|
Banned
|
The military of a country invading and occupying another sovereign nation that has not first attacked the invading country, or even exhibited an imminent threat to attack, is a series of illegal crimes against humanity. It just isn't convenient to look too closely at what the US has done, and then object to it all.
Quote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...AGNECVOEI1.DTL
BAY AREA
Anti-war sailor lifts foes of Iraq policy
Sentence for defying deployment orders less than expected
Joe Garofoli, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, May 28, 2005
....Paredes explained to the military judge, Lt. Cmdr. Bob Klant, that he thought the war was "random, unprovoked illegitimate violence," and that "any soldier who knowingly participates in a war can find no haven in the fact that they were following orders, in the eyes of international law."
While Klant didn't side with Paredes' legal reasoning, he didn't slap nearly as harsh a penalty on the sailor as the Navy had sought. Activists have been buzzing about a statement he made from the bench after allowing testimony from Marjorie Cohn, a law professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, and an outspoken war critic.
Cohn testified that U.S. involvement in conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia had no justification under international law, a position Navy prosecutors did not challenge on cross-examination. Afterward, according to published accounts, Klant said, "I think that the government has successfully proved that any service member has reasonable cause to believe that the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal." The Navy has not released a trial transcript....
|
Quote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/nov/20/usa.iraq1
War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal
* Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger in Washington
* The Guardian,
* Thursday November 20 2003
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.
French intransigence, he added, meant there had been "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein".
Mr Perle, who was speaking at an event organised by the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, had argued loudly for the toppling of the Iraqi dictator since the end of the 1991 Gulf war.
"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." ....
|
Quote:
Eisenhower 1956
Quote:http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/pr...ments/2063.cfm
...The real point is that Britain, France and Israel had come to believe--probably correctly--that Nasser was their worst enemy in the Mid East and that until he was removed or deflated, they would have no peace. I do not quarrel with the idea that there is justification for such fears, but
I have insisted long and earnestly that you cannot resort to force in international relationships because of your fear of what might happen in the future.....
|
Opinion of former Nuremberg War Crimes Trials Prosecutor, a US Army Attorney at that time:
Quote:
http://www.benferencz.org/arts/93.html
A World of Peace Under the Rule of Law: The View from America†
Benjamin B. Ferencz*
Washington University Global Studies Law Review, Vol. 6, No 3 (2007)
..The most important point of Nuremberg was the conclusion that aggressive war, which had been a national right throughout history, was henceforth going to be punished as an international crime. That was a revolution in thinking. We’ve always had wars, and many would say that warfare was inevitable and immutable as part of some Divine eternal plan—“The big fish eat the little fish.” Well, Justice Jackson said, “No more!” Jackson was very explicit when he wrote to President Truman saying the time had come when we must hold accountable those leaders who hold the reins of power, so they will know that they will be answerable for their evil deeds, and warfare is an evil deed. It’s an evil thing. And they agreed that no matter what the reason, no matter what justification is offered, warfare would not be tolerated. International disputes could be settled by peaceful means only. That was the main point of Nuremberg. I was a combat soldier in World War II—from the beaches of Normandy to the final Battle of the Bulge. I know about war. Jackson’s call for a world of peace under the rule of law deserves universal support...
THE RULE OF LAW—THE CRIME OF AGGRESSION
.. It was not persuasive to the three American judges. They carefully considered the doctrine of preemptive self-defense, or anticipatory selfdefense. They held, unanimously, that it was not a valid defense that could justify the crimes. If everyone felt they could go out and attack their neighbor, and also kill their children and other perceived enemies, what kind of a world would we have? It was an echo of Justice Jackson’s famous phrase that has been quoted here about not passing the Germans “a poisoned chalice” lest we put it to our own lips as well. Law must apply equally to everyone.
In Telford Taylor’s closing statement, he said to accept preemptory self-defense as a justification for murder would be like saying that a man who breaks into a house can then shoot the owner in presumed selfdefense. Those who made that argument were found guilty and were hanged. I was a young man then, and it was clear to me that those innocent souls who were slaughtered by these Nazi extermination squads were killed because they did not share the race, or the religion, or the ideology of their executioners. I thought then that such thinking was pretty terrible. I still think it’s pretty terrible today. Of course, it affects my judgment when I come to consider the view from the United States....
..in July 2002. Leading British cabinet members discussing plans for an upcoming war with Iraq concluded that the United States was fixing the facts to match the policy. It seemed clear to them that the U.S. had made up its mind to go to war against Iraq, no matter what. The Americans were determined to bring about a “regime change.” When it was noted that doing so by force would be illegal, administration lawyers, adept at finding new interpretations of laws, came up with the argument that preemptive force would be justified as self-defense from an imminent nuclear threat. The U.N. Charter says a nation may defend itself against an armed attack. As far as I can make out, Iraq wasn’t engaged in or even planning an armed attack against the United States. So the creative lawyers stretched the law by arguing that since the Security Council of the U.N. was too politicized, it could be bypassed if necessary. A preemptive war followed......
....One of the delegates at the prep-coms and in Rome was the representative of the U.K., Elizabeth Wilmshurst, a very nice lady and British civil servant who occupied an important legal post in the Foreign Office. She was their expert on aggression. When she recognized that Britain and the U.S. were going to war against Iraq without Security Council approval she resigned. “I can no longer serve a government which is engaged in the crime of aggression,”(1) she wrote. That’s an exact quote. I have a copy of the letter. Britain’s legal officer says the U.K. and the U.S. are engaged in the crime of aggression. Britain’s top intelligence people say the U.S. is misleading the public about the proximity of a nuclear attack and that Iraq supports terrorists that bombed the United States. These are allegations that challenge the validity and legality of our going to war and they call for more detailed explanation than has been forthcoming.....
|
Quote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4377605.stm
Last Updated: Thursday, 24 March, 2005, 10:22 GMT
Wilmshurst resignation letter
Elizabeth Wilmshurst, deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Office, resigned in March 2003 because she did not believe the war with Iraq was legal. Her letter was released by the Foreign Office to the BBC News website under the Freedom of Information Act.
A minute dated 18 March 2003 from Elizabeth Wilmshurst (Deputy Legal Adviser) to Michael Wood (The Legal Adviser), copied to the Private Secretary, the Private Secretary to the Permanent Under-Secretary, Alan Charlton (Director Personnel) and Andrew Patrick (Press Office):
1. I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution to revive the authorisation given in SCR 678. I do not need to set out my reasoning; you are aware of it.
[The following italicised section was removed by the Foreign Office but later obtained by Channel 4 News]
My views accord with the advice that has been given consistently in this office before and after the adoption of UN security council resolution 1441 and with what the attorney general gave us to understand was his view prior to his letter of 7 March. (The view expressed in that letter has of course changed again into what is now the official line.)
I cannot in conscience go along with advice - within the Office or to the public or Parliament - which asserts the legitimacy of military action without such a resolution, particularly since an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances which are so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law.
2. I therefore need to leave the Office: my views on the legitimacy of the action in Iraq would not make it possible for me to continue my role as a Deputy Legal Adviser or my work more generally.
For example in the context of the International Criminal Court, negotiations on the crime of aggression begin again this year.
I am therefore discussing with Alan Charlton whether I may take approved early retirement. In case that is not possible this letter should be taken as constituting notice of my resignation.
3. I joined the Office in 1974. It has been a privilege to work here. I leave with very great sadness.
|
Last edited by host; 05-17-2008 at 10:38 PM..
|