It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 3
43
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR

Germany was a democratic society when Hitler rose to power there.
Democracy is nearly dead. All around the world. It has been corrupted.

Yeah, I'd much rather live in a place like Rwanda or Ukraine.




posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
This memo was out and known about (at least here in ATS) since the friggin Bush administration! only NOW have they decided to do anything about it? I hate this species!



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by loki41872
Let's just forget facts, because it allows us to go after those we don't like, like Bush and Blair.

Fact:

The UN voted for and authorized the First Gulf War.

Iraq agreed to a cease-fire to end the First Gulf War.

They then spent the next 12 years violating that cease-fire at every opportunity and making the UN look stupid and powerless.

We needed no one's "Approval" to return to Iraq. They violated the cease-fire, they paid the price.

The US and it's Allies did the job the UN lacked the guts to do.

But you all just keep yelling how it was "illegal".

It was no more illegal than if we had returned to war with Germany or Japan if they had continued to violate terms of the cease-fire after World War II.


When did Iraq violate a "cease fire"???? Oh yeah, never.

The bush ALLEGED Saddam Hussein violated the Persian Gulf War cease-fire agreement.. but the bush was lying, ergo in reality iraq violated nothing.

Didn't the US violate the UNs call to not attack Iraq? causing the UN sect gen to state the iraq war is illegal?....

So you should be ok with the united states paying the price? millions of ruined lives with a puppet leader installed by the illegal invaders?

Even though you're hilariously wrong, I sincerely do appreciate that you can overtly admit you just don't care the US govt lied us into an illegal war... gee, where in history have we seen this before?

There was another nation that had a leader of a violently deranged political party do the same things.. in the 1930s they used national pride and legalese propaganda to justify senseless killing on a mass scale. Nationalism is a phony but powerful emotion... a-lot of Germans figured that out the hard way.

Lies that needlessly cause death on a massive scale are considered crimes against humanity for a reason; it's always WRONG... regardless of what colored cloth on a stick you rally under or what the patches on a uniform read.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Where is President Obama is a war criminal talk. Troops are still in Iraq and Afghanistan killing and being killed. Except for a couple of Weegers in the Caribbean, Gitmo is still in full effect. Seems like it personal and not political.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Bush wont be on trial

Blair wont be on trial

no one will be prosecuted, and found guilty, and have sentences handed out.

all we can do is mope and groan at this BS... day in and day out.

I thought last year, was the tipping point needed to get the REAL CHANGE that is needed...

Yet, most of the populous is too attached to this economy, and the way it works... were being held hostage, and we don't even know it.. some of us do, not the who population.

... No change will happen, unless "We the People' Grow the Cahungas and do something about it all.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   
I was in the US Army in 1988 and we were told our next war was going to be in Iraq or North Korea. Now back then I was paying attention to current events and International News. I was struck with wonder of how they figured our next war would be in Iraq. North Korea, ok, there was only an armistice and the war was cold at the time, but Iraq wasn't on the map as far as I could tell. So, ever since then, I knew there was a lot more going on way in advance of anything the public was being told about. And it was real interesting in 1991 when Saddam went into Kuwait. Bush 41 made it particularly vauge if we would be in opposition to him going into Kuwait until he crossed the border. It was a setup big time in my opinion. Of course that opinion had taken into account what I was told in 1988 when there was no real public knowledge we were even planning for a war there.

Carry on....as you were and all that...



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Amazing aint it? You get a thread about how Obama bows or how many books Palin signs and you get plenty of stars and posts... you have an actual report on the Iraq war and howmuch we were all cheated and played by the oil and war hawks.... and folks just dont pay as much attention.

It aint about the facts to many american citizens, its about whats personally satisfactory. Oh no no no but that was years ago right? Lets continue to allow Bush and his oil war hawks to run free from what they did and continue to complain about flag pins and books.

SG


And your new hero is savior of the day huh?

How the hell did you get all the stars?

Is Obama stopping anything that Bush the sockpuppet has enacted?

