US Government Arrest Warrant for Iraqi Citizen on Iraqi Soil: Legal Authority?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Adam
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Soil
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the legal authority of the US government to issue an arrest warrant for an Iraqi citizen on Iraqi soil, specifically in the context of international law and military actions. Participants explore various legal interpretations and implications of such actions, touching on issues of sovereignty, combatant status, and the legality of the Iraq War.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the US has the right to enforce laws in Iraq due to the dissolution of the Iraqi government following invasion.
  • Others question how the arrest warrant aligns with the indefinite detention of "enemy combatants" in Cuba, suggesting a contradiction in legal interpretations.
  • There is a distinction made between "enemy combatants" and "illegal combatants," with some asserting that most detainees are not Iraqi.
  • One participant provocatively claims that the entire US military presence in Iraq constitutes illegal combatants, challenging the legality of the war itself.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of labeling individuals as "enemy combatants" without due process, leading to potential political imprisonment.
  • Several participants reference international law and the Geneva Conventions, debating the legality of actions taken by the US in Iraq.
  • Some express skepticism about the legal basis for the Iraq War, suggesting that the burden of proof lies with those asserting its legality.
  • Discussions include references to historical legal cases and the evolving definitions of combatant status under international law.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the legality of the US government's actions and the definitions of combatant status. The discussion is characterized by significant disagreement and differing interpretations of international law.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of international law, the ambiguity surrounding the legality of preemptive strikes, and the varying interpretations of combatant status, which remain unresolved within the discussion.

Does the USA government have the legal authority to affect USA laws on foreign soil?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 30.0%

  • No

    Votes: 7 70.0%
  • Total voters
    10
Physics news on Phys.org
When one nation invades another, and dissolves that nation's government, it is required to make and enforce laws until a new government is formed. Not only does the US have the right to make and enforce laws in parts of Iraq, it has no choice but to do so.

Njorl
 
So how does this not contradict holding indefinitely "enemy combatants" in Cuba?
 
schwarzchildradius said:
So how does this not contradict holding indefinitely "enemy combatants" in Cuba?
Not enemy combatants, illegal combatants. Big difference. And most are not Iraqi.
 
russ_watters said:
Not enemy combatants, illegal combatants. Big difference. And most are not Iraqi.

Precisely.
 
Illegal Combatants?

You mean the entire USA Military force in Iraq, right?
They are ALL illegal combatants (except in the small minds of the truly insane).
 
Nommos Prime (Dogon) said:
You mean the entire USA Military force in Iraq, right?
They are ALL illegal combatants (except in the small minds of the truly insane).

Woohoo! Dogon, I truly missed you :) Sure am glad to see you haven't left us yet.
Please, prove to me that the Iraq was is illegal in it's entirety, for that is the only way your statement can be proven true. As such, to my most recent knowledge preemptive strike (also coupled with multiple UN resolutions and a failed armistice agreement) falls into a grey area that is apparently so unclear as the UN doesn't know what to do about legal charges...and are presently leaning on the side of legal, since there is no talk of pressing war crime charges against anyone but Saddam and his cohorts. Please, enlighten us on what you know that isn't being made public to anyone else
 
Saddam's War Crimes?

Saddam's War Crime seems to me is that he lost the war.
After all, he didn't authorise the use of Depleted-Uranium bullets (who did that?), he didn't lob any Scuds at Israel this time.
Exactly what is his crime?
Defending his Third World Nation against the naked aggression of the World's Strongest Military Nation?
 
  • #10
Adam said:
Recently the US government issued an arrest warrant (charge of murder) for an Iraqi citizen on Iraqi soil. Does the US government have the legal authority to take such actions on foreign soil?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=17475
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=17664
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=17663


http://www.civicwebs.com/cwvlib/constitutions/un/e_un_geneva_convention_4.htm#Article%2070
You can pick the geneva convention apart yourself. There are guidelines for arrest, detainment, trial, and defense set forth.
I didn't know murder was only against USA law :rolleyes:
 
  • #11
Nommos Prime (Dogon) said:
Saddam's War Crime seems to me is that he lost the war.
After all, he didn't authorise the use of Depleted-Uranium bullets (who did that?), he didn't lob any Scuds at Israel this time.
Exactly what is his crime?
Defending his Third World Nation against the naked aggression of the World's Strongest Military Nation?

I love Dogon!
 
  • #12
Nommos Prime (Dogon) said:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:oyZy7H9gvbQJ:www.usembassy.at/en/download/pdf/iraq_intlaw.pdf+preemptive+strike+international+law&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

And lawyers that argue against that, and do a great job of explaining how it's such a grey area.
So, again I say, when will we be seeing Bush charged with war crimes since this is illegal?:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
phatmonky said:
http://www.civicwebs.com/cwvlib/constitutions/un/e_un_geneva_convention_4.htm#Article%2070
You can pick the geneva convention apart yourself. There are guidelines for arrest, detainment, trial, and defense set forth.
I didn't know murder was only against USA law :rolleyes:

1) I just started a thread about it, wasn't able to put everything in it though, so I'll set it up on a webpage.

