Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush disputes Annan claim Iraq war "illegal"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 07:05 PM
Original message
Bush disputes Annan claim Iraq war "illegal"
Edited on Thu Sep-16-04 07:12 PM by NNN0LHI
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040916/pl_afp/us_vote_bush_iraq&cid=1521&ncid=2043

ST. CLOUD, United States (AFP) - Disputing UN chief Kofi Annan (news - web sites)'s charge that the war in Iraq (news - web sites) was "illegal" under the world body's charter, US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) said that the invasion had UN Security Council support.


The verbal feud came days before the US president was to head to the UN General Assembly in New York seeking UN help for stabilizing Iraq and preparing for elections scheduled for January 2005 but imperiled by bloody chaos there.


Bush did not refer by name to Annan, who told the BBC that failure to get a second UN resolution explicitly authorizing military force against Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) meant that "from the (UN) charter point of view it (the war) was illegal."


But the president pointedly noted the unanimous passage in November 2002 of UN Security Council resolution 1441, which warned Saddam he faced "serious consequences" if he were found to be seeking weapons of mass destruction.

more...Yes George. You are a war criminal. The whole world thinks so. Get ready for your day in court.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. What about the missiles to kill Sadam?
It is against US and International law to assasinate a head of state OR EVEN TO TRY.
Little King george is a criminal no doubt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illiteratepresident Donating Member (66 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
2.  War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday November 20, 2003
The Guardian

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the 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."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

But 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.

French intransigence, he added, meant there had been "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein".

Mr Perle, who was speaking at an event organised by the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, had argued loudly for the toppling of the Iraqi dictator since the end of the 1991 Gulf war.

"They're just not interested in international law, are they?" said Linda Hugl, a spokeswoman for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which launched a high court challenge to the war's legality last year. "It's only when the law suits them that they want to use it."

Mr Perle's remarks bear little resemblance to official justifications for war, according to Rabinder Singh QC, who represented CND and also participated in Tuesday's event.

Certainly the British government, he said, "has never advanced the suggestion that it is entitled to act, or right to act, contrary to international law in relation to Iraq".

The Pentagon adviser's views, he added, underlined "a divergence of view between the British govern ment and some senior voices in American public life have expressed the view that, well, if it's the case that international law doesn't permit unilateral pre-emptive action without the authority of the UN, then the defect is in international law".

Mr Perle's view is not the official one put forward by the White House. Its main argument has been that the invasion was justified under the UN charter, which guarantees the right of each state to self-defence, including pre-emptive self-defence. On the night bombing began, in March, Mr Bush reiterated America's "sovereign authority to use force" to defeat the threat from Baghdad.

The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has questioned that justification, arguing that the security council would have to rule on whether the US and its allies were under imminent threat.

Coalition officials countered that the security council had already approved the use of force in resolution 1441, passed a year ago, warning of "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to give a complete ac counting of its weapons programmes.

Other council members disagreed, but American and British lawyers argued that the threat of force had been implicit since the first Gulf war, which was ended only by a ceasefire.

"I think Perle's statement has the virtue of honesty," said Michael Dorf, a law professor at Columbia University who opposed the war, arguing that it was illegal.

"And, interestingly, I suspect a majority of the American public would have supported the invasion almost exactly to the same degree that they in fact did, had the administration said that all along."

The controversy-prone Mr Perle resigned his chairmanship of the defence policy board earlier this year but remained a member of the advisory board.

Meanwhile, there was a hint that the US was trying to find a way to release the Britons held at Guantanamo Bay.

The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, said Mr Bush was "very sensitive" to British sentiment. "We also expect to be resolving this in the near future," he told the BBC.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kellanved Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
3. so flip-flop = bad; flip-flop-flip = OK?
We have permission-> irrelevant-> we didn't need permission -> we had permission/ we campaign on the basis that the US doesn't need permission for anything


The claim that the war was legal is based on a very selective reading of a certain UN resolution - a reading that was not intended by most nations voting on it. Also, without any evidence on WMD and even some evidence that Iraq's report to the UN was complete and honest (at least no credible proof to the contrary), the claim that the war was legal is ridiculous.

Maybe someone should acknowledge that certain nations did oppose the war because of well-founded doubts concerning the situation and possible - now practically certain- future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gumby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
4. "fourteen-forty-one" was repeated incessantly,
but it was not a declaration of war, just like that stupid "resolution" that Kerry/Edwards unwisely voted for.

Jr. just took the tools of international and national governance and used them as his own personal play things. Words and treaties and the workings of our national government mean nothing the the greedy BoyKing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. I politely disagree. That resolution was a good thing and it worked
That resolution in the fall of 2002 made Saddam start cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors. At the time I thought it was a brilliant sabre-rattling maneuver.

I was very discouraged when I realized somewhere around January 2003 that chimpy was actually going to invade anyway, even though Saddam was cooperating and no WMD had been found.

The resolution Kerry voted for was good. BushCo's invasion was stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
5. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
6. except, of course, that he WASN'T found to be seeking wmd
nor did un security council resolution 1441 provide for shrub to be judge, jury, and executioner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
7. The invasion was illegal. The US acted unilaterally, w/o Security Council
support. These are the simple facts of the matter.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
8. but what georgie wants, georgie gets, and he doesn't have to play by the
rules, does he? never did, never will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
9. No, the Security Council resolutions...
never gave any nation the right to invade Iraq without Security Council authorization because Iraq hadn't disarmed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-04 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
11. Bush the chickenhawk delusional
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 07:04 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC