsettled" question, Roberts responded. It's difficult to articulate in the abstract where the line would be drawn, he said, or "even what the role of the courts would be" if such a question were to arise.

Thus the end run around the Constitution's checks and balances...

Plus, the requirement of the Bush to go to Congress with a report--a report to meet the criteria for Congress to authorize the president to take military action, yada yada yada--was a report based on lies. There were no WMDs. There was no "clear and present danger" to the US except in Bush's imagination.

You talk about the number of times a formal declaration of war was issued versus the number of conflicts we've entered. How many of those conflicts took place after 1973? How many took place after 1945?

Your claim that you work with military members/veterans yada yada yada is still not anything close to a rebuttal to the websites I posted of those opposed to the war and the issues I raise.

The issues I raised regarding our arms sales to Iraq brings to light the hypocrisy of Bush's position that Saddam Hussein was such a bastard for using biological and chemical weapons against his own people, yet our own government in the 1980's knew already and STILL gave him the means to produce MORE biological and chemical weapons. Actually, the issues that I raised in two parts numbered sequentially, no less, were pretty plain to see.

As for where you had your little rah, rah speech:
"The Iraq war was legal, it is legal, and it will continue to be legal unless the Congress changes the law to stop it. When people use rhetoric such as, “Bush’s war”, “the illegal war of aggression”, or “Bush lied, people died”, one will now know that they are either ignorant, stupid, or both, or that it is a disgraceful attempt to gain or regain power or relevance in the political sphere. Most of the condemnation of our President concerning going to war with Iraq - including calls for impeachment, accusations of war crimes, calling his actions unconstitutional and unjustified, and the outright fabrication and leaking of information by congressmen, journalists, and intelligence officials – is based on deliberate lies and propaganda and in some cases may be borderline, or actual treason.

This would be the perfect time – a time when we are at war - to end the senseless ridicule of the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces."

So, you, average citizen, defined for yourself the criteria that makes a Patriotic American and anyone that falls outside that narrow definition is a liar, agent for the enemy, terrorist, or traitor. Sounds like you and Bush are really chummy and you actually believed Bush's "if you are not for us you are against us" and an enemy of the United States speech.

I am not going to refresh your memory for every little thing you said, which apparently you expect everyone to do because you aren't really thinking about what you are saying. But, if you want to go back and wade through your wordy, non-direct replies, look for "Oh, I've seen the light. I'll go and join the Democrats, MoveOn.org, and 911Truth.org", which is a thinly-veiled claim that the Democrats are wrong (yet it was Republicans in control of Congress and the White House who are responsible for Iraq), Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son in Iraq, is lying (yet she, unlike you, actually has something personally at stake) and people that actually want to investigate the truth about Bush's Reichstag Fire are all wrong without anything specific to back up your words. Hence, "slagging the Democrats".

Along with slagging Democrats, you also claimed that leftists were wrong "about everything", when you claim to have had your "aha" moment, in the context of anyone opposing the war must be a leftist. That line only goes to show that you don't care about learning about the truth no matter where it takes you. You see everything in terms of "us vs. them" meaning you enjoy pitting American against American, when the real "us vs. them" is Americans against the power elite who use us for cannon fodder.

"Sometimes you have to choose between the lesser of two evils." How positively droll. /sarcasm. Sort of like choosing between Bush and Kerry in 2004. No, actually the lesser of two evils is still evil.

Since you are fond of quoting articles, how about responding to this one:

Media Silence About the Carnage in Iraq
Killing 10,000 Iraqis Every Month
"A state-of-the-art research study published in October 12, 2006 issue of The Lancet (the most prestigious British medical journal) concluded that--as of a year ago--600,000 Iraqis had died violently due to the war in Iraq. That is, the Iraqi death rate for the first 39 months of the war was just about 15,000 per month.

That wasn't the worst of it, because the death rate was increasing precipitously, and during the first half of 2006 the monthly rate was approximately 30,000 per month, a rate that no doubt has increased further during the ferocious fighting associated with the current American surge."

