Isn't attacking another country to affect regime change against internatio

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

international law?

I read somewhere months back that invading/attacking another country for the express purpose of affecting regime change violates international law.

Is that true? I tried googling it and came up empty but I may not be using good search terms.

If it is true, shouldn't bushco and their supporters be AWFULLY careful about using that "oh but isn't it good we got rid of SH" argument, since that's about the only good thing about this that is left???

[in_cog_ni_to]

1. So what if it is?

Whatya goin' to do about it? <sarcasm> The repubs couldn't give a shit less about International Laws. WE ARE THE SUPER POWER! No one messes with us! Nothing will happen to the chimp and his cabal. Nothing. What's the rest of the world going to do to the leader of the United States of America? Nada, zip, zilch, zero, NOTHING. IMCPO

[Bake]

2. Why do you hate Amurka???

C'mon now. Really.

:irony mode off:

Bake

[historian]

3. nuremberg trials

Thats what the trials were based on - unprovoked attacks and agression

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

4. So that's the precedent?

If so, thanks, that might help with some better search terms.

And as to the other responses here, I'm pretty aware we've pretty much flipped off international law, but I still find it interesting every time a bush supporter brings up the "oooo but isn't it good we got rid of SH" thing, in light of the fact that no country is allowed to do that just for regime change. Unprovoked.

[Eric J in MN]

5. didn't one of the neocons publicly admit the war was illegal? (nt)

nt

[HysteryDiagnosis]

6. International Law... surely you jest.

I read somewhere months back that invading/attacking another country for the express purpose of affecting regime change violates international law.<<

Only if Russia had invaded Iraq would it have been a violation of international law. They don't have a powerful enough military to get away with it. This administration should goto jail.

If Russia had invaded Iraq.... Saddam would have mysteriously morphed into one of Amurka's best allies in the blink of an eye. Tell me if I am wrong... and tell me how that fact should play in the world at large.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

7. Keep going

I'm finding what you are saying interesting.....you tell me how that fact should play....and by the way, I agree....but keep going, please...

[HysteryDiagnosis]

9. What I have seen....

I'm finding what you are saying interesting.....you tell me how that fact should play....and by the way, I agree....but keep going, please...<<

What I see.... is a government so entwined with the interests of multinational energy corps... that they are essentially one in the same.

What I see is a country (Afghanistan) whose govt. (Taliban) were wined and dined in Texas 'round about 1996-1997 by Unocal (which/who was well aware of their human rights abuses) (GW was Governor of Texas I might add) so as to get them to agree to a pipeline cutting through their country. Unfortunately for them they said no deal. I remember hearing in the media that the war plans for Afghanistan were on the Resident's desk the morning before 911 but I would have to do some checking cuz I never heard much more about it.

What I see is that Saddam in 2000 decided to take the Euro for payment for oil... (Ehhhhh- you know the sound when you make a bad decision) so... that didn't play well with the people concerned with the dollar's status in the world.

What I see is a world in which several other major powers had their contracts with Iraq sliced and diced by an administration hell bent on overthrowing one that would stand up to them and replace it with one that they could be relatively sure would cower when told to do so.

What I have seen is a terrible abuse of power... a turning on of a former ally in the Iran Iraq war as hard as that may be to swallow.

I cannot believe that April Glasby speaking for the U.S. told Iraq in 1991 that we would have no issue with their dealing with Kuwait as they saw fit due to Kuwaits undercutting oil prices and so forth.

I see a world that is afraid of America.. a world in which a HUGE percentage of the population could give a fig for what may happen to us on the world stage... and our only recourse is that we have a big bad military.... we are digging ourselves a hole... thanks to GW... and at these summits that he attends... I am sure what may appear to be genuine concern on the part of other leaders is merely lip service and window dressing to appease what many consider to be a madman.

I don't believe I am hated because I am free. I believe my government is despised for what it has allowed the CIA to do in our name the world round over the last 40 years or so... along with our terribly skewed mideast foreign policy. I hope things get better... but I don't see any comforting news of late....

This is my story and I'm sticking to it.

I hope this goes forward and the king goes down.
www.brusselstribunal.org

www.internationalanswer.org

www.soaw.org

www.globalizethis.org

www.corpwatch.org

www.jucicialwatch.org

www.gregpalast.com

www.unprecedented.org

www.truthout.org

www.costofwar.com

www.guerrillanews.com

www.snowshoefilms.com

www.newamericancentury.org

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

11. Couldn't find a single thing to disagree with in that post

and I heartily thank you for elaborating.

Now. What the HELL do we do about this?????

[HysteryDiagnosis]

12. What we do.

Now. What the HELL do we do about this?????<<

I vent in here. I know alot of people read this forum... including journalists. Sometimes people need to be taken by the hand... sometimes all they need to take action is to hear truth spoken... or typed. People can laugh... or they can search their hearts and look for the truth.. read some linked websites... learn... think a little... that is all we can do for now. That is all I can do... I have to get up in a few hours... but I have done the best I can in here and on Aol for over 3 years now.

