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.
By Peter Dyer
Though the U.S. political/media establishment remains in denial, an international consensus is building that the 2003 U.S. -led invasion of Iraq was a crime -- a profound and catastrophic violation of international law.
In London, the Chilcot inquiry, the official British examination of the Iraq War, has produced powerful testimony from leading ex-government figures that Operation Iraqi Freedom was illegal and was known to be so at the time by many senior officials.
Only the United Nations Security Council can legally use or authorize armed force across borders (UN Charter Article 41) unless a country has been attacked or an attack is imminent (Article 51).
The UN Security Council did not authorize the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Neither the US nor the UK had been attacked by Iraq. Neither was there anything remotely resembling an imminent threat of Iraqi armed attack on the US or the UK
By the numbers the invasion of Iraq was a monstrous crime, generating massive trauma for the Iraqi people.
In the resulting conflict somewhere between 100,000 and one million people lost their lives. About four million people lost their homes.
The principle of “equal justice under the law,” so fundamental to the American way that the phrase is engraved on the front of the U.S. Supreme Court Building, is cast aside when U.S. authorities authorize the killing of foreigners in the name of national security, even when the justification is bogus.
Outside the U.S., though, momentum is building for equal justice under international criminal law.
Not surprisingly the permanent members of the Security Council (the ones with veto power: US, UK, France, Russia and China) were reluctant to share the power to determine aggression conferred by United Nations Charter (Article 39).
The Draft Resolution compromise provided that under certain conditions the ICC could exercise jurisdiction over aggression by States Parties, but the Security Council would have ultimate veto power.
Originally posted by KilrathiLG
feel free to correct me if im wrong but isnt there some kinda like article or law or somekinda thing that states that america trys its own war criminals and kinda refuses to let our troops and by extension our former chimp i mean former president from such actions i dobut anything will come of it not saying its right or anything just saying and besides everyones uber distracted with the fact that we turned over combat dutys to the iraqi's so were done there and the american people have short memorys
Originally posted by KilrathiLG
feel free to correct me if im wrong but isnt there some kinda like article or law or somekinda thing that states that america trys its own war criminals and kinda refuses to let our troops and by extension our former chimp i mean former president from such actions i dobut anything will come of it not saying its right or anything just saying and besides everyones uber distracted with the fact that we turned over combat dutys to the iraqi's so were done there and the american people have short memorys
Originally posted by Jamiethegreat
The U.S will (always) control the air and sea power. China and the rest of the world can think they own power. The truth is, America has been advancing for (many) years.