Few days ago and when I was going to work with a colleague of mine, we passed by a gas station in Karrada near the headquarters of Abdul Aziz Hakim, the prominent Shiite leader who runs the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. At 8:30 a.m. and when most of the people were going to work and school on a rush hour, I saw something shocking. Two SUV’s that belong to “Badr” troops blocked the street. Four masked men were directing their rifles at the people. Literally, people were scared. Do you know what the Badris were doing? They were filling their vehicles with fuel and they blocked the street fearing possible attacks occur against them. It was really insulting. Even Saddam, the worst dictator on earth, did not do it.
Now this area is not Iraqi; it’s Hakimi and Badri. All what you see is Badr, Badr, Badr wherever you go. And if you don’t like it this way, go to hell. You might be taken to the Jadriya prison which is the office of Mr. Minister, who is a member of the Hakimi religious party. Moreover, his Excellency the president lives in the same area. He might be bored of the Green Zone where his other colleagues live. He feels he wants to be among “his people” who “love him” without taking into consideration that these people might be killed, just because his convoy passes by in a rush hour every single day.
There are many Iraqis that were killed in this area because of the presence of the peshmarga and Badr. And please do not tell me they are called army and police now. They ARE NOT. The army and police’s loyalty should be devoted to the country, not to the parties.
Once, Hakim had an anniversary memorial of his dead brother. He blocked the whole Karrada area. They made it impossible for the people to go to work because they were afraid the mourners would be attacked. OK, if he was afraid, why didn’t he choose a quieter time in the day. Why did he make it difficult for people to go to work and schools? It took me 3 hours to reach the office and I had to walk for half an hour!!! While I was walking, a Badr trooper put his gun towards me. I was frozen. “What the hell you are doing?” I asked. The trooper laughed and said, “I am trying concentrate incase there is someone wants to attack us.”
Today when I was going to work, I passed by Mustanssiriya square in Baghdad. Before the US-led invasion, statue of Saddam riding a horse and the monument of an Iraqi soldier, his arms tied between two vehicles pulling them out of their sockets marked the area. After the war, these were taken down. Do you know what replaced the statue and the monument? A huge picture of the Hakims hanged on the base where the former dictator’s statue used to stand. And now, how happy I am to see the image of the three clerics wearing turbans hanged on the monument that showed how the Iraqi army soldier was tortured. “The soldiers of the Marjiya,” says the new poster hanged instead. Huh!! I think if they change the name of Republic of Iraq into “The Turban republic of Iraq” would be better for them to make the seculars, Christians, and Sunnis leave the country and make the country theirs only. Maybe they can invite the Iranians to live in it and make all women wear Abayas and all men wear dishdashas and grow beards. For God’s sake!!! What is happening in this country? They changed the name of a famous street in Karrada by calling it “Badr”.
What is happening to this beautiful city? These areas used to be the best before the “liberation”. They were full of lights, restaurants, shops, and clubs. But now they are full of people carrying weapons just to protect his “Excellency” and his “Samahat”. For God’s sake! If they cannot protect themselves, how come we expect them protecting us?! I don’t see any change happened. Saddam’s pictures were taken down and now they are replaced by other people who opposed him. They don’t understand that this country is free now and should not have any symbol of any leader unless he is a patriot. Do they think they are patriots and they toppled the dictator? No, they are not because the Americans were the one who toppled him, not them.
Why are they doing this to this beautiful city? I think because of all of them were not born in Baghdad and will never feel that they belong to it.
Treasure,
ReplyDeleteYou and all the other Iraqi bloggers talked about these ominous signs for a long time now--several years at least. Yet, even with all these indications, the Iraqi people voted for these "religious" parties in very high percentages. (Note: Even the Iraqi ex-patriots living in the USA voted for these same religious parties.) My only conclusion is that a majority of the Iraqi people want this sort of thing. I cannot understand why.
I certainly hope that these people who selected these parties enjoy them now. They got them for 4 years.
Did you ever find out who those new neighbors were? You said you thought they might be the bad guys....
ReplyDeleteMy head hurts from trying to understand all that is happening in your homeland.
I have taken to reading scriptures and cross referencing them with scriptures in other holy books.
Power seems to be up for grabs in your country and everybody wants a piece.
I was surprised Iraq voted the way they did, even a little sad over it, but it was their choice to make, and hopefully as time goes by... everyone will get to see what they voted for and they can change their votes next time.
I have no idea what good it will do.
I'm just an outsider, watching these things happen and cry for the people, pray for the people, and pray that the ones who get to make the big deisions will make them for the good of the people.
