From Archive aka wayback machine A US War Against Iraq Will Violate US and International Law and Set a Dangerous Precedent For Violence That Will Endanger the American People
President Bush maintains that Iraq’s "decade of defiance" of United Nations resolutions justifies a war against Iraq. But the President ignores the fact that a US war, unleashed without the approval of the UN Security Council, against a country that has not attacked the United States, would itself be an unlawful act, in defiance of America’s treaty obligations, and a violation of US and international law.
Our Constitution provides that treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate are part of the "supreme Law of the Land." The United Nations Charter, which our nation wrote in large part, and signed and ratified as a treaty in 1945, provides that — except in response to an armed attack — nations may neither threaten nor engage in warfare without the authorization of the UN Security Council. President Bush swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Yet he advocates a right to ignore our treaty obligations and to visit the scourge of war upon Iraq, with or without the approval of the United Nations.
The dangerous path America is treading will only lead to more suffering by Americans, as well as by others. The international rule of law is not a soft luxury to be discarded whenever leaders find it convenient or popular to resort to savage violence. The international rule of law is a bulwark against the horrors of warfare that we Americans have so recently felt first-hand.
Every nation that has ever committed aggression against another claimed to be "defending" itself. The United States helped establish the United Nations precisely in order to impose the rule of law on such claims, to make it unlawful for nations to strike against others unless they were themselves under armed attack. The United States is not under armed attack by Iraq.
Lawless international violence only breeds more killing of innocent people. The massive civilian deaths, the scarred and maimed children, the ruined and starving peoples, whose suffering is inseparable from warfare, can only spawn new generations of embittered peoples, new hate-filled leaders, new enraged individuals, determined to answer violence with violence.
The American people are not made safer by the unilateral use of force, in violation of the "supreme Law of the Land" and the United Nations Charter. We are further endangered. Lawless violence generates recruits for terrorism.
We, teachers of law at American law schools, protest the Bush administration’s illegal plan to conduct a war against Iraq. We call upon our government to step back from the brink of war and allow the United Nations to resolve the crisis peacefully, patiently, and lawfully.
If you teach law at an American law school and would like to be listed as a signer, please write to us at
firstname.lastname@example.org (dead domain) Please include the full name of your university and/or law school.
But don't try that, the link is dead.
As a veteran of both active and reserve components, I also concur.
I say that this fails the follwing test DOD policy prohibits active duty members from engaging in “partisan political activities.” Prohibited activities include but aren’t limited to campaigning for a political candidate, participating in rallies, soliciting contributions, and wearing a uniform to a partisan political event.
So that's unlawful. So is this. In addition to the 5,900 active-duty personnel, the Trump administration has sent 2,100 National Guard troops to the border. https://www.npr.org/2018/11/28/671472765/trump-is-expected-to-extend-u-s-troops-deployment-to-mexico-border-into-january
But as grunts, we have really no choice do we?
So we have a choice, but be willing to pay the price.
I paid the price, I enlisted and eventually got to be an E4 (Army Secialist 4) but I had been promoted inadvertently to E-2 but I talked back to a Major, so down to E-1 again then two months later I finally got bumped back to E-2 and was that level for the first year in. Upon leaving for Germany, I was bumped to PFC and held that for one year, then I was bumped to Specialist
When I decided to blow off an afternoon to go to a concert, Instead of asking I jetted. This also was on top of uncovering a shortage of 2.1 Million Dollars of Equipment and having the girlfriend of the Female WO 4 in charge (before don't ask don't tell) be the one responsible for the loss.. So I did not have a friend there in my line. SO when I got put back to PFC, it came with a re-assignment back to company supply. The appeal went to the Colonel (as my right) but he explained to me, I understand what you did and why you did, but you are still out of Uniform.. indicating the Spec 4 insignia. So I left active service. So at that time, I had held E1 Twice, E2 Twice, E3 Twice and Spec 4 once. But wait we are not done.
Enlisted in the NATGUARD, got bumped to Sp4 again and plateaued for 6 years. Was given ultimatum UP OR OUT.. so Up I tried, out is what I got.. I was inadvertently AWOL for 2 months due to my sister not signing for registered mail. (Order Revocation of transfer) I show up, find out I was bumped back to E2 again with a PFC as a step in between. So, E2, 3x, E3 3x E4 2x, I never got riffed back to E1 again..
What has this got to following unlawful orders?
I missed going to the first Gulf War.
This was the last lawful war that I could see, so far.
Afghanistan, but not Iraq, Afghanistan but not Syria
I have a relative of mine that had a boot on the ground in Syria.
He had a mission to seek and destroy the arms that we provided to the rebels so they did not get captured by the Syrian Army.
This is just another Viet Nam? Who knows?
We have a right to no longer fight for unclear objectives.
I leave you with this
Debating the Legality of the Post-9/11 ‘Forever War’