Illegal Wars

[csgators]

I heard a lot about illegal wars when President Bush was in office. Bush at least asked Congress before committing troops to action. President Obama has not gone to Congress before taking military action in Libya but instead justifies the action based on a UN Security Council resolution (something Bush had in addition to the approval Congress).

 

So which if any of America's ongoing wars are "illegal" and in what sense? (What a depressing question, not is THE war legal but which ones are.)

[grannywils]

Csgators, not being a lawyer, I cannot really answer your question regarding the legality of the two wars you mentioned; but I can give you my personal opinion. Neither are legal, and even more importantly they are neither necessary nor moral nor warranted. There are many who will rush to tell you that I am opposed to war in general, and basically this is true. However, we have fought in wars in which I believe our presence was absolutely required. Neither of these are among them.

[csgators]

@grannywils

 

If by 2 wars you mean Libya and Iraq then I think I mostly agree with you. While I supported our reason for going into Afghanistan I still think Congress should have officially declared war (I may be wrong but I think WW2 was the last time we did so). All that aside I am appalled that we are currently bombing a country without any Congressional approval. We have been defecating on the Constitution for decades but now it is officially meaningless. Welcome to Corporate Fascism/Crony Capitalism/Military Oligarchy. I can't seem to pigeonhole it.

[evilneko]

This topic sparked a bit of a research binge in me, and from what I have found, I am still not sure whether the Libyan action is unconstitutional or not.

 

The crux of the matter would be whether or not Obama provided proper notification to Congress, as required by the War Powers Resolution of 1974. He did officially notify Congress in a letter, but whether this was sufficient to comply with the law I don't know. It sure seems like though that there'd be a lot more buzz from both sides if it weren't, so I'm thinking it was.

 

Thus, it would appear that legally he has until May 21st (give or take a day) to seek the approval of congress.

 

At least he didn't enter the war on false pretenses. :rolleyes:

[marharth]

The reason people say the Iraq war was illegal had to do with more then getting it approved by congress.

 

The actions done in the Iraq war, and the cause of the invasion is the reason people think it is illegal.

 

 

That being said, it seems that the wars were legal to GO INTO, but the actions done in Iraq may be considered illegal, and the true cause of the invasion may be considered illegal.

 

The situation in Libya seems legal for now due to the UN.

[csgators]

At least he didn't enter the war on false pretenses. :rolleyes:

 

The justifications for the Iraq war had more to it than just WMD's (something almost everyone thought he had). Saddam was breaking UN resolutions on a daily basis and shooting at our planes. At the time of the Iraq invasion we were technically in cease fire from the first Gulf War and the cease fire was called off because Iraq wouldn't cease fire so to speak. I say all this not to try to justify the Iraq war, I think it was a mistake but we were already committed to Iraq through the no fly zone. We have no reason whatsoever to intervene in Libya. To protect civilians? The same argument could be made for Iraq especially when you consider he was stealing his peoples food from the food for oil program (most of the UN was stealing from the program as well).

 

The reason people say the Iraq war was illegal had to do with more then getting it approved by congress.

 

The actions done in the Iraq war, and the cause of the invasion is the reason people think it is illegal.

 

That being said, it seems that the wars were legal to GO INTO, but the actions done in Iraq may be considered illegal, and the true cause of the invasion may be considered illegal.

 

I am curious as to what actions occurred after the invasion of Iraq that would be considered illegal?

 

Thanks for all the replies so far, certainly some thoughts to chew on here.

Edited April 3, 2011 by csgators

[csgators]

Here is my favorite member of congress on LIbya

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV31uMjDxkc&feature=related

 

And one from the left

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rr-mdzxqCA&feature=related

[Aurielius]

The reason people say the Iraq war was illegal had to do with more then getting it approved by congress.

 

The actions done in the Iraq war, and the cause of the invasion is the reason people think it is illegal.

That being said, it seems that the wars were legal to GO INTO, but the actions done in Iraq may be considered illegal, and the true cause of the invasion may be considered illegal.

The situation in Libya seems legal for now due to the UN.

I must have missed when Obama presented his case to Congress and received approval under the War Powers Act. Once having gained such approval any conflict is constitutionally legal. The Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts have such legality but Libya ...not yet. BTW way the first two conflicts had UN resolutions sanctioning Coalition actions there.

[grannywils]

@grannywils

 

If by 2 wars you mean Libya and Iraq then I think I mostly agree with you. While I supported our reason for going into Afghanistan I still think Congress should have officially declared war (I may be wrong but I think WW2 was the last time we did so). All that aside I am appalled that we are currently bombing a country without any Congressional approval. We have been defecating on the Constitution for decades but now it is officially meaningless. Welcome to Corporate Fascism/Crony Capitalism/Military Oligarchy. I can't seem to pigeonhole it.

 

 

csgators, just to confirm. Yes, I did mean Libya and Iraq. Don't think we had much choice regarding Afghanistan, as it was a continuation of the Iraq fiasco and apparently we could not back down at that point. Unfortunately, I believe we are doomed with that one. No one has ever had a chance of beating the Afghani's on their own turf.

[Aurielius]

csgators, just to confirm. Yes, I did mean Libya and Iraq. Don't think we had much choice regarding Afghanistan, as it was a continuation of the Iraq fiasco and apparently we could not back down at that point. Unfortunately, I believe we are doomed with that one. No one has ever had a chance of beating the Afghani's on their own turf.

 

Your statement is mostly true, no modern nation has beaten the Afghani's in a sustained conflict within their own territorial borders only Alexander the Great managed that feat and he knew when to get out of Dodge. We will leave ..eventually when we grow tired of the drain of blood, resources and political capital. However leaving the Taliban untouched and unrepentant was not an option after 9/11.