Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
25. Based on the principles established by the Caroline case and cited at Nuremberg...
Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:42 PM
Feb 2013

... preventive or preemptive self-defense was not a legitimate rationale for invading Iraq, which posed no imminent threat to the United States. The facts that no "weapons of mass destruction" were found, and that their absence was suspected all along within the U.S. government, only serve to demonstrate the sound rationale behind these principles.





The Crime Of War: From Nuremberg To Fallujah

A review of current international law regarding wars of aggression

by Nicolas J. S. Davies

Z magazine, February 2005

In September, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan told the BBC that the U.S./British invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law <1>. The following week, he dedicated his entire annual address to the U.N. General Assembly to the subject of international law, saying, "We must start from the principle that no one is above the law, and no one should be denied its protection." So, how was the invasion of Iraq illegal? How does that affect the situation there today? And what are the practical implications of this for U.S. policy going forward, in Iraq and elsewhere?

The Secretary General presumed what the world generally accepts, that international law is legally binding upon all countries. In the United States however, international law is spoken of differently, as a tool that our government can use selectively to enforce its will on other nations, or else circumvent when it conflicts with sufficiently important U.S. interests. For the benefit of readers in the U.S., I therefore feel obliged to preface a review of war crime in Iraq with a look at the actual legal status of international law, both in international terms and in terms of our own national framework of constitutional law.

When the president of the United States signs a treaty and it is ratified by the U.S. Senate, our country is making a solemn undertaking. The seriousness of such commitments is exemplified by the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials and subsequent international trials, in which individual national leaders have been held criminally responsible for treaty violations and, when convicted, have been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment or even death by hanging. In our own constitutional system, Article VI Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the "Supremacy Clause," grants international treaties the same "supreme" status as federal law and the Constitution itself. It reads:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

You can visit the State Department website to find a complete list of the international treaties to which our country is a signatory, under "Treaties in Force" <2>. These treaties are enforceable by national court systems in each country, but, without an international court system to ensure universal enforcement, the real consequences of violating international law are often political, economic and diplomatic rather than judicial. As we are finding in Iraq, these consequences can nevertheless be substantial.

It is important to understand that war crimes fall into two classes: 1) war crimes relevant to battlefield conduct; and 2) waging a war of aggression. To explain what was at that time an unprecedented focus on the second kind of war crime, war of aggression, the Nuremberg Judgment included the following statement: "The charges in the indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

CONTINUED...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/International_War_Crimes/Nuremberg_Fallujah.html



Tip o' the pin to DUer NNN0LHI.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Stunned that we're here whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #1
Unbelievable. Octafish Feb 2013 #2
Yep, that about sums it all up.... WCGreen Feb 2013 #19
Professor Droney explains Constitutional Law 101. Octafish Feb 2013 #32
K&R Solly Mack Feb 2013 #3
Secret Government and its associated Kill Lists are troubling, no matter who's in the Oval Office. Octafish Feb 2013 #4
What a long way we've come Catherina Feb 2013 #5
Which brings up the central question: ''When did murder become an approved national policy?'' Octafish Feb 2013 #7
You forgot "depraved". Catherina Feb 2013 #9
Thank you. Fixed! Octafish Feb 2013 #11
Bam. (nt) DirkGently Feb 2013 #6
Some things are beneath the United States of America. Octafish Feb 2013 #8
We have become a rogue state. DirkGently Feb 2013 #12
K&R! "It's legal" does not make it moral. Legal does not trump moral. Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #10
We are making enemies much faster than we can kill them. Why? Octafish Feb 2013 #13
I figure two possible reasons: a permanent war budget, or to draw destruction upon the US. Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #16
Both. Suppose World War II was really just a misunderstanding between elites? Octafish Feb 2013 #20
The goal is not to win but to make the war go on indefinitely kenny blankenship Feb 2013 #23
When the commie USSR croaked, we were promised a 'Peace Dividend.' Octafish Feb 2013 #30
it is disturbing how many prevaricators there are here on this issue.... Agony Feb 2013 #14
When Bush did it, DU was sore pissed. Octafish Feb 2013 #22
Pvc Manning probably feels safer in prison with drones on the loose looking rhett o rick Feb 2013 #15
Droney sez: 'Good citizens cover-up war crimes.' Octafish Feb 2013 #24
yep, Bush used that age rationale at Falluja stupidicus Feb 2013 #17
Based on the principles established by the Caroline case and cited at Nuremberg... Octafish Feb 2013 #25
indeed stupidicus Feb 2013 #31
Hold it ! Wait! The dashboard believers were told that liberals are not saying anything about this underpants Feb 2013 #18
Those were different days. A different enemy. An existential threat. Octafish Feb 2013 #26
Thanks for this, Octafish! - nt dreamnightwind Feb 2013 #21
Stamps. Octafish Feb 2013 #27
^ Wilms Feb 2013 #28
Who cashed in on World War I and all wars through to the present day? Octafish Feb 2013 #29
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»How a Secret Memo Justifi...»Reply #25