This Story is Archived
OpEd: Trashing International Law »
Posted by: populist 1 year, 8 months agoBy attacking Iraq without provocation and with no Security Council authorization for it prior to March, 2003, the US violated the UN charter that it's a signatory to. It also violated the US Constitution that says.."all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land."
Read Full Story at populistamerica.com »
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 67
-
populist
Dec. 20, 2006, 1:47 p.m.Quite important, indeed. The Iraq war is not just a violation of international law, but the Constitution, and every standard of moral self-defense. the time to end it is now.
-
Twistoflex
Dec. 21, 2006, 3:29 a.m.This is all true, but it's old news. The anti-war movement brought all of this up in real time as the Dumbya dictatorship began steering us into war. There were millions of Americans out on the streets protesting the war before the invasion. The corporate media gave scarcely any coverage at all.
Why?
Because the American People don't mean diddly squat to the transnational corporations that control the media and control the military/security complex.
The Dumbya dictatorship was hellbent on war with Iraq from the inception. This was affirmed by former US Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil. It is also clear that within weeks of his appointment as our titular President, Dumbya issued a series of directives, beginning on 2/13/01 which completely overhauled and stovepiped the national security complex, placing our military and intelligence capabilities at the disposal of Big Oil. (Google NSPD-1) You will see that this reorganization permitted the 9/11 attacks to succeed.
-
superyankees
Dec. 21, 2006, 4:17 a.m.all the people attacking the USA for the invasion of Iraq forget a little fact. Iraq has supported international terrorism and they were planning terrorist attacks against the USA. To be a terrorist nation or a terrorist you do not have to be a member of AL queda or connected with 9-11. A nation who was against our invasion of Iraq and has been a critic of our efforts in the mid east is the one that provided the evidence of Iraqs plans.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.
MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.
The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday.
The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin
-
-
-
Natfan
Dec. 20, 2006, 4:32 p.m.You fail to realize that this really means that we as American inherit the EXEMPTION FROM INTERNATIONAL LAW. Going abroad? Steal something! YOU CAN DO IT!!!
-
Beau7890
Dec. 20, 2006, 4:58 p.m.Can you spell this out for me? If the Constitution says that treaties we make are the Supreme Law of the Land, then how does that mean we can violate them? Or, if that's not what you meant, then where in the Constitution does it say that we're not bound by international law, and that it's okay to steal in Bangladesh, for instance?
-
-
Locky12
Dec. 20, 2006, 5:05 p.m.Now this article is height of ignorance and stupidity!
The United Nations would NEVER think invading Iraq is a good idea because that would end the "oil for food" gravy train scam. Also let's not forget the 11 years prior to our invasion that Saddam was violating UN proposals AND firing on U.S. Warplanes outside of the no-fly zone (reason enough to go to war!) Let's not forget that Bill Clinton himself said when he was president an invasion would be necessary to prevent Saddam from acquiring Weapons of mass destruction.
We had more than enough constituitonal authority to invade Iraq and the UN was much too corrupted itself to tell us how to defend ourselves when at the time we had evidence saying we had every right to.
Here's a message of hope:
-
populist
Dec. 20, 2006, 5:45 p.m.the point is, the Constitution has been violated. If the UN is worthless....let's pull out of it. But - violations of the constitution are a different issue altogether.
you make this claim:
"We had more than enough constituitonal authority to invade Iraq "
can show the Congressional declaration of war as mandated by the Constitution?
-
bubba2
Dec. 20, 2006, 11:34 p.m.Do some googling about depleted uranium - how our government has used it in Iraq and in other places and where OUR SOLDIERS are deployed. Read what it does to the human body and how many men, women, children, and babies have suffered and died from DU.
Ignorance and stupidity? Not from the article ....
-
jordan11
Dec. 21, 2006, 9:47 a.m.because that would end the "oil for food" gravy train scam.>>>>
Is that why we attacked Iraq? So our big boys could have a piece of that pie? You do know that BILLIONS in Iraqi oil money is missing since 'we' took over, right? (8.8 billion to be exact.) You do know that the CONS (Congress) refused to investigate, right?
-
-
Locky12
Dec. 20, 2006, 5:50 p.m.They fired on our warplanes..of to war we go. Whether you have a problem with that or not doesn't matter, you obviously didn't read my post.
-
populist
Dec. 20, 2006, 6:15 p.m.that is pure absurdity. yes, they fired on our warplanes. they're WARplanes flying over their country. it's going to happen. period.
