Talk:Iraq Liberation Act

Untitled

Just a quick question ... I heard this was never actually funded by Congress .. is that true? If so, isn't the whole thing moot?

Edit of the Page

First I must admit that I am new to Wikipedia and hope that my contributions will be acceptable. I read the article and noted major issues with the clarity of the writing and attempted to fix these issues in a rewrite. I also added several other points, including the fact that the Act had been referenced in the Authorization for the current Iraqi War. I attempted to maintain NPOV throughout, but I ask that you double check this, as I must admit that i am not a strong supporter of the War. I am however an Law Professor and can read statutes. I did attempt to maintain as much of the original text and focus as possible, seeking only to provide clarity and updated information. As this was my first major edit, I ask that you respond with constructive comments. Franklin Moore 06:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Question of violation of Iraqi sovereignty and international law

The commentary on supposed international illegality of this act is clearly a biased political statement and should be removed.

Personally I don't believe in the sovereignty of governments at all, but, according to international law (and primarily the definition of sovereignty) this was a violation. If you can come up with a credible argument that somehow meddling in the affairs of other nations is not a violation of sovereignty then I would be most interested. Christiaan 19:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I mistyped, obviously. Anyways, any discussion of international law vis-a-vis Iraq without discussing its own egregious violations and contempt of existing international law, especially in regards to United Nations resolutions, is ridiculous. The assertion of "meddling" is not persuasive, nor is any violation of international law "clear." Your wording is clearly chosen to be provocative to anyone who doesn't share your radical political views. At least introduce your ideas with the obligatory "some argue" or some other qualifier. Schrockn 03:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what "discussing" Iraq's violations of international law has to do with the fact that the Iraq Liberation Act was a violation of Iraqi sovereignty? Can you elaborate. There's no assertion of meddling, it's written down as an act. Do you know what sovereignty means and how it is violated? "Some argue" is not obligatory, it is weasel words. As I said earlier, if you can come up with a credible argument that somehow the Iraq Liberation Act is not a violation of sovereignty then I would be most interested. Christiaan 08:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the material because it lacks a source. It sounds a bit like original research. TDC 14:30, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

While it is true that part of the UN charter is that the sovereignty of members should not be challenged (ie invasion, stimulating a coup), the statement in the article seem to be overly forceful.

"a clear violation of Iraqi sovereignty and a violation of international law."

Why not compromise and say that the act is controversial because of the challenge to Iraqi sovereignty?

--Mr-914 02:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not surprised it may appear to some as "overly forceful". It was an audacious act with flagrant disregard for international law and doesn't match the rhetoric of the U.S. government. I've edited the article citing the UN charter on Wikisource and below you'll see a list of statements to quell TDC's fears of "original research". Christiaan 12:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And this has what, exactly, to do with the price of tea in China? Although you have provided an excellent definition of international law, so nice that I will even allow to brag to your friends about it, you have still not provided me with the link that claims that the Iraq Liberation Act specifically violates this. Try again, and please do not embarrass yourself so badly this time. TDC 04:11, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Let me itemise it for you; you obviously have some kind of mind block:

1) Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme authority over a geographic region or group of people, such as a nation or a tribe.

2) Sovereignty is enshrined in international law.

3) Helping to overthrow another government or its leader violates item 1.

4) The Iraq Liberation Act was part of an effort to overthrow the Iraqi government, see item 3.

—Christiaan 09:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now, listen carefully, because I am only going to say this one more time: The argument that the Iraq Liberation Act was a violation of international law is your argument. You have provide me with absolutely no source from an expert in International law (i.e. Claudio Grossman) that will substantiate your claim that the Iraq Liberation Act was a violation of international law.

This is know as original research. Recognize! TDC 16:07, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

I'm relieved this is the last time, I'm tiring of your broken record. I can assure you that the United Nations Charter is not original research. --Christiaan 19:04, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Application of the UN Charter to the Iraq Liberation Act is original research. TDC 19:09, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

It's not the application of. It's a very simple citation. International law is clear on this matter in the extreme. The UN Charter states, "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members." The Act openly admits the intention of overthrowing Saddam, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power." There is, very simply, no room for interpretation. --Christiaan 20:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why not split the difference like this:

The Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 provided $97 million (U.S.) for groups trying to overthrow the Iraqi government. The act challenges the UN charter by seeming to violate Iraqi sovereignty. The UN Charter states, "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."

Personally, I think it is relevant to add the fact the act challenges the UN charter. I think it may be too much to seem to pass judgement.

