Iraq War Illegal: Perle

[Black Dog]

Click.

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."

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.

[KrustyKidd]

I would like to know why Saddam, having not adhered to the ceasefire of 91 should have expected not to be attacked.

[Morgan]

Wakey, wakey, Guardian readers. What Perle says is that the Iraq War is an example of how international law is disconnected from doing the right thing. He says it would have been morally unacceptable to allow Saddam to remain in power...hence the US rounded up a coalition of the willing...countries that were willing to do the right thing.

If people need to believe that invading Iraq is following international law, a case has been made for the invasion because Saddam did not adhere to the 91 ceasefire agreement and because Saddam was a threat to the US's national security. Saddam and Al Qaeda had agreed to pursue a co-operative alliance to destroy US interests.

But for people like Perle (and me),international law, as it stands, has lost its validity for justifying action. Otherwise, if international law and justice were truly the guiding lights of the UN, 80% of the thugs/dictators/psychopaths who currently lead the UN nations would have been put behind bars years ago.Come on...international law? What a joke...the likes of Assad and Castro and Mugabe and Quadaffi and company defile "law" and mock "justice " at every opportunity. International "law" is a sham.

[KrustyKidd]

But for people like Perle (and me),international law, as it stands, has lost its validity for justifying action.

What about para 3c, subsection 4, to the charter of Dictatorial Rights in which it clearly states that yada yada yada ......

..... and forthwith while enabling the killing of his own said people may, when presented with a situation whereby he/she/it must comply with ..............

............ and furthermore, allowing to engage in open debate while massing troops on ................

...........shall be treated as an actual G8 nation even though he/she/it is running out of open ground in which to bury bodies killed by summary execution .............

....clearly states that it is the RIGHT of said dictator to rape any person he/she/it chooses ...........

[SirRiff]

i despise those insane neo-conservatives and perle especially for thier crazy policies, but i dont think this is some great admission. obvious there is NO provision in international law for a swift response to these sorts of situations. there are many dictators and corrupt rulers who play huge roles in the world every day, saudi arabia most particularly.

on the other hand, the exact purpose of the rule of law in any nation is to provide reasonable and repeatable means to deals with conflict. when you make up your own law or ignore international precedent you loose all those benefits of stability that law brings.

so what perle really said was yeah we went outside the system and we destabilized the entire process.

sirriff

[Black Dog]

Wakey, wakey, Guardian readers. What Perle says is that the Iraq War is an example of how international law is disconnected from doing the right thing. He says it would have been morally unacceptable to allow Saddam to remain in power...hence the US rounded up a coalition of the willing...countries that were willing to do the right thing.

If the U.S wants to make the case for amending international law (for example, the UN Charter, which the U.S. is a signatory and which prohibits uinilateral acts of aggression such as the one perpatrated by teh Anglo-American alliance against Iraq) they should work to amend it in the proper forum, not simply run roghshod over it in a stunning (and precendent-setting) display of arrogance.

If people need to believe that invading Iraq is following international law, a case has been made for the invasion because Saddam did not adhere to the 91 ceasefire agreement and because Saddam was a threat to the US's national security. Saddam and Al Qaeda had agreed to pursue a co-operative alliance to destroy US interests.

Both Iraq and the United States viloated the '91 ceasefire repeatedly and Saddamw as never demonstrated to be a threat to the U.S's national security, nor has a link between Saddam and Al Q'aeda been conclusively demonstrated. So spare me your propagandizing.