No, just another sockpuppet trashing everything freedom is all about.

Republicans destroy our freedoms by screaming defense and strength.

Democrats destroy our freedoms by screaming social justice and them evil corporations.

And SG screams damn straight I am as blind as everyone else.

Tell me again how the Dems are saving us!

JJJJJJJJJEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

This thread was about Blair and Bush and the illegal wars.
But I guess anytime to further your idiocy of the Dem/left and Repub/right paradigm.

Deny ignorance and deny blind idiocy-SG



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
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.



No America will never pay for its crime.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by thepresidentsbrain
It is good to see the general consensus on this thread

Particularly that: "We the people" of earth:

1) knew the invasion would be illegal.

2) Knew the justification was all lies.

3) Knew that Blair, Bush and Howard et al knew 1 & 2

Yes lets not forget former PM of Australia, John Howard, in all of this.



And let s not forget Chirac... What was the reasons for France to go against the Iraq invasion. Total's interests in Iraq? I am not sure . maybe NWO needed someone in occident to oppose this invasion...This is an important question to understand if there us really a well organized NWO or not... In germany case was the German Bankers behind all of this??



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by loki41872
Let's just forget facts, because it allows us to go after those we don't like, like Bush and Blair.

Fact:

The UN voted for and authorized the First Gulf War.

Iraq agreed to a cease-fire to end the First Gulf War.

They then spent the next 12 years violating that cease-fire at every opportunity and making the UN look stupid and powerless.

We needed no one's "Approval" to return to Iraq. They violated the cease-fire, they paid the price.

The US and it's Allies did the job the UN lacked the guts to do.

But you all just keep yelling how it was "illegal".

It was no more illegal than if we had returned to war with Germany or Japan if they had continued to violate terms of the cease-fire after World War II.


Hey Gundam do you know the reasons why you went in Irak the first time?



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Here's a little Mashup I had lying around that was created in 2003, consisting of edited segments from the news. It's an artistic commentary of what was happening at the time: the media manipulation (tables turned for this mashup), politicians too... insightful, funny, truthful and poignant all at the same time. Enjoy.

media.abovetopsecret.com...

I thought it tied in with this latest news quite nicely, we all knew at the time and to me it's just yet another confirmation that our governments do not serve the common people. The question I have to ask is what are we going to do about it?

[edit on 30-11-2009 by Goathief]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 06:05 AM
link   
Can i just ask , to any of the service men who actually fought in iraq or are fighting in afghanistan !

If you think the war is , was illegal and you were sent there and ended up killing innocent people because you were told to !

Its your morale choice to kill these people whether following orders or not !
If you thought it was illegal why didnt you throw down your arms and protest , why didnt you go on strike if you can do such a thing in the army i dont know !

Why didnt anyone in the army say , hey you know what , im not going to some other country to illegally kill people ! thats total injustice .
Yet for some strange reason , soldiers will quite happily kill men women and children because they are only following orders !

You know what its your decision at the end of the day to follow those orders so you are just as shady and corrupt as the governments who sent you there !

which is why i dont understand people who join the army these days , WHY do you join , the basic ideology of defending peace ! last time i checked there isnt anyone trying to inavade or bomb britain!

take a look at that low level officer being tried in munich right now , he wasnt high command yet he is being held accountable for 27,000 counts of accomplace to murder.

you guys out there following orders now killing in an illegal war , imo are just as bad as that former nazi !

if i was in the german army in ww2 and was told / ordered to kill the jews i would have refused thrown down my rifle , and walked away , even if it meant losing my own life !

because I have morales and ethics , and would not have killed people who were innocent .

thats just my opinion !



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by sapien82
 


sounds like a catch 22 moment , but this is not that ,

you as a soldier must know when to follow orders and when to not, thats what military training is all about.

there is no way to undo a killing , it still makes you a "killer".



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Putting aside any moral or practical judgement of the war I do think it was technically legal.

Here’s my reasons why from a few years ago; it was originally directed at someone else’s specific arguments but it gets the key points across.

