Dutch inquiry says Iraq war had no mandate

[dipsydoodle]

Source: BBC News

A Dutch inquiry into the Iraq war says that military action was not justified by UN resolutions on Iraq.

The Committee of Inquiry on Iraq said security council resolutions did not "constitute a mandate for... intervention in 2003".

The inquiry was launched after foreign ministry memos were leaked that cast doubt on the legal basis for the war.

The Netherlands gave political support to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but has denied having any military role.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8453305.stm

[No Elephants]

1. Can you give political support to an illegal war and claim clean hands?

Just wondering.

I was not fond of the Dutch in St. Maarten, but liked them in the Netherlands. Someone suggested my very different reactions might reflect the difference between a person who is an occupier and someone who is not.

Gee, when I started to type that, I thought I was digressing, but maybe that is relevant to American involvement Iraq, after all.


Back to topic: The OP article is is another cautionary tale re: putting political loyalty above your principles.



"Political loyalty

Mr Balkenende decided to join the "coalition of the willing" assembled by US President George W Bush because, he said, Saddam Hussein had consistently flouted UN resolutions and possessed weapons of mass destruction.

The Dutch parliament opposed the decision to back the invasion.

Committee chairman, Willibrord Davids, said the Netherlands' loyalty to its alliance with the US and UK had taken precedence over the need to ensure the legality of the invasion.

The committee said there had been no UN mandate for the attack, putting the decision to join at odds with international law."

[liberation]

32. As an American, you are as much of an occupier in your own land... as the Dutch are in St. Maarten

American exceptionalism is funny that way sometimes...

[No Elephants]

41. Did I say otherwise?

My saying or implying something about the behavior of the U.S. during its occupation of Iraq neither says nor implies anything about anyone's status within the borders of the U.S.

Using something I never said nor implied--in a part of my post labeled as a digression, no less--to impute American exceptionalism to me says absolutely nothing about me, but it does say something about you, liberation.

So does your being sufficiently motivated to make a post like that, although you (or your screen name) have made fewer than 1000 posts since August 2007.

Maybe American exceptionalism is not the only thing that's funny sometimes.

[golfguru]

40. Can native Americans claim all others are occupiers of US of A?

I think all depends on how long!

[No Elephants]

42. In fairness to liberations's unfair post,

the situation of Native, or Orignal, Americans migrating to a continent with no pople or governments within it is different from both the U.S. in Iraq and the colonizers in the U.S. That would not necessarily change behavior toward other humans in the ways I meant in my original post.

Of course, that says nothing about how Original Americans would have behaved if they had found this continent already peopled.

:popcorn:

[midnight]

2. Why did the Netherlands give support? Prime Minister maybe feed them false info. ?

Iraq's breach of Resolution 1441, which gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations", was used by the coalition, and the Netherlands, to justify its invasion. Dr. Kelly said that he could not find weapons of mass destruction.... Which the Dutch are coming to terms with in their discussions to investigate the Prime Minister who they believed feed them false info......

[Betty Karlson]

22. Stop right there!

The Dutch decision to lend political support to the invasion was based on foreign intelligence. (British, mainly.)

The minister-president was not personally involved in decision-making until 2003. Most of the preparations for the political support resorted under the responsability of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This is because the Dutch prime-minister is the first among equals rather than a government leader. If anyone was knowingly feeding false information, it would be the then Foreign Affairs minister - because it was in HIS portfolio.

Interestingly, this man not much later became NATO chairman: Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.

Another aspect that is often forgotten in this discussion is the political blackmail that Bush has visited on the Netherlands. In early 2002, a law was signed that gave your president permission to unilaterally declare war on any city/ land imprisoning Americal nationals. No congres approval needed. As the Netherlands are home to the International Penal Court, this was a direct threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Netherlands.

So maybe that was another reason why this not so big country felt "obliged" to show "good will" towards America? Before you start criticising the Dutch prime-minister, have a good look at the diplomatic clusterfuck certain Americans created when electing Mr Bush and his cronies.

[winyanstaz]

31. exactly

[liberation]

34. Furthermore, the UN Resolution 1441 wasn't a declaration of war

And almost every item in the resolution has been proven to be a fabrication by omission, or an outright lie.

[No Elephants]

45. Not understanding your conclusions about a "direct threat" to the Netherlands and "blackmail."

First, I am not sure which American 2002 law you are referring to. Do you mean the so-called "War on Terror" Resolution of 2001(actually named the "Authorization for Use of Military Force on Terrorists")? If so, I don't think that law did what you think it did.

That 2001 and the 2002 Resolution Authorizing the War Against Iraq are the only two resolutions I know of that would even come close to your description. And neither of them allowed the President to declare war on any nation that imprisoned Americans.

Also, both those Resolutions have to do with our internal, domestic law, specifically, our Constitution, which gives our Congress the power to declare war. Arguable, the Authorization for Use of Military Force on Terrorists may not even have needed Congressional participation, depending upon one's definition of "war." (e.g., Truman's Korean "Police Action," to name just one.)

In any event, regardless of what our Constitution requires or does not require us to do for our own internal purposes, that has no effect whatever on international law, nor is it an international crime to enact a law.

If our President ever did iin fact send troops into a nation, simply for lawfully imprisoning an American, that actual action might violate international law, but our domestic laws would have nothing to do with that, no matter what they said.

And, if our President ever did something like that, calling his action a "direct threat to the Netherlands woudl not be accurate, either, unless the Netherlands happened to be the nation where he sent troops. At most, it would be an illegal action that might or might not one day adversely affect the Netherlands in some indirect way.

Finally, even if the Netherlands had been threatened, even indirectly, there is more than one way to react to blackmail attempts, some more or less honorable than others.

[Betty Karlson]

49. I am referring, in fact, to this piece of homicidal shit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act

The American Service Members Protection Act. Its logic goes like this: You want to protect servicemembers? Then authorise your president to attack an ally without warning.

[Nihil]

50. Thank you. (n/t)

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. they wanted only a little bit of oil

[avaistheone1]

16. Ouch.

but likely true.

[Betty Karlson]

23. Nope. See earlier response.

It's about blackmail.

[No Elephants]

44. In your opinion.

[SpiralHawk]

4. D'oh

[L. Coyote]

8. Double D'oh!

[Soylent Brice]

5. ?@?@?@?

:crazy:

[liberal N proud]

6. Greed was bu$h and cheney's mandate

Oil in the sand is all they were after and they were going to get it at all cost.

[ronnie624]

7. Iraq Oil Field Goes to Royal Dutch Shell and Petronas

<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/12/business/global/12iht-oil.html>

[stubtoe]

14. Distancing themselves from their 2003 decision, perhaps?

Kinda looks like they're enjoying the spoils of this illegal war anyhoo...

[ronnie624]

17. Yep.

Shell would have never had the opportunity without the government having lent its political support to the invasion. No doubt they have their system of 'lobbying' too.

[Betty Karlson]

24. Shell is half-British.

I think that was more decisive when this oil field was handed out.

[xocet]

9. N.B.,....

Or one could continue to take the opposing position:
"It is legal by the thinnest of threads..."

[Betty Karlson]

25. Good point. N/T

[shadowknows69]

10. I'd like to welcome the rest of the world to reality on behalf of DU.

[No Elephants]

46. If you mean the Dutch government and most other governments, no need to welcome them. They knew

The only ones who did not know--or pretended not to know--were members of Congress who voted for the war resolutions and funding of the wars (i.e., pretty much all of them) and individual neocons of both Parties, including those in the media.

[pjt7]

11. No shit!

.

[grahamhgreen]

12. I guess Michael Moore was right! (and the rest of us)

[No Elephants]

47. Every government involved knew the score.

France and Germany very publicly refused to participate (remember Freedom Fries?).

I can't believe no one else was able to figure it out (or at least talk to France or Germany) before committing to become accomplices--er, I mean, support the U.S. invasion is one way or another?

[peacetalksforall]

13. A coalition partner did not always mean providing troops. As we now know,

some countries contributed by providing fuel stops for rendition flights. Ireland, for one. Others provided prisons, The eastern countries of Europe are all suspect and some proved. Some contributed intelligence - Israel - of course, Israeli Mossad is everywhere, every day. Some may have provided special troups to Blackwater. Others were involved in making up lies.

Not the people of these countries - we're talking the leaders did the contributing when it wasn't so obvious as troops - the people would not have to know that their money was used in these ways. Those decisions are all at the leader level.

Exemptions of heavy criticism should be given to those countries that started pulling out of the coalition agreements-promises when they started to learn more.

The U.S. and the U.K. ran the show and invested the most. And now Blair is under pressure and some truth tellers are coming forward, but not so much here if you look at all the people in this country who still are OK with having an enemy that the corporations invented and politicians facilitated.

[avaistheone1]

15. True.

[ronnie624]

39. "Those decisions are all at the leader level."

Absolutely. Polls showed prior to the invasion that 90% of the Earth's population was opposed. Even 64% in the U.S. was opposed.

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson as head of the American prosecution at Nuremberg said: "that launching a war of aggression is a crime and that no political or economic situation can justify it...if certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us."

[No Elephants]

48. True. Some bank robbers only distract the security guard or drive the getaway car.

[Raoul]

18. Gee, I'm shocked(NOT)

Gee wiz, who would have known? Actually most of us, at least over here, knew it was illegal the day it began and it's still illegal. The excuses used by the war criminal was indentical to those used by Hitler to invade Poland. And if my memory serves me, they hung a few Nazis for their act of illegal invasion of another nation under the guise of a bunch of lies. They called it 'crimes against humanity'....

[90-percent]

21. Nuremberg

Holding those that ordered war crimes accountable - how quaint. Boy, they sure were backwards in the middle of the 20th Century, weren't they?

Bush stealing from Hitler's playbook is the very definition of Rovian.

It is heartening to see the War crimes revelations starting to unravel in Europe. Your efforts in this may one day trigger the events that expose once and for all the Corporate Fascism that is wrecking the whole world and lives for all but the very high elites that benefit from Aggressor Wars of Choice.

-90% Jimmy

[patrice]

19. And, of course, the World doesn't care one bit that the US Invaded a sovereign nation, so it will

not be implementing any consequences, official or OTHERWISE, for our behavior that killed and made refugees out of so many innocent people.

:sarcasm:

P.S. Not to mention the fact that apparently we have built "a barrel" and very helpfully bent over it, oh $$$$$$$$$o conviently for tho$$$$$$e who have the power$$$$$$$ and abilitie$$$$$$$$$$$$ to reprimand us without starting another war . . . just yet.

[JDPriestly]

29. Read Post #22: "As the Netherlands are home to the International Penal Court,"

[roody]

20. Duh.....

[malaise]

26. Oops

War crimes anyone?

[soarsboard2]

27. Yes Bush Lied

and many have died

[DonkeyHoTay]

No WMDs = No mandate

[liberation]

35. It is worse than that, No WMDs = Invasion as a whole is a war crime

[DonkeyHoTay]

28. No WMDs = No mandate

[winyanstaz]

30. the war has been and always will be illegal..

We have NO damned business even being there.
Bring the troops home now and close those bases!

[Solly Mack]

33. Whodathunkit

k/r

[Judi Lynn]

36. Thanks, dipsydoodle, for making this story available to us. So sad. Glad they spoke up. n/t

[grahamhgreen]

37. Thanks, can we put Bush behind bars now?

[MissDeeds]

38. Ya think?

:think:

[struggle4progress]

43. Iraq war was illegal, Dutch panel rules

Inquiry says conflict had no sound mandate in international law as it emerges UK denied key letter to seven-judge tribunal
Afua Hirsch, legal affairs correspondent
Tuesday 12 January 2010 19.05 GMT

The war in Iraq had "no basis in international law", a Dutch inquiry found today, in the first ever independent legal assessment of the decision to invade.

In a series of damning findings, a seven-member panel in the Netherlands concluded that the war, which was supported by the Dutch government following intelligence from Britain and the US, had not been justified in law.

"The Dutch government lent its political support to a war whose purpose was not consistent with Dutch government policy," the inquiry in the Hague concluded. "The military action had no sound mandate in international law."

In a further twist, it emerged that the UK government refused to disclose a key document requested by the Dutch panel ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/12/iraq-war-illegal-dutch-tribunal