Legality of war

[pipme]

The UK (and others) legality issue re. Iraq war.

Why has America not had the same problems?
America's laws are different and it has not signed up to the International Criminal Court, which came into effect in 2002. Also, public support for the war was much stronger in America than in Britain; fewer people cared whether it was legal or not.

See History of the war advice argument Link to Sunday Times

Who is in and who is not ... ICC (International Criminal Court)
We and other accomplices are IN .. the USA is OUT.

6. In a communication received on 6 May 2002, the Government of the United States of America informed the Secretary-General of the following:
"This is to inform you, in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on July 17, 1998, that the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000. The United States requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the depositary's status lists relating to this treaty."

Tone was getting out on a limb here then, iffy at best legality for us, quite clear cut for the USA no possibly binding legal issues.
What is the point of these instruments which cost taxpayers a fortune and really mean SFA ???

 

[mildmanneredjanitor]

Surely the only acceptable reason for an attack on a country is if we are at war with the country in question or if that country has declared war on an ally?

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, we rightfully came to the defence of our Allies and removed the aggressors from occupying that country.

Did I miss something in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq? Were (the remnants) of the Iraqi armed forces threatening to invade anyone? Er not that I am aware of...

Oh no, it was the WMD that we know you're hiding, we have found no evidence of it, but we know you have some (probably cos we sold you the materials... ) What's that saying..? "innocent till proven..." No can't remember!

Call me old fashioned, but I thought that we were supposed to send out special forces on clandestine missions to interfere with foriegn goverments and such like? Supplying local militia with training and weapons to overthrow undesirable leaders? Maybe I've read to many books...

But to send out the whole bloody army and Kate Adie, the media were bound to spot that one!

 

[kendor]

even howard admitted that the war was legal? So what's the post inferring?

 

[Damocles]

I don't think you can 'admit that something is legal'. The only way to really find out would be to have Blair et al standing in a court and arguing their case. This is very very unlikely to happen, because there is a real risk they might lose.

What has been publically demonstrated is that the cabinet felt it did not have enough evidence to be certain it had a legal case for war. They then went on a wishful hunt for things which might make it legal. They may have believed that they had found a case, but post-invasion all the evidence is that Sadam was absolutely no threat whatsoever to the UK.

 

[kendor]

he said on tv that the un resolutions allowed the action taken and that he would have supported any action regardless if that isnt an admission then i don't know what is?

 

[pipme]

Tone failed the 'proof of Presidency capability check' .. Bush was unencumbered by the International Criminal Court, whereas Tone should have been .. he bought into it !! ... President has the final word but should listen to his elected advisors and kick the unelected 'horse whispering, sound and image bite crazed mob' into touch ... Just goes to show that a Jack of all trades, is usually master of none !!

Anyway no doubt the majority will be substantially cut and Tone can begin the handover to another unelected PM Brown .. mind you the alternative may have been a rotund, pugalistic, Jaguar like, cabin buoy of some ill repute ... mostly kenneled during the hustings.

 

[kendor]

Tone failed the 'proof of Presidency capability check' .. Bush was unencumbered by the International Criminal Court, whereas Tone should have been .. he bought into it !! ... President has the final word but should listen to his elected advisors and kick the unelected 'horse whispering, sound and image bite crazed mob' into touch ... Just goes to show that a Jack of all trades, is usually master of none !!

Anyway no doubt the majority will be substantially cut and Tone can begin the handover to another unelected PM Brown .. mind you the alternative may have been a rotund, pugalistic, Jaguar like, cabin buoy of some ill repute ... mostly kenneled during the hustings.

but to be brought before a court mustn't you first be accused and there to be evidence of wrongdoing?

 

[pipme]

Was the war legal or not?

Opinion is divided. The attorney-general maintains that it was legal, as do the Conservatives. However, the Liberal Democrats and many international lawyers believe that it was illegal.

Could action be taken in court?

At least one relative of a dead British soldier hopes to take court action. Lawyers for families of dead Iraqis are also planning to use the leaked attorney-general's advice to promote their claims for independent inquiries.

Tis almost as if no one expected a person in such high office to sail so close to the mark, that a courtroom may be required ....

 

[kendor]

Was the war legal or not?

Opinion is divided. The attorney-general maintains that it was legal, as do the Conservatives. However, the Liberal Democrats and many international lawyers believe that it was illegal.

Could action be taken in court?

At least one relative of a dead British soldier hopes to take court action. Lawyers for families of dead Iraqis are also planning to use the leaked attorney-general's advice to promote their claims for independent inquiries.

Tis almost as if no one expected a person in such high office to sail so close to the mark, that a courtroom may be required ....

in society certain walks of life are above the law and you have no redress in court so i'm sure the same would apply here.

