Invasion of Iraq is illegal
Summary:	The United States' official March 17, 2003 invasion of the sovereign state of Iraq cannot be justified by either U.S. or International law. It follows therefore that the United States government should be held liable for all loss of life - whether it be civilian or military; US, British, or Iraqi - and damage to property resulting from this blatant act of aggression.
"Most experts in international law say they are not convinced either by the argument that military action against Iraq is authorized by earlier UN resolutions nor that the UN Charter allows self-defense against a perceived future threat."- - [Associated Press, 3/19/03] "Bush is a rich bully. The US has no legal right to be here. Probably Saddam would have sold chemical weapons to somebody some day and then the US would have been right to invade, but now this is the first free democratic country ever to occupy another without good reason." - - Unnamed Lance Corporal in the Marines. [The Age, 4/11/03]
Related Outlines:	General Rendition, Torture, and other forms of unlawful interrogation U.S. War Crimes in Afghanistan The Massacre at Qala-i-Janghi in Mazar-i-Sharif U.S. War Crimes and Atrocities in Iraq U.S. Military may use Chemical Weapons in Iraq U.S.-led Invasion of Iraq is Illegal Other. U.S. tested biological and chemical weapons on U.S citizens
International Laws Violated.
Article 2 of the United Nations Charter. Text of Article 2, Section 3- 4. “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. .... [and] refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” [UN Charter, Article 2, Sections 3,4] Violation. The US used force to settle its dispute with Iraq, ignoring calls from UN Security Council members for a peaceful resolution. Articles 39 - 50 of the United Nations Charter. Summary of Articles 39-50. Articles 39 - 50 of the United Nations Charter clearly stipulate that no member state is authorized to use military force against another country without the UN Security Council first determining that certain criteria have been met. (1) There must be a material breach of its resolution; and (2) All nonmilitary and peaceful options to enforce the resolution must be fully exhausted. Once it has been decided that the necessary conditions for military action have been met, only the UN Security Council can authorize the use of military force. [UN Charter] Violation. The United States and its conscripted coalition invaded Iraq without the approval of the UN Security Council. The Bush administration chose not to take the issue to the council because it knew that a resolution to use force against Iraq would not pass. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Summary of Article 51. Article 51 allows for a nation to use military force to defend itself only in cases of an ongoing or impending attack. It only provides this military solution as a temporary one –until the UN Security Council can find the appropriate peaceful response. The intention of this article was not to set criteria for the justification of war. Quite the contrary; its intent was to prevent conflicts from escalating into war. Violation. The US and its conscripted coalition invaded Iraq - calling it a preemptive defense strike, a concept with no legal meaning - despite being unable to prove its allegations that it posed an imminent threat to the US Although the US claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq was developing these weapons, and that Iraq intended to use these weapons against the US, the US failed to provide any evidence to substantiate these claims. [Read more] UN weapons inspectors who examined suspected banned weapons facilities in Iraq found no support for the US assertions. [Read More] The US also alleged that Iraq had ties to terrorist groups and would likely provide these organizations with weapons of mass destruction. No evidence was presented to the UN to support the accusation. [Read More] Kellog-Briand Pact of 1928. Summary of Article 51. The Kellog-Briand treaty, ratified by the United States in 1929, requires that all disputes be resolved peacefully. It prohibits war as an instrument of foreign policy. [Kellog-Briand Treaty of 1928] As a testament to this fact, in 1932, the secretary of state, Henry L. Stimson stated, “War between nations was renounced by the signatories (including the US and Britain) of that Treaty. This means that it has become throughout practically the entire world... an illegal thing. Hereafter when nations engage in armed conflict... we denounce them as law breakers.” [cited in Dawn, 11/13/01] Violation. The US used force to settle its dispute with Iraq, ignoring calls from UN Security Council members for a peaceful resolution.
US laws violated.
Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution. Summary of Article VI. The article states that international treaties such as the U.N. Charter, which was ratified by the US in 1945, are the “supreme law of the land.” The article reads:“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and 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 or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” [US Constitution] Violation. The United States Congress violated Article VI of the Constitution when it passed Joint Congressional Joint Resolution 46 [S.J. Res 46] 'authorizing' the President to order "the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." The President then violated this article when he ordered the commencement of the official invasion of Iraq. The War Powers Resolution passed by Congress in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Summary. The resolution authorized the President to use military force only against those countries and groups responsible for the September 11 attacks. The resolution stated: “The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” [Joint Congressional Resolution 23, 9/18/01] Evidence that President Bush did not have legal authority to send US troops to invade Iraq under the provisions of the War Powers Resolution. The Bush administration failed to make any connection between Saddam Hussein's regime and the September 11 attacks. Public admissions by Bush administration officials that there was no evidence that Iraq played a part in the September 11 attacks. President George W. Bush. He admitted there was no such evidence. During a January 31, 2003 joint press conference with British Prime Minister Blair at the White House, the two leaders were asked by a reporter, “One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?” Bush answered succinctly, “I can't make that claim.” [US President, 1/31/2003] White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. On September 26, 2002, Ari Fleischer confirmed that there was no evidence that Iraq had been involved in the 9/11 attacks. [White House, 9/26/03] Statements made by influential people, experts, officials. Brent Scowcroft, one of the Republican Party’s most respected foreign policy advisors. He downplayed Iraq's alleged link to terrorism.  In an op-ed piece published by the Wall Street Journal he stated, “[T]here is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them.  He is unlikely to risk his investment in weapons of mass destruction, much less his country, by handing such weapons to terrorists who would use them for their own purposes and leave Baghdad as the return address.”  [Wall Street Journal 8/15/02] Unnamed administration official. On January 28, 2003, immediately after President George Bush delivered his 2003 State of the Union Address, Knight Ridder Newspapers published a report quoting an unnamed US official who said that “there was no evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda had cooperated on terrorist operations and no evidence of any Iraqi role in the Sept. 11 attacks.”  [Knight Ridder, 1/28/03] Unnamed US Government official. Referring to the alleged link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, one US Government official told the New York Times, “We’ve been looking at this hard for more than a year, and you know what, we just don’t think it’s there.’’ [New York Times 2/3/03] Read More . . .
No Legal Justification.
The United States and its 'coalition of the willing' attempted to justify their invasion on grounds that previous UN resolutions allowed for the use of force in the event of Iraq's failure to comply with those resolutions. Legal experts disagree. UN Security Resolution 687 Legal apologetics for the US invasion of Iraq have alleged that UN Security Council Resolution 687, which declared a cease fire at the end of the Gulf War on the condition that Iraq accept the resolution's terms, authorized the continued use of force in the event of Iraqi noncompliance. But legal experts disagree insisting that only the UN Security Council has the legal authority to mandate the additional use of force against Iraq. Stephen Zunes, [8/20/02] an advisor to Foreign Policy in Focus, explained:“As is normally the case when it is determined that governments violate all or part of UN resolutions, any decision about the enforcement of its resolutions is a matter for the UN Security Council as a whole—not for any one member of the council.” Professor Colin Warbrick [Reuters 3/28/02] of Durham University agreed: “There is no provision for enforcement in the resolution which authorizes states to carry out military action. It's for the Security Council to decide what action to take.” Legal experts reiterated this assessment after the start of the war. "No state or coalition of states acting outside the authorization of the council retains the right to use force, even to punish Iraq for breaches of the resolution or to compel its compliance," wrote Devika Hovell and Professor George Williams of the Gilbert and Tobin Centre of Public Law at the University of NSW in Australia. [Sydney Morning Herald, 3/19/03] UN Security Council Resolution 1154 Even though UN Security Council Resolution 1154 warned Iraq that its continued refusal to abide by Res. 687 would result in the “severest consequences,” the UN Security Council clearly stated that it alone was authorized to “ensure implementation of this resolution and peace and security in the area.” [Zunes 8/20/02] UN Security Council Resolution 1441 The resolution states “that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council” which will “convene immediately … in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security.” Only the UN Security Council had the authority to take punitive action against Iraq. [UN Security Council 11/08/02]
Some articles reporting incidents of civilian casualties.
Death on the road to Basra BBC Veil of Secrecy Around Village Hit in U.S. Raid New York Times Burned Iraqi Children Turned Away By US Army Doctors Associated Press US Troops Admit Shooting Iraqi Civilians Mirror [London] I just pulled the trigger Evening Standard US Troops 'Shoot Civilians' Evening Standard Surveys pointing to high civilian death toll in Iraq Christian Science Monitor Unlike the American troops, we look the Iraqis in the eye Telegraph Baghdad battle 'killed 2,300' Associated Press Two killed in new Iraq demo shooting Mirror US Troops fire on Iraq protestors Again Guardian G.I.'s Kill 2 more protestors in an Angry Iraqi City New York Times At least 10 dead as US soldiers fire on school protest Indpendent U.S. Force Said to Kill 15 Iraqis During an Anti-American Rally New York Times Troops kill Anti-U.S. Protesters Washington Post Anger, horror at war's violence MSNBC Out of the fire, back home Las Vegas Review Journal The Marines Shot Anything They Considered a Threat Financial Times I Saw Marines Kill Civilians Le Monde [France] Family Struggles to Tell Father That Three Daughters Are Dead New York Times Civilians, US tank crew killed in attempt to destroy arms Al Jazeera Horror for family as three shot by marines Sydney Morning Herald (Believe it or not, CNN actually showed the video footage of this incident on 4/10/03) Bodies litter streets of Bagdad suburb Agence France Presse Red Cross confirms dozens dead after US Bomb attack Associated Press Bombs Blast Homes instead of Saddam Mirror [London] Protect civilians, Red Cross says BBC Arabs angered by Iraqi civilian deaths CBC US-backed militia terrorizes town Financial Times Dread on Arrival Los Angeles Times Inside University Gates, the Burning and the Bodies Washington Post On the Scene: Civilian Casualties CBS News Killing a child: ‘I did what I had to do Sydney Morning Herald Civilian casualty figures cause concern Financial Times 'We're here to fight the regime, not civilians, but I had to save my men' Independent Bodies Scattered On Baghdad Streets IslamOnline Descent into a charnel-house hospital hell Sydney Morning Herald Eyewitness: ‘The marines shot anything they considered a threat’ Financial Times G.I. Who Pulled the Trigger Shares Anguish of 2 Deaths New York Times Children killed and maimed in bomb attack on town Independent Wailing children, the wounded, the dead: victims of the day cluster bombs rained on Babylon Independent Samar’s story Independent Hospitals in Iraq amid Increasing Civilian Casualties and Continuous Anglo-American Raids International Press Center [Palestine] 280 ‘dismembered’ by bombs News24 US heavy-handedness baffles British News24 Witness Say U.S. Raid Strikes Iraqi Hospital Reuters Witnesses: Dozens Killed in Hit Near Baghdad Reuters I saw the heads of my two little girls come off Sydney Morning Herald Amid fragments of lives, new enemies are made Sydney Morning Herald US reveals new shoot to kill rule Telegraph U.S. Troops inflict ‘so many deaths Telegraph Causing Death and Destruction, but never seeing it The Washington Post War Overwhelms Baghdad Hospitals The Washington Post Civilian Deaths From Airstrikes on Baghdad Fuel Rising Anger Los Angeles Times At Least 14 Dead in Baghdad Neighborhood Cruise Missile Attack Associated Press Anger as at Least 55 Killed in Baghdad Market Reuters Amid Allied Jubilation, a Child Lies in Agony, Clothes Soaked in Blood Independent Civilian Casualties 'Horrifying' Canadian Press Massacre At Hilla: An Eyewitness Report Democracy Now! Ten Iraqis Killed at U.S. Checkpoint The Washington Post Twenty Civilians Killed When Raid Hit Farm Agence France Presse 'The Yank Opened Up. He had absolutely no regard for human life. He was a cowboy out on a jolly' The Times [London] US Marines Turn Fire on Civilians at the Bridge of Death The Times [London] Either Take a Shot Or Take a Chance New York Times