Reply #62: Mary Wright: "DSM....provide a strong written basis for my concerns...."

[understandinglife]

THE "WRIGHT STUFF" -- Downing Street Hearings
by Apian

Fri Jun 17th, 2005 at 13:28:42 PDT

WRITTEN TESTIMONY BY FORMER US DIPLOMAT AND US ARMY COLONEL MARY A. (ANN) WRIGHT ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DOWNING STREET MEMOS, JUNE 16, 2005, WASHINGTON, DC

<clip>

Two years after I resigned, the Downing Street memos have surfaced and provide a strong written basis for my concerns about the Bush policies on the war in Iraq. The July 23, 2002 Downing Street memo records the steady legal advice from the UK's Attorney General and from the Foreign Office that a desire for regime change was not a legal base of military action. The UK Attorney General said there were three possible legal bases for military action: self-defense, humanitarian intervention or United Nations Security Council authorization. But in March, 2003, the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, succumbed to political pressure and changed his legal opinion to agree with Tony Blair and the Bush administration that war could proceed without meeting any of the three criteria.

Just two days ago, I returned from a short visit in London. While I was there I met with Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the former Deputy Legal Advisor of the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Ms. Wilmshurst also resigned from her senior position in March, 2003, also in opposition to going to war in Iraq without a second Security Council resolution. She too had served over thirty years for her government. As the Deputy Legal Advisor to the Foreign Office, she led the UK delegation to set up the International Criminal Court, had been the legal advisor for the UK mission to the UN and had been a specialist on sanctions.

She said in her letter of resignation: "I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution. I can not in good conscience go along with the advice which asserts the legitimacy of military action without such a resolution, particularly when the unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances which are so detrimental to international order and the rule of law. My views accord with the views that have been given consistently in this office before and after the adoption of UNSC 1441 and with what the Attorney General gave us to understand were his view prior to his letter of 7 March. (The view expressed in that letter has of course changed again into what is now the official line.) Therefore, I need to leave the Office; my views on the legitimacy of a war in Iraq would not make it possible to continue my role as the Deputy Legal Advisor or my work more generally. In context with the International Criminal Court, negotiations on the crime of aggression begin again this year."

The Downing Street memos are very important as they provide evidence that solid, consistent legal judgments on the illegality of the war were overturned for political expediency. Additionally, the Downing Street memos provide information on actions the Bush administration took to provoke the Iraqi regime to respond in ways the administration would use to justify a war. According to the Downing Street memos, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld called the provocations "spikes in activity." These "spikes" were the resumption in bombing of targets in Iraq. In March 2002 no bombs were dropped on the south of Iraq but in April ten tons were dropped and increased to 54.6 tons in September, 2002, alone. But the Iraqis did not respond to the dramatic increase in bombing. No one knows how many innocent Iraqi civilians were killed by the resumption in bombing-a resumption for the sole purpose of inciting retaliation that could be used to justify an otherwise unjustifiable war.(www.hansard.org is the UK website where answers to Parliamentary questions are found, including the information on tons of bombs dropped in 2002.)

<clip>

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/17/162842/918

Obviously, we all know why the US to support the International Criminal Court. It is time WE THE PEOPLE insist on the rule of law and demand that not only our elected officials and military be subject to that rule of law but that those who have clearly violated numerous laws in the illegal war on Iraq and the illegal occupation of Iraq be prosecuted.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icc/usindex.htm


Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - WE THE PEOPLE .... MUST FILE CHARGES, INDICT AND PROSECUTE BUSH AND ALL THE OTHER NEOCONSTER WAR CRIMINALS. IT'S THE LAW, STUPID