British bombing raids were illegal, says Foreign Office

[tecelote]

A SHARP increase in British and American bombing raids on Iraq in the run-up to war “to put pressure on the regime” was illegal under international law, according to leaked Foreign Office legal advice.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1660300,00.html

[burrowowl]

1. No! Really!

They sure as HELL were!

[knowbody0]

2. absolutely illegal

trying to get saddam to strike back. what bullies!
seems like a lot of stuff's leaking out of the morons buckets these days. the 911 curtain's pulled back to expose the emperors

[earthboundmisfit]

3. Ruh-Roh.

Do I smell sh*t beginning to hit the fan? I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Brits keeping this issue front & center is the reason we were able to have last week's Conyers forum.

[teach1st]

4. Sheesh, what's wrong with you commies?

This is old news. In fact, this is so old, that we figured everybody knew it, even if we didn't report it, which we didn't, because we weren't allowed. So why should we report it now?

Signed,
The Media


:sarcasm:

[bpilgrim]

5. there are the SMOKING BULLETS from the SMOKING GUN - DSM

this is NOT going away...

they're like Chinese finger-cuffs... the more they try to pull back the stronger the grip will be :evilgrin:

peace

[Double T]

6. Is There Anything The Bush Administration Has Done That Is Legal????

[shraby]

7. Is that another shoe dropping that I hear??

[mom cat]

11. It's a centipede in cowboy boots. We will be hearing shoes drop for a long

time.

[SaveAmerica]

18. That's your Sunday paper political cartoon, good visual

[BattyDem]

8. "No shit Sherlock, says domestic populace"

:eyes:

[indie_voter]

9. This is bad for the British

We don't answer to international law. However, if this means we can get more documents to prove GWB lied to congress then even the republicans will have to IMPEACH!!!

[markam]

17. Not quite

"We don't answer to international law"

The United States is a signatory to the UN Charter (a treaty which is binding law under our constitution), which makes a nation's use of force is authorized under only two circumstances: in individual or collective self-defense, as outlined in Article 51, or pursuant to a Security Council resolution, as outlined in Article 42.

Obviously, the self-defense defense is total BS. The current regime claims that previous SC resolutions provided the authorization for this war. That is also total BS, but it would be impossible to prosecute in the US because of the Separation of Powers issue.

Of course, we did not sign the International Criminal Court treaty, so that is also out.

Violation of the UN Charter is a good basis for impeachment, you just won't get anybody in jail that way.

[indie_voter]

19. Thanks for the clarification!

I should have said the Bush Admin doesn't answer to international law.

Unfortunately, unless we impeach , to the world it looks like we consider ourselves above the law.

I doubt impeachment would happen because we violated the UN charter only because of the anti-UN sentiment which seems to run high in parts of this country.

However, if it can be made clear (so a child could understand) that he lied to Congress (which of course he did), then even the republicans would have to impeach.

What I see coming from this is Blair goes down dragging Bush with him, so even if Bush and his cabal doesn't go to jail (this will NEVER EVER happen, mho), we can at least show the world we are better than our leader.

[reprobate]

20. I wouldn't be so sure of the jail part.

There really is anger growing in this country as well as around the world about the arrogance of this administration, that it could well be set off with a spark from this or some other revalation.

The american people are politically ignorant, but when they wake to the fact that they have all been played for fools, there just might be a reaction that demands justice be applied to the entire crew of traitors.

And remember that Ted Olson told us in sept. 2001 that this government would lie to us when they thought it necessary. We need to remind the people of that too. They told us they would lie and then proceeded to do it.

I said two years ago that this crew's arrogence would be what undoes them. Looks like it's going to happen.

[indie_voter]

21. MHO, Jail won't happen

I am hopeful Impeachment is within the realm of possibility regardless if the republicans control the house or not.

However, I'll bet the first thing the new President does (repub or dem) is pardon every one of them.

[MadisonProgressive]

26. What if he pulls a trickie dick and resigns before impeachment?

Do you think we would treat him a little differently than we did Nixon?

[peacetalksforall]

10. Ok...will some DU expert step forward and tell us when the bombing

raids started? Was it in 2002 or do we know?

[maddezmom]

12. according to the article...May 2002?

A SHARP increase in British and American bombing raids on Iraq in the run-up to war “to put pressure on the regime” was illegal under international law, according to leaked Foreign Office legal advice.

The advice was first provided to senior ministers in March 2002. Two months later RAF and USAF jets began “spikes of activity” designed to goad Saddam Hussein into retaliating and giving the allies a pretext for war.

~snip~

However, the leaked Foreign Office legal advice, which was also appended to the Cabinet Office briefing paper for the July meeting, made it clear allied aircraft were legally entitled to patrol the no-fly zones over the north and south of Iraq only to deter attacks by Saddam’s forces on the Kurdish and Shia populations.

The allies had no power to use military force to put pressure of any kind on the regime.

[evermind]

13. At least as early as Sept 2002, "a month before Congress

voted to give president Bush the authority he used to invade Iraq",

According to Jeremy Scahill, The Nation: The Other Bomb Drops (article posted 1 June 2005)

It was a huge air assault: Approximately 100 US and British planes flew from Kuwait into Iraqi airspace. At least seven types of aircraft were part of this massive operation, including US F-15 Strike Eagles and Royal Air Force Tornado ground-attack planes. They dropped precision-guided munitions on Saddam Hussein's major western air-defense facility, clearing the path for Special Forces helicopters that lay in wait in Jordan. Earlier attacks had been carried out against Iraqi command and control centers, radar detection systems, Revolutionary Guard units, communication centers and mobile air-defense systems. The Pentagon's goal was clear: Destroy Iraq's ability to resist. This was war.

But there was a catch: The war hadn't started yet, at least not officially. This was September 2002--a month before Congress had voted to give President Bush the authority he used to invade Iraq, two months before the United Nations brought the matter to a vote and more than six months before "shock and awe" officially began.

At the time, the Bush Administration publicly played down the extent of the air strikes, claiming the United States was just defending the so-called no-fly zones. But new information that has come out in response to the Downing Street memo reveals that, by this time, the war was already a foregone conclusion and attacks were no less than the undeclared beginning of the invasion of Iraq.

The implications of this information for US lawmakers are profound. It was already well known in Washington and international diplomatic circles that the real aim of the US attacks in the no-fly zones was not to protect Shiites and Kurds. But the new disclosures prove that while Congress debated whether to grant Bush the authority to go to war, while Hans Blix had his UN weapons-inspection teams scrutinizing Iraq and while international diplomats scurried to broker an eleventh-hour peace deal, the Bush Administration was already in full combat mode--not just building the dossier of manipulated intelligence, as the Downing Street memo demonstrated, but acting on it by beginning the war itself. And according to the Sunday Times article, the Administration even hoped the attacks would push Saddam into a response that could be used to justify a war the Administration was struggling to sell.

Article continues at the link.

The Foreign Office legal advice paper the Times is quoting is one of the six cabinet papers leaked last September that attention has recently been focussed on. Times now have it on their site at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1654697,00.html or you can get it in pdf form along with the other 5 at http://cryptome.org/leaks-brief.htm

The relevant section is below (My text in the square brackets in the bolded section) :

(ii) No Fly Zones (NFZs)

8. The NFZs over Northern and Southern Iraq are not established by UN Security Council Resolutions. They were established in 1991 and 1992 on the basis that they were necessary and proportionate steps taken to prevent a humanitarian crisis. Prior to the establishment of the Northern NFZ the Security Council had adopted resolution 688 (1991) on 5 April 1991 in which the Council stated that it was gravely concerned by the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, which had led to a massive refugee flow, and that it was deeply disturbed by the magnitude of the human suffering involved. The resolution condemned that repression of the Iraqi civilian population and demanded that Iraq immediately end the repression. In our view, the purpose of the NFZs is to monitor Iraqi compliance with the provisions of resolution 688. UK and US aircraft patrolling the NFZs are entitled to use force in self-defence where [and presumably only where] such a use of force is a necessary and proportionate response to actual or imminent attack from Iraqi ground systems.

9. The US have on occasion claimed that the purpose of the NFZs is to enforce Iraqi compliance with resolutions 687 or 688. This view is not consistent with resolution 687, which does not deal with the repression of the Iraqi civilian population, or with resolution 688, which was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and does not contain any provision for enforcement. Nor (as it is sometimes claimed) were the current NFZs provided for in the Safwan agreement, a provisional agreement between coalition and Iraqi military commanders of 3 March 1991, laying down military conditions for the cease-fire which did not contain any reference to the NFZs.

[LynnTheDem]

24. They never stopped. Almost daily (and ILLEGAL) bombings for over a decade

2002:

December 31st

December 30th

December 29th

December 26th

December 20th

December 18th

December 16th

December 15th

December 14th

December 10th

December 4th

December 2nd

December 1st

November 28th

November 23rd

November 22nd

November 21st

November 20th

November 18th

November 15th

November 6th

October 30th

October 29th (Leaflet Drop)

October 23rd

October 22nd

October 15th

October 10th

October 9th

October 3rd

September 29th

September 25th

September 23rd

September 15th

September 9th

September 5th

August 30th

August 27th

August 25th

August 23rd

August 20th

August 17th

August 14th

August 5th

July 28th

July 23rd

July 19th

July 14th

July 13th

July 4th

June 28th

June 26th

June 20th

June 14th

May 31st

May 28th

May 25th

May 23rd

May 20th

May 1st

April 20th

April 16th

February 28th

February 6th

January 24th

January 22nd

January 21st

January 20th?

