http://www.fff.org/comment/com0511h.asp
Is Bush’s War on Terrorism in Iraq a War Crime?
by Jacob G. Hornberger, November 21, 2005
After U.S. troops failed to find weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq, which had been the Bush administration’s primary reason for invading Iraq, one of the president’s alternative rationales for his war has been the so-called magnet rationale. It goes like this: Even though we failed to find WMDs in Iraq, we’ll make Iraq the central front in the “war on terrorism” by making U.S. troops a “magnet” that will attract “the terrorists” to attack U.S. soldiers in Iraq rather than people in the United States.
But the magnet rationale raises an important question: Why is it moral to use an innocent country for such a purpose, especially when the targeted country is going to be thrown into chaos and destruction and tens of thousands of citizens of that country are going to be killed and maimed in the process?
We must never forget the most important facts about the Iraq War: Iraq never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. Moreover, neither the Iraqi people nor their government participated in the 9/11 attacks. In this war, the United States was the aggressor nation.
President Bush’s primary rationale for waging his war of aggression, a type of war punished by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, against Iraq was that Iraq’s ruler, Saddam Hussein, not only possessed WMDs but also was about to attack the United States with them. Bush and other U.S. officials marketed the war by terrifying the American people into believing that Saddam was about to unleash nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons on American cities. Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and other U.S. officials continually ridiculed UN inspections as incompetent and inadequate and constantly emphasized that Saddam Hussein was a liar when he denied possessing WMDs.
Soon after the invasion, when U.S. officials discovered that Saddam’s denials regarding WMDs had been true, they had two options. One option was to apologize for their mistake and immediately exit the country. That was not the option they chose. Instead, they continued waging war, killing and maiming countless Iraqi soldiers who were continuing to resist an invasion that had been based on a false premise and thousands of Iraqi civilians as “collateral damage.”
Permit me to digress once again to address the other alternative rationale that U.S. officials relied upon when the WMDs failed to materialize — that the invasion was mounted out of love and concern for the Iraqi people in order to liberate them from a dictator. All the circumstantial evidence leads to but one conclusion — that this alternative rationale is a lie. Recall the evidence: There was the Persian Gulf intervention, in which thousands of Iraqis were killed without any remorse on the part of U.S. officials. There was the Pentagon’s intentional destruction of Iraq’s water and sewage facilities, knowing that infection and disease would spread among the Iraqi people. There were the brutal sanctions that contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. There was the U.S. government position that the deaths of those children were “worth it.” There were the illegal no-fly zones in which more Iraqis were killed. And there were the torture, sex abuse, rape, and murder of Iraqis detained in U.S. prisons in Iraq, even after the fall of Saddam Hussein. I repeat: All the circumstantial evidence leads to an attitude of callous ruthlessness toward the Iraqi people on the part of U.S. officials, not love and concern for their freedom and welfare.
Let us return to the magnet rationale — that it’s better that U.S. troops fight “the terrorists” in Iraq rather than here in the United States.
But where is the morality and legality in using an innocent country to serve as a “war-on-terrorism” magnet, especially when the use of a country for that purpose generates even more terrorism? If there is a war between “the terrorists” and the U.S. government, why should the Iraqi people be made to pay the price for such a war? Why should their homeland be devastated, their people killed, their museums ransacked, their economy destroyed, and their entire nation thrown into chaos and conflict? What did they have to do with the war between the U.S. government and the “terrorists”? Why was it right to use their nation as a terrorism magnet — attracting violent insurgents and suicide bombers — and even taunt the terrorists to “bring it on”? Where is the morality in the deaths and maiming of tens of thousands of Iraqi people, both military and civilian, as part of a “war on terrorism” that was no business of the Iraqi people? Where is the legality, under U.S. law or international law, of using Iraq for such a purpose?
Since neither the Iraqi people nor their government ever attacked the United States or even threatened to do so — and since their ruler had complied with the UN’s resolutions that required him to destroy his WMDs, they had a right to be left alone by the U.S. government. They had a right not to have their nation turned into a “magnet” for “the terrorists.” They had a right to be left out of the U.S. government’s “war on terrorism.”
No matter how brutal Saddam was, that was the business of the Iraqi people, not the business of the U.S. government, just as brutal dictators in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Cuba, and Venezuela are the business of citizens of those countries, not the business of the U.S. government.
Some argue that the solution to all this is simply for U.S. troops to exit Iraq. That’s not enough. The only genuine foreign policy solution is to dismantle the U.S. Empire, end the U.S. government’s role as international policeman, interloper, and aggressor, and restore a constitutional republic to our land along with the peace, stability, prosperity, and harmony that would come with it.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.
Full Version: Is Bush's War on Terrorism in Iraq a War Crime?
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Foreign Policy and National Defense > Foreign Policy & National Defense Issues Archive
BushCo invaded a Sovereign Nation without a shred of provable evidence that they were a threat to America. Iraq never fired a shot in anger at any American.
If that is not a war crime, I don't know what is.
If that is not a war crime, I don't know what is.
YES
QUOTE
Where is the legality, under U.S. law or international law, of using Iraq for such a purpose?
This is the most important question to be answered, no matter what 'intelligence data' was supposedly skewed, and no matter how much Cheny and Rumsfeld attempt to water down or shift the blame to others.
Attacking Iraq was against international law.
The Bush administration is attempting to disgrace and dismantle the United Nations and its authority so there is no world-wide body in place to bring charges against them. No matter what scandals or corruption is found and touted around the news media by John Bolton (who has a conflict of interest in this issue) the UN and the rest of the world should stand firm on this and establish and advertise just WHO broke the law. It may take a decade, but we all deserve to see Bush and his disciples be tried for their criminal acts.
QUOTE(jeffmoskin @ Nov 22 2005, 01:57 AM)
BushCo invaded a Sovereign Nation without a shred of provable evidence that they were a threat to America. Iraq never fired a shot in anger at any American.
If that is not a war crime, I don't know what is.
If that is not a war crime, I don't know what is.
is it a war crime? sure it is!
will those responsible ever have to pay for their crimes........
no.
nope
not a chance in hell.
odds are Rummy will go off and become a CEO of a fortune 500 company
so will Condi and old uncle dick.
King George will go back to texas where he will try to become a real life cowboy!
and on sundays he will have his own evangelical church.
at the end all will die in their sleep in their nice big bead in thier nice big homes sourrounded by their kidds who will carry on the evil gene and continue to destory other people around the world just like their dady did or like their momy did.
justice? there is no justice in this world.
the rich get rich the poor will die!
and if you don't like that Faux news will get midevil on your ass and call you a hippy terrorsit loving commy!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...1647716,00.html
Comment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Behind the phosphorus clouds are war crimes within war crimes
We now know the US also used thermobaric weapons in its assault on Falluja, where up to 50,000 civilians remained
George Monbiot
Tuesday November 22, 2005
The Guardian
The media couldn't have made a bigger pig's ear of the white phosphorus story. So, before moving on to the new revelations from Falluja, I would like to try to clear up the old ones. There is no hard evidence that white phosphorus was used against civilians. The claim was made in a documentary broadcast on the Italian network RAI, called Falluja: the Hidden Massacre. It claimed that the corpses in the pictures it ran "showed strange injuries, some burnt to the bone, others with skin hanging from their flesh ... The faces have literally melted away, just like other parts of the body. The clothes are strangely intact." These assertions were supported by a human-rights advocate who, it said, possessed "a biology degree".
I, too, possess a biology degree, and I am as well qualified to determine someone's cause of death as I am to perform open-heart surgery. So I asked Chris Milroy, professor of forensic pathology at the University of Sheffield, to watch the film. He reported that "nothing indicates to me that the bodies have been burnt". They had turned black and lost their skin "through decomposition". We don't yet know how these people died.
But there is hard evidence that white phosphorus was deployed as a weapon against combatants in Falluja. As this column revealed last Tuesday, US infantry officers confessed that they had used it to flush out insurgents. A Pentagon spokesman told the BBC that white phosphorus "was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants". He claimed "it is not a chemical weapon. They are not outlawed or illegal." This denial has been accepted by most of the mainstream media. UN conventions, the Times said, "ban its use on civilian but not military targets". But the word "civilian" does not occur in the chemical weapons convention. The use of the toxic properties of a chemical as a weapon is illegal, whoever the target is.
