In light of my post about Richard Perle's recent admission before an audience in London that the invasion of Iraq was probably illegal (but, he asserts, morally necessary), perhaps it's time to review the facts about just why this is so. There has been a noticeable silence on the part of the pro-war crowd in response to Perle's admission, likely due to the complete and total media blackout on this in America--we need to get the word /out/.

Therefore I am reposting, by request, something I posted in Calpundit's comments last night. It's very long, but detailed--if you're so inclined, read on.

In determining the invasion's legality, we must consider the following relevant points:

1. International law consists of those rules by which countries mutually agree to respect and be bound by. These take the form both of "international custom(s)" and "the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations" (Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 38) and multilateral treaties to which states are signatories.

2. All countries which are signatories to the United Nations Charter are thereby consenting to be bound by its laws and strictures. In the case of the United States, this also makes the United Nations Charter, in effect, an extension of Federal law by way of Article VI of the US Constitution. ("...all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.")

3. Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter clearly and expressly prohibits the kind of "pre-emptive self defense" doctrine the Bush Administration has put forth. No justification under international law exists for this. Any war waged in violation of the UN Charter would by extension be unconstitutional, and quite possibly a violation of Federal law.

The sole potential source of legal cover for this war lies in the claims that UNSC Resolutions relating to Iraq's disarmament from the first Gulf War provide an explicit or implicit mandate for US military action. Some of these arguments are compelling, but a critical and objective reading of the full texts of these resolutions is sufficient to eliminate any pretense of such a mandate. I believe the best and most authoritative treatment of the relevant GW1-era resolutions (S/RES 660, 678, 686-687, 689, and S/RES 1154 from 1998) can be found here--it is a long read, but it is worth reading in its /entirety/ for a full understanding of this. In summary, it leaves no question but that the GW1-era resolutions, by themselves, provide no mandate or legal justification for military action.

This treatment, while neutralizing any justification based on GW1-era resolutions, predates S/RES 1441, which was adopted in November of 2002. S/RES 1441 specifically recalls S/RES 678 and 687, as well as recalling that the cease-fire in 687 was contingent on Iraq's cooperation with disarmament efforts. This resolution does not, however, authorize any specific military action whatsoever--quite the opposite; 1441 stakes out a "holding pattern" with its last two paragraphs, leaving the threat of military action hanging, but falling short of establishing an automatic "trigger" if there is noncompliance. The last two grafs are:

Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Arguments can and have been made to the effect that military action was morally required, regardless of the legal aspects--but no justification that assumes UN authorization, and thereby legitimacy under international law, can survive scrutiny.

Arguments have also been made that the veto threats by France, Germany and Russia made passing a resolution authorizing force impossible. This may even be true--although it is notable and significant that, when faced with said vetos, the US chose to /not/ submit a resolution for a vote, correctly judging that having said resolution voted down would make the lack of UN authorization much more explicit than not seeking the vote at all--which is essentially equivalent to doing something without asking your parents because you know they're going to say no. The US outrage over the French-German-Russian veto threat also has a transparently hollow and hypocritical ring to it, considering the dozens of UNSC resolutions Israel is in violation of, and the numerous resolutions the US has vetoed which would have authorized consequences for Israel's continued violation of such. The US has, in fact, historically exercised its veto power (usually in defense of Israel) more times than all the other permanent members combined--which, as mentioned, makes the US moral outrage over "French and German intransigence" more than a little suspect.

And as I pointed out in my first post about Perle's audacious admission, America's insistence on forging ahead with its war plans without any justification under international law is nothing more than vigilantism writ large.