2001:

November 27th

November 11th

October 15th?

October 3rd

October 2nd

September 27th

September 21st

September 20th

September 10th

September 4th

August 31st

August 27th

August 17th

August 14th

August 10th

August 7th

July 17th

July 7th

June 26th

June 25th

June 19th?

June 14th

June 6th

June 5th

May 23rd

May 18th

April 30th

April 28th

April 17th

April 16th

April 11th

April 6th

February 22nd

February 16th

February 12th

February 11th

January 28-29th

January 24th

January 20th

January 11th

2000:

December 22nd

December 7th

November 16th

November 14th

November 11th

November 1st

October 30th

October 23rd

August 30th

August 15th

August 12th

August 11th

June 29th

June 26th

June 19th

June 14th

June 12th

June 8th

June 1st

May 30th

May 29th

May 23rd

May 22nd

May 17th

May 16th

May 15th

May 12th

May 11th

May 10th

May 9th

May 3rd

May 2nd

April 30th

April 29th

April 25th

April 9th

April 6th

April 5th

March 29th

March 15th

March 11th

March 9th

March 2nd

February 29th

February 28th

February 20th

February 19th

February 9th

February 8th

February 3rd

January 31st

January 17th

January 16th

January 14th

January 13th

January 12th

January 11th

1999:

December 30th

December 12th

December 4th

December 2nd

November 28th

November 27th

November 25th

November 22nd

November 19th

November 18th

November 14th

November 13th

November 11th

November 9th

November 8th

November 5th

November 3rd

November 1st

October 30th

October 28th

October 25th

October 17th

October 16th

October 14th

October 11th

October 6th

October 3rd

September 27th

September 25th

September 21st

September 14th

September 13th

September 10th

September 9th

September 3rd

September 2nd

September 1st

August 28th

August 24th

August 23rd

August 17th

August 16th

August 15th

August 13th

August 10th

August 9th

August 8th

August 4th

July 30th

July 29th

July 28th

July 27th

July 26th

July 18th

July 16th

July 14th

July 13th

July 8th

July 2nd

June 28th

June 25th

June 24th

June 18th

June 16th

June 15th

June 9th

June 8th

June 6th

June 3rd

June 2nd

May 31st

May 25th

May 23rd

May 15th

May 12th

May 11th

May 10th

May 9th

May 8th

May 7th

May 3rd

May 2nd

April 30th

April 29th

April 27th

April 25th

April 24th

April 22nd

April 19th

April 17th

April 16th

April 15th

April 11th

April 10th

April 8th

April 7th

April 6th

April 4th

April 1st

March 19th

March 16th

March 15th

March 14th

March 12th

March 9th

March 8th

March 6th

March 4th

March 1st

February 28th

February 27th

February 24th

February 23rd

February 22nd

February 21st

February 19th

February 15th

February 13th

February 12th

February 11th

February 10th

February 9th

February 2nd

January 30th

January 29th

January 26th

January 25th

January 24th

January 23rd

January 13th

January 12th

January 11th

January 7th

January 5th

Find the rest of the years' almost-daily bombings here;

http://www.ccmep.org/usbombingwatch/2003.htm

Hating us has never been anything to do with our "freedoms"...

[jpak]

60. It was August (?) 2002 (as I recall) part of Operation Southern Watch

I posted at that time the "the war had started".

It was clear that the stepped-up bombings were more than retaliation against Iraqi air defenses...

[bleever]

14. This illegal war was begun by fiat, prior to UN or Congressional approval

and that's a crime in and of itself.

And...Welcome to DU, tecelote! Thanks for this post.

:hi:

[oblivious]

15. UN Secretary-General on no-fly zones: "They are illegal."

John Pilger:
I went to Paris and asked Dr Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the Secretary-General of the UN in 1992, when the resolution was passed. "The issue of no fly zones was not raised and therefore not debated: not a word," he said. "They offer no legitimacy to countries sending their aircraft to attack Iraq." "Does that mean they are illegal?" I asked. "They are illegal," he replied.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=548


BBC BREAKFAST WITH FROST INTERVIEW: BOUTROS BOUTROS-GHALI, FORMER UN SECRETARY GENERAL MARCH 30th, 2003

DAVID FROST: And what about the situation - there was some debate - you would say that the UK and the US are acting legally, aren't they? They're not breaking the UN charter either, are they?

