Was the invasion of Iraq illegal?
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 2:58 pm
This is probably of no interest to anyone other than Mr. Samuel Slater.
Anyway Mr Slater's argument was/is:
1. There had been no trial in a court of law of the legality of the invasion. Therefore the invasion of Iraq could not be deemed illegal.
2. This was like that bloke in Coronation Street before he was put on trial for kiddie fiddling. No one could say that WIlliam Roache had done anything illegal, because he had not been found guilty in a court of law.
Please correct me, Samuel if I have got the wrong end of the stick, but your argument looks pretty clear to me. Now I am going to explain why Kofi Annan, hundreds of international lawyers, the British Attorney General before he got leaned on, thought it was illegal, as I do.
First let's go back to basics. What is the definition of illegal? It is contrary to or forbidden by law, rules and regulations etc.
Now the first point to get Sam, which you don't, is that it is not necessarily the case that it is impossible to say something is illegal, simply because there has not been a guilty conviction in a court of law.
For example, if in a fit of anger, you decide to strangle me as a result of some imagined insult at half time in the centre circle of Bloomfield road in front of a capacity crowd, and then we asked the crowd, is that illegal? The reaction from the crowd might vary e.g. "Jolly good entertainment, I'm glad that I didn't go for a pie and a pint." or "Absolutely horrific, I had to shield our Kelly Mae Marie's eyes". However if asked, was that illegal? I am sure that 100% would say that it was illegal even though you had not been found guilty in a court of law. Many things can be deemed illegal because it is pretty clear that it is illegal.
So the first point to get is that your analogy between the Iraq invasion and Corrie, is daft. We cannot say that William Roache carried out an illegal act because we have no idea what the witnesses are going to say or whether they are credible or not. For all we know, the witnesses might have made up their entire stories.
Clearly we know that Bush and Blair invaded Iraq with their troops and clearly we know what the rules at that time were for invading foreign countries i.e. an act of aggression is defined as the use of armed force by one State against another State without the justification of self-defence or authorization by the Security Council.
Now although Blair tried to wheedle out of the illegality of the invasion by trying to make out via his dodgy dossier that Iraq had weapons of WMD and was about to attack British forces, Hans Blik, the UN inspector in Iraq was having none of it. Neither were the likes of France, Russia etc etc on the Security Council and the Secretary of the UN, Annan and all his legal staff.
SO in short it was illegal. And that is why the vast majority of international lawyers and the UN deemed it illegal.
So the next question you would ask, would be - Okay if what you say is true, why has there never been a case brought in the International Court of the Hague against Blair and Bush for authorising an act of aggression, if the invasion was illegal.
The answer to that is as follows:
1.Now when various countries sat down to draft the Rome Statute (this is the core document of the International Criminal Court (ICC) which lays out all the rules) they managed to agree on what the war crimes were e.g. torture etc. and even to write them all down in the statute.
2. What the relevant countries somehow could not agree on was what constituted an act of aggression, and the reason they could not agree on this was because Britain and the United States refused to agree on it. Hey these guys aint stooopid you know?
3. That is why the ICC deals with war crimes e.g. torture and not putting the likes of Blair and Bush on trial for an act of aggression, namely an illegal invasion.
Now the relevant countries had a second go at defining an act of aggression at the Kampala declaration in 2010, but this has not even been ratified yet.
So although there is talk of going down the war crimes route e.g. a significant number of British and American soldiers accused of war crimes which COULD potentially result in a case against Blair and Bush, personally I would not hold your breath.
And secondly because there is no mechanism currently to bring a country's leader before the ICC on an act of aggression, it ain't going to happen short term.
So that is why the Iraq invasion was illegal and did not result in a court case before the ICC.
1. It was deemed illegal because it was clear what the rules and regulations are for an illegal invasion in the UN CHarter and Kofi Annan, the UN lawyers and umpteen international lawyers backed that up.
2. There is no mechanism for bringing leaders to court on this particular charge..
3. Although war crimes like torture etc can result in leaders appearing before the ICC, this tends not to be the case for members of the Security Council. Surprise, surprise.
