Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Law: Going to war

  1. Apr 7, 2004 #1
    I'm not quite sure why, but there seems to remain some lack of comprehension regarding the laws about going to war. Thus I supply again this information:

    The Law

    Under USA law, is the president allowed to take the nation to war? No. The US Constitution allows only for the Congress to make war.
    There is of course the USA's War Powers Act, which further defines who can do what in times of war. However, the War Powers Act also states:
    What about internaional law? One law of particular interest which the USA signed on for is the United Nations Charter, which states:
    There is of course Chapter 7, but that is irrelevent since the SC did not make any such decision.

    Lawyers Against The War

    An interesting website: http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/ Obviously these people have a stated bias, but the law is written in black and white.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 7, 2004 #2
    Your opinion.
    There is a thread already on this subject, and there is also rebuttal links and questions.
  4. Apr 7, 2004 #3
    Um, no, not really just my opinion. The SC didn't make any such decision.

    I thought it might be appropriate to have a thread specifically for the legal matter.
  5. Apr 7, 2004 #4

    You know legal matters and law are never cut and dry. Precidents are set, and the notion of preemptive strike is a grey area - otherwise if things were so clear you'd get your dream of seeing Bush charged with war crimes.
    However, resolution 1441 was written in an open and ambiguous way that lends itself to exactly what happened.....an invasion of Iraq in response to failure to meet guidelines on a preset timeline.
  6. Apr 7, 2004 #5


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Adam, your understanding is erroneous. We've had this discussion before. No need to do it again.
  7. Apr 7, 2004 #6
    The law has been provided, in black and white (or blue and white, in this case). Read and learn.
  8. Apr 7, 2004 #7


    User Avatar

    deja' vu..................

    https://www.physicsforums.com/archive/forum/t-11563 [Broken]

    https://www.physicsforums.com/archive/forum/t-3089 [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  9. Apr 7, 2004 #8
    Yes, these laws have indeed been mentioned before. And they remain the same.
  10. Apr 7, 2004 #9


    User Avatar

    Oh yes the DO! You better believe it! and they also remain...as all law in the U.S. based oooooOOOOoon the magic words! Ya ready?! here they come?! Precedence and inter :eek: pretation!!

    Do you not use precedence and interpretation in your legal system?
  11. Apr 7, 2004 #10
    Feel free to interpret it however you wish.
  12. Apr 7, 2004 #11
    Glad you are starting to understand how LAW works.
  13. Apr 8, 2004 #12
    Are you a lawyer?
  14. Apr 8, 2004 #13
    No, but I have this amazing, and apparently rare, ability called "reading". Not only that, but another magnificent ability called "copying". These rare and amazing abilities enabled me to post actual laws, agreed upon by actual nations, for the education of you lucky readers.

    Now, as for the amazingly ridiculous "You're no lawyer", well, let me provide you with an analogy which, if we're all lucky, might make you realise how incredibly daft your previous post was. The Royal Australian Army infantry personnel ride glowing pink kangaroos into combat, to fight with fairy-floss powered slingshots capable of hurling handfuls of radioactive pudding up to five hundred yards, at around 5,000 rounds per minute. That may seem silly, but if you're not in the Australian military, you won't have any idea about it, so basically you must accept that it is true.

    In other words, the law is the law, written in black and white, and you don't have to be a lawyer to read it. Scroll back up a little. Give it a go. Try to comprehend what it says.

    I'm sure you can do it.
  15. Apr 8, 2004 #14

    WEll my goodness! that's the answer! we don't need to spend all this money on lawyers and court,because the law is so clear, and like you said black and white!
  16. Apr 8, 2004 #15
    I was just wondering if you were qualified to interpret the law. You are not.
    Cheers mate.
  17. Apr 8, 2004 #16
    I guess that's a "No, I am incapable of reading what is says". Thanks. All clear now.
  18. Apr 9, 2004 #17

    You are indeed rare. However, I have not seen anything from you that is indicative of your being amazing, or in any way magnificent. I think you're getting a little carried away with yourself.
  19. Apr 9, 2004 #18

    I say... bit round the bend ...
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 9, 2004
  20. Apr 9, 2004 #19


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Any point to this thread beyond the obvious? That is, that lawyers are interested in taking over everything --- which is nothing new --- and, have no real case to argue --- again, nothing new.
  21. Apr 9, 2004 #20

    Yes, Adam is about to show us how amazing and magnificent he is. He is also lecturing us on the small unit tactics of the Australian Infantry.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 9, 2004
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook