🚀 go-pugleaf

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment 
yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that 
the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, 
Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law 
stood in the way of doing the right thing."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html



"pitchforks and torches" <ShrubImprisoned@theHague.com> wrote in message 
news:vYKFg.2217$q63.1195@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "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
>
>