Perhaps this delay is in part because the Blair government was advised before the war by all 27 attorneys in their Foreign Affairs Office that war on Iraq was unlawful. That would mean armed attack on Iraq would be an unlawful war of aggression, with identical criminal implication on US armed attack on Iraq.
Unlawful war requires US military to refuse all war orders and arrest those who issue them (more documentation here).
Public understanding that current wars “on terror” are not even close to lawful would end these wars. War law forbids all armed attack unless under attack by another nation’s government.
As I wrote in 2010:
All the lawyers in the UK’s Foreign Affairs Department concluded the US/UK invasion of Iraq was an unlawful War of Aggression. Their expert advice is the most qualified to make that legal determination; all 27 of them were in agreement. This powerful judgment of unlawful war follows the Dutch government’s recent unanimous report and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s clear statements.
2 comments:
Which illegal invasion? Was the first one more justified than the second? I don't think so. Both Bushes merit trial for treason and war crimes, but it would be wrong, and a big mistake, to confer more legitimacy to the World Court.
Your headline typo is actually apposite, Sam, and what a pity that is.
Post a Comment