You dismissed the notion that you and those that still support the war had a bloodlust, but, when we are killing more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein did over 25 years of tyranny, something is wrong. If this information, which will probably never appear in any major media source despite the Lancet being quoted by our government before, were to become public, Bush's approval ratings would drop even lower. The reason ANY of the American public still supports the war is because they are not being told the whole truth about what is really going on.

Until the American people are given the WHOLE TRUTH on which to base their opinions of the Iraq War, I will continue to write about it and, if that bores you, BOO-EFFIN-HOO!

"Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power

11. To declare War..."

That's it. No "must". No "formal declaration". They simply have the power to declare it.

No "power to delegate the War declaration to any other party". No "excuse to lie to voters."

... They understood that the President would need to be able to call on the military if attacked when Congress was not in session.

And what was this 'need' again? To bully on old Saddam because he (suprise, suprise!) lied?

Try actually answering some of the issues being raised by troops WHO WERE THERE instead of falling back on 'um, um what about all the troops who still support the war?'

The only thing you've proven with your continued support of the failed Iraq War is that you are willing to let the government get away with anything as long as it signs its own permission slip first.

Oh, and if your little 'RAH! RAH! GO BUSH GO!' speech at the end of your little spiel isn't the same rhetoric which you've repeatedly attacked me for making, I don't know what is. ::rolleyes::"

Wow. This is turning out to be another great debate, isn't it? I actually work with many military members/veterans (including myself) who have gone to, and are in Iraq. Not one of them has said anything about not wanting to be there (aside from it being hot and sandy) or not believing in their mission. And what was my "RAH! RAH! GO BUSH GO!" speech?

As for your second comment...

Wasn't this argument used in 2002? I recall the fact that many of the companies selling insecticides and such were licensed by the Department of Commerce. The State Department did not know all of the licenses that were issued to all of the companies and what was being sold. In any case, it wasn't the Office of the President selling goods to Iraq. Many of the items were also biological, but they were supposed to be used for things like vaccines. Most of the "civilian" Iraqi companies that bought those products were front companies of the Iraqi military.

We're also talking about the 1980's. In case you haven't noticed, we are currently in the year 2007. I agree that we should not have been licensing companies to sell any biological or chemical agents to Iraq when they had shown the will to use them. But don't be fooled into thinking we were the only country selling them weapons.

Sometimes you have to choose between the lesser of two evils. Kind of like being an ally of Russia during World War II.

And so you're cornered into your own "rhetoric."

"The same goes for the fact that the United States via the CIA armed and funded many of the same militant Muslims in Afghanistan--Osama bin Laden included--that Bush blames for 9/11 and other acts of 'terrorism'."

Yep, sort of the same thing. The spread of communism was a real threat. But why did you put terrorism in quotes as if acts of terror have not been committed by those people?

"Terrorism" was the reason given for "use of military force." But the only "terrorism" I've seen is the administration's use of blame.

What do You Think? Join Xomba to Tell Us!

jdub...

About war powers:

Read this - The Federalist Society - War Powers Resolution

and this - "Make" war vs. "Declare" war

About the "rah, rah" speech:

"The Iraq war was legal, it is legal, and it will continue to be legal unless the Congress changes the law to stop it."

That's true, as I have pointed out in the article.

"When people use rhetoric such as, “Bush’s war”, “the illegal war of aggression”, or “Bush lied, people died”, one will now know that they are either ignorant, stupid, or both, or that it is a disgraceful attempt to gain or regain power or relevance in the political sphere."

This is also true, since the legal case has been properly laid out above.

"Most of the condemnation of our President concerning going to war with Iraq - including calls for impeachment, accusations of war crimes, calling his actions unconstitutional and unjustified, and the outright fabrication and leaking of information by congressmen, journalists, and intelligence officials – is based on deliberate lies and propaganda and in some cases may be borderline, or actual treason."

This is also true, since the legal justification for war is a matter of public record (as I have pointed out in the article).

"This would be the perfect time – a time when we are at war - to end the senseless ridicule of the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces."

I could not find a better way to say this. Apparently you disagree with it. That makes it a pro-Bush statement?

(your words)
"So, you, average citizen, defined for yourself the criteria that makes a Patriotic American and anyone that falls outside that narrow definition is a liar, agent for the enemy, terrorist, or traitor."

Really? Is that what those statements meant? What it means is this:

The war was legal. People who denounce the President by claiming the war was illegal and accusing him of crimes for going to war are wrong, and if they do things to undermine his authority at a time of war, it should at least be frowned upon - and in some cases, may be a crime itself. Is that easier to understand?

About "slagging democrats":

It didn't happen in this article (which I assumed we should now be debating). And yes, I did sarcastically say I would join the democrats in the anti-war movement...because they are the largest group advocating it. The "left" and "democrats" are part of the same political spectrum. "Right" and "Republican" are part of the other side of it. It is not my problem if this truth offends you.

About the "600,000" Iraqi deaths:

Read this - Iraqi population statistics, 2005

and this - Iraqi population statistics, 2006

In 2005, the death rate was 5.49 per 1000. In 2006, the death rate was 5.37 per 1000. The population of Iraq is about 27,000,000.

From this information we can extrapolate an average of about 150,000 deaths per year which equals 600,000 over four years. Look at that! 600,000 deaths since the war began!

Wait just a minute...

Are you telling me that other than being killed by war, that almost nobody is dying in Iraq otherwise? What's their secret for not dying?

According to this article, The World Health Organization estimated the death rate at about 7.6 per 1000 pre-war. The U.S. Census put the number at 6.4. UNICEF shows that the 2005 crude death rate is only one death higher than 1990. That number was 8 per 1000.

If 150,000 Iraqis are dying every year during a war, then compared to pre-war statistics, that number is a testament to how well our strategy of precision warfare is actually working. And most of the deaths that are reported are at the hands of car-bombings and terrorist executions. Many times, those deaths happen by the dozens or even reach into the hundreds per day. If 10,000 to 15,000 Iraqi civilians are dying every month at the hands of the coalition forces, where are the funerals and the video footage of all of this? Don't you think someone in the anti-war movement would be able to find the evidence of all this carnage and gleefully put in on the internet or send it to a newsroom?

Do me a favor. Unless you have something to debate about the actual content of this article (the legality of the war), save your "research" and your logically and statistically flawed arguments for another thread. This one is about the legal aspect of going to war with Iraq, not about body counts and foreign policy in the 80's.

You don't read the articles I post. At best, you glance over them and come up with your own skewed opinion about what they represent. As they say over at Digg, RTFA before you try and debate it.

The Lancet report is damning to your version of a clean, pushbutton, precision war, so you ignore it, despite the fact that (1)the British government grudgingly accepted it and (2)the criteria/statistical model used to compile the data used in the report is the SAME EXACT EFFING ONE that they used to compile other data ACCEPTED BY THE U.S. AND BRITISH governments already. Stop trying to spin the facts to suit your agenda that the war is good and innocent Iraqis are not being slaughtered.

You also operate under the illusion that there are two political parties in this country anymore and that Truth chooses sides based solely on political affiliation.

I don't have a monopoly on truth, but it appears I do have a monopoly on logic (at least in this debate).

So, what you're telling me is, there have been 600,000 additional deaths by Iraqis? That there have actually been 1.2 million Iraqi deaths in the last four years? If that is your argument, then yes, it would seem that the statistics from Lancet are incorrect - considering the fact that nobody seems to be able to find all of these extra bodies overflowing in the morgues or graveyards.

If you're arguing that only 600,000 total have died since the war began, then it is right on track with the normal death rate according to multiple pre-war statistical analyses, which I provided in my last comment. (Actually, it would be lower according to the WHO and U.S. Census, but I'm trying not to make you look too foolish. Oops!)

These are not "skewed opinions". It's called observational alaysis and mathematics. I guess now I have a monopoly on math too.

I neither know nor care about the stats. The logic, however, you might have 'a monopoly on,' giving none to Bush, his administration or the Congress. Can you give me the goals of this war in simple terms?

What do You Think? Join Xomba to Tell Us!

Now, you are the one who is getting boring. You slag the Lancet's investigation as inaccurate--mostly it appears because I bothered to quote it--yet you once again fail to address any of the salient points brought out in the article, namely that the number of US operations daily is resulting in a hugely unwarranted number of deaths of innocent civilian lives. Then again, as you've already proven by your rhetoric, Iraqi civilian lives don't count for squat; don't feel bad, though, because that sentiment has already been echoed by Bush by word and deed.

There is a requirement that the President give a report to Congress in seeking authorization to go to war, as per the War Powers Act of 1973, which must precede any Congressional permission.

Here is the report:
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/Report107_243.pdf

Here is a rebuttal to the similar speech that Bush gave to the American people prior to going to war, his "big sell" as it were.
The twenty lies of George W. Bush

Let's have you do something that you've been reluctant to do before, namely actually RTFA and rebut it point-by-point. Because, based on the article and the factual evidence it presents, the War Powers Act requirement was not met and, therefore, the so-called authorization is legally voided.

Except--after saying, "RTFA"--one might add, "Publius!" :-))

What do You Think? Join Xomba to Tell Us!

This format isn't exactly conducive to coherent debate, but he still should take time to Read The ******* Article" before trying to say it says something that it doesn't before dismissing it out-of-hand.

jdub...

This may end up being my last comment to you since you have obviously abandoned any sense of intellectual honesty and use of logical and rational arguments. I'm tired of playing your game where you change the debate every time I prove you wrong. And I'm tired of telling you over, and over, and over again why this war is not illegal. You apparently cannot read or comprehend U.N. resolutions and United States Public Law.

For the record, I have been reading the links you post. The problem is, I don't think you have been reading them.

From Counterpunch:

"A state-of-the-art research study published in October 12, 2006 issue of The Lancet (the most prestigious British medical journal) concluded..."

That's quite a qualifying statement for a journal that should already be known as "the most prestigious". But just what is the "state-of-the-art" research?

"The Lancet interviewers asked their Iraqi respondents how their loved ones died and who was responsible."

Now that is pretty state-of-the-art. "Hey, Mrs. Iraqi. How did your husband die and who killed him?" We're off to a great start.

"...we can be very confident that the Coalition had killed at least 180,000 Iraqis by the middle of 2006." (emphasis added)

"...the U.S. and its allies may well have killed upwards of 330,000 Iraqis by the middle of 2006."(emphasis added)

Yes. We can be very confident of these numbers because that's what the Iraqi families told them.

"These shocking statistics are made all the more horrific when we realize that among the 600,000 or so victims of Iraqi war violence, the largest portion have been killed by the American military, not by carbombings or death squads, or violent criminals--or even all these groups combined."

"...U.S. forces (or their 'Coalition of the Willing' allies) were responsible for 56%."

"How, then, is the US accomplishing this carnage, and why is it not newsworthy?"

Gee, let me guess. Maybe because those numbers are severely inflated or just completely inaccurate altogether. As I said before, it's kind of hard to miss 600,000 additional deaths (which would double the Iraqi death rate) in four years. Where are the bodies going? And if they do exist, why does nobody have any evidence of it - not even Iraqis?

Moving on...

Thanks for the link from C-span. It was a good report on why we should have taken action against Iraq. I will add the link to the original text of this article.

From the World Socialist Web Site - apparently a favorite of yours:

the "about us" section...

"The World Socialist Web Site insists, however, that the success of these struggles is inseparable from the growth in the influence of a socialist political movement guided by a Marxist world outlook.

The standpoint of this web site is one of revolutionary opposition to the capitalist market system. Its aim is the establishment of world socialism."

Since this website is openly anti-capitalist and yearns for global Marxist ideals, I'm not sure how seriously one can take their anti-war articles about the world's largest and most prosperous capitalist nation. But let me indulge your feeble mind one last time.

The author makes repeated references to the U.N. Security Council's unwillingness to go along with military action against Iraq. He mentions the refusal of France, Russia, China, and Germany. All of these countries were taking part in the Oil-for-Food scandal (which he also mentioned as a good program) and selling weapons to Iraq. Big surprise that they didn't want to cut off their own profits.

The author makes repeated references about how the U.N. resolutions against Iraq were "brutally oppressive". However, he doesn't mention why the resolutions were enacted in the first place.

The author claims that Iraq never defied a resolution since 1991 - even though the U.N., in resolution 1441, found Iraq to be in breach of prior resolutions.

The author uses phrases describing the U.S. and our actions as "American imperialism", "financial shakedown operation", "brutal oppression", "enough time to get the UN to rubber-stamp the war", "other members of the 'broad coalition' are those which have been bribed or browbeaten", "a violation of international law", "to install a US puppet regime "...obviously he has the same problem you have - a penchant for unrelenting rhetoric.

The author, every stop along the way, made it appear that the United States and the U.N. were the oppressive regime and that Saddam Hussein was an innocent little man that never did anything wrong and just wanted world peace and to be left alone.

So, no...I don't accept your references as credible and I don't accept the false premises that you continually try to use in this debate. This article was very simple to understand. I displayed the laws and used deductive logic to explain the legality of the war. If you don't accept it, fine. I did my part. If you believe there to be an error in what I wrote, then point it out and tell me how it is wrong (some facts would help your argument).

I'm not here to debate socialist websites, medical journals, the 1980's, your military career, acronyms from Digg, or anything else you want to throw against the wall to try to take attention away from the fact that your assumption for the last four years - that the Iraq war was illegal - is utterly erroneous.

Perhaps in the future, before you begin telling me how the war is "illegal" for whatever reason you come up with next, you will "read the f***ing article" and see that I already explained your disagreement in fourth-grade terminology.

Once again, you attack the messenger instead of addressing the message. The Lancet's numbers were accepted by the British government, yet you ignore that fact because you don't agree with the numbers. The additional fact that the article's investigators were THERE IN IRAQ getting first-hand information--something that you cannot claim in any way, shape, or form--from Iraqis, who, it has become readily apparent from everything you've written, are people you choose to view as subhuman and unworthy of empathy on your part. Further, you also choose to ignore that the methodology and statistical analysis offered by their investigators has ALREADY BEEN APPROVED by the American and British governments. I have yet to see you have the same level of support for anything you've posted so far in way of your claims of mathematical genius.

As for your "rebuttal" to the article on the lies Bush told, once again *yawn* you fail to address the salient points raised in the article and once again attack the messenger instead of addressing the message.

Here are some of the salient points you failed to address, quoted from The twenty lies of George W. Bush, since you are prone to taking things out of context in a feeble attempt to discredit the entire message:

1. Bush had already intended to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power, long before 9/11 and the invasion.
2. The US-led UN sanctions resulted in the deaths of half a million IRAQI CHILDREN caused by the deliberate withholding of food, medical supplies, and other vital supplies. Two UN workers trying to get food and supplies into Iraq resigned in protest over the horrid conditions in Iraq caused by the sanctions. Plus, the US was being disingenuous for using the inspections as a cover for the CIA.
3. Iraq never "defied"--note that the author used quotes, something you chose to ignore-- the resolutions, but has GENERALLY COOPERATED. The inspectors that were there from 1991-98 supervised the the destruction of almost all of Iraq's stores of biological and chemical weapons, delivery systems, and their ability to make more. (You also continue to ignore the fact that much of what Iraq had in way of weapons and production capability was given to Iraq during the 1980's by the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.)
4. Referring to the period of 1991-98, under UN supervision, Iraq destroyed nearly all of its ability to deliver chemical and biological weapons, including missles, warheads, weapons agents, PRECURSOR chemicals, and production equipment.
5. Bush grossly exaggerated Iraq's WMD's to drive support for the war--as we have since found out, Iraq didn't have any WMD's. Former British Prime Minister Robin Cook resigned in protest over the decision to go to war without UN authorization.
6. Al Qaeda, which was set up, funded, and armed by the United States government during the 1980's has the goal of converting the Middle East to Islamic fundamentalism. Iraq is a secular nationalist country and has been the mortal enemy of the fundamentalists for decades. Bush needed (and still needs) to link the two to justify the attack, but no one that understands Middle Eastern politics really believes him.
7. What the article means by "American imperialism" is the culpability of the American government (imperialism is simply the practice of asserting domination over other nations, which certainly applies to what the US does in the Middle East) in funding Al Qaeda and other Islamic fundamentalist movements going back to the 1950s as a weapon against left-wing movements in Muslim countries. The US-government backed Osama bin Laden himself in Afghanistan.
8. Because Bush was already committed to invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein from power, he couldn't let the UN stand in the way, so he went to the UN to push for sanctioned military action and to get other member-nations to financially-support his invasion.
9. Bush verbally attacked anyone that didn't support his immediate invasion and branded them as cowards. While Bush wanted to attack, attack, attack, other members of the UNSC didn't see Iraq as an imminent threat.
10. It is telling that out of the entire "BROAD COALITION" against Iraq, only three (US sent 86% of total) committed troops. The US exerted pressure on the other countries to allow US forces fly-over and other access.
11. UN CHARTER ARTICLE 42--and the United States is a signatory--says that the UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL gets to determine how Security Council Resolutions, such as 1441, are to be enforced, unless the US is acting in self-defense. THUS, BUSH'S UNILATERAL DECISION TO IGNORE THE UN IS A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.
12. The "Shock and Awe" campaign was developed and persecuted without consideration for civilian casualties.
13. Bush's ultimatum before the start of the war caused the evacuation of all UN humanitarian aid workers and the shutdown of the oil-for-food program, which fed 60% of Iraq's population. The US government deprived Iraqis of medicine since 1991 and even banned the most basic medical supplies, like syringes and antibiotics as "dual-use" items that could be used for biological warfare.
14. Bush's goal was to install a puppet government in Baghdad, which is something that the US, through the CIA, has been doing throughout the world since WWII.
15. Bush also knew going in that DEMOCRACY in Iraq was not going to change anything because US actions have created a groundswelling of anti-American sentiment and any future governments would be hostile to the US.
16. Bush's every action regarding Iraq was designed to create the necessary conditions for invasion.
17. The biggest losers in the war are the Iraqi people and the American taxpayer. Bush pushed through tax cuts that only benefitted wealthy Americans and corporations; corporations that often had no-bid contracts for "reconstructing" Iraq. Let's not forget the fact that Halliburton was awarded millions of dollars worth of contracts and Cheney is still on the payroll.
18. Bush "talk" says that he is concerned for the Iraqi people, but his "walk" shows that he is only focused on invasion.
19. Bush knew going in that the reaction to the invasion and occupation of Iraq was likely to create more terrorism in the world, not less.
20. Bush chose to ignore that the opinion of the majority of the UN Security Council, the majority of the world's governments, and the majority of the world's people were against him taking any offensive action in Iraq, which was demonstrated by millions of marchers on February 15 and March 15 before the war opposing any unilateral US action in Iraq.
21. Bush's claim to believe in the power of the Iraqi people to live freely in a stable region is belied by his actions to create dictatorships in the region and to ensure that US will is held supreme over that of the people of the countries in the Middle East.

You can choose to ignore the fact that BUSH LIED, which you are apparently ready and willing to do, or you can be a man and respond to the salient points I outlined above. Any further failure to address those points will be taken as an affirmation that the article is correct.

What you call "common sense" and "logic" I call political sycophancy and chauvinism.

"A state-of-the-art research study published in October 12, 2006 issue of The Lancet (the most prestigious British medical journal) concluded..."

That's quite a qualifying statement for a journal that should already be known as "the most prestigious". But just what is the "state-of-the-art" research?

"The Lancet interviewers asked their Iraqi respondents how their loved ones died and who was responsible."

Now that is pretty state-of-the-art. "Hey, Mrs. Iraqi. How did your husband die and who killed him?" We're off to a great start.

... but ... what do you mean "state"-of-the-"art"? West Virginia? California? Michigan? Wherever She's From?
What do You Think? Join Xomba to Tell Us!

THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER AND THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST IRAQ

Quoting:
"The United Nations Charter is a treaty of the United States, and as such forms part of the "supreme law of the land" under the Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. The UN Charter is the highest treaty in the world, superseding states’ conflicting obligations under any other international agreement. (Art. 103, UN Charter)

Under the UN Charter, there are only two circumstances in which the use of force is permissible: in collective or individual self-defense against an actual or imminent armed attack; and when the Security Council has directed or authorized use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security. Neither of those circumstances now exist. Absent one of them, U.S. use of force against Iraq is unlawful."

"It was under Chapter VII that in 1990 the Security Council by Resolution 678 authorized all "necessary means" to eject Iraq from Kuwait and to restore international peace and security in the area. Following the formal cease-fire recorded by Resolution 687 in 1991, there has been no Security Council resolution that has clearly and specifically authorized the use of force to enforce the terms of the cease-fire, including ending Iraq’s missile and chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs.

Such a resolution is required for renewed use of force. It is the Security Council that has assumed responsibility regarding Iraq, and it must be the Security Council that decides, unambiguously and specifically, that force is required for enforcement of its requirements. Past Security Council resolutions authorizing use of force employed language universally understood to do so, regarding Korea in 1950 (prior to General Assembly action, Security Council Resolution 83 recommended that UN member states provide "such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area"), and Kuwait, Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, and Bosnia in the 1990s ("all necessary means" or "all measures necessary"). In all these instances, the Security Council responded to actual invasion, large-scale violence, or humanitarian emergency, not to potential threats.

Any claim that "material breach" of cease fire obligations by Iraq justifies use of force by the United States is unavailing. The Gulf War was a Security Council authorized action, not a state versus state conflict; accordingly, it is for the Security Council to determine whether there has been a material breach and whether such breach requires renewed use of force."

Therefore, Publius, whether or not the Congress gave Bush authority to use force in Iraq, such unilateral action is specifically proscribed by the United Nations Charter and, therefore, the Constitution. Ergo, the Iraq War is illegal and unconstitutional. End of story.

Overview of the PR Campaign to Sell the War in Iraq
This contains the following subjects:

• CASTING IRAQ AS A THREAT
• LINKING PREEMPTION WITH IRAQ
• PREEMPTION DROPPED, BUT NO ONE NOTICES
• LEADING UP TO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1441
• MISINTERPRETATION OF 1441
• PERMISSION SLIP VS. GLOBAL TEST
• WAR ALREADY AUTHORIZED TWELVE YEARS AGO?
• FAILING TO CHALLENGE THE LEGALITY OF THE IRAQ WAR
• COUNTDOWN TO WAR AND NO LOOKING BACK
• COUNTDOWN TO WAR IN THEIR OWN WORDS
  

  From "Misinterpretation of 1441":
  On November 8th, UNSC resolution 1441 was passed and the Administration failed to get the all of their strict conditions and desired tripwires for war, but they got enough of what they wanted in the resolution to begin using the UN weapons inspection process as the trigger for war.

