by Edward Jayne and Ronald Kramer

According to the UN Charter, the U.S. Constitution, Resolution 1441, and the Nuremberg Charter

The invasion of a single nation by another nation or group of nations is only legal under the UN Charter if such an invasion has been sanctioned by the vote of the UN Security Council. This did not happen in the case of the recent Iraq invasion, since the United States and Great Britain, led by the U.S. Secretary of State Powell, withdrew on March 17, 2003 their resolution to stage such an invasion from consideration by the UN Security Council when they realized that the majority of its members would vote against it. Instead, Powell and others insisted that this approval was unnecessary, since UN Resolutions 687 and 1441 (the latter of 8 November 2002) had already granted this right. However, this is simply not true. As demonstrated by a close examination of the UN Charter and these particular resolutions, there is no possible interpretation that preempts the need for a final decision by the Security Council. Because the U.S. and U.K. withdrew their resolution, there could be no decision permitting an invasion. As a result, the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and those who brought it about can be held responsible for war crimes by an impartial international tribunal, for example the International Criminal Court (ICC)....

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept04/Jayne-Kramer0920.htm

by Kim Petersen

Kim Petersen on betrayal and the double standards in America's occupation of Iraq: After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the US government mobilized against what it thought was a possible fifth column. Over 100,000 Japanese and Japanese-Americans were interned away from the Pacific coast in remote camps. The US government subsequently apologized four decades later and paid reparations. The Canadian government’s internment of its ethnic Japanese population was harsher than the US case. It also took many years for an official Canadian apology and reparations. The allies denounced and dealt harshly with traitors and what they considered to be potential traitors in WWII. Occupation was anathema and the heroic resistance was lauded. Why then is the terminology of former WWII allies reversed in Iraq? Occupation is legitimate and resistance is terrorism? Collaboration is exemplary?

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept04/Petersen0920.htm

by Christopher Preble

Cato Institute

09/20/04

Democratic Senator Zell Miller's impassioned speech at the Republican National Convention was notable on several counts. The ex-Marine seems to have been particularly incensed by the suggestion that U.S. forces in Iraq were occupiers and not liberators. He countered that American troops are never occupiers -- that they are, and can only be, liberators. That is his opinion. But his opinion doesn't matter. The opinions of the Iraqi people are all that matter...

http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-20-04.html


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=3612


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Washington Times

09/19/04

Prime Minister Tony Blair was warned a year before invading Iraq that a stable post-war government would be impossible without keeping large numbers of troops there for 'many years,' secret government papers reveal. The documents, seen by the Daily Telegraph, show more clearly than ever the grave reservations expressed by Foreign Secretary Jack Straw over the consequences of a second Gulf war and how prescient his Foreign Office officials were in predicting the ensuing chaos. Straw predicted in March 2002 that post-war Iraq would cause major problems, telling Mr. Blair in a letter marked 'Secret and personal' that no one had a clear idea of what would happen afterward. 'There seems to be a larger hole in this than anything.' Most of the U.S. assessments argued for regime change as a means of eliminating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, [he] said...

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040919-120227-1101r.htm


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

From a Soldier in Iraq
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lorentz1.html

Iraqi PM - Allawi shot prisoners in cold blood: witnesses::

Iyad Allawi, the new Prime Minister of Iraq, pulled a pistol and executed as many as six suspected insurgents at a Baghdad police station, just days before Washington handed control of the country to his interim government, according to two people who allege they witnessed the killings...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6498.htm


Ex-C.I.A. Aides Say Iraq Leader Helped Agency in 90's Attacks:

Iyad Allawi, now the designated prime minister of Iraq, ran an exile organization intent on deposing Saddam Hussein that sent agents into Baghdad in the early 1990's to plant bombs and sabotage government facilities under the direction of the C.I.A...

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article6297.htm

Secret papers show Blair was warned of Iraq chaos:

Tony Blair was warned a year before invading Iraq that a stable post-war government would be impossible without keeping large numbers of troops there for "many years", secret government papers reveal...

http://207.44.245.159/article6919.htm


From Information Clearing House

Among the world's foremost experts in the field of international law, the overwhelming jurisprudential consensus is that the Anglo-American invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq constitute three phases of one illegal war of aggression...

http://207.44.245.159/article6917.htm


From Information Clearing House