Invasion right but 'illegal', says US hawk

[bobgote]

Hmmph. I didn't write the headline, but yeah, what it says.
Richard Perle (dunno what position he holds, but according to the article, it's "influential") apparently admits the war was illegal, but then proceeds to blame the system, and of course, France too (why not?).

What does this mean in the end?
Well maybe that if that argument (that it was legal) is discounted, there's pretty much nothing left. He blames it on the French for scuttling the Security Council vote (I assume) because of their threats of a veto, but we all know that's rubbish, as the council voted overwhelmingly against the proposition anyway. So what's left?

Of course this is only one man, who will no doubt be shot down mercilessly by his colleagues, but it is proof that this kind of opinion exists...

Invasion right but 'illegal', says US hawk
By Oliver Burkeman
London
November 21, 2003

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners have reacted with astonishment after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle said that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle said in London on Wednesday: "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 stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a member of the defence policy board, which advises 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".

Lawyer Rabinder Singh, who represented the UK Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said the British Government "has never advanced the suggestion that it is entitled to act, or right to act, contrary to international law in relation to Iraq".

He said Mr Perle's views underlined "a divergence of view between the British Government and some senior voices in American public life [who] 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".

The White House has maintained that the invasion was justified under the UN charter, which guarantees the right of each state to self-defence, including pre-emptive self-defence.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan disputed that argument.

Columbia University law professor Michael Dorf, who said the war was illegal, said: "I think Perle's statement has the virtue of honesty . . . 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."

A Pentagon spokesman said yesterday that Mr Perle was not on the defence department staff, but was a member of an unpaid advisory board.

Mr Perle refused to elaborate on his remarks.

- Guardian

Source: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/20/1069027255087.html

 

[amadeus]

The United Nations does not have supreme legal authority over the United States, so no "law" has been broken.

 

[Ian Beale]

It shouldn't be illegal to liberate a country from a brutal and sadistic dictator!

 

[Roundman]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
The United Nations does not have supreme legal authority over the United States, so no "law" has been broken.

I agree

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
The United Nations does not have supreme legal authority over the United States, so no "law" has been broken.

well apparently not everyone agrees with you
and if i'm not mistaken, everyone agreed to the international laws, didn't they?
well i guess the US still doesn't allow it's people to be taken to the International Criminal Court. they're special

Originally posted by Ian Beale
It shouldn't be illegal to liberate a country from a brutal and sadistic dictator!

means, not ends, is what the laws cover.

 

[Richard III]

International law hasn't been enforced, ever, and has been broken by virtually every nation state at some point in the last 55 years.

I'm disgusted by this absurd obsession with the "legality" of the war, when (a) clearly both sides had "illegal behavior" by that standard so why enforce against only one, (b) the most legal policies toward Iraq in recent years were to respect Baathist soveriegnty in 1991 and then to apply sanctions, which were also the most thoughtless, and (c) who gives a ****? This distracts clearly from the much more crucial issues of morality and political sensibility.

When international law isn't a dictactor-respecting inconsistent joke written by the people of the world, I will stop treating it as a joke.

R.III

 

[ainwood]

Then perhaps international law should be scrapped?

You can't expect other countries to abide by resolutions if you have no history of abiding by them yourselves.

In saying that, however, the whole concept needs a radical overhaul....

 

[Richard III]

I think the solution is to start the process from scratch, invite only elected delegations to the convention to write them, and try all over again. And declare a "year zero" for countries who sign on, and declare pariah status for those who don't.

Of course, Kitten thinks this is dangerously naive and did an eye-roll smiley, but I have to wonder, is it any more dangerously naive than trying to pretend the lousy international law system we have is actually a form of legality?

 

[Benderino]

Sure it was illegal, but necessary. I regret that we didn't maneuver it to make it legal. That way we are more credible, for now how can we ask others to abide by international law (as we did when Saddam invaded Kuwait in '91) if we don't even do that? More diplomacy was needed, but I also think that certain countries in Europe and Asia (I refuse to name them) should have been a little more pragmatic instead of offering "NEVER!" as the only solution.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

What does it mean?

It means that dear Ricky has been dispatched by the Pentagon's "Damage Control Committee".

As a member of the Project for the New American Century group, Mr. Perle HELPED PLAN this war as EARLY as 1994. He is as responsible for our illegitimate rush to war as any other highup member of Bushie's govt.

The point of Mr. Perle's script is not to throw a curveball at the Administration. Through the guise of presenting a "startling" and "independent" opinion, Perle is just pushing the next part of Bush's agenda re: Iraq: delegitimizing international law. Witness:

"I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

"international law . . . would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone",

there had been "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam".

None of these statements are correct, but they're a vital part of the Administration's campaign to portray international law as the culprit for "getting in the way" of "justice".

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
What does it mean?

It means that dear Ricky has been dispatched by the Pentagon's "Damage Control Committee".

As a member of the Project for the New American Century group, Mr. Perle HELPED PLAN this war as EARLY as 1994. He is as responsible for our illegitimate rush to war as any other highup member of Bushie's govt.

The point of Mr. Perle's script is not to throw a curveball at the Administration. Through the guise of presenting a "startling" and "independent" opinion, Perle is just pushing the next part of Bush's agenda re: Iraq: delegitimizing international law. Witness:

"I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

"international law . . . would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone",

there had been "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam".

None of these statements are correct, but they're a vital part of the Administration's campaign to portray international law as the culprit for "getting in the way" of "justice".

good point.

 

[Qitai]

The UN has served an important role in the last 55 years in maintaining peace and resolving issues between many countries. At a certain level, the peace we had may not have been possible without the UN. Some laws may need to be refine. But to discredit it would means returning to a world where dispute between nations are resolved through the use of arms and the very possibility of a 3rd world war.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Qitai
The UN has served an important role in the last 55 years in maintaining peace and resolving issues between many countries.

Like where?

Algeria? Vietnam? Iran? Rwanda? Yugoslavia? Zimbabwe? Afghanistan? Uganda? Czechoslovakia? Cambodia? Grenada? Argentina? Laos? China? Hungary? Turkey? Colombia?

 

[jack merchant]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
The United Nations does not have supreme legal authority over the United States, so no "law" has been broken.

While I agree with R.III on the validity & quality of current international law, a basic understanding of it would help . International treaties supercede domestic laaw, so the US is as much (or as little, really) bound to those nternational treaties it has signed and the rules of the organizations set up by those treaties as anyone else.

 

[Sarevok]

it doesent matter, you guys complain too much. find something better with your time rather than trying to get excuses to hate the US as a pretext for jealousy.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Sarevok
it doesent matter, you guys complain too much. find something better with your time rather than trying to get excuses to hate the US as a pretext for jealousy.

Ok, you're quite right, I'm very sorry. I'll stop being jealous and move on now.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
The United Nations does not have supreme legal authority over the United States, so no "law" has been broken.

The United states has no jurisdiction whatsoever in Iraq. None!

and moving armed troops into Iraq breaks Iraqi law, so all US troops should be tried in Iraq.




See where your argument leads? Either you proclaim the US an uber-country (Heil Bush or what????) or you must admit that the US troops have no business whatsoever in iraq (as there clearly was no threat to the US from Iraq).

 

[zippy]

Originally posted by Richard III
I think the solution is to start the process from scratch, invite only elected delegations to the convention to write them, and try all over again. And declare a "year zero" for countries who sign on, and declare pariah status for those who don't.

Of course, Kitten thinks this is dangerously naive and did an eye-roll smiley, but I have to wonder, is it any more dangerously naive than trying to pretend the lousy international law system we have is actually a form of legality?

A good idea in theory, but I can't see countries simply putting aside their history by forgiving and forgetting. Also, by omitting all unelected leaders, you are ruling out about 3/4 of the countries of the world. This would make the new organization a complete waste of time.

Originally posted by Benderino
Sure it was illegal, but necessary. I regret that we didn't maneuver it to make it legal. That way we are more credible, for now how can we ask others to abide by international law (as we did when Saddam invaded Kuwait in '91) if we don't even do that? More diplomacy was needed, but I also think that certain countries in Europe and Asia (I refuse to name them) should have been a little more pragmatic instead of offering "NEVER!" as the only solution.

Certainly, the Iraq debacle has shown why having a veto in the Security Council makes the whole UN rather pointless.

 

[Enemy Ace]

Where is that meteor?

If I were President, I would have still invaded Iraq, but I garauntee there would have been international support.

It is alarming the loss of support for American efforts, since September 11th, 2001.

 

[Drewcifer]

I think that the source of the rift between the US and Europe over Iraq (but not the rift between the US and the rest of the world over it) comes from the fact that the past 50 years have given Europe and the US very different ideas about national soverignty.

Europe has been engaged in a process where nation states have been seceeding portions of their soverignty to a multi-national body for most of living memory and see it as normal now.

In the US people see the democratically elected national government as the final repository of the will of the people and everything at a higher level being open to debate and revision.

Explains much eh?