BOUTROS BOUTROS-GHALI: No, no, no. They have violated the United charter, resolution 1441 is quite clear there was need, they need another second resolution. This is not the first case, by the way, this has been done in Kosovo, before. The intervention in Kosovo was done without the agreement of the Security Council. So this, this intervention is certainly a violation of the United Nations charter.

DAVID FROST: A violation.

BOUTROS BOUTROS-GHALI: Yes.

DAVID FROST: A violation - a violation - a violation - but it's not illegal, it's not illegal is it?

BOUTROS BOUTROS-GHALI: David, you are playing with words.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast_with_frost/2900511.stm

[maddezmom]

30. interesting

:kick:

[dooner]

16. "Bush may also have acted illegally" - Sunday Times

same article...

"General Tommy Franks, the allied commander, recalled in his autobiography, American Soldier, that during this meeting he rejected a call from Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, to cut the bombing patrols because he wanted to use them to make Iraq’s defences “as weak as possible”.

The allied commander specifically used the term “spikes of activity” in his book. The upgrade to a full air war was also illegal, said Goodhart. “If, as Franks seems to suggest, the purpose was to soften up Iraq for a future invasion or even to intimidate Iraq, the coalition forces were acting without lawful authority,” he said.

Although the legality of the war has been more of an issue in Britain than in America, the revelations indicate Bush may also have acted illegally, since Congress did not authorise military action until October 11 2002.

The air war had already begun six weeks earlier and the spikes of activity had been underway for five months."

[lovuian]

53. Ilegal Bombings and a Congress who OK'd takeover of a nation

on false premises!!! the Iraq War will go down in history as the GREATEST REPUBLICAN DEBACLE!!!

[Roland99]

22. Downing Street Minutes and More. The Smell of Cover-Up.

http://www.conjur.com/blog/2005/06/18/downing-street-minutes-were-just-a-crack-in-the-dam-waters-starting-to-gush-now/

The London Times is now reporting that British Foreign Office legal advice has leaked that shows that the British knew that the increased bombing raids on Iraq in the no-fly zones was illegal.

A SHARP increase in British and American bombing raids on Iraq in the run-up to war “to put pressure on the regime” was illegal under international law, according to leaked Foreign Office legal advice.

The advice was first provided to senior ministers in March 2002. Two months later RAF and USAF jets began “spikes of activity” designed to goad Saddam Hussein into retaliating and giving the allies a pretext for war.

<…>

This weekend the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Goodhart, vice-president of the International Commission of Jurists and a world authority on international law, said the intensified raids were illegal if they were meant to pressurise the regime.

He said UN Resolution 688, used by the allies to justify allied patrols over the no-fly zones, was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which deals with all matters authorising military force.

“Putting pressure on Iraq is not something that would be a lawful activity,” said Goodhart, who is also the Liberal Democrat shadow Lord Chancellor.

<…>

“This view is not consistent with resolution 687, which does not deal with the repression of the Iraqi civilian population, or with resolution 688, which was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and does not contain any provision for enforcement,” it said.

Either President Propagandist and his cabal of liars and cheats were hiding from the American public offensive maneuvers that were executed by the Iraqis while engaging in these increased bombing raids (the odds of which are akin to me waking up on the moon tomorrow with a winning $250 million Powerball ticket in my hand) or these bombing raids were solely meant to weaken Iraqi air defenses and other military installations prior to the upcoming invasion.

Now, we all know this administration has been the most secretive and deceptive in American history but I find it absolutely impossible for them to have hidden offensive attacks from Saddam. That would have been in all of their wet dreams for Saddam to provoke the mighty U.S. There wouldn’t have been a need for the cavalcade of lies before the UN. Wolfowitz’s buddy Chalabi probably never would have entered the picture either.

But, one other thing strikes me rather peculiarly. The minutes of the Downing Street document show the meeting took place near the end of July 2002. July 23, 2002 to be exact. Now, just what else was cooking from the Propagandist at that point in time? Hmmm…

Let me post for you some excerpts from Bob Woodward’s book, Plan of Attack:

On July 17, Franks updated Rumsfeld on the preparatory tasks in the region. He carefully listed the cost of each and the risk to the mission if they didn’t proceed along the timeline which set completion by December 1. Total cost: $700 million.

The big-muscle movement was for airfields and fuel infrastructure in Kuwait where a massive covert public works program had already been launched. For years the U.S. military had had a joint plan with the Kuwaitis to improve their airfields. Initially Kuwait had agreed to fund these projects but they had deferred the money. So Franks was able to use the existing contracts and construction plans, but pay for them with U.S. funds, so that nothing really new seemed to be in the works, just an acceleration of the old plan. Huge amounts of ramp space were paved at Al Jaber and Ali Al Salem Air Bases in Kuwait for aircraft use, parking and munitions storage.