Something I'd like to see in this discussion though is whether the act was identified as a challenge to the UN charter at the time of its passage. Mr-914 01:12, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Collection of statements relating to national sovereignty in international law

Principle of sovereign equality

U.N. Charter, Article 2-1

"The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."

U.N. Charter, Article 78

"The trusteeship system shall not apply to territories which have become Members of the United Nations, relationship among which shall be based on respect for the principle of sovereign equality."

CEDAW, Preamble, (tenth paragraph)

". . . respect for national sovereignty and territorial integrity . . . "

Agenda 21, 8.22

". . . subject to agreement by the sovereign States concerned."

Vienna Declaration, 2

". . . this shall not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States. . . "

ICPD, Chapter II, Principles

"The implementation of the recommendations contained in the Programme of Action is the soverign right of each country, consistent with national laws and development priorities, with full respect for the various religious and ethical values and cultural backgrounds of its people, and in conformity with universally recognized international human rights."

ICPD, 10.23

". . . respect for independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of States . . ."

Social Summit, Declaration, 29

". . . with full respect for national sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as policy objectives, development priorities and religious and cultural diversity . . ."

Social Summit, Introduction, para 3

". . . The implementation of the recommendations contained in the Programme of Action is the sovereign right of each country, consistent with national laws and development priorities, with full respect for the various religious and ethical values and cultural backgrounds of its people . . . "

Social Summit, 76-a

". . . respect for the independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of States . . . "

Beijing, 131

" . . . respect for sovereignty as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations . . ."

Habitat, 24

" . . . Implementation of the Habitat Agenda, including implementation through national laws and development priorities, programmes and policies, is the sovereign right and responsibility of each State in conformity with all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development, and taking into account the significance of and with full respect for various religious and ethical values, cultural backgrounds, and philosophical convictions of individuals and their communities, . . ."

Cairo +5, 5

" . . . the sovereign right of each country, consistent with national laws and development priorities, with full respect for the various religious and ethical values and cultural backgrounds of its people, and in conformity with universally recognized international human rights."

Beijing +5, 89

" . . . respect for the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of states and non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the jurisdiction of any state . . ."

Millennium Summit, 4

" . . . We rededicate ourselves to support all efforts to uphold the sovereign equality of all States, respect for their territorial integrity and political independence . . ."

Subject to agreement by the sovereign States

Agenda 21, 8.22

" . . . Contracting parties to international agreements could undertake sample surveys of domestic follow-up action subject to agreement by the sovereign States concerned"

National laws

CRC, Article 7

†" . . . in accordance with their national laws . . ."

Agenda 21, 7.20

" . . . in accordance with national laws, rules and regulations, . . ."

ICPD, Chapter II, Principles

" . . . consistent with national laws and development priorities, . . ."

Social Summit, 3

" . . . consistent with national laws and development priorities, . . ."

Social Summit, 12-e

" . . . Encouraging transnational and national corporations to operate in a framework of respect for the environment while complying with national laws and legislation . . ."

Social Summit, 14-e

" . . . taking due account of national laws and regulations;"

Social Summit, 55-c

"Promoting, in accordance with national laws and regulations, . . ."

Beijing, 232-k

" . . . in accordance with national laws; . . ."

Cairo +5: 5

". . . consistent with national laws and development priorities, . . ."

Legal Systems

Agenda 21, 3.8-j

" . . . in accordance with country-specific conditions and legal systems . . ."

vAgenda 21, 5.50.

" . . . in accordance with country-specific conditions and legal systems . . ."

Agenda 21, 6.25

" . . . in accordance with country specific conditions and legal systems . . ."

Vienna, 22

" . . . with due regard to their respective legal systems . . ."

Legal framework of each country

Istanbul Declaration, 12

". . . within the legal framework of each country . . ."

Habitat, 35

" . . . The formulation and implementation of strategies for human settlements development are primarily the responsibility of each country at the national and local levels within the legal framework of each country, . . .and should take into account the economic, social and environmental diversity of conditions in each country. . . . "

Habitat, 76

". . . Governments at the appropriate levels and in accordance with their legal framework should . . ."

Habitat, 204-i

"Promoting, in a manner consistent with the legal framework of each country . . ."

Habitat, 211

" . . . where appropriate and in accordance with the legal framework of each country . . ."

Habitat, 228-g

"To promote and consolidate collaboration, within the legal framework of each country, with all partners, including local authorities, and private sector and non-governmental organizations, in the implementation of the Habitat Agenda;"

Istanbul +5, 7

" . . . taking into account the specific priorities and objectives of each region, and in conformity with the legal framework and national policies of each country"

Istanbul +5, 39

" . . . within the legal framework and according to the conditions of each country . . ."

