I have a dream...

[ebonlock]

Maybe, just maybe if enough of these kinds of stories come out, somebody in our media might start taking them seriously. Maybe.

via Pandagon

MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.

The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.

The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.

This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.

“US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia,” the briefing paper warned. This meant that issues of legality “would arise virtually whatever option ministers choose with regard to UK participation”.

Yeah, I know it's just a dream, but it's an awfully nice one...

And then No More Mister Nice Blog goes and ruins it all with his damn "logic" and "reason":

Mainstream press outlets in the U.S. aren't taking the memo seriously -- and they never will. The reason, I'd say, is that, on some level, they feel they can't -- taking it seriously would mean taking seriously the question of whether the president of the United States should continue to hold office.

The press won't go there.

The press publishes plenty of critical articles about the war and about Bush's domestic policy -- but a story that suggests the president deliberately lied his way into this war, which would mean that perhaps he ought to step down or be removed from office, just won't get traction.

*sigh*

Comments

[technocowboy.livejournal.com]

I don't understand where the legality comes in. There's no world-based government. Do not get me wrong; I think that this whole thing is complete bullshit and needs to be ended -now-. There's no world government. Therefore, while what the US government does may be immoral, it can't be illegal. Or maybe I'm just stupid. In which case, fine.

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

Actually, there may not be a world-based government but (a) there are laws inside this country which is why Iran Contra may very well have been incredibly illegal despite the mountain of pardons (b) there are international accords that the US has signed to moderating its behaviour, like the Geneva Convention, which allow us to prosecute other nations for 'War Crimes'.

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

I don't understand where the legality comes in. There's no world-based government. Do not get me wrong; I think that this whole thing is complete bullshit and needs to be ended -now-. There's no world government. Therefore, while what the US government does may be immoral, it can't be illegal. Or maybe I'm just stupid. In which case, fine.

You're not stupid hon, and you're right there is no world government. However, there is something called the Geneva Convention, a legally binding agreement that our country and many others signed after WWII, and to which we should theoretically be held accountable.

Considering the fact that the US used a UN Resolution as one of the many reasons to go to war in Iraq, well let's just say it seems a bit odd to agree with some tenents of international law but not others. The precedent seems to be, we like international law only if it doesn't get in the way of what we want to do.

I think Juan Cole (http://www.juancole.com/2005/06/bush-and-blair-committed-to-war-in.html) summed it up best:

It makes me deeply ashamed as an American in the tradition of Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln, and King, that in their private communications our international allies openly admit that the United States of America routinely disregards international law. The Geneva Conventions were enacted by the United Nations and adopted into national law in order to assure that Nazi-style violations of basic human rights never again occurred without the threat of punishment after the war. We have an administration that views the Geneva Conventions as "quaint." The US has vigorously opposed the International Criminal Court.

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

Oh I should've known you'd say it much better than I ever could :) Don't you love that we treat Amnesty International the same way we treat international law at present? We like them when they give us reasons to do what we want to, but not when they try to tell us not to do stuff we really shouldn't be doing anyway.

"See? Amnesty International thinks Saddam is bad! We should do something about it!"

"Wait, AI thinks we're doing something wrong? Well to hell with those guys!"

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

PS- I highly recommend Digby's latest post on Hullabaloo (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_digbysblog_archive.html#111863836287781943) regarding this issue and the additional implications focusing on American law rather than International Law. His question at the end, "Why did we invade Iraq?" is the one we should all be asking ourselves right now.

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

Unfortunatly, our national government has generally tended to view these treaties as 'binding by convenience only'. It's not just this administration. And honestly, who's going to have the military might to enforce prosecution if we decide that We Don't Care Because We're Bigger Than You?
I did smile when I heard that Don Rumsfeld had decided not to visit Germany after all, but I'm sure it had nothing to do with concerns over being arrested.