Skip to main content

View Diary: Conyers to Send Investigative Team To Downing Street ? (147 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  P.P.S. (none)
    What is also glaringly absent in the United Nations charter is the absence of the United Nations fulfilling it at the end of the GUlf War.

    While Husseing was thrown out of Kuwait by the international force prosecuting that war, at the behest of the United States soly for its interest in oil, what was lacking was what was also required of the United Nations, by charter, and by both the Nuremberg and the Geneva conventions:

    That is the glaring absence of UN action to bring to justice those who were responsible for the aggression, the crimes against humanity and the clear violations of the laws of war that accompanied Iraq's unlawful invasion of Kuwait. As should have been expected, the world community has had nothing but grief from Iraq ever since. Instead of following the Nuremberg principle of punishing only the guilty after a fair trial, UN economic sanctions were imposed on the civilian population of Iraq - many of whom might have disagreed with the aggressive policies of their government. Saddam Hussein, Iraq's despotic leader, remains at the head of the government and thumbs his nose at the world community's efforts to curb his production of weapons of mass destruction.. The lessons of Nuremberg seemed to have been forgotten.

    It would be virtually impossible to prosecute any nation for attacking Iraq, when the United Nations so clearly left a regime so clearly guilty of massive crimes against humanity in power after it went to war with that regime over a clear war of agrgression.

    Again, nothing illegal done.

    Even the new International Courts have no established codes for dealing with use of military force, but only with events that occur during military actions during those wars, such as the events in the Balkans after the fall of communism in that area.

    Which is why the United States has not joined the International Court system.

    The U.S. has carefully avoided anything that would allow it to be made accountable for use of military force.

    You can argue this until you are vlue in the face, but there is absolutely no legal precedent for the point that Bush is engaged in an "illegal war" There is no such thing as an illegal war. All of the pacts and conventions and charters mentioned are volitional. By the conventions ,pacts, and charters, ther is nothing that mandates that a nation engage in the interantional process indefinitely. Bush went to the United Nations, didnt like the fact that they did not do anything about the Iraq regime, either to address their failure to charge the regime with crimes against humanity in the Gulf War, or to address Saddams open violation of many U.N. Resolutions during the interim period between the end of the Gulf War and the beginning of current hostilities.  

    He met the obligations of international law. One might say he left when the United Nations showeed itself unwilling to uphold international law regarding human rights violation in Iraq.\

    The only law he failed to uphold was he very act that granted him to use military force ONLY when peaceful, diplomatic efforts had been exhausted (woring of the act itself). International law is not very specific, this act was. And George W. Bush signed this act into law.

    But again, some democrats hamstrung the democratic members of Congress in the court of public opinion by declaring this act a "blank check for war". In fact, it was not, but George W, Bush picked up on the language created by non congressional democrats and ran with it, stating that they "voted for the war"/ THis makes it damned near impossible to getvenough public opinion raised to allow them to even suggest that the act be used against Bush for failing to exhaust all diplomatic measures first.

    THe only person smart enough to have seen this was Dennis Kucinich,(Later joined by Ted Kennedy, and Jesse Jackson and a host of other Democrats) who  did not sign the resolution but used to it file a case against George W. Bush in federal courts in Massachussetts to try to get a stay to prevent Bush from invading Iraq in the month before the invasion. It was thrown out by the judge however, because as the judge pointed out, at the time, Bush was in the United Nations and therefore was following thev requirements of the legislation. At this time, public opinion was against attacking Iraq. But once Bush attacked it. Bush joined the democrats who were trying to get the nomination by turing the resolution into a "vote for war" and George W. joined in with those democrats by insistring that he was given permission for his war by their "vote for war". In this case legal an public opnion go hand in hand and any attempt to nail Bush on violation of the reoilutions terms to exhaust diplomatic measures would need a grewat deal of public support before it could be risked.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site