Top lawyers from Greece are travelling to the International Criminal Court in The Hague on Monday to file a lawsuit against senior UK officials.

They will accuse the prime minister and other senior members of the government and military of breaching international law by attacking Iraq.

The Athens Bar Association (ABA) believes it has strong evidence and is seeking the indictment of Mr Blair.

The ABA will file the lawsuit with the prosecutor of the ICC who will then have to decide whether it merits further investigation.

The court was established to try cases of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

Among those named in the lawsuit are Mr Blair, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

The Greek lawyers announced in May they would try to take legal action against the British Government and military.

They said the war in Iraq breached international treaties such as the Charter of the United Nations, the Geneva Conventions and the ICC's own Statute.

But the British Government has always argued that the invasion of Iraq was in accordance with international law.

The Greek case has several hurdles to clear before proceeding at the ICC.

After the prosecutor has reached his conclusion, three judges must also decide whether the court has jurisdiction.

The ICC has already rejected almost 40 cases over the war in Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3101697.stm

As I understand it, the U.N. Charter is an agreement, not a law - so whether the Iraqi War broke it or not may not be relevant in a Justice court ...

Agreement is the closest thing there is to law in international law. This is the tradition, dating back to the first treaties ending wars in Greece eons past. The Int'l Criminal Court (careful calling it the "ICC" because that's what the Int'l Chamber of Commerce is called) is organized under the UN as I recall. So, the UN Charter would be imminently relevant.

Of course, beginning with post-war resolutions in 1991, the UN, all nations, and IRAQ ITSELF, have AGREED on some very relevant things:
1. Iraq has a WMD program, and has weapons it must disarm in accordance with the post-Gulf War agreements. It will allow inspectors and offer proof of disposal of these weapons.
2. As of 2000-2001, Iraq still has weapons and must disarm or face consequences.
3. As of 2001, Iraq must really disarm or face consequences -- and we mean it and Iraq knows we mean it.

Now, this is where the treaties and UN agreement AGREED UPON BY ALL -- INCLUDING IRAQ -- stood at the time UK/US decided to invade. I think Blair will have plenty of footing to stand on.

I think I was very clear in stating this when Bush/Powell went to the UN to prove the case for war and when they called for a vote approving the war: they DID NOT NEED to do that LEGALLY, as their action was already approved. POLITICALLY, it was the thing to do, but what you legally MAY do and what other countries APPROVE of you doing are two different things sometime. The US/UK governments were VERY good about building the record to justify the war legally, just in case they had to go against other nations.

Trust me, this case will be short-lived. I assure you that the best lawyers in the world, from the US/UK of course, made sure to cover their governments' asses before getting embroiled in the war.

Not all lawyers view it your way, Timber : look here. The article dates back from September 2002. I found this article rather interesting and well documented. I am no lawyer and I possibly miss subtleties - you tell me. [img]smile.gif[/img]

About what I posted above - I actually heard it several times as an argumentation supporting the legality of the war. I missed the legal background to figure out if it was relevant or not. TY for updating me - although the end of your post seems to contradict its beginning, or is it me being fuzzy-brained ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

There is no contradiction. I made 2 points:
1. The UN Charter WILL apply; and
2. Even so, the breadth and depth and sheer number of UN resolutions regarding Iraq made the war perfectly legal under that very Charter anyway.

In short, under the UN Charter making war is illegal except in defense or when approved by the UN. The resolutions surrounding Iraq made war an approved consequence if Iraq did not disarm. Iraq did not disarm -- or if it did, it did it in secret, which is unlikely and would have been STUPID. Therefore, even though the UN did not give a green light on the final, final, final approval for military action, the severity of the language in earlier Resolutions are tantamount to explicit approval. Just because the US/UK were kind enought to ask for approval a 4th or 5th time does not take away the fact it was approved thrice already.

Haven't read your link yet, but I will.

[Edit] I do not argue, nor would I, that preemptive force in self-defense is legal (absent imminence). That's a stupid stupid silly silly small-brained notion. If that were the case, any war any time any where is arguably valid. Bush was wrong to consider it a fair argument -- it shows just how much that idiot warhawk Wolfowitz can bend his ear.

Now, in the face of IMMINENT harm, this has some weight. For instance, Israel in 1967, facing enemies on all sides lining up tanks and threatening to attack. Another hypothetical for instance: if Kuwait had of attacked Iraq as Iraq was stockpiling the border to attack Kuwait. You'll find few of these instances, though.

[ 07-28-2003, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Timber, I have one quetsion : does not the last sentence of the 1441 resolution "(The Security Council)decides to remain seized of the matter" invalidate your point that the Iraqi War was sort of pre-approved ?

