FAIR Action Alert: CNN's Dobbs Attacks Annan on Iraq War Legality

[G_j]

FAIR-L
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and activism

http://www.fair.org/activism/dobbs-annan.html

ACTION ALERT:
CNN's Dobbs Attacks Annan on Iraq War Legality

September 21, 2004

When U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said in a September 15 interview
that he thought the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was illegal, CNN's Lou Dobbs
was outraged, calling it "another incredible outburst by Kofi Annan"
(9/16/04). But Dobbs and his CNN reporters neglected to pursue the most
important aspect of the story: Was Annan right?

In a BBC interview, Annan said the war was "not in conformity with the
Security Council, with the U.N. Charter." When asked, "It was illegal?,"
Annan replied: "Yes, if you wish," adding: "I have indicated it is not in
conformity with the U.N. Charter; from our point of view and from the
Charter point of view, it was illegal."

This did not sit well with Dobbs, whose September 16 report began:
"Outrage and anger today after an astonishing statement about Iraq by U.N.
Secretary General Kofi Annan. Annan said the United States-led invasion of
Iraq was illegal."

Dobbs reported that "U.S. allies Britain and Australia immediately
rejected Annan's assertion. President Bush said he has no regrets about
ordering the invasion." CNN correspondent Kitty Pilgrim's segment quoted
the U.S ambassador to the United Nations, the Australian Prime Minister, a
representative from the conservative Hoover Institute, and Edward Walker
from the Middle East Institute, who said, "I don't understand quite what
he means by legal."

After Pilgrim's report, Dobbs continued by referring to Annan's "bizarre
statement" and lamenting "the interference that was being run over the
course of the past two years, in point of fact, by the Germans and the
French and now the French in Iran, the Chinese in the Sudan-- is, in fact,
the United Nations paralyzed?" Pilgrim responded by saying that "it
certainly doesn't seem to be able to move forward on certain issues. In
Iraq, it seems like revisionist policy to go back to this issue in the
U.N. today. It seems to have some trouble moving forward on many issues."

Whether or not looking back two years to the origins of an increasingly
violent situation is "revisionist policy" is debatable. The more
important question journalistically would be whether or not Annan's
comments accurately reflect international law. CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight,
however, didn't bother to interview international law experts about the
matter. If they had, they may have found that, as the Washington Times
put it (3/21/03), "Legal experts, however, are divided on the war's
legality, with many saying that the existing U.N. resolutions do not go as
far as to authorize the use of force." A few days earlier, the Los
Angeles Times (3/18/03) included comments from several international law
experts who thought the war violated international law.

Many legal experts contend that the United Nations resolutions regarding
Iraq did not give the U.S. and its allies the power to initiate war
without further action from the Security Council. And the U.N. Charter
does lay out specific conditions for hostile action; as Article 39
states, "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat
to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make
recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken ... to maintain or
restore international peace and security." The Charter authorizes the use
of force only if sanctioned by the Security Council, or if a country is
attacked or threatened with imminent attack (Article 51): "Nothing in the
present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or
collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the
United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to
maintain international peace and security."

But without even referring to the U.N. Charter or other standards of
international law, CNN continued the discussion the following night
(9/17/04) as guest anchor Kitty Pilgrim called Annan's statement
"outrageous," then added: "More controversy tonight after Kofi Annan says
the war in Iraq is illegal. Critics say he is encouraging this country's
enemies and putting American troops' lives at risk." The only "critic"
offered by CNN was Nile Gardiner of the right-wing Heritage Foundation.

For the record, Annan would certainly not be the first person to make such
"outrageous" comments. In fact, last year the prominent neoconservative
hawk Richard Perle, who serves on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board,
indicated that he thought that the invasion violated international law
(Guardian, 11/20/03), which Perle said "would have required us to leave
Saddam Hussein alone." Perle argued that French intransigence left the
U.S. with "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the U.N.
for dealing with Saddam Hussein," and therefore, Perle said, "I think in
this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

Perle's sentiments toward international law were in a sense echoed by
George W. Bush, who mocked a question about the legality of excluding
countries like Germany and France from Iraq's reconstruction (12/11/03):
"International law? I'd better call my lawyer." Bush's comments elicited
little criticism, and merited only a passing mention on Lou Dobbs Tonight.
Now that Annan has brought up a substantive claim about the war's legal
basis, CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight considers these statements of fact
"outrageous."


ACTION:
Encourage CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight to broaden its coverage of Annan's
remarks by bringing on international law experts-- including those who
contend that the war in Iraq was in fact illegal.

CONTACT:
CNN
Lou Dobbs Tonight
mailto:[e-mail]

As always, please remember that your comments are taken more seriously if
you maintain a polite tone. Please cc [e-mail] with your
correspondence.

Read more of Dobbs' commentary here:
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0409/16/ldt.00.html
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0409/17/ldt.00.html

----------
Your donation to FAIR makes a difference:
http://www.fair.org/donate.html

SUBSCRIBE TO EXTRA! AND GET FAIR'S NEW BOOK FOR FREE:
The Oh Really? Factor
http://www.fair.org/ohreally.html

FAIR SHIRTS: Get your "Don't Trust the Corporate Media" shirt today at FAIR's online store:
http://www.merchantamerica.com/fair/

FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 130 stations in the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station nearest you, visit http://www.fair.org/counterspin/stations.html

Feel free to respond to FAIR ( [e-mail] ). We can't reply to everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate documented examples of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of your email correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to [e-mail] .

You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site: http://www.fair.org . Our subscriber list is kept confidential.
FAIR
[phone]
http://www.fair.org/
E-mail: [e-mail]

[goodhue]

1. Was Annan right?

The question that every responsible journalist should be asking.
Having sat through an international law class, I'm pretty sure he was.
But as is the ways with lawyers, there is always a counter argument.
In this case it is a pretty weak one, as is generally the case with Federalist Society drivel.

[G_j]

2. too bad there is no court in which this could be argued

and since jouralists refuse to inform and educate the American people, the court of public opinion is fairly useless.

[goodhue]

3. It is a shame.

Nonetheless describing the was as illegal at every opportunity is the way to go. I wish more US politicians would describe it as such.

[G_j]

4. I like to remind people of this

also:


Statement by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson
Chief U.S. Prosecutor
at the Nuremberg Tribunals
August 12, 1945
on War Trials Agreement; August 12, 1945

There are some things I would like to say, particularly to the American people, about the agreement we have just signed.
For the first time, four of the most powerful nations have agreed not only upon the principles of liability for war crimes of persecution, but also upon the principle of individual responsibility for the crime of attacking the international peace.

Repeatedly, nations have united in abstract declarations that the launching of aggressive war is illegal. They have condemned it by treaty. But now we have the concrete application of these abstractions in a way which ought to make clear to the world that those who lead their nations into aggressive war face individual accountability for such acts.
<snip>

"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which
their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the
war, but that they started it. And we must not allow
ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war,
for our position is that no grievances or policies will
justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced
and condemned as an instrument of policy."
<snip>

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson
Chief U.S. Prosecutor
at the Nuremberg Tribunals
August 12, 1945

READ THE ENTIRE STATEMENT HERE:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/jack02.htm

[Disturbed]

5. Memory hole.

Saddam was comlying to WMD inspections by the Blix team. W kicked that team out. How hard is that to understand?