War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal
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.
This pretty well sums up our foreign policy:
“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.”
And now for the ‘well, duh!’ statement of the week:
Mr Perle’s view is not the official one put forward by the White House.
Check our Perle’s bio.
Oops! Our bad, sorry…not.
Right now though, “international law” merely means “agreements we have to play nice” with other countries. There is no international government that can actually create and enforce such laws.
These criminal bastards let slip a jot of truth by accident every now and then. In practice, they care little for the rule of law – or ethics or justice. They are concepts that came to guide nations and governments that have moved beyond greed and power as their sole justification for existence.
Now all we need is a population of voters in the United States that also understand something more than simple-minded consumption and obeying the thugs in office.
I want to know: will Bush be indicted with Crimes Against Humanity after he leaves office?
What protections exist for former presidents from international tribunals? None?
Will he be the next Slobodan Milosevic?
Once again, the question has to be asked…where were these people four or five years ago?
#3 Regarding your last sentence…that would require that voters actually use their brains. That’s a lot to ask.
Not sure many countries follow international law? Did Sadam follow any laws? I think not.
To be honest I think that the US wanted Sadam out for a long time. The WMD’s were just the ticket to get it done. But the after efects of Sadam’s departure was not expected by the US.
We must have thought everyone would be so grateful and just go about being a free and united country. Sorry but I don’t think thats ever going to happen.
It’s an old story, from 2003.
>Once again, the question has to be asked…where were these people four or five years ago?
Perle was there four or five years ago, and was saying the same thing then.
You want proof? Well, go to the article linked above, and look at the date. It says Nov 20, 2003
This strikes me as selective editing.
The White House says international law allows for not X.
Well if international law means X, as some say, then it is international law that is flawed.
Not a very controversial position to take, and not the same as saying the White House broke international law.
when they do something of questionable morality republicans will say that according to the letter of some law, it was perfectly legal, and therefore okay
when they do something of questionable legality republican will say that it was morally right thing to do, and therefore okay
basically, they believe that their leaders should do whatever the hell they want, with complete disregard to anyone in opposition.
The Democrats do the same thing, bamf. It’s just that since they haven’t had the White house for a while it’s their turn to bitch and moan about it.
#3 “Now all we need is a population of voters in the United States that also understand something more than simple-minded consumption and obeying the thugs in office.”
You’ll also need politicians willing to discuss controversial (read: important) issues so that the voters can actually vote on those issues.
Oh, right. It would also help if there was some way for the voters to actually introduce their own issues, complaints, suggestions, etc into the pre-election discussions, without being ignored by the media.
So what? get over it! This won’t be the first or last time.. Where do you think will be NEXT? I bet Pakistan, or Mexixo.
>>Once again, the question has to be asked…where
>>were these people four or five years ago?
Oh, they were around. The dateline on this story is Thursday November 20, 2003. It’s just that (counter to what Anal Cyst Limbaugh and Loofah Pad O’Reilly like to claim), the “mainstream media” was falling all over themselves buying into Dumbya and his puppeteer’s bullshit about WMDs and MISSIONs ACCOMPLISHED that they didn’t cover any of this stuff.
It would have been nice if some of what Anal Cyst et Cie. call the “liberal media” had taken their dicks out of the Little King’s ass, and done some responsible reporting. We probably wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in right now.
More pure BDA nonsense. Congress authorized the invasion. And even if it didn’t, Iraq was in violation of the treaty it signed to suspend Gulf War I. When violating the treaty, the original conditions for the first Gulf War were in place. It was perfectly legal.
Unpopular, but legal.
>>Congress authorized the invasion
Congress gave Little King Georgie the authority to use military force as a last resort, after the weapons inspectors and diplomacy had failed, but only if necessary, and only if they failed.
Who knew the crazy motherfucker would leapfrog the inspections and the diplomacy, and go right to the bunker busters?
Mr.M or #17…
I think, maybe, his Poppa ?!?
This is a perfect example of what happens when the US Government puts its foreign policy decisions in the hands of a bunch of zionazi Israel firsters. We have spent nearly a trillion dollars covering Israels ass because people like Perle thought it would be a good idea. F**k Israel. We should start funding the PLO to make things a little more interesting in the Middle East like we funded both Iran and Iraq during their little skirmish. I like that idea.