One initial concern was the logistical problem of transporting fuel from refineries in Kuiwait to the Iraqi border so there would be sufficient quantities to move and support a giant invasion…All of this was so far below the radar that the Kuwaitis, let alone the Iraqis, seemed not to notice.

<…>

Some of the funding would come from the supplemental appropriations bill being worked out in Congress for the Afghanistan war and the general war on terrorism. The rest would come from old appropriations.

By the end of July, Bush had approved some 30 projects that would eventually cost $700 million…Congress, which is supposed to control the purse strings, had no real knowledge or involvement, had not even been notified that the Pentagon wanted to reprogram money.

So, in the same timeframe that David Manning documented in the Downing Street Minutes that “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” we see that the Propagandist was already engaged in secretly funneling money from other Congressional appropriations bills in order to setup airfields and fuel infrastructure in Kuwait, all in preparation for war.

Also, by this time, the Propagandist had already declared (on May 23 and May 26, 2002) that there are “no war plans on my desk.” Then, on July 31, 2002, the Propagandist said, “The stated mission is regime change. But all this talk from level four people… are talking about things they know nothing about. Our intent is serious. There are no war plans on my desk. I believe there is casus belli and that the doctrine of preemption applies.”

Hmm…what doctrine of preemption is that? When had the U.S. ever preemptively invaded and occupied another nation? NEVER!

And no war plans on his desk? While not actually being a bald-faced lie, it’s not far from it as by that point, Gen. Franks already had worked through several iterations of updating the Iraq war plans per direction from Donald Rumsfeld.

This whole administration smells. And that is the smell of cover-up. Covering up “high crimes”.

[LynnTheDem]

23. Every bombing by US & UK on Iraq's "no fly zones" was illegal.

And for the rightwingnuts who screech (and the "MSM" who constantly print) "UN-sanctioned no-fly zones", I got FACT for ya...

The UN never sanctioned any "no-fly zones".

The UK and the USA illegally bombed Iraq nearly every day for 12 years.

And ya wonder why America is so hated...

[ngGale]

25. The question should now be, have they ever done...

anything that is legal - I have my doubts.

[Spazito]

27. It is interesting that the UN NEVER authorized the bombing

done in the 'no-fly zone'. I have to admit I believed it was sanctioned by the UN until this article.

Thanks for posting, it adds even more evidence of the illegal actions of the bush and blair governments.

[youngstownohio]

28. This is a dangerous time.

Bush regime is against the wall. God forbid they construct some terrorist attack or worse yet, goad North Korea into doing something stupid.

If there ever was a time for a terror alert, it's now.

[jimshoes]

29. Hi youngstownohio

welcome to DU. Yes, these shitheads don't like having their plans sidetracked. And yes they have been known to try to start wars by goading those that they want to attack.

[Moderator]

31. Kick

[Tigress DEM]

32. Smoking Gun? How 'bout 5 months of illegal bombing in Iraq? Times UK !!!

Now we know from the DSM - full minutes that BushCo was "fixing facts around policy" to get an Iraq regime change out of 9/11, but that is weasleable. Thinking about, talking about, planning and actually doing are different things. Still bad, probably impeachable if the weasle was a DEM, but.....

According to the Times UK in an article published on CommonDreams.org they were ACTING as in BOMBING THE PISS OUT OF IRAQ without Permission from Congress for fully SIX MONTHS!

<< On edit I see that the legal advice was prepared in March 2002 and bombing started "2 months later" So, it may have been between 4-5 Months versus Fully Six Months, so in the interest of accuracy, I'm making that change. >>

In the UK they have pulled up actual data about pre-emptive strikes - not talk, not plans but ACTUAL BOMBS DROPPED ON IRAQ. Like your older brother punching you in private for months and then screaming to Mommy when he finally hits you back, B*** and Blair had been bombing Iraq as early as May 2002. Congress authorized military action October 11 2002.

This is hard evidence that improper, illegal activity occurred in the lead up to the war. Not only were they PLANNING an illegal war, they had been AT IT for SIX MONTHS before getting permission.


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0619-01.htm

<clip>

Ministry of Defense figures for bombs dropped by the RAF on southern Iraq, obtained by the Liberal Democrats through Commons written answers, show the RAF was as active in the bombing as the Americans and that the “spikes” began in May 2002.

However, the leaked Foreign Office legal advice, which was also appended to the Cabinet Office briefing paper for the July meeting, made it clear allied aircraft were legally entitled to patrol the no-fly zones over the north and south of Iraq ONLY (empahsis mine) to deter attacks by Saddam’s forces on the Kurdish and Shia populations.

The allies had no power to use military force to put pressure of any kind on the regime.

