Talk:Legality of the Iraq War/Archive 1

Unbalanced By Nature. (Not)
You may claim that the 'article is unbalanced' because 'you' said so, and therefore label it as 'a debate'. However, it is NOT a debate, when a - [ INTERNATIONALLY AGREED UPON LAW ] enforced by the UN, signed by nations worldwide, and equally accepted, is broken, because Mr Bush felt like going on a rampage in the middle East without even consulting the Senate. Not abiding to Internationally accepted law, Rules if you will, makes you a Rule breaker, or, the invasion, Illegal. Almost every nation, and ever International citizen understands that the Iraq war was a unprovoked invasion by the US, with false claims and accusations that Saddam Hussein was harboring, using, planning to use, or do otherwise ( Weapons of Mass Destruction ), right after the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks. Please, avoid spreading misinformation if you have strong emotions towards this subject. The world has enough bias and lies to deal with, we dont need one more Americanized version of History, Just because, Your people felt like Invading other peoples Lands, and delude yourselves with reasons for it. Thanks. user: -Someone you dont need to know about- 04:34, 16 November 2017.

The very nature of this article in unbalanaced; It's a political debate, and has no bearing in a fact-based system. By even suggesting there is a 'question' of legality, you are implying that the war is in fact illegal (which it is not).4.246.120.103 (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Andering J REDDSON.

This is a very good article, however it leaves out the third rationale advanced, similar to but not the same as the 678>1441 argument: that a legal state of war had been in effect between the US and UK on the one hand, and Iraq on the other, since 16 Jan 1991 and never ended. The al-Safwan agreement of 3/91 was a ceasefire only, not a peace treaty, and the (undisputed) Iraqi violations of the ceasefire rendered it null and justified resumption of active gostilities by the non-breaching parties.Solicitr 19:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Was a state of war really declared? Ipankonin 02:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Original research
Raggz, I had hoped we'd moved on from this months ago. It has been pointed out to you on countless occasions that it is a violation of Wikipedia's official policies to invent your own legal arguments and insert them into articles.

The following claims are brazen original research. Please either find a reliable source who explicitly agrees with you or remove these claims from the article.


 * "the legal questions would seem to be settled by the decions of the UN Security Council and General Assembly to act"




 * "The Secretary General's opinion is legally irrelevant as he has no role within the United Nations for such matters (under Articles 39-42)"




 * "the 2003 UNSC decision to take no action is legally binding upon all UN members, unless reversed"

"This provision gives the Council the ability to determine whether a military action constitutes an unauthorized "war of aggression" in international law terms, there is no other legal authority with such jurisdiction"'' Raggz 03:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

'':The International Community met in 1948 and decided upon the rules. You don't have to like them, but you do need to accept that they exist. Do you deny that Article 39 exists - or that it is binding? I don't understand. Raggz 03:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)''


 * "There seems no evidence in law to support the forgoing legal theories, at least in regard to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Hundreds of actions have been attempted, all have failed for lack of merit."

'':The article cites one of the many failed actions in US Courts. How many do you need? You are a lawyer, you know that many have brought your arguments into US courts and that all have failed. you KNOW this, yet your protest?

'':There is only one international tribunal with the authority and jurisdiction to determine aggression, one tribunal with the authority to declare the 2003 invasion illegal. (Do you want a citation on this?) Do you know what tribunal that is? Read Article 39 (above). This tribunal met for two days in 2003, discussed the legal issues, and decided that there was no merit to these claims. (Do you need a citation on this?) Of course it was a political decision by a political tribunal, this is how the UNSC is supposed to operate. (Do you need a citation on this?) This is how international law really works. (Do you need a citation on this?) Offer another tribunal with jurisdiction then? You cannot, can you? Do you realize that not one member of the United Nations has brought any of your issues to the UNSC? (Do you need a citation on this?) This issue was settled in 2003, your side lost. (Do you need a citation on this?) When one side loses in court, they rarely agree with the court, do they? Do you realize that the UNSC is aware of the 2003 invasion and that it decided to ignore this? Is this what you want a citation for?


 * "In this minor criminal case the court decided not to convict a Major in the German Army of the crime of refusing duty that would advance the Iraq war. It had nothing to do with the legality of the war - nor may the German Government usurp the legal authority of the UN Security Council under Articles 39-42 if it wished to do so. It's decion impacts domestic German criminal law only."

'':This is what the case is about. Delete it all if you wish - there are no citations for either claim. I have correctly stated the case, but don't mind if you delete the whole thing.Raggz 03:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)''


 * "In this minor criminal case the jury decided not to convict vandals of crimes. The decion had nothing to do with the legality of the war - nor may the Irish Government usurp the legal authority of the UN Security Council under Articles 39-42 if it wished to do so. It's decion impacts domestic Irish criminal law only."

'':This is what the case is about. Delete it all if you wish - there are no citations for either claim.Raggz 03:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)''

Please note that Wikipedia is not interested in what you or I or any other editor thinks about the legality of the invasion. Wikipedia is only interested in what reliable, published sources have said. Even if your theories are correct, you cannot insert them into this article unless you can cite a reliable, published source that explicitly agrees with you.

I'm afraid you won't find reliable sources to support your claims because most of what you're saying is completely untrue.Sideshow Bob Roberts 02:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You will be pleased to read the citations added today. There are more to come. Raggz (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

'':The United Nations is the only tribunal with jurisdiction to hear your arguments. It heard them, and did not act on them FOUR YEARS AGO. I have posted the relevant supporting material. What more do you need?'' 03:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

'':Argue many things, argue that the war is unjust - or illegitimate. You can do this. The Law says that the US can veto any decision it doesn't like. So argue against this law? Don't distort the law - or what happened. Rage against what happened, claim that the law is clearly unfair - but don't mislead people about how the UNSC really works or what the Charter says.


 * If you argue that there is some legal proceeding that found the war illegal, (or might do so) post your citation. Otherwise, please desist saying that there is. If you will just state that the losing side is still bitter, you will then state the truth. Denial is not a river in Africa ...'' Raggz 03:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Raggz, your editorialising is unacceptable. You need urgently to read WP:NPOV. smb 10:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It begins with "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." This article was far from NPOV compliance in that it failed at "representing fairly and without bias all significant views". The only view presented was that the war was illegal, and a number of reliable sources were offered in support. The article did not then even accurately articulate why the US invaded Iraq, but only dwelt upon why it was illegal. My editing has been far from perfect, hopefully is improving, but it has served to advance the very NPOV policy that you suggest that I "urgently" need to read. Even today, this article does not tell the Reader in the opening summary that no international court has found this war to be illegal. Why not? Raggz 01:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Facts
Editors have suggested that the following facts are my opinions. Let's discuss this here.


 * We are discussing the legality of the 2003 Iraq War, not public opinion.


 * There is only one legal tribunal with the jurisdiction to make a finding on the legality of the 2003 Iraq War.


 * This legal tribunal is the UN Security Council.


 * False. The Rome Statute (5.2) of the ICC gives it the jurisdiction once a definition of aggression is agreed on. In addition, there is nothing preventing domestic courts from interpreting the UN Charter however they please.  Not sure, but particular cases could conceivably come under ICJ jurisdiction too.  At least needs "current international legal tribunal" and a cite. John Z 00:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Rome Statute does not give the ICC any jurisdiction over aggression, because the parties to the treaty were unable to agree on what this means? How may a legal tribunal have any jurisdiction over an undefined crime? Without a definition, there can be no crime, without a crime, no jurisdiction over it.


 * Article 24 of the UN Charter is such an obstacle, but certainly not an insurmountable one. It would only be such if the UNSC were to state this in a particular case. By treaty, every UN member is bound by Article 24. Raggz 00:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Rome Statute gives the ICC jurisdiction once a definition is framed, but not now. I just wikilinked to the appropriate article, basically answering my own question.  Maybe it's my own OR, but I thought "international" is a necessary clarification. If you look at the end of the letter linked in the ICC and Iraq war article, the prosecutor referes to domestic systems, so he appears to be making this point.  Don't exactly understand Article 24 reference.  See below too.  John Z 01:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In 2003, the only legal tribunal with jurisdiction met for two days and declared itself "seized of the matter".


