Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Iraq Invasion in 2003 Was Illegitimate: Dutch Probe
THE HAGUE - The 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq lacked legitimacy under international law, an independent commission probing Dutch political support for the still controversial action said Tuesday.
"There was insufficient legitimacy" for the invasion for which the Netherlands gave political but no military backing, commission chairman Willibrord Davids told journalists in The Hague.
The commission's report said the wording of UN resolution 1441 "cannot reasonably be interpreted (as the Dutch government did) as authorising individual member states to use military force to compel Iraq to comply with the Security Council's resolutions."
The resolution, passed in 2002, had offered Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations".
The Dutch commission, which started its work in March last year, was set up by the government following pressure from opposition politicians and the public for a probe of claims that crucial data had been withheld from Dutch decision-makers who opted to support the US-led action.
The Netherlands had sent about 1,100 troops to Iraq in July 2003 to take part in a post-invasion, UN-mandated Iraqi stabilisation force. They left Iraq in 2005.
The probe found that Dutch policy on the issue had been defined by the foreign ministry under then minister Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who later became NATO secretary-general.
"The Prime Minister (Jan Peter Balkenende, still premier today) took little or no lead in debates on the Iraq question; he left the matter of Iraq entirely to the minister of foreign affairs," the report said.
The commission also found that Dutch intelligence services did not have "any significant amount of independently sourced information" that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destructions -- the main justification used by the United States and Britain for the war. None were ever found.
Balkenende has repeatedly stated that Dutch backing for the invasion was based on then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's refusal to respect UN Security Council resolutions.
The commission report said the Dutch government did not disclose to parliament the full content of a 2002 US request for support.
But there was "no evidence", it added, to support rumours that the Netherlands had made a clandestine military contribution to the invasion.
Last month, a former UN weapons inspector said former US president George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair shared a conviction that Hussein was a threat, blinding them to the lack of evidence justifying war and causing them to mislead the public.
An official inquiry has started in Britain, with Blair set to testify in the coming weeks on the intelligence used to make a case for war.
122 Comments so far
Show Allilligitimate? duh?
And water has been found to be wet, film at 11.
Thankyou thankyou. That the war lacked "sufficient legitimacy" has to be the grandest understatement ever. No one at the top level could have not known that. That it took 10 years to figure out the bleeding obvious ... OMG. A big, collective
DUH!
So when are the Nuremberg II trials going to get under way?
Not anytime soon, most likely.
No because--remember--we shouldn't look back. I guess that means we should look ahead to expect further crimes from the government.
Quite right. At least until the usa actually does lose a war, and gets occupied. Then there might be a Nuremberg type of trial, of course holding such a trial after a major nuke exchange won't do the survivors all that much good...
"The 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq lacked legitimacy under international law"
Wow, what a stunning piece of analysis. Sherlock Holmes would be proud.
In a related story, they discovered that if you make water cold enough, it turns to ice.
I can't wait for next week's headline:
"Panel calls 2000 U.S. Election Results 'Questionable'"
The Dutch should get with Scott Ritter to see what was actually happening--then bring charges against the entire Regime: Clinton, Both Bushes, Obama, and their legions of Zionists that prompted them to do this illegal, but even more dastardly, evil plot against free peoples of the middle east.
America will be destroyed unless we peal away the layers of deceit and remove all the rot that has grown in the dark corners of even the Hall of Justice. We need to search and destroy their hold on this nation.Justice needs to be administered to the scoundrels that would dare to violate the rules of law.Good Americans are sick and tired of watching our name being dishonored because of the evil acts of this totally corrupt farce of a government which has brought us so low. We needn't worry about it ending--it's in its final throws--what we need to be very worried about is it taking the good, along with the bad and ugly.
So let us hope for justice--but also work for it by doing your part to restore justice and peace to our greatly messed up Land. Be defiant not compliant.Only if we see justice displayed in DC should we ever consider voting again. When we vote it should not be for men but for issues--men can not be trusted--you always set in place checks and balances--you need three things more:(1) A real 4th estate that represents the people; (2)Fair development of what issues are selected, and All issue's presentations free of bias/ with set period of time for perusal of issues by voters.
(3) An electorate that is cognizant of what's really going on.
"Iraq Invasion in 2003 Was Illegitimate'
No kidding. Now will this ruling actually translate into indictments against Bush et al? I doubt it.
10 year old Dutch probe finds it has the munchies - orders pizza
Ha ha! Nice!
So what is the next step, if there is non then the panel may please "shut up" because talk is cheap. If the international community can not bring the biggest criminal to justice (biggeer than hilter)than jungle law is the prevelant law.
What is the punishment for those who illegally took us to war resulting in thousands of deaths (U.S. and Iraqi)??
