Posted on 11/20/2003 6:10:32 AM PST by JohnGalt
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bump to the badass...
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.
How about "the concept of the UN when it comes to doing the right thing is a useless, meaningless joke."
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.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.