So it WAS Illegal After All!

[Mr Manifesto]

Reprint of Guardian article

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.

French intransigence, he added, meant there had been "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein".

Mr Perle, who was speaking at an event organised by the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, had argued loudly for the toppling of the Iraqi dictator since the end of the 1991 Gulf war.

I remember Tricky and other forum members endlessly arguing that the war was illegal, while others insisted otherwise. Well, now that Perle has finally come out in the open and admitted that international law just didn't suit the Bush administration, will these people finally concede the point? Or is it time to shift the goal posts?

 

[Aoidoi]

I don't know if it was illegal or not, but why is Mr. Perle the definitive source of international legal knowledge?

 

[Nasarius]

I don't know if it was illegal or not, but why is Mr. Perle the definitive source of international legal knowledge?

He's not, but he has a vested interest in the opposite being true, which makes him a fairly reliable source.

 

[BillyTK]

The war might have been illegal, but we'll find a way to blame the French for it (I almost get run over the other day. The car was a Peugeot-need I say more?)!

But what the heck was the event at the ICA? US hegemony&#8211a retrospective? Spin Masterclass? Damien Hirst is a short fat talentless goit? What exactly? Oh, here we go: The ICA Economist Debate. Is the War on Terror on Track? (and if not, how do we pin it on the French?).

 

[Tony]

I still contend that it wasn't illegal. Just because "international law" says something is "illegal" doesn’t make it so. The law has to have force and power behind it to make it relevant and applicable, international "law" has neither.

 

[Attrayant]

So should all international law be scrapped since none of it has force or power behind it?

 

[Tony]

So should all international law be scrapped since none of it has force or power behind it?

Pretty much.


Or set up a mechanism by which it does have force. Im not even sure that would work, when Bush made the move to enforce international "law" people piss and moan saying it's "illegal".


If international "law" is so important, how come the idiots of the world were willing to let Hussien continue to break it? How come they let him break it for 12 years? Or does international "law" only matter when it applies to the US or Isreal?

 

[El Greco]

I still contend that it wasn't illegal. Just because "international law" says something is "illegal" doesn’t make it so. The law has to have force and power behind it to make it relevant and applicable, international "law" has neither.

Also known as "the jungle law"

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Pretty much.


Or set up a mechanism by which it does have force. Im not even sure that would work, when Bush made the move to enforce international "law" people piss and moan saying it's "illegal".

Bush's actions are not a good example of enforcing international law. He had no body that sets "international law", i.e. the UN, behind him.

The only way to give International law much more force than a strong suggestion (which is what it has now) would be to grant some sort of enforcement powers to the UN and give the UN some teeth in a military sense. This would not set well with a lot of people in a lot of countries for a lot of reasons.

 

[Tony]

The only way to give International law much more force than a strong suggestion (which is what it has now) would be to grant some sort of enforcement powers to the UN and give the UN some teeth in a military sense. This would not set well with a lot of people in a lot of countries for a lot of reasons.

Exactly. Because of this fact, it's dumb to think of international "law" as anything more than a polite request.

 

[El Greco]

Exactly. Because of this fact, it's dumb to think of international "law" as anything more than a polite request.

So, if the mighty can escape the law then I guess they are not considered illegal ?

"Illegal" is one thing and "Inapplicable" is another.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Exactly. Because of this fact, it's dumb to think of international "law" as anything more than a polite request.

In certain sense you are right. A lot of "international law" consists of countries agreeing among themselves to do or not do certain things. While this is purely voluntary if ones country has entered into such an agreement, it is very bad for relations if one welches on the agreement. It really is no different than telling a lie on an individual level, people tend not to trust you.

Whether any agreements of this nature were violated in the instance of our invading Iraq, I couldn't say, though.

 

[Tony]

So, if the mighty can escape the law then I guess they are not considered illegal ?

If there is no law to escape, how can it be illegal?

"Illegal" is one thing and "Inapplicable" is another.


But illegal without applicable is irrelevant.

In Texas it is illegal to take more than three sips of beer at a time while standing, but such a law is unenforceable and inapplicable pretty much making it's "illegality" irrelevant.

 

[Ziggurat]

So, if the mighty can escape the law then I guess they are not considered illegal ?

"Illegal" is one thing and "Inapplicable" is another.

There's an eroneous assumption here that only the mighty can ignore international law. Saddam was doing precisely that for a pretty damned long time, and the French and Russians were content to help him continue. There are sometimes repercussions for violations of international law, but there is never a mechanism to actually force compliance (in other words, you might suffer sanctions, but nobody is going to actually make you do anything). International "law" simply is not comparable to domestic laws. Had there been an organization with both the power AND the will to force Saddam to comply with international law in the first place, the question probably wouldn't ever need to come up about whether or not we should break international law to bring him to justice. But no such body exists, nor is one likely to exist within our lifetimes.

 

[Aoidoi]

He's not, but he has a vested interest in the opposite being true, which makes him a fairly reliable source.

Is this generally true? People confess to crimes they didn't commit all the time. People are incorrect all the time. He could well have bad info and be trying to minimize it's impact even though it's not correct.

I dunno, I'm not quite sure how one would go about determining anything in international law with any certainty. US law has the Supreme Court as the last stop in interpretation, somehow I don't think the Hague has that kind of authority in international law.

Does make international law a bit difficult to pin down.

 

[Luke T.]

In certain sense you are right. A lot of "international law" consists of countries agreeing among themselves to do or not do certain things. While this is purely voluntary if ones country has entered into such an agreement, it is very bad for relations if one welches on the agreement. It really is no different than telling a lie on an individual level, people tend not to trust you.

Precisely why our country is no longer a Confederation, which is what the U.N. is.

 

[ssibal]

Reprint of Guardian article



I remember Tricky and other forum members endlessly arguing that the war was illegal, while others insisted otherwise. Well, now that Perle has finally come out in the open and admitted that international law just didn't suit the Bush administration, will these people finally concede the point? Or is it time to shift the goal posts?

I am one of those people. Still waiting for the official condemnation from the UN.......

 

[ssibal]

Another thing, there seems to be a double-standard here. If Perle had claimed that Iraq had WMD you would be calling him a liar. But now that he is claiming something that you agree with there are no cries about him being a liar or demands for him to prove his claim. Wonderful.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Mr Perle, meet Mr. Manifesto. I think you two will get along fabulously.

From the posted story:

The controversy-prone Mr Perle resigned his chairmanship of the defence policy board earlier this year but remained a member of the advisory board.

Can anyone give me a pointer to an international legal document that clearly states that is it illegal for any country to declare war on another country for any reason whatsoever?

Mr. Perle might think himself brave for expressing his opinion so boldly, but he is just plain wrong.

There are international agreements that are very specific about military conduct during a war, many of which were broken by the Iraqi army such as posing as civilians and so on, but there is no law that makes it illegal for any nation to declare war on another for whatever reason it deems necessary.

To suggest such a stupid law would deny any nation of it's right to defend itself as it sees fit, and this is the point that will be driven home by laywers representing the US and UK.

Cry all you want Mr. Perle, but you lose. bzzzzt!, next contestant please...

 

[armageddonman]

Re: Re: So it WAS Illegal After All!

I am one of those people. Still waiting for the official condemnation from the UN.......

As long as the US and UK have veto power in the security council no-one will even try.