Try millions of deaths, millions of homeless, millions of injured, and thousands of suicides...........Not to mention a national debt that increased by over 8 trillion dollars......Watch "Core of Corruption", just google it!
i've just watched it on youtube...............fascinating. i especially liked the ending..............
I think the same punishment Rudolph Hess was given would be apprpriate.
shach sez: "What is the punishment for those who illegally took us to war resulting in thousands of deaths (U.S. and Iraqi)??"
***
Appointments to the boards of multiple corporations, university tenure, five- and six-figure speaking fees (including for a guy who can't speak) and a standing invite to share their views on Faux and other Ministry of Truth propaganda outlets.
Yeah, Geobbels would be proud to be part of that nefarious and extraordinary, evil cabal!
A rabbi, a priest, and a horse go into a bar...
The Hague can make all the proclamations that it wants, and it won't make a bit of difference here. See, the US has NEVER signed on to be a member, so the Hague has NO power here.
It's amazing how we are supposed to be the "modern, ethical" country, leading the way, but we won't sign a freaking treaty to save our asses. No ban on land mines, no Kyoto treaty, no Hague membership, no NOTHING. And the FEW that we have signed, we ignore whenever we want. Like the ban on torture. It took us less than 30 years to completely IGNORE that one.
The Hague can issue whatever proclamations it wants, but unless they come up with some way to hold W and his cronies accountable, it will mean NOTHING, just like our own election promises.
While it's true the Hague can issue the proclamations, I seriously doubt it will have no effect. The fact that Obama and others went along with these wars and will therefore disclaim any culpability in these war crimes will give another black eye to the US. This will continue to have a cumualtive effect in ALL US foreign policy and relations. It will also put the kabash on many future economic relations, because no one will trust us any more (if they ever did). As other regions of the world begin to rely more on China, Japan, the EU, and other nations like Canada, and some of Central and South America, for a fair deal and decent treatment, the US will find itself the odd man out. As this anger continues to grow internationally, it's possible that these other major players could unite to apply economic sanctions against the US if we don't comply with any arrest warrants issued by the ICC against US war criminals. Granted, as things stand, the possibility is as vague as the Hague. But over time and with the continuance of these war crimes, the chances may become less so.
"It will also put the kabash on many future economic relations"
Can you point to any documented case of a country not dealing with us economically because of this war or any other of the last 20 years?
Does Cuba count? (grin) I don't think it does, but hey...
Nope. Cuba doesn't. I mean what country or area has chosen not to buy US products or sell to the US over our international behavior.
We bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade and there wasn't a blip on the screen of trade between China and the US. We support Israel, Saudi Arabia sells us oil. Germans sell us cars. French haven't cut off wine exports. Venezuela sells us oil happily. What states have stopped commerce with us over politics in the last 20 years?
Again, this is some committee of the Dutch government, NOT anything related to the ICC. This commission simply shares the same city in the address and maybe they go to the same bars as the ICC after work. What they decide has no impact on the US in any way legally.
China wins as the Muslims and Christians continue to slug it out.
It is incredible that the crime of the millenium .....
the silent genocide , the invisible war against the (not only) human DNA (in Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq( probably Gaza, too) ....
http://info-wars.org/2010/01/01/uranium-weapons-low-level-radiation-and-deformed-babies/
http://criticaldocs.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/deadlydust/
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-475226309740846580&ei=t8JES9mNNpHR-AaPx7nwAg&q=gulf+war+syndrome+killing+our+own#
go to google video and watch: "B3Y0ND TR3AS0N" (Beyond Treason)
....gets practically NO MEDIA ATTENTION .. (an article popped up in CD recently but was quickly forgotten to make room for more "news")
Uranium weapons poison the air, the dust and consequently water and food forever .... (half-life: 4,5 billion years) AND YET NOBODY TALKS ABOUT IT .. AS IF IT NEVER HAPPENED ...
The US harbours the worst terrorist the world has ever seen (even the Nazis pale in comparison) reponsible for the suffering and death of millions of people ...for grossly deformed and stillborn babies, for a cancer epidemic, which kills mostly children ...
How is is possible that a criminal government has to "sign up" in order to accept the jurisdiction of an international court ...
It's like an aged Mafia don, standing in the dock and saying: Sure, we have killed many people but we never signed the treaty that allows you to prosecute us .. so forget it ...
HOW INSANE IS THIS WORLD?
The denial, whitewashing, and acceptance of this and many other war crimes of the past by the United States is astonishing, war criminal nation indeed. At what point does this empire get seen by history for what it really is?
Much of the world sees the United States for exactly what it is: a drug addled male porn star walking around naked with his 12 inch prosthetic shlong pasted to his crotch with duct tape. Of course, if you ask Daddy Long Legs he'll repeat his infamous reply that if you think the United States is nothing but a self-interested empire, you're way off base.
Oh, the imagery . . .
