On March 20, 2003, the invasion of Iraq began after the U.S. declared that "diplomacy had failed" to resolve the question of whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (i.e., biological, chemical, and/or nuclear weapons). In leading this invasion, the U.S. along with its allies of the "coalition of the willing" was in violation of international law, breaking the UN Charter. As a result, the officials involved, including George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, and others, need to be charged with war crimes.
The Bush administration, as we now know, had its sights set on Iraq from the get go. And also, as we now know, Iraq had no such weapons.
We know, for instance, that the Republicans 2000 campaign platform called for "full implementation" of the "Iraq Liberation Act" and the "removal of Saddam Hussein" and his replacement by the Iraqi National Congress then headed by Ahmed Chalabi, at the time a darling of neo-Cons Rumsfeld and Cheney.
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. was claiming that Iraq was in breach of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 regarding weapons of mass destruction, a resolution, led by the U.S. which had passed unanimously in 2003, and thus had to be "disarmed by force." The U.S. along with Great Britain attempted to get another U.N. Security Council resolution, the so called "second resolution," authorizing military force, but withdrew it before it could come to a vote; The remaining U.N. Security Council members - France, Russia, and China - all indicated that they would use their veto power against any resolution that would include the use of force against Iraq.
Also setting the stage was the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002", passed by Congress, giving Bush the authority, under U.S. law, to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein did not give up his weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and abide by previous U.N. resolutions on human rights, POWs, and terrorism.
The invasion then occurred.
On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
Some analysis of the cynical politics behind Bush's "coalition":
The Institute for Policy Studies published a report analyzing what it called the "arm-twisting offensive" by the United States government to get nations to support it. Although President Bush described nations supporting him as the "coalition of the willing", the report concluded that it was more accurately described as a "coalition of the coerced." According to the report, most nations supporting Bush "were recruited through coercion, bullying, and bribery." The techniques used to pressure nations to support the United States included a variety of incentives including:
*Promises of aid and loan guarantees to nations who support the U.S.
*Promises of military assistance to nations who support the U.S.
*Threats to veto NATO membership applications for countries who don't do what the U.S. asks
*Leveraging the size of the U.S. export market and the U.S. influence over financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
*Deciding which countries receive trade benefits under such laws as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and the Free Trade Agreement (FTA), which, as one of its conditions for eligibility for such benefits, requires that a country does "not engage in activities that undermine United States national security interests".
*Deciding what countries it should buy oil from in stocking its strategic reserves. The U.S. has exerted such pressure on several oil-exporting nations, such as Mexico.
At a press conference, the White House press corps broke out in laughter when Ari Fleischer denied that "the leaders of other nations are buyable".
In addition to the above tactics, the British newspaper The Observer published an investigative report revealing that the National Security Agency of the United States was conducting a secret surveillance operation directed at intercepting the telephone and email communications of several Security Council diplomats, both in their offices and in their homes. This campaign, the result of a directive by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, was aimed primarily at the delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan. The investigative report cited an NSA memo which advised senior agency officials that it was "'mounting a surge' aimed at gleaning information not only on how delegations on the Security Council will vote on any second resolution on Iraq, but also 'policies', 'negotiating positions', 'alliances' and 'dependencies' - the 'whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favourable to US goals or to head off surprises'."
The authenticity of this memo has been called into question by many in the US and it is still unclear whether it is legitimate. The story was carried by the European and Australian press, and served as a further embarrassment to the Bush Administration's efforts to rally support for his war. Wayne Madsen, who was a communications security analyst with the NSA in the 1980s, believes that the memo is authentic, and believes that this memo was aimed at other nations who are part of the ECHELON intelligence network, namely Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom. Additionally, a member or Britain's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), Katharine Gun was charged under the official secrets Act in connection with the leaking of the memo. She stated her intention to plead not guilty on the grounds that her actions were justified to prevent an illegal war. The prosecution declined to present any evidence at her trial.
Many - myself included - have called, and continue to call, the Iraq invasion a criminal act. Specifically, the Iraq invasion, whether "authorized" by Congress or not, is a textbook example of a crime against peace. This can be
defined as
A crime against peace, in 2. international law, refers to the act of military invasion as a war crime, specifically referring to starting or waging war against the integrity, independence, or sovereignty of a territory or state, or else a military violation of relevant international treaties, agreements or legally binding assurances.
In 1. 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace (in Principle VI.a, submitted to the United Nations General Assembly) as (I) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (I).
For committing this crime, the Nuremberg Tribunal sentenced a number of persons responsible for starting World War II. One consequence of this is that nations who are starting an armed conflict must now argue that they are either exercising the right of self-defense, the right of collective defense, or - it seems - the enforcement of the criminal law of jus cogens. It has made formal declaration of war uncommon after 1945.
During the trial, the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, stated:
To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
The United Nations Charter says in Article 1:
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; The interdiction of aggressive war was confirmed and broadened by the United Nations' Charter, which states in article 2, paragraph 4 that All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Article 33
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
So, Bush and his allies decided - in the face of opposition from the legitimate authority of the Security Council - to start a war "against the integrity, independence, or sovereignty of a territory or state, or else a military violation of relevant international treaties, agreements or legally binding assurances."
Claims by Bush about the legality of the war as an act of self-defense by the U.S and its allies, the right of collective defense, are specious and misleading, as Bush never allowed the inspections to work. Therefore, there was no proof of an impending attack using WMDs by Iraq.
The United Nations never authorized this war. Again, the United Nations' Charter states that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
Most Democrats, most notably John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, who now recognize the mistake of invading Iraq, now claim that the 2002 vote authorizing the use of force was to give Bush a bargaining chip with which to go to the U.N. and to negotiate for inspections.
But the inspections were called off in March of 2003, once Bush, Blair and the rest of their coalition of the bribed and coerced rushed into an illegal war.
The website Iraq Body Count estimates the number of Iraqi civilian casualties to be between 43154 and 47931.
These war criminals need to be stripped of power and brought to justice. Doing so, however, may not be that easy.
The ideal place to bring such charges would be the International Criminal Court (ICC). This was established in 2002 as a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, as defined by several international agreements, most prominently the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Since this time, the Bush White House and the Republicans have consistently blocked the U.S. participation in this court, claiming national sovereignty and a fear that the court would be used to retaliate against the U.S. specifically. In fact, the President is authorized by Congress to authorize military force to free any U.S. military personnel held by the court. We are thus primed for war with our own allies. Is it any wonder that the rest of the world doesn't trust us?
Now, though, the failures and related atrocities of the Iraq invasion are becoming clearer with each passing day. It is time to look at the invasion as the grand criminal act that it is, and to bring the guilty parties to justice.