POLL: The repercussions of a US attack on Iraq

[msfe]

A supreme international crime

Any member of a government backing an aggressive war will be open to prosecution

Mark Littman
Monday March 10, 2003
The Guardian

The threatened war against Iraq will be a breach of the United Nations Charter and hence of international law unless it is authorised by a new and unambiguous resolution of the security council. The Charter is clear. No such war is permitted unless it is in self-defence or authorised by the security council.

Self-defence has no application here. Neither the United States nor the UK, nor any of their allies, is under attack or any threat of immediate attack by Iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,910882,00.html

 

[agin1415]

Sorry MSFE the United States does not believe in WORLD GOVERNMENT, dictated by FRANCE.

Stuff the UN up your BUTT!

 

[msfe]

At the Nuremberg trials, the principles of international law identified by the tribunal and subsequently accepted unanimously by the General Assembly of the United Nations included that the planning, preparation or initiation of a war contrary to the terms of an international treaty was "a crime against peace". The tribunal further stated "that to initiate a war of aggression... is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime".

It was for this crime that the German foreign minister Von Ribbentrop was tried, convicted and hanged. This case and the subsequent case of former Chilean president Pinochet show that it is not only governments but also individuals who can be held responsible for such a crime. Jurisdiction to try such a crime is not, for the foreseeable future, within the scope of the new International Criminal Court. It is, however, open to any country in the world to accept such jurisdiction. Some are already moving in that direction. Instances are the proceedings in the Belgian courts against Ariel Sharon in relation to alleged crimes in the Lebanon, and the active involvement of the courts of Spain in relation to alleged crimes against humanity said to have been committed by Pinochet. Members of any governments actively involved in bringing about an unlawful war against Iraq would be well advised to be cautious as to the countries they visit during the remainder of their lives.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,910882,00.html

 

[Doubter]

msfe- you are over the line and definitely not credible.

 

[agin1415]

So when was the action taken against SADDAM for the IRAN and KUWAIT Matter?

When does that come up on the docket at the Hague?

By the way fly to BAGHDAD you can become a HUMAN SHIELD.

 

[TM_Direct]

Quote from msfe:

TM Direct:`WHAT DID THE UN DO FROM 1998-2002???´

the USA and the UK [veto wielding UN members] illegally bombed Iraq during all those years - up until today.

=======================================

Why ignore my question: Again i am askign WHAT DID THE UN DO FROM 1998-2002? WHY DID THE UN ALLOW ITSE'F TP BE THROWN OUT OF IRAQ??......WHCIH MAKES ME WONDER HOW KOFI CAN SAY THE IS WOUOLD BE IN VIOLATION OF THE UN IF IT ACTED ALONE, BUT THEY DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THE IRAQI VIOLATION(S)....

 

[msfe]

Doubter:`msfe- you are over the line and definitely not credible.´

it may have escaped your attention that i am not the author of this article - with whom i fully agree, though.

 

[Doubter]

msfe- it did not escape my attention on that one article. It is your many links and statements when taken as a whole are so out of balance and over the line that you have no credibility.

 

[candletrader]

Quote from Doubter:

msfe- it did not escape my attention on that one article. It is your many links and statements when taken as a whole are so out of balance and over the line that you have no credibility.

Doubter by name, doubter by nature?

 

[agin1415]

Answer my question, when will the Matter of SADDAM's Invasion of IRAN and KUWAIT be taken up before the World Court?