 * There is no other legal tribunal with jurisdiction to make a finding on this question, so the legal question is totally settled.


 * UN Charter Article 25: "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter." This means that every member accepts the decisions of the UN SC, (even when they disagree with them). This means that all members are bound to accept the 2003 UNSC findings on the legality of the 2003 Iraq War.


 * What findings? What "decision"? Please cite primary (2003 SC Resolutions) and secondary literature. It remained seized of the matter; Glen Rangwala somewhere has a specific (and I believe standard) analysis that this means the exact opposite of what I believe Raggz is trying to make it say, that the SC remaining seized of it means that no one else - i.e. the "Coalition" - can barge in and enforce the SC's resolutions w/o explicit and current SC approval.  There appears to be a remarkable OR play on words here.  An SC "decision" is a rare type of resolution, including, but not limited to ones that explicitly cite Chapter VII  (and article 25 makes only decisions in accordance with the Charter binding.). A debate ending in a failure to come to agreement on a particular resolution is not a  decision, particularly not a binding "SC Decision"!  By this Humpty-Dumpty Zen logic,  the most powerful decisions of a court, which "totally settle" legal questions, are when it sits around arguing and says nothing at all! John Z 00:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * These are interesting and thoughtful points. I'm not sure what I think of them. Thank you. Raggz 00:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * UN Charter Article 35: "Any Member of the United Nations may bring any dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34, to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly." No member has brought any of the legal issues now in the article to either.


 * UN Charter Article 39: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security." This means that the issue of "aggression" is legally determined by the UNSC. There is no other legal tribunal for "aggression", so the "aggression" issue is legally settled.


 * See above.John Z 00:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * IF there exists another tribunal with jurisdiction, you are correct. If not, you are in error. So, may the ICC accept an "aggression" case? Could it even define this crime if it did? Raggz 00:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This deals with OR basically. It is not an either/or matter, and the Charter doesn't imply that.  That the UN Charter uncontroversially gives the UNSC jurisdiction and power to determine doesn't mean that another entity (like the ICC in the future) or a domestic court can say whatever it likes about aggression.  I and many others disagree that the UNSC said anything crystal clear on the issue of legality in 2003 or at any other time.  To satisfy me, what would be needed would be something like a UNSC decision saying "Iraq committed illegal acts, so we decide to authorize a war" . (Or say, "the US committed aggression in 2003 so Liechtenstein is authorized to conquer it"  - not very likely.).  So, a citation that the legal question is settled is needed, no matter how convinced one may be that it is.  John Z 01:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Article 51: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security." This means that when a nation acts under Article 51 they have two obligations, and if they meet these they are acting legally. (1)Immediately report actions to the Security Council and (2) comply with all directions by the UNSC to cease, withdraw, or change operations.


 * Well, it matters whether the state really acted under Article 51 self-defense or just claims to do so, like everybody else. The UNSC and anybody else has a right to their own opinion whether the state's initial "defense" actions were really defense, irrespective of its later reports and compliances.  (E.g., It is not really controversial that Israel, claiming "defense", acted illegally in the Suez crisis even though it eventually complied with the UNGA and UNSC.)John Z 00:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the place to prove that any of these preceeding facts are incorrect.


 * I provided some answers above. If  I understand them correctly, much of the above and many recent additions appear to be WP:OR by Raggz. I have no time to edit the article and will be travelling very soon.  Raggz, even if your reasoning is 100% correct, practically any real-world application of primary sources like the UN Charter, without a citation can be challenged as OR.  (The only exceptions are, in some contexts, things like adding and subtracting numbers, that no one sane (even including Wikipedians) can and has ever disagreed with.)  Surely you agree that your reasoning is more complicated than simple addition and subtraction, so Wikipedia policy dictates that you find cites for these arguments, and I suggest you study the OR page and examples. Any time an article says, or an editor is tempted to say "this means", without a cite, there is almost certainly OR. Wherever you say "Do you need a citation on this?" above, well, yes, we really do need a cite. The article should lead the reader to an understanding of the topic, and he/she should be convinced that the editors clearly and neutrally understand the topic too. The standard characterization of the 2003 debates is that the US did not "win" - did not win a second resolution.  "Winning" the first and not winning the second is not equivalent to " the other side" losing some debate about legality.  I note that others have had these problems too, so I may eliminate egregious instances of OR, some of which, not all discussed above, seem to me to make assertions that are simply false, in addition to being unsupported.John Z 00:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Great input, when will you next have time to discuss any of this? I will carefully consider your thoughts on OR. Raggz 00:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Except for the next few hours or tomorrow morning, not for a couple weeks I'm afraid. Thank you for taking my comments so very civilly; I apologize if I was in any way too aggressive.  The OR policy is very easy to misunderstand.  No matter how much one may know about a subject the only way to learn to understand the OR policy is to be called on it; at least that is the only way that worked with me (and everybody else I know)!  It basically makes everyone only take baby-steps, but it is remarkable how fast one goes once you do it carefully.   Eventually one learns to say what one wants to say and abide by it too - the process even sometimes serves to educate people like me who think they know everything. . :-)John Z 01:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The UNSC cannot offer a fair legal finding
A fair legal finding is a most valid point, but the question primarily here is if the UNSC renders legally valid findings.

Prior responses have been that the UN Security Council could not render a fair finding because the US has a veto. I agree on this point and do not object to it's inclusion. I believe that there should be a section on this. Note that this point is irrelevant to the question of the legality of the 2003 Iraq War and does not in any way invalidate the UNSC finding of "being seized of the matter".

Let's settle this issue here, not by reverting relevant well-supported facts without discussion or support. Raggz 00:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The ICC and Iraq
The ICC Prosecutor states "The analysis of Iraq-related communications was conducted in accordance with Article 15 of the Rome Statute, as no referrals from States have been received." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 00:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits
Raggz, please stop presenting lines in quotations without attributing the quote. Just putting a reference in isn't enough. You are presenting what appears to be facts, which they aren't, they are the mere opinions of someone. JCO312 19:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Raggz 00:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ireland - Fairford Five Trials
Raggz, I don't really have any choice but to completely revert your new "Ireland - Fairford Five Trials" section, as it's obvious you haven't taken the time to read any of your sources properly or engaged in even the most basic fact-checking. Most of what you've written is absolute nonsense, and I don't think you've managed to get a single important fact right. It would take hours to point out all the problems so I'll just stick to a few of the most obvious ones:


 * You've managed to confuse two completely separate cases in two different countries. Fairford is in England, Shannon is in Ireland.


 * The sentence "These claimed “secondary effects” were then reviewed by the ICC Prosecutor who did not find violations of international law" is wrong on many levels. Most importantly, it's pure original research, unless you can cite a source who links the Law Lords' ruling with the ICC Prosecutor's conclusions about Iraq.  Which you won't because they're talking about two different things: the Fairford Five argued that they were trying to prevent crimes by the United States military in Iraq, but the ICC Prosecutor has never examined whether the US military had violated international law in Iraq.


 * "The Prosecutor of the ICC has since reviewed hundreds of claims for crimes in Iraq and has determined that no evidence exists for war crimes or for crimes against humanity that are not already subject to national proceedings." The Prosecutor has never said this.  He said that national proceedings had been commenced in all cases that he was aware of where nationals of states parties had been accused of crimes within the jurisdiction of the court.  He has never investigated any evidence for war crimes or crimes against humanity committed by Iraqis, Americans, or anyone else not subject to the ICC's jurisdiction.  This has been explained to you before but you continue to misrepresent the Prosecutor's conclusions.


 * Your claim that "This finding is applicable to Irish Courts, as Ireland is an ICC member" demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the law. Are you seriously suggesting that a decision by an international prosecutor not to open an investigation is binding on an Irish court?  You will not find a single reliable source who agrees with this.  The ICC Prosecutor's decision is not even binding on the ICC Prosecutor, let alone a court in a sovereign state.


 * Your claim that "In the end, the Law Lords ruled that the legality of the war could only be tested by the International Criminal Court, not by a British court" is also wrong. (I know this is a direct quote from the Socialist Unity website, but they're not a reliable source and it's clear that, in this case, they haven't a clue what they're talking about.  You should never rely on a fringe website for a summary of a landmark case.)


 * You have repeatedly claimed, in this and other articles, that Irish courts (and courts in other jurisdictions) are not competent to decide whether the invasion of Iraq was illegal. Again, you cannot make this claim unless you can cite a reliable, published source who explicitly agrees with you.  It is inappropriate and misleading to cite the UN Charter, since the UN Charter does not expressly prohibit municipal courts from interpreting international law.

Most of your mistakes could have been avoided if you'd only stuck to quoting reliable, published sources. It appears that you still don't understand the importance of Verifiability and No original research. These policies are what gives Wikipedia its credibility, and every time you violate these policies you damage Wikipedia's credibility and make us look stupid.

Hundreds of reliable, published sources have reported and analysed these trials so there is absolutely no excuse for you to ever include any statement about the trials that can't be directly attributed to a reliable source. Wikipedia's coverage should only repeat what these reliable sources have said. We should avoid using commentary from fringe groups, and we should never offer our own analysis. Wikipedia is not interested in what you or I think about the trials or the Iraq war: Wikipedia is only interested in what reliable experts have said.

I'm sure your response to this will be your usual "thanks for pointing out my mistakes", and then you'll continue inserting more nonsense into this and other articles. Please try to understand that your actions are doing serious harm to the articles you edit. Three editors have taken time to clean up the mess you made with this edit, and the article's still in worse shape than before. It is your responsibility to ensure that you get your facts straight before adding any material. Some of your mistakes are corrected, but many slip through the cracks and remain in place to mislead readers. I notice that other sections of this article also contain false claims of yours, but I don't have time to weed them all out right now. Sideshow Bob Roberts 14:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There are some excellent points that you make here. I will of course review what you have pointed out and will respond in some detail later. Raggz 20:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Opening Summary
The purpose of the article is to inform the Reader about our topic, the Legality of the Iraq War. The opening summary does not yet manage to directly inform the Reader if the war was legal - or not. If the consensus is instead that the question cannot be answered presently, then this should appear in the first few sentences - and a summary of if and when an answer might discovered. Raggz 20:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is my draft of an opening summary for your review: ''The legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq has never been determined by an international tribunal with legal jurisdiction to review this. It is unlikely that such a review will ever occur. There have been legal reviews by the domestic courts of nations. The legality of any war is reviewed for the crime of “aggression”. War of aggression is a serious crime under international law. Crimes against humanity are not discussed in this article because this relates to how wars are conducted, not if they are conducted. War crimes (apart from "aggression") are not discussed for this same reason."" Raggz 00:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ireland
What does our article say about Irish criminal cases where the defendants used the legal defense that they were stopping an illegal war? The present text is below.


 * Five peace campaigners using an axe and hammers attacked a US navy plane in February 2003 as it was refueling at Shannon airport, Ireland, on its way to Kuwait, where it would deliver supplies to be used in the impending war. The peace saboteurs caused $2.5m worth of damage to the plane. The jury decided that the saboteurs had a lawful excuse and acquitted them.

There were two (or perhaps three) trials discussed in this article. The one where it can be said that “The jury decided that the saboteurs had a lawful excuse and acquitted them” is used, the other two are not mentioned. If one of these trials is relevant – all are relevant. (I believe that none are relevant to our article because none changed the law in the Ireland relative to the legality of the Iraq war.)

The information below was entirely omitted. It is more important than the material included, because it is a final ruling. If we include the first, this material needs be included.
 * “The defendants had tried to argue in court that the entire war against Iraq was a crime of aggression. But in March this year the law lords ruled that they could not use this defence: while aggression by the state is a crime under international law, it is not a crime under domestic law. But they were allowed to show that they were seeking to prevent specific war crimes from being committed - principally, the release by the B52s of cluster bombs and munitions tipped with depleted uranium.”


 * In summing up, the judge told the jurors that using weapons "with an adverse effect on civilian populations which is disproportionate to the need to achieve the military objective" is a war crime.”

This citation says that the legal issue that was pivotal was alleged war crimes, (not aggression). It may not be true, but this citation says that this is true. The “aggression” issues apparently were not central at trial, so do not belong in this section regarding Irish law.

In my view the summary paragraph below summarizes the most important facts and the rest are less relevant. The first two sentences state facts, the third appears to editorialize. The editorial decision to open this topic without including the following denies the Reader the most important information in regard to our topic.


 * “It is true that such verdicts (or non-verdicts) impose no legal obligations on the government. They do not in themselves demonstrate that its ministers are guilty of war crimes. But every time the prosecution fails to secure a conviction, the state's authority to take decisions which contravene international law is weakened.”

I do not believe that ANY of the preceeding has any relevance because in the end, Irish law did not change in regard to the legality of the Iraq war. The same is true of all information about the German court, it did not rule the war to be illegal, so it is irrelevant? Raggz 21:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a quick thought - you do realise don't you that Ireland is not part of the UK? --Nickhh 21:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As I recall, only Northern Ireland? Am I correct? I will correct my errors, my mind slipped. Do you have any other thoughts? Raggz 21:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, plenty - but probably for the best that I don't put them in writing. And yes, the six counties of Northern Ireland remain part of the UK. The other twenty six form another country altogether. --Nickhh 22:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have an thoughts or ideas about the retention of the Irish and German criminal trials?" Raggz 23:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

German Law
The same is true of all information about the German criminal insubordination trial, it did not rule the war to be illegal, so it is irrelevant? Raggz 22:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Opinion of the UK Attorney General
What in this section assists the Reader in regard to the legality of the Iraq war? I find no relevance and suggest it's deletion. If someone can articlate in the first sentence why it has relevance, only then it should stay.Raggz 22:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is quite possibly the stupidest question I've ever seen on a Wikipedia talk page. --Nickhh 22:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I still see no relevance. Would you please explain? Why is it relevant? The article does not say why. There may be relevance in the topic that you know about, so please edit this in? The Reader may not know as much as you do. How did this opinion change British law in regard to the Iraq War? Raggz 23:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I really can't engage in debate on this. If you genuinely don't understand why the legal opinion of the UK government's top law officer on the legality of the Iraq war is relevant to a Wikipedia page called "Legality of the Iraq War" I really don't know what else I can say to you. --Nickhh 10:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Downing Street memo
What in this section assists the Reader in regard to the legality of the Iraq war? I find no relevance and suggest it's deletion. If someone can articlate in the first sentence why it has relevance, only then it should stay.Raggz 22:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

English court rulings
I removed the following unsourced contribution

"The Law Lords ruled in a case brought before them in March 2006 that the British Government had not broken English law when it took part in the invasion of Iraq."

This is not strictly speaking correct. I believe the case being referred to is R v Jones and Others. Jones et al were charged with conspiracy to cause criminal damage and attempted arson in connection with breaking into RAF Fairford, and attempting to set fire to an aircraft at the base belonging to the United States Air Force. In this case Jones et al attempted to argue, as a defence, that the crime of "aggression" in customary international law was part of English domestic law, and therefore they were entitled to rely on section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, which provides that "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime...."