#17 – your an idiot. Keep playing with words….maybe no one will remember speach after speach from democrats (most notably Clinton) in which they discuss how they understand that this war might take a decade, but we are in it for the long haul. – That is almost a direct quote from the Hildabeast herself – it comes from her speach explaining why she supported military action. Its comes from 2002. Before public polls had changed. Imagine a world in which we fight wars like American Idol. Oh yeah, thats right….you dont have to…we currently live in one.
>>your an idiot.
You must have been on the debate team too. And in the Grammar Club to boot.
I don’t give a fuck what Hillary said. Whatever gave you the idea that I support Hillary (granted, she’d be light-years ahead of the doofus playing POTUS right now)??
Congress gave Dumbya the authority to use military force IF AND WHEN THE INSPECTORS FOUND THE WMDs, and DIPLOMACY HAD FAILED. If Congress had wanted to go to war, they could have just declared war. That’s what Congresses do.
>Congress gave Little King Georgie the authority to use military force as a last resort,
Ahh, hindsight reexplaining of the record.
I voted for the war before I voted against it.
You have to love the editing…..This quote is criticizing international law…not the war in Iraq.
#3 – “They are concepts that came to guide nations and governments that have moved beyond greed and power as their sole justification for existence.”
Exactly which countries would those be? Dont even think about saying Europe or any of the other idiots at the UN. The only reason the UN opposed our intervention in Iraq is because they knew that if we invaded, we would find evidence that they were taking Money Illegally from Saddam in payment for under the table oil swaps..(which definately violated both international law and the UN sanctions against Saddam). Saddam mentioned in notes to his own people that he was intentionally brokering these deals with RUSSIA, CHINA, FRANCE, etc. in order to isolate the US and England. Guess who the leading countries where that opposed our invasion. thats right RUSSIA, CHINA, and FRANCE. The secretary general was specifically implicated in the scheme along with prominent European states. The vatican was even involved in the scandal. It is believed that Kofi Anon was a major part of this as well. Afterall, his second in command was directly implicated in the files we found in Iraq. (So why would the US listen to the UN when the secretary general of the UN and most of his cronies didn’t either?)
In contrast with common belief…even the UN weapons investigators thought saddam had WMD’s when we invaded. Saddam had prevented the investigators from doing their jobs – he banned them from the country in 1999. (3 years prior to our invasion) That alone broke the deal we made with him following the first gulf war. We had enough right then to to after him – WMD’s or not.
So you see all….it is never what it seems. The UN tells everyone that we broke the law because we didnt let a bunch of self-serving foreign diplomats decide our own foreign policy. Wow, we are so evil. We are the evil ones because we decided to take action against a brutal dictator. Thats sad. Dont the same people who blame america for breaking international law get angry at america for trying to impede on other nations sovereignty? Isnt that exactly what the world community is doing to the US here. Aren’t our politicians ultimately responsible for protecting us. France doesnt give a damn about America….why would listen to them when it comes to our own foreign policy? France does whats best for france….so does russia, china, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and every other country in the world. Our politicians are elected to look out for US interests and there isnt anything wrong with that.
Apparently the flip flopping wasnt just a symptom of Kerry’s; it is symptomatic of almost every liberal in America….Double standards abound. America isnt allowed to protect its own borders, america isnt allowed to defend itself, america isnt allowed to protect its interests world-wide…yet everyone else in the world is allowed absolute control over their borders, people, and actions??? Or in the words of Calderon….Mexico doesnt end in Mexico… anyone else find a problem with this???? A country is defined by its borders. But in the liberal world only america should be confined by its borders….everyone else gets free reign. Even if its in America.
For liberals, Saddam is excused from torture, rape, murder, genocide, killing innocents with chemical weapons, assasinations, invading a foreign country with out any provocation what so ever – (we know for a fact that he has done all of these); yet the liberal argument is that international law protects saddam from punishment; Yet Bush should still be able to be tried by the court. What planet are you from?????? Because if you do believe that Saddam should have been held accountable….then thats what we did….and thus, we did not break any laws. We took a war criminal, removed him from power (like Milosevic) and tried him in court for his crimes.
Bush isnt killing the civilians in Iraq and neither is our military. Suicide bombers and IED’s planted by radical islamists are responsible for the deaths of both american troops and Iraqi civilians.
Had the UN and the rest of international community not been making millions off of illegal oil deals with saddam…we could have taken him out as a united coalition. But their self-serving goals prevented that from happening. Dont get it twisted….do some research. Check out the “Oil for food Scandal.” And for christ’s sake, please stop listening to our BS media coverage. Its so slanted its painful. Can someone say bleeding Heart???
>>I voted for the war before I voted against it.
Christ almighty, Mikie. If you really don’t understnad the difference between “I voted to go to war” and “I voted to give the president the authority to use military force when all other means have failed and military force is justified, then I don’t know what to say to you.
Maybe you should run for president. With those kind of comprehension skills, you could give Dumbya a good run for his money as “Dopiest Guy to Ever Occupy the Oval Office”.
>>Apparently the flip flopping wasn’t
>>just a symptom of Kerry’s
Darned tooting. In fact, “flip flopping” wasn’t a symptom of Kerry’s at all, in spite of the Swift Boat Liars and other scoundrels’ attempts to slander and libel him.
The undisputed flip-flop champion of the universe, of course, is none other that Little King Georgie himself.
http://tinyurl.com/35nlu3
One thing you can be dead sure about with Dumbya, if he says one thing today, he’ll say the exact opposite tomorrow.
“Congress gave Dumbya the authority to use military force IF AND WHEN THE INSPECTORS FOUND THE WMDs, and DIPLOMACY HAD FAILED. If Congress had wanted to go to war, they could have just declared war. That’s what Congresses do.”
Then in your own words….he did exactly what they asked of him. They said if diplomacy had failed (Saddam banned the inspectors for 3 years). The ultimatum bush gave saddam when he asked for approval from congress was to allow the investigators back in…or we would have no choice but to invade. He received approval from congress….Saddam continued to evade the UN investigators, so Bush told Saddam to leave Iraq or face invasion. How does that not follow what the Congress approved???? We couldnt find the weapons because saddam wouldn’t let anyone in the country to look. Negotiations had already failed because he would allow anyone in to the country. So I would say that diplomacy had failed.
>>Yet Bush should still be able to be tried
>>by the court.
Of course. He’s a fucking criminal. Nobody’s defending Saddam’s record, and he’s dead now. Unfortunately, Iraq is worse off than it was under Saddam, and we’re bogged down in a misbegotten, illegal, mismanaged, immoral, unethical war, started under false pretenses, for as long out as we can predict. Americans dying every day. Iraquis dying every day. Osama bin Laden laughing all the way to the dialysis center.
Tin-horn dictators with records as bad as Saddams are a dime a dozen. Dumbya has no interest in invading their countries, though.
Ever wonder about that?
So your only complaint to everything I said…or at least your only comback was to comlain about my characterization of Kerry as a flip flopper. Well I gues we know your not a liberal mouth piece.
All you have done is insult me with your last few posts. Why dont answer some of the real criticism. why dont you tell my why Bush is a war criminal who deserves to be punished because he ignored international opinion, yet Saddam (who is guilty of almost every international law on the books) is a victim who shouldn’t have been removed from power? Please explain that to me….
oh yeah…its becausse you hate bush and regardless of what happens anywhere in the world…its all bush’s fault….he stole the election in his first term…..I bet he plays cards with Nazi’s….I bet he drinks children’s blood. Just keep throwing em out…It doesnt matter if its based on fact. if you say it enough people will actually start to listen.
You are rediculous.
Thats my point…. I would Hope that we would only send troops in when it was in our own interest to do so. I would hope that we wouldnt send american men and women to die fighting in a country that has no significance to us. Thats just dumb…in fact…that would be Vietnam all over again.
Liberals (like you), think it is wrong for the US to protect its interest. I think its one of the few things our government is actually suppossed to do. Welfare was not in the constitution….neither is free healthcare…yet the founders did think it important to grant our federal government with the power to raise a military and fight for the defense of the American People. That would include our interests world-wide, because the success or failure of our government to protect those interest can dramatically alter our way of life.
>>why dont you tell my why Bush is a war criminal
>>who deserves to be punished… yet Saddam … is
>>a victim who shouldn’t have been removed from
>>power? Please explain that to me….
I’d explain it if I said it. I never said it. Saddam was an asshole, and he was hanged until dead. Dumbya is an asshole, but I’m not suggesting that he be killed. A hard nickel at at Sing Sing (or some other SuperMax facility) should do the trick.