An illegal anniversary
by Robert Jensen
On the 10th anniversary of the United States’ illegal invasion of Iraq, we can expect the war’s supporters to argue that military action seemed necessary at that moment, while critics will remind us of the suffering that resulted from that tragic miscalculation.
But amid the rationalizations and critiques, we should linger on this uncomfortable term: “illegal invasion.”
No matter how much we all ignore it, here is the reality: The U.S. invasion of Iraq was unlawful. The leaders who planned and executed the war are criminals. U.S. citizens bear some responsibility for not holding those leaders accountable.
The charter of the United Nations is clear about when the use of force in international relations is legal. War must be authorized by the U.N. Security Council, and in this case the council rejected a resolution authorizing war. The only other condition under which a member state can go to war is in self-defense when attacked, a principle that is extended to the right to respond to an imminent attack, what is sometimes called “the customary right of anticipatory self-defense.”
The basic principles are uncontroversial and clearly articulated in articles 39 and 51 of the U.N. Charter, though there is debate among legal experts about interpreting terms such as “imminent” and “anticipatory.” But whatever one’s position in those debates, there is no way to stretch the facts of this invasion to justify a self-defense claim.
At this point, many people respond by dismissing international law as irrelevant. Because U.S. policymakers’ first job is to protect Americans, they argue, our leaders shouldn’t be constrained by international law—the Constitution trumps international law or treaties.
But a small problem arises: Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States” are part of “the supreme Law of the Land.” Since the United States signed the U.N. Charter (and, in fact, wrote most of it), to reject international law in this matter is to express contempt for the plain meaning of the U.S. Constitution. No patriot would dare.
So, back to those uncomfortable conclusions: A decade ago, U.S. leaders launched what under the principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal is called a “crime against peace.” Whether in the course of that crime, U.S. forces also committed war crimes can be debated. For example, should the deliberate bombing of the civilian infrastructure of a country be considered a war crime? What about the use of cluster munitions in ways that predictably kill civilians? I believe both are criminal, but let’s put those more complicated issues aside. The illegality of the invasion itself is not a tough question.
In my travels outside the United States, I have found that the vast majority of people agree that the U.S. invasion was unlawful. Within the United States, mentioning this worldwide consensus typically is considered idealistic and irrelevant. But while we can ignore evidence and logic, and even ignore the world, we can’t escape the implications of those choices.
The moral force of law, domestic or international, lies in the consistent application of clear standards. When laws are applied only to the poor and the rich act with impunity, for example, we understand that as a perversion of the law.
Over and over in the United States, we proclaim our commitment to the rule of law—we are a nation of laws not men. If that were the case, we would turn over to the International Court of Justice high-ranking figures from the Bush administration, which initiated the war; from the Obama administration, which continued the war; from Congress, which enabled the war; and from the military, which prosecuted the war. We would determine the amount of reparations we owe Iraq and begin to make payments. And we would apologize to the Iraqi people, and to the world.
Why is that unthinkable in our political culture? Perhaps it is because we worship power rather than respect law. Perhaps it is because we have no intention of acting on the moral principles we routinely impose on others.
Perhaps it is because we are not the people we tell ourselves we are.
(Previously posted on truth-out.org)
—————
What a crisp distillation of the Iraq debacle! The saddest part of that nefarious, neo con venture that we “celebrated” and doubtless will in the coming weeks, is that we, as a public, once again proved to the neo con cabal that the citizenry are lemming-like, brain impaired fodder for the next contrived war that appears to be waiting in the wings! What is even more appalling is the perpetrators of the Iraq invasion are now trotting out the same ruinous rationale for an Iranian repeat. “And the band (public) played on…” It truly is a testament to the kool aid lovers addiction to relinquishing their responsibility to hold the leaders accountable for their monstrous deeds. What a seed bed for tyranny! Is there anything that could awaken a national conscience when facts, REAL facts shred the lies that were the justification for destroying a country, massive deaths and three trillion dollars to pay for what is in many respects, war crimes? I sadly doubt it. We have become intellectual oafs who would rally their support to any flim flam justifications of our national all encompassing saintliness that supposedly gives sanction for any international crime. The happy hubris that is trumpeted daily by the media is the anesthetic that allows complicity to replace even curiosity to the tissue thin justifications for whatever mayhem happens, that allows the enablers of future erosion s of our rights and enables with each suspicious event an ever tightening control of the public. It is easier to motivate action in a hamster than to cause any intellectual activity to cloud the skies the NWO
perpetrators devise and use rationales that a first grader would reject…trust me, I know that’s true because I am a former teacher of that age group and I could often have a higher level discussion with them than with most adults whose range of interest is the mind rot of the base level, media entertainment. Am I too cynical when I have concluded that the populace wants the drivel they are sold, requiring nothing but blind acceptance to the overlords whims? NONE of the past, bloody history of false flag ops would have been possible, or at least not done with immunity if the shadow ones had even the slightest tinge of worry that their actions might lead to consequences. 9/11, with stacks of highly researched facts that show the event was a false flag operation, are disdainfully rejected by the pompous public who, without ANY research just “know” that to doubt “W’s” version would be tantamount to treason! Building 7′s unexplainable destruction, even that is denied! We should have wised up as a nation that leaders can be evil; the JFK assassination, the Ton ken Bay, false flag operation that has now been proven, 9/11, and the robbery by the far right cabal of voters rights, the economic (make that the middle class) melt down, the list is sadly endless! Worse, no one was held accountable for any of it! No wonder the NWO proponents have contempt for the “useless eaters” as Kissinger so crassly labeled the majority of humanity, when they can enforce their New American Century plans so easily. Reminds me of “Mein Kampf” where Hitler laid out his grand plan and no one cared a whit! What all this portends to future horrific events is a sobering thought to contemplate. Obviously nothing is too evil to consider when the money mad corporate desires need an excuse for future devastation.