3 ms·

It was the allegations of WMDs gave the impetus for action. Most wars can't be started by frustrating fly-over issues. The legal basis for the continued US pr

It was the allegations of WMDs gave the impetus for action. Most wars can't be started by frustrating fly-over issues. The legal basis for the continued US presence is well-established and widely known, so I'm surprised you feel confident enough to dare anybody to explain it to you. UNSC Resolution 1483 (2003), 1546 (2004), 1637 (2005) and 1723 (2006), IIRC You're confused. None of these authorized the occupation of Iraq. Each of these was adopoted after the invasion took place as safeguards on the occupation. None of these makes the occupation in any way a legal act. It has never been sanctioned by the Security Council; there are no, and have never been, UN troops in Iraq. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan himself directly called the invasion "illegal". His word. The illegal basis for the US invasion is well-established and widely known, so I'm surprised you feel confident enough to talk as if you know otherwise.

Maktab 17y ago
Let me quote your original post: >Someone, anyone, tell me why the U.S. is still there and under what legal basis. Anyone. I dare you. I quite clearly explained 'why the US is still there and under what legal basis'. Despite what you think, those resolutions did in fact make first the occupation and then the continued non-sovereign presence legal and represented the UNSC's explicit sanction for the coalition's presence in Iraq. Between 2003 and 2008 US and other coalition forces in Iraq operated under a UNSC mandate (read up on MNF I), so it's irrelevant that there were no blue hats in the country. Whether the original invasion was illegal or not, Kofi Annan's word does not make it officially so. Like all UN Secretary-Generals, Annan was just an administrator whose opinion carried no legal weight. All binding declarations in terms of international law can only be made within the UN's participatory bodies, like the Security Council, or by the International Court of Justice. I'm not willing to get into an argument about the legality of the initial invasion because that's not the point you raised in your original post and it's not relevant to the discussion being had about the legal status of US forces in the country right now. The current presence, as I pointed out, is without any shadow of a doubt entirely legal and has been since UNSC 1483. Times have changed, the issues are different and rehashing the arguments of 2003 won't get us anywhere.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- david927 17y ago
  I have never heard it parsed that way, Maktab. Interesting. So you're admitting that the invasion was illegal under international law, but that the continued occupation is legal. How does that work, exactly? You can illegally break into a house, but legally not have to leave? It's my impression that while UNSCR 1483 legitimized the governing aspect of US/UK forces, it was essentially a "you broke it, now fix it" resolution that didn't offer any specific language that makes the occupation legal. rehashing the arguments of 2003 The people of Iraq are rehashing those arguments every day their country is occupied illegally. Iraq, at current oil prices, would be one of the richest countries in the world. They'll never see any of that. Those people in the van (in the Wikileaks video) who were killed and mangled, including the kids, are rehashing 2003. There's no statute of limitations on the suffering there; there's no reason we should forget about it if they can't.
  - Maktab 17y ago
    The legality of the initial invasion is an open question, without any clearly-defined and universally-accepted answer. Without an unambiguous resolution by the UNSC or ruling by the ICJ, a debate on that topic would fill many pages and might still be no closer to a definitive answer. I definitely don't think it's possible to state outright that it was either legal or illegal. In any case it's not relevant to the question of whether the current status of US forces in Iraq is legal. That was determined by UNSCR 1483 in conjunction with UNSCR 1511 (sorry, I forgot to mention 1511 and 1790, chalk it up to imperfect memory and a lack of time to research all this again), with the latter resolution explicitly authorising the presence of the Multi-National Force in Iraq as a mandate under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This mandate was renewed annually until 31 December 2008, when it was replaced by the US-Iraqi SOFA, a treaty between the two countries which established a new baseline legal framework under which US forces are legally permitted to remain in the country. So there is no occupation in Iraq, let alone an illegal one. If you continue to believe that US forces are occupying Iraq illegally your conclusions and understanding of the situation are going to be flawed and useless. It goes without saying though that accepting the legal basis for the US presence there is not the same thing as condoning it. Though I feel I should point out that I'm not trying to create a justification for the war here, I'm just trying to clarify some of the facts around the conflict. That US troops are in Iraq legally is a fact, it has no morality of its own. It should be enough to disagree with the US's presence without having to wrongly claim that it's illegal. But for what it's worth, it actually is possible to illegally break into a house and have the legal right to resist eviction, with a number of countries having so-called 'squatters' rights' legislation that protects the rights of people to remain on a property, though usually only for a defined period of time and under certain conditions, even if they occupied it unlawfully in the first place. As for your last bit, it's an emotional argument which still has no bearing on the specific point you raised earlier. I happen to think Iraq is better off right now than it was either under Saddam's regime or at the height of the war, with their economy improving at an impressive rate, but I'm not sure the bloodshed they went through to get here was worth it.

Maktab 17y ago

Let me quote your original post: >Someone, anyone, tell me why the U.S. is still there and under what legal basis. Anyone. I dare you. I quite clearly explained 'why the US is still there and under what legal basis'. Despite what you think, those resolutions did in fact make first the occupation and then the continued non-sovereign presence legal and represented the UNSC's explicit sanction for the coalition's presence in Iraq. Between 2003 and 2008 US and other coalition forces in Iraq operated under a UNSC mandate (read up on MNF I), so it's irrelevant that there were no blue hats in the country. Whether the original invasion was illegal or not, Kofi Annan's word does not make it officially so. Like all UN Secretary-Generals, Annan was just an administrator whose opinion carried no legal weight. All binding declarations in terms of international law can only be made within the UN's participatory bodies, like the Security Council, or by the International Court of Justice. I'm not willing to get into an argument about the legality of the initial invasion because that's not the point you raised in your original post and it's not relevant to the discussion being had about the legal status of US forces in the country right now. The current presence, as I pointed out, is without any shadow of a doubt entirely legal and has been since UNSC 1483. Times have changed, the issues are different and rehashing the arguments of 2003 won't get us anywhere.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
david927 17y ago
I have never heard it parsed that way, Maktab. Interesting. So you're admitting that the invasion was illegal under international law, but that the continued occupation is legal. How does that work, exactly? You can illegally break into a house, but legally not have to leave? It's my impression that while UNSCR 1483 legitimized the governing aspect of US/UK forces, it was essentially a "you broke it, now fix it" resolution that didn't offer any specific language that makes the occupation legal. rehashing the arguments of 2003 The people of Iraq are rehashing those arguments every day their country is occupied illegally. Iraq, at current oil prices, would be one of the richest countries in the world. They'll never see any of that. Those people in the van (in the Wikileaks video) who were killed and mangled, including the kids, are rehashing 2003. There's no statute of limitations on the suffering there; there's no reason we should forget about it if they can't.
- Maktab 17y ago
  The legality of the initial invasion is an open question, without any clearly-defined and universally-accepted answer. Without an unambiguous resolution by the UNSC or ruling by the ICJ, a debate on that topic would fill many pages and might still be no closer to a definitive answer. I definitely don't think it's possible to state outright that it was either legal or illegal. In any case it's not relevant to the question of whether the current status of US forces in Iraq is legal. That was determined by UNSCR 1483 in conjunction with UNSCR 1511 (sorry, I forgot to mention 1511 and 1790, chalk it up to imperfect memory and a lack of time to research all this again), with the latter resolution explicitly authorising the presence of the Multi-National Force in Iraq as a mandate under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This mandate was renewed annually until 31 December 2008, when it was replaced by the US-Iraqi SOFA, a treaty between the two countries which established a new baseline legal framework under which US forces are legally permitted to remain in the country. So there is no occupation in Iraq, let alone an illegal one. If you continue to believe that US forces are occupying Iraq illegally your conclusions and understanding of the situation are going to be flawed and useless. It goes without saying though that accepting the legal basis for the US presence there is not the same thing as condoning it. Though I feel I should point out that I'm not trying to create a justification for the war here, I'm just trying to clarify some of the facts around the conflict. That US troops are in Iraq legally is a fact, it has no morality of its own. It should be enough to disagree with the US's presence without having to wrongly claim that it's illegal. But for what it's worth, it actually is possible to illegally break into a house and have the legal right to resist eviction, with a number of countries having so-called 'squatters' rights' legislation that protects the rights of people to remain on a property, though usually only for a defined period of time and under certain conditions, even if they occupied it unlawfully in the first place. As for your last bit, it's an emotional argument which still has no bearing on the specific point you raised earlier. I happen to think Iraq is better off right now than it was either under Saddam's regime or at the height of the war, with their economy improving at an impressive rate, but I'm not sure the bloodshed they went through to get here was worth it.