George Tenet; "My judgment would be that the probability of him initiating an attack--let me put a time frame on it--in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low." http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0306/S00211.htm The Bush administration's reliance on the need for "regime change" in Iraq as a basis for use of force is also barred by Article 2(4) of
the UN Charter, which prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."Article 2(4) barring the threat or use of force has been described by the International Court of Justice as a peremptory norm of international law, from which states cannot derogate. (Nicaragua v United States, 1986; ICJ Reports 14, at para. 190)
Equally, Chapter VII does not apply, as the Security Council clearly voted against invading Iraq and have in fact declared the invasion illegal and in violation of the UN Charter.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1200535.htmAny claim that "material breach" of prior cease fire obligations by Iraq justifies use of force by the United States is unavailing. The Gulf War was a Security Council authorized action, not a state versus state conflict; accordingly, it is for the Security Council to determine whether there has been a material breach and whether such breach requires renewed use of force.
Under the UN Charter, which is the foundation of international law, the invasion of Iraq is illegal, and has been deemed so by the UN Security Council.
International legal experts regard Iraq war as illegalThe International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva expressed its “deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression.”
The rule governing self-defence applies only when an enemy attack has already taken place or is imminent. There is no legal sanction for a preventive war. Should a state regard itself as threatened by another a state, although no hostilities have taken place, the threatened state is obliged to call on the Security Council—the only body authorised to legitimise military action in such a case.
http://www.icj.org/IMG/pdf/Iraq_war_18_03_03_.pdf Canadian law professors declare US-led war illegalThe US-led coalition’s war against Iraq is illegal, declared 31 Canadian professors of international law at 15 law faculties.
A US attack “would be a fundamental breach of international law and would seriously threaten the integrity of the international legal order that has been in place since the end of the Second World War,”
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2003/msg01357.html Australian legal experts declare an invasion of Iraq a war crimeForty-three Australian experts in international law and human rights legislation have issued a declaration that an invasion of Iraq will be an open breach of international law and a crime against humanity...
...
the indictment of the German Nazi leaders at the 1945-1949 Nuremberg War Crimes Trials was precisely for carrying out preemptive military strikes against neighbouring countries. They were tried and convicted of “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances”.
http://law.anu.edu.au/cipl/Media/Waging%20war%20crimes%20Feb03.pdfWar on Iraq was illegal, say world's top lawyers-Professor Philippe Sands QC Director of the Centre on International Courts and Tribunals, University College London
-Professor Robert Black QC Professor of Scots law, Edinburgh University, and architect of the Lockerbie trial in The Hague
-Professor Sean Murphy Associate professor of law at George Washington University, Washington DC
-Professor Vaughan Lowe Chichele Professor of Public International Law, All Souls College, Oxford
-Professor James Crawford Whewell Professor of International Law, Jesus College, Cambridge
-Professor Mary Kaldor Professor of global governance, London School of Economics
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/0525warillegal.htmIraq War Illegal, Lawyers SayMost experts in international law say they are not convinced either by the argument that military action against Iraq is authorized by earlier U.N. resolutions nor that the U.N. Charter allows self-defense against a perceived future threat.
http://middleeastinfo.org/article2270.html War would be illegalWe are teachers of international law. On the basis of the information publicly available, there is no justification under international law for the use of military force against Iraq.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,909275,00.htmlLawyers Tell Senate: Use of Force Against Iraq Without New Security Council Resolution Is Unlawful; Urge Congress to Uphold U.N. Charterhttp://www.wslfweb.org/docs/iraqpr.pdf Iraq War was Illegal and Breached UN Charter, Says Annanhttp://www.rediff.com/news/2004/sep/16iraq.htm One of Britain’s most senior judges last night accused ministers of producing “half-baked” criminal justice reforms and then blaming judges for the failings of the system.
Lord Steyn, a law lord, also launched a scathing attack on ministers over the Iraq war, accusing them of “scraping the bottom of the legal barrel” to justify their case.
He said it was a “fairytale” to suggest that the Iraq war did not make London a “more dangerous place”.
Lord Steyn echoed the views of
Lord Alexander of Weedon, QC, his predecessor at Justice, with a robust attack on the legality of the Iraq war.
Lord Alexander’s view that the war was illegal “reflected the overwhelming view of international lawyers and was undoubtedly correct”.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1832270,00.htmlJack Straw admits case for war in Iraq is weakhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9126.htmHow about Mr. Tony "I'm a big fucking liar" bLiar himself!"If military action proves necessary, it will be to uphold the authority of the UN and to ensure Saddam is disarmed of his weapons of mass destruction,
not to overthrow him. It is why, detestable as I find his regime, he could stay in power if he disarms peacefully."http://www.sundayherald.com/print31827 OOPS eh Tony? The UN said HELL NO. Forgot about this little bullshit speech you made to those kids, didn't you. I got a very loooong memory for fucking war criminals, Tony.
Coz here's Mr. Lord Goldsmith, admitting regime change would be ILLEGAL;http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=457242005 Ya know, bLiar, ya really should stop spewing on about how invading Iraq for REGIME CHANGE was a good thang; forgot what Goldie told you? You know, that little ILLEGAL thing.
And as a star witness, bush's very own Richard "Prince of Darkness" Perle!bush administration Richard Perle; War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal...influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal. In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London:
"I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."
Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.htmlGood luck, Kendall-Smith, YOU ARE CORRECT sir, ILLEGAL WAR OF AGGRESSION and the very vast majority of judges & law experts round the world agree.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
