🚀 go-pugleaf

Top Posting for your Attention, you fascist liar:
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1200535.htm

the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, said today that the US-led 
invasion was illegal and that the elections planned for Iraq in January 
would not be credible in the current security environment.




"pitchforks and torches" <ShrubImprisoned@theHague.com> wrote in message 
news:B3LFg.2218$q63.827@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment 
> yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that 
> the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
> In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street 
> lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case 
> international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
>
>
>
> "pitchforks and torches" <ShrubImprisoned@theHague.com> wrote in message 
> news:vYKFg.2217$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
>>
>>
>
>