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]
Thanks, Bob, for your clear thinking. Best, Suzy -----Original Message----- From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of firstname.lastname@example.org Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 10:27 AM To: email@example.com Subject: 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 www.juno.com to sign up today! _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email firstname.lastname@example.org All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email email@example.com All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk