Mediaburn on the Legality of Gulf War II
Comments: 4
A while I mentioned a story by Peter Ford in The Christian Science Monitor that questioned the legality of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Gary Santoro of Mediaburn reports some disappointing findings:
I’ve done some fact checking on a legal analysis I made of the war on Iraq. My position was that this war violated US law according to Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles (1919). While the US played a large part in drafting the treaty, the Congress, with a Republican majority, refused to ratify it. Therefore it did not become the law of the land under the Constitution.
•••
Posted to General Rants • 2003.05.06 (Tue) • 22:24
Comments
Posted by Michael Morgan 2003.05.09, 12:13
Please help me understand why you find the fact that the war was legal disappointing? Consider that Saddam’s regime stood in violation of cease-fire agreements, had expelled UN weapons inspectors, had constructed CHILDREN”S PRISONS, and had tortured and killed its own populace.
Please help me understand.
Posted by riccard0 2003.05.10, 23:04
What’s disappointing is the fact that “While the US played a large part in drafting the treaty [of Versailles], the Congress, with a Republican majority, refused to ratify it”. That said, I think that a “legal war” is an oxymoron.
Posted by Gary Santoro 2003.05.11, 06:08
Re: Michael Morgan’s question
The Treaty was definitely implemented and enforced, though it never received US ratification. This was the source of my confusion. In principle, I believe Article 231 was right.
I don’t believe that many would argue against Article 231 in principle. It levied legal judgement against Germany for pre-emptive war and aggression. In practice, the financial penalties were extreme and caused an economic depression. Looking back at history, many might say a lesser financial penalty would have been more desirable.
Winston Churchill supported the Treaty (as quoted on one of the pages that Michael Morgan included on his blog.) The Americans were co-authors of Article 231, but it never became American law.
In regard to the Iraq crisis, Britain wanted to get a UN Security Council resolution before using force against Iraq. They never got it. In fact the resolution was withdrawn because it was would have been defeated. Had it been put to a UN vote and defeated, British law would have been prevented the country from participating. So the US and Britain walked away.
I believe Britain, France, Germany and Belgium all had the Treaty of Versailles on their minds in the weeks leading up to the war. Even now, I think this legal precedent in Europe sums up the divisions between the US and the EU countries that would not participate.
It seems international law may be the only area of debate on this matter.
This discussion thread in NO WAY supports Saddam Hussein. It’s strictly a debate on the policy and precedent of “pre-emptive” warfare.
Posted by Exguru 2003.10.29, 20:49
Legal, schmeegle. How can the Brady Act or the Sullivan Law be legal, in view of the explicit language (Madison’s) of the 2nd Amendment? How come the Sherman Act has never been used to stop “industry-wide bargaining?” And as for war, possession of the commander-in-chief’s office is nine-tenths of the law, whether with Jefferson and the Tripoli pirates or Bush in Babylon.
Post a comment:
Send This Story to an Enemy
• • •
