An Unjust War - by Charley Reese

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese184.html

It would pay us all to remember that the war in Iraq was both unjust and illegal. We launched a war of aggression against a country that was not attacking us, did not have the means to attack us, and had never expressed any intention of attacking us.

Thus, America's attack against Iraq is the same as Japan's attack against the U.S. in 1941 and Germany's attack against Poland in 1939. We were the aggressor, pure and simple, and for whatever real reason we attacked Iraq, it was not to save America from any danger, imminent or otherwise.

You can believe the two whitewash jobs blaming everything on intelligence if you wish to do so. I don't believe them. Our intelligence agencies make plenty of mistakes, but I don't believe that the information they provided the Bush administration was as clear-cut as the Bush people claimed. In other words, I think the Bush administration lied to the American people about weapons of mass destruction.

This illegal, unjust and unprovoked war against a sovereign country is what has alienated the rest of the world. This alienation runs deep and will have very long-term implications. The whole push of the best people in the bloody 20th century was an attempt to find ways to avert wars of aggression. The U.S. was one of the leaders in that drive. All of that was chucked on the ash heap of history by George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq and overthrow its government.

No sane leader of any nation in the world can trust America anymore. We have demonstrated that if we desire to attack a nation, we will fabricate the excuse and attack it, despite international law and international opinion...

more

http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2NjgxNDA5JnlyaXJ5N2Y3MTdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5Mg==

Guard recruiters shunned

<snip>"I've gone to high schools where people have called me a murderer and a killer," Vasquez said.

At the more suburban schools, students hang out with the recruiters during their lunch periods. They pick up fliers.

Showing interest is a far cry from signing up, however.

Recently, recruiters set up a table outside the cafeteria at Lodi High School. They gave out free pencils and notebooks to students passing by. Pvt. Stephanie Saunders, a recent recruit, gave students a pep talk.

"You meet people who are willing to go to war with you, and die with you," she told a group of students.

Jacqueline Mendez, a 17-year-old senior, said she's ready to join, as long as she can go to a fashion school, too.

more

[MadHound]

1. I find it remarkable

Charley Reese is an old style conservative, and five years ago, I found myself in disagreement with him over a lot of his columns. Remarably, now I found myself more and more in agreement with what he writes. Amazing how an illegal, immoral war can bring people together.

[htuttle]

2. "fabricate an excuse and attack it"

Actually, we've always done that. I think the biggest difference in the Iraq war is that we didn't bother to find a fig leaf of legality under international law.

Even the invasions of Grenada and Panama were claimed to be carried out under Article 51 of the UN Charter. (recall the medical students on Grenada, and the US soldier shot while running a Panamanian checkpoint right before the invasion). You see Article VI of our own Constitution demands we follow treaties ratified by Congress, such as the UN Charter (which the US largely wrote in the first place, btw...).

With Iraq, for the first time we didn't even bother to pretend we were following international law. We said, in Bolton fashion, 'Fuck International Law -- it doesn't apply to us'. And in the process, they said, 'Fuck the US Constitution. We don't have to be good on our word to the international community.' (an odd foreshadowing of Bush's intent to default on US treasury bonds, perhaps?)

THAT is what makes the Iraq invasion different, and all the more egregious and illegal.

[zipplewrath]

3. Alot of things, but not "illegal"

There are many reasons to oppose what Bush & Co. have done, but one can't really make the case that Gulf War 1A was "illegal". It was a subsequent action following the original Gulf war, which was justified by Sadam's invasion of Kuwait. He was forced to sign a treaty of surrender and there were obligations under that treaty. He violated them regularly.

The way we conducted the war may be grounds for an accusation of a violation of international laws. We had control of the skies before the war started and it could be argued that our attack was unnecessary under the known circumstances at the time. As such, putting the innocent lives of civilians at risk could be considered criminal. Additionally, considering that we couldn't get security council approval for our actions tends to remove the "subsequent action" cover in the sense that the sanctions Sadam violated and the no-fly zones were UN actions. What has never been real clear to me was who "fought" the original war. The UN approved of the actions of the original coalition, but technically the UN did not prosecute the war. As such, with whom did Sadam sign a treaty of surrender?