Istanbul +5, 46

". . . within the legal framework of each country. . . ."

Upon request (from the country)

Agenda 21, 5.41

" . . . assist Governments, upon request, to include concerns . . ."

Vienna, 68

" . . . The Centre should make available to States upon request assistance on specific human rights issues, . . ."

ICPD, 7.10

". . . the international community should, upon request, give consideration to . . . the needs of the countries in transition . . ."

ICPD, 13.22 and 13.23

"Governments, non-governmental organizations , the private sector and local communities, assisted upon request by the international community, . . ."

Beijing, 87-b

" Provide technical assistance upon request to developing countries . . ."

Beijing, 208-d

"Assist countries, upon request, in the development of gender policies and programmes;"

Habitat, 208-f

"Facilitate the provision of technical, legal and institutional assistance to Governments at the appropriate levels, upon request, . . ."

Cairo +5, 57

"The United Nations system and donors should, upon request, support Governments . . ."

Social Summit +5, 124

"Invite the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS to support countries most affected by the HIV/AIDS pandemic, upon request, . . ."

Social Summit +5, 138

With the assistance of the international community, upon request, strengthen national information systems . . ."

Social Summit +5, 146

" . . . The relevant bodies of the United Nations and other relevant institutions should support, upon request, these national efforts."

Beijing +5, 86-a

"Assist Governments, upon request, in developing gender-sensitive strategies for the delivery of assistance and, where appropriate, responses to humanitarian crises resulting from armed conflict and natural disasters;"

According to the national legislative process

ICPD, 8.25

" . . . Any measures or changes related to abortion within the health system can only be determined at the national or local level according to the national legislative process . . . ."

Beijing, 106-k

" . . . Any measures or changes related to abortion within the health system can only be determined at the national or local level according to the national legislative process . . . ."

Cairo +5: 63-i

" . . . Any measures or changes related to abortion within the health system can only be determined at the national or local level according to the national legislative process . . ."

Beijing +5: 72-o

". . . Any measures or changes related to abortion within the health system can only be determined at the national or local level according to the national legislative process . . . ."

Relevant documents

Agenda 21 Conference on Environment and Development

Beijing Fourth World Conference on Women

Beijing +5 Further actions and initiatives to implement the Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action

Cairo +5 Key actions for the further implementation of the Programme of Action of the International and Conference on Population and Development

CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women

Children Summit World Summit for Children

CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child

Earth Summit +5 Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21

Habitat Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements

HIV/AIDS Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS

ICC Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

ICPD International Conference on Population and Development

Istanbul +5 Declaration on Cities and Other Human Settlements in the New Millennium

Millennium Millennium Declaration

Social Summit World Summit for Social Development

Social Summit +5 Further initiatives for social development

U.N. Charter The Charter of the United Nations

Universal Declaration Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Vienna World Conference on Human Rights

—Christiaan 12:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now, listen carefully, because I am only going to say this one more time: The argument that the Iraq Liberation Act was a violation of international law is your argument. You have provide me with absolutely no source from an expert in International law (i.e. Claudio Grossman) that will substantiate your claim that the Iraq Liberation Act was a violation of international law.

This is know as original research. Recognize! TDC 16:07, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

I'm relieved this is the last time, I'm tiring of your broken record. I can assure you that the United Nations Charter is not original research. --Christiaan 19:04, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Application of the UN Charter to the Iraq Liberation Act is original research. TDC 19:09, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

It's not the application of. It's a very simple citation. International law is clear on this matter in the extreme. The UN Charter states, "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members." The Act openly admits the intention of overthrowing Saddam, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power." There is, very simply, no room for interpretation. --Christiaan 20:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A few points. If it is such a simple citation, then hundreds of people must have made it, but apparently you cannot find even one International Legal scholar. There is indeed a great deal of room for interpretation of the Act. After all, remove as the language of the Act states is not the same as overthrow. TDC 17:25, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Technically, wouldn't it be the prodemocratic groups within Iraq that are doing the overthrowing?

