現在地 HOME > 掲示板
> 戦争４２ > 1155.html
★阿修羅♪
|
現在地 HOME > 掲示板
> 戦争４２ > 1155.html
★阿修羅♪
|
|
「ブッシュ悪党仲間」パール発言に関して米環境問題組織の論評きたる
中間にガーデイアン記事への リンクURLあり。
ジュウヨークタイムズのユダヤ人論者フリードマンは、パールを含む25名がイラク侵略に責任ありと語っていた。このフリードマン発言に関しては、我が電網宝庫の亜空間通信に既報あり。
on 03.11.21 0:55 AM, Ichee@aol.com at Ichee@aol.com wrote:
Bush Cabalist admits Iraq invasion was illegal
Thos. Freedman of the NY Times says that 25 people in Washington were responsible for the aggression against Iraq. This is the oligarchy (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), that advises the oilmen Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell)./www.ichee.org 20N03
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
War critics astonished as US hawk
Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday November 20, 2003
The Guardian
International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment
yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that
the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street
lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case
international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."
President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either
because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the
British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence
permitted by international law.
But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the
US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ...
would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have
been morally unacceptable.
French intransigence, he added, meant there had been "no practical
mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam
Hussein".
Mr Perle, who was speaking at an event organised by the Institute of
Contemporary Arts at the Old Vic theatre in London, had argued loudly for
the toppling of the Iraqi dictator since the end of the 1991 Gulf war.
"They're just not interested in international law, are they?" said Linda
Hugl, a spokeswoman for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which
launched a high court challenge to the war's legality last year. "It's only
when the law suits them that they want to use it."
Mr Perle's remarks bear little resemblance to official justifications for
war, according to Rabinder Singh QC, who represented CND and also
participated in Tuesday night's event. Certainly the British government, he
said, "has never advanced the suggestion that it is entitled to act, or
right to act, contrary to international law in relation to Iraq".
The Pentagon adviser's views, he added, underlined "a divergence of view
between the British government and some senior voices in American public
life [who] have expressed the view that, well, if it's the case that
international law doesn't permit unilateral pre-emptive action without the
authority of the UN, then the defect is in international law".
Mr Perle's view is not the official one put forward by the White House. Its
main argument has been that the invasion was justified under the UN
charter, which guarantees the right of each state to self-defence,
including pre-emptive self-defence. On the night bombing began, in March,
Mr Bush reiterated America's "sovereign authority to use force" to defeat
the threat from Baghdad.
The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has questioned that justification,
arguing that the security council would have to rule on whether the US and
its allies were under imminent threat. Coalition officials countered that
the security council had already approved the use of force in resolution
1441, passed a year ago, warning of "serious consequences" if Iraq failed
to give a complete accounting of its weapons programmes.
Other council members disagreed, but American and British lawyers argued
that the threat of force had been implicit since the first Gulf war, which
was ended only by a ceasefire.
"I think Perle's statement has the virtue of honesty," said Michael Dorf, a
law professor at Columbia University who opposed the war, arguing that it
was illegal. "And, interestingly, I suspect a majority of the American
public would have supported the invasion almost exactly to the same degree
that they in fact did, had the administration said that all along."
The controversy-prone Mr Perle resigned his chairmanship of the defence
policy board earlier this year but remained a member of the advisory board.
A Pentagon spokesman pointed out yesterday that Mr Perle was not on the
defence department staff, but was a member of an unpaid advisory board.
Mr Perle refused to elaborate on his remarks.
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。