|
|
| |
| |
Jerry Okamura wrote:
What does the term "illegally invade" mean? It sounds impressive,
but what significance does it have in this context.
Are you stupid ... or just ignorant?
-----
US hawk admits Iraq war 'illegal'
by Shaheen Chughtai
Friday 21 November 2003 1:28 PM GMT
US official: Invasion of Iraq was not 'consistent with International Law'
A Pentagon official widely regarded as the key ideological driving force behind
President George Bush's foreign policy has admitted the US-led invasion of Iraq
is illegal.
Richard Perle, a senior adviser to the US defence secretary, said the US had
broken international law, blaming French reluctance to attack Iraq for leaving
Washington with "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for
dealing with Saddam Hussein".
"I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right
thing," said Perle in London in comments published by the British media on
Thursday. "International law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein
alone."
Perle was speaking at an event organised by the Institute of Contemporary Arts
in London on Wednesday.
The influential Pentagon official's comments represent a clear break with
official White House statements. President George Bush, presently on a state
visit to the UK, has always insisted the war was legal either because of
existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq or as an act of self-defence.
Bush's main ally in the invasion of Iraq, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, has
always said existing UN resolutions legitimised the attack on Iraq.
Critics astonished
Antiwar campaigners told Aljazeera.net on Friday they were astonished by Perle's
admission.
"It's an incredible admission that Bush and Blair's war in Iraq is illegal,"
said Andrew Burgin, spokesman of the Stop the War Coalition in London. "It
underlines everything we've said about the so-called war on terror being an
illegal campaign."
Burgin said the recent bomb attacks in Istanbul showed the illegality of the
Bush-Blair campaign was "fuelling the level of terror around the world".
A British lawyer and leftist politician who has frequently criticised
Washington's foreign policy, Louise Christian, told Aljazeera.net she was
"greatly concerned" by Perle's admission and its implicit disregard for
international law.
Prince of Darkness
Dubbed the Prince of Darkness by his critics - and a few awed admirers - because
of his powerful behind-the-scenes influence, Perle is a senior member of the
Pentagon's defence policy board, which advises the US Defence Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld.
He resigned from the board's chairmanship amid controversy in March, however,
after allegations of commercial conflict of interest.
Perle is also a key member of the Project for the New American Century, a
rightwing think tank closely linked to the White House and credited with
inspiring much of the Bush administration's foreign policy.
He has been a hawkish advocate of projecting US power both diplomatically and
militarily without the restraint of international bodies such as the UN.
-------
Blair warned: Iraq attack 'illegal'
Government legal experts say UN mandate is needed for action
By Paul Waugh Deputy Political Editor
The Independent, 29 July 2002
Tony Blair has been told by the Government's own lawyers that British
participation in an invasion of Iraq would be illegal without a new United
Nations mandate.
The advice, which is highly confidential, has led the Foreign Office to
warn Downing Street that a fresh UN resolution could be the best means of
ensuring Russian and moderate Arab support for any attack against Saddam
Hussein.
------
THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER AND THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST IRAQ
The United Nations Charter is a treaty of the United States, and as such
forms part of the "supreme law of the land" under the Constitution, Article
VI, Clause 2. The UN Charter is the highest treaty in the world, superseding
states' conflicting obligations under any other international agreement.
(Art. 103, UN Charter)
Under the UN Charter, there are only two circumstances in which the use of
force is permissible: in collective or individual self-defense against an
actual or imminent armed attack; and when the Security Council has directed
or authorized use of force to maintain or restore international peace and
security. Neither of those circumstances now exist. Absent one of them, U.S.
use of force against Iraq is unlawful.
|
| |
| |
|
