Top judge: US and UK acted as 'vigilantes' in Iraq invasion (UK)

[cal04]

Source: The Guardian

Former senior law lord condemns 'serious violation of international law'
One of Britain's most authoritative judicial figures last night delivered a blistering attack on the invasion of Iraq, describing it as a serious violation of international law, and accusing Britain and the US of acting like a "world vigilante".

Lord Bingham, in his first major speech since retiring as the senior law lord, rejected the then attorney general's defence of the 2003 invasion as fundamentally flawed.

Contradicting head-on Lord Goldsmith's advice that the invasion was lawful, Bingham stated: "It was not plain that Iraq had failed to comply in a manner justifying resort to force and there were no strong factual grounds or hard evidence to show that it had." Adding his weight to the body of international legal opinion opposed to the invasion, Bingham said that to argue, as the British government had done, that Britain and the US could unilaterally decide that Iraq had broken UN resolutions "passes belief".

(snip)
After referring to mistreatment of Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib, Bingham added: "Particularly disturbing to proponents of the rule of law is the cynical lack of concern for international legality among some top officials in the Bush administration."

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/18/iraq-us-foreign-policy

[Solly Mack]

1. K & R

[jordi_fanclub]

7. Let's see a trials preview...

[No Elephants]

9. Looks good to me!

[PSPS]

2. I'll be satisfied only when I see bodies swinging from lamp posts

[bertman]

4. Heh heh. That is funny, PSPS.

[whosinpower]

3. No teeth in this whatsoever

He is retired. Why didn't he say a word, or a peep when he was still actively working???????

[Piewhacket]

5. Wasn't "waging a war of agression"..

was the principle charge against defendants
at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials?

Just asking.

This is the highest judicial authority I have
yet to decry the war in Iraq as a war crime.

Unfortunately, the invasion of Afghanistan might have
passed muster (several scholarly debates) but for Iraq...
only the whackos were willing to try to justify that.

We need to round up the pack of them, try em,
hang em.

(Dubya is no great loss, but hate to lose Blaire, one of Britain's
brightest and best. How did he get sucked in??
Oh well, actions have consequences, even for
brilliant leaders. Hate to hang him, but
examples must be made.)

[Alamuti Lotus]

6. don't talk about it, do something

nice sentiment, but softball language that requires follow-up. How is a notorious criminal like Tony Blair still walking around free? Still in government no less! I realize that Gordon Brown is very busy barking threats at Iceland and Detroit, but what does this say about England?

[Judi Lynn]

8. Hope someone might read this news to the pResident. Lord Bingham didn't have to do this

need the blowback it will earn him. Glad he spoke out, even at this late date.

http://www.kcl.ac.uk.nyud.net:8090/content/1/c6/01/45/18/bingham.jpg

Lord Bingham

[OneBlueSky]

10. if this country ever wants to regain its legitimacy as a "world leader" , , ,

then we had better bring the perpetrators of one of the greatest criminal conspiracies in history to justice . . .

if we allow the Chief Executive -- the one charged with implementing the law -- to violate US and international law with impunity, we will never be taken seriously when we talk about justice, fairness, the rule of law, etc. . .

we can't very well tell other nations how to behave if we allow our leaders to simply ignore the law . . . our credibility in matters of right and wrong will be about zero . . .

[Peace Patriot]

11. The Associated Pukes are pumping up the forgetfulness...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3606185

My comment: #45.

[Peace Patriot]

12. 100,000 innocent people slaughtered in one night of "shock and awe" bombing.

It is so seldom mentioned. How is this justified? It's not as if they were contributing to a vast war machine that had overrun Europe or bombed Pearl Harbor. They had DONE NOTHING AGAINST US. **NOTHING!**

How are their deaths--and the total of A MILLION DEATHS so far--justified, to get one man out of power, who was no gem, but also was no Hitler, and was already thoroughly hemmed in, his army in tatters, his airforce GONE, and his economy destroyed?

One million people, so far. Blown to smithereens. And thousands tortured. And millions displaced.

"War" is a kind of cold word. The "war" was not justified. Unjust "war" is wrong. Becoming a "world vigilante" is a bad idea. But these descriptions do not do justice to what was actually done: one million people wiped off the face of the earth, because they had a bad leader who was already thoroughly contained, and had no weapons of mass destruction, and even offered to leave the country if it would spare his country a U.S. invasion.

His real crime is that his country has lots of oil. That is the long and the short of it. The Bushwhacks couldn't give a fuck about his actual crimes. Hell, they've considerably surpassed his toll of torture and death, and they're larding Colombia with $6 BILLION in military aid, while the government and military torture and murder thousands of union leaders, political leftists, human rights workers, small peasant farmers, journalists and mere standers-by (in order to up their 'body count'). Nope, it never had anything to do with Saddam's crimes or his non-existent WMDs. And that is what needs to be dealt with--not the U.S. as "world vigilante," but the hijacking of the U.S. military for a corporate resource war.

One million innocent people slaughtered for their oil.

[Waiting For Everyman]

21. What the oil companies are all about has been known for decades.

Maybe if our middle class wasn't so into their SUVs and had cared what their 401(k)s were invested in doing, this wouldn't have happened?

We didn't HAVE TO be this dependent on oil by now. We had time to change course and be in a different place by now, but we didn't take it. Instead, we bought into Corporatism in a big way. Killing people without caring is what it does. Ruining people's livlihoods is what it does. We knew that. We knew what the "7 Sisters" were all about in the early '70s, it was public knowledge right after the VN war.

Did we learn from VN and the Gulf of Tonkin, and the obscene number of lives lost and damaged there? No! The public wanted more of the same leadership, and got its way (from both parties). ONLY recently when their stock accounts were threatened, and getting their paychecks cashed and the ability to hit up an ATM when they wanted to was at risk, did they give a damn. And even now after that scare, for a lot of people it's still "blame the victim and carry on!"

I'm just as angered and sad about the lives lost in Iraq as anyone. (But I'm also angered, as many are, about being a voice in the wilderness against it, who was told by numerous better-off family and "friends" to STFU all these years, and dragged along for their joyride while being blackballed by it myself - only another in the millions of victims of it.) We saw this day coming and chose to make some higher profits instead - not just corporations but millions of individuals. We had another big clue when millions of our own people were being put out on the street, a year ago and two years ago, and that didn't slow down the apppetite for making a quick killing in the markets either.

Frankly, I blame a lot of this on not just our leaders but our "comfortable class" too. Who should've known better after all. They're educated. And the attitude really hasn't changed yet. Support for Corporatism is alive and well, even under these dire economic circumstances we have from it. They need to face their responsibility in it too - for a lot of things that have happened.

[kpete]

13. Iraq war 'violated rule of law'

Source: BBC News

Iraq war 'violated rule of law'
Lord Goldsmith
Former attorney general Lord Goldsmith defended his legal advice

Legal advice given to Tony Blair by the attorney general prior to the Iraq war was fundamentally "flawed," a former law lord has claimed.

Lord Bingham said Lord Goldsmith had given Mr Blair "no hard evidence" that Iraq had defied UN resolutions "in a manner justifying resort to force".

Therefore, the action by the UK and US was "a serious violation of international law," Lord Bingham added.

Lord Goldsmith said he stood by his advice to the then prime minister.


Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7734712.stm

[Bragi]

14. Can anyone find the text of this speech?

I'd like to read it in full, but can't locate the actual speech. Anyone got a link to it?

- B

[Overseas]

17. Maybe one of the articles in the sidebar on the linked page has it.

SEE ALSO
Lord Goldsmith: Profile
23 Jun 07 | UK Politics
US 'swayed Iraq war law advice'
25 May 06 | UK Politics
Iraq war lawful, says Goldsmith
28 Apr 05 | Election 2005
Analysis: Iraq war legality
28 Apr 05 | Election 2005
UK cast doubt on US basis for war
28 Apr 05 | Europe

[Waiting For Everyman]

15. There are plenty of reasons to condemn that war,

but that isn't it. It's the Constitution that matters, not their international law. They never catch on.

(I'm assuming that point isn't being raised now just to knock a PM who's gone.)

[Dogtown]

16. This was a British subject discussing

British involvement. The US constitution doesn't even enter into the discussion.

[htuttle]

18. I might be missing the point of what you're saying...

...But if there's an issue with international law vs our Constitution, I'd point to you to Article VI. It already has an answer for that question:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

We signed treaties that prohibit what we did in Iraq, such as the UN Charter. We violated those treaties, ergo, we violated our Constitution.

[Waiting For Everyman]

19. I edited to be clearer but evidently simultaneously

with the first reply. I'm thinking of a number of British or EU stories lately on various topics such as the economic crisis, which all seem more like a message to us than the subject they're written about. I don't have a problem with going after W., but not based on international law. What I meant to say was, that suggestion (of invoking international law somehow) only annoys a lot of Americans tremendously. On the other hand, if no such inference was intended that's different - it's just a British story.

On the law issue, if one of our treaties gave away powers which are unlawful to give, that would be void(able). Our Constitution didn't authorize our representatives to give away our sovereignty. Or maybe I missed that section.

[htuttle]

20. It would be up to the Supreme Court to decide whether a treaty was unconstitutional

The Executive can't just make that decision on their own.

What Article VI says is that if we sign a treaty, we have to hold to it, and it has the same weight as a law passed by Congress or the Constitution itself. If the Court finds that it's unconstitutional, then we pull out of the treaty, not ignore it.

[snot]

22. dam' little, + late. THE CRUCIAL issue was,

-- even ASSUMING Saddam had WMD, which we now know he did not -- was the threat that he'd use them against us not only so real but also so IMMINENT that we could not even afford to give the U.N. inspectors a few more weeks to complete their work?

There was never any evidence that any threat from Saddam was THAT IMMINENT.

That this many years later, so few still get this, reflects dishearteningly on the cognitive abilities of our leaders et al.