SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Dutch Central Bank Sale Announcement Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: sea_urchin who wrote (17738)3/30/2003 9:52:42 AM
From: sea_urchin  Respond to of 81118
 
>....my view, and the overwhelming view of international lawyers, is that the attack on Iraq is not in accord with international law

american-reporter.com

>>>There is a reason why so many nations are not wholeheartedly embracing the invasion of Iraq. They don't want to find themselves in violation of international law.

The Nuremburg Tribunal, which dealt with German war crimes after World War II, determined that the planning, preparation or initiation of a war that was contrary to the terms of an international treaty was a "crime against peace" and that "to initiate a war of aggression ... is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime." This principle is the bedrock that the UN Charter rests upon.

The U.S. and Britain have launched a war that is in violation of the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions. They have lied to the world about the weapons capabilities of Iraq and lied about Iraq's connections to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. They undermined and sabotaged the UN weapon's inspection program. They bullied and bribed other nations into supporting an invasion of Iraq.

Put these things together, and it adds up to an embarrassing situation for the United States and Britain. The two nations that helped to forge the principles of international law in the years after World War II now stand in violation of those principles.<<<