The House of Lords ruling is confined to finding that the "crime of aggression" is not a "crime" for the purposes of the Criminal Law Act 1967, since "crime" in section 3 means a crime in the domestic law of England and Wales. This is not the same as a finding that the "British Government had not broken English law when it took part in the invasion of Iraq." The House of Lords did not consider whether the action of the Government was lawful or unlawful, all they held was that the "crime of aggression" is not a crime in domestic law and therefore the defence pleaded in the instance case was not justiciable. diran 12:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Rep. Ron Paul
How does mentioning Ron Paul assist the Reader in regard to the legality of the Iraq war? I suggest deletion.Raggz 22:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sideshow Bobroberts strongly makes the point (above) that material like this is OR. "Under Article One, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, the right to declare war is given to the United States Congress, whereas the President is given the authority of commander-in-chief. In October 2002, the U.S. Congress authorized military force under the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq". I accept that this accurately summarizes US law, and have no problem with its retention. Does anyone consider it to be OR because it lacks citations and the cited statutes could be interpreted differently by others? Should it remain? Raggz 22:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Preemptive War
I expect to edit out any mention of preemptive war because it presently seems irrelevant. It may well be relevant, but if it is, our article offers no discussion of why it has relevance. If this was used to legally justify the war, there should be a citation. (Neither citation by the US Dept of State mentions preemption.) Does anyone have any reason to retain preemption in this article? Raggz 22:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We have consensus, so I will make this edit. Raggz (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to ask why it isn't revelant? There is no good reason why it shouldn't be mentioned that an overwhelming majority of individuals feel it was a preemptive war and that the laws reguarding such a war are a whole different ballgame.  There are plenty of sources, thats for sure. Hooper (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Iraq Resolution
We lack any specific material on the legal justification for the Iraq War. These were articulated by the Government of the United States and are well summarized in the Iraq Resolution article. I would like to add this (copied) summary in our article. These are the reasons for the Iraq War, and it would be good to include the reasons as well as the critical review of them - without naming the justifications. What are the rules regarding "borrowing" material from other articles? Raggz 23:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

''"The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:
 * Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
 * Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
 * Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
 * Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
 * Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
 * Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."
 * Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
 * The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
 * The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
 * Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

The Resolution required President Bush's diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions." It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."''

Entry has no place in an "encyclopedia"
Although the concept of "just" vs. "unjust" wars is an age-old debate, whether or not a war is "legal" is nothing other than an exercise in political propaganda. If Iraq is an "illegal" war, then please provide us with an example of a "legal" war. Remember, as soon as you mention the United Nations, your case is blown, since the U.N. Security Council authorized the use of force to enforce its resolutions regarding Iraq on numerous occasions before the conflict began. And the U.N. is the only internationally recognized legal body in the world. 71.210.26.197 21:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Well stated. Do we have consensus? Raggz (talk) 05:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you Iraq war apologists get worse every time you post. So, apparently SUBJECTIVE words like "just" and "unjust" are perfectly encyclopedic...but defined legal standing for sourced nations in relation to the Iraq war is apparently "just political propaganda" and "not fit for an encyclopedia".

How about no. Legality of something isnt subjective. If it is considered illegal or legal by a set of laws, then it is by those set of laws. If this is the best you can come up with in order to ignore the illegality of your "leaders" war, then you should try harder. 119.11.14.103 (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Harlequin

This article is perverse
The implied premise underlying this entire article is that the US is presumed guilty until proven innocent. People have charged that the invasion was illegal, and now the US has to show that it isn't. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't the default position be that it's legal, and that the critics have the burden of proof?Heqwm (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A quick response to both previous posts, although it's all kind of off-topic in terms of editing the article - 1) Well the US & UK went to quite a lot of effort to get explicit UN authorization, and the UK government spent quite a lot of time on internal debate about whether the was was "legal" or not, so - whatever it exactly means - I guess it mattered to them, as much as it did to critics of the war; and 2) actually I personally do take the view, as does the UN charter implicitly, that any nation that launches an act of aggression in invading another country is doing something illegal, and the burden of proving otherwise is pretty clearly on them - why on earth should the default position be that invading another country is a legal act?  --Nickhh (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken. There already was existing UNSC authorization for the invasion. An additional resolution was sought and was denied.


 * The UNSC has never withdrawn 660 and 678. Nickhh, read 660 and 678, when did they expire? The UNSC certainly would have ordered the invasion withdrawn IF it believed that the invasion was illegal. Clearly the UNSC did not find any violation of law. The article presumes violations and does not make it clear that no violations of law have been made and that it is now almost certain that none ever will be made.


 * This article has MAJOR NPOV problems. This article is not improving. Raggz (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's problematic to use existing resolutions to justify later actions. If 660 and 678 are sufficient, it leaves us wondering why the invasion didn't happen at that time, rather than 2003. Conversely, it would seem ludicrous to suggest that 660 and 678 would provide justification for an invasion of Iraq in say, 2040. So clearly there is some point at which a resolution can't be convincingly used as a justification for action. This is why the "correct" procedure is to gain explicit permission for military action from the UNSC, which was not done in this case. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 07:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Summary
We include within the summary: Critics of the invasion have challenged both of these rationales, arguing that an additional Security Council resolution, which the US and UK failed to obtain, would have been necessary to specifically authorize the invasion, that the legality of preemptive wars is highly questionable under international law, and that even if such wars were legal, the Hussein regime did not present a sufficiently imminent threat to justify military action.[2][3][4] One professor has argued that the invasion amounted to a war of aggression, which the post-World War II Nuremberg Tribunal called "the supreme international crime."[5]


 * There is no dispute that the only legal tribunal with authority to determine if the US was justified to invoke UN 660 and 678 is the UNSC. Do we have consensus on this? Raggz (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not one member of the UN has raised the issues we put into the summary. Why? We could debate this, but the debate would not matter. The fact is that these issues are unimportant. If they were important, at least one nation would have taken them to the UNSC, and none did. Do we have consensus that these issues are not important to the legality of the Iraq War? Raggz (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * May we reach consensus that intense debate remainns as to the legality of the Iraq War, and for this reason it should be discussed ONLY in a distinct section? Presently these are entirely untested theories that the UN has apparently dismissed, dominate the article and so it projects a biased POV that distorts the facts? Raggz (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom
Opinion of the UK Attorney General On 2005-04-28, the UK government published the full advice given by the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith on 2003-03-07 on the legality of the war. The publication of this document followed the leaking of the summary to the press the day before. In the document, Lord Goldsmith weighs the different arguments on whether military action against Iraq would be legal without a second UN Resolution. He said,I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise the use of force... Nevertheless, having regard to the information on the negotiating history which I have been given and to the arguments of the US Administration which I heard in Washington, I accept that a reasonable case can be made that resolution 1441 is capable in principle of reviving the authorisation in 678 without a further resolution. He concluded his analysis by saying that "regime change cannot be the objective of military action".''

This entire section is about an irrelevant topic: was 1441 adequate to invade Iraq? It concludes that it was not. In fact, 1441 was not used to justify the invasion. This entire topic is this irrelevant, and this section and the other discussions about 1441 being adequate require removal - or heavy editing. If anyone wants to keep the topic, please offer a relaible source that 1441 was a principal justification for the invasion. Raggz (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Germany
The German Federal Administrative Court on 21 June 2005 found in regard to the Iraq War that it had “grave concerns in terms of public international law."[27] The Court did not make it clear that, in its opinion, the war and the contributions to it by the German Federal Government were outright illegal. [28]

In this minor criminal case the court decided not to convict a Major in the German Army of the crime of refusing duty that would advance the Iraq war. Nikolaus Schultz wrote of this decision: "The Court did not express an opinion as to whether the war on Iraq constituted an act of aggression in the first part of its judgment when dealing with the exceptions of the obligation of a German member of the Federal Armed Forces to obey orders. At a later stage in the written reasons, however, it jumped to the conclusion that a state, which resorts to military force without justification and, therefore, violates the prohibition of the use of force provided for by Art. 2.4 of the Charter, at the same time commits an act of military aggression. The (non-binding) Definition of Aggression of the GA attached to its Res. 3314 (XXIX) is broad enough to support this conclusion. However, it has to recalled that the State Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) could not agree on a definition of the crime of aggression."[29]

Nikolaus Schultz wrote in summary of this case: "These findings were watered down to an extent by the Court when it used the cautious proviso that the actions of the states involved only gave rise to grave concerns before arguing the respective issues at stake. By doing that, the Court shifted the burden to the individual soldiers and their decision of conscience whether to obey an order rather than reaching the conclusion that participating in a war violating rules of international law, and even constituting an act of aggression, as the court held, would be illegal and, therefore, justify insubordination."[30]

Why is any of the above relevant? Do we have consensus for removal? If not, please explain why this criminal case is important. Raggz (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Original Research on 1441
This article presumes:


 * That 1441 was the legal basis for the invasion was 1441. This is not true, but in fairness, if anyone has a reliable source claiming that Chapter VII force was invoked by 1441 (rather than 660/678) please cite it. I presume no one has this, because 1441 did not authorize Chapter VII force and no one claims this but our article. OR, unless rebutted here.