Read the article, Moiraine. Pages 22-27 do a really good job setting up the argument I would make. In particular, Resolution 707 stated that Iraq had made flagrant breaches of Res. 687 -- MATERIAL breaches. In that very instance, the legal effect of the breach is to make Res. 687 and others calling the cease-fire INVALID. If the resolutions calling the cease fire are INVALID, then there was no cease fire. Ergo, the Gulf War is still on, absent a cease fire.

It's the UN's own damned fault for using such harsh finger-waving language without the willingness to back up its words. It either (a) should not have said the words or (b) should back them up.

As I said, the article lays out the argument for the war rather well, but then it does a pretty poor job of shooting the argument down. In fact, it seems obvious to me that the author was hard-pressed to give the folks who commissioned the study the legal result they hired.

Moreover, you will note that the article states this particular position arguing FOR war is not PROVEABLE and is AMBIGUOUS. Well, guess what, in an Int'l Crim Court trial, the BURDEN OF PROOF switches -- Greece will have to PROVE Blair DID BREACH Intn'l law, Blair will NOT have to prove he did not. In a situaiton of ambiguity, it is unlikely either side can PROVE BEYOND DOUBT, so the side having the burden of proof will always lose. ;)

Maybe. It's an oddly-phrased sentance. I'd have to read it in context. I don't have R1441 in front of me right now.

To me, it sounds like a translation issue may have garbled the sentance that went into the document. Does "remain seized" mean "retain jurisdiction?" I'd have to investigate. It still coultn't undo 707's material breach language. There are simply SO MANY times the UN clearly stated Iraq breached basically all cease-fire agreements.

To be precise, the resolution specified that there would be 'serious consequences' if Iraq did not comply with resolutions to send in Weapons Inspectors. War was never approved. 'Serious consequences' could have meant instituting an economic blockade that would result in the deaths of a million Iraqi children (for example).

Military action has always been specifically stated in resolutions requiring it - empty and ambiguous phrases like 'serious consequences' has never been an authorisation to engage in military hostilities - hence the reason why the UK/US desparately tried to gain a new resolution authorising military force.

According to Blix, the head of the Weapons Inspection team, Iraq was in compliance with previous resolutions requiring Iraq to submit to and co-operate with the weapons inspectors. His only criticsm was that they should have been pro-active in supplying information - he never said though that they had, in any way, obstructed the work of his team.

This case will fail though - not because the Greek lawyers have a bad case (their case is clearly watertight) but because the judges will be very heavily leaned on to drop the case.

Thanks Timber - I really am not looking for an argument, just trying to understand some of all the lawyers mystery talking. ;)

I would really another lawyer who would not share your views here. Just to be sure I understand all sides. [img]smile.gif[/img]

In short Moiraine, no. There are 19 previous resolutions that the UN (US included) failed to act on. One line at the end of 1441 - the resolution that basically says "They are wrong. We know they are wrong. They know they are wrong. They have not complied with 19 previous resolutions by this body. Even though we clearly stated what failure would entail previously, we are now undecided what to do with ourselves this time .... so we'll just sit with our thumbs up our butts instead." does not obviate those facts.

I don't want to go spinning around the dance floor on this one again. I will say that this is the problem that I see with the Int'l Court - it will be used more for political sniping than "crimes". How are these Greek laywers affected parties? They are not. They are just stirring a pot.

[ 07-28-2003, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

To be precise, the resolution specified that there would be 'serious consequences' if Iraq did not comply with resolutions to send in Weapons Inspectors. War was never approved. </font>[/QUOTE]"Serious consequences" was the language in 1 oft-cited Resoluton. I was paraphrasing. See my other post regarding what happens when a "material breach" of cease-fire agreements occurs if you need more, better, proof.
Which was already in effect, meaning "serious consequences" had to mean something else.
Now you are trolling, and I won't bother to respond.

Moiraine, if you can get an unbiased legal review, I wish you the best of luck. I doubt you'll find one that's less biased than mine, but go for it. As I said, it is quite arguable and ambiguous whether the documents authorized the use of force or not. In that situation, the BURDEN OF PROOF trumps: as Greece will carry the burden of proving beyond doubt that Blair violated the UN Charter, and as it is ARGUABLE one way or the other, Blair will not get convicted/found liable by the Court. If you run across someone who'll address the burden of proof issue and disagree with me, I'd love see the reasoning. On this particular point, I will stake a bit of my professional reputation. ;)

An interesting point. I do not know what the STANDING requirements are for the Court, but it is often the case that a party must have been injured to bring a case. The Int'l Crim Court may have such standing requirements, or maybe not. Now, if Greece had economic interests in Iraq, I guess it would have standing anyway...

The general problem, to us non-lawyers, is that we lack the equipment that would let us know if a legal article is biased or not ! ;) That's why I said I would like different lawyers talking here - not that I doubt your skills and honesty, but to provide others angles of view. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 07-28-2003, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Moiraine ]

Great, a bunch of Greek lawyers looking for their 15 minutes of fame. Just what we've been waiting for.

<font color=skyblue>I have only enough knowledge of written law to know that a written law is only as good as the limit of creativity of the person trying to break it. When lawmakers set down to create laws, they try to make them as tight and unbreakable as possible, covering all possible attempts at work-arounds...but they themselves are limted by thier own imaginations. Get somebody in there that can outthink them...and then the written law has no binding power.

That's why Law is so interesting to me. :D
Justifications are my special hobby in life.</font>

[ 07-28-2003, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

I don't buy the U.N. authorized invading and occupying Iraq, spin it how you will.

Only plain and clearly spelled out language in a resolution and a coalition of support like in gulf war I would make that true, not the case at all.

Timber, this was not trolling - I was making the point that Iraq was *already* suffering 'serious consequences' for non-compliance. Most independent analysts are putting the cost of the war (in civilian Iraqi lives) in the region of 7,000 to 11,000. This is insignificant in comparison to economic blockade of 'sanctions'.

Given the figures, perverse as it may seem, war was far kinder on the Iraqi population than sanctions ever were.


In the first place, this is beside the point. If as a citizen, you are witness to a murder it is still your duty as a citizen (even if you did not know either party) to report the action to the police. This is effectively what those lawyers are doing.
Secondly, Greece is a member of the UN. The fact that they are members of the of UN is grounds to claim that the UK (by virtue of its illegal actions) has jeopardised the reputation of an organisation to which they belong - and they are therefore 'injured'.

Thirdly they have a legal right to demand that Blair stands before the ICC to answer charges. If you want to be absolutely clear what the rules are regarding jurisdiction of the court, they are:

<font color="#C0C0C0">The Court may exercise its jurisdiction in situations that meet one of the following conditions:
1. One or more of the parties involved is a State Party;
2. The accused is a national of a State Party;
3. The crime is committed on the territory of a State Party;
4. Or a State not party to the Statute may decide to accept the court's jurisdiction over a specific crime that has been committed within its territory, or by its national.
5. But these conditions do not apply when the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, refers a situation to the Prosecutor.

But something else must happen first, before the Court can act. Either a State Party refers a "situation" to the Prosecutor (in this case Greece did); the Security Council refers a "situation" to the Prosecutor; or the Prosecutor initiates an investigation on his own authority, as set out in the Statute.
The International Criminal Court</font>


So, to recap, the Greeks can bring the matter before the ICC because it is a signatory of the ICC. The court has jurisdiction over Tony Blair because he is a national of a state party (signatory of the ICC).

Bush escapes their attention because neither the US nor Iraq were state parties (signatories) to the convention and neither has the security council referred the situation to the ICC (not likely since the US has power of veto).

Had Iraq been a member of the ICC or the Security Council referred the matter to the ICC, then (despite the fact that the US has not signed up to the ICC) Bush would also find himself facing the same attention from the Greeks and ICC as Tony Blair.

[quote]Originally posted by Skunk:

Quote:

Had Iraq been a member of the ICC or the Security Council referred the matter to the ICC, then (despite the fact that the US has not signed up to the ICC) Bush would also find himself facing the same attention from the Greeks and ICC as Tony Blair.

<font color=orange>That would have been fun to watch!!! That is, the UN moving out of New York!!! Cause Bush going to trial anywhere but in the US, AIN'T NEVER going to happen!!!
Nor for that matter will Tony Blair. No matter how unpopular he is at the moment, I doubt the British People would go along with it. And if they did, then shame on them!!!</font>

[ 07-29-2003, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]

Thanks for the info, Skunk. I supposed standing would not be an issue.

As for the death toll due to sanctions, I declare bollocks (spelling??). In order to make the argument, you must assume monies that were withheld from the nation would have gone to the people. It only takes one brief look at one of Saddams dozens of palaces juxtaposed against a typical Iraqi family home to make one bust a gut laughing at that notion. ;)

My analysis of the burden of proof still trumps the issue, should it ever make it to trial.

