| March 3, 2006 The Bramble Bush by Kevin Morford  As we approach the third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq by the United States, it is appropriate to repeat and explain an important fact. The United States is committing serious war crimes in Iraq, under major international treaties it has both signed and ratified. I look forward to the day when the architects of those war crimes can be brought to justice before an appropriate tribunal. Until that day, we all need to keep reminding the warmongers that we know what they have done, and that they will be held accountable for their crimes. Many people do not understand that the United States is committing war crimes. Here is how you can help explain it to them. First, the United States Constitution says that the Constitution and treaties of the United States are the supreme law of the land. The U. S. Supreme Court has confirmed that validly signed and ratified treaties of the United States are binding and enforceable law. The United States was created to be a nation of laws, and no person, not even the President, is above the law. If an action taken by the President violates a signed and ratified treaty, that action is illegal under both international and U.S. law. Second, the Charter of the United Nations is a binding international treaty that has been signed and ratified by the United States and by almost all other nations. Article 2(4) of that Charter provides in full as follows: All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. This is not just some obscure technical provision in the Charter. The Nuremberg Tribunal labeled the waging of aggressive war as “the supreme international crime.” The United Nations Charter recognizes only two exceptions to this general rule prohibiting the use of force against other states. The first exception, under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, provides that there is an individual and collective right of self-defense by member states. That exception only applies, however, if there has been an armed attack against the member state, or if there is an imminent threat of such an attack. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was not justified under this exception because Iraq had not attacked the United States, and was not even threatening to attack the United States. In addition, decisions by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) make it clear that an armed attack made in self-defense must be both necessary, and proportional in scope to the armed attack that made it necessary. The United States has agreed with these principles in ICJ cases in which it has voluntarily participated. The requirement for necessity means that the use of force must be the only effective method available for self-defense. This usually means that the armed attack is still continuing. The requirement of proportionality requires that the use of force not be excessive compared to the original armed attack. There is no right for an individual member state to engage in a “preemptive strike” under the U.N. Charter. Actually, it was the United States that had been repeatedly using military force against Iraq before the invasion, to enforce its “no fly zone.” Because it was regularly being attacked, Iraq would have been justified in using military force against the United States under international law. Despite this, it had not attempted or threatened to do so. The other exception to Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter only exists when the use of military force has been authorized by the United Nations Security Council. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was not authorized by the U.N. Security Council. The Bush administration did make some strained efforts to argue that U.N. Resolution 1441 authorized the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The text of that resolution reveals the opposite intent. The text of U.N. Resolution 1441 mandates that Iraq comply with certain obligations, and states that Iraq will face "serious consequences" if it fails to comply. Despite this, the resolution does not specify what those consequences will be, and certainly does not authorize individual nation states or combinations of nation states to use force against Iraq. Instead, the resolution specifies that the U.N. will "remain seized" of the matter. This legal term means that the U.N. is retaining jurisdiction over the matter, and not just giving individual nations the right to invade whenever they see fit. There was no subsequent U.N. Resolution authorizing an invasion. Not only was the initial invasion illegal under international law, but U.S. conduct during the occupation has also violated international law. The U.S. has admitted using white phosphorus as a weapon. White phosphorus is a weapon that burns upon contact with human skin. The burning cannot be extinguished with water. Use of this substance as a weapon is a war crime, pure and simple. The U.S. has also dropped at least 26 cluster bombs, weighing 1,500 pounds each, in populated areas in Iraq. This constitutes an illegal use of these weapons against civilians under binding international treaties. The U.S. has violated international treaties regarding the treatment of prisoners, including bans on the use of torture. These are more war crimes. The U.S. has also failed to provide security for the residents of the territory it is occupying. This also is a violation of binding international treaties. When I traveled in Europe in the early 1970's, I met a young man who told me he was ashamed to be a German because of Germany’s policies and conduct during World War II. With the criminal activities of the Bush Administration in Iraq, I fear we are leaving the same type of legacy of shame to our own children. Kevin Morford is a political activist and an attorney in private practice in the Anchorage area. He can be reached at kmorford@insurgent49.com. |
-
Columnists -
- column archive -
February 24, 2006 February 17, 2006 February 10, 2006 February 3, 2006 January 27, 2006 January 20, 2006 January 13, 2006 January 6, 2006 December 30, 2005 December 23, 2005 December 16, 2005 December 10, 2005 December 2, 2005 November 25, 2005 November 18, 2005 November 11, 2005 November 4, 2005 October 28, 2005 October 21, 2005 October 14, 2005 October 7, 2005 September 30, 2005 September 23, 2005 September 16, 2005 September 9, 2005 September 2, 2005 August 26, 2005 August 19, 2005 August 12, 2005 August 5, 2005 July 29, 2005 July 22, 2005 July 15, 2005 July 8, 2005 July 1, 2005 - also by this writer - Borrow And Spend Republicans Judicial Independence Special Interest Trade Agreements Knee Jerks Unsure Insurance Flat Tax Folly Law and Disorder Spies Among Us Why Tort Reform Is Bad For The Economy |
||||||
| Copyright
2005
Insurgent Media. All Rights
Reserved. in-sur-gent (in sur'jent), n. 1. a member of a group which revolts against the policies of its leadership. |
|||||||
