War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

[CurtisLow]

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal


Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger in Washington

The Guardian

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.



Page two

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

-------------------------------------

The truth will prevail! :cool:

--------------------------------------



Huckabee Asks Judge to Dismiss Lawsuit Over Hard Drives


Little Rock (AP) - Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has asked a state judge to dismiss a lawsuit that accuses him hopeful of breaking the law when his administration destroyed government-owned hard drives as he left office in January.

Jim Parsons of Bella Vista filed a lawsuit last month in Pulaski County Circuit Court accusing Huckabee of violating the state's Freedom of Information Act and a state law prohibiting damaging a computer without authorization.

Parsons' suit asks the court to "send a message that destroying public records is not the standard operating procedure" of elected officials when they leave office.


http://www.katv.com/news/stories/0807/448893.html

----------------------------------

What was he hiding?


--------------------------------------

And for the funny end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKGzhvRB6q4

[hawkeyenick]

Uh, illegal under what law?

If you take down a government, there are no laws.

Unethical? Most would say so
Illegal? That would have to be debated

[rockwell]

Uh, illegal under what law?

If you take down a government, there are no laws.

Unethical? Most would say so
Illegal? That would have to be debated

"Those who oppose waging war without declaration point to Article I of the Constitution, which reads The Congress shall have the power to declare war.

In the case of smaller conflicts not requiring large commitments of manpower and money, many Americans believe that precedents have already been set for acting without the need for declarations of war. In the case of major conflicts, however, debate is centered around the aforesaid words of the United States Constitution."

So now that we are involved in the second longest and all time costliest "non-war" in our nation's history, can we at least admit that it is a war? And as such is unconstitutional?

That means illegal.

[Kingfisher]

Uh, illegal under what law?

If you take down a government, there are no laws.

Unethical? Most would say so
Illegal? That would have to be debated

The Constitution

[hawkeyenick]

"Those who oppose waging war without declaration point to Article I of the Constitution, which reads The Congress shall have the power to declare war.

In the case of smaller conflicts not requiring large commitments of manpower and money, many Americans believe that precedents have already been set for acting without the need for declarations of war. In the case of major conflicts, however, debate is centered around the aforesaid words of the United States Constitution."

So now that we are involved in the second longest and all time costliest "non-war" in our nation's history, can we at least admit that it is a war? And as such is unconstitutional?

That means illegal.

The war against terror was declared on September 18th, 2001 by congress. We ARE at war and it IS legal until contested in the courts. Until then, illegality is just an opinion.

[angelatc]

The war against terror was declared on September 18th, 2001 by congress. We ARE at war and it IS legal until contested in the courts. Until then, illegality is just an opinion.

What does Iraq have to to with TWAT?

[hawkeyenick]

What does Iraq have to to with TWAT?

Sadly, this information can be found on wikipedia if you looked:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_terror
"The War on Terrorism was authorized by the United States Congress under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists passed on September 18, 2001...After the September 11 attacks, the U.S. government claimed that Iraq was a threat to the United States because Iraq could begin to use its alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction to aid terrorist groups"

This is completely legal until it's contested in a court of law, and the only two men with the balls to do that are Kucinich and Paul, and they don't have the political support even though they have the support of the American public.

[pcosmar]

The war against terror was declared on September 18th, 2001 by congress. We ARE at war and it IS legal until contested in the courts. Until then, illegality is just an opinion.

False,Wrong , untrue.
There was never any "Declaration of War".
Iraq had not attacked us nor had any ability to attack us. Under international law it was an unprovoked attack on another nation. Illegal.

[hawkeyenick]

False,Wrong , untrue.
There was never any "Declaration of War".
Iraq had not attacked us nor had any ability to attack us. Under international law it was an unprovoked attack on another nation. Illegal.

Since when does international law apply to a sovereign nation? Ron would never allow such a thing, and neither would the US as we have veto power against any laws they can make against us.

Sorry, there was a declaration of war against terror, and it took us to Iraq. Congress voted on it unanimously, which makes it legal under the constitution.

[Kingfisher]

What does the War on Terror have to do with Iraq?

[pcosmar]

What does the War on Terror have to do with Iraq?

NOTHING

[hawkeyenick]

What does the War on Terror have to do with Iraq?

Terrorist organizations are in Iraq.
They only needed a loose connection, and they got it when they voted on the war on terror.

[pcosmar]

Since when does international law apply to a sovereign nation? Ron would never allow such a thing, and neither would the US as we have veto power against any laws they can make against us.

Sorry, there was a declaration of war against terror, and it took us to Iraq. Congress voted on it unanimously, which makes it legal under the constitution.

An authorization is NOT a declaration of war.
When the Congress votes and writes a formal "Declaration Of War" then we have declared war.
Anything less is unacceptable.

[pcosmar]

Terrorist organizations are in Iraq.
They only needed a loose connection, and they got it when they voted on the war on terror.

WRONG. There are Terrorist organizations in Pakistan, we pay them.
There are terrorist organizations in half the world, That is not an excuse for invasion.