The Pentagon argues that white phosphorus burns people, rather than poisoning them, and is covered only by the protocol on incendiary weapons, which the US has not signed. But white phosphorus is both incendiary and toxic. The gas it produces attacks the mucous membranes, the eyes and the lungs. As Peter Kaiser of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons told the BBC last week: "If ... the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because ... any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."
The US army knows that its use as a weapon is illegal. In the Battle Book, published by the US Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, my correspondent David Traynier found the following sentence: "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."
Last night the blogger Gabriele Zamparini found a declassified document from the US department of defence, dated April 1991, and titled "Possible use of phosphorus chemical". "During the brutal crackdown that followed the Kurdish uprising," it alleges, "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorus (WP) chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil ... and Dohuk provinces, Iraq. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships ... These reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly ... hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas." The Pentagon is in no doubt, in other words, that white phosphorus is an illegal chemical weapon.
The insurgents, of course, would be just as dead today if they were killed by other means. So does it matter if chemical weapons were mixed with other munitions? It does. Anyone who has seen those photos of the lines of blind veterans at the remembrance services for the first world war will surely understand the point of international law, and the dangers of undermining it.
But we shouldn't forget that the use of chemical weapons was a war crime within a war crime within a war crime. Both the invasion of Iraq and the assault on Falluja were illegal acts of aggression. Before attacking the city, the marines stopped men "of fighting age" from leaving. Many women and children stayed: the Guardian's correspondent estimated that between 30,000 and 50,000 civilians were left. The marines treated Falluja as if its only inhabitants were fighters. They levelled thousands of buildings, illegally denied access to the Iraqi Red Crescent and, according to the UN's special rapporteur, used "hunger and deprivation of water as a weapon of war against the civilian population".
I have been reading accounts of the assault published in the Marine Corps Gazette. The soldiers appear to have believed everything the US government told them. One article claims that "the absence of civilians meant the marines could employ blast weapons prior to entering houses that had become pillboxes, not homes". Another said that "there were less than 500 civilians remaining in the city". It continued: "The heroics [of the marines] will be the subject of many articles and books ... The real key to this tactical victory rested in the spirit of the warriors who courageously fought the battle. They deserve all of the credit for liberating Falluja."
But buried in this hogwash is a grave revelation. An assault weapon the marines were using had been armed with warheads containing "about 35% thermobaric novel explosive (NE) and 65% standard high explosive". They deployed it "to cause the roof to collapse and crush the insurgents fortified inside interior rooms". It was used repeatedly: "The expenditure of explosives clearing houses was enormous."
The marines can scarcely deny that they know what these weapons do. An article published in the Gazette in 2000 details the effects of their use by the Russians in Grozny. Thermobaric, or "fuel-air" weapons, it says, form a cloud of volatile gases or finely powdered explosives. "This cloud is then ignited and the subsequent fireball sears the surrounding area while consuming the oxygen in this area. The lack of oxygen creates an enormous overpressure ... Personnel under the cloud are literally crushed to death. Outside the cloud area, the blast wave travels at some 3,000 metres per second ... As a result, a fuel-air explosive can have the effect of a tactical nuclear weapon without residual radiation ... Those personnel caught directly under the aerosol cloud will die from the flame or overpressure. For those on the periphery of the strike, the injuries can be severe. Burns, broken bones, contusions from flying debris and blindness may result. Further, the crushing injuries from the overpressure can create air embolism within blood vessels, concussions, multiple internal haemorrhages in the liver and spleen, collapsed lungs, rupture of the eardrums and displacement of the eyes from their sockets." It is hard to see how you could use these weapons in Falluja without killing civilians.
This looks to me like a convincing explanation of the damage done to Falluja, a city in which between 30,000 and 50,000 civilians might have been taking refuge. It could also explain the civilian casualties shown in the film. So the question has now widened: is there any crime the coalition forces have not committed in Iraq?
www.monbiot.com
Comment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Behind the phosphorus clouds are war crimes within war crimes
We now know the US also used thermobaric weapons in its assault on Falluja, where up to 50,000 civilians remained
George Monbiot
Tuesday November 22, 2005
The Guardian
The media couldn't have made a bigger pig's ear of the white phosphorus story. So, before moving on to the new revelations from Falluja, I would like to try to clear up the old ones. There is no hard evidence that white phosphorus was used against civilians. The claim was made in a documentary broadcast on the Italian network RAI, called Falluja: the Hidden Massacre. It claimed that the corpses in the pictures it ran "showed strange injuries, some burnt to the bone, others with skin hanging from their flesh ... The faces have literally melted away, just like other parts of the body. The clothes are strangely intact." These assertions were supported by a human-rights advocate who, it said, possessed "a biology degree".
I, too, possess a biology degree, and I am as well qualified to determine someone's cause of death as I am to perform open-heart surgery. So I asked Chris Milroy, professor of forensic pathology at the University of Sheffield, to watch the film. He reported that "nothing indicates to me that the bodies have been burnt". They had turned black and lost their skin "through decomposition". We don't yet know how these people died.
But there is hard evidence that white phosphorus was deployed as a weapon against combatants in Falluja. As this column revealed last Tuesday, US infantry officers confessed that they had used it to flush out insurgents. A Pentagon spokesman told the BBC that white phosphorus "was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants". He claimed "it is not a chemical weapon. They are not outlawed or illegal." This denial has been accepted by most of the mainstream media. UN conventions, the Times said, "ban its use on civilian but not military targets". But the word "civilian" does not occur in the chemical weapons convention. The use of the toxic properties of a chemical as a weapon is illegal, whoever the target is.
The Pentagon argues that white phosphorus burns people, rather than poisoning them, and is covered only by the protocol on incendiary weapons, which the US has not signed. But white phosphorus is both incendiary and toxic. The gas it produces attacks the mucous membranes, the eyes and the lungs. As Peter Kaiser of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons told the BBC last week: "If ... the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because ... any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."
The US army knows that its use as a weapon is illegal. In the Battle Book, published by the US Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, my correspondent David Traynier found the following sentence: "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."
Last night the blogger Gabriele Zamparini found a declassified document from the US department of defence, dated April 1991, and titled "Possible use of phosphorus chemical". "During the brutal crackdown that followed the Kurdish uprising," it alleges, "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorus (WP) chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil ... and Dohuk provinces, Iraq. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships ... These reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly ... hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas." The Pentagon is in no doubt, in other words, that white phosphorus is an illegal chemical weapon.
The insurgents, of course, would be just as dead today if they were killed by other means. So does it matter if chemical weapons were mixed with other munitions? It does. Anyone who has seen those photos of the lines of blind veterans at the remembrance services for the first world war will surely understand the point of international law, and the dangers of undermining it.
But we shouldn't forget that the use of chemical weapons was a war crime within a war crime within a war crime. Both the invasion of Iraq and the assault on Falluja were illegal acts of aggression. Before attacking the city, the marines stopped men "of fighting age" from leaving. Many women and children stayed: the Guardian's correspondent estimated that between 30,000 and 50,000 civilians were left. The marines treated Falluja as if its only inhabitants were fighters. They levelled thousands of buildings, illegally denied access to the Iraqi Red Crescent and, according to the UN's special rapporteur, used "hunger and deprivation of water as a weapon of war against the civilian population".
I have been reading accounts of the assault published in the Marine Corps Gazette. The soldiers appear to have believed everything the US government told them. One article claims that "the absence of civilians meant the marines could employ blast weapons prior to entering houses that had become pillboxes, not homes". Another said that "there were less than 500 civilians remaining in the city". It continued: "The heroics [of the marines] will be the subject of many articles and books ... The real key to this tactical victory rested in the spirit of the warriors who courageously fought the battle. They deserve all of the credit for liberating Falluja."
But buried in this hogwash is a grave revelation. An assault weapon the marines were using had been armed with warheads containing "about 35% thermobaric novel explosive (NE) and 65% standard high explosive". They deployed it "to cause the roof to collapse and crush the insurgents fortified inside interior rooms". It was used repeatedly: "The expenditure of explosives clearing houses was enormous."
The marines can scarcely deny that they know what these weapons do. An article published in the Gazette in 2000 details the effects of their use by the Russians in Grozny. Thermobaric, or "fuel-air" weapons, it says, form a cloud of volatile gases or finely powdered explosives. "This cloud is then ignited and the subsequent fireball sears the surrounding area while consuming the oxygen in this area. The lack of oxygen creates an enormous overpressure ... Personnel under the cloud are literally crushed to death. Outside the cloud area, the blast wave travels at some 3,000 metres per second ... As a result, a fuel-air explosive can have the effect of a tactical nuclear weapon without residual radiation ... Those personnel caught directly under the aerosol cloud will die from the flame or overpressure. For those on the periphery of the strike, the injuries can be severe. Burns, broken bones, contusions from flying debris and blindness may result. Further, the crushing injuries from the overpressure can create air embolism within blood vessels, concussions, multiple internal haemorrhages in the liver and spleen, collapsed lungs, rupture of the eardrums and displacement of the eyes from their sockets." It is hard to see how you could use these weapons in Falluja without killing civilians.
This looks to me like a convincing explanation of the damage done to Falluja, a city in which between 30,000 and 50,000 civilians might have been taking refuge. It could also explain the civilian casualties shown in the film. So the question has now widened: is there any crime the coalition forces have not committed in Iraq?
www.monbiot.com
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FA5...7162E6C6EC1.htm
Memo: Bush wanted Aljazeera bombed
Tuesday 22 November 2005, 20:01 Makka Time, 17:01 GMT
The memo has been described as 'hugely damaging to Bush'
US President George Bush planned to bomb Arab broadcaster Aljazeera, British newspaper the Daily Mirror has reported, citing a Downing Street memo marked top secret.
The five-page transcript of a conversation between Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveals that Blair talked Bush out of launching a military strike on the station, unnamed sources told the daily.
The transcript of the pair's talks during Blair's 16 April 2004 visit to Washington allegedly shows Bush wanted to attack the satellite channel's headquarters in Doha, Qatar.
Blair allegedly feared such a strike, in the capital of Qatar, a key Western ally in the Gulf, would spark revenge attacks.
A British civil servant has been charged under the Official Secrets Act for allegedly leaking the government memo.
Civil servant accused
Cabinet Office civil servant David Keogh is accused of passing the memo to Leo O'Connor, who formerly worked for former British lawmaker Tony Clarke.
Both Keogh and O'Connor are scheduled to appear at London's Bow Street Magistrates Court next week.
Blair is said to have talked Bush
out of any attack on Aljazeera
According to the Daily Mirror, Clarke returned the memo to Blair's office. Clarke could not immediately be contacted for comment on Tuesday.
The Mirror on Tuesday quoted an unnamed British government official as saying Bush's threat was "humorous, not serious".
Aljazeera's coverage of the war in Iraq had drawn criticism from Washington after the US-led March 2003 invasion.
A source told the Mirror: "The memo is explosive and hugely damaging to Bush.
"He made clear he wanted to bomb Aljazeera in Qatar and elsewhere. Blair replied that would cause a big problem.
"There's no doubt what Bush wanted to do - and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it."
Deadly serious
Another source said: "Bush was deadly serious, as was Blair. That much is absolutely clear from the language used by both men."
A spokesman for Blair's Downing Street office said: "We have got nothing to say about this story. We don't comment on leaked documents."
The US has criticised Aljazeera's
coverage of the Iraq war
Clarke, the former lawmaker, told Britain's domestic Press Association news agency that O'Connor had done "exactly the right thing" in bringing it to his attention.
The Mirror said such a strike would have been "the most spectacular foreign-policy disaster since the Iraq war itself".
The newspaper said that the memo "casts fresh doubt on claims that other attacks on Aljazeera were accidents". It cited the 2001 direct hit on the channel's Kabul office in Afghanistan.
In April 2003, an Aljazeera journalist died when its Baghdad office was struck during a US bombing campaign. Nabil Khoury, a US State Department spokesman in Doha, said the strike was a mistake.
In November 2002, Aljazeera's office in Kabul, Afghanistan, was destroyed by a US missile. None of the crew was at the office at the time. US officials said they believed the target was a terrorist site and did not know it was Aljazeera's office.
Downing Street challenged
Blair's former defence minister Peter Kilfoyle challenged Downing Street to publish the transcript.
"I believe that Downing Street ought to publish this memo in the interests of transparency, given that much of the detail appears to be in the public domain," Kilfoyle told the Press Association.
"... it raises questions about subsequent attacks that took place on the press that wasn't embedded with coalition forces"
Peter Kilfoyle,
Blair's former defence minister
"I think they ought to clarify what exactly happened on this occasion. If it was the case that President Bush wanted to bomb Aljazeera in what is after all a friendly country, it speaks volumes and it raises questions about subsequent attacks that took place on the press that wasn't embedded with coalition forces."
Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell told the Press Association: "If true, then this underlines the desperation of the Bush administration as events in Iraq began to spiral out of control.
"On this occasion, the prime minister may have been successful in averting political disaster, but it shows how dangerous his relationship with President Bush has been."
Abd al-Bari Atwan's reaction
Speaking to Aljazeera from London on Monday, Abd al-Bari Atwan, chief editor of the London-based Al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper, said: "The issue of Bush's plan to bomb Aljazeera's headquarters in Doha will be widely discussed in Washington and London.
"Reporters in the US and Britain are enraged by reported US plans to use force against media organs.
Aljazeera offices in Kabul and
Baghdad were hit by US missiles
"Arab and international media organs are now under a terrorist campaign launched by the US as it does not want the truth to be revealed.
"This [US] administration has been disgraced as it has used immoral and illegal ways to occupy and tear out a country, kill more than 100,000 and wound more than 400,000 of its people.
"The results of the war, being revealed now in Iraq, have forced reporters to ask why they have been misled.
"New York Times has apologised, saying it has misled public opinion when it did not accurately investigate the objectives of the US administration.
"I believe that considering use force against a media station is the worst kind of media terrorism practised by a country which pretends to lead the free world, democratic values and media freedom."
Aljazeera + Agencies
Memo: Bush wanted Aljazeera bombed
Tuesday 22 November 2005, 20:01 Makka Time, 17:01 GMT
The memo has been described as 'hugely damaging to Bush'
US President George Bush planned to bomb Arab broadcaster Aljazeera, British newspaper the Daily Mirror has reported, citing a Downing Street memo marked top secret.
The five-page transcript of a conversation between Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveals that Blair talked Bush out of launching a military strike on the station, unnamed sources told the daily.
The transcript of the pair's talks during Blair's 16 April 2004 visit to Washington allegedly shows Bush wanted to attack the satellite channel's headquarters in Doha, Qatar.
Blair allegedly feared such a strike, in the capital of Qatar, a key Western ally in the Gulf, would spark revenge attacks.
A British civil servant has been charged under the Official Secrets Act for allegedly leaking the government memo.
Civil servant accused
Cabinet Office civil servant David Keogh is accused of passing the memo to Leo O'Connor, who formerly worked for former British lawmaker Tony Clarke.
Both Keogh and O'Connor are scheduled to appear at London's Bow Street Magistrates Court next week.
Blair is said to have talked Bush
out of any attack on Aljazeera
According to the Daily Mirror, Clarke returned the memo to Blair's office. Clarke could not immediately be contacted for comment on Tuesday.
The Mirror on Tuesday quoted an unnamed British government official as saying Bush's threat was "humorous, not serious".
Aljazeera's coverage of the war in Iraq had drawn criticism from Washington after the US-led March 2003 invasion.
A source told the Mirror: "The memo is explosive and hugely damaging to Bush.
"He made clear he wanted to bomb Aljazeera in Qatar and elsewhere. Blair replied that would cause a big problem.
"There's no doubt what Bush wanted to do - and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it."
Deadly serious
Another source said: "Bush was deadly serious, as was Blair. That much is absolutely clear from the language used by both men."
A spokesman for Blair's Downing Street office said: "We have got nothing to say about this story. We don't comment on leaked documents."
The US has criticised Aljazeera's
coverage of the Iraq war
Clarke, the former lawmaker, told Britain's domestic Press Association news agency that O'Connor had done "exactly the right thing" in bringing it to his attention.
The Mirror said such a strike would have been "the most spectacular foreign-policy disaster since the Iraq war itself".
The newspaper said that the memo "casts fresh doubt on claims that other attacks on Aljazeera were accidents". It cited the 2001 direct hit on the channel's Kabul office in Afghanistan.
In April 2003, an Aljazeera journalist died when its Baghdad office was struck during a US bombing campaign. Nabil Khoury, a US State Department spokesman in Doha, said the strike was a mistake.
In November 2002, Aljazeera's office in Kabul, Afghanistan, was destroyed by a US missile. None of the crew was at the office at the time. US officials said they believed the target was a terrorist site and did not know it was Aljazeera's office.
Downing Street challenged
Blair's former defence minister Peter Kilfoyle challenged Downing Street to publish the transcript.
"I believe that Downing Street ought to publish this memo in the interests of transparency, given that much of the detail appears to be in the public domain," Kilfoyle told the Press Association.
"... it raises questions about subsequent attacks that took place on the press that wasn't embedded with coalition forces"
Peter Kilfoyle,
Blair's former defence minister
"I think they ought to clarify what exactly happened on this occasion. If it was the case that President Bush wanted to bomb Aljazeera in what is after all a friendly country, it speaks volumes and it raises questions about subsequent attacks that took place on the press that wasn't embedded with coalition forces."
Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell told the Press Association: "If true, then this underlines the desperation of the Bush administration as events in Iraq began to spiral out of control.
"On this occasion, the prime minister may have been successful in averting political disaster, but it shows how dangerous his relationship with President Bush has been."
Abd al-Bari Atwan's reaction
Speaking to Aljazeera from London on Monday, Abd al-Bari Atwan, chief editor of the London-based Al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper, said: "The issue of Bush's plan to bomb Aljazeera's headquarters in Doha will be widely discussed in Washington and London.
"Reporters in the US and Britain are enraged by reported US plans to use force against media organs.
Aljazeera offices in Kabul and
Baghdad were hit by US missiles
"Arab and international media organs are now under a terrorist campaign launched by the US as it does not want the truth to be revealed.
"This [US] administration has been disgraced as it has used immoral and illegal ways to occupy and tear out a country, kill more than 100,000 and wound more than 400,000 of its people.
"The results of the war, being revealed now in Iraq, have forced reporters to ask why they have been misled.
"New York Times has apologised, saying it has misled public opinion when it did not accurately investigate the objectives of the US administration.
"I believe that considering use force against a media station is the worst kind of media terrorism practised by a country which pretends to lead the free world, democratic values and media freedom."
Aljazeera + Agencies
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle....ND-ROBINSON.xml
Iraq war weakens US human rights clout: Robinson
Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:52 PM ET
By Paul Hoskins
DUBLIN (Reuters) - The Iraq war has weakened the moral authority of the United States and its allies to tackle the likes of China and Russia over their poor records on civil liberties, human rights campaigner Mary Robinson said on Monday.
Robinson, named by Time Magazine this year as one of the world's 100 most influential people, told Reuters that disregard for human rights by western democracies made it more difficult to promote them in countries where people enjoy less freedom.
"It's much harder now for President Bush in China to talk to China about human rights," the former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said in an interview. "Where's his credibility?"
U.S. President George W. Bush ended a visit to China on Monday. He pressed President Hu Jintao on trade and currency reforms and called for greater social and religious freedom but there were few signs China had offered any major concessions.
Robinson, a former Irish president, said new laws in the United States, Britain and Australia designed to reduce the risk of militant attacks had also curbed civil liberties.
"It has been a terrible tragedy of responding to acts of terrorism, that governments have forgotten what it is that they are really defending," she said.
Robinson cited Russia as another example where the weakening moral clout of these countries was having a knock-on effect.
"The checks and balances will kick in, more or less, in our democracies but the damage that's done is to other countries ... I think particularly of (Russia's) President Putin: he's no longer under any kind of scrutiny in relation to Chechnya."
Rights groups say government troops are behind numerous civilian killings, abductions and rapes in Chechnya where separatist rebels have been fighting federal forces for more than a decade.
WORSENING SITUATION
Robinson, now a Professor at Columbia University in New York, said the United States and its allies had lost influence over doubts about the Iraq war and issues like the holding of prisoners without trial at Guantanamo Bay.
The United States is holding more than 500 people at its Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba. Human rights activists have criticized jail conditions and the indefinite detention of suspects.
"The situation is simply getting worse. There's the ambivalence about torture and now we find that the Iraqis are torturing those that they have detained so some of the reason to justify this unjustifiable war on Iraq is also fading."
The Iraqi government has promised to investigate the discovery in a ministry bunker last week of 173 malnourished and in some cases badly beaten men and teenagers.
Robinson, a member of the International Commission of Jurists investigating how civil and political rights have been eroded since the September 11, 2001 attacks, said she noted growing public discontent over the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
"What I find living now in the United States is an encouraging, wide sense of some of the checks and balances kicking in ... In Congress you have, at last, a sense, of 'we were misled, we should have been more attentive.'"
Democratic Representative John Murtha said on Sunday that he expected more people to come round to his views that U.S. troops should be withdrawn from 2006 and that the military occupation was making the situation in Iraq worse.
Robinson, in Dublin to launch a campaign against violence to women, said she hoped that what followed would be analysis of how Congress acquiesced so easily to a war where "the poor, beleaguered people of Iraq are not better off."
"It was not a legitimate war and I am glad that more and more people, including President Carter, are coming out to say so."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Reuters 2005. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
Iraq war weakens US human rights clout: Robinson
Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:52 PM ET
By Paul Hoskins
DUBLIN (Reuters) - The Iraq war has weakened the moral authority of the United States and its allies to tackle the likes of China and Russia over their poor records on civil liberties, human rights campaigner Mary Robinson said on Monday.
Robinson, named by Time Magazine this year as one of the world's 100 most influential people, told Reuters that disregard for human rights by western democracies made it more difficult to promote them in countries where people enjoy less freedom.
"It's much harder now for President Bush in China to talk to China about human rights," the former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said in an interview. "Where's his credibility?"
U.S. President George W. Bush ended a visit to China on Monday. He pressed President Hu Jintao on trade and currency reforms and called for greater social and religious freedom but there were few signs China had offered any major concessions.
Robinson, a former Irish president, said new laws in the United States, Britain and Australia designed to reduce the risk of militant attacks had also curbed civil liberties.
"It has been a terrible tragedy of responding to acts of terrorism, that governments have forgotten what it is that they are really defending," she said.
Robinson cited Russia as another example where the weakening moral clout of these countries was having a knock-on effect.
"The checks and balances will kick in, more or less, in our democracies but the damage that's done is to other countries ... I think particularly of (Russia's) President Putin: he's no longer under any kind of scrutiny in relation to Chechnya."
Rights groups say government troops are behind numerous civilian killings, abductions and rapes in Chechnya where separatist rebels have been fighting federal forces for more than a decade.
WORSENING SITUATION
Robinson, now a Professor at Columbia University in New York, said the United States and its allies had lost influence over doubts about the Iraq war and issues like the holding of prisoners without trial at Guantanamo Bay.
The United States is holding more than 500 people at its Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba. Human rights activists have criticized jail conditions and the indefinite detention of suspects.
"The situation is simply getting worse. There's the ambivalence about torture and now we find that the Iraqis are torturing those that they have detained so some of the reason to justify this unjustifiable war on Iraq is also fading."
The Iraqi government has promised to investigate the discovery in a ministry bunker last week of 173 malnourished and in some cases badly beaten men and teenagers.
Robinson, a member of the International Commission of Jurists investigating how civil and political rights have been eroded since the September 11, 2001 attacks, said she noted growing public discontent over the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
"What I find living now in the United States is an encouraging, wide sense of some of the checks and balances kicking in ... In Congress you have, at last, a sense, of 'we were misled, we should have been more attentive.'"
Democratic Representative John Murtha said on Sunday that he expected more people to come round to his views that U.S. troops should be withdrawn from 2006 and that the military occupation was making the situation in Iraq worse.
Robinson, in Dublin to launch a campaign against violence to women, said she hoped that what followed would be analysis of how Congress acquiesced so easily to a war where "the poor, beleaguered people of Iraq are not better off."
"It was not a legitimate war and I am glad that more and more people, including President Carter, are coming out to say so."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Reuters 2005. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
No, in fact the question itself displays ignorance of the legalities. A state of war already existed (since 1991) with Iraq as the aggressor nation, this was a repeal of a ceasefire , not a new war. The war crime (waging of aggressive war) in no way covers actions between two countries already at war.
Now if one was to ask if war crimes have been committed the answer is yes.
If the question was should any administration officials who caused torture to be employed be tried for war crimes the answer is yes, and we're in breach of our treaty obligations by dropping the ball in that investigation.
If the question is should Bush and Rumsfeld should be tried for the war crime of refusing to assure the security of the Iraqi people during occupation the answer is a resounding yes, they are unindicted war criminals according to sworn testimony in this regard.
But the question of whether the invasion was a war crime is so off the wall that it makes our side look bad to even consider it.
Now if one was to ask if war crimes have been committed the answer is yes.
If the question was should any administration officials who caused torture to be employed be tried for war crimes the answer is yes, and we're in breach of our treaty obligations by dropping the ball in that investigation.
If the question is should Bush and Rumsfeld should be tried for the war crime of refusing to assure the security of the Iraqi people during occupation the answer is a resounding yes, they are unindicted war criminals according to sworn testimony in this regard.
But the question of whether the invasion was a war crime is so off the wall that it makes our side look bad to even consider it.
One has to be unethical and immoral not to think that Bus's War on Terrorism in Iraq is a War Crime. Under his watch, Iraqi treasures get looted; building structures get bombed out to allow Hallibuton to profit from restructing, thousands of innocent Iraqis are killed or maimed, food, clean water and electricity are located to only certain groups of Iraqis, our soldiers killed under the pretext of the Bush greed and profits, and Iraq becoming a haven for breeding terrorists.
QUOTE(jeffmoskin @ Nov 22 2005, 02:57 AM)
BushCo invaded a Sovereign Nation without a shred of provable evidence that they were a threat to America. Iraq never fired a shot in anger at any American.
If that is not a war crime, I don't know what is.
If that is not a war crime, I don't know what is.
Didn't the UN Resolutions say that Saddam was to be disarmed of WMD by any means necessary?
So maybe technically,our military going in to "disarm" Iarq was marginally within the law?But to forceably oust Saddam, it seems that that would definitiey be against international law.
QUOTE(tomhye @ Nov 22 2005, 12:37 PM)
No, in fact the question itself displays ignorance of the legalities. A state of war already existed (since 1991) with Iraq as the aggressor nation, this was a repeal of a ceasefire , not a new war. The war crime (waging of aggressive war) in no way covers actions between two countries already at war.
Now if one was to ask if war crimes have been committed the answer is yes.
If the question was should any administration officials who caused torture to be employed be tried for war crimes the answer is yes, and we're in breach of our treaty obligations by dropping the ball in that investigation.
If the question is should Bush and Rumsfeld should be tried for the war crime of refusing to assure the security of the Iraqi people during occupation the answer is a resounding yes, they are unindicted war criminals according to sworn testimony in this regard.
But the question of whether the invasion was a war crime is so off the wall that it makes our side look bad to even consider it.
Now if one was to ask if war crimes have been committed the answer is yes.
If the question was should any administration officials who caused torture to be employed be tried for war crimes the answer is yes, and we're in breach of our treaty obligations by dropping the ball in that investigation.
If the question is should Bush and Rumsfeld should be tried for the war crime of refusing to assure the security of the Iraqi people during occupation the answer is a resounding yes, they are unindicted war criminals according to sworn testimony in this regard.
But the question of whether the invasion was a war crime is so off the wall that it makes our side look bad to even consider it.
Okay, then technically since we were in a state of cease fire,the U.S. had the right to forceably oust Saddam? Is this why we heard only a very few politicians speaking up against this war and saddam's removal, before the invasion?
QUOTE(amy @ Nov 22 2005, 01:32 PM)
Didn't the UN Resolutions say that Saddam was to be disarmed of WMD by any means necessary?
Would love a link to such a UN Resolutions...
QUOTE(amy @ Nov 22 2005, 01:36 PM)
Okay, then technically since we were in a state of cease fire,the U.S. had the right to forceably oust Saddam? Is this why we heard only a very few politicians speaking up against this war and saddam's removal, before the invasion?
Even if the war was "legally" initiated that doesn't mean that it was a good idea. I really don't think that a politician would be so stupid as to try to justify the war on the basis of it being legal. And I would suggest that there is a better case to be made against the war than initiating it was a war crime. (But as Tomyhe said that doesn't mean that no war crimes have been involved and that they shouldn't be issues.)
Might makes right. It always has been that way, and will be until Mankind grows up.
P.S. Don't hold your breath.
P.S. Don't hold your breath.
QUOTE(Salute_Liberty @ Nov 22 2005, 01:37 PM)
Would love a link to such a UN Resolutions...
I'll search for the resolutions and see if that language is included...I'm not sure...
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Nov 22 2005, 01:41 PM)
Even if the war was "legally" initiated that doesn't mean that it was a good idea. I really don't think that a politician would be so stupid as to try to justify the war on the basis of it being legal. And I would suggest that there is a better case to be made against the war than initiating it was a war crime. (But as Tomyhe said that doesn't mean that no war crimes have been involved and that they shouldn't be issues.)
Leagl doesn't mean it was a prudent decision, but it lends legal weight to those who wanted to invade...
It will also summon up the long speech of lies Colin Powell made to UN to blind those present at the General Assembly to take Iraq to war under false pretences! Actually the start of the tricks of the trade of the Bush Terror Regime shuffled out publicly! 
http://massdiscussion.blogspot.com/2003/09...ar-saddams.html
There were three very compelling and justifiable reasons for the Bush administration to gather a coalition and remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.
On February 5, 2003, United States Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations in which he citied that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein was in violation of seventeen UN resolutions calling for the disarmament of that nation as a justification for action against Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
Outlined below are the seventeen resolutions with commentary on the breaches.
1441 Passed on November 8, 2002, UNSCR 1441 found that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its disarmament obligations. The resolution gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply with those obligations. The resolution demanded that Iraq submit a currently accurate, full and complete declaration of its weapons of mass destruction and related programs within 30 days. Further demanded that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with the UN inspections. The resolution decided that false statements or omissions in Iraq's declarations and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of this resolution would constitute further material breach. Finally, the resolution recalled that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations.
The important thing to take from this resolution is that it is the seventeenth of its kind regarding Iraq's flagrant and obvious desire to not comply with the United Nations or with its obligations to disarm after the first Gulf War. It is important to note that Iraq was expected to accurately declare its programs and weapons within 30 days of November 8, 2002. Hans Blix, the UN head of UNMOVIC (the organization of inspectors sent by the UN to verify Iraq's cooperation in disarmament), noted several issues with their declaration in his briefing to the Security Council. Specifically, he addressed inconsistencies in the biological, chemical and missile portions of the document.
1284 Passed on December 17, 1999, UNSCR 1284 created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace the previous weapons inspection team known as UNSCOM. The resolution insisted that Iraq allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities. The resolution insisted that Iraq fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners. And called on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.
The same briefing Blix delivered to the Security council in the commentary for 1441 included at least one anecdote regarding problems getting access to facilities during this time period (Blix and his team visited a site on a Friday, the Muslim day of rest, and a number of offices were locked with no key available. The team agreed to seal the rooms until the next day, but stated that the team had the right to inspect facilities whenever they wanted to do so.)
1205 Passed on November 5, 1998, UNSCR 1205 condemned the decision by Iraq to cease cooperation with UN inspectors as a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions. 1205 insisted that Iraq provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.
The inspection team returned to Baghdad on November 17, 1998 after a couple weeks of diplomacy with the government of Iraq. Immediate is defined as "occurring at once" or "near the present time." One could make an argument that Iraq's compliance within twelve days would constitute as "near the present time", that wasn't what the Security Council had in mind despite resolution of the problem by the Secretary General in a remarkable feat of diplomacy. (This last sentence is the author's point of view and not necessarily the point of view of the UN officials.)
1194 Passed on September 9, 1998, UNSCR 1194 condemned the decision by Iraq to cease cooperation with UN and IAEA inspectors, which constituted "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154. The resolution further demanded that Iraq cooperate fully with the UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access.
This is another instance of Iraq's "delaying of the game" tactics. Again, Iraq failed to meet their obligations under this resolution when on October 21, 1998, Iraq announced that it was ceasing all cooperation with UNSCOM. President Clinton reported to Congress that: on October 31, he signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which provided new discretionary authorities to assist the opposition in their struggle against the regime. Furthermore, he reported that in response to a United States proposal, the United Nations Security Council agreed to on October 13 to seek clarification from Iraq of statements made by Iraqi officials on October 7 concerning the existence of additional information on biological weapons still in Iraq’s hands, and about Iraq's refusal to turn over the Iraqi Air Force document on chemical weapons expended in the Iran-Iraq War. (Author's Note: the Air Force document was later turned over to UNSCOM and was addressed in the report noted in the Resolution 1205 paragraph.)
1154 Passed on March 2, 1998, UNSCR 1154 insisted that Iraq cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."
This did not happen as outlined above. (Author's Note: I'm not sure what happened to the severest consequences for Iraq, but whatever they were they obviously were insufficient to get the job done of convincing Saddam to comply.)
1137 Passed on November 12, 1997, UNSCR 1137 condemned the continued violations by Iraq of previous resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN monitoring equipment. The resolution reaffirmed Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of the UN inspectors and insisted that Iraq must cooperate fully with the UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access.
In a report to the Security Council in January 1998, Richard Butler indicated that there were problems with inspections in January 1998.
1134 Passed on October 23, 1997, UNSCR 1134 condemned repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access to UN inspectors, which constituted a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060. The resolution further insisted that Iraq cooperate fully with the UN inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access and that Iraq must give immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors wanted to interview.
1115 Passed on June 21, 1997, UNSCR 1115 condemned repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access to UN inspectors, which constituted a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060. The resolution further insisted that Iraq cooperate fully with the UN inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access and that Iraq must give immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors wanted to interview.
The United Nations was so impressed by the Iraqi cooperation that the Security Council essentially re-wrote resolution 1115 when they penned resolution 1134.
1060 Passed on June 12, 1996, UNSCR 1060 deplored Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions. Further, the resolution indicated that Iraq must cooperate fully with the UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
1051 Passed on March 27, 1996, UNSCR 1051 ordered Iraq to report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA. Again, the resolution called on Iraq to cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access.
949 Passed on October 15, 1994, UNSCR 949 condemned Iraq's military deployments toward Kuwait. The resolution ordered Iraq to not utilize military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq, nor enhance its military capability in southern Iraq and again demanded that Iraq cooperate fully with the UN inspectors.
715 Passed on October 11, 1991, UNSCR 715 insisted that Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.
707 Passed on August 17, 1991, UNSCR 707 condemned Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687 and further condemned Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The resolution insisted that Iraq halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deemed Iraq in full compliance. Again, insisted that Iraq allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access while demanding that Iraq make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs. Furthermore, the resolution demanded that Iraq cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities. Lastly the resolution outlined that Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct flights throughout Iraq and that Iraq must provide transportation, medical, and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.
688 Passed on April 5, 1991, UNSCR 688 condemned the repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security." The resolution demanded that Iraq immediately end repression of its civilian population and that Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.
687 Passed on April 3, 1991, UNSCR 687 demanded that Iraq "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities." Furthermore, Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable-material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities." Also, Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150km and related major parts and repair and production facilities." In general, Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction and again reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This resolution created the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program. The resolution demanded that Iraq declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs. Furthermore, Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
686 Passed on March 2, 1991, UNSCR 686 reminded Iraq of its obligation to restore international peace and security in the region.
678 Passed on November 29,1990, UNSCR 678 demanded that Iraq comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions." The resolution also authorized UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."
Conclusion - It was the responsibility of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government to prove that they did not have weapons of mass destruction beyond a reasonable doubt. It was never the inspectors mandate to prove that they did indeed have weapons of mass destruction. A common theme throughout the resolutions was Iraq's failure to submit a full, final and complete accounting of their weapons of mass destruction and related programs and facilities. Another theme was Iraq's failure to allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to facilities and personnel with relevant knowledge about the weapons of mass destruction.
In addition to the seventeen resolutions specifically aimed at Iraq for their obligations in resolving the first Gulf War, there are an additional eight UN Security Council Resolutions that would apply to Iraq's behavior as it pertains to terrorism, international peace, and security.
UNSCR 1189, calls upon all Member States to adopt "effective and practical measures for security cooperation, for the prevention of such acts of terrorism, and for the prosecution and punishment of their perpetrators."
UNSCR 1368 calls on all Member States to "work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harboring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts (9/11) will be held accountable."
UNSCR 1373 calls on all Member States to "work together to urgently prevent and suppress terrorist acts, including through increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international conventions relating to terrorism." Furthermore, the Security Council decides that all States shall prevent the financing of terrorist acts and refrain from "providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorist." Amongst the other directives to Member States in this resolution is the order to "prevent the movement of terrorists or terrorist groups by effective border controls and controls on issuance of identity papers and travel documents, and through measures for preventing counterfeiting, forgery or fraudulent use of identity papers and travel documents." Also, Member States are called upon to "cooperate, particularly through bilateral and multilateral arrangements and agreements, to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks and take action against perpetrators of such acts."
UNSCR 1377 calls on all States to "take urgent steps to implement fully Resolution 1373, and to assist each other in doing so, and underlines the obligation on States to deny financial and all other forms of support and safe haven to terrorists and those supporting terrorism."
UNSCR 1438 reaffirmed Resolution 1373 and reaffirmed the "need to combat by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts." (Author's note: this resolution was passed regarding the bombing in Bali, Indonesia on October 12, 2002.)
UNSCR 1440 reaffirmed Resolution 1373 and reaffirmed the "need to combat by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts." (Author's note: this resolution was passed regarding the taking of hostages in Moscow on October 23, 2003.)
UNSCR 1450 urged all States, in accordance with their obligations under Resolution 1373, to cooperate in efforts to find and bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of terrorist acts. (Author's note: this resolution was passed regarding the bombing in Kikambala, Kenya and the attempted missile attack on an Israeli airliner departing from Mombasa, Kenya.)
UNSCR 1452 reaffirmed Resolution 1373 and reiterated its support for international efforts to root out terrorism.
Conclusion - Iraq was under obligation to take action against terrorism and terrorists as a member State of the United Nations. It is clear that Saddam Hussein forged a relationship with al Qaeda ally, Ansar al-Islam which was based in northern Iraq.
In May of 2003, Stephen F. Hayes from The Weekly Standard, reports that Uday Hussein, who ran Iraqs state newspaper Babil published information that appears to confirm the allegation that there was a connection between the Iraqi government and the al Qaeda. The article in Babil acknowledged Abd-al-Karim Muhammad Aswad as an intelligence officer for Osama bin Laden's network. The article, dated November 16, 2002 also indicated that this same man was the regime's representative in Pakistan. The Hayes article is rather convincing in its scope and detail that there was indeed a connection between the two biggest foes of the United States.
Lastly, it is no secret that Saddam Hussein was brutal and cruel in to his own people. Mass graves have been uncovered throughout the course of the war. It is a matter of no contention that the Hussein regime used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. The humanitarian situation during and after the first Gulf War further illustrates the regime's disdain for the Iraqi people.
There were three reasons the action undertaken by the United States under the Bush administration was justified: failure by the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein to fully disarm violating a significant number of United Nations Security Council Resolutions; the connection to, the aiding of, and the harboring of terrorists and terrorist organizations, again in violation of a number of United Nations Security Council Resolutions; and the deplorable humanitarian situation that the regime created against his own people.
The United Nations had the right to sanction action against Iraq, but did not do so, leaving the United States the responsibility to round up a coalition without support from the United Nations. The United Nations should have sanctioned the action based on Article One of the United Nations Charter:
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
The UN failed to maintain the international peace and security when it failed to enforce the consequences of any of the 17 resolutions against Iraq's former regime; the UN failed to take collective measures for the prevention and removal of the threats to the peace as presented by Iraq's former regime; nor did the UN suppress the acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace by the former Iraq regime, or brought about by peaceful means, and in the conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to the breach of the peace by the former Iraq regime.
17 resolutions. All promising the resumption of hostilities if Iraq's former regime failed to comply. Saddam Hussein did not comply. He mocked the UN and its inspectors. He mocked the world. And he mocked his agreements to disarm.
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
The UN failed to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self determination of peoples when they failed to take action against the former Iraq regime in light of the genocide that took place there. And the UN failed to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace, again because the UN failed to back any of the 17 resolutions that the UN passed regarding the former Iraq regime.
Saddam Hussein killed thousands of his own people while the UN looked on and did nothing. He made a mockery of equal rights and the self determination of his people. And he certainly made a mockery of "universal peace."
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
The UN failed to achieve international cooperation in solving the international problems of enforcing their 17 resolutions calling for the disarming of Iraq's former regime. The UN failed to promote or encourage respect for human rights or the fundamental freedom of Iraq's people when they sat by watching the genocide.
4. To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
The UN failed to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of the above common ends when the UN failed to take action in support of the 17 resolutions passed by the UN to disarm the former regime of Iraq.
Iraq left the United States and its allies no option but to go to the United Nations. The United States and our allies repeatedly went to the United Nations in an effort to persuade the United Nations to take action, but in the end the United Nations could not agree on a mandate. The coalition was compelled to take action without an agreement when the United Nations failed to execute their Charter. Thus the US-led coalition went to Iraq with the intent of liberating the people of Iraq from a vile regime that committed atrocities and securing the region from a ruthless dictator who supported terrorism.
http://massdiscussion.blogspot.com/2003/09...ar-saddams.html
There were three very compelling and justifiable reasons for the Bush administration to gather a coalition and remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.
On February 5, 2003, United States Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations in which he citied that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein was in violation of seventeen UN resolutions calling for the disarmament of that nation as a justification for action against Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
Outlined below are the seventeen resolutions with commentary on the breaches.
1441 Passed on November 8, 2002, UNSCR 1441 found that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its disarmament obligations. The resolution gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply with those obligations. The resolution demanded that Iraq submit a currently accurate, full and complete declaration of its weapons of mass destruction and related programs within 30 days. Further demanded that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with the UN inspections. The resolution decided that false statements or omissions in Iraq's declarations and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of this resolution would constitute further material breach. Finally, the resolution recalled that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations.
The important thing to take from this resolution is that it is the seventeenth of its kind regarding Iraq's flagrant and obvious desire to not comply with the United Nations or with its obligations to disarm after the first Gulf War. It is important to note that Iraq was expected to accurately declare its programs and weapons within 30 days of November 8, 2002. Hans Blix, the UN head of UNMOVIC (the organization of inspectors sent by the UN to verify Iraq's cooperation in disarmament), noted several issues with their declaration in his briefing to the Security Council. Specifically, he addressed inconsistencies in the biological, chemical and missile portions of the document.
1284 Passed on December 17, 1999, UNSCR 1284 created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace the previous weapons inspection team known as UNSCOM. The resolution insisted that Iraq allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities. The resolution insisted that Iraq fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners. And called on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.
The same briefing Blix delivered to the Security council in the commentary for 1441 included at least one anecdote regarding problems getting access to facilities during this time period (Blix and his team visited a site on a Friday, the Muslim day of rest, and a number of offices were locked with no key available. The team agreed to seal the rooms until the next day, but stated that the team had the right to inspect facilities whenever they wanted to do so.)
1205 Passed on November 5, 1998, UNSCR 1205 condemned the decision by Iraq to cease cooperation with UN inspectors as a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions. 1205 insisted that Iraq provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.
The inspection team returned to Baghdad on November 17, 1998 after a couple weeks of diplomacy with the government of Iraq. Immediate is defined as "occurring at once" or "near the present time." One could make an argument that Iraq's compliance within twelve days would constitute as "near the present time", that wasn't what the Security Council had in mind despite resolution of the problem by the Secretary General in a remarkable feat of diplomacy. (This last sentence is the author's point of view and not necessarily the point of view of the UN officials.)
1194 Passed on September 9, 1998, UNSCR 1194 condemned the decision by Iraq to cease cooperation with UN and IAEA inspectors, which constituted "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154. The resolution further demanded that Iraq cooperate fully with the UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access.
This is another instance of Iraq's "delaying of the game" tactics. Again, Iraq failed to meet their obligations under this resolution when on October 21, 1998, Iraq announced that it was ceasing all cooperation with UNSCOM. President Clinton reported to Congress that: on October 31, he signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which provided new discretionary authorities to assist the opposition in their struggle against the regime. Furthermore, he reported that in response to a United States proposal, the United Nations Security Council agreed to on October 13 to seek clarification from Iraq of statements made by Iraqi officials on October 7 concerning the existence of additional information on biological weapons still in Iraq’s hands, and about Iraq's refusal to turn over the Iraqi Air Force document on chemical weapons expended in the Iran-Iraq War. (Author's Note: the Air Force document was later turned over to UNSCOM and was addressed in the report noted in the Resolution 1205 paragraph.)
1154 Passed on March 2, 1998, UNSCR 1154 insisted that Iraq cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."
This did not happen as outlined above. (Author's Note: I'm not sure what happened to the severest consequences for Iraq, but whatever they were they obviously were insufficient to get the job done of convincing Saddam to comply.)
1137 Passed on November 12, 1997, UNSCR 1137 condemned the continued violations by Iraq of previous resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN monitoring equipment. The resolution reaffirmed Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of the UN inspectors and insisted that Iraq must cooperate fully with the UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access.
In a report to the Security Council in January 1998, Richard Butler indicated that there were problems with inspections in January 1998.
1134 Passed on October 23, 1997, UNSCR 1134 condemned repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access to UN inspectors, which constituted a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060. The resolution further insisted that Iraq cooperate fully with the UN inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access and that Iraq must give immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors wanted to interview.
1115 Passed on June 21, 1997, UNSCR 1115 condemned repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access to UN inspectors, which constituted a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060. The resolution further insisted that Iraq cooperate fully with the UN inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access and that Iraq must give immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors wanted to interview.
The United Nations was so impressed by the Iraqi cooperation that the Security Council essentially re-wrote resolution 1115 when they penned resolution 1134.
1060 Passed on June 12, 1996, UNSCR 1060 deplored Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions. Further, the resolution indicated that Iraq must cooperate fully with the UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
1051 Passed on March 27, 1996, UNSCR 1051 ordered Iraq to report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA. Again, the resolution called on Iraq to cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access.
949 Passed on October 15, 1994, UNSCR 949 condemned Iraq's military deployments toward Kuwait. The resolution ordered Iraq to not utilize military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq, nor enhance its military capability in southern Iraq and again demanded that Iraq cooperate fully with the UN inspectors.
715 Passed on October 11, 1991, UNSCR 715 insisted that Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.
707 Passed on August 17, 1991, UNSCR 707 condemned Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687 and further condemned Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The resolution insisted that Iraq halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deemed Iraq in full compliance. Again, insisted that Iraq allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access while demanding that Iraq make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs. Furthermore, the resolution demanded that Iraq cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities. Lastly the resolution outlined that Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct flights throughout Iraq and that Iraq must provide transportation, medical, and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.
688 Passed on April 5, 1991, UNSCR 688 condemned the repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security." The resolution demanded that Iraq immediately end repression of its civilian population and that Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.
687 Passed on April 3, 1991, UNSCR 687 demanded that Iraq "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities." Furthermore, Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable-material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities." Also, Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150km and related major parts and repair and production facilities." In general, Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction and again reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This resolution created the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program. The resolution demanded that Iraq declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs. Furthermore, Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
686 Passed on March 2, 1991, UNSCR 686 reminded Iraq of its obligation to restore international peace and security in the region.
678 Passed on November 29,1990, UNSCR 678 demanded that Iraq comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions." The resolution also authorized UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."
Conclusion - It was the responsibility of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government to prove that they did not have weapons of mass destruction beyond a reasonable doubt. It was never the inspectors mandate to prove that they did indeed have weapons of mass destruction. A common theme throughout the resolutions was Iraq's failure to submit a full, final and complete accounting of their weapons of mass destruction and related programs and facilities. Another theme was Iraq's failure to allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to facilities and personnel with relevant knowledge about the weapons of mass destruction.
In addition to the seventeen resolutions specifically aimed at Iraq for their obligations in resolving the first Gulf War, there are an additional eight UN Security Council Resolutions that would apply to Iraq's behavior as it pertains to terrorism, international peace, and security.
UNSCR 1189, calls upon all Member States to adopt "effective and practical measures for security cooperation, for the prevention of such acts of terrorism, and for the prosecution and punishment of their perpetrators."
UNSCR 1368 calls on all Member States to "work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harboring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts (9/11) will be held accountable."
UNSCR 1373 calls on all Member States to "work together to urgently prevent and suppress terrorist acts, including through increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international conventions relating to terrorism." Furthermore, the Security Council decides that all States shall prevent the financing of terrorist acts and refrain from "providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorist." Amongst the other directives to Member States in this resolution is the order to "prevent the movement of terrorists or terrorist groups by effective border controls and controls on issuance of identity papers and travel documents, and through measures for preventing counterfeiting, forgery or fraudulent use of identity papers and travel documents." Also, Member States are called upon to "cooperate, particularly through bilateral and multilateral arrangements and agreements, to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks and take action against perpetrators of such acts."
UNSCR 1377 calls on all States to "take urgent steps to implement fully Resolution 1373, and to assist each other in doing so, and underlines the obligation on States to deny financial and all other forms of support and safe haven to terrorists and those supporting terrorism."
UNSCR 1438 reaffirmed Resolution 1373 and reaffirmed the "need to combat by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts." (Author's note: this resolution was passed regarding the bombing in Bali, Indonesia on October 12, 2002.)
UNSCR 1440 reaffirmed Resolution 1373 and reaffirmed the "need to combat by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts." (Author's note: this resolution was passed regarding the taking of hostages in Moscow on October 23, 2003.)
UNSCR 1450 urged all States, in accordance with their obligations under Resolution 1373, to cooperate in efforts to find and bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of terrorist acts. (Author's note: this resolution was passed regarding the bombing in Kikambala, Kenya and the attempted missile attack on an Israeli airliner departing from Mombasa, Kenya.)
UNSCR 1452 reaffirmed Resolution 1373 and reiterated its support for international efforts to root out terrorism.
Conclusion - Iraq was under obligation to take action against terrorism and terrorists as a member State of the United Nations. It is clear that Saddam Hussein forged a relationship with al Qaeda ally, Ansar al-Islam which was based in northern Iraq.
In May of 2003, Stephen F. Hayes from The Weekly Standard, reports that Uday Hussein, who ran Iraqs state newspaper Babil published information that appears to confirm the allegation that there was a connection between the Iraqi government and the al Qaeda. The article in Babil acknowledged Abd-al-Karim Muhammad Aswad as an intelligence officer for Osama bin Laden's network. The article, dated November 16, 2002 also indicated that this same man was the regime's representative in Pakistan. The Hayes article is rather convincing in its scope and detail that there was indeed a connection between the two biggest foes of the United States.
Lastly, it is no secret that Saddam Hussein was brutal and cruel in to his own people. Mass graves have been uncovered throughout the course of the war. It is a matter of no contention that the Hussein regime used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. The humanitarian situation during and after the first Gulf War further illustrates the regime's disdain for the Iraqi people.
There were three reasons the action undertaken by the United States under the Bush administration was justified: failure by the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein to fully disarm violating a significant number of United Nations Security Council Resolutions; the connection to, the aiding of, and the harboring of terrorists and terrorist organizations, again in violation of a number of United Nations Security Council Resolutions; and the deplorable humanitarian situation that the regime created against his own people.
The United Nations had the right to sanction action against Iraq, but did not do so, leaving the United States the responsibility to round up a coalition without support from the United Nations. The United Nations should have sanctioned the action based on Article One of the United Nations Charter:
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
The UN failed to maintain the international peace and security when it failed to enforce the consequences of any of the 17 resolutions against Iraq's former regime; the UN failed to take collective measures for the prevention and removal of the threats to the peace as presented by Iraq's former regime; nor did the UN suppress the acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace by the former Iraq regime, or brought about by peaceful means, and in the conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to the breach of the peace by the former Iraq regime.
17 resolutions. All promising the resumption of hostilities if Iraq's former regime failed to comply. Saddam Hussein did not comply. He mocked the UN and its inspectors. He mocked the world. And he mocked his agreements to disarm.
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
The UN failed to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self determination of peoples when they failed to take action against the former Iraq regime in light of the genocide that took place there. And the UN failed to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace, again because the UN failed to back any of the 17 resolutions that the UN passed regarding the former Iraq regime.
Saddam Hussein killed thousands of his own people while the UN looked on and did nothing. He made a mockery of equal rights and the self determination of his people. And he certainly made a mockery of "universal peace."
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
The UN failed to achieve international cooperation in solving the international problems of enforcing their 17 resolutions calling for the disarming of Iraq's former regime. The UN failed to promote or encourage respect for human rights or the fundamental freedom of Iraq's people when they sat by watching the genocide.
4. To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
The UN failed to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of the above common ends when the UN failed to take action in support of the 17 resolutions passed by the UN to disarm the former regime of Iraq.
Iraq left the United States and its allies no option but to go to the United Nations. The United States and our allies repeatedly went to the United Nations in an effort to persuade the United Nations to take action, but in the end the United Nations could not agree on a mandate. The coalition was compelled to take action without an agreement when the United Nations failed to execute their Charter. Thus the US-led coalition went to Iraq with the intent of liberating the people of Iraq from a vile regime that committed atrocities and securing the region from a ruthless dictator who supported terrorism.
Had to respond to this....
Yes.
War crimes can be committed during a state of war (legal or not).
Thus, just as a single combatant might commit war crimes during a time of legal war, so can a leader commit war crimes if he/she, for example, knowingly uses excessive/unneeded force to accomplish something they knew could be resolved via other, less devestating means.
The no-fly-zones, UN inspections, etc, represented the agreed upon level of force and oversight needed to resolve the Iraq problem.
Bush's invasion was an internationally unwelcome and over-reaching and excessive abuse of force which has resulted in the deaths of 10,000s of innocent Iraqi's which could have been avoided using other means at Bush's disposal.
Bush is a war criminal but will never be charged for it.
(bye)
Yes.
War crimes can be committed during a state of war (legal or not).
Thus, just as a single combatant might commit war crimes during a time of legal war, so can a leader commit war crimes if he/she, for example, knowingly uses excessive/unneeded force to accomplish something they knew could be resolved via other, less devestating means.
The no-fly-zones, UN inspections, etc, represented the agreed upon level of force and oversight needed to resolve the Iraq problem.
Bush's invasion was an internationally unwelcome and over-reaching and excessive abuse of force which has resulted in the deaths of 10,000s of innocent Iraqi's which could have been avoided using other means at Bush's disposal.
Bush is a war criminal but will never be charged for it.
(bye)
QUOTE(amy @ Nov 22 2005, 11:36 AM)
Okay, then technically since we were in a state of cease fire,the U.S. had the right to forceably oust Saddam? Is this why we heard only a very few politicians speaking up against this war and saddam's removal, before the invasion?
I wouldn't go as far as to say it's why we didn't hear more politicians speaking out against the invasion (actually far more spoke out against invading than voted against the farcical IWR), but it's why they didn't make stronger statements and why they couldn't get any traction.
QUOTE(amy @ Nov 22 2005, 11:45 AM)
Leagl doesn't mean it was a prudent decision, but it lends legal weight to those who wanted to invade...
So true! It also makes it damaging to our side when false allegations about the war are screamed by some. Now there are arguments that COULD make the war illegal (iffy ones and only in theory) but none that make it a war crime, there's a HUGE difference!
It was one of the worst ideas in decades, but Bush had the law on his side the whole way until he went in without a plan to provide security (the first war crime committed by us in this war).
QUOTE(Salute_Liberty @ Nov 22 2005, 01:37 PM)
Would love a link to such a UN Resolutions...
I looked it up..the language says saddam will face "serious consequences"...Bush decided the consequence would be invasion and removing saddam...rather ambiguous language which opened up the way for Bush to invade....
QUOTE(tomhye @ Nov 22 2005, 02:09 PM)
I wouldn't go as far as to say it's why we didn't hear more politicians speaking out against the invasion (actually far more spoke out against invading than voted against the farcical IWR), but it's why they didn't make stronger statements and why they couldn't get any traction.
Making sense now...to me at least...it's taking a while for me to understand Bush's actions in the context of the Iraq Liberation act, the state of war or cease fire with Iraq, international law,etc....
I don't agree with the invasion but I'm trying to understand it in context of what has transpired prior to the invasion.....thanks for your helpful input!
QUOTE(tomhye @ Nov 22 2005, 03:09 PM)
I wouldn't go as far as to say it's why we didn't hear more politicians speaking out against the invasion (actually far more spoke out against invading than voted against the farcical IWR), but it's why they didn't make stronger statements and why they couldn't get any traction.
The IWR will go down as one of the most successful cynical Macchiavellian political tricks in history
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.