The Sydney Morning Herald (Feb 25, 2003) contained an editorial about the
"coalition of the willing?" -- and the main thrust of that article was to
state that coalescing with the United States in this war makes those who
cooperate war criminals because the war on Iraq was a fundamental
violation of international law.
That is because international law recognises only two justifications
for the use of force.
"The first, enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter,
allows force to be used in self-defence. The attack must be actual or
imminent." (Sydney Herald)
"The second basis is when the UN Security Council authorises the use of
force as a collective response to the use or threat of force. However,
the Security Council is bound by the terms of the UN Charter and can
authorise the use of force only if there is evidence that there is an
actual threat to the peace (in this case, by Iraq) and that this
threat cannot be averted by any means short of force (such as
negotiation and further weapons inspections)." (Sydney Herald)
And of course now we know (and many of us always knew) there was no
persuasive argument because there was NO threat and therefore the invasion
of Iraq could not be defended with international law.
Furthermore the laws of civilized countries does not justify the war and
the killing was a flagrant violation also -- therefore all those involved
in this aggression are war criminals. George W. Bush is a liar and a war
criminal and should be impeached.
"This doctrine (Article 51) contradicts the cardinal principle of the
modern international legal order and the primary rationale for the
founding of the UN after World War II - the prohibition of the
unilateral use of force to settle disputes." (Sydney Herald)
Colin Powell now says he was dupped. Get rid of the bum. This is not the
first time in his career he has lied. And mistakes are NOT an excuse. He
is a war criminal. He lied about massacres in Vietnam, about May Ly, and
he lied about this ---- even if he was being a good "uncle Tom" and doing
the bidding of his masters.
"The weak and ambiguous evidence presented to the international
community by the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, to justify a
pre-emptive strike underlines the practical danger of a doctrine of
pre-emption. A principle of pre-emption would allow particular
national agendas to completely destroy the system of collective
security contained in Chapter Seven of the UN Charter and return us to
the pre-1945 era, where might equalled right. Ironically, the same
principle would justify Iraq now launching pre-emptive attacks on
members of the coalition because it could validly argue that it feared
attack." (Sydney Herald)
The insurgency opposition to the occupation is more legitimate than the
pre-emptive attack on Iraq and resulting death of innocent civilians
and everyone who takes up arms to fight off the illegal occupation.
The Herald goes on to say:
"...... Even if the use of force
can be justified, international humanitarian law places significant
limits on the means and methods of warfare."
"The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their 1977 Protocols set out some
of these limits: for example, the prohibitions on targeting civilian
populations and civilian infrastructure and causing extensive
destruction of property not justified by military objectives.
Intentionally launching an attack knowing that it will cause
"incidental" loss of life or injury to civilians "which would be
clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall
military advantage anticipated" constitutes a war crime at
international law." (Sydney Herald)
"Shock and Awe" was clearly an act of aggression which resulted in the
indiscriminate death and wounding of civilians. It is estimated that over
50,000 Iraqis have been wounded in this war by the United States against
Iraq. It is estimated that over 10,000 Iraqis have died. It is estimated
that a million Iraqis died from the terrible sanctions against them for
almost 13 years. It is estimated that in the last war, the first Gulf War,
conducted by the father, George Bush, resulted in over 100,000 Iraqis
being mowed down while they were running from the war - leaving Kuwait and
on their way back to Baghdad and environs, and tens of thousands of others
killed in that terrible slaughter -- and it has been estimated that well
over 10,000 Americans have been wounded and over 600 killed in battle as
of April 2004.
Little known and for which no estimates exist for the full and complete
accounting of civilian deaths in Iraq -- but one can reasonably estimate
that at least up to 250,000 or more may die yet as a result of
conventional weapons, land mines, unexploded ordinance, depleted uranium,
etc., and many more will suffer homelessness, malnutrition and very
serious health and environmental consequences of George W. Bush's
unprovoked war of aggression.
Hank Roth
---
/ o o \ PNEWS Topic Specific Portals (Vortals)
===OO=====OO=================================================
http://pnews.org/vortal/ New World disOrder and Myth Busters
http://g0lem.net/vortal/ Insane Planet and Wacko World
http://g0lem.net/portal/ Bad-Ass Truth and TheGolemsPortal
http://pnews.org/portal/ Naked Truth and PNEWS Portal
=============================================================
\_/ \_/
