In a post dated May 6, 2003 on www.InformationClearingHouse.info, Bette Stockbauer wrote:
"When the Bush administration started lobbying for war with Iraq, they used as rationale a definition of preemption (generally meaning anticipatory use of force in the face of an imminent attack) that was broadened to allow for the waging of a preventive war in which force may be used even without evidence of an imminent attack. They also were able to convince much of the American public that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the attacks of 9/11, despite the fact that no evidence of a link has been uncovered. Consequently, many people supported the war on the basis of 1) a policy that has no legal basis in international law [emphasis supplied] and 2) a totally unfounded claim of Iraqi guilt."
If the US occupation is illegal, why haven't any Iraqis, to the best of my knowledge, filed charges against the US in the International Court of Justice at the Hague? Maybe some have. I should try to research this.
No comments:
Post a Comment