Annan says Iraq war illegal

[church mouse guy]

Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary general, said last night that the war in Iraq had been "illegal", and "in conformity" with neither the UN Security Council nor the UN Charter.

Asked on the BBC World Service if the war was illegal, he replied: "Yes, if you wish."

This is reported today in the London News Telegraph.

And here is what the Communist Party USA says in their platform plank:

"PEACE AND FOREIGN POLICY
End the United States unnecessary and illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. Hundreds of young soldiers have been killed, and thousands wounded, along with many thousands of Iraqi civilians, while giant military contractors reap financial benefit."

And here is what Michael Anthony Peroutka of the Constitution Party says:

"As President, I would move immediately to withdraw all our troops from Iraq in a way that would provide for the safety of those Iraqis who worked with us during this illegal, wrong-headed war."

So now we have three peas in a pod and the perfect alignment of the far left and the far right.

The President of the United States of America has enemies left and right.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Micahel Peroutka:

"Because I agree with George Washington that ours should be an independent Republic, I will withdraw our government from the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the whole panoply of New World Order institutions which suck up our taxes and expend them in a manner which, in"America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution or not?... If Iraq fails to fully comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein."
violation of our Constitution, is not accountable to our Senate, our House of Representatives, or our people."SOURCE


GW Bush:


"My administration thinks he is doing an excellent job as the Secretary General of the United Nations, and therefore, we heartily endorse his second term as Secretary General."
SOURCE

"America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution or not?... If Iraq fails to fully comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein."
SOURCE

 

[church mouse guy]

All of that is beside the point. The point is that the UN Secretary General, the Communist Party and the Constitution Party all three denouce the war in Iraq as illegal.

Birds of a feather flock together.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Birds of a feather flock together.

AMEN!

Kofi Annan = 'Coffee Enema'?

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by church mouse guy:
All of that is beside the point. The point is that the UN Secretary General, the Communist Party and the Constitution Party all three denouce the war in Iraq as illegal.

Birds of a feather flock together.

Except they are not birds of a feather. Is it possible that the war in Iraq is illegal by international standards?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Daisy:
Is it possible that the war in Iraq is illegal by international standards?

Regardless of one's ploitical view, or view on the Iraq war, there is no international governmental body of laws that the United States is subject to. The highest law of the land for the US is the Constitution. There is no "international standard". There is the opinion of the UN, but they are strictly an arbitrational agency between nations.

 

[Stratiotes]

One problem with the "UN Law != US Law" argument though - we are signers of the UN Charter and members of the security council. If the members of the security council do not abide by UN resolutions then how can any nation be held accountable for doing so? How could we claim that we are only enforcing sanctions from a body that we ourselves choose to ignore when we wish?

If we truly do not agree with the UN Charter, then we should withdraw from the UN. I'd vote for that. However, it is hypocrisy to claim membership and leadership while irnoring it as irrelevant to us.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by Johnv:
Regardless of one's ploitical view, or view on the Iraq war, there is no international governmental body of laws that the United States is subject to. The highest law of the land for the US is the Constitution. There is no "international standard". There is the opinion of the UN, but they are strictly an arbitrational agency between nations.

Are other countries subject to international law? Can we say they have to obey US law, instead? Wasn't international law how we justified killing 4,000 Panamanian civilians to capture Noriega off of US soil?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Daisy:
Are other countries subject to international law?

There really isn't such a thing as international law. The term is subjective. Generally speaking, if a nation has an agreement with another nation, such as a treaty, or has agreed to adhere to a UN resolution, then one could refer to those as international law (that is, a rule of conduct or procedure established by agreement). But, aside from a nation's agreement to abide by such, there's no governing authority to enforce those agreements. In order for the US invasion of Iraq to violate international law, it must be shown that we have agreed not to take such action. In reality, we have taken military actions in Iraq numerous times in an effort to get Iraq to remain in compliance with its agreements that brought an end to Gulf War I, typically involving precise strikes on specific targets, without the UN saying boo.

Can we say they have to obey US law, instead?

The Constitution has authority only upon the US and its territories and protectorates.

Wasn't international law how we justified killing 4,000 Panamanian civilians to capture Noriega off of US soil?

That was a while ago, so my recollection may be a bit vague, but if I recall, Noriega had broken several agreements made with the US and UN (which, I presume, is what was meant by the term then). Perhaps someone else could shed a bit of light on the history of Noriega.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Who cares what the corrupt UN leader thinks.

When we are in America, we should follow America's law unless one wishes to declare war and face the consequences of that action. Likewise in other countries as well. There should be no international law. We should be sovereign nations.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
Who cares what the corrupt UN leader thinks.

I care what he thinks. But I put it in the proper context, which is:

1 - I disagree with him
2 - He has no authority over the US, and
3 - The Iraqi people don't appear to share his opinon. Just ask the Olympic soccer team that didn't have to worry about torture when returning after failing to get a medal.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

John,

I am curious why you would care one bit what Coffee at One thinks about us. His opinion should hold no credibility with civilized, Democratic, anti-terror nations. He should be ignored as a raving, corrupt lunatic (sort of like Michael Moore... )

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
I am curious why you would care one bit what Coffee at One thinks about us.

Now now, I didn't say I cared a lot. I don't. I do care, but I care a little... very little.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
There should be no international law.

What about the Geneva Conventions?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

What about them?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Pastor KevinR]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
Who cares what the corrupt UN leader thinks.

When we are in America, we should follow America's law unless one wishes to declare war and face the consequences of that action. Likewise in other countries as well. There should be no international law. We should be sovereign nations.

Joseph Botwinick

I'm in agreement w/ you Joseph. Every once in a while I see the UN bldg there on the east side of Manhattan island and it turns my stomach.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
What about them?

The Geneva Conventions are a part of international law. Since you said there should be no international law I was wondering if you think there should be no Geneva Conventions?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

yes

 

[KenH]

Interesting, Joseph. Then do you think that our soldiers when captured can be treated any way their captors wish?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Interesting Ken. How do you think the terrorists have been treating our people they have captured? BTW, in answer to your question, yes, as long as they are willing to pay the consequences of what we will do to them in response.

Joseph Botwinick