You are herecontent / War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal


Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger in Washington
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."

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."

Mr Perle's remarks bear little resemblance to official justifications for war, according to Rabinder Singh QC, who represented CND and also participated in Tuesday's event.

Certainly the British government, he said, "has never advanced the suggestion that it is entitled to act, or right to act, contrary to international law in relation to Iraq".

The Pentagon adviser's views, he added, underlined "a divergence of view between the British govern ment and some senior voices in American public life [who] have expressed the view that, well, if it's the case that international law doesn't permit unilateral pre-emptive action without the authority of the UN, then the defect is in international law".

Mr Perle's view is not the official one put forward by the White House. Its main argument has been that the invasion was justified under the UN charter, which guarantees the right of each state to self-defence, including pre-emptive self-defence. On the night bombing began, in March, Mr Bush reiterated America's "sovereign authority to use force" to defeat the threat from Baghdad.

The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has questioned that justification, arguing that the security council would have to rule on whether the US and its allies were under imminent threat.

Coalition officials countered that the security council had already approved the use of force in resolution 1441, passed a year ago, warning of "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to give a complete ac counting of its weapons programmes.

Other council members disagreed, but American and British lawyers argued that the threat of force had been implicit since the first Gulf war, which was ended only by a ceasefire.

"I think Perle's statement has the virtue of honesty," said Michael Dorf, a law professor at Columbia University who opposed the war, arguing that it was illegal.

"And, interestingly, I suspect a majority of the American public would have supported the invasion almost exactly to the same degree that they in fact did, had the administration said that all along."

The controversy-prone Mr Perle resigned his chairmanship of the defence policy board earlier this year but remained a member of the advisory board.

Meanwhile, there was a hint that the US was trying to find a way to release the Britons held at Guantanamo Bay.

The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, said Mr Bush was "very sensitive" to British sentiment. "We also expect to be resolving this in the near future," he told the BBC.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

Tags

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Now here is a smoking gun if I ever read one. Richard Perle, advisor
to the President and Donald Rumsfield admitting that we broke and
ignored international law to attack Iraq even before congress approved
going to war and the administration knew it and encouraged it. They
knew they had to go around the law to attack Iraq with a pre=emptive
strike so they ignored it.

Losers

They must have had an inkling that they were going to do a few naughty things whilst in power!

"I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

The right thing for who? The point of law is to have objective standards to get to an approximation of the right thing; Especially when it comes to war, when stakes are high, and when thousands of lives are at stake, you don't want to come to a decision based only on the subjective view and morals of only one party. Well, I think the US's credibility will be tainted for a long time after this, and this whole episode will remain yet another stain on the history of the US.

This war was for "OIL" Get it,!!!!!

Odd how Perle speaks of his lofty morality. Yet because the Law prevents Perle and his fascist friends from invading whomever they please, he and his courageous corporatists must pretend that "morality" and "doing the right thing" dictated their beliefs and acts. The "right thing" is to invade a de-fanged Iraq at the cost of tens of thousands of innocent lives and (eventually to be) half a trillion dollars. And they continue to pretend that Iraq was a dire danger. These "moral" people believe that the thousands of men, women, and children rendered quivering goo is the justifiable cost which these common folk pay for Perle's "moral" and corporatist domination of the planet. The cerebrally devilish Perle and his cohorts are beneath contempt.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.