It's not America's role to police the world or spread democracy or anything of the sort.
And - there's absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution which allows it.
obviously you need to read it:
-
bubba2
Dec. 20, 2006, 11:35 p.m.If you think this war is so important and so justified, when are you signing up to go fight? Bush wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq and he's looking for some gung-ho warriors to step up. If you are under the age of 43, you're in luck - Uncle Sam wants you!
-
jordan11
Dec. 21, 2006, 9:51 a.m.They fired on our warplanes..of to war we go. >>>>
Nope. The ONLY reason we attacked Iraq was on the grounds of their involvement in 9/11 terrorism. On the grounds of a looming 'mushroom cloud.' You don't get to make up reasons after the fact. That's not how it works.
-
-
Soren85
Dec. 20, 2006, 9:05 p.m.What about all our treaties with Native Americans? We still violate those to this date.
-
populist
Dec. 20, 2006, 11:05 p.m.don't know enough about those - but definitely the slaughter of the American Indians is one of the greatest tragedies in history. We shouldn't let our government do it to another people...
peace...
-
bubba2
Dec. 20, 2006, 11:25 p.m.'We' being the government ... taking over all of the land we now have by deliberately killing off native americans was a 19th century form of genocide in the name of 'manifest destiny' or whatever.
Our government has never been shy about trampling on the rights of others to suit whatever purpose they had in mind at the time. Right now, it is to CONTROL the Middle East and to CONTROL ALL of the OIL. Anyone who doesn't undertand that is either not paying attention or refuses to accept the dirty truth.
-
-
bubba2
Dec. 20, 2006, 11:30 p.m.From the author of the article ...
"...the "Gang of Ten" commission members [and their] families are safe from this [Iraq] carnage and whose verdict rendered in their report effectively is to let the war go on without end, the enormous and rising human toll on Iraqis and Americans notwithstanding.
For them, it's a price worth paying as it serves the interests of [an] empire in which human beings are just another commodity to extract value from and then discard when no longer of further use. That's how the Bush administration and ISG members think and act."
I posted this before ... I believe the Bush administration has no conscience, no morals, no shame. They do not care who dies and how - only their agenda is important, only their all-consuming desire for money and power.
Bush recently said during an interview with People magazine, "I must tell you, I'm sleeping a lot better than people would assume".
I rest my case ...
-
amazed
Dec. 21, 2006, midnightThere was a declaration of war by Congress and the United Nations in 1991. The was a cease-fire agreement -- not a peace treaty, nor an armistice, just a cease-fire agreement -- that Iran was constantly in violation of. The shame of this is not that we resumed hostilities in 2003, it is that we let this one-horse country get away with violating the cease-fire agreement for 12 years.
By it nature, a violation of a cease-fire, means that open hostilities are to resume. We just took our time "resuming"-- that was to our detriment.
-
populist
Dec. 21, 2006, 12:34 a.m."There was a declaration of war by Congress"
now, for the many people who know absolutely nothing about political history, they might believe you.
but it's an absolute FACT that there's been no declaration of war from Congress since World War II.
there was no declaration of war against korea, none against vietnam, and..
there was no declaration of war against Iraq.
period.
-
-
Jumbo987
Dec. 21, 2006, 12:04 a.m.Bush has been torturing people abroad which is illegal but justifying it because it works. Sure, I'll bet it does. But isn't that beside the point? We could make a lot of things happen faster in this world if we put aside human rights! If we limit people's freedoms (which has gone a long way in the US already) maybe it'll be harder for a terrorist to strike. But freedom and human rights are [supposed to be] the basic tenets of highly developed countries like the USA.
But let's face it - whoever controls the military might (Bush) has the power. You want to be smeared, labeled a terrorist and thrown in jail without so much as a fair trial so you can be forgotten about by the rest of the world, go against the Bush war machine. It's a different world we live in today. The words "national security" can silence any reasonable argument. It's awful.
-
Illuminate
Dec. 21, 2006, 3:35 a.m.Good story populist. Gonna rethink my position now.
not to bash on the story and his point was irrelevant to the story but I agree.... Now lets build the Giants a stadium where the UN is... ;)
-
dreamaker
Dec. 21, 2006, 7:06 a.m.The United States needs no permission from the United Nations, in fact if the America pulled out of the UN....guess what? there would be no UN..... We are a sovereign Nation and does not need any other Countries ok to protect our soil and people!
Kiss my azz UN cause all U are is a bunch of third world countries that don't mean a ioda to us Americans ok!!!!