 * That 660/678 required some additional UNSC resolution to be effective. The first Gulf War was fought under these, so logically the claim for illegality should (1) apply to both or (2) their applicability to 2003 invasion should be challenged. Presently the arguments are mostly OR because they are not focused upon what the US articulated (citations are in the article) as the authority for the invasion. This article should reflect what the US articulated accurately. The US position in this article is OR, and is not supported by any reliable source. If anyone has a reliable source suggesting that Chapter VII force was (1)not authorized by 660/678 - or (2) some source claiming that these were inapplicable to the 2003 invasion, THESE are needed. Raggz (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Downing Street memo
Most, but not all of the Downing Street memo should be deleted because this have nothing to do with the legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This concerns HOW the decision to invade may have been reached. Why is this process relevant to THIS article? What specific law or laws did the allegations about the deliberative process allegedly violate. Nowhere does this section identify these. These decisions were reached and HOW they were reached seem irrelevant.

If someone wants to keep this material, it need serious reorganization. The section should open with why the Downing Street memo has any relevance. It does not now explain this. It should explain the relevance and refer the reader to the Downing Street memo. We do not need a mini-Downing Street memo article here. Raggz (talk) 08:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Raggz
I've changed or reverted some of the recent edits made by User:Raggz, for reasons of neutrality or factual accuracy. Principally:
 * I removed the whole section relating to the legality of the war under U.S. law from the lead, for three reasons. It was taking up too much space, and made the lead far too long; it duplicated information available elsewhere, at Iraq Resolution; and it devotes undue weight to the legality of the war in one country, the United States, whereas arguably the main focus of debate has been over whether the war was legal under international law.
 * I altered a line which implied that, because no member nation has raised the issue of the war's legality with the Security Council, it must be legal. That's not necessarily true: it arguably could be the case that the war was in fact illegal, but the UNSC has simply never judged it such. This is an issue of philosophy rather than law, but I'd say that a crime is still a crime even if no one has ever been convicted of it.
 * I removed lines which stated that Resolution 1441 was never used as part of the legal justification for war. This is simply untrue, as references on this very article show: it was used as the main justification by the UK attorney general Lord Goldsmith, and also used by US Secretary of State Colin Powell. To argue otherwise is to attempt to rewrite history.
 * A line was added saying that the US Courts have considered numerous challenges to the war's legality, and rejected all of them. No source was provided; the article only mentions one case, Doe v. Bush. If there are references of similar legal cases, I ask that they please be provided.

That's all for now, but I'll place this page on my watchlist to see how the community responds to these edits. Terraxos (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"I altered a line which implied that, because no member nation has raised the issue of the war's legality with the Security Council, it must be legal. That's not necessarily true: it arguably could be the case that the war was in fact illegal, but the UNSC has simply never judged it such. This is an issue of philosophy rather than law, but I'd say that a crime is still a crime even if no one has ever been convicted of it."


 * I agree "that a crime is still a crime even if no one has ever been convicted of it".


 * One question is when does an encyclopedia describe a crime as a crime? When doesn't it?


 * Another question is how does an encyclopedia hold a trial?


 * A third question is about time relevance. If someone was accused of a crime five years ago, but no charges were filed, how important is this now? If the UNSC was going to have a proceeding, how likely would it be delayed five years?


 * "... arguably the main focus of debate has been over whether the war was legal under international law."


 * This is not really true. What international law? None is mentioned. No reliable sources are offered. The only applicable international law would be UN law, and the UN has not acted in any way to support this claim after five years. There are no other applicable international laws, if there are, why not cite these? Raggz (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

1441 as a strawman
The US Department of State made its claims (check their homepage) that included 1441 but was also based upon 660/678. 1441 itself did not authorize Chapter VII military force but 660/678 did. 1441 is a straw man, but only IF offered alone as a legal basis for war as the article suggested. The Article suggests that an additional UNSC resolution was required, which is true IF the invasion was based upon 1441 alone. There is no reliable source to support the two resolutions required hypotheisis, and no one here has supported it. I expect to edit it out without both of these.


 * There is no reliable source that suggests that 1441 alone was relied upon (it was included in the justification). Why are we speculating here about a defense never actually offered by anyone? This is called a straw man fallacy. Now there is no shortage of commentators that have used the straw man fallacy beside this article, and many are reliable sources. What we lack and need however is a single reliable source that asserts that any member of the Coalition ever used 1441 by itself, without 660/678 for Chapter VII authority.


 * There is no reliable source that suggests that two Chapter VII authorizations are ever necessary, or that the denial of the additional one ended any of the authority for the first.

I object to the inclusion of any material that requires a reliable source for any of the above - without a reliable source supporting it. Raggz (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying. Here are my thoughts on the questions you raise:


 * 'when does an encyclopedia describe a crime as a crime?'? - I'm not saying we should say the invasion of Iraq was a crime. In fact, I definitely do not believe we should say as such. It would break the NPOV policy for us to make a judgement either way; all we can do is quote what other sources have said about it. For similar reasons, I don't think we can explicitly state the war was legal either: the best we can say is that its legality remains unresolved and disputed.
 * We agree. We should presume legality when there is no determination made and none expected? Raggz (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 'What international law? None is mentioned.' Sorry, I thought this was clear, but I should have mentioned: if the invasion was illegal, then that would be under the UN's Article 2, which forbids wars of aggression against other member states.
 * Exactly, we should state this in the UNSC context? This is but a secondary issue. It is only relevant IF the UNSC resolutions are found innapplicable? Only THEN does this question have relevance? bPresently this question is secondary at best, irrelevant at worst? Raggz (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, the fact that the UN security council has not taken action on the legality of the Iraq war does not mean that legality is not in question. A similar argument has in fact been used by supporters of the war: the UN passed resolutions against Saddam Hussein's regime in 1991-92, but did not act on them. Arguably, if Iraq was in breach of resolutions 678 and 687, it remained so even though the UN did nothing about it. Likewise, whether the war was illegal or not is a separate question from whether or not the UN will do anything about that.
 * Agreed on all points. My only issues are about the context of this in an encyclopedia? Raggz (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have never said that the justification for war depended on resolution 1441 alone: it is quite clear that it was based on resolutions 1441, 678 and 687. (If another resolution had been passed, it would have been based on that as well, but it is argued that the lack of a further resolution authorising military action made no difference to the legality of war under the previous resolutions.) Terraxos (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Many have used the strawman fallacy, and we do as well (see Lord Goldsmith below). Our text and citations should not be from the strawman literature which we agree to be unreliable? Raggz (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I made one clear strawman deletion, put it back if there is an objection. I am offering this as a strawman example:


 * "Wilmshurst also insinuated that the British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith also believed the war was illegal, but changed his opinion several weeks before the invasion.[15][16]


