Few would have failed to hear the cries from our so-called leaders that Saddam Hussein has not been cooperating with the United Nations weapons inspectors.
So goes the torrent of unsubstantiated allegations, despite the contrary findings by Hans Blix, his team of weapons inspectors and UNMOVIC.
Yet at the same time, the coalition of the warmongers has presented the UN with both plagiarised and forged documents and has placed comminations intercepts on the e-mails and phones of UN Security Council members.
They have grossly violated the human rights of their own people, they have taken persons from around the world and subjected them to torture and denied them that most basic of rights, the right to life.
The US and Britain still hold massive stockpiles of VX nerve gas, anthrax and mustard gas which UN resolutions require are destroyed.
Now Howard has bullied the people of this once proud nation into a war with unknown and likely dire consequences.
Kofi Annan, supported by the majority of the world's expert opinion, has stated that this war is illegal.
In justification for this gross act terrorism, it has been made clear we had "no choice" but to contravene the law and UN resolutions, and invade Iraq. Why? Because Saddam has contravened the law and UN resolutions.
Not only is this the most utter hypocrisy, it is surely the Mother Of All Bushit.
AND
The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq violates the basic rules of the United Nations Charter requiring countries to exhaust all peaceful means of maintaining global security before taking military action, and permitting the use of force in self-defense only in response to actual or imminent attack, two U.S. legal groups said Thursday.
The U.N. Security Council's refusal to approve a resolution proposed by the United States, Britain and Spain clarified that the weapons inspection process initiated by Security Council Resolution 1441 last November should have been permitted to continue before military action could be authorized, added The Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP) and the Western States Legal Foundation (WSLF).
The two groups, the U.S. affiliates of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA), supported an open letter signed by 31 Canadian international law professors released Wednesday that called a U.S. attack against Iraq "a fundamental breach of international law (that) would seriously threaten the integrity of the international legal order that has been in place since the end of the Second World War."
Such an action "would simply return us to an international order based on imperial ambition and coercive force," they added.
The legalities of the U.S. attack on Iraq have sparked considerable debate since Washington, Britain, and Spain decided to pull their proposed resolution from consideration by the Security Council in the face of almost-certain defeat by a majority of members, including the threat of vetoes cast by permanent Council members France and Russia.
By withdrawing the resolution and issuing an ultimatum to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to leave the country or face attack--demands that have not been included in any Security Council resolution--Washington asserted its sovereign right to self-defense and its intention to enforce previous resolutions, including 1441, which called for Iraqi disarmament.
Some international lawyers, such as Yale University's Ruth Wedgwood, have claimed that the previous resolutions gave Washington adequate legal cover to unilaterally enforce disarmament, and that precedent for circumventing the Security Council was established when Washington and its NATO allies launched their air campaign against Serbia in 1999 without Council authorization.
Another prominent expert, Anne-Marie Slaughter, argued that while technically "illegal," Washington's decision to take military action without Council backing might still be "legitimate."
Also citing the Serbia precedent, Slaughter, dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, argued that Washington could still gain U.N. approval if its forces found "irrefutable evidence" that the Iraqi regime possessed weapons of mass destruction.
"Even without such evidence, the United States and its allies can justify their intervention if the Iraqi people welcome their coming and if they turn immediately back to the United Nations to help rebuild the country," she wrote in the New York Times.
"Even for international lawyers, insisting on formal legality in this case may be counterproductive," she said, arguing that supporters of international law should accept that the United Nations is a "political institution as well as a legal one."
But LCNP President Peter Weiss strongly denounced that reasoning, calling it "shocking beyond belief, coming from the current president of the American Society of International Law."
LCNP and WSLF argued that Washington could not use the right of self-defense to start military action unless it was actually attacked or was threatened by an immediate and unavoidable attack. In the absence of those circumstances, according to WSLF Program Director Andrew Lichterman, only the Security Council may approve such a U.S. attack.
"Because Iraq has not attacked any state, nor is there any showing whatever of an imminent attack by Iraq, self-defense cannot justify U.S. war on Iraq," he said.
The U.S. administration's attempt to expand the concept of self-defense to authorize preventive attacks against states based on potential future threats "would destabilize the present system of U.N. Charter restraints on use of force," Lichterman added.
The Nuremberg Principles
The Nuremberg principles were drawn up following the famous Nazi War Crime Tribunals following the atrocities of World War II. The ICJ Opinion identified that the Principles would apply to nuclear weapons.
Principle I
Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.
Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
Principle VI Following crimes are punishable as crimes under international law:
Crimes against peace:
(i) - Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) - Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of, or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of, or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
The principles outline what to many of us would be common sense. Some actions are plainly wrong, and every one of us has a responsibility to prevent genocide. The principles specify that to act on the orders of your government does not relieve you of this responsibility in the eyes of international law.
It is for these reasons that the Nuremberg Principles are key to Citizen's War Crimes Inspections. In 1998, the date of October 1 was chosen by the Abolition Days Network as an international day of action because it is the anniversary of the end of the Nuremberg Trials.
In various actions so far, activists have sought to educate military personnel on their obligations under the Nuremberg Principles. We have maintained, when stopped by police or security, that we are acting on a higher authority than theirs - not just our consciences, but international law itself.
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=44438&group=webcast