While the Hague convention has not been signed by the US, that does not mean that there is no jurisdiction. US citzens can be indicted by the ICC, but they would need to be arrested outside of the USA by a signatory nation.
This commission is in the Hague because that is the seat of the Dutch government. It doesn't have anything to do with the ICC.
Also it takes more than a signatory country arresting someone to make the ICC have jurisdiction. Specifically, a case may only be brought against a non-ICC national if the case is referred to the ICC by the UN Security Council or if the crime takes place on the soil of a signatory or by a member of a signatory nation. The US and Iraq are both not signatories so any prosecution will have to be forwarded by the UNSC and that is not going to happen ever due to veto power.
We here must remember that the vast majority of the US population (but not those brave few who went to the streets before the invasion) wholeheartedly endorsed and cheered the invasion with flags flying from their cars and decaled on their pickups and their bumper stickers and their polls and their votes. As I recall, only one member of congress voted against Bush's blank check ( I may be off, but not by much).
Wrong, the American people opposed the invasion before it happened, check the polls. But of course after the invasion they overwhelmingly supported the troops, which is different.
But what the American people support is irrelevant. The criminal US government has utter disdain for its people, any people, it commits crime after crime regardless.
Actually, because the invasion even happened, whether we like to admit it or not, we are ALL complicit in the actions of our government. For instance, I went out on the streets and protested, but as a tax payer, I'm still complicit. Same with all other U.S. citizens. Talk with no action allows the crimes of our government to be committed in our name.
I wonder - how much longer?
You continued to pay taxes in the face of massive crimes being committed by the US Empire? Did you ever stop?
What about you? Is it truly possible to avoid paying any tax at all in the States (or elsewhere - if you live in any other "democracy" around the world that was involved in allowing the US attack on Iraq, you, too, are complicit).
Furthermore, whether or not I *continued* to pay taxes is irrelevant. The question should be: did I ever pay taxes at all? Because, you know, those taxes, all through the years, have ultimately all fed into the machine that supports our current government policy. Same for you.
The point was: Americans, ALL Americans, were and still are complicit in the actions of their government, whether they like it or not. If Americans don't like the actions of their government, we can (and should) *act* to stop those actions. Face it: not enough Americans were opposed to the invasion of Iraq to stop it. As much as people like to deny this, the truth is shown in the military activity that was not sufficiently opposed.
I would like to suggest to you that the citizens of our country tried then and are trying now to stop it. It takes time. Just as stopping the Viet Nam war had to wait till the vast majority opposed it and demanded it be brought to a close.
This time it takes longer for various reasons, but as we are all responsible for our governments actions as you syggest, it is a democracy, a republic and it is slow in its movements for that very reason.
Strange how a military invasion can be so fast, and yet other movement (resistance) is so slow.
Nothing is fast enough, especially for Iraqis. There is a lot of heartbreak and devastation that slow movements cause.
" it is a democracy, a republic "
The fact that you continue to delude yourself is the absolute proof of the contrary. Just vote again between tweedle-di-dum or tweedle-di-dee and expect, yet again, a different result by doing the same thing in 2012.
A democracy is where YOU actually change things!
http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=9363
Ardath Bey
I am extremely pleased that there is someone here that remembers how it really was. When I've said tghat I've been beaten about the head and shouldres :) And you are correct, supporting our kids is an entirely different thing from supporting the invasion or the occupation.
"But what the American people support is irrelevant. The criminal US government has utter disdain for its people, any people, it commits crime after crime regardless."
I cannot disagree with you about the past ort present administration, but I beklieve the American people are not irrelevant, it just takes a while to find out what is really going on. I think they have started and will assert themselves. Forcefully.
Tell us something we didn't know. How long did that probe take? Ten years? What a waste of time ane money with no results.
Shock: That most of the American people and its government have no remorse for the killing of so many innocent Iraqi's in an illegal war! Awe: That there are no war crime trials for these extraordinary,evil murderers! Bush,Cheney,Rice and the rest of the war criminals are running free and making mucho $. What is wrong with this picture?
Isn't Scheffer now doing the US bidding as head of Nato?
The last paragraph of this article states, “Last month, a former UN weapons inspector said former US president George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair shared a conviction that Hussein was a threat, blinding them to the lack of evidence justifying war and causing them to mislead the public.”
