Perle admitted invasion was illegal

[Hamel]

We knew it was illegal all along, but some people aren't satisfied unless an out-and-out admission is given~

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday November 20, 2003
The Guardian

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.

French intransigence, he added, meant there had been "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein".

Mr Perle, who was speaking at an event organised by the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, had argued loudly for the toppling of the Iraqi dictator since the end of the 1991 Gulf war.

"They're just not interested in international law, are they?" said Linda Hugl, a spokeswoman for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which launched a high court challenge to the war's legality last year. "It's only when the law suits them that they want to use it."

Mr Perle's remarks bear little resemblance to official justifications for war, according to Rabinder Singh QC, who represented CND and also participated in Tuesday's event.

Certainly the British government, he said, "has never advanced the suggestion that it is entitled to act, or right to act, contrary to international law in relation to Iraq".

The Pentagon adviser's views, he added, underlined "a divergence of view between the British govern ment and some senior voices in American public life [who] have expressed the view that, well, if it's the case that international law doesn't permit unilateral pre-emptive action without the authority of the UN, then the defect is in international law".

Mr Perle's view is not the official one put forward by the White House. Its main argument has been that the invasion was justified under the UN charter, which guarantees the right of each state to self-defence, including pre-emptive self-defence. On the night bombing began, in March, Mr Bush reiterated America's "sovereign authority to use force" to defeat the threat from Baghdad.

The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has questioned that justification, arguing that the security council would have to rule on whether the US and its allies were under imminent threat.

Coalition officials countered that the security council had already approved the use of force in resolution 1441, passed a year ago, warning of "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to give a complete ac counting of its weapons programmes.

Other council members disagreed, but American and British lawyers argued that the threat of force had been implicit since the first Gulf war, which was ended only by a ceasefire.

"I think Perle's statement has the virtue of honesty," said Michael Dorf, a law professor at Columbia University who opposed the war, arguing that it was illegal.

"And, interestingly, I suspect a majority of the American public would have supported the invasion almost exactly to the same degree that they in fact did, had the administration said that all along."

The controversy-prone Mr Perle resigned his chairmanship of the defence policy board earlier this year but remained a member of the advisory board.

Meanwhile, there was a hint that the US was trying to find a way to release the Britons held at Guantanamo Bay.

The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, said Mr Bush was "very sensitive" to British sentiment. "We also expect to be resolving this in the near future," he told the BBC.

You'd think the supporters of the war couldn't possibly spin this, but they have, with the old argument that no one cares since the UN is worthless.

[Sea Skimmer]

You'd think the supporters of the war couldn't possibly spin this, but they have, with the old argument that no one cares since the UN is worthless.

Saying no one gives a fuck isn't putting a spin on it, it's the truth. Or rather not enough people give a fuck for it to matter. Course with the source being The Guardian I don't intend to believe the article until it's confirmed by another source or three.

[Nathan F]

You'd think the supporters of the war couldn't possibly spin this, but they have, with the old argument that no one cares since the UN is worthless.

Saying no one gives a fuck isn't putting a spin on it, it's the truth. Or rather not enough people give a fuck for it to matter. Course with the source being The Guardian I don't intend to believe the article until it's confirmed by another source or three.

Plus, this is just the statement of a mid-level advisor. I want to hear someone else other than just this guy, and something other than the Guardian wouldn't hurt, either.

[Wicked Pilot]

The appropiate question is if the war was the right thing to do, not if it was legal or not. Don't confuse the two.

[Andrew J.]

The appropiate question is if the war was the right thing to do, not if it was legal or not. Don't confuse the two.

True...except that the Bush administration has been saying that it's legal the whole time. If they'd come out and said, "It's not strictly legal, but we'd be morally wrong not to do it," I'd respect them more.

[Hamel]

The appropiate question is if the war was the right thing to do, not if it was legal or not. Don't confuse the two.

You can make arguments about how the war was moral, despite having to lie constantly about justifications for it, all you want. This issue deals with legal justifications, of which there were none.

[Joe]

Who fuckin' cares about the UN?

[Hamel]

Who fuckin' cares about the UN?

Your side certainly did.

First it's "resolution 1441 supports invasion", and when shown that it doesn't, it's "UN is worthless, who fucking cares, I stuck an apple up the UN's vagina, etc"

[Dark Hellion]

Its called politicing Hamel, we did it to be nice, and to seem justified. If you want justification, its called the most powerful military in the world removing a shithead dictator. Thats a pretty decent justification don't you think?