Rendering aid to groups within Iraq with democratic aspirations, is only an attack on Saddam's sovereignty if one assumes he would not win free elections, and even then technically the coup de grace would be committed by internal elements. Surely, there is plenty of precedent for this kind of meddling in the affairs of other nations given the nature of the long cold war. Perhaps, the trials of previous violators will provide legal precedents. Someone should research the trial of China in the Korean conflict, N. Vietnam in the Vietnam conflict, Saudia Arabia in the Afghan conflict, etc.--Silverback 17:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected the page to stop the editwarring. Please also note that 3RR violations can lead to blocks. Refdoc 00:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article is brief but seems to detail most of the issues...I vote to expand the discussion which lead up to the rational behind why the bill was signed 7 years after the end of the 1991 Iraqi War...in that there were also numerous UN sanctions, resolutions and continued defiance by Saddam and his government of UN resolutions...then the article would be completed for the most part...lets bring it to a vote..how do others feel....--MONGO 11:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately this suggestion does nothing to help resolve the dispute that has caused this page to be protected. —Christiaan 23:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, neither does your comment about my suggestion.--MONGO 14:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that the simple answer when something is disputed is to acknowledge that there is a dispute, and cite one or two leading authorities from each side of the argument. There's no correct answer to speak of, unless the validity gets tested in some kind of international court. Until then, present all sides and let the reader draw their own conclusion. --bainer 12:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I'm up for that. —Christiaan 20:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thats the thing, as per our earlier discussion you either cannot, or will not provide any sources for the illegality of the Iraq Liberation Act.TDC 21:12, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I think you guys should spent more time cleaning up the article and less complaining about the contents, maybe when the article HAS conformed to a higher standard you can squabble over it.--EatAlbertaBeef 03:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I, too, would like to see some reputable source that said the act was illegal. The first Gulf War was deemed "legal" by the UNSC, and it ended only with a cease-fire that was conditional. Those conditions were declared to have been "in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" by President Clinton -- and this was quoted in the act. That means it was legal in the eyes of the Clinton administration. It was surely approved by a team of government lawyers who understand international law. If there were any questions then another government or NGO could have challenged it then, and there should be a record of that somewhere. -- Randy2063 19:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Or potentially an opionion expressed by a notable law firm. As long as there is a source, and the source is reputable, then it can be included. --bainer (talk) 22:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia and just discovered that new posts on the talk page are at the bottom, as oppsoed to the top of the page. I just completed a major rewrite of this page without realizing that it was protected. (see first post). As it allowed me to do this, I am unsure as to whether the page remain protected. My rewrite was prompted by the fact that the page was marked as needing a cleanup and when I read the article I assumed that the cleanup was needed due to the lack of clarity in the article. I attempted to fix these problems but did not address the issues that apparently resulted in the protection. As to the issues raised here, I can only comment that while I may consider the act ill-advised, I as a law professor who opposed the War, do not see major problems with its legality. It is a Congressional Statement of Policy and an authorization to spend money towards that policy. In truth it is legally not unlike a statment that Congress feels that Mars is more beautiful than Venus and money should be spent to encourage others to believe the same. Maybe a waste of money but not illegal. Statements of Policy are well within Congress' Power and as long as there is no Constitutional prohibition the Courts will not get involved. Courts have routinely refused to decide foreign policy issues of this type. As to International Law, the issue can get more complex, but a statement of one nation's policy is not a violation of Internationall law - how that policy is implemented can be, however. This arguement, if it belongs anywhere in Wikipedia, should be left to articles on the War, use of force etc. This Act, whether good policy or not, was not a violation of US law and is well within the type of legal prouncements of foreign policy that many, if not all, nations make from time to time. Franklin Moore 07:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words

I added the weasel words warning due to the statement "Others have argued...". Additionally the argument following those words is factually incorrect (the act does not prohibit military action; it just explicitly neglects to authorize it) which increases the need for a citation on that point.

I have noted your questions and have found several citations which I think will clarify the issue you raise. Due to time constaints, I will not be able to draft those today, but will do so tomorrow and submit them. As a final note please sign all posts. Thanks Franklin Moore 17:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This article takes a flagrant pro-American side, and could be argued, even pro-Bush side despite the many controversies and problems with the legislation, the facts it asserts, and other points of view.

What do you mean "pro-Bush?"

This law was enacted while William Jefferson Clinton was POTUS. Ruthfulbarbarity 19:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick question ... I heard this was never actually funded by Congress .. is that true? If so, shouldn't that be noted?

Reference to Sachs Article

The article by Jeffrey Sachs that was quoted is not a reasonable source; it is a partisan diatribe with the goal of discrediting the Clintons. For example, it fails to note that the act passed the senate by unanimous consent, and the house by a vote of 360-36, including Bernie Sanders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgolden (talk • contribs) 23:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)