The increased attacks on Iraqi installations, which senior US officers admitted were designed to “degrade” Iraqi air defenses, began SIX MONTHS (again emphasis mine) before the UN passed resolution 1441, which the allies claim authorized military action. The war finally started in March 2003.

....

[Kagemusha]

33. More people should read history.

It's not like the Brits haven't done this before. (*cough* WWI *cough*)

They're used to this routine by now.

[Tigress DEM]

37. Yeah, maybe it's just because of the internet that we know....but we know!

And really this is how fiesty US as a Democracy should be. Zero tolerance for lying politicians who just f*** up the country and split with their parting gifts.

Looking for kicks and nominations to keep this in the view.

It seems to me that this is more damaging evidence than the DSM, especially with the read about Tommy Franks' (inadvertent?) corrorbation of the evidence in his book and with the actual legality of the charter and sections they claimed to be using.

[GetTheRightVote]

34. That really tells you the balls this admin has, we were going to war

no matter how the public might feel about it all. Public was to have no say in it at all .......... well admin we have something to tell you all.

:kick:

[Kagemusha]

35. And the Brits helped by helping convince the US public

on behalf of the US government, which can't afford to be caught doing things like oh, planting stories in the US press as I've heard the Brits have done (again!) as part of their creating conditions for the war to be considered legal and unavoidable.

[Tigress DEM]

39. We were waging war on Iraq 5 Months prior to Senate Vote

<< on edit, I did a math goof, March 2002, leaked report - bombing in May 2002 - closer to 4-5 months depending on when it stated than 6.>>


If you read the whole article, it says we had ONLY the right to return fire, but the US was invoking charters and sections that did not support the activities they were doing.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0619-01.htm

<clip>

He said UN Resolution 688, used by the allies to justify allied patrols over the no-fly zones, was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which deals with all matters authorizing military force.

...


The Foreign Office advice noted that the Americans had “on occasion” claimed that the allied aircraft were there to enforce compliance with resolutions 688 and 687, which ordered Iraq to destroy its weapons of mass destruction.

This view is not consistent with resolution 687, which does not deal with the repression of the Iraqi civilian population, or with resolution 688, which was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and does not contain any provision for enforcement,” it said.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst, one of the Foreign Office lawyers who wrote the report, resigned in March 2003 in protest at the decision to go to war without a UN resolution specifically authorizing military force.

[SouthernDem2004]

36. You mean the airstrikes in repsonse to Iraq firing on US and British

warplanes patrolling the no-fly zone?

[DoYouEverWonder]

38. And all those radar installations

that kept fixing on us? Funny, I still haven't seen any pictures of all the military stuff they supposedly blew up. Amazing how Saddam's palaces were left pretty much unscathed.

[Tigress DEM]

42. Not on top of the "radar installation" piece, can you say more about that?

Also, if they were trying to hide the fact that they were going to war without permission, they wouldn't bomb the palaces prior to getting permission.

This is the pious party which must appear moral so it can keep getting elected and keep sticking it's grimy fingers in the financial coffers.

Four lights? Cpt Piccard?

[DoYouEverWonder]

44. I just remember

every time they admitted to dropping a few bombs in Iraq, which definitely became much more frequent after 9-11, their excuse usually was that the Iraqis had tried to lock onto them with radar.

In regards to the palaces, I didn't expect that they would target them before the invasion, but I was surprised that they didn't blow the shit out of them during Shock & Awe. If they weren't bombing Saddam's palaces, what the hell were they bombing?

[SouthernDem2004]

45. It was not any more frequent before or after.

[leftchick]

46. The bombing increased dramatically the year before

the "official" start of the war....

http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/politicsnational_story_169235534.html

You ought to read all of the minutes...

~snip~

The Sunday Times this week reported that lawyers told the British government that U.S. and British bombing of Iraq in the months before the war was illegal under international law. That report, also by Smith, noted that almost a year before the war started, they began to strike more frequently.

The newspaper quoted Lord Goodhart, vice president of the International Commission of Jurists, as backing the Foreign Office lawyers’ view that aircraft could only patrol the no-fly zones to deter attacks by Saddam’s forces.
Goodhart said that if “the purpose was to soften up Iraq for a future invasion or even to intimidate Iraq, the coalition forces were acting without lawful authority,” the Sunday Times reported.

[DoYouEverWonder]

50. Here's another one - Darn that pesky radar again

Christ, in this report they even admit that they purposely hit a civilian target.



Iraq says U.S. planes attack Basra airport again

Monday September 30, 2002 12:20 PM


BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq said on Sunday U.S. jets had raided the Basra civilian airport for the second time in a week, targeting its radar systems and the passenger terminals.

In Tampa, Florida, U.S. Central Command confirmed an attack but said it was aimed at a military mobile radar at Basra "in response to hostile acts".

An Iraqi Transport Ministry spokesman said in a statement to the official Iraqi News Agency: "Planes of the American enemy targeted and destroyed for the second time the civilian radar system of Basra airport."

The spokesman said the attack on the airport in Basra, 480 km southeast of Baghdad, took place on Sunday at 00:45 a.m. (2045 GMT on Saturday).

An Iraqi military spokesman said U.S. and British planes on Saturday night attacked "civilian and service" installations in Qalat Sikur, about 200 km southeast of Baghdad.

[DoYouEverWonder]

49. Check this out - Bu$h resumed bombing as soon as he took office

This is 7 months before 9-11 and the first time in two years that the US had launched such as attack.


Pentagon: Strike in planning stages for 'some time'

February 16, 2001

Strike hit radar targets

<snip>

The attack, in conjunction with British fighter aircraft, hit five targets south of Baghdad, the first strike of its kind in nearly two years.

<snip>

Newbold said the strike involved 24 aircraft that targeted radar control positions which had increased their "frequency and sophistication" in threatening U.S. jets patrolling Iraqi air space.

All U.S. and British planes involved in the attack returned safely, Newbold said. Aircraft used in the strike included F-15, F-18s and Tornado fighter jets, CNN Correspondent Jamie McIntyre reported.

"All indications we have are that the munitions and the strikes were conducted efficiently and effectively," Newbold said. "We have no indications that there are any of the strikes that might have gone amiss. At no time did any aircraft go north of the 33rd parallel."


http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/02/16/pentagon.strike/

[leftchick]

52. I knew I read this here last week...

This is an excellent article....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/06/19/INGEOD8MJR1.DTL

~snip~

Charlie Clements, now head of the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, described driving in Iraq months before the war. "A building would just explode, hit by a missile from 30,000 feet." "What is that building?" Clements would ask. "Oh, that's a telephone exchange," he was told.

Later, at Nevada's Nellis Air Force Base, Clements heard a U.S. general boast "that he began taking out assets that could help in resisting an invasion at least six months before war was declared."

Earlier this month, Jeremy Scahill wrote a powerful piece on the Web site of the Nation, describing a huge air assault in September 2002. "Approximately 100 U.S. and British planes flew from Kuwait into Iraqi airspace," Scahill writes.

"At least seven types of aircraft were part of this massive operation, including U.S. F-15 Strike Eagles and Royal Air Force Tornado ground-attack planes. They dropped precision-guided munitions on Saddam Hussein's major western air-defense facility, clearing the path for Special Forces helicopters that lay in wait in Jordan.

"Earlier attacks had been carried out against Iraqi command and control centers, radar detection systems, Revolutionary Guard units, communication centers and mobile air-defense systems. The Pentagon's goal was clear: Destroy Iraq's ability to resist."

As Scahill points out, this was a month before the congressional vote and two months before the U.N. resolution. The United States hadn't declared war. Bush had no authorization, not even a fig leaf. This pre-emptive war pre- empted Congress and international law.

Most Americans don't know about these prewar attacks. The bombings that destroyed Iraq's air defenses were under the radar for both the American media and American citizens.

[leftchick]

48. electrical power and phone grids...

at least I read that in the DSM stories last week from the UK.

[Tigress DEM]

55. Well, the new regime has to live somewhere!

Suppose having a palace emptied of its previous residents could be considered a bargaining chip for the new leader.

[Tigress DEM]

40. In ADDITION to any of THAT type of activity.

This must be somewhere in the FULL text of the Downing Street Minutes, I think it's referencing the same date.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0619-01.htm

<clip>
Those at the meeting on July 23, 2002, included Blair, Geoff Hoon, then defense secretary, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of MI6. The minutes quote Hoon as saying that the US had begun spikes of activity to put pressure on the regime.

CLEARLY we are talking acts of AGGRESSION, not self Defense.

[leftchick]

43. hardly, the US was "softening targets" in preparation for WAR.

apples and oranges.

~snip~

Further intensification of the bombing, known in the Pentagon as the Blue Plan, began at the end of August, 2002, following a meeting of the US National Security Council at the White House that month.

General Tommy Franks, the allied commander, recalled in his autobiography, American Soldier, that during this meeting he rejected a call from Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, to cut the bombing patrols because he wanted to use them to make Iraq’s defenses“as weak as possible”.

The allied commander specifically used the term “spikes of activity” in his book. The upgrade to a full air war was also illegal, said Goodhart. “If, as Franks seems to suggest, the purpose was to soften up Iraq for a future invasion or even to intimidate Iraq, the coalition forces were acting without lawful authority,” he said.

~snip~

The Sunday Times this week reported that lawyers told the British government that U.S. and British bombing of Iraq in the months before the war was illegal under international law. That report, also by Smith, noted that almost a year before the war started, they began to strike more frequently.

