It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Iraq: The war was illegal

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+22 more 
posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:30 AM

Iraq: The war was illegal

Tony Blair will be quizzed over a devastating official memo warning him that war on Iraq would be illegal eight months before he sent troops into Baghdad, it was claimed last night.

The Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war will consider a letter from Lord Goldsmith, then Mr Blair's top law officer, advising him that deposing Saddam would be in breach of international law, according to a report in The Mail on Sunday.

But Mr Blair refused to accept Lord Goldsmith's advice and instead issued instructions for his long-term friend to be "gagged" and barred from cabinet meetings, the newspa
(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News Links:

Related Discussion Threads:
Officials tell inquiry Iraq and al-Qaeda 'not allies'

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:30 AM
I have absolutely no specialist knowledge, nor any relationship to anyone who would, but for goodness sake, I KNEW the UK was going to war in Iraq at least six months before it kicked off. Surely EVERY ordinary person knew that?

Why do those in positions of power believe we are as stupid as they are with their mealy mouthed, daft excuses about things not being decided until the last moment, weapons of mass destruction, 45 minutes to oblivion? They have all the intelligence and honour of two six year olds having a playground spat!

I don't care what this inquiry decides. I don't care what one or many Sirs, Lords, mandarins or former PMs think. We must decide for ourselves and make sure our democracy represents our views. This inquiry is just another example of spin by Nu Labour to make it look like something is happening and that the issue is being addressed. If our betters came to the conclusion that the mass murder of a people who had never threatened us and represented no immediate or long term risk to the UK was OK, would you or anyone else modify their opinion? I know it's a cliché, but everything the Nazis did was legal under German law at the time. Only real politics and the true representation of the people's will can prevent the abuse of power by a few vile and mendacious leaders.
(visit the link for the full news article)

+22 more 
posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:01 AM
Of course it was illegal.
Iraq attacked no one.
Iraq had nothing.
The intelligence was cooked, and the government knew it.

Look at us, 6yrs later, you don’t hear a word from Iraq any more.... and why?

Because all the corporations who were, and are in bed with Bush and his family setup the oil rigs, setup the pumps and setup the 100,000+ merc army to protect them.

America will pay for its crime, they will pay.

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:39 AM
reply to post by Agit8dChop

Its not just America that needs to pay for these crimes its every nation that took part.

Who do you hold accountable for it because if you want to look for the person that let it happen look at yourself.

We allowed the goverments to gain power, we allowed them to bully us and frighten us into giving them more power and more control.

The above is a plagarisum from V for Vendetta but never a truer set of words where said

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:45 AM
The thing that gets me, is the secret socities where this stuff is probably planned, and you can take it as good, that there are priests behind the scenes in these societies that are deciding these things.

Will they ever be charged, of course not.

Why is it always in uk we have these commissions, and its lords and baronesses that are doing them, lol.

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:51 AM
Tony Blair and his administration easily got through the cash for honours debacle, i'm more than sure he'll get through this without a problem

I think the timing of the enquiry is more important than the enquiry itself, with many of those in power and responsible at the time of the war are still in positions of power now

I'd be fairly confident of a different outcome after an election, as we would then have an elected heirarchy of some sort!

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:57 AM
i thought it was quite funnie that a fellow with the documents proving that the intel was bogus was found naked , stabbed? and dead in a fields ditch only to be written about as a suicide......

im just supriced that we still let people run this world who have intentions of harming a fellow man.


just had to add the fellow
Dr. David Kelly

[edit on 29-11-2009 by zerbot565]

+19 more 
posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:25 AM
I was on the front lines of that war. We didnt find ANY WMD's, no WMD's were ever used against us... in fact, we never even encountered any standing armies, only freedom fighters out of uniform. ((Oh yea, we had the WMD's. Depleted Uranium 50cal Slap rounds, for the best armor penetration around... they are radioactive if you didnt know what Depleted Uranium was))

If you know anything about Paul Wolfowitz... and his role. Well, even he ended up admitting that the war was 'probably illegal'. Just google "Paul Wolfowitz man of the year" From the Jerusalem Post:

"When President Bush says, "America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons" - that's Wolfowitz talking. When the president calls for "a new Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater political participation, economic openness and free trade" - that's Wolfowitz's talking, too."

Who goes to Bilderberg? Who went from working at the Pentagon to working for the WORLD BANK. Not only that but you have a partial owner of the Federal Reserve as the head of United Nations Council on Foreign Relations... who is also a Bilderberg attendee (Oh of course they were not working together to further the NWO Agenda, of course not!). Does war profiteering get any clearer... really people.

Yea, I am a little pissed that they tricked me. Innocent civilian casualties are a byproduct of every war. We were ordered to shoot at any vehicle that didnt stop. Well, guess what. The flat hand palm facing the target with the intent to signal "stop"... yea they dont understand that one. So yea, we killed a lot more civilians than I can ever rationalize. No WMD's, no fcuking Bin Laden. Piss off. I guarentee I am one of the most disillusioned individuals around.

They call themselves the Illuminati because they are illusionisits. They are social/political magicians and 9-11 was one of their little tricks. Along with that fabricated paper Colin Powel read as evidence. And it turns out that vial of Anthrax was MADE IN AMERICA. Check out who the first person to die from anthrax was... what picture did he take? Im not telling.

I talked to a psychologist who happened to be Iranian working at one of the state hospitals (I have PTSD pretty bad) and I said "They lied to me about 9-11 and WMD's" and he said "Sure they did, they needed troops for the war". I was like thanks a fcuking lot doc, that really helps. But at least he has the balls to tell it like it is. I would never say anything so bold as that... not in a public forum at least.

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:31 AM
Do you remember all the protesters out in the streets before the War? In USA, UK, Australia, Denmark, Sweden, Japan, Israel...pretty much all over the world significant numbers were objecting to the War and were not satisfied with the reasons given by the media to invade.

Did those in power listen? Did average citizens have a say in the matter? I remember a poster once said "I don't remember getting a ballad with a YES or NO box, titled 'Should our army join an invasion of Iraq?'

The Global Elite wanted that invasion and that is why it happened. What the average citizen wants means nothing to them. The welfare of Iraq and its citizens, the welfare of Coalition troops, the consequences of illegally invading a sovereign nation means nothing to them. They didn't care then, and they do not care now.

[edit on 29/11/2009 by Dark Ghost]

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:33 AM
reply to post by Chastral

byproduct or not but its still illegal

soldiers kill more civilians then soldier vs soldier casulties

makes the training you recive at boot camp pretty useless , might as well strap forks to garden gloves and shout anarchy

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:38 AM
reply to post by kayne1982

There is a reason why Tony Blair was called the "poodle" of Bush. The International Community has been saying that Iraq War is illegal ever since Iraq was attacked. This is not news, the news would be what are you going to do about the "criminals'(Blair & Bush administration) who did this and have not been accounted for yet?

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:56 AM
reply to post by jpmail

No, the system is there for a reason. You cannot destroy a system because you dont agree with something.

We did what the system allowed, protested.

And now, that our anger wasnt heard, our voice wasnt thought upon and the crime was committed, the system officially has become default.

There wont be a next time, and thats where they are heading.

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 08:23 AM

Originally posted by zerbot565
reply to post by Chastral

byproduct or not but its still illegal

soldiers kill more civilians then soldier vs soldier casulties

makes the training you recive at boot camp pretty useless , might as well strap forks to garden gloves and shout anarchy

You dont know what your talking about do you? The orders were to shoot any vehicle trying to enter our perimiter BECAUSE they were -supposedly- using vehicles to car bomb us. So in that respect, it is legal. Did like I sound like I was for it? Dont be such an ass.

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 08:33 AM
reply to post by Chastral

no no comletly missed what i ment , there are orders then there are rules of war which you play by ,the rules which let you have a military or defence force in the first place

boot camp and what have you is basicly the legal form of accpeted military training where you learn and play by the rules of warfare

and with forks to garden gloves i meant that all youve learnt as a soldier basicly goes out the window when orders brake the rules you are ment to play by

you do not abide to the law by braking it

you do the opposite

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 08:41 AM
Under one international law or another all wars are illegal. International laws are not worth the paper they are written on. I have no problem with holding Bush accountable, if you also hold every member of Congress who voted in favor accountable as well. Including the ones who now have amnesia about the whole thing.

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 10:22 AM
reply to post by Chastral

That was a moving post. Thank you for sharing.

I certainly hope you can work out the PTSD issues, and doubt anything I can say will help. You had good intentions even though our leaders didn't. You were put in a position that I doubt you knew you would be in when you signed up.

That is why going to war should be a last resort and why we should hold those that mislead us accountable. Hopefully all of us will be more wise in the future and keep it from ever happening again. You can help by telling others of your experience and disillusionment. Good luck.

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 10:35 AM
When it comes to war, rules don't exist.

It's all about who has the bigger dick.

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 11:50 AM

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Under one international law or another all wars are illegal.

According to International Law since the Nuremberg treaty and current charters of the UN a war could be justified through Resolutions in the UN Security Council, and if it follows the rules of war according to the Geneva Conventions.

But you can of course not declare or go to war against a Sovereign Nation by yourself without justification - that would be a breach of the International Law & treaties which even the US has signed since 1945.

The Iraq War is Illegal

Below is the Congressional authorization for force that Bush used to launch the invasion of Iraq. However, if you read Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited

Iraq war illegal, says Annan

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter

He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally

When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

Blair was told Iraq war ‘illegal’: report

The government's chief legal advisor informed then British prime minister Tony Blair in 2002 that deposing Saddam Hussein would contravene international law, a newspaper reported on Sunday.
Peter Goldsmith, the Attorney General at the time, wrote to Blair eight months before the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, but the premier ignored the advice

Blix: Iraq War Was Illegal

The former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has declared that the war in Iraq was illegal, dealing another devastating blow to Tony Blair.

Mr Blix, speaking to The Independent, said the Attorney General's legal advice to the Government on the eve of war, giving cover for military action by the US and Britain, had no lawful justification. He said it would have required a second United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force for the invasion of Iraq last March to have been legal.
Mr Blix demolished the argument advanced by Lord Goldsmith three days before the war began, which stated that resolution 1441 authorized the use of force because it revived earlier UN resolutions passed after the 1991 ceasefire.

Mr Blix said that while it was possible to argue that Iraq had breached the ceasefire by violating UN resolutions adopted since 1991, the "ownership" of the resolutions rested with the entire 15-member Security Council and not with individual states. "It's the Security Council that is party to the ceasefire, not the UK and US individually, and therefore it is the council that has ownership of the ceasefire"

He said to challenge that interpretation would set a dangerous precedent. "Any individual member could take a view - the Russians could take one view, the Chinese could take another, they could be at war with each other, theoretically," Mr Blix said.

The Attorney General's opinion has come under fresh scrutiny since the collapse of the trial against the GCHQ whistleblower Katharine Gun last week, prompting calls for his full advice to be made public.

Mr Blix, who is an international lawyer by training, said: "I would suspect there is a more skeptical view than those two A4 pages," in a reference to Clare Short's contemptuous description of the 358-word summary.

It emerged on Wednesday that a Foreign Office memo, sent to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on the same day that Lord Goldsmith's summary was published, made clear that there was no "automaticity" in resolution 1441 to justify war.

Asked whether, in his view, a second resolution authorizing force should have been adopted, Mr Blix replied: "Oh yes."

So the NeoCon cabal who misled and lied to the US Congress, and Blair and his henchmen should be sent to the 'Hague War Crimes Tribunal' for war crimes against the humanity - and for poisoning the Earth/Globe with Depleted Uranium.

The use of depleted uranium weaponry by the United States, defying all international treaties, will slowly annihilate all species on earth including the human species, and yet this country continues to do so with full knowledge of its destructive potential.

Since 1991, the United States has staged four wars using depleted uranium weaponry, illegal under all international treaties, conventions and agreements, as well as under the US military law. The continued use of this illegal radioactive weaponry, which has already contaminated vast regions with low level radiation and will contaminate other parts of the world over time, is indeed a world affair and an international issue.

Four reasons why using depleted uranium weapons violates the UN Convention on Human Rights:


TEMPORAL TEST – Weapons must not continue to act after the battle is over.

ENVIRONMENTAL TEST – Weapons must not be unduly harmful to the environment.

TERRITORIAL TEST – Weapons must not act off of the battlefield.

HUMANENESS TEST – Weapons must not kill or wound inhumanly.

International Human Rights and humanitarian lawyer, Karen Parker, determined that depleted uranium weaponry fails the four tests for legal weapons under international law, and that it is also illegal under the definition of a ‘poison’ weapon. Through Karen Parker’s continued efforts, a sub-commission of the UN Human Rights Commission determined in 1996 that depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction that should not be used:


The military use of DU violates current international humanitarian law, including the principle that there is no unlimited right to choose the means and methods of warfare (Art. 22 Hague Convention VI (HCIV); Art. 35 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva (GP1); the ban on causing unnecessary suffering and superfluous injury (Art. 23 §le HCIV; Art. 35 §2 GP1), indiscriminate warfare (Art. 51 §4c and 5b GP1) as well as the use of poison or poisoned weapons.

The deployment and use of DU violate the principles of international environmental and human rights protection. They contradict the right to life established by the Resolution 1996/16 of the UN Subcommittee on Human Rights.

People who doesn't stand up and speak out against these vile atrocities and crimes made by this Cabal & and the terrible damages of Depleted Uranium which affected innocent children of this world, should in my opinion be ashamed of themselves!

Women in Iraq are afraid now to have babies, and when they do give birth, instead of asking if it is a girl or a boy, they ask ‘is it normal?’.

Unfortunately, the soil and ground water in Iraq is destroyed for all their future and children are now born with abnormal births and birth defects, malformations of legs, arms,toes & fingers - acute myeloid leukemia, multiple cancers and other vicious diseases from the radiated dust clouds of Depleted Uranium weaponry.

Quite sad and depressing, really!

[edit on 29-11-2009 by Chevalerous]

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 12:00 PM
reply to post by zerbot565

Woah! I had no idea about Dr. David Kelley... Wow just another one of those convenient incidences that seem to always happen to whistle blowers. Another one that spoke out about the events leading up to the iraq war,
not 'assisted suicide' but maybe a worse fate? David Shayler... I could barely believe what I was reading when that article came out.

S&F, OP.

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 12:05 PM
You know there's a article on yahoo right now entitled (Why Bin laden escaped)
and it says nothing other than that the us had to pulled back, then after that a bunch of nonsense, i really wonder if theirs even a single person out there who still believes all this.
In fact i think they all don't and that we're made to believe in the main steam media that there are a lot of people who believe it. You'd have to have your brain pecked at by a bird to believe there telling the truth

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in