QUOTE:
Yeah? Which them exactly?

Um, the leaders of the countries who perpetrated the invasion of Iraq. Hang on, are we seriously questioning that when a state's actions constitute a war crime, eg the invasion of another country, its leaders are therefore war criminals?

The Horse wrote:

QUOTE:
Well, no. Again you're asking the book to do things it can't reasonably do. Obviously, all it's going to do is set out a hypothetical prosecution case. It couldn't possibly demonstrate that this would, in reality, succeed in court. To do that, you'd have to bring the real prosecution.

All's I said was it needed to be believable. Not philosophically airtight.

QUOTE:
It doesn't have to establish anything other than a legal brief and, indeed, can't do that. It's a book.

The word "establish" has distinct legal connotations that go beyond writing a brief.

QUOTE:
But that's just it - the arguments put forward by those inclined to disagree are laughably weak.

I can't say I'm inclined to agree...not weak in the pragmatic sense anyway.

QUOTE:
Like I said, a page and a half to knock them down, tops. That nobody in the media has done this is down to the same factors explored in that piece about the book.

In my observation getting a nation's media to collectively admit that it is prosecuting an illegal war would require the utter military defeat of that nation by its opponent. Of course the media isn't going to do the kind of deep soul searching required. Espeically not when the victim was Saddam Hussein. In 2004 we ran two pro-war candidates. We'd need to fire most of the Congress, too.

QUOTE:
The word "establish" has distinct legal connotations that go beyond writing a brief.

Which a book can't fulfil, so those connotations don't apply to it. But we're going in circles now.

QUOTE:
I can't say I'm inclined to agree...not weak in the pragmatic sense anyway.

Huh?

QUOTE:
In my observation getting a nation's media to collectively admit that it is prosecuting an illegal war would require the utter military defeat of that nation by its opponent. Of course the media isn't going to do the kind of deep soul searching required. Espeically not when the victim was Saddam Hussein. In 2004 we ran two pro-war candidates. We'd need to fire most of the Congress, too.

Exactly, yes.

The Horse wrote:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:
Yeah? Which them exactly?

Um, the leaders of the countries who perpetrated the invasion of Iraq. Hang on, are we seriously questioning that when a state's actions constitute a war crime, eg the invasion of another country, its leaders are therefore war criminals?

No we are not. I fully agree that Bush and several others in the administration are war criminals in the normative legal sense. For specific actions committed since the war was started that are, as opposed to establishing that the war itself was begun illegally, comparatively easy meats - if that is anyone could muster the political courage to put it in motion. The political cost would be extreme as it would need to involve the opposing party's leadership I would think.

The Horse wrote:

QUOTE:
I can't say I'm inclined to agree...not weak in the pragmatic sense anyway.

Huh?[/quote]

I don't happen to think the people disinclined to agree that the war was illegally waged have a very weak legal case.

Go on . . .

Admittedly I'd rather not. I'm sure there are others who could spell out the case vastly better than I could. My main point is I don't think such a prosecution would succeed because the defense would lawyer their way out of it. I think most politicians you asked would tend to agree.

I don't think anyone's really arguing with that. That doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile book - the hypothetical legal action is, I imagine, a rhetorical hook on which to hang a lot of facts about Bush's illegal dastardliness.

But the case for the war's illegality is alarmingly simple. Invading other countries is clearly illegal under the most basic principles of international law. Yer neo-cons mumble on about UN resolutions: 1441, or earlier ones, or a combination of several. But UN resolutions are enforced by the Security Council, not unilaterally by member states. Iraq weren't in breach of any resolution until the Security Council said so. Blair's desire for a new UN resolution is the giveaway here. That's before you get onto the fact that 1441 was explicitly stated by the US/UK not to carry with it "automaticity", ie at the time they admitted that the above was the case.

Therefore the invasion was a war crime. Easy. And the leaders of the culpable states are war criminals and should be prosecuted. That such a prosecution would not be allowed to succeed in real life doesn't detract from the strength of the case.

I agree as to the basic principles of international law, but we don't really have international law. And the notion of an international war crimes tribunal in The Hague for the heads of state of Britain and the U.S. is the biggest pipe dream imaginable. The leaders involved will either be prosecuted domestically for violating their own domestic laws, or not at all - short of a coup d'etat such as what apprehended Milosevich.

All the same I agree the book was well worth writing.

Well yes, if you don't think we have international law, that makes things a bit easier. That tends not to be the argument put forward, though.

QUOTE:
Well yes, if you don't think we have international law, that makes things a bit easier. That tends not to be the argument put forward, though.

Put forward by whom? It would certainly be put forward by the defense. You don't have international law deciding such things unless all parties have agreed to abide by the same laws. The U.S. refused to be signatories to the ICC unless its military personnel were exempted. Therefore none of its military leaders will submit to being tried in that court. Therefore, assuming no one allows himself to be arrested for being in the wrong country, or extradited, we don't really have international law. If the former were to happen, it's a fair cop; if the latter, it would be an act of war, politically speaking.

Put forward by the neo-cons. When you see, say, John Bolton on the telly, he doesn't say: "Fuck that shit, we never signed up for it anyway." He says, "The war was legal under UN Resolution blah blah blah."

If pushed, they do admit to being outlaws. They're just very rarely pushed.

Course he doesn't say that. Which excuse do you think is more politically palatable for the neocons. Anyway I'm not completely sure but I think most from both political parties here would not be in favor of ICC jurisdiction over American soldiers etc. It's much more popular in Europe because those countries aren't in the habit of maintaining a large military force actively involved in numerous overseas operations.

QUOTE:
Course he doesn't say that. Which excuse do you think is more politically palatable for the neocons.

The "it's all legal" one. One post ago you didn't seem sure.

QUOTE:
Anyway I'm not completely sure but I think most from both political parties here would not be in favor of ICC jurisdiction over American soldiers etc. It's much more popular in Europe because those countries aren't in the habit of maintaining a large military force actively involved in numerous overseas operations.

Indeed.

QUOTE:
The "it's all legal" one. One post ago you didn't seem sure.

No, just, what they would say on the teevee and what they would say if they told you what they really thought are two different things.

Yes, I realise that. When we talk about arguments "put forward" we mean in public, don't we? Obviously.