I used to not give a fig about politics or America's role in the world... but as they say.. they dreamer can awaken... and I thank Randi Rhodes who I used to listen to religiously (can I say religiously in here) in West Palm before I moved... I need to get a windows box running online again so I can tune into www.wjno.com again and see how she is doing...

we talk to strangers.. we teach relatives... we post good solid articles and websites in here... the lurkers follow them... we speak truth to power and hold this mindset... because thoughts have power... and they do have an effect on our world... this is something lost on many people but it is an immutable truth... good night and thanks for being interested in what goes on inside my head... :)


Us and them: and in the end.. it's only round and round and round... Pink Floyd Us and Them

[HysteryDiagnosis]

13. Now. What the HELL do we do about this?????

Dwell on this thought.

We "America" have roughly 5% of the world's population... and yet we consume roughly 40% of its natural resources.

If you ask a wealthy man... how much is enough money.. he will invariably tell you... "just a little more than you have already".

If we consume that amount of the worlds resources... exactly WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN to a large amount of the rest of the worlds population? Do the math.

Research the labor in the cocoa fields in Africa... the diamond mine labor in Africa... the clothing shops in Guatemala... what happened in Chile when we helped install Pinochet...

Read "Silence on the Mountain" Social expose of Guatemalan peoples

Read "All the Shah's Men" regarding the overthrow of the Iranian Govt and the parts we played in it

There are so many excellent books out there that will explaing what has really gone down on this planet.... do search them out....

[TroubleMan]

10. Exactly....four legs good, two legs better

Orwell was a genius.

[AbbeyRoad]

8. * & co think themselves above international law

They believe they are the law, so noone can touch them.

I was watching CSPAN earlier when they were taking the vote to gag Rep. Brown. I heard a Republican caller expounding on the idea that has been floated of the UN coming into the US to monitor our election. She kept repeating how "degrading" that would be to America. I think people have some serious superiority complexes, and it's getting nothing but support from the top.

[Make7]

14. Charter of the United Nations

From The Charter of the United Nations:

Article 2
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

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, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

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 air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence 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.


Why should this apply to the US?

The United States Constitution states:

Article VI
Clause 2: 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.


Sounds to me like if it isn't self-defense or it isn't approved by the UN Security Council, it is against the law.

-Make7

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. Yes, almost certainly

Tony Blair (who still had a fondness for international law before Iraq was invaded) was always careful not to use regime change as a legal justification, because he knew international law didn't recognise it as a reason. The UN Security Council can authorize an attack to stop genocide - but that has to be explicit. Other than that, the reason has to be, I think, restoring international peace and security, as quoted above. That means there has to be a problem with other nations. And the Security Council has to authorize it. Unilateral action needs to be true self-defence - none of this "he might have threatened someone some time in the future" crap.

Which puts Bush and Blair, but especially Blair, in a nasty spot. He ended up saying the original 1991 UN resolutions allowed the attack, and 1441 just continued that authorization. That claim is disputed by international lawyers. For instance ,see this piece written just before he gave that justification:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2826331.stm

"There is a school of thought that going to war without the express authority of the Security Council would violate the UN charter," says Professor Grief.
...
Professor Anthony Aust was until recently one of the top legal advisers at the Foreign Office. He says previous resolutions allow the United States and Britain to use military action to restore peace and security in the Gulf region.
...
rofessor Warbrick agrees. Not only is there no imminent threat from Iraq, he says, but the UK Government has not demonstrated a link between the regime in Baghdad and any terrorist group who might pose such a threat.

Without a second resolution, he says, it would be unlawful for the UK to use military force against Iraq.

With the evidence for non-compliance with the 1991 Iraq disarmament resolutions now torn to shreds by the US and UK reports, and fairly obviously sexed up by the governments anyway, because they knew it was too weak in reality, there's a real case they invaded illegally.

That means little to Bush - I think the chances of any future American government prosecuting him are small (what president would want to set such a precedent?), and he's such a narrow-minded git that he'll quite happily not step outside the USA for the rest of his life.

But Britain signed up to the ICC. Even if the UK doesn't prosecute him, the rest of the world can try - and under the Extradition Act 2003, "For the first time, under the EAW, other countries will not be able to refuse to surrender a fugitive simply because there are one of their own nationals" - applying to any European Union countries. So if , say, a zealous Spanish judge issued an arrest warrant, Britain is meant to hand him over. And the Spanish police might even be able to come to Britain and do the arrest themselves - I'm not sure about that last part.
At the very least, Tony's going to have to think again about those vacations in Italy and the south of France.

[Bridget Burke]

16. Charges at the Nuremberg Trials

1) Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War

2) Waging Aggressive War

3) War Crimes

4) Crimes Against Humanity

From this site: www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/nuremberg/indictments.html

No mention of "regime change". Apparently the Allies made it a crime to start a war; excuses were irrelevant.

[Disturbed]

17. Invasion of Iraq was Illegal and so is the Occupation!!!

Richard, "The Prince of Darkness" Pearle was the neocon that publicly admit the war was illegal. He also pushed hard for the invasion and says it was a good thing.

BushCo are War Criminals and have also commited crimes that violated the Constitution of the USA.

What will be done about it? NOTHING!!!!