War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

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

[lodwick]

If anyone here cares about the Constitution, ONLY Congress can declare war; which they failed to do.

Cheers, all.

[Conservomax]

This article came from the Guardian.

Given the quote and how it relates to the headline - I'm suprised that it didn't come from the Onion.

This guy is reaching.

[PLK]

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

Illegal in terms of INTERNATIONAL LAW. Fortunately, the U.S. rightly ignores the leftists on the international court.

[Conservomax]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/joint-resolution_9-14.html

[Coop]

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

I have no problems putting the boot on Syria if it doesn't stop supporting attacks on our troops. Iran is also a problem, but I'm hopeful (perhaps naively) it will collapse from within.

[mr.pink]

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

That Bush did not take the neo-con bait and roll into Syria tells me the current regard he has for that group and their machinations.

I can almost imagine the Pres thinking "when is that jerk gonna' shut up" whenever Perle postures as SOS, SOD, or when he's in full delusional mode CIC.

If Perle was honorable and wanted to actually help the President, he could make the talk show rounds and explain how he came to make, and apologize for, his costly miscalculations and deceptions.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Check with the Supremes on that one. They'll let us know.

[JohnGalt]

President Bush disagrees, which is a point I referenced yesterday on the nature of some (Weekly Standard) posturing as a friend of the President, but really anxious for an entirely seperate agenda.

[JohnGalt]

That really sums it up.

I just wonder what he is up to, giving red meat to the D's and all that and to an international audience no less.

[Coop]

President Bush disagrees

With me? What?!?! That sorry &*$#! :-p

[philman_36]

Just exactly where are "international law" ratified and codified at? I'd really love to look into those "laws".
Where is the repository of these "laws" deemed to govern the whole world?

[JohnGalt]

Humor? But then you can't be a neocon; they are noted for being humorless!

Back to the drawing board...

[mr.pink]

I just wonder what he is up to, giving red meat to the D's and all that and to an international audience no less.

Yup, the Dixie Chicks had nothing on this sneak. ;o)

I think he (and his soulmates) is doing his part to get an alternative to Bush in position to take him down.

I think we both agree that behind the scenes there is an incredible game going on. I know that I'm rooting for the President, and am certain you are as well.

[KC Burke]

Yesterday, tied into reflections on Bush's "Three Pillars" speech, I dug up and revisited Jesse Helms' Speech to the UN 1/29/2000 which details the traditional conservative stance on so-called International Law. It might be of interest to your discussion.

[JohnGalt]

See 39. You'll find a link to the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648.

These topics are not covered in the gubmint schools; they have a reason to brainwash folks into the false idea that the UN is the harbinger of international law, but there is really a whole world of debate outside such narrow parameters. If we are ever to restore the republic and throw the socialists, be they neoconservatives or advanced vicitimologists, into the trash bin of history.

[bushfamfan]

How is it illegal when we had previous war with the regime of Iraq and they did not live up to the deal that ended that war? Perle has gone mad. For him to say something so stupid, it's inexcusable.

[philman_36]

You'll find a link to the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648.
And how is the Treaty of Westphalia "international law", especially for the U.S. which wasn't even around at the time to sign the treaty?

[JohnGalt]

A 'Joint Resolution' is a gutless way for the Congress to get out of their Constitutionally proscribed power to declare war, while providing some political cover for politicians to play both sides, you know, depending on how the war goes. Interesting enough, the Joint Resolution replaced the Declaration of War with the advent of the United Nations.

[Monti Cello]

false idea that the UN is the harbinger of international law

I'm with you here.

Would Perle's comments have been acceptable if he had substituted the term 'UN' for 'international law'?

[RightOnline]

""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.""

No, sweet cheeks. You just aren't bright enough to understand. You see, Linda, we don't believe in letting drooling idiocy getting in the way of removing a threat to our national security. Maybe when, God forbid, YOUR country is attacked by these monsters, you'll understand.