 * This is discussing EARLY arguments about using 1441 alone, which was considered and rejected. Apparently British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith had argued for inclusion of 660/678 and later won. The point is that there was dissension about the legality DURING the period when the legality was considered. There apparently were stages and an evolution for this. The period of time discussed here was prior to the final legal justification, which was impacted by these events. Raggz (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree and will watch for all future edits he does. He is nothing more than disruptive to the encyclopedia and a misinformation campaigner.  I believe it to be very important to watch his moves in the future until his Mediation is finished. Hooper (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

 * "One professor has argued that the invasion amounted to a war of aggression, which the post-World War II Nuremberg Tribunal called "the supreme international crime."[5]" If can find one professor that believes that O. J. Simpson was really guilty of a double murder, should I now be allowed to insert this into the lead? Read that Lead. Raggz (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * More than one legal authority has made this argument: see the 'Principal legal rationales' section, where we link to statements that the war was illegal by multiple groups and organisations. (Links:,) I agree that it looks bad to quote only one professor in the lead - it misrepresents the size of opposition to the legality of the war. It is of course true that this one professor said the war was illegal, but so did many others. Terraxos (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I expected so. I could look for more cites, but am nearly done tonight. I suggest An Inconvenient Truth as an example for the Lead, not a debate, but with enough criticism. The Legality of the War is unknown. Only the UNSC can declare it illegal under Article 2. It has not done so. An Inconvenient Truth does not offer dissenters a large platform, nor in my opinion, should it. Raggz (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Letter_2006-02-09" :
 * Luis Moreno-Ocampo Letter:Public reply with his conclusions allegations of war crimes during the invasion of Iraq in March 2003(PDF) 9 February 2006
 * Luis Moreno-Ocampo Letter:Public reply with his conclusions allegations of [[war crime]s during the invasion of Iraq in March 2003](PDF)

Illegal
(copy edit) . Please integrate, thanks. 205.228.108.186 (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The references were verified and added as requested Johannjs (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV violation
The article is one-sided, largely consists of improper WP:SYNTH, and fails to give any weight to the actual justifications made by US officials, instead relying on the WMD arguments, when, as Douglas Feith demonstrates in War and Decision, the case for war was substantially broader than that. There is no basis for the removal of the NPOV tags until there is a consensus that the problem has been resolved, and I see no such consensus. THF (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the overtagging. Please give specific examples. Verbal chat  08:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Those were specific examples, but I have no desire to engage you in WP:BATTLE, since you're apparently going to wikistalk me without consequence, and I have a real life to deal with. THF (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm asking for examples of synth. We can add your RS as well. This article should include what the RS state about the WMD arguments as well, and in proportion to their prominence in RS. I hope to improve the article, with your help. Could you summarise what you think should be added from the War and Decision source? Verbal chat  13:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See footnotes 55 through 57, which consist entirely of original research.


 * What should be added from the War and Decision source are the real reasons the US went to war, to balance the fictional interpretation by the opponents of the war. While the Wikipedia standard is verifiability, not truth, there's no reason to exclude verifiable truth. THF (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh my god! The "real reasons?" From Doug Feith, Rumsfeld's lap dog? Might as well ask Wilhelm Keitel for the Fuhrer's "real reasons" for invading Poland. All legal gibberish. The US invaded a soverign nation, toppled its government, instigated (through its own ignorance and unpreparedness) a civil war which would eventually cost the lives of several hundred thousand Iraqis, and oops, it was all over a mistake? Geez, we are awfully sorry! Oh, but then the war was not really about WMD or terrorists (at least of the Iraqi variety)! It was about getting rid of Saddam and brinnging the enlightenment of democracy (hah, hah) to the poor ignorant denizens of that ash heap. The Germans at Nuremburg and the Japanese at Tokyo have, at long last, been proved prescient - their judgement by an international tribunal was indeed "simply the revenge of the victors." 4.255.214.218 (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your "argument" is immediately rendered worthless by the farcical Nazi analogy in the VERY FIRST SENTENCE. The rest is just as ridiculous.  For instance, it would seem you condemn the Nazis when you laughably compare them to an appointed official in a liberal democracy, but you then cite them for how amazingly prescient they supposedly were.  And, of course, we get hilarious claims, in reference to  the Nuremberg trials and the International Tribunal of the Far East, about victor's justice because, clearly, according to you,  Nazi officials who put in place the machinery for the systematic slaughter of 6 millions Jews and Japanese officials who gave the OK for that nation's military to rape and pillage its way across Asia didn't really deserve to be made to sit in the dock to answer for crimes that were so vast as to be almost incomprehensible. It was, like, totally unfair, dude.  Whatever you say.  To paraphrase: I disagree with the actions of the Bush administration, so clearly that means Nazi complaints about being held to account for the Holocaust are prescient. If that isn't one of the most dim-witted non sequiturs I have ever read, I don't know what is.  But what asinine screed regarding the war in Iraq and employing nauseating moral equivalence DOESN'T involve some kind of bullsh*t about "victor's justice" that is intended to be awesomely profound, but is instead rendered silly by its shocking stupidity?  But I realize this talk page is not about criticizing others no matter how ludicrous their pronouncements, which is why I now turn to the entry in question and make the obvious point that you simply don't get to blithely disregard someone with intimate knowledge of the decision-making process that led to the launching of the Iraq war because the message he delivers conflicts with your worldview or what you believe actually happened.74.134.145.218 (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

First paragraph issue
The first line of the article states that a "small coalition" of nations took part in the invasion. For one words like "large" and "small" are rather subjective to a persons point of view. If the topic is "The legality of the invasion of Iraq" then sure "small" coalition would do it bc it was 4 countries but the topic is the war itself in its entirety. Some 40 or so nations sent troops to Iraq and a large portion of militarily powerful, first-world nations took part in the conflict. While 40 may be small compared to the 195ish nations on Earth when you look at it from a global power scale those 40 countries represent a pretty big chunk of world power.

'''Bottom line, shouldn't it be left at "a coalition..." and not a small or large coalition?'''

At least some mention of the additional nations involved should be made in the first paragraph since it dives in at "small coalition" and "the UN called it all crap" (in essence), that doesn't seem entirely balanced. Heck it goes on to say (to the reader) that only US/UK politicians say the war's legal whereas legal experts disagree. That then leads the reader to the conclusion that if legal experts are the ones calling it illegal and it's just politicians saying it's legal then the thing is probably illegal.

If only the US/UK say it's legal and the international community says it's illegal (that seems to be the tone of it) then why would so many other countries give men & money for the war? '''Obviously there are more players involved and their involvement & views need to be addressed, even if it's just a mention. '''

As for the article itself it seems to be struggling to maintain a fact based approach. Is it legal? According to who, the nations involved, the UN, the US? Some would like to think international law trumps all other laws but when it comes to down to it the US, China, UK, Fiji or anyone, their own national rules & desires are almost always going to override our attempt at universal governance. And so the question of legality becomes a matter of who's opinion and what side they're on.

But if all of this is too much then the thing should really be merged with the Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and not pretend to be a separate article dealing with a multi-year war. Coinmanj (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

All Opinion
It seems to me this article isn't about the legality of the war at all and is about the other nations opinions on the legality of the war. Maybe the title should be changed. --137.227.96.21 (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sufficiency of Prior UN Resolutions as Authority for Second War? Enforcement?
I came to this page hoping to resolve a question that had been nagging me: whether the UN resolutions authorizing certain actions in the first Gulf War would be sufficient authority for the coalition forces or US Gov't to rely upon as the legal basis for their activities in the 2003 invasion. I was under the impression that no surrender agreement existed between US and Iraq, or that it was not pertinent to this issue, as nothing could be found on this point, and so the prior authorizations' validity seem highly relevant. The article at present states that this justification is one possible legal rational for the war's legality, however; it goes on to indicate some do not support this view, saying: "Some International legal experts, including the International Commission of Jurists, the US-based National Lawyers' Guild,[15] a group of 31 Canadian law professors, and the US-based Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy have found this legal rationale to be untenable, and are of the view that the invasion was not supported by UN resolution and was therefore illegal" Unfortunately, I am unable to find any explanation of why some, including the sources cited, reject this theory of the war's legality. More importantly for this article, I am unable to even confirm that the citations justify the text. The first two cites were located, however; the reference material seems to provide no support for this article's claim as to this issue. The third and final citation was attempted to be retrieved, but the link is broken, and attempts to locate the resource on the entity's webapge failed. This citation I am unable to locate was for the "International Commission of Jurists", article 2770. Can anyone provide a citation justifying the article's current position as to the existence of disagreement by relevant entities that the prior UN Resolutions authorizing the first Gufl War continue to grant the Coalition or the US with authority to enforce their terms to the extent such was granted during the first crises/war? Can anyone locate the missing reference to ICJ article? Finally, can anyone provide any other source or justified text explaining this issue so that the article might address the question I had or at least be brought to conform to the sources? Thanks! 71.66.96.89 (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Definite commentary on the instance of allegations of ´support required´.
There is NO international support required for ANY war-act whatsoever, by ANY sovereign nation onto another alleged ´sovereign´ nation.

Defacto, any emancipated nation CAN, by and off itself, declare War on any nation that has surpassed the red-line, OR ANY group within any nation where the emancipated status of that nation has definitely become questionable.

IF a nation pretends that they can be a sovereign nation WHILE pertaining to divide and declare sovereign WITH subsidy arraingements by and through a third party then they are in a SEVERE error of judgement.

ANY nation not sufficiently capacitated to pertain to themselves on a PRIMARY level, which includes NON-enslavement instances AND definite regulations and governmental oversight placements to MAKE CERTAIN that INTERNALLY, within their OWN nation that does not happen, IS defacto, considered an adolescent or in the worse case, a minor, BOTH considered NON-emancipated. Any of these nations can therefore BE SLAPPED DOWN, politically, economicly, or through a War Act.

What is NOT licit in any form or manner, is to do so through a third party.

Perhaps this is not clear, therefore an example:

IF your non-emancipated son is under AN influence external to the household/homestead and that influence is definitely detrimental to either that household and/or nonemancipated, then the head of household CAN, slap down the instance.

For those internationally oriented, there is SOLELY ONE planet, ONE HOMESTEAD, no MATTER if that homestead contains more than one household.

Now, for any of you individuals, IF your thoughts go out to this being opinion, think again, THE reality check on this surely leading to an invite into MY household, where you would definitely NOT be considered to be sufficiently emancipated due your attempts to divert AS an adolescent, a defacto onto an opinion.

(changed the paragraph on Dutch opinion, myself being dutch) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.78.156.45 (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Commentary on the use of the term ´legal opinion´.
There is NO such a thing as a legal ´opinion´, either you STAND or you FOLD, due FACTS and a defacto reality check. An ´opinion´, does NOT require a reality check, the one and ONLY reason why it is branded ´opinion´, a ´legal opinion´ being derived from ´CANNON writ´ that could very well have NO licit context IN context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.78.156.45 (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Commentary on defacto differences between rights and privilege.
Rights are due an individuals biological instance (species specific) and are in direct relation to their biological requirements.

These are: Sensory Factors (Sensors) Vision Acoustic Olfactory Gustative Balance Tactile Temp & Pressure

Motor Factors (Activators) Muscle mobility.

Internal Homeostasis functions (that what is required to maintain biological functioning [including neurological functioning]) Drinkable Water Nutrient uptake Waste disposal Oxygen - CO exchange (Breathing) Trace minerals for internal recylcing and other internal homeostasis processes.

All of these factors have near, fresnel and farfield factors and can NOT be inhibited in any form nor manner without being causant of a degradation of the individual.

With the EXCEPTION of vocalization, these are RIGHTS, and those rights pertain to any and all species.

Breeding, is NOT a right, NOR is excess vocalization except for that what pertains to utterances in relation to pain, hunger, other effects that are considered ´automatic reactions´ due internal or external stressors. (Pertinent: saying ´GOD dammit´ when you hit your finger with a hammer instead of that nail, is an automatic utterance and is defacto a right).

ANY and ALL other instances are NOT rights, but PRIVILEGE, and privilege REQUIRES conscent. When conscent has not been given, then that becomes defacto a bully, a mobbing, a War Act, and IS considered AT least, a misdemeanor and many a time a form of ´criminal insanity´ OR an automatic reaction to pleat (with t, not d) for aid due a degradation of oneself that leads to forms of ´imposed suicide´. That later is also nomered, ´murder through proxy´.

WHEN the biological instance pertains to yourself, then that is a right. But, WHEN that pertains to another, then that is NOT a right, but a privilege.

Question: IS the united nations within it´s rights? No, they are NOT, that is a call for privilege and SOLELY a call for privilege. IS it a call for privilege? Yes, it is, HOWEVER, it is a call for the privilege of having you listen to AN opinion, and NOT a fact, a defacto, or a request for a reality check.

Follow up for these statements.

Emancipation requires a pertinent veto onto any and all instances that would inhibit personal aspects of your biology when those aspects are not severely intrusive. For emancipation, that implies that there are TWO aspects, the VOTE, and the VETO. To utter a vote, 50%+ an infinitum non-dependence IS a requirement (IE: you cannot be so dependent that your vote would merely pertain to continuing a dependency relationship of yourself, which is NOT, what public postulation for an oversight position is for. This implies that A vote, when placed, A representation, when placed, has solely a 50% MINUS an infinitum impetus of PRIVILEGE VESTED and NEVER, rights, the right, being contained in the Veto, and NOT in the Vote.

The above statements are for DIRECT vestment, never indirect vestment. Indirect vestment follows the same procedure, where the individual whom originally vested, MUST retain 50% plus an iota of vote(veto) OR they would NOT be considered to have retained sufficient emancipatory capability to utter a vote (or for that matter a legal statement in representation off, ALL representation being due a vestment that is solely LESS than 50% in valoration. How much would an indirect vestment be? Less than 50%, and that 50% would have to be divided between the two (if two), with the direct represenation retaining 50% plus an iota, or, (50% - an iota) * .5 + an iota and (50% - an iota) * .5 - an iota

Question: How much would a dictatorship really have in licit emancipatory vestment? Answer:  Depends on the number of individuals they have bullied into submission, and those that followed them to submit, each division leading to a fraction off the original, and therefore would end up being somewhat LESS, than an iota.

Question: HOW pertinent is the united nations, the organiztion of democratic states? Nihil, they solely have an iota have real pertinent direct vestment, NONE, being elected officials, all appointed officials.

Question: HOW pertinent would onan´s legal opinion be? Less than an iota´s, in reality, his placement having been indirect through indirect through indirect, with MANY an indirection going through one or another ´aristocratic subsidian warlordism croonie system or another [around ohhhh 60 to 70+ of them, defacto].

Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.78.156.45 (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Legal or Licit.
WAS the United States within it´s legal AND licit capacity to follow up on all and EVERY link and instance that led to the Twin Towers collapse?

There is NO DENYING that they WHERE in their licit and legal RIGHTS to do so, therefore there is NO DEBATE possible that has any reality impetus whatsoever.

Your standing is therefore NOT due any licit NOR legal text nor pretext, NOR reality checks, but due certain potencial excesses AND excesses that led OTHER individuals within that nation that belief that they themselves had licit and/or legal standing by and off themselves. Those did NOT, A war ACT, not being a feeding frenzy for and onto the populace itself.

Debate something else, or become MORE pertinent into the direction of that debate, most any forms of these debates solely leading to one conclusion, ´some individuals pretends that self-defense and self-preservation´ would not be licit nor legal, WHICH, defacto, is what is conclusive for BOTH sides of that divide, BOTH sides attempting to formulate a subsidian standing where forms of enslavement are fine, just as long, as it isn´t themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.78.156.45 (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting some kind of change to this article? Bonewah (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Article shouldn´t even be a wikipedia page, the whole topic is a fast debate session that would need more eternity then eternity itself has to provide for. Yes, definitely, when individuals start on an open session article concerning licit or legal, opinion or fact, they should first reference the defacto distinction between what are rights and what are privileges and must first understand that all rights are individually based, due biological factors herent to the individual (or animal) and interchanges between solely TWO individuals. Most any wikipage or for that matter legal text, doctrine, study session or course, have fast tendencies to obviate that what is obvious, thereby and through obviating that what should be obvious but obviously enough, not VERY obvious (lots of obviating obliviatingly obvious in such a form and manner that, well, it would not be obvious).

The first link to ANY wikipage, introduction, must allways reference PRE-requisites in either course work or core articles of fact, any fiction, can thereby and through be linked to the [fantasy & fiction] section, which is what most opinion relates too when not expressed sufficiently clearly.

The dutch supreme judge, for example, as expressed in this article (don´t have a reference to his ´legal opinion´), is in error when he expresses that that was not due international law, EXCEPT if his pretext is that under international law, the individual has no right to self-defensive action, nor the right to follow up on the issues, either as an individual or a group, WHICH, pertinent enough, is exactly what croonie subsidized beaurocratic individuals and entities with a severity of criminal innuendo have a tendency to do. (European history is full of those forms and sorts of agenda´s, where a NON-party member has not the right to self-defense nor counter. Defacto, I would state that that is somewhat classically dutch diplomatic, most likely due imbedded fear factors in relation to the Dutch Psychiatric Institute). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.78.156.45 (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

PS: I cannot provide you with an email address, there allready being way too many email addresses, electronic mails, security keys and I not what, that you might as well dump your acquantaince address book. Attempted to create one here, the nomer was allready taken, and I have not the intend, after xx years, to go seek out one that would not be taken. Another time perhaps, the world NOT having become more secure with all these bot email mining programs abounding at all and every site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.78.156.45 (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Original Research, use of the phrase: (Dogmata, ´I wrote it therefore it´s legal´, stigmata and evangelicum).
The use of the term ´original research´ for what is or would be opinion not sustainable by and through concrete data is WHAT exactly? Is it wikipedia´s ´evangelistical´ opinion that ALL research should be discredited? Perhaps all thought should be discredited as well (with the exception of the supremus, without a doubt).

Don´t you use inventive wording for what it is not, original research is research based on concrete data and the analysis of that data, OPINION, semi-fact, NONE-subtanciable statements stated as fact, are opinion, or for that matter, a ´profesional opinion´. Too many times have individuals within wikipedia used the phrase & term ´original research´ to discredit ANY and all analysis of data or current affairs to the point of pissing off individuals.

Accorded to the layout and articles, this is supposed to be a library, and not some board members, employee´s, or for that matter other quote status quo unquote individuals personal quote world affairs putz unquote.

If your OPINION is that it is research, then STATE: ´unsubstanciated research, lacking peer reviewable data that cannot be housed on this site´

Paraphrasing and pointing to other sites, do NOT make substanciation.

If your OPINION is that it is amateurish, the STATE: ´amateurish opinion´ If your OPINION is that it is profesional, then STATE: ´profesional opinion´

Due the form and manner of use of the phrase, MANY a reader, immediately SKIPS an article, statement, as non pertinent AND irritating, which through the form and manner of continuous use to discredit makes the WHOLE of wikipedia, it´s employees, AND board members, INCLUDING readers, become pariah individuals due the ruboff of stigmata. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.78.156.45 (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Use LEGAL terms instead of COINING your own particular lexicum.
Legally, the whole of wiki is in a legal limbo on an international level, ALL and every fool with some form of schizofrenic autism spectrum disorder interacting on an international level. IF you want to be pertinent on an international level, make damn sure ´current affairs´ are NOT included in any form nor manner, ALL current affairs, due EMOTIVE reactivity, not being sufficiently stable to use in historic or for that matter scientific context.

LEARN the terms, and where they are derived from, before you start sprouting Wiki Board legal dictum doctrine as IF that was the law of the universe. Your website it might be, that is personel, venture, but the interaction is NOT private, it is public, therefore municipal, state, national AND international law ARE applicable, NO MATTER, if your private wiki opinion is that solely the wiki dogma scriptum as per law of the board of the wiki is applicable.

PS: Smoking hashish might be licit, HOWEVER, biologically it is also considered suicidal to do so while driving a TRUCK at high speed with GIGATONS of datatapes on the freeway, and THAT, happens to be what these pages contain, gigatons of amassed data in one truck on the internet freeway at high speed (mass x momentum, even at 15 mph any bump will become causant of collaterol damage). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.78.156.45 (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

What are Copyright violations?
There are NO copyright violations applicable on an INTERNATIONAL level, ALL and EVERY copyright being a particular individual nearfield instance, that nearfield, being THE individual itself. What is applicable, is inhibitions to import, clone, into an area that is PERTINENT to the copyright holder, and THAT area, is NOT the whole universe but solely a SMALL aspect of that universe. That has cost related reasoning behind it, which is the WHY of any copyright or patent, the originator obtaining a license, a right, to RE tribute COSTS onto a conglomerate due originality AND pertinent use off. THAT is LAW, and not that pathetic FOOLS syndrome that attempt to monopolize all and every instance of patent or copyright for their OWN subsidies, by and through using ´microsoft mafia enforcers´ in black legal suits and gaping backdoor programming errors.

PS: THE copyright on a book, is NOT due the contents, it´s due the costs of review, print, distribution, AND promotion, which ARE costly, and have to be RE tributed onto a conglomerate WILLING to expend a nickle of themselves to have their noggum funny bone tickled. US costs, are PROHIBITIVELY high, in relation to what can be expended on an international basis by and through what lives elsewhere, and THEREFORE, THOSE COSTS, can NOT be RE-tributed onto ANY conglomerate elsewhere when the differencial in pertinent dayly wage level is too large. That implies that 97%+ (figure sucked out of my thumb), can NOT AFFORD to expend a nickle of themselves onto you (due YOUR cost relationships), and that makes the validity of an international copyright a plain downright SILLY statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.78.156.45 (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Legality of the Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070815091713/http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/fs/2003/18850.htm to http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/fs/2003/18850.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080307060445/http://www.cnn.com:80/WORLD/meast/9810/31/iraq.un.01/index.html?eref=sitesearch to http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9810/31/iraq.un.01/index.html?eref=sitesearch

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Unbalanced
I added the unbalanced tag because the whole article should be basically about international law, and not domestic laws. We do also not discuss how the Russian duma voted before they annexed Crimea. The international law section is about one sentence, it's a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:8FD:AE00:DC8A:B1BF:E72C:A45A (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Legality of the Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060516140700/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030407232423/http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2770&lang=en to http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2770&lang=en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040215193958/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0321-10.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0321-10.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030407232423/http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2770&lang=en to http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2770&lang=en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220011242/http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ to http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030407232423/http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2770&lang=en to http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2770&lang=en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030407232423/http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2770&lang=en to http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2770&lang=en
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.number-10.gov.uk/files/pdf/Iraq%2BResolution%2B1441.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Legality of the Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160421122334/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050428194646/http://www.number-10.gov.uk/files/pdf/Iraq%20Resolution%201441.pdf to http://www.number-10.gov.uk/files/pdf/Iraq%20Resolution%201441.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

the bedrock of international relations
"the bedrock of international relations in the post-World War II world"

Which joker wrote this article? Go on, hands up, let's see you. FerranValls (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Chilcot
"however, legal experts, including John Chilcot"

John Chilcot is a retired civil servant with an English degree. This is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. FerranValls (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)