Text 10255, 230 rader
Skriven 2005-03-25 19:38:28 av Stephen Hayes (5:7106/20.0)
Ärende: family.peacemakers: The "war of aggression" debate
==========================================================
* Forwarded (from: peacemakers) by Stephen Hayes using timEd/2 1.10.y2k.
* Originally from family.peacemakers@family-list.org (8:8/2) to peace-makers1.
* Original dated: Fri Mar 25, 07:41

From: family.peacemakers@family-list.org(family.peacemakers)
To: peace-makers1@family-bbs.org
Reply-To: family.peacemakers@family-list.org

From: "Steve Hayes" <khanyab@lantic.net>

Forwarded from a newsgroup.
===
Hello friends,

The short piece from the BBC below is informative in terms of the differences
in the political and media climates between the UK and the US. Sadly, we've
heard no debate, even the more liberal end of the so-called "liberal media" as
to whether the Iraq invasion was a Crime of Aggression under international law,
and thus a war crime from its inception.

It seems to me that we in the movement need to keep hitting home on this
however. Every chance I get in interviews with the media, letters, op-eds,
talks with elected officials, public presentations, etc. I refer to the
invasion as a "war of aggression" and make the point that under the principles
enunciated at Nuremburg this is the highest form of war crime. I urge all of
you to raise this as well whenever and wherever you can.

The nature of this massive violation of international law is laid out quite
well in a piece by historian Jeremy Brecher at
http://www.presentdanger.org/papers/0412affmeasure_body.html Bretcher speaks
eloquently as to the duty of citizens to take "affirmative measures" to halt
these crimes. I hope you will go to the original and read it through.

I'm pasting in an excerpt that describes the criminal nature of the war and
occupation:

"The U.S. attack on Iraq was a violation of the UN Charter. Article 1, Section
4 states, 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. United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan stated
shortly before the attack that the Charter is very clear on the circumstances
under which force can be used. If the U.S. and others were to go outside the
Council and take military action, it would not be in conformity with the
charter. After the U.S. attack he stated that the invasion of Iraq was not in
conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point
of view, it was illegal.

"The U.S. occupation of Iraq constitutes an illegal continuation of the illegal
U.S. attack on Iraq in violation of the UN Charter. U.S. operations in Iraq
constitute a continuation of this illegal occupation, even if conducted under
the cover of a puppet regime. So does the plan to create permanent U.S.
military bases in Iraq.

"The United States and its supporters in Iraq have killed tens of thousands of
Iraqi civilians. Bombing, assaults on residential neighborhoods, destruction of
mosques and hospitals, and shooting of unarmed civilians are portrayed
regularly in the press and the media. The Bush administration currently plans
to continue the policies that have led to this slaughter of the innocent.

"Authorized agents of the U.S. government have committed torture at Abu Ghraib,
Guantanamo, and elsewhere around the globe. Those responsible for this torture
have gone largely unpunished and the policies and doctrines that justified it
remain in place.

"The U.S. government is defying the Geneva Conventions as a matter of policy.
It holds captives in secrecy without disclosing their existence to the
International Red Cross; spirits them across borders; denies them due process
of law; and engages in cruel, brutal, and humiliating treatment of prisoners.

"In support of their illegal international polices, U.S. officials are engaged
in violations of human rights against both citizens and non-citizens abroad and
at home. They seize and lock up those they deem a threat without due process of
law, hold them incommunicado, and treat them with abuse in violation both of
international norms and of the U.S. Constitution.

"These acts are sometimes attributed to a few rogue individuals acting on their
own. But extensive evidence indicates that they actually result from policies
enacted at the highest levels of the military and governmental chain of
command.

"These acts are sometimes justified in terms of protecting Americans, fighting
terrorism, and bringing democracy to oppressed nations. Regardless of whether
such claims are sincere or self-serving, they cannot justify war crimes. Nor
can the undoubted fact that crimes are also being committed by insurgents and
others in Iraq. As Justice Jackson put it at Nuremberg, No grievances or
policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and
condemned as an instrument of policy."

"The United Nations Charter, the Geneva conventions, and other treaties made
under the authority of the United States are the supreme law of the land under
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. The repeated violation of them, and the
perpetuation of policies that authorize their continuing violation in the
future, establish that U.S. government officials are not acting as the legal
embodiment of the U.S. government but rather as illegal, unconstitutional
usurpers."

Please, friends, check out the BBC piece below, read through the entire
Bretcher article, and join in raising these questions.