Be Safe
i wonder why the the airport security wanted to know what you were? and i wonder what side the usa -is- backing. we are so caught up here in the scandals,the war,and the latest "press release" from bin boy that this issue religous tolerance and freedom in iraq is falling by the wayside. i have no words that can expain how i feel but all i can say is for you and the others in iraq is to keep telling the truth. some how i think the truth always wins over the lies.you and others like you are the future of your country and may god watch over you. peace
ReplyDeleteOrigional Jeff,
ReplyDeleteYou are right. I agree with you that the majority voted for them, and this is the biggest disaster. These were elected by the majority of the people in the southern countries. This majority were deceived by the 555 list. Hakim and his gang included the pictures of the Marjiya like Sistani in their election advertisement campaign because they know very well that the Shiites respect Sistani and follow him. Moreover, and I heard this from Shiites, they always say that the Shiites were victimized and oppressed by Saddam the “Sunni”. So these Shiites say they want Shiites to rule them, not Sunnis because they suffered a lot when the Sunnis were in power. They don’t understand that if these Shiites control most of the country, we will be like Iran. Then, they will regret what they did like the Iranians who really want to get rid of the Islamic rule.
As a Baghdadi and most of the Baghdadi people think that Iraq was secular and should always be secular. One more thing, I was talking about Baghdad in this post and how they turned it into a hell by their disrespectful behavior with people. I think the Shiite people will really regret their choice one day. Mark my word!
“i wonder why the the airport security wanted to know what you were? and i wonder what side the usa -is- backing.”
ReplyDeleteRchsod, what airport you are talking about?? I have no idea of what you are talking about.
Sigh....
ReplyDeleteBaghdad is done. dont keep weeping over it. i know people might not understand what i am saying now, but i know you do. there is no hope that baghdad is going to be alive again any soon. not in the coming 50 years. No. people hoping this are either liviing outside the country, or baghdad residenst who think saying this is not "Patriotism."
the only thing we can do, which we are trying to do already, is to speak it out so the time wont be more that 50 years.
one more thing,
ReplyDeleteif you dont want someone, dont vote for him or her. this simple!
remember when in one of my entries is blamed ourselves 100% for what happened and is happening in iraq and people turned against me and said i wasnt right? mmmmmmmmm. ok!!
Dear BT,
ReplyDeleteMay I borrow three of your beautiful photographies?
Let me know.
Thanks.
“would be better for them to make the seculars, Christians, and Sunnis leave the country and make the country theirs only.”
ReplyDeleteYou know as I do it’s not that simple. My family is a mix of Christian, Muslim (shia and sunni), non Iraqis, Arabs and Kurds. There are million of us Iraqis with mixed families.
As for why so many are influenced by Sistani and voted according to his views. Most likely these people have totally lost their confidence in Iraqi politicians (and who can blame them, first Saddam and his gang, and then unknown people from abroad some even criminal) so now they turn to some sort of religious figures instead, laying their hopes that it will be better. I think many of these people have to sort of go thru this stage to realize that there is a better option for us Iraqis. I think it will be shown in the next election.
24 Steps to Liberty,
ReplyDeleteThere is over 120 000 people from the world’s most equipped army in Iraq working side by side these people that Treasure of Baghdad just wrote about. That army and those who they answer too have time after time claimed that it is these “brave” people that are bringing peace and democracy to Iraq.
So once again it amazes’ me how you managed to get them out of your “blame” equation.
Let us also remember that in any democracy in the world there are those who are on the opposition and do not agree on the path the current government is taking. Just look at the U.S right now, million of Americans are against their foreign policy. In a country where no dictator has ruled them the last decade and no foreign army is engaged in military attacks against them they still are not able to change the destructive path their government and supporters are taking. So please give us Iraqis a break from your “100% blame” model.
Whether we like it or not this is what the result of the election showed. If we are one of the millions in the opposition well then just let us make our best, in this international war zone mess we are in; to stay alive and spread our views!
24,
ReplyDeleteI think the reason the people went for the 555 list was simply the process of elimination. The Sunni-associated parties were too connected to the insurgents. The secular parties were too weak and divided, to connected with their own corruption, and too connected to the former Ba'athist regime. So if you are an Arab who wants Iraq to be a safe place again, who are you going to vote for? The Shia parties made a lot of mistakes last year but one of the most famous mistakes had to do with being too harsh with insurgents. I think that actually helped them.
You should at least take solace in that most of the policies that the government will enact in the next 4 years will be forced on them by necessity rather than choice (capturing and killing insurgents, bringing the western Iraq into legitimacy, mollifying the Kurds).
Meanwhile, those Iraqis who want a secular government will have the next 4 years to get their act together and find able reformist leaders with "clean hands" (something they didn't seem to have this year).
Time, time, time...That's what Iraq needs. Keep thinking about Iraq's tommorrow.
Hey BT,
ReplyDeleteOne thing that will moderate the 555 list a bit: they did not win an absolute majority of seats, which means they need to work cooperatively with at least one other party in order to get anything done.
In addition, the new Constitution that Iraqis passed provides for the ability of the Council of Representatives to fire any government minister, or the prime minister, or even the whole cabinet by a simple majority vote.
Treasure,
ReplyDeleteIraq is the world leader in suicide bombings. There were 411 suicide car bombings in 2005--up from 133 in 2004. There were 67 attacks by suicide vest last year--up from 7 in 2004.
Source: USA Today article
There were zero suicide bombings in Iraq before the US army came.
