What a blow to Uncle Sam!
So now the US is international criminal, eh? Yep. The US is breaking international law. Slap that around a bit, will ya.
If Uncle Sam intrudes Iraq, it is in violation of international law.
But was it not fact that all 15 members of the UN Security Council voted
in favor of Resolution 1441, which promised “serious consequences” if Iraq
did not cough up its arms for mass wipeout? Sure thing.
Now United States President George W. Bush has concluded that time has run
out for Saddam. He’s had years to meet the UN’s mandate. Time for “serious
That also bumps up against possible reality failure at the next Security
Council vote. Dare the US undergo further slapping around? Bush and Friends
may decide to sit out that dance and go for “serious consequences” on the
basis of moral grounds and a quick flashback to 1991 historic UN conclusions.
Not too difficult to see that li’l number through, considering it's been
a repeat for the past several months.
That means, states Ari Fleischer on Thursday, that the US has the right under international law to take care of Saddam.
Further, technically a conflict with Iraq would be in keeping with the UN
charter on November 9. In fact, that includes any time frame following the
initial period of disarmament after the 1991 ceasefire that closed out the
With all that French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin continues to
up his ignorant hubris by asking: “What have the inspectors told us? That
for a month, Iraq has been actively cooperating with them.”
Ah, does not the foreign minister read his daily papers? On what island has the fellow been holed up?
Then comes along UN chief Annan to state emphatically that the US could end
up as the global criminal in cutting through international law. O me o my
o when it comes to spreading the nuthouse stuff.
Of course, Saddam continues his slug and slash, but the US fails to line up with the principal’s rubric.
Sean Murphy, international law professor at George Washington University,
said on Wednesday that “the UN charter prohibits the transnational use of
force. Either you are acting in self defense or you are acting under authorization
of the UN Security Council.”
Ruth Wedgwood, professor of International Law at Johns Hopkins University
said on Wednesday, “Resolution 1441 muddied the waters. You don’t ask the
question if you are not going to like the answer.”
Of course, Saddam has not played by the law game all along. Then, far from
ending up to be the global criminal, the US might in fact be the defender
of the UN should it press Saddam to come up to standard. Wedgwood states
that the US has the right to wipe out Saddam in keeping with the original
UN Resolution in 1990. That resolution authorized the use of might to get
rid of Iraq’s militia from Kuwait and to enforce all other resolutions.
Michael Glennon, an international law professor at Tufts, says that “the
real question is not whether the charter would be violated, but whether the
charter still represents international law.”
With that, we can come back to the logic table.
Grant Swank, Jr., is the Pastor of New Hope Church in Windham, ME. He
is a a graduate of an accredited college (BA) and seminary (M Div) with graduate
work at Harvard Divinity School. Pastor Swank has been married for
41 years and he has 3 adult children. He is the author of 5 books and
over 2000 articles in various Protestant and Catholic magazines, journals
and newspapers. He writes a weekly religion column for PORTLAND PRESS HERALD
newspaper, Portland ME. His columns have appeared on MensNewsDaily.com,
IntellectualConservative.com, MichNews.com, Chalcedon.com, rePUNK.com, ConservativeTruth.com,
FreeRepublic.com (USO Canteen Chapel link), WoundedShepherds.com (Insights
link), among others.
Email Grant Swank
this article to a friend