>>>

Under Article 42, Chapter 7 of the UN Charter it states that member states can undertake land, sea or air operations in order to uphold UN resolutions.

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

www.un.org...

It is under this article that the legal case for war had been made; note that President Bush’s claims that Iraq posed a threat does not mean that Article 51 (self defence) was evoked for the purposes of gaining legal authority. Even if it was used in that way it still does not make the arguments for the war based on Article 42 any less valid. It is very important to understand that Iraq did not have to be an immediate threat for the war to be legal as it is Iraq’s lack of disclosure of information that is what the war was legally over.


The legal basis for the war starts with Resolution 678 (dated 29/11/90). In this SCR is found the declaration that the UN: -

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter



2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area


www.un.org...

The argument is that this resolution, and its declarations, was still valid when 1441 was voted in by the UNSC.

There is no evidence to suggest that it wasn’t and the UN certainly did not say it was repealed at any stage. In 1998, for example, Operation Desert Fox was undertaken by US and British forces in the region, this happened due to Iraq’s none compliance with the terms stated in Resolution 687; the justification for this was found in Resolution 678’s declaration above. More reason to believe that Resolution 678 was still relevant comes from a reference to it in Resolution 1441 (dated 8/11/02) which was unanimously voted in by the UNSC.

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,


www.un.org...

So it is obvious that SCR 678 was still in effect at the time of the 2003 war with Iraq and that it was not pursuant to just one situation but rather the ongoing situation in Iraq.

The suggestion that because Kuwait was not under imminent threat the war was not authorized holds no ground either because the terms that authorised the use of “any necessary means” did not revolve around Kuwait being under threat. As you can see Resolution 678 only states that nations must be in co-operation with Kuwait, not in defence of Kuwait. Kuwait being under threat or not therefore has no relevance to the legality of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Further legal justification came from Resolution 687 (dated 8/4/91) in which the terms of the cease fire were stated. The relevant terms of this resolution were: -

…acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,



8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;



10. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified in paragraphs 8 and 9 above



12. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities related to the above;



32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;



33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);


www.un.org...

These two resolutions establish the facts that: -

a) Iraq must comply with certain terms in order to keep the cease fire in place;

b) UN member states are authorised to use “any necessary means” in order to uphold or implement these terms and those found in resolutions subsequent to and including Resolution 660.

It is therefore up to the UN only to determine when Iraq has broken said terms since it has already signed a resolution that permits the use of force to uphold them.

Cont…


[edit on 30-11-2009 by Mike_A]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


This is what 1441 (dated 8/11/02) did. As it clearly states: -

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,



Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,



Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);


www.un.org...


You will notice that this resolution also reasserts the points that the cease fire is dependant upon Iraq’s compliance.


This resolution adds to the two previous resolutions, 678 and 687, and now establishes the facts that: -

a) Iraq must comply with certain terms in order to keep the cease fire in place;

b) UN member states are authorised to use “any necessary means” in order to uphold or implement these terms and those found in resolutions subsequent to and including Resolution 660.

c) Iraq was not in compliance with Resolution 687 or with the terms set out in Resolutions 600 onwards.

d) Point C being the case, Resolution 678’s authorisation is now in effect and the cease fire from 687 is not. So the war is legal.

Cont…



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


Resolution 1441 (dated 8/11/02) did provide for one final chance for Iraq to comply, this was a 30 day deadline by which Iraq had to have given full details of it’s weapons programs and allowed inspectors unhindered access to wherever they want

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, subcomponents, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

www.un.org...


Iraq provided the document, however it did not conform to the terms set out in resolution 1441 (i.e. it was not, “a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration”), this is attested to in the UNMOVIC SC briefing on 19/12/02 and on 09/01/03. The deadline was given as 30 days and it was found by UNMOVIC after this deadline that Iraq had not provided what was asked of it, therefore the deadline was given and Iraq went over it.

The overall impression is that not much new significant information has been provided in the part of Iraq's Declaration, which relates to proscribed weapons programmes, nor has much new supporting documentation or other evidence been submitted.



