Tiassa
05-22-03, 04:26 AM
(1) Legal doubts over UK's Iraq role (BBC) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3048457.stm)
(2) US and UK action in post-war Iraq may be illegal (http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=576102003)
The Scotsman article suggests that "almost everything" the US and UK have sought to do in Iraq since the end of fighting "may have been invalid".
The BBC article notes: According to the magazine, Lord Goldsmith's memo of 26 March told the prime minister that the Geneva Convention and The Hague Regulations placed "limitations... on the authority of an Occupying Power".
Those limits included:
- "Wide ranging reforms of governmental and administrative structures"
- "any alterations in the status of public officials or judges"
- "any alterations in the status of public officials or judges", except in exceptional circumstances
- Changes to penal laws
- "The imposition of major structural economic reforms".And yet this whole thing seems to me to be an essential non-story, as all reports suggest the legality of the operation hinges on UN authority, and yet I see this story coming in a Google search after Australia's NewsCom (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6474136%255E1702,00.html) reports that "The US and Britain look set to win unanimous UN Security Council endorsement of their powers over Iraq's economy and political future."
I mean, sure it's an interesting memorandum, apparently, but it's officially old news at the time it breaks. I have to ask: is it a slow news day in London?
At any rate, I'll reserve further comment until I can find an actual story to comment on.
Okay, here's a minor question: Even with UN approval, how does the occupying force achieve the right to do these things prohibited by the Conventions?
Actually, it's just that I don't feel like fishing through the Conventions to figure out what happens next, because it seems really stupid to invade a country, liberate it from its leaders, and leave the structure in place for another tyranny. Of course, that's only mildly less absurd than invading a country and setting in place a structure for new tyranny, which is of course what many worry about. However, that is an argument for another occasion.
While I understand the notion that occupying forces shouldn't be rewriting the constitution of this or that victim nation, I'm still puzzled at how will the UN avoid that little loophole? ("Ignore the baby-blue helmets, we're not really here.")
This whole story stinks of red herring. What the hell is going on here?
Advice to the Left: Let this story go. It's already scooped.
But are we supposed to simply invade, invite the Iraqis to a constitutional convention, and then just clear out and hope for the best? Fine with me. I mean, doesn't that seem like something someone on the Bush Team should have considered before the invasion?
I know there's a pony in here, somewhere ....
:m:,
Tiassa :cool:
(2) US and UK action in post-war Iraq may be illegal (http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=576102003)
The Scotsman article suggests that "almost everything" the US and UK have sought to do in Iraq since the end of fighting "may have been invalid".
The BBC article notes: According to the magazine, Lord Goldsmith's memo of 26 March told the prime minister that the Geneva Convention and The Hague Regulations placed "limitations... on the authority of an Occupying Power".
Those limits included:
- "Wide ranging reforms of governmental and administrative structures"
- "any alterations in the status of public officials or judges"
- "any alterations in the status of public officials or judges", except in exceptional circumstances
- Changes to penal laws
- "The imposition of major structural economic reforms".And yet this whole thing seems to me to be an essential non-story, as all reports suggest the legality of the operation hinges on UN authority, and yet I see this story coming in a Google search after Australia's NewsCom (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6474136%255E1702,00.html) reports that "The US and Britain look set to win unanimous UN Security Council endorsement of their powers over Iraq's economy and political future."
I mean, sure it's an interesting memorandum, apparently, but it's officially old news at the time it breaks. I have to ask: is it a slow news day in London?
At any rate, I'll reserve further comment until I can find an actual story to comment on.
Okay, here's a minor question: Even with UN approval, how does the occupying force achieve the right to do these things prohibited by the Conventions?
Actually, it's just that I don't feel like fishing through the Conventions to figure out what happens next, because it seems really stupid to invade a country, liberate it from its leaders, and leave the structure in place for another tyranny. Of course, that's only mildly less absurd than invading a country and setting in place a structure for new tyranny, which is of course what many worry about. However, that is an argument for another occasion.
While I understand the notion that occupying forces shouldn't be rewriting the constitution of this or that victim nation, I'm still puzzled at how will the UN avoid that little loophole? ("Ignore the baby-blue helmets, we're not really here.")
This whole story stinks of red herring. What the hell is going on here?
Advice to the Left: Let this story go. It's already scooped.
But are we supposed to simply invade, invite the Iraqis to a constitutional convention, and then just clear out and hope for the best? Fine with me. I mean, doesn't that seem like something someone on the Bush Team should have considered before the invasion?
I know there's a pony in here, somewhere ....
:m:,
Tiassa :cool: