July 7, 2005
“UNDER SECRETARY FEITH VISITS ROMANIA, PAKISTAN, AFGHANISTAN AND ITALY
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith will travel to Romania, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Italy this week.
In Romania, Mr. Feith will meet with President Ion Iliescu, Prime Minister Adrian Nastase, Foreign Minister Mircea Dan Geoana and Minister of Defense Ioan Mircea Pascu. The visit to Romania presents an opportunity to convey the U.S. government's appreciation for Romania's contributions to the War on Terrorism and for Romania's conclusion of a bilateral Article 98 agreement with the U.S. dealing with the International Criminal Court. Romania is the first country to conclude this important agreement with the U.S. Feith will also discuss U.S.-Romania defense cooperation and Romania's NATO candidacy
In Romania, the group will meet with national leaders. They will discuss the country's NATO candidacy, and the U.S. delegation will thank Romania for its help in the war on terrorism and for supporting the U.S. position on the International Criminal Court.”
Press Release, September 23rd 2002 US Embassy Romania
At their August meeting 2002 Bush gave Blair his instructions about invading Iraq. These plans were settled in detail by Rumsfeld a week later in New York when Minister of Defence Geoff Hoon (with, we now know, a very unhappy bunch of MOD stars including Dr David Kelly ). After he and his military men got their marching orders, the leaden lawyer Hoon, with a delightful sense of irony, addressed his old American alma mater, Louisville U. in the appropriately named Muhammed Ali Peace Hall.
The above little noticed visit by one of the self confessed neo-cons, whose mission and vision were still a guilty little secret unknown outside the Beltway, was doing his best to drum up support for US refusal to recognise the International Criminal Court.
Few criminals decide they don't recognise the courts jurisidiction in advance of committing the crime. Proof, if it were needed, of the wicked and criminal intention to illegally invade and occupy Iraq.
Crime cannot be justified
In launching the imperial invasion and shock and awe inspiring blitzkrieg on March 8th 2003, the UK and US are unquestionably in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and other international agreements by which the US and Britain as signatories are bound. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan repeatedly said before the invasion that a unilateral attack would be in violation of the UN Charter.
This violent and aggressive invasion, unleashing over 30,000 bombs, napalm, and all the terrors of aerial bombing against a civilian population, was a Hobbesian, "War of each against all". Raw power, military might, not morality, not legitimacy was the only currency. The Bush Administration and Parliament were well aware this attack had no legal basis. The legal justifications offered then, and over which much squalid sophistry is being used and cyinically offered are transparently fraudulent.
Simply put. The invasion of Iraq was illegal. It's authors are criminals and should be tried as such.
The White House Legal Brief
On March 13th 2002 at a Press Briefing in the White House, Ari Fleischer, then but now, ex- Presidential spokesman, was asked about the legality of a war on Iraq.
He read, from an obviously prepared statement,
“The UN Security Council Resolution 678 authorised use of all means to uphold UN Security Council resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.”
In fact 678 authorised the use of force only to remove Iraqi military forces from Kuwait, not to invade Iraq.
“Thereafter,” Fleischer stridently continued, “687 declared a cease fire …. And provides then legal grounds for the use of force.”
The UN Charter
The 1945 UN Charter Article 2 , states,
“must refrain..from the use of force against or the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”…except under certain narrowly defined circumstances.”
“Member states must seek a solution to disputes through the Security Council (Art 33) and the Security Council, which will determine what action to take” (Art 39)
It is only the Security Council that can decide upon the use of force :
“Plans for the application of force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee..” (Art 48)
“Member states may use force but only the Security Council is empowered to provide the authority to use force.” (Art 48)
An exception is the attack by another state (Art 51), this includes an imminent attack. There is no suggestion either before, during or after the invasion that there was any prospect of such an attack on any member state. Although of course the Murdoch press had given a lot of the people who look at the headlines on the front page before the tits on Page 3, the idea that Cyprus was under imminent threat from missiles, and remotely controlled planes spraying God knows what.
So when the Bush / Blair gang invaded Iraq, it was not simply “by-passing” the Security Council, it was flagrantly ignoring it.
That's what criminals do.
Nuremburg Trials. A precedent
More- http://www.uruknet.info/?p=13473&hd=0&size=1&l=x