[hector459]

4. Hell, the Gulf War was illegal and based on lies also.

eom

[htuttle]

6. That is incorrect

I don't have time to find the link at the moment 'cuz I have to run to work, but the end of the first Gulf War was adjudicated by the UN. In other words, a resolution was passed officially 'ending' the war.

It was NOT at all like the current situation with North Korea where there literally still is just a cease fire/truce. The US and UN agreed the war was 'over' at some point.

Therefore, only a decision by the UN could have 'restarted' that war or authorized a new war. They did not do such a thing, hence our invasion was illegal.

If I have time later on, I'll try to dig up the applicable UN resolution.

[htuttle]

8. Found it -- UN Resolution 687 officially ended the first Gulf War

Sure, there were terms that Iraq needed to adhere to, but legally, it was solely the responsibility of the UN to determine whether Iraq was in violation of that resolution, not the United States.

In the same way that you can't act as judge, jury and executioners for your neighbors just because you think they are breaking the law, the US can't legally just decide who's violating UN resolutions and take action on it's own about it.

[Brotherjohn]

9. You are correct. Here is the pertinent language from Res. 687:

After laying out all the conditions which Iraq (AND Member States, including the U.S.) must meet, the last two declarations of the resolution state:

"33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);

34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area."

The formal cease-fire ended the authorization for Member States "to use all necessary means" included in Resolution 678.

Any legal expert on U.N. matters (except such "experts" as put forth by the Bush or Blair administrations, who obviously have a weighted interest in the matter) will tell you that when a resolution ends with the U.N. Security council saying it "remains seized of the matter", that means that the U.N. Security Council as a body must agree on a decision for further action. They also explicitly stated as much in the same passage (the UNSC would "take further steps as may be required, NOT the USA would "take further steps as required".) We voted for the resolution, too (but even if we didn't, the UNSC passed it, which makes it law).

And as any consitutional expert could tell you, the U.N. Charter, and all U.N. Resolutions passed, ARE United States Law according to our own Constitution (Article VI).

[zipplewrath]

10. He was violating the No-Fly Zones

The nuance was that he kept shootin' at the aircraft enforcing the No Fly Zones. Those were hostile acts. That, coupled with the violation of other UN sanctions, create the fiction of a threat to the US. Even Jeane Kirkpatrick acknowledged that there was enough of a veil under which to cover Bush's actions. There is no requirement to get UN approval for defending against hostile actions. None the less, they started to pursue it, and only dropped it when it became clear they weren't gonna get it. A huge mistake in so many ways that will ultimately come back to haunt us multiple times in the future.

[NNN0LHI]

11. Those "No-Fly Zones" were an invention of the US and the UK

There was no basis in international law for doing it. Period. The hostile acts were flying those planes over another sovereign nations air space. The US and Britain were breaking international law by doing so. What would the US do if Russia or China began flying fully armed combat aircraft over America do you think? Think our government might try and shoot them down?

Don

[htuttle]

12. The 'No Fly Zones' were never authorized by the UN

From Monday, 19 February, 2001, 19:07 GMT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1175950.stm

However, unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.

BBC diplomatic correspondent Barnaby Mason says the Western powers - led by President George Bush senior - argued that their action was consistent with Security Council Resolution 688 adopted on 5 April 1991.

(snip)

But critics of the no-fly zones point out that the resolution did not say the Security Council was acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which provides for enforcement action.

Nor did it say that all necessary means could be used.

(much more at link)

As you stated, "There is no requirement to get UN approval for defending against hostile actions. " Unauthorized overflights and 10 years of aerial bombing by the US and UK were indeed hostile acts, and Iraq was justified under Article 51 of the UN Charter in shooting at our planes.

[NNN0LHI]

7. Iraq war illegal, says Annan

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

more

[indepat]

5. My LTTE asking editors to explain how the Iraqi invasion differed

materially from the Japanese, German, and Italian invasions of the 1930s, given the extermination of a race of people was not at issue here, was met by my local Scripps-Howard rag with the blocking of my e-mails from all their e-mail addresses. And now the conservative Charlie Reese is stating as a matter-of-fact what provoked the S-H editors to forever silence my voice (I will never again honor any S-H rag with my LTTE). Thank you Charlie Reese for vindicating the legitimacy of my request to the S-H editors.