from the story: International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal. 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."
Who are the ones wanting to kill Americans just because they are Americans? Who are the ones intentionally killing civilians both Christian and Muslim-- seeking maximum casualties?
If a Pentagon hawk, known to support the war, simply expressed his support for it as the right thing to do, there would be no story. It was only newsworthy at this point because he acknowledged the war's illegal character. It's notable on this board because several of us have been calling it an illegal war since the beginning and have been met with the response 'according to who?' We can now add Perle to a long list of people who consider the war illegal. Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Powell, Rice, et al (incl. treeman, etc.), have made the argument that, due to the UN resolution, the war was not illegal -- that the US and England could 'legally' enforce a UN resolution without UN backing. A supporter of the war as high up as Perle apparently disagrees with that line of thinking. In that context, we can go back to debating the 'rightness' of violating the will of the UN, our allies, world opinion and international law, but maybe this is a step towards those advocating that position acknowledging the war's illegal nature and the United States' vigilante policy.
more from the story: "But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that <b>"international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable."</b> Seems to me this is what's really important about what he said.
Without saying I necessarily take one side in this particular instance - but do you see the general problem with a government saying they put their view of morals above the law?
Richard Perle has no morals. Before the war started, Perle was advising clients on investment opportunities in post war Iraq. Earlier in the year, Perle resigned from his position within the admin due to conflicts of interest. He was a paid consultant for Hutchison Whampoa to lobby for the sale of Global Crossing with the gov't policy board which he influences. In addition, he would get a bigger payout if the sale was approved. Money talks for this guy and he was busted for it.
I don't know that International Law has provision for dealing with these kinds of terrorist threats. It would seem to me that the Bush Administration viewed 9/11 as a seminal event, the beginning of the end unless radical steps were taken. I'm in agreement with that. Let International Law catch up. We're not prepared to suffer another catastrophe while commmittee meetings get scheduled. I do see the risk, but I trust the US.
How about the treatment of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, which is also a clear violation of international law - they might "deserve it", but don't you think that one danger of this is that it reduces the US' credibility when it comes to telling other countries they need to respect international law (especially with regard to treatment of prisoners)? Also, does the proclaimed benefit of perhaps finding out a bit more about the structure of Al-Quaeda and possible planned attacks by this type of treatment of the prisoners really outweigh the cost of appearing vindictive and possibly reinforcing hate and prejudice against the US?
That is what Perle said, but that's a dangerous attitude. Just because some people believe it was the right thing to do, does that mean that they have the right to break international law? That's a serious issue, and more than just a technicality. Prisons are full of people who feel what they did was right even though it was against the law. Does society think it's ok for those people to be let out, because they feel the law got in the way of doing the 'right' thing?
1. What specific treatment of prisoners are you referring to? 2. I notice you said <b>re</b>inforcing hate. If they already hated us, what can we possibly do to change that? Roll over?
1. I don't want to get into a detailed discussion of this. I will quote an article from the New York Times regarding this and highlight which are I regard as especially problematic. http://www.iht.com/articles/117232.html Top court takes Guantánamo prisoners' case Linda Greenhouse/NYT Tuesday, November 11, 2003 WASHINGTON Setting the stage for a historic clash between presidential and judicial authority in a time of military conflict, the Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether prisoners at the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, are entitled to access to civilian courts to challenge their open-ended detention. . The court said Monday that it would resolve only the jurisdictional question of whether the federal courts can hear such a challenge and not, at this stage, whether these detentions are in fact unconstitutional. Even so, the action was an unmistakable rebuff of the Bush administration's insistence that the detainees' status was a question "constitutionally committed to the executive branch" and not the business of the federal courts, as Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued in opposition to Supreme Court review. . In accepting the cases, the court moved from the sidelines to the center of the debate over whether the administration's response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, reflects an appropriate balance between national security and individual liberty. . While the court does not indicate why it grants review in a particular case, the justices might well have been persuaded that no matter what the ultimate answer to the question of whether judicial review is even available, they are the ones who have to provide it. . "It is for the courts and not the executive to determine whether executive action is subject to judicial review," said the appeal, which was filed on behalf of 12 Kuwaitis. . The two appeals the court accepted were filed on behalf of 16 detainees, the Kuwaitis in one group and two Britons and two Australians in the other, all seized in Afghanistan and Pakistan during United States-led operations against the Taliban in late 2001 and early 2002. They have all been held for more than 18 months without formal charges or access to any forum in which they can contest the validity of their detention. . The men assert that they were not fighters either for the Taliban or for Al Qaeda; most say they were humanitarian volunteers who were captured by bounty hunters. . The two separate lawsuits, seeking a federal court hearing on the validity of the open-ended detention, were combined by the U.S. District Court here. That court then ruled, in a decision affirmed in March by the District of Columbia U.S. Court of Appeals, that on the basis of a World War II-era Supreme Court precedent, the federal courts lack jurisdiction over the military detention of foreigners outside U.S. territory. . The applicability of that 1950 decision, Johnson v. Eisentrager, is at the heart of the dispute before the Supreme Court. The justices also combined the two cases, Rasul v. Bush (the Britons' and Australians' case), and Al Odah v. United States (the Kuwaitis' case), and will hear them in late March, with a decision expected by early summer. . One central issue is the status of the naval base at Guantánamo Bay, which while indisputably a part of Cuban territory has been administered by the United States under a 1903 lease that grants it many of the attributes of sovereignty and uses the phrase "complete jurisdiction and control." . By contrast, the Eisentrager decision denied judicial review to German intelligence agents who were captured in wartime China and were being held in Germany after conviction as war criminals by military tribunals. . How to characterize Guantánamo Bay is of such importance because it is clear that noncitizens do have certain constitutional rights if they are within U.S. territory. On the other hand, the court has frequently invoked the Eisentrager precedent, even out of its wartime military context, to stand for the proposition that outside the territorial reach of the United States, aliens have no such rights. . The brief filed for the Britons and Australians by the Center for Constitutional Rights, a liberal public interest law firm in New York, told the court that "we alone exercise power at Guantánamo Bay" and that the base should therefore be treated for jurisdictional purposes as part of the United States. . In the administration's view, not only is that conclusion incorrect but it is not one that the court is free to make. The determination of sovereignty over a particular territory is "not a question on which a court may second-guess the political branches," Olson said in his brief. . It was evident on Monday that this, too, was a question on which the justices want to have the final word. That conclusion emerged from a comparison of how the administration phrased the question presented by the two cases with how the justices phrased it in their order granting review. Olson said the question was whether the federal courts had jurisdiction to decide the legality of detaining "aliens captured abroad in connection with ongoing hostilities and held outside the sovereign territory of the United States at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba." . The Supreme Court, by contrast, incorporated no assumption about whether the base was or was not "outside the sovereign territory of the United States." . If the justices decide that the federal courts do have jurisdiction, the cases will go back to district court in the first instance for a decision on the merits of the detainees' claims. . Lawyers for the Kuwaiti group, from the law firm of Shearman Sterling, describe what the detainees are asking for as modest relief: to be informed of any charges against them, to be allowed to meet with lawyers and family members and to obtain "access to an impartial tribunal to review whether any basis exists for their continued detentions." . Without those rights, their brief says, their detention violates the Constitution as well as domestic and international law. . Lawyers for the Britons and Australians make similar arguments. . 2. I did not say "roll over". However, I think that giving those people who already hate fuel to fire others' feelings against the US which might by far not be as strong as that of those who hate already (there are degrees of dislike/hate, and I am sure there are many in the Arabic world who dislike the current US administration's policy but who are still far from hating the US) might be a bad idea.
This was not a capricious action by the US. We announced our intentions months before we intended to take action. The UN was openly invited to get on board. They were told why we felt it was necessary. The important precedent that had been broken was the one(s) broken by the Terrorists. I agree with the Bush Administration that the truly dangerous thing to do is to wait around for a plodding bureaucracy (the UN) with a record of underachievement to resolve this problem. We have too much at stake.
Originally posted by Sir Jackie Chiles 1. I don't want to get into a detailed discussion of this. I will quote an article from the New York Times regarding this and highlight which are I regard as especially problematic. <b>I have every hope that anyone wrongly detained at Guantanamo Bay would be freed as quickly as possible. The problem is that "no one in prison is guilty" as we've all heard. I thought your concerns were regarding the treatment of all the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.</b> 2. I did not say "roll over". However, I think that giving those people who already hate fuel to fire others' feelings against the US which might by far not be as strong as that of those who hate already (there are degrees of dislike/hate, and I am sure there are many in the Arabic world who dislike the current US administration's policy but who are still far from hating the US) might be a bad idea. <b>I didn't mean to insinuate that you said "roll over." The problem seems to be that the US finds itself at a crossroads. If we don't take strong action, then we are in effect "rolling over."</b>
This is backwards thinking. Iraq signed no treaty with the U.S. and broke no agreements with the U.S. They did sign and not follow through with some agreements with the U.N. If anybody should be telling anyone how to deal with the situation would be the parties involved in the agreement. Those parties are Iraq, and the UN. The fact that the U.S. announced their intentions would only show premeditation in a court of law. As far as waiting for the UN, giving what we've found in Iraq, waiting certainly wouldn't have been dangerous. Any WMD they might of had, certainly weren't ready to be used despite the fact the Iraqis knowing that an invasion was coming. Waiting for the UN to continue it's actions might have prevented war, and certainly wouldn't have caused any damage.
Saddam's lack of cooperation was a cause for worry. If he was so damn innocent he could have been forthcoming. The UN didn't sign up for WMD scavenger hunt. There was foot-dragging and obstruction. If he had had nothing to hide, he could have been more forthcoming. Now it looks like he may have hidden it. It's a new world post-9/11.
Well in fairness, Saddam did say they didn't have WMD, and he told them more than once. Nobody believed him. I agree he was an idiot because he didn't have substantial proof. I also agree that lack of cooperation is a bad sign. But countries were willing to use threat of force to back up inspections to some extent. We will never know if that would have worked or not, because Bush was too impatient to try it. War should be the last resort, and when there are multiple other propositions either on their way or already up for discussion we aren't down to the last resort. Why does it look like he may have hidden the WMD? Why would he hide them rather than use them in a last ditch effort to defend his regime? Where and how could he hide them all without inspectors, and intel from around the world getting a hint about it? And if he was able to hide the weapons what kind of threat is that? If Saddam can't use them what danger are they to anyone?
Originally posted by FranchiseBlade Well in fairness, Saddam did say they didn't have WMD, and he told them more than once. Nobody believed him. I agree he was an idiot because he didn't have substantial proof. I also agree that lack of cooperation is a bad sign. But countries were willing to use threat of force to back up inspections to some extent. We will never know if that would have worked or not, because Bush was too impatient to try it. War should be the last resort, and when there are multiple other propositions either on their way or already up for discussion we aren't down to the last resort. <b>He had used them before, so there was no reason to believe that he didn't have them anymore. Weapons programs usually accelerate.</b> Why does it look like he may have hidden the WMD? Why would he hide them rather than use them in a last ditch effort to defend his regime? Where and how could he hide them all without inspectors, and intel from around the world getting a hint about it? <b>To have used them would have unleashed the dogs. He had no adequate defense against the overwhelming US force.</b> And if he was able to hide the weapons what kind of threat is that? If Saddam can't use them what danger are they to anyone? <b>They can be found at a later time and used against someone else, maybe?</b>
I hope you don't mind that I numbered your responses. 1. I agree that they might accelerate but I think that could have been determined with inspections backed by force. 2.What dogs would be worse than what was happening to him anyway? He was and did lose everything. What about that would have been worse for him had he chosen to use WMD trying to defend himself? 3.But not if he's out of power. Why hide the weapons even though your being driven out by a superior force. They won't do you any good if you can't use them.
To my recollection, the inspection process was kind of a farce. That's why President Bush referred to it as a Scavenger Hunt and as not acceptable. Saddam is, apparently, still alive and has no doubt millions if not billions in foreign accounts. If he had used WMDs, the onslaught of American forces would have been greater in the aftermath IMO.