ReplyDeletecmar ii remember that in the confernce in Egypt all iraqi parties agreed on people have the right to fight an occupation (occupation troops in iraq) that is not terrorism. Terrorism are those who attack iraqis in markets etc. There are lots of occupation troops that are getting killed everyday, and thousands more (read somewhere about 15000) soldiers injured these are attackes the Iraqi parites said is not terrorism. Keep that in mind. The Iraqi parties made a clear difference so should you if you want your comments to be correct.
ReplyDeleteKarl you are right about that.
ReplyDeleteNadia, CMAR II used didn't use the word "terrorist" in his comment. He used the word "insurgent" 4 or 5 times. Not sure why you are claiming he is confusing the two?
ReplyDeleteHi Craig! :)
ReplyDelete“Insurgent” as I have seen people using it they lump the people who are terrorists and those who use their legal right to fight the occupation. So I thought it’s important to separate them as the political parties in Iraq did in their statement from the Cairo meeting.
Nadia,
ReplyDeleteWow! That's either remarkable selective amnesia or shameless spin. Refresh your memory here. The Iraqi leaders agreed to a THEORETICAL right to resist occupation in order to prevent the collapse of a conference in which they needed to get the attending Arab nations to agree to STOP SENDING INSURGENTS.
But the Iraqi delegation reiterated that the foreign troops were their by the leave of the FREELY ELECTED IRAQI GOVERNMENT. Therefore, the the insurgents, terrorists (and what else would you call people who TARGET children?), the Return Party, or whatever else you want to call them have ZERO legitimacy in Iraq. Z..E..R..O.
They are all criminals in Iraq who are worse than the most vile serial killers in history. Jack the Ripper times 1000.
When the freely elected Iraqi government asks the US forces to leave, they won't be there anymore. Nadia, you have chosen sides against the elected leaders of the Iraqi people and are therefore their enemy.
BTW Nadia,
ReplyDeleteYou will probably be aghast to learn that some imposter has been posting here using your nickname. She recently said:
"We have the ability to speak with each other and we should do that instead of using bombs, weapons, killings, threats, beatings and torture. Right now those who use and have used the none verbal way are all digging the grave for Iraq." 1/21/2006 5:45 PM
Talk like that would certainly undercut the heroic endevors of The Resistance (a.k.a. The Return Party). I thought you would want to be on the lookout for that imposter so you can ask her to pick a new nickname.
OK, since we clarifying terms...
ReplyDeleteForeign fighters cannot be part of an INSURGENCY. Period. An insurgency is a homegrown and internal resistance movement. Period.
The insurgents are the only people in Iraq with a legitimate right to resist either an illegitimate (in their opinion) government, or a foreign occupation.
Insurgents are not criminals, unless they engage in criminal acts as part of their fight. They aren't inherently criminal. They ARE combatants, though.
Foreign fighters are engaged in criminal war fighting, by definition. They have no legal right to be in Iraq, and every death they cause is a murder, no matter who they kill. Even, if they kill US trooops. It's STILL murder. It's no different than if I went to Cuba (because I hate Castro, don't you know) and killed Cuban soldiers. It's murder.
And I think we all know that terrorists are criminals, whether they come from Iraq or from someplace else.
programmer craig,
ReplyDeleteInsurgents are not criminals, unless they engage in criminal acts as part of their fight. They aren't inherently criminal. They ARE combatants, though.
Hmmm...so if Timothy McViegh had only killed FBI agents, he would have been a legitimate combatant?
Isn't a "homegrown" assault on agents of a legitimate free elected government a criminal act by definition?
In the case of Iraq, since the Coalition forces are there with the approval of the Iraqi government, doesn't that make the Return Party criminal?
Hey there CMAR,
ReplyDelete"Hmmm...so if Timothy McViegh had only killed FBI agents, he would have been a legitimate combatant?"
If he was part of a subversive group that sought to overthrow the US government, yes.
Note that this is under international law, not US law. No government considers an insurgency to be legitimate, but there are legitimate insurgencies, none the less :)
"Isn't a "homegrown" assault on agents of a legitimate free elected government a criminal act by definition?"
No, not if "by definition" you mean international law, CMAR.
For instance, the government in Iran considers itself to be "freely elected" - and one of my fondest hopes right now is that government is overthrown by an internal insurgency.
"In the case of Iraq, since the Coalition forces are there with the approval of the Iraqi government, doesn't that make the Return Party criminal?"
No, it doesn't. People have an inherent right to rebel against what they consider to be tyranny, whether you or I agree with that or not.
I'm not saying the Iraqi government or the US forces have an obligation to treat insurgents as legitimate combatants. I'm saying that international law recognizes their right to rebel against their own government, or to resist a foreign occupation.
Foreign fighters have no such right, under international laws - unless their home country is formally a participant in the war.
programmer craig,
ReplyDeleteNote that this is under international law, not US law. No government considers an insurgency to be legitimate, but there are legitimate insurgencies, none the less :)
Look, I'm not an expert on "international law". But I've conversed with people closer to it than I am or (I suspect, but could I possibly know) you. I offer this example (see the comments for my discussion with Jeff Kantor) not as a refutation of what you say, but as "Exhibit A" that is not a self-consistent book of rules as English Common Law or the US Constitution seeks to be.
International Law does not recognize "legitimate insurgencies". That's an oxymoron. If an insurgency is successful then International Law will eventually recognize the insurgent's new government as legitimate. That's as far as it goes. For a foreign government to "recognize and abed" another country's insurgency is not "lawful" or "unlawful", it is merely a hostile act, perhaps an act of war by proxy.
A "legitimate insurgent" is a subjective term, yet one Thomas Jefferson would have happily defined...and could do so precisely and self-consistently.
Tyrannies are by definition "illegitimate" because they do not adhere to a social contract with the people they govern. Representational democracies are entirely legitimate by definition because they are suspended by the single thread of that social contract called "free elections".
So, for a tyranny, to be part of the government is criminal, and to be part the insurgency is to stand by Law and Order. For representation democracies, the opposite is true. Thus, Timothy McVeigh was a criminal and a mass murderer. An Iraqi soldier who attempted a failed coup against Saddam to establish a representational democracy was a patriot.
And the idea that somebody would overthrow Iraq's freely elected government to...what? Create a new one? Why would anyone do that? Anyone who overthrows the current Iraqi government is not looking to set up a government that bows to a social contract with the majority of Iraqis. They want something else.
As the Beatles said, "All I can say is 'Brother, you can count me out.'"
CMAR, I'm just going to throw out links and quotes from the links, OK?
ReplyDeleteI was trained in the Laws of War (the International Laws of Land Warfare, specifically) in great detail, but that was many years ago and I can't quote verbatim :)
"The lowest level of warfare or armed conflict to which the laws of war apply is an insurgency.
For an insurgency to occur, the insurgent group would have to have the semblance of a government, an
organized military force, control of significant portions of territory as their own, and their own relatively
stable population or base of support within a broader population."
This quote is from "The American Society for International Law, Task Force on Terrorism." It was written in 2002 by a Law Professor at the Univeristy of Houston.
It specifically was written to prove that Al Qaeda does not qualify as an insurgency, and is an ILLEGAL ORGANIZATION under international law, because it's *not* an insurgency.
Here's the link (it's a PDF document):
There Is No Need to Revise the Laws of War
in Light of September 11th
I thought you'd be interested in this document, because he's pretty much making your case... only, he's making it in regards to AL Qaeda. I think you'd have to agree that the insurgency in Iraq meets all of the requirements for an insurgency that are listed above!
I'll try to find the actual traty text for my next comment.
cont...
ReplyDeleteIrregular Military
I'm picking out the ones that I think apply in Iraq:
* Militia -- civilians who are part-time soldiers
* Rebel -- someone part of a rebellion or revolt, whether military or not
* Revolutionary -- someone part of a revolution, whether military or not
* Guerrilla -- someone who uses low-level irregular military tactics
* Resistance fighter -- someone who is part of a resistance movement
* Freedom fighter -- irregular military motivated by higher goals -- very subjective
* Terrorist -- irregular military who target civilians; this term is almost always used pejoratively.
* Insurgent -- an alternate term for many of the above.
That was just for background, because under international law, the term "irregular" is usually generally used.
Laws of War :
Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV)
That's a link to the treaty text of the portion of the Hague conventions that I was trained in, that specifically relate to the conduct war on land. You can find links to the rest of the Laws of War from there if you like, I'm going to try to find what I need there :)
I'll put my quotes from this link in the next comment.
cont (my comments in brackets):
ReplyDeleteArt. 42.
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
[I think it could be argued that Iraq was not entirely occupied, and still isn't]
Art. 45.
It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile Power.
[that means they are entitled to resist]
[hmmm... I'm finding all kinds of interesting but irrelevant stuff in here]
Art. 55.
The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.
[OK I'm getting tired! One more link to a Yale Law Professor, who specifically is lecturing on International Law as it applies to an insurgency! I can't read any more treaty text right now, maybe he can convince you :) ]
International Law :
Lecture X
Phew! I'm done for the day, nite cmar :)
programmer craig,
ReplyDeleteThanks for this. I'll go through this today and get back to you on it. The only thing I see here that I disagree with on it's face is this:
Art. 45.
It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile Power.
[that means they are entitled to resist]
I don't see how this suggests insurgents in Iraq are "entitled" to "resist". Prior to the elections, sure, the insurgents were "lawful" according to this rule (although, not legitimate in moral sense as they were seeking the return of the illegitimate - as I see it - Saddam regime).
But with a freely elected government in place, the insurgents have no more right to attack Coalition forces than Germans have a right to attack NATO forces or Japanese have a right to attack US forces. Not based on this rule anyway.
Cmar ii there was a clear request for the need of a timetable for pulling out occupation troops.