  The desire for other countries to remove all of the automatic triggers for war merited a specific reassurance from the United States UN Ambassador, John Negroponte. Negroponte's following statement to the diplomats gives more context as to why 1441 was passed with a unanimous vote. He said, "As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no 'hidden triggers' and no 'automaticity' with respect to the use of force [i.e. 1441 has no automatic authorization for the US to go to war]."

  But in the same breath he also said, "this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq."

  President Bush then gave a speech at the White House saying, "The United States has agreed to discuss any material breach with the Security Council, but without jeopardizing our freedom of action to defend our country."

  This self-defense argument is a red herring, because it was designed to scare the American public and confuse the American media. After the Congress passed the war resolution, the Bush Administration never attempted to argue a case of self-defense to the UN. The US always claimed that it did not need a 2nd UN resolution to go to war because they already had enough authorization to attack Iraq from Security Council resolutions passed from over a decade ago.

  ...Negroponte's on-the-record promises carried a lot of weight with France and other UNSC members, but the mainstream media failed to include this crucial context in their coverage from November until the brink of war when the Council was debating these issues. The US media collectively perceived that the United States now had the green light for military action and the "Countdown to War" was kicked into overdrive after November 8th.

  From "War Already Authorized Twelve Years Ago?":
  "As already alluded to above, a lot of insight can be gained as to what happened between November 8th and March 19th when looking from the perspective of the US legal argument laid out in the March 17th talking points and in Negroponte's March 20th letter to the UN.

  The Bush Administration argued that "Under UN Resolutions 678 and 687 - both still in effect - we are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction."

  In other words, the US claims to know that Iraq possesses WMD and that they have not disarmed. This combined with two resolutions passed 12 and 11 years ago for a different reason now somehow allows a carte blanche authority for the US to conduct a wholesale invasion of Iraq to overthrow the government.

  While most International Lawyers would characterize this legal argument as being "unpersuasive," it did not matter because the Bush Administration was counting on their legal theory being too complex and confusing for anyone who mattered to seriously dig into it. Unfortunately, the Administration was correct and no mainstream journalist ever really investigated their claims of authority until a few weeks before the war began."

  From reading and studying the information presented in this link, it is clear that Bush was selling two different versions of the necessity for war: one to the American public and one to the International community. It is important to note that the one that he sold internationally didn't include any language about "self-defense" and instead tried to claim that the U.S. was merely trying to enforce the sanctions already in place. To the American public, he sold the invasion as "Self-Defense" by furthering his claims that Iraq had WMD's (that he was never able to find) and had links to terrorist organizations (that he never bothered to prove).

  By examining the evidence taken from 2002-03 and beyond, we can clearly see that what Publius holds as legitimacy from the United Nations for Bush's War in Iraq is a smokescreen for Bush's real intentions and merely part of a bigger PR Campaign to sell the war.

For further legal evidence on the illegality of Bush's War in Iraq, a white paper was written by Sean D. Young of George Washington University--Law School. The paper appeared in Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 92, No. 4, 2004. It reinforces what the author of the PR article wrote and gives appropriate legal (and other evidentiary) citations in International law, where appropriate. It is not available in HTML, but it can be viewed and/or downloaded as a PDF.

Here is the link to the white paper's abstract and to the download locations:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=432561

For a direct rebuttal to Publius' claim that "all subsequent resolutions" means resolutions in perpetuity, I quote:

"The structure of Resolution 678 suggests that the resolution is focused on Iraqi compliance with the Security Council’s resolutions adopted after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait but before the date of Resolution 678 itself, which was November 29, 1990. The phrase “all subsequent relevant resolutions” in paragraph one appears to be a reference back to the ten resolutions specified in the preamble.¹⁸

Further, the authorization in paragraph two only becomes effective if by January 16 Iraq fails to comply with such resolutions. In other words, had Iraq complied with the obligations set forth under those ten resolutions—which related to Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait, return of Kuwaiti nationals and property, and other matters, but which did not relate to weapons of mass destruction—on or before January 15, 1991, then the au