War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

The Guardian ^ | 11/20/2003 | Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger

[Publius6961]

To quote Ann Coulter, "Look, let's be honest, International law is whatever the United States and Britain says it is."

And at other times in history, whatever the Pashah said, or the Kaiser; or Hitler; or Stalin.

Most adults, versed in history and whith common sense, can see a pattern here.

Tyranny by legalism is the natural trend in the universe. And it's usually senseless.

[JohnGalt]

Protection of the neocons seems to be driving you.

You are so incapable of even reasoned debate you whip out the anti-semite branding iron on your second post.

Friggin lightweight.

[Cicero]

Well, by saying that international law doesn't matter if we need to defend ourselves, Perle is making a point.

But actually there are good grounds to say that we DID have international law on our side. We had the UN mandate to do whatever it took to make Saddam behave. France may have vetoed further action, but that was enough to work with--and far more than clinton had when he attacked Yugoslavia with NO UN mandate whatever.

Moreover if you take traditional definitions of International Law seriously, International Law corresponds with Natural Law, as argued by Hugo Grotius, who is still recognized as a major authority in this area. And Natural Law recognizes the Christian principle of Just War, when ordinary diplomatic means have been exhausted, as they certainly were.

So this was still a foolish thing for Perle to have said.

[JohnGalt]

Yes, thank you.

[1rudeboy]

Are you familiar with The Guardian?

[Prodigal Son]

I read "the concept of international law is a useless, meaningless joke."

Yep, that's what I got out of it as well. It's not surprising that democrats and the Guardian would see it differently. They think Bush planted those bombs this morning after all.

[big bad easter bunny]

There is no controlling legal authority.

[Trailerpark Badass]

I am truly embarrassed by these posters who think this was a smart thing to say by an underling to a foreign audience.

You know, one will go crazy if he tries too hard to massage the truth so that it is palatable to the ignorant and the insane.

If those ghouls can't stomach the fact that their wet dream, international law, is just a free pass for tyrants and killers, too bad for them.

[JohnGalt]

Leftwing London rag.

I filtered out the entire article and just focused in on what Perle said, noted in my first post.

[JohnGalt]

LOL

[palmer]

Instead of trying to cram this war into the principle of Just War, I would just say that Saddam was long overdue to be taken out. The most coherent explanation of our behavior both before and after the war is that we were looking out for the Iraqi people's interests.

Example: if we wanted cheap oil, we would have left Saddam in power and let him sell it to us. The palaces alone tell us he liked spending money. Another example: we carefully avoided civilian casualties to the extent that we put our troops at risk. Contrast that to Clinton's war in Kosovo.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Legal War is sooo much nicer, gentler and kinder than illegal War now isn't it? LoL.

[hellinahandcart]

If those ghouls can't stomach the fact that their wet dream, international law, is just a free pass for tyrants and killers, too bad for them.

Bump to the badass...

[familyofman]

Interesting, very interesting.
If the justification for attacking Iraq was based on violations of international law, and the attack was in violation of those self-same laws there seems to be little use for international law. Perhaps it should be stated that the only operative laws are those of the jungle (maybe Mao was right - choke - truth & power eminate from the barrel of a gun).

[mr.pink]

To quote Ann Coulter, "Look, let's be honest, International law is whatever the United States and Britain says it is."

Great quote....and with a couple of modifications one arrives at an interesting irony.

To quote Ann Coulter a liberal activist judge, "Look, let's be honest, International American law is whatever the United States and Britain I says it is."

Odd that so many here are alarmed only when they are on the recieving end (the wrong end) of judicial/legal cafeteriaism.

[Coop]

Perle is no friend to the Bush Administration and with his now multiple financial scandals, should be fired ASAP.

If President Bush feels the same way you do, I'm sure we'll all know it soon enough. I have a feeling he does not.

[af_vet_rr]

I have a different interpretation of this comment. I don't read "the war was illegal" - I read "the concept of international law is a useless, meaningless joke."

How about "the concept of the UN when it comes to doing the right thing is a useless, meaningless joke."

[Holly_P]

But actually there are good grounds to say that we DID have international law on our side

Not that the U.N.s version of international law has anything to do with whether the U.S. has a right to act in it's own best interests but yes we did have its "permission" and France and Germany were acting in their own best interests (and still are)

It's beyond me why we are still in this organization (the U.N.)

[JohnGalt]

What does the UN have to do with international law, a concept that has been around since at least the Treaty of Westphalia 1648? Education anyone?

[JohnGalt]

No invasion of Syria, no invasion of Iran...Bush knows the neocons are not his friends.