The newspaper quoted Lord Goodhart, vice president of the International Commission of Jurists, as backing the Foreign Office lawyers’ view that aircraft could only patrol the no-fly zones to deter attacks by Saddam’s forces.
Goodhart said that if “the purpose was to soften up Iraq for a future invasion or even to intimidate Iraq, the coalition forces were acting without lawful authority,” the Sunday Times reported.

[Tigress DEM]

56. Please make liberal use of SARCASM. I like it.

Original Message
"hardly, the US was "softening targets" in preparation for WAR."

apples and oranges. :sarcasm:

[Zhade]

51. You mean, those NON UN-SANCTIONED no-fly zones?

You know, the ones that were never approved by the UN? Those no-fly zones?

[Tigress DEM]

57. As I read it....

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0619-01.htm

NEVER FULLY Approved prior to UN Resolution 1441 - as in Authorizing any use of force other than in Self Defense. They could fly there and fire back if fired upon.

<clip>

He said UN Resolution 688, used by the allies to justify allied patrols over the no-fly zones, was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which deals with all matters authorizing military force.

...

The increased attacks on Iraqi installations, which senior US officers admitted were designed to “degrade” Iraqi air defenses, began six months before the UN passed resolution 1441, which the allies claim authorized military action. The war finally started in March 2003.

[Zhade]

41. How the FUCK did this not get reported at the time?

Wow, I'm flashing back... Indymedia Glasgow (I think?), of all places, posting about overflights, months before the IWR vote...

Does anyone have ANYTHING from this time period confirming or at least hinting at this being true?

I wouldn't doubt it, but I'm hoping it's not. Hit me with evidence, guys - if this is true, b*s*co is fucking DEAD. The populace WILL react if they learn this.

(Nommed, btw.)

EDIT! "before getting permission." - remember, they NEVER got permission. The invasion was illegal without a second UN resolution, which they failed to obtain.

[DoYouEverWonder]

47. They did report some of it.

Here's the earliest one that I just found with a quick goggle search.


Pentagon: Strike in planning stages for 'some time'

February 16, 2001

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S.-led airstrike on Iraq Friday had been "working its way up the (military) chain of command for some time, " according to Pentagon spokesman Navy Rear Adm. Craig Quigley.

The attack, in conjunction with British fighter aircraft, hit five targets south of Baghdad, the first strike of its kind in nearly two years.

The 2 1/2-hour operation was prompted by an "increased threat to our aircraft and our crew," Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold said at a Pentagon news conference. "It reached the point that it was obvious to our forces that they had to conduct the operation to safeguard those pilots and the aircraft. In fact (it was) essentially a self-defense measure," he said.

Strike hit radar targets

Newbold said the strike involved 24 aircraft that targeted radar control positions which had increased their "frequency and sophistication" in threatening U.S. jets patrolling Iraqi air space.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/02/16/pentagon.strike/

[Tigress DEM]

58. Confirm that date, please? 2/2001?

That may actually have been "self defense" and the whole taking out their "radar", but you are looking at activity more than a YEAR prior to the time we are discussing in regards to actual documented bombing of Iraq to "soften them up" for a "regime change".

[DoYouEverWonder]

62. Yes, February 2001

The date is embedded in the link. Even more significant is that Bu$h personally approved of these raids because the targets were not in the No Fly Zone. Why would radar be a problem in the No Fly Zone?



Quigley was asked why U.S. President George W. Bush was required to sign off on this attack when previous U.S-led strikes in Iraq occurred without presidential approval.

"This was different," Quigley said. Because the targets of the attack were north of the 33rd parallel -- out of the no-fly zone -- the president's permission was needed to launch the strike, he said.

Military planners presented their attack proposal to the president on Thursday morning, after which Bush ordered the strike, White House sources told CNN Senior White House Correspondent John King.

The more sophisticated Iraqi radar stations were increasing Iraqi chances of shooting down U.S. or British aircraft which routinely patrol airspace in the region, Pentagon officials told CNN Correspondent Jamie McIntyre.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/02/16/pentagon.strike/

[Eloriel]

64. Just a little

:kick:

[malaise]

54. Surprise

NOT..everything they do is illegal.

[Tigress DEM]

59. Grin, just to play the devil's advocate....

I'd like to find some point of dispute, but ummmm, I'm not sure I can think of any bright shinning moment of legal behavior on the part of BushCo. I'm sure when he eats his breakfast or walks the dog, he does ok, but not being privy to that part of his day, I couldn't say.

[Cleita]

61. Bloodthirsty wankers!

I hate them.

[maddezmom]

63. love that word wankers

:D and a :kick: