Saturday, April 16, 2005
"all necessary means"
UN Resolution 1546, which sanctioned the end of the Occupation of Iraq (sic), and the placement of control to an Interim Government, has a very peculiar clause to it. It's been bothering me all day, since I have been reading papers on the scandalous conclusion of the US Commission that was investigating the assassination of Italian agent for SISMI, Nicola Calipari, and the injuring of kidnapped journalist Giuliana Sgrena and another officer of SISMI. They are placing the guilt on the person killed! Well, out of 300 others killed this way, AT LEAST there is a commission looking into it (sic). Thank goodness for the kindness of strangers.
Well, in Resolution 1546, there is the clause that the US troops can use "all necessary means" to enforce law and security. What does that term mean? Does anyone have a clear idea on it? Does it mean random shooting? Is that all part of the deal, so that the abuses are considered part of the UN Resolution, and not a violation of international law? And, if this is so, the entire "commission" is a charade to begin with and just kept the Italians quiet during election time, thinking that something was being done to bring about some justice....
Trying to find an answer, (I still haven't, but hope someone can help me) I did find quite a good article on the Malet Street Gazette. Here's a short excerpt:
If there is any fundamental debate about the legal basis for the use of force in Iraq, the real issue is not whether legal precedent now exists for such action, but realizing that the United Nations has delegated powers to its members to unilaterally use "all necessary means."
While the rule of the law is the cornerstone of international law, and while that rule’s application is sufficient evidence to show that the US invasion of Iraq had legal grounds within the context of the United Nations Charter, the issue of whether the US led invasion was a just or moral one is well beyond the scope of legality.
If there ever was a war that had a legal basis devoid of moral authority, it is the US led war on Iraq. Evidence is now mounting from the 9/11 Commission, The Butler Report and the news media that show that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair were presented with a wide range of intelligence. Reports show that Bush and Blair selectively presented (and still do) a skewed set of facts to make the case of imminent threat by Iraq where no such threat existed.
While the US and Britain may pass the test of a legality for invading Iraq, sadly, facts discovered by the 9/11 Commission and The Butler Report show the moral poverty of sending troops into harms way when such action was a preordained policy decision that used the United Nations not for legal cover, but as a moral cover for zealots within the Bush administration.
The moral cover sought by the Bush Administration was not a plea to the UN that a legal basis existed to invade Iraq, but an illusion cast before the world press. That illusion was reflected by mirrors that made the pretense of appearing before the General Assembly and Security Council, calling for international action, in and of itself a sham desire for diplomacy.
Well, in Resolution 1546, there is the clause that the US troops can use "all necessary means" to enforce law and security. What does that term mean? Does anyone have a clear idea on it? Does it mean random shooting? Is that all part of the deal, so that the abuses are considered part of the UN Resolution, and not a violation of international law? And, if this is so, the entire "commission" is a charade to begin with and just kept the Italians quiet during election time, thinking that something was being done to bring about some justice....
Trying to find an answer, (I still haven't, but hope someone can help me) I did find quite a good article on the Malet Street Gazette. Here's a short excerpt:
If there is any fundamental debate about the legal basis for the use of force in Iraq, the real issue is not whether legal precedent now exists for such action, but realizing that the United Nations has delegated powers to its members to unilaterally use "all necessary means."
While the rule of the law is the cornerstone of international law, and while that rule’s application is sufficient evidence to show that the US invasion of Iraq had legal grounds within the context of the United Nations Charter, the issue of whether the US led invasion was a just or moral one is well beyond the scope of legality.
If there ever was a war that had a legal basis devoid of moral authority, it is the US led war on Iraq. Evidence is now mounting from the 9/11 Commission, The Butler Report and the news media that show that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair were presented with a wide range of intelligence. Reports show that Bush and Blair selectively presented (and still do) a skewed set of facts to make the case of imminent threat by Iraq where no such threat existed.
While the US and Britain may pass the test of a legality for invading Iraq, sadly, facts discovered by the 9/11 Commission and The Butler Report show the moral poverty of sending troops into harms way when such action was a preordained policy decision that used the United Nations not for legal cover, but as a moral cover for zealots within the Bush administration.
The moral cover sought by the Bush Administration was not a plea to the UN that a legal basis existed to invade Iraq, but an illusion cast before the world press. That illusion was reflected by mirrors that made the pretense of appearing before the General Assembly and Security Council, calling for international action, in and of itself a sham desire for diplomacy.
