Looks like the war with Iran is cooking off

[Kenzo1]

...

As for that war being illegal: (LLM)

"Under international law, the attacks violate the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force (Article 2(4)), which only permits military action in self-defense after an actual armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization.  Neither condition applies here:

• Iran did not attack the U.S. or Israel before the strikes.
  
• No imminent threat was proven; in fact, direct negotiations were ongoing with Iran and Oman as a mediator hours before the attack. 
  
• The U.S. and Israel have not sought or received UN Security Council authorization.
  
• The doctrine of anticipatory self-defense does not justify the strikes, as the threat was not "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means" (Caroline doctrine). 
  
  

Under U.S. domestic law, the war is unconstitutional:

• The Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war (Article I, Section 8). 
  
• The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires presidential authorization from Congress for military action beyond 60 days unless there is a formal declaration of war or an emergency. 
  
• No such authorization was obtained. The Trump administration’s claims of an "imminent threat" were contradicted by Pentagon briefings and diplomatic developments. 
  
  

Additionally, attacks on civilian infrastructure—including a school in Minab that killed 165 children, a sports hall in Lamerd, and a hospital in Tehran—appear to constitute war crimes under the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit targeting civilian objects and require proportionality in warfare. 

Legal experts, human rights organizations, and international bodies, including the UN General Assembly, have condemned the attacks as a war of aggression, a crime under international law.  The U.S. and Israel are accused of acting on regime change goals, not legitimate self-defense, further undermining the legality of the conflict. 

Read that again...war crimes under international law.

I'll award a "A" for effort. At least someone tried to explain it.

No disrespect meant to the AI, but there is nothing in there that proves the war to be "illegal".

The UN is not a legislative body, however much it wishes it was. It does not exercise legal jurisdiction over anyone at all.

Common Law does not require an actual wound for "self-defense". In other words, I would not have to wait for a man to shoot a hole in me before I am allowed to defend myself. The mere threat of being shot, along with my own sincere belief that he can (has arms) and will (has threatened me with those arms) is enough, legally, for me to neutralize that threat. Iran itself authorized the attacks by ending the negotiations with the claim that they "have 460 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium, and can build 11 nuclear weapons with that". That statement, along with their ongoing ballistic missile production, taken together, are threat enough to justify defense. A prudent man does not wait for an attacker to pull the trigger at him before he neutralizes the threat. If he waits for the trigger pull, he may be too dead thereafter to defend himself.

Constitutional prohibitions likewise do not apply. No war has been declared by anyone. 60 days have not elapsed. So, nothing illegal there, either.

Some of the strikes MAY be prohibited under the Geneva Conventions. We do not know yet, as no evidence either way has been presented. While the Geneva Conventions do prohibit strikes on civilian targets, those same conventions make allowances for strikes on civilian targets being employed as military infrastructure. For example, a hospital or school or religious structure that is currently being used as a military staging area or depot is a legitimate target under the Geneva Conventions, because it has, at that point, been converted from a civilian target to a military target.

So, a bold claim of  "illegal war" is not a a statement of fact, it is a statement of speculation being masqueraded as a statement of fact. There is a name for those sorts of statements that escapes me at the moment...

FWIW, the Nuremberg Trials were factually illegal under "international law" for lack of jurisdiction, but I've never heard anyone complain about that.

Right or wrong, people will try to bend "law" to mean whatever they want it to mean, and in doing so will frequently bend it right out of the bounds of actual law in their efforts. It's not a "Left" or "Right" thing, it's just a "people" thing. That's why we have courts - to take that determination out of the hands of the individual, and put it into the hands of a supposedly disinterested "third party" of competent jurisdiction. It's not a perfect system, and the "third parties" sometimes display a startling lack of impartiality, but it's still the best system we've got.

=====================

ETA: regarding the Constitutional requirement for congress to declare war, that is true so far as it goes. However, Congress has not declared a war since WW II, yet we've had quite a few, and sometimes lengthy, military actions since then, none of them declared by Congress. Truman did it (Korea), JFK did it, LBJ did it, Nixon presided over and ended the same one the previous two presidents ran with (Vietnam), even Milquetoast Carter did it with his half-assed and failed  "attack" meant to spring the hostages in Iran, Reagan did it, Bush I did it, Clinton did it, Bush II did it, Obama did it, and Biden did it. Most of those actions were never questioned... but now, it's Trump, so now we have claims of an "illegal" war. The sole intent of those claims can only be to "muddy the waters",since nothing has been adjudicated anywhere in a competent court of law. "Illegal war" as a claimed statement of fact is premature.

Regarding the empty, hollow term "war of aggression", can anyone name for me a WAR that was NOT aggressive? If war isn't aggressive, you're doing it wrong... so, an empty, useless term that is merely an appeal to emotion.

.

You have fucking moron secretary of war Pete Hegseth publicly  declaring that no quarter be given , which is illegal .






Congressman Eugene Vindman

A Dishonorable Strike

Section 5.4.7 of the DOD Law of War Manual says:

Prohibition Against Declaring That No Quarter Be Given. It is forbidden to declare that no quarter will be given. This means that it is prohibited to order that legitimate offers of surrender will be refused or that detainees, such as unprivileged belligerents, will be summarily executed. Moreover, it is also prohibited to conduct hostilities on the basis that there shall be no survivors, or to threaten the adversary with the denial of quarter. This rule is based on both humanitarian and military considerations. This rule also applies during non-international armed conflict.

This is an old principle of the laws of war. The Hague Regulations of 1907 state that “it is especially forbidden . . . [t]o declare that no quarter will be given.” The 1863 Lieber Code—the famous U.S. government rules governing military conduct during the Civil War—provides: “Whoever intentionally inflicts additional wounds on an enemy already wholly disabled, or kills such an enemy, or who orders or encourages soldiers to do so, shall suffer death, if duly convicted, whether he belongs to the Army of the United States, or is an enemy captured after having committed his misdeed.” And the currently governing DOD Manual in Section 5.9 states clearly that persons “placed hors de combat may not be made the object of attack.” The Manual defines “hors de combat” to include “persons . . . otherwise incapacitated by . . . shipwreck.”

Rule 46. Orders or Threats that No Quarter Will Be Given

Former JAGs say Hegseth, others may have committed war crimes


But ok... "the zionist way"  is no rules whatsoever...got it.   A de facto IDF modus operandi .