I wonder how many bushbots spouting off that this was about regime change realize that? (And it was originally about the HORRIBLE threat we were under from Iraq's nonexistent WMDs.)
From:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew98.phpsnip:
Something has been missing from the debate over the use of U.S. military action for regime change in Iraq: Coercive regime change violates basic tenets of international law.
snip:
Forcible regime change violates the deeply enshrined principle that people should be allowed to choose their own government. The cornerstone human rights document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, provides that the only legitimate government is one based on the "will of the people." The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a convention ratified by the U.S., recognizes "self-determination" as a human right and specifies that "by virtue of that right" all peoples have the right to "freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."
Armed interventions for regime change also run contrary to Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force "against...
he political independence" of another state "or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." This includes the need to respect and to observe human rights and to promote self-determination. The definition of aggression adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1974 also provides that it if "the duty of States not to use armed force to deprive peoples of their right to self-determination." Violations of this duty may constitute an international crime.
The use of military force for regime change is in fact radically different than other kinds of U.S. intervention in recent years. Before taking that route, the U.S. should think hard about the precedent it will establish and the possible consequences.
See the link for the full article. Check this out as well: http://www.bard.edu/bgia/journal/vol3/i-article1.pdf
The US has violated international law as written in at least three separate documents, two of them documents the US has ratified and/or been a part of.
Next time a bushbot goes off on the last remaining leg they have to stand on, that Iraq is better off without SH in power, let them know this information. Don't let them blow it off, either, because this is MAJOR. I've been saying it from the beginning: if WMDs aren't found and bushco falls back fully on regime change, they are fucked that direction, too.
The US committed an egregious act. A serious, MAJOR series of immoral acts. Crimes of aggression against a sovereign state. We may not have liked Saddam Hussein (I have not yet met a single American who has EVER argued that he was a good guy.)
Crimes of aggression. You cannot talk around that, and there are no excuses for it.
By the way, I'm no longer calling this a war. I'm calling it what it really is: a crime of aggression carried out by the United States under the direction of the bush administration.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