It would appear that the part that covers biological weapons is essentially a reorganized version of a previous declaration provided by Iraq to UNSCOM in September 1997. In the chemical weapons area, the basis of the current Declaration is a declaration submitted by Iraq in 1996 with subsequent updates and explanations. In the missile field, the Declaration follows the same format, and seems to have largely the same content as Iraq's 1996 missile declaration and updates.



I now turn to some inconsistencies and issues that will need clarification. In the biological area, Iraq previously provided, in its submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999, a table concerning the additional import of bacterial growth media. Growth media was used by Iraq in the production of anthrax and other biological warfare agents. This table has been omitted from the current Declaration and the reasons for the omission need to be explained.

In the civilian chemical area, Iraq has declared that it has repaired and installed equipment that had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, under Council resolution 687 (1991). The equipment is now at a civilian chemical plant and used for the production of chlorine and other chemicals.

An UNMOVIC team has recently inspected both the plant and the equipment. Consideration will now need to be given to the fate of this equipment, as well as other equipment, which was presumed destroyed.

In the missile area, Iraq has declared the development of a missile known as the Al Samoud, which uses components from an imported surface-to-air missile.

A variant of the Al Samoud, with a larger diameter (760 mm) than the standard version (500 mm) has been declared. Because of the potential of such a missile, UNSCOM had informed Iraq that such a development should not proceed until technical discussions had resolved the question of capability. In the latest update of the semi-annual monitoring declarations, Iraq has declared that in 13 flight tests of the Al Samoud the missile has exceeded the permitted range. The greatest range achieved was 183 kilometres.

The use of components from the imported surface-to-air missile, which I have just mentioned, was also the subject of the letters of March 1994 and November 1997 in which the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM stated that the activity was not permitted. Iraq disputed the UNSCOM view that the activity was in violation of its obligations. From its current Declaration, it appears that Iraq has, in fact, proceeded with the conversion in recent years. The whole issue will now need to be considered.
I have covered new information in Iraq's Declaration, some inconsistencies, and issues that need to be considered or clarified through investigation or technical discussions.

As there is little new substantive information in the weapons part of Iraq's Declaration, or new supporting documentation, the issues that were identified as unanswered in the Amorim report (S/1999/356) and in UNSCOM's report (S/1999/94) remain unresolved. In most cases, the issues are outstanding not because there is information that contradicts Iraq's account, but simply because there is a lack of supporting evidence. Such supporting evidence, in the form of documentation, testimony by individuals who took part, or physical evidence, for example, destroyed warheads, is required to give confidence that Iraq's Declaration is indeed accurate, full and complete.


Cont…



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


And from the 09/01/03 report: -

Unresolved disarmament issues remain

As I mentioned on 19 December, the UNSCOM document S/1999/94 and the Amorim Report (S/1999/356) list a number of issues on which doubts exist as to whether all proscribed items or activities had been eliminated.



The overall impression, which I reported to the Council on 19 December and which remains after some weeks of examination of the Declaration, is that it is rich in volume but poor in new information about weapons issues and practically devoid of new evidence on such issues.



Those documents that are new do not seem to contribute to the resolution of outstanding questions.



Comparisons between the Iraqi Declaration and earlier full, final and complete declarations have shown several cases of inconsistencies in terms of numbers declared.

The so-called Air Force document, which was provided separately from the Declaration, relates to the consumption of chemical munitions in the Iraq/Iran war. It was hoped that the submission of this document would help verify material balances regarding special munitions. After having analysed the document, we have concluded that it will in fact not contribute to resolving this issue. There remains therefore, a significant discrepancy concerning the numbers of special munitions.

I will also note that Iraq, in the Declaration, has declared the import of missile engines and raw material for the production of solid missile fuel. This import has taken place in violation of the relevant resolutions regulating import and export to Iraq.



Another outstanding issue regards the chemical agent VX. We have found no additional information in the Declaration that would help to resolve this issue. Instead, it contains information that is contradicted by documents previously found by UNSCOM. Iraq will have to further clarify the matter.

Lists of Iraqi personnel engaged in proscribed programmes

As I reported to you on 19 December, UNMOVIC asked Iraq, on the basis of paragraph 7 of resolution 1441 (2002), to provide the names of all personnel currently or formerly associated with some aspects of Iraq's programme of weapons of mass destruction.

A list was submitted to us before the end of last year as requested. It consisted of 117 persons for the chemical sector, 120 for the biological sector and 156 persons for the missile sector. This is an inadequate response. The lists do not even comprise all those who have been previously listed in Iraq's Full, Final and Complete Declarations, besides the numerous Iraqi personnel that are known from UNSCOM interviews and found in Iraqi documents, to have participated in past weapons programmes.

We do not feel that the Iraqi side has made a serious effort to respond to the request we made.


www.unmovic.org...



From UNMOVIC’s reports on both 19/12/02 and 09/01/03 it is clear to see that the UN did not believe that Iraq had complied with the terms given to it in order for it to meet its deadline of 08/12/02. In fact it was still not in compliance a month after the deadline had been reached, even after being given an extra chance on top of its last, last chance.


Given this, the facts now stand as: -

a) Iraq must comply with certain terms in order to keep the cease fire in place;

b) UN member states are authorised to use “any necessary means” in order to uphold or implement these terms and those found in resolutions subsequent to and including Resolution 660.

c) Iraq was not in compliance with Resolution 687 or with the terms set out in Resolutions 660 onwards.

d) Point C being the case, Resolution 678’s authorisation is now in effect and the cease fire from 687 is not. So the war is legal.

e) Iraq has one last chance to provide full disclosure.

f) UNMOVIC finds that Iraq has not provided full disclosure (and therefore a breach of Resolution 1441 as it states in said resolution) and so we revert to point d.

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations


www.un.org...

Although UNMOVIC asked for more time it was not given it, and Iraq had already been given a final 30 days to comply which it, once again, did not adhere to; by the UNMOVIC’s own admission.

>>>

As someone has already said, international law is a flimsy thing anyway. There have been plenty of conflicts that would be considered illegal but have not caused a stir because most nations have been, at least, apathetic to the issue. Without better defined laws and punitive sanctions put in place to deter nations then they are at best a moral comforter.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 



CHAPTER VII

4) Article 39: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 41: The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions …..

Article 42: Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by land, sea or air forces of the United Nations.


These three articles describe the conditions under which the Security Council may authorize the use of armed force. Not individual members of Security Council but the unanimous support of the entire Council which US/UK did not have.

The following article describes the condition under which individual members, individually or collectively, may use armed force in self-defense,


5) Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures to secure international peace and security, Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.


How does this deliberately detailed scenario for an authorization to go to war apply to the war commenced on March 20, 2003 by British-American forces against Iraq?

Clearly it was not a case of self-defense under Article 51 since there was no armed attack by Iraq against a member of the United Nations. Nor does it meet the requirements of Articles 39, 41 and 42. The Security Council never gave a green light for war, as it could have done article 39 or 42.

The closest it came was the following language in Security Council Resolution 1441 of November 8, 2002:

6) The Security Council


…..12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to se cure international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
:14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.


But deciding to reconvene if certain conditions are not met, or recalling a warning about “serious consequences”, is very different from taking the grave step of authorizing the use of armed force by the United Nations or any of its members.

Indeed, some delegations insisted and all other delegations, including that of the United Stataes, agreed that there was no “automaticity” in Resolution 1441. This meant that Iraq’s failure to comply, i.a. with the stringent requirements for unrestricted access by UNMOVIC and IAEA to any site in Iraq and for a full declaration of Iraq’s WMD program, could not automatically lead to the use of armed force against Iraq.

Subsequent attempts by the United States to obtain specific war making authority failed, not only because of the threat of a French veto, but also because the United States could not muster more than three votes beyond its own for the proposed resolution, from the fifteen members of the Security Council.

Thus thwarted in its attempt to obtain international legitimacy for its long planned invasion of Iraq, the United States fell back on Security Council Resolutions 678 from 1990 and 687 from 1991, arguing – to a more than skeptical world audience – that since the former authorized the use of force to eject Iraq from Kuwait and to restore peace and security to the area and the latter imposed obligations on Iraq to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq’s failure to do so revived 678 and with it the authorization to use force. In “Armageddon or Brave New World”, Judge C.G.Weeramantry, a distinguished international lawyer and former Vice President of the International Court of Justice, gives no less than 36 reasons why this tortured argument is preposterously unconvincing. I will cite only one here:


7) Before Resolution 1441 there was a clear understanding on the part of all Security Council members that a further resolution other than the 12 year old Resolution 687 was necessary in order to permit the use of force and hence followed the enormous (and eventually unsuccessful – PW) efforts to get such an authorization in 1441.


The United States therefore is left only with its newfangled doctrine of ”preventive war", which not only lacks any foundation in international law, but undermines the entire war-regulating structure of the United Nations Charter. What is more, as is well known by now, this arrogant doctrine is based on a tissue of prefabricated lies.

lcnp.org...



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


Resolution 678 was in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. It authorised states to use 'all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.’ Resolution 660 had the aim of restoring the sovereignty of Kuwait. After Iraq was forced to retreat from Kuwait, Resolution 687 imposed a formal cease-fire. The cease-fire was conditional on Iraq’s acceptance of certain terms. These terms included destruction of all chemical and biological weapons and all ballistic missiles and an agreement not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons and to co-operate with UN weapons inspectors.

As discussed below, although the other resolutions are condemnatory of Iraq, none of them come close to adopting terminology which authorises the use of force. Hence, the main issue is whether Resolution 678 still enabled member states to use ‘all necessary means’ to ensure compliance with subsequent resolutions. It states that the Security Council:

Although Resolution 687 (the cease-fire resolution) was subject to Iraq complying with certain resolutions it was not the case that breach of any or all of those conditions re-authorised force by member states. Resolution 687 effectively remitted further consideration of the matter back to the Security Council. It states that the Security Council:


Decides to remain actively seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the region.


Thus, given that the Security Council did not enliven the terms of resolution 678 and permit all necessary force to be employed against Iraq, there is no basis for declaring that a member state could unilaterally turn the clock back over a decade and attack Iraq.[28]

The counter to the re-enlivenment argument has been eloquently stated by Professor Thomas Franck at proceedings of the American Society of International Law:


By any normal construction drawn from the administrative law of any legal system, what the Security Council has done is occupy the field, in the absence of a direct attack on a member state by Iraq. The Security Council has authorised a combined military operation; has terminated a combined military operation; has established the terms under which various UN agency actions will occur to supervise the cease-fire, to establish the standards with which Iraq must comply; has established the means by which it may be determined whether those standards have been met (and this has been done by a flock of reports by the inspection system); and has engaged in negotiations to secure compliance. After all these actions, to now state that the United Nations has not in fact occupied the field, that there remains under Article 51 or under Resolution 678, which authorised the use of force, which authorisation was terminated in Resolution 687, a collateral total freedom on the part of any UN member to use military force against Iraq at any point that any member considers there to have been a violation of the conditions set forth in Resolution 678, is to make a complete mockery of the entire system.[29]


Thus the language of Resolution 687 places the future approval of force expressly within the mandate of the Security Council acting as a whole and not in the hands of any individual members.

Further, in later resolutions (eg Resolution 1154 (1998)) on weapons inspection) the Security Council expressly stated that it alone retained authority to ‘ensure implementation of this resolution and peace and security in the region’.

For all the reference source: www.austlii.edu.au...

[edit on 30-11-2009 by December_Rain]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
This illegal and imoral act was perpetrated with such ease it makes one wonder what other things they can pull off. It seems we are no longer bound by law and must rely on the faith that our leaders will not step away from morality.



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join