Comments on: Neil Clark and the denial of humanity http://www.currion.net/2007/08/12/neil-clark-and-the-denial-of-humanity/ Paul Currion struggles to explain himself. Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:20:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: The Unforgiving Minute · More bloody Iraqi translators. Literally. http://www.currion.net/2007/08/12/neil-clark-and-the-denial-of-humanity/comment-page-1/#comment-57 The Unforgiving Minute · More bloody Iraqi translators. Literally. Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:52:41 +0000 http://www.currion.net/?p=30#comment-57 [...] need to think of a better title for the campaign but, as you know, I feel that there is a certain moral and legal obligation that the British government must [...] [...] need to think of a better title for the campaign but, as you know, I feel that there is a certain moral and legal obligation that the British government must [...]

]]> By: Paul http://www.currion.net/2007/08/12/neil-clark-and-the-denial-of-humanity/comment-page-1/#comment-39 Paul Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:51:25 +0000 http://www.currion.net/?p=30#comment-39 No matter what the status of the invasion (and I am much less clear on it than Conor is), it's by no means a logical course of action to put the interpreters on trial. This precedent would mean that you would have to put on trial every Iraqi currently working for the Coalition forces (cleaners, cooks, truck-drivers and so on) as well as every Iraqi that worked for the Iraqi administration prior to the transfer of sovereignty in June 2004 (including the current administration and most of the civil service). This is a huge number of people, many of whom are completely unrelated to combat operations, and I fail to see how this is either feasible or desirable. No matter what the status of the invasion (and I am much less clear on it than Conor is), it’s by no means a logical course of action to put the interpreters on trial. This precedent would mean that you would have to put on trial every Iraqi currently working for the Coalition forces (cleaners, cooks, truck-drivers and so on) as well as every Iraqi that worked for the Iraqi administration prior to the transfer of sovereignty in June 2004 (including the current administration and most of the civil service). This is a huge number of people, many of whom are completely unrelated to combat operations, and I fail to see how this is either feasible or desirable.

]]> By: Michael Petek http://www.currion.net/2007/08/12/neil-clark-and-the-denial-of-humanity/comment-page-1/#comment-38 Michael Petek Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:52:51 +0000 http://www.currion.net/?p=30#comment-38 If the invasion was aggressive, then the logical course of action is to put the interpreters on trial for aiding and abetting aggression, and Nick Cohen et al. for propagandising in favour of a war of aggression. However, the UN Security Council has recognised the government of Iraq presently in place, and has passed many resolutions inconsistent with a judgement that the Coalition are aggressors in contravention of the UN Charter. The Security Council is fully entitled in law to do this as long as it was reasonable to determine that Iraq was threatening the peace, or breaching it, or was committing aggression. In the event, there were at the time of the invasion sixteen Chapter VII Resolutions in place in regard to Iraq, determining the persistence of the threat to international peace and security which had arisen when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Absent such a determination, and any reason for one on the facts, the Security Council cannot lawfully authorise the use of force, because this would contravene customary international law (jus cogens). In that event the UN had no business accepting the credentials of Iraq's Permanent Representative from anyone other than Saddam Hussein and his successor Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri as the legitimate Head of State. If the invasion was aggressive, then the logical course of action is to put the interpreters on trial for aiding and abetting aggression, and Nick Cohen et al. for propagandising in favour of a war of aggression.

However, the UN Security Council has recognised the government of Iraq presently in place, and has passed many resolutions inconsistent with a judgement that the Coalition are aggressors in contravention of the UN Charter. The Security Council is fully entitled in law to do this as long as it was reasonable to determine that Iraq was threatening the peace, or breaching it, or was committing aggression.

In the event, there were at the time of the invasion sixteen Chapter VII Resolutions in place in regard to Iraq, determining the persistence of the threat to international peace and security which had arisen when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Absent such a determination, and any reason for one on the facts, the Security Council cannot lawfully authorise the use of force, because this would contravene customary international law (jus cogens). In that event the UN had no business accepting the credentials of Iraq’s Permanent Representative from anyone other than Saddam Hussein and his successor Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri as the legitimate Head of State.

]]>