Bunch of rag tag minorities trying so hard to be important!
-
walden3
Dec. 21, 2006, 12:36 p.m.when you agree to enter a treatee/organization you agree to abide by its rules. we shouldn'ta signed it, if we didn't like it.
the US also gets benefits from being a member of the UN. we have an easier time pushing our interests on the world with UN support. our interests don't appear so self-serving when we get the UN to give us its stamp of approval. it can also prevent us from going willynilly into something not properly thought out. Had we listened more to the UN, we wouldn't be in the very costly mess that we find ourselves in now.
It's generally a good idea to ask advice of others.
-
-
dreamaker
Dec. 21, 2006, 7:08 a.m.Sorry about the typeoooooooooosssssssss but u get the point, I hope! Im writting as I drive in beautiful Saint Augustine, Fl USA
-
Star_Poet
Dec. 21, 2006, 8:09 a.m.The U.N. is defunct and without merit. All nations in it are just joking about it. Anything good that happens in the U.N. is done by accident.
So why is anyone worried that the U.S. doesn't take it seriously?
-
1rooster
Dec. 21, 2006, 9:20 a.m.dreamaker, when I read your comment I thought you were Iranian Pres. Ahmadinejad. All you had to do was replace The United States with Iran. Amazing, we want everyone else to abide by the UN, but not us.
-
walden3
Dec. 21, 2006, 1:58 p.m.absent from 1441 are the words, force or military force or even "all necessary mean."
if the UN authorized the use of all necessary means in 1990 to get iraq out of kuwait in 1990, why wouldn't it use the same terms or even the less ambiguous, force or military force in 2002?
the answer is simple, because the UN did not authorize the use of force in 2002.
and if the UN did authorize it as you allege, why are there no blue helmets in iraq helping to spread the burden?
-
-
-
Amazing1
Dec. 21, 2006, 11:23 a.m.The whole bunch of them, the ISG, the Chimp in Charge and his administration, want one thing and one thing only. Control of the oil for their own personal profit. They will trample any law, treaty or legislation to further their ends. People do not count and compassion is a negative to them.
Bush is a madman. He needs to be subjected to a psychological evaluation and removed from office for his mental disability.
How can these people continue to increase the amount of suffering, dying, maiming and anguish in this world solely for the increase in their own wallets? EAsy, they're all sociopaths. No better than Scott Peterson and certainly cut from the same cloth.
-
AJaye
Dec. 21, 2006, 12:11 p.m.Is sad but true...Indeed he is a madman...Like hitler drunk with power...He got rid of saddam why are we still there??? God Help us..New world order is in charge...BOO BUSH
-
Changingconstant
Dec. 21, 2006, 12:38 p.m.At this point it's like saving face by cutting off your nose. The US should lead by example and not by force. Deepak Chopra said it best in referring to the survival of the human race, " It is no longer about survival of the fittest. It is now survival of the wisest."
-
-
dlsawyer
Dec. 21, 2006, 1:09 p.m.Now I've seen it all some 'fruit and nut' paraphrasing Deepak Chopra. Stick to your yoga and eating tofu, honey- leave the politics for grown-ups.
-
walden3
Dec. 21, 2006, 2:08 p.m.five second search of google-
"However, suicide bombings, in which hundreds of Israeli civilians have been indiscriminately killed, are not acceptable. These acts of terrorism, abhorred and rejected by all of you, defile and damage even the most legitimate cause. They must be condemned, and must be stopped.
Acts of terrorism only push back the day when Palestinians will live in peace in their own state."
Kofi Annan 10/16/2003 kuala lumpur
it's more constructive to criticize acts of terror than an entire religion.
-
Illuminate
Dec. 21, 2006, 7:53 p.m.I agree but Kofi hasnt exactly been hollering about Israelis being killed recently, has he?
Wanst Kofi ragging on the Israelis for retaliation over attacks in Lebanon AFTER Isreali's were killed by rockets??
May Kofi get hit by a suicide wheelchair bomber at the retirement home for Irrelevant people.
-
-
FrankieT
Dec. 22, 2006, 7:54 a.m.dlsawyer - seems you guys are always against free speech which the lady is entitled to as much as you are. The quote she used seems to be quite relevant if you are a rational thinking person in todays world.
ciao
The first 57 comments are shown. Show all 67 comments »
Submitted By:
populist
The essays we offer are unapologetically presented for you to read & analyze. Many are offered as a similar view to ours & others simply to invite ...
Also submitted:
