🚀 go-pugleaf

"Mike Smith" <mws@wt.net> wrote in message 
news:m4uee290d41ivq1aju3p1p7kl64ooo9alr@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 19:10:45 GMT, "pitchforks and torches"
> <ShrubImprisoned@theHague.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>No. The issue was the existance of WMDs found after the illegal invasion
>>Nobody killed by WMDs = No WMDs.
>>
>
> And here is another fine example of the moronic thought process of the
> left wing buffoons. Rudimentary research skills would show this moron
> just how wrong he is. Unfortunately, those skills elude him.
>
> Free clue, moron.: There was no illegal invasion

A Mikey special: a lie
The invasion of a single nation by another nation or group of nations is 
only legal under the UN Charter if such an invasion has been sanctioned by 
the vote of the UN Security Council.  This did not happen in the case of the 
recent Iraq invasion, since the United States and Great Britain, led by the 
U.S. Secretary of State Powell, withdrew on March 17, 2003 their resolution 
to stage such an invasion from consideration by the UN Security Council when 
they realized that the majority of its members would vote against it. 
Instead, Powell and others insisted that this approval was unnecessary, 
since UN Resolutions 687 and 1441 (the latter of 8 November 2002) had 
already granted this right.  However, this is simply not true.  As 
demonstrated by a close examination of the UN Charter and these particular 
resolutions, there is no possible interpretation that preempts the need for 
a final decision by the Security Council.  Because the U.S. and U.K. 
withdrew their resolution, there could be no decision permitting an 
invasion.  As a result, the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and those who 
brought it about can be held responsible for war crimes by an impartial 
international tribunal, for example the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Significantly, the Preamble to the UN Charter begins by declaring its 
primary purpose is "to prevent the scourge of war," and Article 1 repeats 
this prerogative by stating that the UN's role is to "maintain international 
peace and security."  As a peremptory norm of international law, Article 
2(4) more explicitly prohibits the use of military force in international 
affairs except in accord with the guiding principles of the UN: "All members 
shall refrain . . . from the threat or use of force against the territorial 
integrity or political independence of any state or in any manner 
inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."  In retrospect this 
emphasis may be appreciated as a consequence of the UN Charter having been 
drafted and adopted at the end of World War II, when the avoidance of 
warfare seemed of the utmost importance.  Today, in light of the Iraq 
invasion, it seems no less important.

If and when warfare seems unavoidable, Articles 41 and 42 of Chapter VII of 
the UN Charter specify under what circumstances military conflict can be 
sanctioned.  Article 41 declares that effective means short of conflict must 
first be employed to resolve differences, and Article 42 makes it plain that 
only with the failure of these preliminary measures may the Security Council 
vote to permit military action.  This decision is obtained by vote as 
specified by Article 27(e) earlier in the Charter.

Both Articles 41 and 42 are relatively short and may be quoted in their 
entirety:

Article 41: The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the 
use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and 
it may call upon the Members of nations to apply such measures.  These may 
include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, 
sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication and 
the severance of diplomatic relations.

Also permitted by Article 41 as a "measure not involving the use of armed 
force" would be the inspections specified by Resolution 1441 in order to 
ascertain Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).  Only the 
failure of these measures to satisfy the Security Council would justify 
warfare as explained by the next article:

Article 42:  Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for 
in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may 
take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain 
or restore international peace and security.  Such actions may include 
demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by land, sea, or land forces 
of Members of the United Nations.

In a nutshell, if preventative measures are found to be unsuccessful, 
then--and only then--can the Security Council decide to permit warfare. 
First there must be an effort short of warfare, after which warfare may be 
undertaken once the consent of the Security Council has been obtained 
through its finding that the preliminary effort has been unsuccessful. 
Obviously, this consent may only be ascertained by means of a vote--exactly 
the vote Secretary Powell first sought, then avoided, once he realized he 
would lose it, since UN inspections had come up with no evidence of WMD in 
Iraq.  As a result, Powell was not able to recruit a majority of delegates 
who supported an invasion, and, even if he had, both France and Russia were 
prepared to veto the measure. He accordingly skipped the required vote, 
after which President Bush launched his invasion--necessarily an illegal act 
of war, since it had not been approved by the Security Council.

Again, let it be stated for emphasis: Articles 41 and 42 impose a simple and 
unavoidable sequence: (1) effective preventative measures short of military 
conflict should first be explored before (2) the Security Council can decide 
that every alternative short of military conflict has been exhausted without 
success, whereupon (3) military conflict can finally be undertaken. 
Unavoidably, the second step necessitates a majority vote to mandate warfare 
by the Security Council.  Secretary Powell skipped this step by jumping from 
the use of preventative measures to an invasion not sanctioned by the UN 
Security Council.  As a result the invasion was in violation of the UN 
Charter and therefore illegal.

The only exception to this sequence is under an extreme emergency as 
specified by Article 51 of Chapter VII: "Nothing in the Present Charter 
shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if 
an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations . . ." 
However, the situation with Iraq did not fit this description, since Iraq 
had never attacked the U.S. or U.K., and there was no evidence of any 
imminent armed attack against anybody else.  Thus Article 51 did not apply.

Some apologists for the invasion argue that Resolution 1441, which 
established the inspections regime in Iraq, somehow rendered unnecessary a 
Security Council vote to justify warfare as specified by Articles 41 and 42. 
The argument is simply not valid.  Significantly, Resolution 1441 is 
specified to act "under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations." 
Chapter VII includes all Articles from 39 to 51, of which 41 and 42 have a 
direct bearing upon the possibility of an Iraq invasion.  By specifying its 
conformity to Chapter VII, Resolution 1441 confirms the necessary 
application of both Articles 41 and 42 for the Security Council to accept 
the transition from peaceful to military means.  In other words, the choice 
of Powell to withdraw his second resolution did not eliminate the need for 
permission from the Security Council, especially after steps preliminary to 
its vote had already been undertaken fully in accord with resolution 1441.

Also, Resolution 1441's second listed "decision" describes inspections as "a 
final opportunity to comply" preceding "subsequent resolutions of the 
Council." This reference to "subsequent resolutions clearly establishes the 
inspections program as a preliminary measure to the Security Council vote 
obliged by Article 42.  The same is true of the twelfth "decision" of 
Resolution 1441, which emphasizes the necessity, "to convene immediately 
upon receipt of a report [bearing upon inspections] . . . in order to 
consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the 
relevant council resolutions in order to secure international peace and 
security."  The wording is euphemistic, but here again it accords with 
Article 42 to the effect that a vote would have been needed to mandate war 
before an invasion could be launched.  Without such a vote (because Powell 
knew it would be negative), the invasion became totally illegal as specified 
by the UN Charter and therefore no less illegal relevant to Resolution 1441.

Nor could the Security Council be bypassed because of earlier Resolutions 
678 and 687 of the Security Council at the time of the Gulf War in 1991. 
These were intended to compel Iraq first to withdraw from Kuwait and then to 
fully cooperate with UN weapons inspectors.  Some invasion apologists have 
argued that these resolutions somehow provided legal authority for the later 
invasion, but this is not true.  All UN Security Council Resolutions are 
specific relevant to time and space, and they cannot be cited years later to 
justify unilateral actions.  Moreover, no country alone can presume to play 
the role of judge, jury and high executioner.  Only the Security Council can 
find "material breach" and authorize "all necessary means."  This it was 
prepared to do on March 17, prevented only by the U.S. and U.K.'s withdrawal 
of their resolution

The U.S. Constitution also compels the need for a Security Council vote, 
since our nation is a signatory of the UN Charter, thus giving the Charter 
the status of a treaty guaranteed by the Constitution itself.  The Supremacy 
Clause of the Constitution in Article VI, Section 2, specifically grants 
international treaties the same status as the Constitution itself and all 
state and federal laws enacted in accord with the Constitution.  Moreover, 
as specified by Article 103 of the UN Charter, the Charter is the highest 
treaty of the world and supersedes any other international agreement. 
Accordingly, the Supremacy Clause extends the application of Articles 41 and 
42 to all warfare conducted by our own particular government except under 
emergencies dictated by Article 51.

President Bush and Powell might have had a better case in justifying an 
invasion if they had bypassed the involvement of the UN in the first place. 
They could have applied the precedent that the United States already went to 
war against Vietnam, Cambodia, Panama, Grenada, the Dominican Republic, and, 
most recently Kosovo, without the approval of the Security Council.  In the 
latter instance, President Clinton invoked the NATO connection, and the 
potential illegality of this decision was ignored in view of the need to 
terminate genocidal killings as soon as possible.  The obvious demand for 
quick measures was satisfied, but at the cost of reinforcing a dangerous 
precedent in international relations.

Regarding Iraq, however, the U.S. and U.K. presented their case to the UN 
Security Council in order to obtain Resolution 1441 that met the demands of 
Article 41, and then, as required by Article 42, presented a second 
resolution permitting an invasion because of Iraq's failure to meet the 
terms of Resolution 1441.  All of this was intended to meet the guidelines 
of the UN Charter, obliging the U.S. to abide by its final authority in 
determining the legitimacy of military action against Iraq.  However, as 
already indicated, Powell withdrew this second resolution once it became 
plain the Security Council would reject U.S. arguments that sufficient 
evidence had been disclosed to justify an invasion and that every 
alternative short of military conflict had been exhausted.  Bush thereupon 
bypassed the Security Council's vote by launching a unilateral preemptive 
strike on entirely illegal grounds.

Significantly, without the consent of the Security Council, those who 
planned and implemented the invasion of Iraq can be held responsible for war 
crimes as defined by the Nuremberg Charter.  One doubts this will ever 
happen, since victors seldom prosecute themselves.  However, it should, 
since U.S. government officials responsible for the Iraq invasion without 
the sanction of the Security Council are in direct violation of the 
Nuremberg Charter's prohibition against "crimes against peace" and "crimes 
against humanity." Therefore, they are liable for criminal prosecution by 
the new International Criminal Court.  Specifically, the Nuremberg Charter 
describes "Crimes against Peace" as "planning, preparation, initiation or 
waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international 
treaties or participating in a common plan or conspiracy to wage an 
aggressive war."  The invasion of Iraq clearly falls under this category, 
since it violates the UN Charter, signed by all its members, the U.S. 
included.  Moreover, the Nuremberg Charter notes that "to initiate a war of 
aggression . . . is not only an international crime, it is the supreme 
international crime."  Granted there are many war crimes deserving of 
prosecution, inclusive of prohibited weaponry, the mistreatment of 
prisoners, etc., but the very worst of all is the illegal resort to warfare, 
and of course its illegality ultimately depends on  its violation of the 
U.N. Charter.

The Nuremberg Charter's general laws of war also prohibit the use of weapons 
or tactics that cause indiscriminate harm to noncombatants.  The "shock and 
awe" bombing of Baghdad and the use of depleted uranium tipped shells appear 
to violate these laws of war.  As already indicated, government officials 
and military personnel who engage in these violations can be prosecuted 
under the new International Criminal Court (ICC).  True, the U.S. is not yet 
a signatory to the ICC, but the Iraqi government has a right to make its 
appeal to the UN, and the ICC would thereby have technical jurisdiction over 
any war crimes committed during the conflict.

In sum, the U.S., U.K., and their allies have been aggressor nations in the 
invasion of Iraq, since they have conducted this invasion in clear violation 
of both international and domestic law.  By now as many as 37,000 Iraqi and 
almost 1,000 Americans are estimated to have been killed, and the number who 
were injured surpasses anybody's guess.  No matter how vicious or 
bloodthirsty the behavior of combatants on either side, the responsibility 
for their acts of violence primarily reverts to the government leaders who 
possessed the authority to impose upon them an illegal war rejected by the 
world at large.

But see for yourself.   Almost any college or municipal reference librarian 
can provide the necessary documents to confirm the arguments presented here.


>and there was WMD's
> found in Iraq after we took out saddam and his 2 sadistic sons.

So, you facsist liar,
Why didn't Saddam use 'em to stop our illegal invasion? Hmmmm?

See the Duelfer report for more details about all of the WMDs you stupid 
bastards
keep insisting were in Iraq.

( You do realize that all is lost, and we will be cutting and running soon, 
don't you? )
>
> Mike Smith