Originally posted by Zoom Zoom Diva:
Originally posted by caltour:
But international law is a different matter entirely. It generally forbids pre-emptive attacks on other nations. Many argue that Bush's war is illegal under international law. See the links I posted earlier about that.
That opens up a whole issue of whether or not international law has any right to exist at all, and what powers it has over sovereign nations (if any).
I look at our Constitution as the supreme law of our land, and it in no way provides for the existence or power of any form of international law. Therefore, Bush had the legal authority to invade Iraq by the highest legal authority having power over him.
There is a current trend in International Law and International Relations in general that suggests that the Westphalian System of absolute Sovereignty over ones nation is breaking down. The International community now sees it fit to judge a state as weak or failing and can intervene in these states. Also if a state does not respect human rights (usually a weak or failed state) the international community also can intervene.
As for the International Law aspect there is a small dispute over the language used. There are two types of war that we are talking about (with regards to self-defense), Preemptive and Preventative. Pre-Emptive is when you know for a fact that another state is going to attack you and you do something about it to pre-empt the attack. Preventative war is just veiled aggression. Personally I do not believe Saddam represented an immanent threat and therefore the Iraq war was illegal internationally speaking. I do not believe that what we did was an act of self-defense, I do not believe we are safer now than before.
Damnit who brought this thread back up anyway.
| 
