-Caveat Lector- -----Original Message----- From: International Justice Watch Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Damato, Anthony A Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 8:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Regime Change in Iraq?
International lawyers must have made some headway with Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, and Bush in the past week. The latter had been saying they wanted a regime change in Iraq. In my view, that goal comes perilously close to installing a satellite regime in Iraq, or in other words, de facto annexation. In that perspective, the US action would come very close to committing the international crime of aggression. So, I'm pleased to see the Bush administration is rapidly backpedaling. The most recent statement, as I write this, is a UPI report by William Reilly, published on the internet at 9/9/2002 9:41 PM. Reilly says: "President Bush Monday told world leaders it will be the responsibility of the whole international community, rather than the United States, to determine what kind of regime should replace Iraqi President Saddam Hussein if his government is toppled by U.S. military action, European diplomats told United Press International." (For those who think that international law has little effect on US policies, just read between the lines. The Bush team does not want to be branded as war criminals. So they have to explicitly disavow aggressive intent against Iraq. That is the meaning of this change in the administration's position, which we are told will be fleshed out in President Bush's speech to the United Nations this Thursday.) In that general connection, you may have seen a brief letter of mine, published recently in the NY Times, linking any attack on Iraq with responsibility for the negligent commission, by our troops, of war crimes against the Iraqi people. If there are too many "negligent" war crimes, such as too many mosques and waterworks being bombed, my inference is that the commanders are legally responsible. My own preference, for what it's worth, is that Iraq should be given an ultimatum: either let the UN inspectors in and let them roam around, or we'll target all the WMD areas we suspect and take them all out. But even if you think my position is too hawkish, it's a far cry from saying we should bomb Baghdad, topple Hussein, and replace him with a complacent new government, all the while overlooking "collateral" damage to civilians. Tony D'Amato http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/ <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
