Regime change is illegal.

[Dangerman]

According to Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector, regime change is illegal under international law.

Say what you will about Saddam, but he is technically a legitimate leader of a sovereign country. That makes "current" president Talabani an illegitimate leader.

It's tempting to oust Fidel Castro from power, for example, but removing from power is also illegal.

Bush thinks he's above the law, but he's dead wrong.

[mike_c]

1. aggressive war is illegal-- regime change can be legal...

...under some circumstances. Wars of aggression are the supreme international crime, however.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles

[AwakeAtLast]

2. Can I get a link?

I haven't seen anything about this, so I would appreciate a link. Thanks!

:hi:

[Dangerman]

3. Link here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x6963

Go to the last parts (10 min.) of the video. You'll find out.

[AwakeAtLast]

4. Good info, thanks!

Bookmarked, too.

[TahitiNut]

5. Under the principles of "Just War" (jus ad bellum), overthrow is not a legitimate

... reason to go to war against another nation. This principle is embodied in the U.N. Charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory. We (in the U.S.) seem especially blind to the ethical underpinnings of this principle, engaging as we do in making equivalence reationships between "opposed to U.S. interests" and "evil empire." Thus, nations that don't feel like bending over and spreading their cheeks to every corporate entitlement are deemed "enemies" and a "threat." Today, we're immmersed in a sea of people who equate 'disagreement' to 'threat.' Even on DU, disagreement with WHAT someone says is equated as an attack on them personally - they feel threatened - attacked - since we humans wrap our egos around our opinions far too often. Just look at how religionists have secularized conflicting tenets of faith - giving rise to Defenders of the Faith (Kings) in our poltical sphere.

The principle at play is a nation's self-determination - their innate right to determine, through action or inaction, who governs. This is NOT a casus belli, even if it gives rise to internal insurrection and civil war.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

6. Well, then we'd better throw Clinton in jail, too. n/t

[TahitiNut]

7. No, because 'ethnic cleansing' IS a legitimate casus belli.

Under the very same principles of "Just War," massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations such as occurred in Bosnia/Herzegovina are legitimate casus belli.

Now, if you're speaking of the Clinton era Public Law 105-338 (the "Iraq Liberation Act" passed by Congress)

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

it should be carefully noted that nowhere does it propose initiating war ... an invasion of Iraq. One can easily condone supporting "efforts" where those "efforts" are legitimate, such as an internal opposition.

It should also be clearly understood that engaging in a 'just war' requires comparative justice, legitimate authority, right intention, probability of success, proportionality, and be done as a last resort. Bush/Cheney fail on FIVE of the six conditions!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war

[mike_c]

9. I think Clinton is culpable for the deaths of a million Iraqis...

...under the sanctions, because his administration deliberately blocked all paths that would lead to lifting of sanctions, and he actively tightened the screws even when it was apparent how much damage was being done. The U.N. coordinator (Halliday) described the embargo as "genocidal" by 1998. Clinton did that for purely political reasons, and hundreds of thousands died miserably of disease, malnutrition, and starvation. And of course he maintained the military harassment of Iraq through out his administration, killing more thousands with bombs, preventing the recovery of civilian infrastructure, and so on.

I think the legal issues are trickier in Clinton's case, and he might not be prosecutable, but I certainly think he's just as culpable for crimes against humanity as Bush is. The Iraq episode is one of the bleakest in American foreign policy during the last fifty years, IMO.

[TahitiNut]

10. I tend to agree that the UN/Bush41 sanctions regime imposed on Iraq was unjust.

It seems clear to me that Bush41 'wrong-footed' Saddam through April Glaspie on Kuwait - where Kuwait was clearly not only a long-disputed part of Iraq (akin to Taiwan being part of China) but was also slant-drilling into Iraq and violating the borders even as established. In the hierarchy of righ/wrong, I think Saddam was far more in the 'right' to invade Kuwait than Bush43 was to invade Iraq ... to the point of being a no-brainer, imho.

We have the particular discomfort not of identifying someone most righteous and good ... but pawing through a pile of historical dung to separate the most wrong from that not quite as wrong.

[Odin2005]

16. If we used the Nuremburg trials a precident all presidents since Truman should have been hanged

[and-justice-for-all]

8. Overthowing leaders one does not like...

...Is an act of TERRORISM and should be subjested to War Crimes legalities.

That should also include monetary support of an opposition leader, any country that intervenes in ANYWAY with another countries electoral process should also be considered an act of Terrorism. Throwing tax payer dollars at Cuba just to help finance a cadidate to get Castro off the throne should be Illegal.

BushCo is going to get their asses handed to them (again) starting in Janruary. Run Shrub Run, but you can not hide you piece of shit!

[TahitiNut]

11. My crystal ball is one helluva lot foggier than yours, apparently.

I have absolutely no feelings of sanguinity regarding improvements in the near-term. While many are still partying and not even in the hangover phase, I merely observe that the Reich is proceeding to destroy what remains of our democracy, human beings are dying daily in Iraq and Afghanistan, habeas corpus is still eviscerated, detainees continue to be tortured in our name, and the robber barons continue to engorge themselves from the public trough.

[and-justice-for-all]

12. I guess I hope for the better...

..and for our elected majority to take appropriate action against the current occupiers of the Hill.

With current statements made by McCaskill and Webb, I would think that its safe to say we will be seeing some major changes taking place in the next few months. Impeachment, I dont think its off the table at all.

I remain optimistic..

[pat_k]

13. Impeach to rescue our Constitution, and then off the Hague to answer for their war crimes. (nt)

[AtomicKitten]

14. so is shock and awe

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jan2003/war-j30.shtml

[MannyGoldstein]

15. FDR, Truman, Eisenhower - To The Gallows?

I'm not suggesting that Bush's Excellent Iraq Adventure was the correct thing to do - but, sometimes, ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

Nu?

[Odin2005]

17. That is the point I was trying to make in my post above.

International affairs is a messy business, If some atrocity is happening in a country someone should go in and stop it, "proper protocol" be damned.