Many thanks,
Mark Haim

Mid-Missouri Peaceworks
804-C E. Broadway
Columbia, MO 65201
573-875-0539

E-mail: peacewks@coin.org <mailto:peacewks@coin.org> Web site:
http://peaceworks.missouri.org <http://peaceworks.missouri.org/>

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" --Thomas Jefferson

 BBC NEWS
Straw facing war advice critics
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is answering claims the attorney general changed
his mind about the legality of the Iraq war just before it began.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4377469.stm

Lord Goldsmith initially thought the war was illegal without a new UN
resolution but backed the invasion 10 days later, it is claimed.

The claims are made in a Foreign Office lawyer's resignation letter.

Opposition parties are now pressing Mr Straw for a full explanation about the
issue in Parliament.

The revelations came in a censored part of ex-Foreign Office lawyer Elizabeth
Wilmshurst's letter, obtained by Channel 4 News.

 Conservative spokesman Dominic Grieve, who has tabled Thursday's urgent
question, said Lord Goldsmith was fully entitled to change his mind.

But he told BBC News: "The difficulty is that that change of mind is against
the backdrop of the prime minister having massaged the truth when he appeared
before Parliament."

Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said the government had "huge
questions" to answer.

He urged the government to publish the attorney-general's full legal advice on
the war - "and if necessary be damned".

Such a move would improve the "quality of debate in the forthcoming general
election," Mr Kennedy added.

'Not alone'

Ex-Foreign Secretary Robin Cook urged ministers to clear up the "running sore"
and suggested possible MPs might not have voted for war had they known of Ms
Wilmshurst's concerns.

"It is very difficult to avoid the conclusion that what changed... was the
discovery that we were not going to get the second resolution," said Mr Cook.

Asked by reporters about the claims, the prime minister's official spokesman
repeatedly said it was convention that governments did not discuss the attorney
general's advice.

Ex-Defence Minister Lord Gilbert defended the government's refusal to publish
Lord Goldsmith's full advice.

He said: "They [the public] know the attorney general has said the liberation
of Iraq was legal and that's good enough for me and I think it should be good
enough for the whole country."

He said many countries had believed Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction
and other nations involved in the war had also decided it was legal.

'Crime of aggression'

Ms Wilmshurst resigned as deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Office on the eve
of the invasion on 20 March because she did not believe military action was
legal.

A censored version of her resignation letter has been obtained under freedom of
information laws by the BBC News website and other news organisations.

Ms Wilmshurst argued the Iraq war amounted to a "crime of aggression".

Part of the letter is blanked out - the Foreign Office says law officers'
advice is exempt because of professional privilege.

Changing stances?

Channel 4 News, without giving a source for its information, published the
missing section.

It suggests the attorney general, the government's chief law officer, changed
his mind twice about the war's legality.

Channel 4 quoted Ms Wilmshurst saying that Lord Goldsmith originally had agreed
with Foreign Office lawyers that the war was illegal without a new UN
resolution.

He was reportedly more equivocal on 7 March, telling Tony Blair in a letter it
would be safer to seek a new resolution.

"The view expressed in that letter has of course changed again into what is now
the official line," said Ms Wilmshurst.

That was a reference to Lord Goldsmith's parliamentary answer on 17 March
saying the war was legal without a new resolution.

A spokesperson for the attorney general told BBC News: "More of the same
questions about process have been raised.

"What matters is that as recently as 1 March this year, the attorney general
made very clear to the House of Lords, that the view set out in his
parliamentary answer of 17 March 2003 was his own genuinely held independent
view, that military action in Iraq was lawful."

 TIMETABLE
Before 7 March: Lord Goldsmith believed war not legal without new UN
resolution, claims Elizabeth Wilmshurst 7 March: Lord Goldsmith tells Tony
Blair it would be safer to have second resolution
17 March: Parliamentary answer from Lord Goldsmith says war legal without new
resolution
18 March: Tony Blair makes case for war ahead of MPs voting for military action
20 March: Invasion of Iraq begins

-+- family.peacemakers
Sponsored by FamilyNet International. Support FamilyNet at
http://www.fmlynet.org You can also read via newsgroups at
nntp://nntp.family-bbs.net

___ BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 - Origin: FamilyNet Sponsored by http://www.christian-wellness.net (8:8/2) 

--- WtrGate v0.93.p9 Unreg
 * Origin: Khanya BBS, Tshwane, South Africa [012] 333-0004 (5:7106/20)