[Hamel]

Its called politicing Hamel, we did it to be nice, and to seem justified.

Politicing or not, it's two faced to cite international law, and when the international law doesn't support your position, ya say "whatevah"

If you want justification, its called the most powerful military in the world removing a shithead dictator. Thats a pretty decent justification don't you think?

The continued tolerance of dictators elsewhere shows that to be bogus.

[Wicked Pilot]

Who fuckin' cares about the UN?

Saddam certainly didn't. If the UN wants to be taken seriousily then it needs to grow some testicles.

[Hamel]

This is really pissing me off

I can't find a second source on this

[SyntaxVorlon]

So the bush administration's viewpoint is that they are vigilante heroes? Great. Well screw you international law. I'll just be waiting for DPRK to start making preemptive strikes against the west coast.

[Joe]

So the bush administration's viewpoint is that they are vigilante heroes? Great. Well screw you international law. I'll just be waiting for DPRK to start making preemptive strikes against the west coast.

You'll be waiting quite some time then, given that they lack the technology to make said strikes.

[Kamakazie Sith]

This is really pissing me off

I can't find a second source on this

Considering the original source, is this really that surprising?

[Vympel]

Oh please. "It's the Guardian, therefore it's all lies!"

Give me a break. This place isn't spacebattles. There are no bullshit 'second source' requirements here, nor are there rules against certain newspapers/media that some people may not like for whatever reason.

[Joe]

Give me a break. This place isn't spacebattles. There are no bullshit 'second source' requirements here, nor are there rules against certain newspapers/media that some people may not like for whatever reason.

So you will accept this without question, then?

[Vympel]

So you will accept this without question, then?

No, because it's an uncited assertion based on anonymous source without proof. Don't tell me you can't tell the difference between that and a quote of a public figure at a speech in London that everyone knew he was going to Quoting someone's words in a speech and expecting it to be factually accurate and quoting someone's no-proof no-source assertion as proof of the fact being asserted are nowhere near similar.

[Nathan F]

This is really pissing me off

I can't find a second source on this

Come back to us when you can find one, then we might take this seriously.

[Vympel]

Here

The same quote from Perle. Again, this is a damn quote from a speech he was known to be going to, not some hearsay assertion with no proof about some objective fact.

[Tsyroc]

For what it's worth Daily Times of Pakistan has the article too.

I just found it on a web search so I have know idea how reliable this paper is.

All the other versions of the story I've found have been refering back to The Guardian article.

US hawk admits ‘illegality’ of Iraq invasion

WASHINGTON: A leading Pentagon hawk whose name has become synonymous with aggressive US defence policy has astonished his critics by expressing doubts about the legality of the American invasion of Iraq.

In a speech delivered in London that no major American newspaper has carried, Richard Perle said, “I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing.” Perle, who is a member of the defence policy board which advises US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, said that “international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone,” but added that this would have been morally unacceptable. He said French “intransigence” had left “no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein.” Perle has been calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein since 1991. The US has taken the position, which finds little support abroad, that the invasion was justified as self-defence, including pre-emptive self-defence, under the UN charter. “I think Perle’s statement has the virtue of honesty,” Michael Dorf, a law professor at Columbia University who opposed the war, was quoted saying Friday. “And, interestingly, I suspect a majority of the American public would have supported the invasion almost exactly to the same degree that they in fact did, had the administration said that all along,” he added. —Khalid Hasan

[Vympel]

That the Guardian is 'unreliable' is just some bullshit meme that seems to have developed elsewhere. Until I see a consistent pattern of blatantly false reporting, it's all BS to me.

[Joe]

By your own admission, Vymp...

I gave up on the Guardian a long time ago. The Independent is the only newspaper website I read.

http://bbs2.stardestroyer.net/Archive/v ... t=guardian

[Vympel]

So? I had bought into aforesaid bullshit meme without really looking into it myself- shame on me. Again: show me a consistent pattern of bad reporting. If not, claims about unreliability are worthless.

[Stuart Mackey]

I think Perle is bullshitting big time. The old 'we are morally right, so everyone else is morally wrong' excuse. Unfortunatly it does not follow in this case or America would have delt with other fuckheads like or worse than Saddam. Perle also ignores the fact that Saddam the bad was never the reason for the invasion.