[Ron Paul Fan]

We went in there illegally. We did not declare war. We didn't declare war against Korea or Vietnam. We lose those wars. We're losing this one. We shouldn't be there. We oughta just come home! I'm saying that we should take our marching orders from the CONSTITUTION! We should not go to war without a DECLARATION! We should not go to war when it's an aggressive war! This is an aggressive INVASION! We've committed the INVASION of this war! And it's illegal under international law! That's where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy!

[hawkeyenick]

We went in there illegally. We did not declare war. We didn't declare war against Korea or Vietnam. We lose those wars. We're losing this one. We shouldn't be there. We oughta just come home! I'm saying that we should take our marching orders from the CONSTITUTION! We should not go to war without a DECLARATION! We should not go to war when it's an aggressive war! This is an aggressive INVASION! We've committed the INVASION of this war! And it's illegal under international law! That's where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy!

You forgot a key component of the law, enforcing it. No matter what our opinions, if a law is not enforced, it negates the "illegal" aspect, you have to set precedent. Come on now guys, this is law 101 stuff...

[angelatc]

Terrorist organizations are in Iraq.
They only needed a loose connection, and they got it when they voted on the war on terror.

There was absolutely no connection to Iraq and terror.

Perhaps you're confusing that act with the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002." The bill that passed in 2001, (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists) unanimously, was very specific in that it authorized a use of of force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. (Iraq had nothing to do with those attacks.)

[hawkeyenick]

There was absolutely no connection to Iraq and terror.

The government decides that, not you or I

Just another example of government being the problem, nothing we can do about it right now but support our man and keep putting the message out there

[pcosmar]

You forgot a key component of the law, enforcing it. No matter what our opinions, if a law is not enforced, it negates the "illegal" aspect, you have to set precedent. Come on now guys, this is law 101 stuff...

Got your Neo-Con talking points down.
Why are you here again????:rolleyes:

[angelatc]

The government decides that, not you or I.

What are you talking about? President Bush has absolutely stated that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

[hawkeyenick]

What are you talking about? President Bush has absolutely stated that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

We wouldn't be there if he thought that, besides, he doesn't make that decision, the congress does.

[pcosmar]

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=33

There is absolutely no moral or constitutional reason to go to war with Iraq at this time. To go to war to enforce the dictates of the United Nations, or to play the part of 'policemen of the world,' opposes the sensibilities of all who seek to follow the Constitution. I refuse to participate in action which would possibly expose even one soldier to risk when there is absolutely no immediate threat to the US.

Even worse, the President and others promoting this war are arguing for military objectives which are vague and, according to experts, completely unrealistic. The basic flaw in our foreign policy since World War II has been a lack of objectives, mainly because none of the wars have been to protect our nation. Our troops went into battle for political or industrial purposes, rather than to achieve military victory in the face of a real threat. As a result, we saw years of war in Korea and Vietnam drag on, costing thousands of lives with no real success.
Ron Paul , February 16, 1998
That was under Clinton.
This was a plan that had nothing to do with 9/11.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=242

With our military actions waning in Afghanistan, the administration appears to be gearing up for a second phase in the Middle East. Although the Al-Queda threat has not yet been fully neutralized, political and popular support for a full-scale war against Iraq is growing. The President explicitly named Iraq as a target in his State of the Union address, and British Prime Minister Blair recently stated his backing for such an invasion.

Yet I remain convinced we should be very cautious before we send troops and bombs into Iraq. It's simple to point out that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator, but it's not so easy to demonstrate that he poses a threat to us. We should also remember that the congressional resolution passed immediately after September 11th, which I supported, authorized military force only against those directly responsible for the attacks- and there is no evidence whatsoever that Iraq played a role in those attacks. This leaves me with two serious concerns: first, the near-certainty that this coming war will be undeclared, and hence unconstitutional; and second, that such a war does not serve our best interests.

[pcosmar]

Another good read.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=719

[seapilot]

DECLARATION OF WAR - An act of the national legislature, in which a state of war is declared to exist between the United States and some other nation. This power is vested in Congress by the Constitution, Art. I. There is no form or ceremony necessary, except the passage of the act.

No war can be declared on a nationless group.

What is a War on Terror anyways? How can you declare war on a tactic? Its like declaring war on the boogy man. There was no war declared on Iraq the nation before the invasion or Afgahnistan for that matter.

We also have a War on Drugs, why havent we used the army to invade mexico, central america and south america? Lots of drugs there.

War on Poverty too, let the army invade South Chicago!

[Kingfisher]

We wouldn't be there if he thought that, besides, he doesn't make that decision, the congress does.

We are there to make the international bankers and some large corporations richer and more powerful at taxpayers expence. War is a racket.

[hawkeyenick]

We are there to make the international bankers and some large corporations richer and more powerful at taxpayers expence. War is a racket.

Don't blanket wars together, some are good, most are bad.

The good kind is what the Tea Party 07 event is all about

[Thomas Paine]

This is why the Nuremberg Trials were rightly criticized. By Nuremberg standards, Richard Perle would be indicted for committing crimes against humanity.