I need your help, DU!

[wtmusic]

The door of the Iraq war legality issue has been opened (a crack)...

Yesterday Colin Powell was forced into a dialogue by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's reiteration on Wednesday that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal under the terms of the UN Charter. Powell's statement on Sean Hannity's radio show: "I spoke with the secretary general and we know that we have different views on this, but our view is clear and our view is based on international law," Powell said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040917/pl_afp/us_un_iraq_annan_france

Powell's view may be clear but its legal basis is not.

The charter begins: "WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind..." and was a set of rules under which member nations could coexist peacefully.


US Secretary of state Edward Stettinius, one of eight American delegates, signs the charter as Harry Truman looks on.

Under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter a nation's use of force is authorized under only two circumstances: in individual or collective self-defense under armed attack, as outlined in Article 51, or pursuant to a Security Council resolution, as outlined in Article 42. As shown below, neither provision authorized the invasion of Iraq.

Article 51: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations..."

The US was not under "armed attack" at the onset of hostilities, so Article 51 cannot be considered a legal basis for the war.

Article 42: "Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 (non-violent measures to restore peace) would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security."

The 15-member UN Security Council did not authorize the attack, so this basis is equally invalid.

Administration lawyers have also claimed justification based on the fact that Iraq never lived up to the terms of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire. As the US was not a party to the cease-fire (the two parties were the UN itself and the Republic of Iraq) the US has no direct jurisdiction and hence no basis to make the claim.

We all have our pet issues here, and this is mine. Please help me by emailing major media outlets (especially CBS News) to hammer on the points outlined above. This is a golden opportunity to not only sway the election, but eventually seeing that international law is served by prosecuting Bush for war crimes.

CBS News:
[e-mail]

CBS 60 Minutes:
[e-mail]
60 Minutes
524 West 57th St.
New York, NY 10019
[phone]

NBC Nightly News:
[e-mail]

NBC Dateline:
[e-mail]

MSNBC (Hardball)
[e-mail]

ABC World News Tonight:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/WorldNewsTonight/WNT_newemail_form.html

ABC Nightline:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/WorldNewsTonight/WNT_newemail_form.html

Thank you all! :hi: