International "law" can go screw itself. And the UN, too. US law is what the US operates on. Treaties are secondary, at best. Wishful thinking is nonsense -- your assertions, too.
The U.S. also pretended that it was enforcing international law. There's legal and then there's legal. I swear, only someone like Bush would have played this game.
The mechanism in this case was the Iraq War Resolution. It was not a blanket approval of military action in Iraq, there were conditions to be met, one of which was to let the UN resolution be carried out. This meant the inspection process should be allowed to work. So, the US congress passed a resolution that included implementation of a UN resolution. That makes it US law.
As for Saddam, I think Bush himself said it best: "The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the -- the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice." George W. Bush, 43rd president of the United States, Washington, D.C., Oct. 27, 2003.
Playing to the gallery is an expectation of the gallery. It makes the gallery feel engaged, and makes the the gallery feel that it's an important part of a process that doesn't actually need it to function properly.
The Congress doesn't conduct war. Whatever "conditions" it might have imagined it was offering as constraining factors on the war-fighting abilities of the President -- other than funding -- were constitutionally quite ignorable. The UN is irrelevent.
When the congress signs a bill, it becomes the law of the land until repealed or the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional. The conditions were not imagined, they are a matter of public record.
The US is not founded on international law. It's founded on the US Constitution. International "law" and treaty obligations are secondary considerations, at best.
I'm not the one arguing that the invasion was illegal, but the issue is not as clear cut as you believe.
Since the overwhelming bulk of Americans (and the rest of the world as well) have low IQ genes, Americans did not pick up on the contradiction between Bush's claim that he wanted to invade Iraq for reasons that included bringing "Human Rights" into Iraq, and Bush then allowing death by hanging, a practice not part of "Western Human Rights" that Bush was defending.
'Hey, they just hanged dumbass' It's pretty barbaric - they could've kept him alive and used him in medical experiments instead.
All countries are founded on the basis of the general principles of international law as well as are bound to international customs by default. It doesn't matter on what ground a country is founded, be it an order of a monarch or a constitution, the international law determines what is a country and what is not, as well as what rights does it have. If the USA is disregarding some of its obligations toward the international community, then it just is showing its immaturity and inabilty to acknowlidge the great responsibility it has towards other countries. Oh, and international law is no bollox, it is applied every moment by each country, including the USA, because in general it benefits all.
saddam hussein execution VIDEO??? Hey I was looking for a video of the saddam hussein execution, and was wondering if anyone has seen it or knew where I could see it or get ahold of it? Yeah Im just board and wanna get it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! haha
Avatar: Nonsense. International law has no foundation - indeed, it is merely a despotism of idealogues sitting in comfy chairs in an ugly building on the East River. There are only laws of nations. They represent the sovereignty of the populace and the state. International law is a pipe dream. Moreover, designation of rights is not up to -any- body. RIghts are absolute to the individual. A government can only accept the existence of said rights, not legitimize them or produce them.
Charles Wong: Hanging is hardly against the conception of human rights in America. Hanging was practiced up till the 60's. Moreover, it is a very humane way to execute someone. Much moreso than the electric chair and quicker, cheaper, and ultimately more effective than lethal injection.
All rights and law is an illusion. And it's only so powerful as powerful people believe it to be. The foundation of international law is the interests of the international community. If one subject doesn't apply it in a particular case, it doesn't invalidate the law. As for the non-existance of international law, I apply it every day at my job at the ministry of foreign affairs.