ReplyDeleteAs for you memory; live on tv an Iraqi official talked about a timetable for occupation troops to leave Iraq when he was standing with Bush however Bush then said NO timetable. 85% of Iraqis have said it peacefully they want a timetable for the occupation troops to leave. I can see from how you usually answer back to me that you have a need to fight me teeth and nail to make the above seem as not true. Well it is, I am one of those 85% of Iraqis who want a timetable for occupation troops to leave Iraq.
Programmer Craig, you have written a lot and all very interesting indeed.
ReplyDelete“The insurgents are the only people in Iraq with a legitimate right to resist either an llegitimate (in their opinion) government, or a foreign occupation… this is under international law… People have an inherent right to rebel against what they consider to be tyranny, whether you or I agree with that or not.”
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!
And thank you for pointing out the differences between Irregular Military it made my previous comment clearer for those who still don’t understand that many times the word “insurgent” is lumping together extremely different groups. If a person knows these definitions and people are clear in their speech/writing then there should be no misunderstanding. But if one of these is lacking or someone intentionally wants to shift the meaning the debate leads misunderstandings or a dead end.
Now to the thing you wrote about foreign fighters “have no legal right to be in Iraq”.
From all what I have read there are strong support by experts that the whole U.S war against Iraq is illegal. Meaning they too have no legal right to be in Iraq. Another attention-grabbing angel is the U.S with its illegal war brought with it foreign military fighters from other countries, these foreign troops have no legal right to be in Iraq either. So by definition all people who are fighting in Iraq and are NOT Iraqis are engaged in criminal war fighting, they have no legal right to be in Iraq, and every Iraqi death they cause is a war crime and/or a crime against humanity.
Nadia,
ReplyDelete"Another attention-grabbing angel is the U.S with its illegal war brought with it foreign military fighters from other countries, these foreign troops have no legal right to be in Iraq either."
No, this is not true. The reason foreign "irregular" fighters are illegal, is because their nations are not at war with the US, or with the nation of Iraq. That's an important distinction! If Saudi Arabia was at war with the US, it would be legal for Suadi nationals to be in Iraq fighting. But, that's not the case. So Saudi nationals fighting the US in Iraq are criminals.
I'll try to post more on this later. The law gives Iraqis a right to resist, but that doesn't mean I think the resistance is virtuous, or morally justified. I'm just pointing out that it's legal. Iraqi insurgents are to be considered enemy combatants - not criminals - unless they commit criminal acts. But as enemy combatants, they can be (and should be) killed at the earliest opportunity. No questions asked. Being enemy combatants rather than criminals just changes their status to "prisoner of war" if they are detained, rather than being a criminal suspect.
nadia,
ReplyDeleteFrom all what I have read there are strong support by experts that the whole U.S war against Iraq is illegal. Meaning they too have no legal right to be in Iraq. Another attention-grabbing angel is the U.S with its illegal war brought with it foreign military fighters from other countries, these foreign troops have no legal right to be in Iraq either. So by definition all people who are fighting in Iraq and are NOT Iraqis are engaged in criminal war fighting, they have no legal right to be in Iraq, and every Iraqi death they cause is a war crime and/or a crime against humanity.
You should consider reading this:
SECURITY COUNCIL EXTENDS MANDATE OF IRAQ MULTINATIONAL FORCE UNTIL END OF 2006
Despite the opinions of some "experts", the UN has authorized the presence of the Coalition in Iraq until the end of this year. So, according to that international body at least, the presence of US & Coaltition forces is legal.
Crime of Compassion
ReplyDeleteYou may already have been following this, but in case you have not here is a link about Dr. Rafil Dhafir. Now this is someone I would like all Iraqi media, politicians etc to high lighten to get him free.
Treasure...I have just finished reading Paul Bremmer's book. He desperately wanted to deal with Sadr a long time ago but was kept from doing so (partly by the Brits)!
ReplyDeletethinker
RhusLancia,
ReplyDeleteNo resolution has legalised the U.S act of aggression/war against Iraq.
Nadia, you're wrong... the UN declared war on Iraq in 1991. Saddam violated the ceasefier that (temporarily) ended that conflict. Resumption of hiostilities is automatically legal when a ceasefire agreement is violated. It would have been LEGAL for the US to resume the war aagainst Iraq at any time after about 1992, when Saddam first broke the treaty.
ReplyDeleteYou really need to filter the left-wing websites you read. You seem to be getting a lot of misinformation.
I didn't support the invasion of Iraq, but it was in no way illegal.
Craig,
ReplyDeleteThis war by many experts is illegal and no U.N resolution has made it legal, these are facts.
Treasure of Baghdad here is something I read today:
ReplyDeleteThe Iraqi RoadMap: An Exit Plan
The bush administration should adopt this roadmap to assure giving Iraq back to Iraqis:
1- Issue a Public Apology and hold responsibility for the destruction of Iraq and the murder or Iraqis…
2- Announce A Schedule For Complete Military Pullout From Iraq: a full withdrawal that leaves no permanent bases behind…
3- Start fixing the mess caused by the war and occupation by both Paying Compensation And Bringing War Criminals To Justice…
Nadia,
ReplyDelete"This war by many experts is illegal"
I've encountered your experst before! Juan Cole, perhaps? :p
"and no U.N resolution has made it legal, these are facts."
The fact is, no *new* UN resolution was required to make it legal, the UN authorized the war in 1991. No peace treaty was ever signed, so that war never actually "ended" - a temporary ceasefire agreement was signed. When Saddam broke the terms of the ceasefire, war could have been legally resumed at ANY TIME. That's the LAW, Nadia.
Also, the UN has only authrized war TWICE in it's over 50 year history.
The Korean War in 1950 and the Gulf War in 1991.
Does that mean every other war is "illegal" Nadia? According to your experts, apparrently so!
But, your experts are wrong. The UN does not get to decide when a sovereign nation can go to war and when it cannot. That's kinda implied in the whole concept of "sovereignity" - the UN exists to promote peace, not to declare war.
Heh... about your peace plan there nadia... I was just starting to think you might be a ratioanl human being after all! So much for that! I guess if you let soembody go on long enough, you find out what they're really all about, eh?
ReplyDeleteLuckily, you speak only for yourself. I used to think Iraqi bloggers and blog commenters represented a braod spectrum of Iraqi public opinion, but the plain fact is, they don't. I'm not going to let your pissy attitude convince me that the US should abandon Iraq. I made that mistake 6 months ago. Bloggers and blog commenters are just that, and nothing more... the "experts" you continuously quote are all the evidence I need to see how incompetent you are to comment on this subject, or any other.
nadia,
ReplyDeleteThat exit plan leaves off a few steps:
4 - prior to leaving, coalition troops use their heavy equipment and shovels to build many big, big holes
5 - release Saddam
6 - Saddam fills holes from step 4 with Iraqis who voted in elections
7 - all better?
RhusLancia, you have just made it public that you have no good intensions for us Iraqis unless we are under U.S occupation.
ReplyDeleteProgrammer Craig and all others who need to know, please read, its long sure; but you need to update yourself about the U.S agression against Iraq is illegal and no U.N resolution has made it legal.
ReplyDeleteSorry Treasure of Baghdad for this long post but Craig left me no other choice : )He and others need to understand that U.S war aginst us Iraqis is illigal.
Many leading legal experts have rejected attempts by Washington and London to justify a war with Iraq without a new resolution explicitly authorising force.
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
Mr Annan last night said that there should have been a second UN resolution specifically authorising war against Iraq.
28 February 2004: (The Independent) Now head of the International Law Programme at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, she has decided reveal why she resigned. “I left my job because I did not agree that the use of force against Iraq was lawful, and in all the circumstances I did not want to continue as a legal adviser," Ms Wilmshurst said.
The lack of evidence of an imminent attack by Iraq explains why Howard has chosen to rely on the first of these exceptions. The argument is that Security Council resolutions 678 and 687, dating from the Gulf War, provide a basis for the use of force in Iraq today. They suggest that since the early 1990s the United States and other countries have been in possession of a blank cheque enabling them to use force in Iraq whenever they believe that Iraq has failed to comply with the directions of the Security Council.
A reading of the resolutions shows that this argument is untenable. Resolution 678 was made after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. It authorised member states, co-operating with the Government of Kuwait (an important limitation), to use force against Iraq. Resolution 687 transformed the cessation of hostilities into a permanent ceasefire. Of all the provisions in that ceasefire resolution, only one paragraph authorises the ongoing use of force. It does so only in the context of guaranteeing the Kuwait border, and then only by the Security Council and not by individual states.
Devika Hovell, director of the International Law Project, and Professor George Williams are based at the Gilbert and Tobin Centre of Public Law at the University of NSW.
"There is no legal justification for U.S. military action against Iraq.
“When Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1978 to overthrow the Khmer Rouge—a radical communist movement even more brutal than the regime of Saddam Hussein—the United States condemned the action before the United Nations as an act of aggression and a violation of international law. The United States successfully led an international effort to impose sanctions against Vietnam and insisted that the UN recognize the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia for more than a decade after their leaders were forced out of the capital into remote jungle areas. Similarly, the United States challenged three of its closest allies—Great Britain, France, and Israel—before the United Nations in 1956 when they invaded Egypt in an attempt to overthrow the radical anti-Western regime of Gamal Abdul-Nasser. The Eisenhower administration insisted that international law and the UN Charter must be upheld by all nations regardless of their relations with the United States.”
Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
Summary of Article 51. Article 51 allows for a nation to use military force to defend itself only in cases of an ongoing or impending attack. It only provides this military solution as a temporary one –until the UN Security Council can find the appropriate peaceful response. The intention of this article was not to set criteria for the justification of war. Quite the contrary; its intent was to prevent conflicts from escalating into war.
Violation. The US and its conscripted coalition invaded Iraq - calling it a preemptive defense strike, a concept with no legal meaning - despite being unable to prove its allegations that it posed an imminent threat to the US
Although the US claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq was developing these weapons, and that Iraq intended to use these weapons against the US, the US failed to provide any evidence to substantiate these claims. UN weapons inspectors who examined suspected banned weapons facilities in Iraq found no support for the US assertions.
The US also alleged that Iraq had ties to terrorist groups and would likely provide these organizations with weapons of mass destruction. No evidence was presented to the UN to support the accusation.
Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution.
Summary of Article VI. The article states that international treaties such as the U.N. Charter, which was ratified by the US in 1945, are the “supreme law of the land.” The article reads:“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” [US Constitution]
Violation. The United States Congress violated Article VI of the Constitution when it passed Joint Congressional Joint Resolution 46 [S.J. Res 46] 'authorizing' the President to order "the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." The President then violated this article when he ordered the commencement of the official invasion of Iraq.
The War Powers Resolution passed by Congress in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks.
Summary. The resolution authorized the President to use military force only against those countries and groups responsible for the September 11 attacks. The resolution stated: “The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” [Joint Congressional Resolution 23, 9/18/01]
Evidence that President Bush did not have legal authority to send US troops to invade Iraq under the provisions of the War Powers Resolution. The Bush administration failed to make any connection between Saddam Hussein's regime and the September 11 attacks.
Public admissions by Bush administration officials that there was no evidence that Iraq played a part in the September 11 attacks.
President George W. Bush. He admitted there was no such evidence. During a January 31, 2003 joint press conference with British Prime Minister Blair at the White House, the two leaders were asked by a reporter, “One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?” Bush answered succinctly, “I can't make that claim.” [US President, 1/31/2003]
White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. On September 26, 2002, Ari Fleischer confirmed that there was no evidence that Iraq had been involved in the 9/11 attacks. [White House, 9/26/03]
Statements made by influential people, experts, officials.
Brent Scowcroft, one of the Republican Party’s most respected foreign policy advisors. He downplayed Iraq's alleged link to terrorism. In an op-ed piece published by the Wall Street Journal he stated, “[T]here is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them. He is unlikely to risk his investment in weapons of mass destruction, much less his country, by handing such weapons to terrorists who would use them for their own purposes and leave Baghdad as the return address.” [Wall Street Journal 8/15/02]
Unnamed administration official. On January 28, 2003, immediately after President George Bush delivered his 2003 State of the Union Address, Knight Ridder Newspapers published a report quoting an unnamed US official who said that “there was no evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda had cooperated on terrorist operations and no evidence of any Iraqi role in the Sept. 11 attacks.” [Knight Ridder, 1/28/03]
Unnamed US Government official. Referring to the alleged link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, one US Government official told the New York Times, “We’ve been looking at this hard for more than a year, and you know what, we just don’t think it’s there.’’ [New York Times 2/3/03]
And once again let us go back to:
Many leading legal experts have rejected attempts by Washington and London to justify a war with Iraq without a new resolution explicitly authorising force.
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
Nadia,
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to go through all those left-wing links, I'm only going to comment on a couple things, OK?
"but you need to update yourself about the U.S agression against Iraq is illegal and no U.N resolution has made it legal."
A UN resolution is not required to make a war legal, Nadia. This is major fault in the argument you are trying to make.
That's a popular miscvonception that people like Kofi Annan attempt to foster. This concept (of the UN approving or dissaproving of war) does not exist under international law.
I have already posted links to the Laws of War, here or someplace else. That's what you need to be looking at, not the UN Charter.
"Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution."
"Summary of Article VI. The article states that international treaties such as the U.N. Charter"
Now wait just one damned minute! Why are you concocting a SUMMARY that claims the US constitution recognizes the sovereignity of the UNITED NATIONS?
Nadia... you have to do better!
The US constition pre-dates the Un by about 150 years, for one thing, and it certainly does not defer to international bodies over the United States government! That's an APPALLING mis-statement of fact!
When you can make a logical argument (of your own, please, you need to stop copy-pasting from left wing websites) I'll be happy to discuss this with you, but most of what you are putting up now is flatly dishonest. I'm not going to spend countless hours trying to disprove every lie that appears on a blog.
Nadia, here is the full text of Article VI of the US Constitution:
ReplyDeleteU.S. Constitution: Article VI
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Article VI has nothing about the relationship between the US Federal government and the individual States that make up the United States. It has nothing to do with international law or foreign policy. At all.
ReplyDeleteNATIONAL SUPREMACY
This is a summary of existing case law in the United States in regards to Article VI. If you read it carefully, you will see that Article VI has never been used for anything but resolving intrenal domestic disputes between the US Federal Government and the various US State and Local governments.
Which renders most of what you wrote in your comment, meaningless, since you based it all upon an improper reading of the US Constitution.
If you want to get back to International Law and the UN Charter, I'll be happy to. The UN charter is actually pretty small. It defers to the Hague and the Geneva conventions as externally signed and ratified treaties. The Hague Conventions are generally referred to as the "Laws of War" and that is where you will find the internationally recognized legal authority to wage war. Not in the UN charter itself.
Nadia,
ReplyDeleteRhusLancia, you have just made it public that you have no good intensions for us Iraqis unless we are under U.S occupation.
No, I hope the best for you. I don't think a quick US withdrawal and a bloody civil war in Iraq is the best thing for you. Let your new gov't and security forces get up to speed and we'll be outta there post haste.
I was just making the logical extension of your "exit plan". After all, if it was a mistake for us to topple Saddam, then your plan should include putting him back in power and back in business, right?
As for your "illegal" debate, the UNSC has specifically authorized the presence of coalition troops in your country, making it "legal" according to that particular world body. Any contrary opinion about the legality of the invasion has not been backed up with a contrary resolution stating it is illegal.
If Saddam goes forward with his stated intention to sue the US & Britain at the Hague I'd expect many of your experts to be there beside him, but that has not happened yet.
"I'm not going to go through all those left-wing links,?"
ReplyDeleteI thought you were an open-minded grown up man. You just said you will no go thru them so how do you come up with the conclusion that they are left wing and what ever that means???? Could it be that anything that does not fit your views you don’t go thru? I think you should take it up with the BBC, Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald and New Zeeland Herald that you don’t go thru their news or listen to what they have to say and come back here and let us know what they answer you back.
Do you think by answering back that way to me you will somehow make what these people said less credible? Sorry Craig that’s not how it works. You really need to read what I submitted if you are honest about Iraq. Right now for me it seems you are only interested in protecting the United States actions in Iraq nothing more and nothing less.
From the legal experts there are strong support the whole U.S war against Iraq is illegal. Meaning them together with all other foreign fighters that have flooded into my country have no legal right to be in Iraq. So by definition all people who are fighting in Iraq and are NOT Iraqis are engaged in criminal war fighting, they have no legal right to be in Iraq, and every Iraqi death they cause is a war crime and/or a crime against humanity.
---------------------------------------------------------
Ms Wilmshurst was on the team of advisers to Blair and now head of the International Law programme at the Royal Institute of International Affairs and she said:
“I left my job because I did not agree that the use of force against Iraq was lawful, and in all the circumstances I did not want to continue as a legal adviser,"
This is what Devika Hovell, director of the International Law Project, and Professor George Williams who both are based at the Gilbert and Tobin Centre of Public Law at the University of NSW/Australia had to say:
The lack of evidence of an imminent attack by Iraq explains why Howard has chosen to rely on the first of these exceptions. The argument is that Security Council resolutions 678 and 687, dating from the Gulf War, provide a basis for the use of force in Iraq today. They suggest that since the early 1990s the United States and other countries have been in possession of a blank cheque enabling them to use force in Iraq whenever they believe that Iraq has failed to comply with the directions of the Security Council.
A reading of the resolutions shows that this argument is untenable. Resolution 678 was made after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. It authorised member states, co-operating with the Government of Kuwait (an important limitation), to use force against Iraq.
Resolution 687 transformed the cessation of hostilities into a permanent ceasefire. Of all the provisions in that ceasefire resolution, only one paragraph authorises the ongoing use of force. It does so only in the context of guaranteeing the Kuwait border, and then only by the Security Council and not by individual states."
Nadia,
ReplyDelete"I thought you were an open-minded grown up man."
That's pretty subjective?
"You just said you will no go thru them so how do you come up with the conclusion"
Maybe it's a language problem. I meant I was going to go through them all and reply one by one.
"that they are left wing and what ever that means????"
You don't know what "left-wing" means? I bet you know what "right-wing" means, though, don't you, Nadia?
As for the rest of your comments, Nadia, you have reformulated the exact same argumenst again. The US does not need UN approval to go to war. Saddam signed a ceasefire with the UNITED STATES, and the UNITED STATES gets to determine when it's been violated.
Furthermore, Saddam fired missiles at American planes hundreds of times AFTER the ceasifire. Each and every one of those incidents was an act of war, and a justification to wage war on Saddam.
You'll never win this argument, Nadia, and as far as I'm concerned it an excercise in futilty. The war was legal. It was legal under US law, despite what YOU say, and it was legal under international law, which has nothing to do with the UN charter, despite what YOU say.
I am open minded enough to discuss with you whether the war was justified, or whether it was morally defensible, or even whether it was intelligent. We might even find some common ground on those points. But, I'm not willing to seriously consider arguments that it was illegal.
Hmmm... I said:
ReplyDelete"Maybe it's a language problem. I meant I was going to go through them all and reply one by one."
I meant to say "was not" there.
Sorry, Nadia... I make a lot of typos and other errors. That could be some of the language problems I just mentioned! I need to type slower and proof read... sometimes, I don't even understand what I was trying to say myself.
Baghdad Treasure:
ReplyDeleteI'm truly sorry you have this Republic of Turbans. Sometimes I think we should have banned any organization with ties to Teheran, or even overthrown the mullah regime at the same time, since they have done so much to undermine everything we've tried to do. Perhaps the Islamists of whatever stripe are an ugly phase that will pass.
The AP has this story about the shadow civil war: Iraqis Leaving Religiously Mixed Areas By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press Writer
I didn't try to make a link because it never works, but if you google it you can read it.
in your spare time, take a look at the following pics of mohamed...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/