The war in iraq was "illegal" Annan

Memnoch

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

so... I guess this is the time to bring up all those debates we had about the legality of the war, does this finally put a lid on the issue?

I mean... who else is gonna tell us what is legal or not according to the UN but the sec general himself?

And while i do feel that annan is often powerless, i have always felt that he is honorable and trust worthy.

pete

But surprise surprise....

The US has rejected the United Nations secretary-general's claim that the US-led invasion of Iraq was illegal.
Kofi Annan told the BBC the decision to take action in Iraq contravened the UN charter and should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

But US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the use of force against Iraq had a sound legal basis.

Earlier, US allies including the UK, Australia and Poland also said the war was backed by international law.

In Baghdad, the interim Iraqi government said Iraqis had been happy to see the end of Saddam Hussein.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3664234.stm

keu

But US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the use of force against Iraq had a sound legal basis.

Bush and his coons would also have us believe that Iraq is heading towards democracy.

but..

.....

U.S. Intelligence Offers Gloomy Outlook for Iraq..

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. intelligence report prepared for President Bush (news - web sites) in July offered a gloomy outlook for Iraq (news - web sites) through the end of 2005, with the worst scenario being a deterioration into civil war, government officials said on Thursday

I mean... who else is gonna tell us what is legal or not according to the UN but the sec general himself?

We will probably find the UN has no authority on these matters anymore, whether its legal or not still has no bearing on whether it's justified or not. Only time will tell.

link

Boggle

In fairness - the UN is like a toothless old dog at this stage. So its illegal - what are they going to do about it? Nothing.

They aren't even willing to intervene in sudan...

By the way, does anyone here actually believe (apart from being argumentative) that the war was justified and even if it was justifiable, was it legal?
(I remember some of the reasons but not many... links to AQ, wmd, oil, daddy didn't like him, he was a bad man, wore silly clothes, ...

cleareyed

whether its legal or not still has no bearing on whether it's justified or not. Only time will tell.

Legality isn't determined for the US etc. by K. Annan. It's determined by their own legal structures. Have those structures issued a judgement on the legality of the war?
I agree that only time will tell about Iraq2 being justified. There may well be civil war and continuing instability. All of the "players" there are prepared to kill to get their way. It remains to be seen which of them are prepared to let democracy take root.

sovtek

cleareyed wrote:

Legality isn't determined for the US etc. by K. Annan. It's determined by their own legal structures.

No it isn't. The USA is bound by UN Charter as it is a signed and ratified party to it. Even by US structures of law. The US Constitution binds the government to all treaties and international agreements it enters into.
If you want to go by that logic, then even Saddam did nothing "illegal".

Have those structures issued a judgement on the legality of the war?

And it took almost 100 years to find that slavery was in fact illegal.

All of the "players" there are prepared to kill to get their way.

Except when they don't use violence and get killed by US troops anyway.

It remains to be seen which of them are prepared to let democracy take root.

"Lett[ing] democracy take root" involves the Iraqi people being involved in deciding that...that has yet to happen.
That also assumes that the occupiers invaded and occupy Iraq to do just that. Evidence so far suggests otherwise. That's if one can believe that invaders can bring democracy.

Rock Climber

sovtek wrote:

No it isn't. The USA is bound by UN Charter as it is a signed and ratified party to it. Even by US structures of law. The US Constitution binds the government to all treaties and international agreements it enters into.

In fairness,I saw the interview and what annan said had to be dragged out of him like a sore tooth.
It's his opinion, he used the age old "escape" language of ... I believe
I got the impression that though it's what he believes, he didn't really want to be saying it or to be dragged into such a statement.

The "war" has not been declared illegal and cannot be by Annan, thats a job for the security council, which of course will never happen.
He's pragmatic and knows going down the road of analysis and counter analysis is pointless at this stage in the face of U.S power- and like it or lump it, thats what it is, U.S power.

We might aspire to having them use that power in a way more fitting with our(here on this board and elsewhere) ideals but all one can do is suggest this.
The consolation is perhaps to be thankfull that worse lunatics don't have such power...
I'd be as worried(and probably a lot more) by the type of society Putin might create wielding such power or worse what his country might do if over ran by communism.
I'd be more worried if by hook or by crook(pardon the pun) the followers of that Sheikh Abu Hamza got their hands on power.

Changing the world into a peace - love- and we all live in a yellow submarine while nice aint going to happen, it hasn't happened in the last couple of thousand years due to human nature so I don't see how it is to happen in the next thousand.
Making it better is always achievable, and a worthy aspiration but perfection-no-never.

Moriarty

Does the legality or not of it really matter to that many people? It's one of the most toothless arguments against the war I've heard, espically when there are many more lucid arguments that could be made if you didn't like it.

bonkey

Memnoch wrote:

I mean... who else is gonna tell us what is legal or not according to the UN but the sec general himself?

My understanding was that they had a system similar to most nations.

F'r example...Bertie coming out and declaring that something is illegal doesn't actually change the legality (or otherwise) of an act carried out in this state.

Annan can hold whatever opinion he wants, but I don't believe the determination is his to make. And if I'm right...and it isn't...he's neither doing himself nor the UN any favours by making such allegations.

jc

cleareyed

Interesting post sovtek. If the war was illegal according to the UN and that judgement binds US through its constitution then is it possible for US citizens to seek legal redress against their govt? An injunction perhaps? a prosecution? Until the US courts decide on that the opinion of K. Annan is irrelevant.

All players in Iraq kill to get their way. The shiites, the sunni, the foreign fighters, those who want to impose a theocracy based on sharia , the US, the British, and anyone else I have left out. And they all have killed civilians.

The struggle to let democracy take root in Iraq is underway. It has its local opponents who want something entirely different. I disagree with you about the evidence to date on what the invaders want re democracy. Until elections are postponed indefinitley I will withhold judgement. Finally, history has several examples of invaders bringing democracy.

sovtek

cleareyed wrote:

Interesting post sovtek. If the war was illegal according to the UN and that judgement binds US through its constitution then is it possible for US citizens to seek legal redress against their govt?

Yes it is, but it would probably rely on the Supreme Court...but being that they selected Bush it's not an option at this point.

An injunction perhaps? a prosecution? Until the US courts decide on that the opinion of K. Annan is irrelevant.

No K Annan isn't irrelevant and it isn't just up to the US courts to decide. The UNSC as well as the World Court has jurisdiction as well.

All players in Iraq kill to get their way. The shiites, the sunni, the foreign fighters, those who want to impose a theocracy based on sharia , the US, the British, and anyone else I have left out. And they all have killed civilians.

No not all players in Iraq are killing to get their way. Sadr didn't kill one person until his newspaper was shut down and the CPA tried to arrest him.
Al-Sistani isn't responsible for any deaths that I'm aware of. Then there are many aid workers that haven't picked up a gun either. Then there are the relatively high number of unarmed protestors that have been killed by US soldiers.

The struggle to let democracy take root in Iraq is underway.

Would that be a democracy of a select few people choosen by the US and their puppet in Iraq?

It has its local opponents who want something entirely different.

So the Iraqi people want something entirely different to the US? Democracy indeed.

Until elections are postponed indefinitley I will withhold judgement.

Even after elections the US will still not allow full sovereignty of Iraq.

Finally, history has several examples of invaders bringing democracy.

Such as?

Zulu

cleareyed wrote:

The struggle to let democracy take root in Iraq is underway.

...as voted for by the NeoCons in Washington?

cleareyed wrote:

It has its local opponents who want something entirely different.

Freedom? A society that works? The removal of a foreign, unwelcome, oppressive military force? Human rights?

cleareyed

I don't see how anyone who wanted freedom and human rights would oppose democracy. I believe that many of those fighting against the US forces in Iraq have an extreme islamic agenda which has scant regard for human rights and a narrow concept of freedom. I don't know what the Iraqi people as a whole want because they have not expressed that wish in an election.

I didn't list invaders bringing democracy because of the obvious reference to Germany 1945 and Japan 1945.

Zulu

The democracy that the US is bringing isn't a real democracy for one. As for human rights - where have you been hiding? Abu G.... - ever hear about it?


<edited for spellings>

Hobbes

cleareyed wrote:

I don't see how anyone who wanted freedom and human rights would oppose democracy.

Depends on what you see democracy stands for.

You have just had your house bombed.
Your neighbours and family members are dead in the blast.
You have to put up with 4am searches without warrents in your house.
You have lost your job and the chance of getting another is slim, the only jobs available will get you killed by your own country men.
You watch as your natural resources are put in the hands of your "Liberators" who force contracts that no one in their right mind would sign.
Your told that your evil dictators toture prisons are closed, when they just got new owners.

Then they tell you that they are building a democracy for you, while the party which has the popular vote is not allowed run.

Tell me would you oppose democracy in those situations?

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

Depends on what you see democracy stands for.

You have just had your house bombed.
Your neighbours and family members are dead in the blast.
You have to put up with 4am searches without warrents in your house.
You have lost your job and the chance of getting another is slim, the only jobs available will get you killed by your own country men.
You watch as your natural resources are put in the hands of your "Liberators" who force contracts that no one in their right mind would sign.
Your told that your evil dictators toture prisons are closed, when they just got new owners.

Then they tell you that they are building a democracy for you, while the party which has the popular vote is not allowed run.

Tell me would you oppose democracy in those situations?

While I agree that the Iraq situation is a mess all those things you mention Hobbes are subjective too.
Just looking close to home, one can see how an "occupying" power can be seen increasingly in a bad light to some.
Tens of thousands silently supported the IRA in NI for reasons not too distant to what you have listed there for Iraq.
It's got to the stage now for the Americans and the rest that they're damned if they stay and they're damned if they don't hasn't it?

Hobbes

Earthman wrote:

While I agree that the Iraq situation is a mess all those things you mention Hobbes are subjective too.

Which ones?

My point is that a lot of people in the Middle East see this sort of crap as Western Values. They don't know what "Democracy" means, or rather they know what it means but they don't see Western Democracy as something good.

Just looking close to home, one can see how an "occupying" power can be seen increasingly in a bad light to some.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a "good light" story. I know I have tried.

It's got to the stage now for the Americans and the rest that they're damned if they stay and they're damned if they don't hasn't it?

It's a resource grab by the US. If they stopped that it might go a long way. Or actually letting people vote for who the majority want, not who you tell them they can vote for.

bonkey

cleareyed wrote:

I don't see how anyone who wanted freedom and human rights would oppose democracy.

Anyone who didn't believe in democracy being the best way to implement these things would.

Also,you are implicitly suggesting that your definition of what constitutes freedom is what these people should have. The US' vision of freedom for Iraq will not allow (from what I can understand) just anyone to run for office.

If the US (and the EU, lets make no mistake here) wouldn't stand idly by and allow a free and independant nation like Austria to freely, independantly, honestly and legally elect Joerg Haider and the Freedom Party into a relatively powerful position but instead imposed sanctions etc. to effectively force the man out.....what gives you the slightest hope that elections in Iraq will be anything more then "choose from among the candidates we deem acceptable to us, regardless of whether they're who you want or not"???

I believe that many of those fighting against the US forces in Iraq have an extreme islamic agenda which has scant regard for human rights and a narrow concept of freedom.

But do you believe the population should be denied the right to vote for democratic representatives who believe in an extreme Islamic agenda, which would allow them to democratically enact extrme Islamic measures should they gain sufficient support?

Or do you side with the "freedom only to choose what we'll let you" version of democracy and freedom?

I didn't list invaders bringing democracy because of the obvious reference to Germany 1945 and Japan 1945.

I'd only list Japan there. Democracy existed in Germany prior to 1945....it just took a short break.

jc

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

Which ones?

Well not wishing to hang on mighty mouses coat tails but theres plenty of evidence coming out of the north of collusion between British forces and loyalist terror gangs...bombing murdering shooting etc and thats less than 30 years ago.

My point is that a lot of people in the Middle East see this sort of crap as Western Values. They don't know what "Democracy" means, or rather they know what it means but they don't see Western Democracy as something good.

Yeah thats true,It's gas though 'cause I'll bet a lot of them will watch re runs of chips dubbed in arabic.
As regards what "they" think of democracy, it's a mullah thing isn't it?
"They" wouldn't want a western democracy where heaven forbid women have as many rights as men and can vote.
Ok thats their tradition of centuries.

sovtek

I'd only list Japan there.
jc

And only if you weren't communist

sovtek

Earthman wrote:

Yeah thats true,It's gas though 'cause I'll bet a lot of them will watch re runs of chips dubbed in arabic.

I dig French movies...but that doesn't mean I'm going to eat horse meat.

LightofDarkness

In response to the first post:

This is ridiculous. You look to the UN as though they're the be all and end all of morality and legality. Lets' examine the UN, shall we? It's basically the world super liberals club. That's right. Therefore, any conservative/republican decisions made will be bombarded, just because partisan politics exist there too.

And people who think they are anymore benign than the US are just plain idiots. I'd love to go into more detail about their little "plan" for the 3rd world, but I'm time restricted. Furthermore, the UN is simply another failed attempt at an organisation; it started out with wonderful intentions but has just become another French/German club. Much like the EU is. In fact, they almost mirror eachother. But then, how can you expect we Irish to make a viable good decision based on examining both arguments when we have no right-wing or remotely conservative voice in this country? THERE IS NO CHOICE. All you can vote for is less left or more left. Having the Nice Treaty literally shoved down our throats goes to show it. No choice. I've gone off on a little rant here. To finish, the UN are treated like the greatest political body on earth, when they are far from that.

Gizzard

Hobbes wrote:

Depends on what you see democracy stands for.

You have just had your house bombed.
Your neighbours and family members are dead in the blast.
You have to put up with 4am searches without warrents in your house.
You have lost your job and the chance of getting another is slim, the only jobs available will get you killed by your own country men.
You watch as your natural resources are put in the hands of your "Liberators" who force contracts that no one in their right mind would sign.
Your told that your evil dictators toture prisons are closed, when they just got new owners.

Then they tell you that they are building a democracy for you, while the party which has the popular vote is not allowed run.

Tell me would you oppose democracy in those situations?

very well said, the whole Iraq issue is a joke from every angle. the bombings and torture is the iceing on the cake, who are the real terrorists?, I say USA

Gizzard

LightofDarkness wrote:

In response to the first post:

This is ridiculous. You look to the UN as though they're the be all and end all of morality and legality. Lets' examine the UN, shall we? It's basically the world super liberals club. That's right. Therefore, any conservative/republican decisions made will be bombarded, just because partisan politics exist there too.

And people who think they are anymore benign than the US are just plain idiots. I'd love to go into more detail about their little "plan" for the 3rd world, but I'm time restricted. Furthermore, the UN is simply another failed attempt at an organisation; it started out with wonderful intentions but has just become another French/German club. Much like the EU is. In fact, they almost mirror eachother. But then, how can you expect we Irish to make a viable good decision based on examining both arguments when we have no right-wing or remotely conservative voice in this country? THERE IS NO CHOICE. All you can vote for is less left or more left. Having the Nice Treaty literally shoved down our throats goes to show it. No choice. I've gone off on a little rant here. To finish, the UN are treated like the greatest political body on earth, when they are far from that.

Nothing is perfect but UN are a better alternative then bastard bush and his monster government.

mycroft

LightofDarkness wrote:

Much like the EU is. In fact, they almost mirror eachother. But then, how can you expect we Irish to make a viable good decision based on examining both arguments when we have no right-wing or remotely conservative voice in this country? THERE IS NO CHOICE. All you can vote for is less left or more left. Having the Nice Treaty literally shoved down our throats goes to show it.

You can only vote left or more left?

Riiiiiggggghhhhttttttttt...........................

Guys I haven't woken up in some parrallel universe where bonkey and hobbes are PDs and Arcadegame works for the refugee council?

Do'yall have goatees???

Em both our major parties are center right. Our current government is a coalition between a conservative catholic party and a neo liberal right wing party..... Our only potential opposition will be a mixture of green labour and a party which had it's own fascist wing not 60 years ago.

AND YOU THINK WE'RE A LEFT WING COUNTRY?!!!?

To finish, the UN are treated like the greatest political body on earth, when they are far from that.

No but fundamentally if the world is going to grow into a more Harmonious and benefical one for everyone, we're going to have to stop pandering to the increasingly outmoded concept of "nations".

The UN's flaws come about because for it's existance it was a pawn in the cold war, and is currently underfunded by the major nations who dislike the concept of having to submit any law but the ones they choose to invent. It's become little more than a talking shop hampered by nations unwilling to give it real power because they dislike the idea of someone meddling in their affairs.

I'd love to go into more detail about their little "plan" for the 3rd world, but I'm time restricted.

Please, do come back, I can't wait to hear this.....

Oh and I consider Nice to be a right wing victory.

Zulu

LightofDarkness wrote:

This is ridiculous. You look to the UN as though they're the be all and end all of morality and legality. Lets' examine the UN, shall we? It's basically the world super liberals club. That's right. Therefore, any conservative/republican decisions made will be bombarded...
And people who think they are anymore benign than the US are just plain idiots. I'd love to go into more detail about their little "plan" for the 3rd world...

I suppose the same republicans have a better plan for the 3rd world?

keu

Guys I haven't woken up in some parrallel universe where bonkey and hobbes are PDs and Arcadegame works for the refugee council?

cleareyed

Old problem; what if someone who wants to destroy democracy seeks election? What if they win? What if they use the legal system to create an extra-legal state? The Hitler scenario. Personal opinion: no I don't think ppl who want to destroy democracy should be let stand for election. I think western ideas of freedom are better than those of Islam.

The UN has no power. If the war in Iraq was illegal that claim would have been tested in US courts by now due to the volume of opposition to Bush. And it would have been proved there.

Before the war I felt it would be another Vietnam; every day it gets more and more like it.

I know the history of Germany. Thanks.

bonkey

cleareyed wrote:

Old problem; what if someone who wants to destroy democracy seeks election? What if they win?

If they win, then the majority fo the people also want something other than democracy, and the only democratic result is to bow to their wishes.

Personal opinion: no I don't think ppl who want to destroy democracy should be let stand for election. I think western ideas of freedom are better than those of Islam.

So democracy is not majority rule? Its not about what the majority express a wish for? Its about what the majority express a wish for, limited by what other nations are going to allow them to choose.

Sounds like a variation of Home Rule to me....and last time I checked, Ireland didn't consider that to be a form of "freedom" from our English Lords and Masters when it was offered to us.

So its funny that the western idea of freedom that you're espousing is "choose from among the choices we give you".

The UN has no power. If the war in Iraq was illegal that claim would have been tested in US courts by now due to the volume of opposition to Bush. And it would have been proved there.

I think you're confusing the UN not having a specific type of power with the UN having no power.

I know the history of Germany. Thanks.

Nice of you to say, but the last time I checked, Hitler wasn't elected by a majority. In fact, Hitler never accrued more than 37% of the popular vote.

In the post I'm replying to, however, you referred to the majority choosing "not democracy" as "the Hitler scenario"....

So...if you want people to believe that you know German history, maybe you should stop misrepresenting it.

jc

sovtek

bonkey wrote:

Nice of you to say, but the last time I checked, Hitler wasn't elected by a majority. In fact, Hitler never accrued more than 37% of the popular vote.

That and the real possibility that his election might not stand up to an international observer these days.

Sand

So democracy is not majority rule? Its not about what the majority express a wish for? Its about what the majority express a wish for, limited by what other nations are going to allow them to choose.

Failed democracies are majority rule, successful democracies are governance in the interests of *all* with the consent of the majority. Otherwise democracy is that old parable of the 3 wolves and the lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

So even if a majority want to introduce Sharia law and restrict the freedoms of others thats not acceptable in a successful democracy. Many failed democracies in places like Africa, South America and Asia have not made that understanding part of the political landscape yet and the predicatable result is chaos, oppression, inter-ethnic strife and civil war.

So its funny that the western idea of freedom that you're espousing is "choose from among the choices we give you".

The stakes are far too important to allow mass panic, hysteria or idiocy to threaten the personal liberties of every citizen who has a right to have their liberties protected regardless of whose in power. That means a Nazi party advocating exterminating the Jews? Out - sorry, I know it makes our claims of democracy a bitter hollow joke but liberty>democracy. Some whacko Islamicist fundamentalists advocating enslaving women? Out - sorry, I know it makes our claims of democracy a bitter hollow joke but liberty>democracy.

If they win, then the majority fo the people also want something other than democracy, and the only democratic result is to bow to their wishes.

Democratic yes, liberal no - which only highlights the flaws in the "more democracy" argument. Democracy is a tool to protect liberty, by ensuring the governed are able to vote out a bad government - it is not an absolute good in and of itself.

Nice of you to say, but the last time I checked, Hitler wasn't elected by a majority. In fact, Hitler never accrued more than 37% of the popular vote.

Im open to correction here, but I dont believe there was ever a direct election for Hitler against another candidate - as it was the Nazis were the largest party from those elections and thus formed a democratically elected government.

Personal opinion: no I don't think ppl who want to destroy democracy should be let stand for election. I think western ideas of freedom are better than those of Islam.

Do you know what youve done there? Do you recognise your folly? Have dark visitations haunted your dreams? I think I can hear the howl of outrage echoing across the hills even now! Either way, I wouldnt lose too much sleep over it.