Q: So you don’t think there was legal authority for the war?
A: I have stated clearly that it was not in conformity with the Security Council – with the UN Charter.
Q: It was illegal?
A: Yes, if you wish.
Q: It was illegal?
A: Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal.
Back to Main
September 16, 2004
Just In Time
Comments
They do pay attention:
BBC adds:
.. a former Bush administration aide, Randy Scheunemann, branded Mr Annan’s comments “outrageous”.
As Sean-Paul Kelly of the Agonist says in his signiture If you’re not outraged you’re not paying attention!
Why is Randy, director of PNAC and president of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, paying attention? The United Nations are irrelevant.
Posted by: b | Sep 16 2004 20:52 utc | 1
Another illustration of the Golden Rule:
Whoever ends up with the gold will make the rules.
(And Bush has got ten legions to prove it.)
Posted by: teuton | Sep 16 2004 21:26 utc | 2
Old news directly from the mouth of the Horse’s Head:
Thursday November 20, 2003
The Guardian
“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.”
Thus, perhaps Mr. Scheunemann should be simultaneously outraged and ecstatic that the more recent statements of Kofi A. fully support the ideological underpinnings of the Admin’s simultaneous morally repugnant/illegally pragamatic policies of death, destruction and simulcast cable network-assisted mayhem.
Posted by: RossK | Sep 16 2004 21:48 utc | 3
Perle: “I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing.”
Ross, classic PNAC arrogance right out there for all to see and hear, eh? Of course, I think it’s long past time for the Perles of the world to be “shown” just how “irrelevant” they are in the “big picture”, and shown the door or the guillotine.
Posted by: Kate_Storm | Sep 16 2004 22:07 utc | 4
Right you are Kate.
Perhaps should have said ‘straight from the Orifice of the Horse’s Ass’.
Interestingly, both Perle and David Frum are currently being rightfully pilloried up here north of the 49th because of their quisling acts for our own worst nightmare, Conrad Black(heart).
Posted by: RossK | Sep 16 2004 22:28 utc | 5
The point is that international laws always stands in the way of doing the right thing but also doing the bad thing. It weights a state’s sovereignty above other nations opinion on the domestic issues of that state.
That is why we have Kofi to tell us what is right and to suspend sovereignty through voting in the Security Council.
BTW, North Korea 1953: ” Sixteen member states would provide troops under a United Nations Joint Command. This United Nations force was primarily dominated by America even to the extent of being commanded by an American general – Douglas MacArthur. The United Nations received much support for taking robust action against an aggressor nation. South Korea regained its independence and continued to be supported by America.”
Posted by: MarcinGomulka | Sep 16 2004 22:34 utc | 6
UN Resolution 1441 is the often cited validation for the United States’ military actions in Iraq. Has anyone in charge actually read this resolution? It states that Saddam Hussein must not produce weapons of mass destruction or missiles to launch them and Iraq cannot give WMDs to anyone else. It says that Iraq must send a report to the UN verifying its arsenal and it must let inspectors in to verify that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Failure to compy would result in serious consequences, though the actual consequence is not named in the resolution. Since Iraq did not have WMDs and did not give them to anyone and since Iraq did hand in over 1200 pages of details on its armaments to the UN and did let inspectors into Iraq, is it fair to say that Iraq did comply with UN Resolution 1441 and therefore the military action against Iraq was indeed illegal?
Posted by: SME in Seattle | Sep 17 2004 4:17 utc | 7
Note: Iraq submitted a 12,000 page document detailing it’s nuclear and weapons capabilities on December 7,2002.
Posted by: SME in Seattle | Sep 17 2004 7:37 utc | 8
scott ritter has maintained for a long time that iraq was not in violation of 1441, now that ka has come out, after blix, now how about kay?
also, never really saw any analysis of the 1200 pg iraqi document, only that they (iraqis) couldn’t prove the actual destruction of wmd — little like killing the sobered drunk, because he forgot where the bottles were.
george?
Posted by: anna missed | Sep 17 2004 8:16 utc | 9
Gee – the war ON Iraq is illegal? Bush better call his lawyer! OOPS! He already used that excuse.
12/22/03 – At a photo op after a cabinet meeting, a reporter asked Bush if such punitive steps squared with international law. “International law?” Bush answered, with an edge of sarcasm. “I better call my lawyer. He didn’t bring that up to me.”
This whole mess o’potamia was entirely predictable – if anybody had cared to examine the history. What a disaster! See: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3706598
Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 17 2004 11:57 utc | 10