 

[pipme]

Antonius signed up to it, on your behalf !!

....the impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators of the most serious crimes, such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, is an obstacle to reconciliation, fostering revisionism and depriving future generations of irrefutable evidence of such crimes"

... Recommendation 1408 (1999) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (more)

ICC Link
Looks like he 'buys into' things with a feeling of impunity .. Looked good on the news that day tho'

 

[Richardp]

As the whole thing was all about weapons of mass destruction the west should set an example and get rid of theirs first then if any country is making them then the united nations should send a warning that their going to bomb the weapons factory at such and such a time so,s they can get out the way, no war, just opps! sorry about that and back to the BBQ.
No way was the war legal, no war should be legal, if there,s a problem remove it with united nations.I'm off to give Blair my vote I think!

 

[pipme]

As the whole thing was all about weapons of mass destruction...........

It would have been more legal if it was about Saddam's reluctance to pay parking fines or his speeding antics... We know more about those kind of laws .......

Eight Motorists' Right to Silence Defence to be heard by European Court of Human Rights.
The European Court of Human Rights has accepted eight motorists' applications claiming that S172 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act breaches the right to silence implicit in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Given that 90% of applications are rejected at this first stage, this is an important step in a process which, if successful, will make the speed camera system unworkable.
The British government has been asked by the European Court of Human Rights to respond to these applications by January 18th and 19th 2005. The applicants will then be able to respond in turn and a court verdict is expected some time in 2006.

Justice UK style ... Make the rules, then forget them in the lust for revenue .....

The great majority of speed camera photographs do not identify drivers, and so S172 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act is used to extract confessions by threatening "similar" (but in practice more severe) penalties for failure to do so. Several million fixed and other penalties, and the Safety Camera Partnerships, rely on these forced confessions, under a 2001 Privy Council judgement (Brown v Stott) citing the public interest in road safety as justification for removing the right to silence not only implicit in Article 6 of the European Convention but explicit in centuries of British common law.

The eight applicants claim that evidence obtained under duress should not be admissible in court, and that convictions based on such admissions should be quashed, as should penalties imposed for failing to identify the driver. The British government has been asked by the European Court of Human Rights to respond to these applications by January 18th and 19th. The applicants will then be able to respond in turn and a court verdict is expected some time in 2006.

Idris Francis, whose case involving a 1938 Alvis Speed 25 received national publicity in 2001/2 comments that:
"Contrary to the verdict of the Privy Council, Article 6 of the Convention does not allow the public interest to be cited as justification for breaches of such fundamental rights to a fair trial. Further, casualty data shows that speed cameras act against the public interest, causing more accidents than they prevent, not least because they have been used as an excuse for cuts in more effective police patrols and other measures. The past decade of increasing use of speed cameras has been uniquely dreadful in terms of road fatality trends, while the data presented by the authorities, far from being "robust" as they claim, is seriously flawed, misleading, highly selective, partisan and increasingly dishonest".

Ok Idris, now we know a little more about the manner of law interpretation in Britain ..... Something rancid hereabouts ... Tis how the commies got their evil ways isn't it ?

 

[Big_Spark]

What makes me laugh is that people are discussing the Legality of Government murder, which is all war is.

The causes of the War and the Justification of the cause are side issues, the fact is it is State sponsored and condoned murder on a massive scale.

What does war truly solve? Nothing, just proves who had the better Military and equipment. Just as a fight between two men simply proves which was the stronger or more capable idiot, war simply proves who was capable of completing the greater folly.

War and legality, don't make me laugh.

Was Genocide legal, moral or acceptable? NO. Yet it didn't stop Saddam Huissain

Was the Invasion of Iran Legal, No or Kuwait, No These were repelled successfully.

Saddam was the WMD, The war was not illegal or immoral, but the reasons we went to war were.

Had the Governments said "Look Saddam and his henchmen must be removed to protect the Iraqi people and the surrounding nations, and we are going to do it by force if he does not step down" then I think there would be less argument about it, but to claim it was for unprovable reasons that have since been shown to be false brings the whole thing into question.

I supported the removal of the Ba'ath Party, and it was a good thing, but now we need our troops home and safe, let the Iraqi's Police their country.

The crucial factor here though is the reaction of the Iraqi people, and the VAST bulk are happy to see the back of Saddam, but they simply do not want foriegn troops on their streets, and can we blame them, we wouldn't.

 

[pipme]

But at least those perps didn't sign up to the ICC - neither did the Yanks.

Doesn't make it right, just a little less wrong.

 

[securespark]

You're missing the point, folks.

Never mind whether it was legal or not: just because you haven't broken the law doesn't mean it is right.

The man is supposed to be devoutly religious.

Which part of "Thou shalt not kill....." does he not understand?