2) I have thoroughly been through the laws regarding this, here at PF.
 
  • #14
Adam said:
1)

2) I have thoroughly been through the laws regarding this, here at PF.

Yes, and despite that you still continue to put forth your opinion as fact, even after having it shown to be faulty.
 
  • #15
Kat, please come back to the real world. Else demonstrate the veracity of your words.
 
  • #16
russ_watters said:
Not enemy combatants, illegal combatants. Big difference. And most are not Iraqi.
no,no, they're definitely called "enemy combatants," and captured in Afghanistan, although some are apparently european and at least 1 american. Somebody made up the term "enemy combatant" so that they could put them in a cage indefinitely. Keeping dangerous terrorists in cages is fine with me, but the problem is that if you never have any due process, nobody knows if they are dangerous terrorists or not-- they become political prisoners.
 
  • #17
phatmonky said:
Please, prove to me that the Iraq was is illegal in it's entirety, for that is the only way your statement can be proven true.
Better prove us the Iraq war was legal. The proof is on you.
 
  • #18
Adam said:
1) I just started a thread about it, wasn't able to put everything in it though, so I'll set it up on a webpage.

2) I have thoroughly been through the laws regarding this, here at PF.
So...you're saying your opening post was in error? Or maybe I missed your point: what exactly was your point here? It appeared that you were saying the US shouldn't be arresting Iraqi citizens. Is that your assertion? Or is this just yet another flame-bait thread?
Adam said:
Kat, please come back to the real world. Else demonstrate the veracity of your words.
Irony...meter...on...overload...Arrrrrrghh...[BAM]
schwarzchildradius said:
Somebody made up the term "enemy combatant" so that they could put them in a cage indefinitely.
No. An enemy combatant is a legal combatant under the Geneva convention and as such is entitled to POW status.
pelastration said:
Better prove us the Iraq war was legal. The proof is on you.
Sorry, no. That's not how this works. In a political discussion everyone, including you (and yes, even Adam), is expected to back up their opinion with a logical and factual argument.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
russ_watters said:
So...you're saying your opening post was in error? Or maybe I missed your point: what exactly was your point here? It appeared that you were saying the US shouldn't be arresting Iraqi citizens. Is that your assertion? Or is this just yet another flame-bait thread? Irony...meter...on...overload...Arrrrrrghh...[BAM] No. An enemy combatant is a legal combatant under the Geneva convention and as such is entitled to POW status. Sorry, no. That's not how this works. In a political discussion everyone, including you (and yes, even Adam), is expected to back up their opinion with a logical and factual argument.

I hope that little rant made you feel better, but once again you've made a post cnotaining not one actual fact, not one actual contribution to the discussion. Congratulations.

Now for an actual contribution: The laws involved.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=18606
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=18607
 
  • #20
Unlawful combatants...It was first used in ex parte quirin (sp?) when the supreme court confirmed the jurisdiction of a US military tribunal in regards to the trial of the German saboteurs in the US.
 
  • #21
pelastration said:
Better prove us the Iraq war was legal. The proof is on you.

Really? I didn't realize that everything was illegal until proven otherwise :rolleyes: So all the laws created are now goign to be created backwards saying what is legal?

Like I've said, there's already a thead on the first page about this with rebuttals and links.
Again, where are the war crime charges since this is so cut and dry?
 
  • #22
It helps to have all the lawyers, guns, and money.
 
  • #23
Adam said:
once again you've made a post cnotaining not one actual fact, not one actual contribution to the discussion. Congratulations.
Ok... well, you on the other hand have started five threads in the past couple of days and refused to make a point in any of them. Pot:kettle.

Btw, right smack in the middle of that jumbled together quote is a pretty key point to this thread. I wasn't responding to you (since you made no point, there wasn't any point to argue against), but to schwarzchildradius, who though wrong, at least made an argument and defended it.
 
  • #24
Russ_waters, the material contained within the posts comprises the topic for discussion. In other words, if the post is started with details of laws, then the thread exists to discuss those laws. Is that so hard to figure out?
 

Similar threads

  • Poll Poll
News How many soldiers the USA currently has on foreign soil?
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
  • Poll Poll
News How much the USA government spends on war?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
News The US military & the Iraqi press
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
News Is the US Red Line in Syria Just Empty Rhetoric?
  • · Replies 298 ·
10
Replies
298
Views
74K
News Embedded Journalists - AP Reporter Shooting Rehash
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
10K
News Did the US Use White Phosphorus as a Weapon in Falluja?
  • · Replies 113 ·
4
Replies
113
Views
13K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
11K
News CO2 Emissions: China vs US: Casus Belli?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
News Will a failure to raise the US debt ceiling force a default?
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
12K
News Downing Street - New memos released
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K