Bush and Blair shared a conviction that Saddam was a threat? Baloney, the war was an integral, and perhaps the primary, component in a sweeping new vision of U.S. foreign policy associated with a group of ideologues who call themselves neoconservatives and who had emerged as the dominant influence in the Bush administration. Although the roots of virtually every neoconservative idea can be discerned in the policies of the 1990’s, the war on Iraq is the first time in the post-Cold War era that their vision of using direct military means to extend the dominance of the United States had become the central approach to Full Spectrum Dominance (of air, land, sea, space, outer-space, and all natural resources).Can you say Project for the New American Century? 9/11 was just what the U.S. government (military-industrial-congressional complex) had been waiting for – the gift that keeps on giving -- an attack on U.S. soil that would enable their plan, evident as well in the invasion of Afghanistan – an imperial strategy that emerged out of the wreckage of the World Trade Center. Now Iran is completely surrounded by U.S. military bases/forces (both permanent and semi-permanent)in every country surrounding it, with exception of Russia. Since the U.S. was forced to withdraw its bases in Saudi Arabia, and a couple other countries, since 2003 permanent bases include three in Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Georgia, Kosovo, Djibouti, in addition to Iraq and Afghanistan, and also including a military presence abutting Bab el Mandeb Strait (connecting the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman) two of the major chokepoints for world oil traffic.
The U.S. likes to claim these wars are to instill freedom and democracy, and (the passage of UNSCR i1441 in November of 2002) the claim by Bush Administration that war was necessary to enforce international law as a justification. But the United States itself is a very odd country to claim a mandate to uphold international law. Ever since a 1986 International Court of Justice ruling against the U.S. in favor of Nicaragua, which the U.S. invaded on false pretexts as well – causing the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents portrayed as terrorists, the U.S. has refused to acknowledge the ICJ’s authority (the $17 billion in damages it was ordered to pay were never delivered). Shortly after that judgment the U.S. actually vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on states to respect international law.
The following are the principles of U.S. humanitarian intervention: The humanitarian crisis is not an excuse, not a reason. The U.S. intervenes when it sees something to gain, frequently economic and political control or a military foothold. The U.S. does not particularly care whether its intervention ameliorates the humanitarian crisis or exacerbates it. The intervention is structured primarily to serve the aforementioned interest. The U.S. has little interest in traditional humanitarian and peacekeeping methods, which involve a patient presence on the ground. Such interventions don’t serve the purpose of gaining greater power and control. A massive use of military force, on the other hand, always benefits the U.S. as an empire by showing its willingness to use force, its devastating superiority, and most of all, its impunity. This is just the tip of a very ugly icebert and is part of the U.S. New World Order. Get used to it.
You are absolutely right. But you could add that the US is in breach of its own domestic laws in providing military assistance to Israel, on many counts... Their possession of clandestine WMD especially nuclear, their breach of weapons in breach of GC, plus breach of UNSC resolutions..... for example.
We didn't get used to Mussolini, or Hitler and no one will be getting used to the U.S.'s New World Order. Quite frankly it seems to me more like the final gasps of a failing empire. We can only hope that not too many will suffer as it implodes. I don't see it exploding, and I see absolutely no "devastating superiority" in its use of force. At the moment it is getting hammered by home made Kalashnikovs and 12 dollar road side bombs, while burning up the presses at the fed, to feed a money black hole, ruining its credit and credibility. Obama was the last hope and he's blown it. Say good night!
The Dutch commission, which started its work in March last year, was set up by the government following pressure from opposition politicians and the public for a probe of claims that crucial data had been withheld from Dutch decision-makers who opted to support the US-led action.
And this will officially be happening any day now in the United States. Right? Right?
Right!
here's the thing that we progressives need always argue when debating the iraqi war with our conservative friends: that bush stopped the inspections and started the bombing. in other words, iraq, a member of the united nations, had given up its sovreignty and allowed the inspectors to do their job, but bush bombed them anyway. remember, our leaders' causus belli was that iraq had weapons of mass destruction; at the same time, the united nations' inspectors were in iraq, on the ground, to determine if iraq had them. contrast that to the beginning of world war one, when the serbians would not let the austrians inside their country to hunt down the conspirators who murdered the austrian archduke. the serbs proudly retained their sovreignty, but europe burned because of their refusal. iraq permitted entry, but burned anyway. i believed that bush stopped the inspectors because he knew there was nothing there for them to find. my theory, if proven, would support an indictment against bush for aggressive war making, the same crime for which many germans hanged. a progessive group of us should meet to elect american representatives to go to the hague and urge it to issue indictments against bush, cheney, blair, and rumsfield for their agressive war and crimes against humanity. as 2010 begins, there is clear and convincing eveidence to buttress such an indictment, for recent revelations from britain and ronald suskind strongly indicate that all the principals whom i just mentioned knew there were no weapons of mass destruction and fabricted proof of them just to start a war. it was like when hitler threw some polish military uniforms over some jewish corpses, laid them on the german side of the polish border, photographed them, and then exclaimed to the world that he had to bomb warsaw and invade poland because the poor poles had begun an invasion of germany. such are the machinations of dictators, and the ropes at nuremberg, the ones left over because goering and himmler took cyanide tablets to cheat their hangman, could soon find their way to the hague. these guys killed hundreds of thousands in our name, and our fat selves haven't done a damn thing about it!