The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [casi] Maj. Scott Ritter on the phantom WMDs, etc.

>Ritter said if no weapons are found, Bush's decision to >wage war on
Iraq should be condemned -- whether he lied >or made an honest mistake.

>"If Iraq is in possession of weapons of mass destruction, >they are in
violation of international law," Ritter said. >"If they aren't, then we
are in violation of >international law."

This leaves a mistaken impression. Even if weapons are found, the US/UK
is still in violation of international law (and the US Constitution in
violation of the UN charter, which is a treaty and legally binding).

What the legality hinges on is whether the treat was immanent, and the
attack legitimately premptive, rather than preventive -- i.e., whether
there was there a credible and present danger of danger of immediate
attack by Iraq. Barring that, or a UN resolution in support, the invasion
violated the UN charter.

As to "an honest mistake", such honesty must be supported by the facts,
both the intelligence available and also the honest portrayal of that
intelligence: strong evidence has already been established that neither
is the case. But yes, honest mistake or not, the invasion was illegal --
criminal -- and the invaders must be held legally responsible -- not
merely condemned politically.

While it is true that Saddam was bad news, it was well beyond the
international legal authority of any nation or several nations to
independently decide to remove him without a UN SC resolution -- that's
the treaty agreement which the UN member states signed on to. The current
arguments, and widespread acceptance in the US, that the war was OK
because Saddam was a tyrannical criminal simply don't hold water -- no
more than a lynch mob can be excused from killing someone even if he is
later shown to really be a murderer.

Let us not allow ourselves to be confused on these points.

The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit to sign up today!

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]