THat's it.
CHeers Sam.
Come on England!!
Anyway Mr Slater's argument was/is:
1. There had been no trial in a court of law of the legality of the invasion. Therefore the invasion of Iraq could not be deemed illegal.
2. This was like that bloke in Coronation Street before he was put on trial for kiddie fiddling. No one could say that WIlliam Roache had done anything illegal, because he had not been found guilty in a court of law.
Please correct me, Samuel if I have got the wrong end of the stick, but your argument looks pretty clear to me. Now I am going to explain why Kofi Annan, hundreds of international lawyers, the British Attorney General before he got leaned on, thought it was illegal, as I do.
First let's go back to basics. What is the definition of illegal? It is contrary to or forbidden by law, rules and regulations etc.
Now the first point to get Sam, which you don't, is that it is not necessarily the case that it is impossible to say something is illegal, simply because there has not been a guilty conviction in a court of law.
For example, if in a fit of anger, you decide to strangle me as a result of some imagined insult at half time in the centre circle of Bloomfield road in front of a capacity crowd, and then we asked the crowd, is that illegal? The reaction from the crowd might vary e.g. "Jolly good entertainment, I'm glad that I didn't go for a pie and a pint." or "Absolutely horrific, I had to shield our Kelly Mae Marie's eyes". However if asked, was that illegal? I am sure that 100% would say that it was illegal even though you had not been found guilty in a court of law. Many things can be deemed illegal because it is pretty clear that it is illegal.
So the first point to get is that your analogy between the Iraq invasion and Corrie, is daft. We cannot say that William Roache carried out an illegal act because we have no idea what the witnesses are going to say or whether they are credible or not. For all we know, the witnesses might have made up their entire stories.
Clearly we know that Bush and Blair invaded Iraq with their troops and clearly we know what the rules at that time were for invading foreign countries i.e. an act of aggression is defined as the use of armed force by one State against another State without the justification of self-defence or authorization by the Security Council.
Now although Blair tried to wheedle out of the illegality of the invasion by trying to make out via his dodgy dossier that Iraq had weapons of WMD and was about to attack British forces, Hans Blik, the UN inspector in Iraq was having none of it. Neither were the likes of France, Russia etc etc on the Security Council and the Secretary of the UN, Annan and all his legal staff.
SO in short it was illegal. And that is why the vast majority of international lawyers and the UN deemed it illegal.
So the next question you would ask, would be - Okay if what you say is true, why has there never been a case brought in the International Court of the Hague against Blair and Bush for authorising an act of aggression, if the invasion was illegal.
The answer to that is as follows:
1.Now when various countries sat down to draft the Rome Statute (this is the core document of the International Criminal Court (ICC) which lays out all the rules) they managed to agree on what the war crimes were e.g. torture etc. and even to write them all down in the statute.
2. What the relevant countries somehow could not agree on was what constituted an act of aggression, and the reason they could not agree on this was because Britain and the United States refused to agree on it. Hey these guys aint stooopid you know?
3. That is why the ICC deals with war crimes e.g. torture and not putting the likes of Blair and Bush on trial for an act of aggression, namely an illegal invasion.
Now the relevant countries had a second go at defining an act of aggression at the Kampala declaration in 2010, but this has not even been ratified yet.
So although there is talk of going down the war crimes route e.g. a significant number of British and American soldiers accused of war crimes which COULD potentially result in a case against Blair and Bush, personally I would not hold your breath.
And secondly because there is no mechanism currently to bring a country's leader before the ICC on an act of aggression, it ain't going to happen short term.
So that is why the Iraq invasion was illegal and did not result in a court case before the ICC.
1. It was deemed illegal because it was clear what the rules and regulations are for an illegal invasion in the UN CHarter and Kofi Annan, the UN lawyers and umpteen international lawyers backed that up.
2. There is no mechanism for bringing leaders to court on this particular charge..
3. Although war crimes like torture etc can result in leaders appearing before the ICC, this tends not to be the case for members of the Security Council. Surprise, surprise.
THat's it.
CHeers Sam.
Come on England!!