Even if the evidence was valid/confirmed, what gave the US and UK the right to invade a Sovereign State, killing thousands of civillians in the process?
On the particular case of legality of going into Iraq Ill try and bullet point it...
1) A peace treaty (like the one after the first gulf war) is only valid if both parties stick to the terms of that treaty. Its exactly the same as a contract with any other person in the eyes of the law. If we have a contract for me to buy work from you at a certain price and you then try and change it by either not providing the good or charging a different amount without my agreement then the contract is void and the earlier status returns (i.e. no purchase made).
2) The first gulf war was triggered when Saddam began releasing chemical and nerve agents on his neighbours (and his own people before that). The UN decided to act and made it lawful to attack Iraq - this was the first gulf war - it is now lawful for UN member states to be at war with Iraq.
3) To stop hostilities. Iraq agreed to a peace treaty. The UN/USs part of the contract was to not attack anymore. Iraqs part of the contract was to provide evidence of disarming and allow free inspections to ensure this.
4) Iraq did not provide there disarming information and certainly did not allow free inspection for an extended period. They were threatened with action yet it was still not provided.
5) The contract/peace treaty is therefore broken/void and the earlier status is then returned to - i.e. the UN is still at war with Iraq.
6) The UN were unwilling to commit forces over th years since the first gulf war to enforce the terms of the treaty. The US was now willing to go in on their behalf but to do so they need the agreement of the UN. This is because the previous state before the peace treaty was the UN at war with Iraq and not the US plus a couple of other countries. To return to the earlier state it had to be the UN attacking and not the US.
7) So, The US approach the UN and ask for a mandate which would allow them to take military action against Iraq on behalf of and under the name of the UN. They were given exactly this power by the UN in the first Mandate.
8 ) The US then resumed hostilites with Iraq (the pre contract situation and backed by the mandate saying member states could act alone). This is the war on Iraq. Even simple contract law explains why it was legal.
At which point isnt this legal? The actual issue you should be highlighting is that the first mandate was obtained at a time where emotion was high and the other member states of the UN could claim that at the time action began the US was not totally acting on their behalf. The member states of the UN should have demanded a second vote if they were really unsure to make the Us obtain a second mandate. The member states never did this and thats why its legal for the US (and any UN member state) to restart hostilities with Iraq.
The legal cases against the US are more related to how they behaved during the war in terms of targets, conduct and human rights issues with prisoners. This is distinctly different from an illegal war and is actually an internal issue for the US to deal with and the international courts. Basically its sh*tty behaviour of the US military and leadership but the act of going to war is not illegal. If someone goes into a supermarket and steals something it is the theft and the person involved who broke the law not the act of going into the supermarket. In the same manner it was not illegal to enter Iraq but some of the acts committed while there were probably illegal (despite the way the US keeps trying to change the definition of torture etc). This does not make every member state who was involved in the war on Iraq criminals - merely the soldiers and management who allowed illegal acts to occur. PS: I would actually argue that the torture legislation and prisoner of war treatment by the US is illegal under international law but this isnt what is being said in this thread.
This is the difference between why the world is pretty pissed off with Bush and the US military and not so pissed at the other member states (The UK included) who didnt try and pull things like guantanamo bay and the torture tactics.
If people believe it was illegal to go into Iraq could you at least give a reason rather than just saying it is as if its fact. At least then people could move onto something useful rather than digging around in propaganda and half truths.