The whole purpose behind the ICC was to instigate a trial where a country was unable or unwilling to do so itself.
If the ICC decides that there is enough evidence to put Blair on trial, it will first offer all of the evidence over to the UK government and ask it to instigate open and fair trial proceedings against the accused.
Only in the event that the UK government refuses will the ICC proceed with its own trial.

So had the US signed up to the ICC, Bush would have been given the option to be tried in the US anyway.

That's the common myth about the sanctions. May I clarify what actually happened? As you know, Saddam was allowed to sell oil in order to buy food.

However, Saddam did not himself do the buying and the selling - the entire process was performed by the UN Oil for Food programme. This body took the money from the oil sales, put the money into UN bank accounts and purchased the food and supplies for the Iraqi people. Once it had the supplies, they went to UN controlled warehouses and were distributed under the watchful eye of UN monitors. At every step of the process, the UN made meticulous records of the transactions. As a result, death by starvation was *very low* and only occured under extreme circumstances (drought for example).

What killed people (and this explains why children died in such vast numbers) was sickeness and accident and an inability to get treatment.
Sanctions forbade a wide range of goods used for neccessary and inncocent purposes - for example, it forbade water pumps, machinery and chemicals used in water treatment. So cases of waterborne diseases like cholera were common. And if you notice that your child is ill, you'd want to call an ambulance, right? Well, if you can find a working phone (telecommunications equipment was sanctioned) you wouldn't find an ambulance (most of the ambulance's equipment including the radio is sanctioned) and so you'd have to bring the child to the hospital yourself. When you arrive you will find the place less than hygenic (soap was sanctioned) and the doctor will inform you that he has a bed but medicine is sanctioned and unavailable...
Other effects of the sanctions meant that the economy no longer generated money - this in turn meant that public service workers could not be paid. Is there a fire? Call your neighbours because the fireman quit through lack of pay a long time ago - what garbage man? Throw it in the street because there's no-one to take it away? Sewage worker - who would work in such 'dangerous' (since you can't get treated if you are sick) conditions...

Saddams palaces came from illegal sales of oil outside the Oil for Food programme and illegal imports of materials to build them. True enough that, had he been a benevolent ruler, he would have used his black market network to import drugs, hospital equipment etc and not build palaces - but that doesn't excuse the UN for the effects of the sanctions which should have been limited to military supplies.

I mean, for heaven's sake, why did we forbid the import of soap, leather and raw cloth material???
Were we afraid that Saddam would fire Cloth Scuds from a leather launchpad?
Were we afraid that the Cloth Scuds would carry 'Soap' bomblets that might caused a coalition trooper to slip up on and break his neck? Or was it out of pure vindictiveness?

I'm glad that Saddam has been removed from power, he killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - but I'm even more glad that the sanctions have ended - because they killed even more.

<font color=orange>So what if, by British laws, Blair hasn't done anything wrong and the British government decides there is nothing to charge him with. Can the the ICC still bring him up on charges? There is no justice in that. Who makes all the "International" criminal laws any way? Are these law makers elected in popular elections? What governing body sets the Judges and Prosecutors? If your convicted, where do you serve your time? Time to way in TL and sort this out. Of course, actually to me, it makes no difference, since we didn't sign on to the ICC.

As far as the sanctions go, wasn't the purpose of the sanctions to get the people of Iraq to throw Saddam and his sons out? Wasn't there a fairly good reason to deny the Iraqi Government access to certain technologies, because of their willingness to use them for indecent purposes like making mustard gas, VX, Nuclear Weapons... etc, etc, ad nauseum. It is a proven fact, beyond all doubt that he used such weapons against Iranian Soldiers and on the Kurds. That's the reason so many Iraqi children died. Not because of some injustice done to them by the UN. But by the injustice of their ruler Saddam Hussien. If the UN was guilty of something, it was not stepping in and doing what was right back in 1991 and removing Saddam from power. And before you say it we (the US)were as guilty as the UN was. We had the opportunity and we blew it.
But the real blame must be placed on Saddam, no the UN sanctions. It was his actions that led to this whole mess.</font>

Skunk, I simply feel your set of facts is more myth than fact. The sources who've told you all that are as guilty of hyperbole as President Bush. I saw several reports, and a brief look told me the writers were as good at manipulating facts to spell inevitable doom as the chicken little side of the global warming issue are -- and for me, it discredited their claims.

Best I remember, Private Lynch was able to live through grievous wounds in an Iraqi hospital. I've read several lengthy articles in Time (which seems rather unbiased -- or at least willing to denegrate all sides of an issue) regarding the sentiments in Iraq. I've read tons of "we were safer and more secure under Saddam" and not yet one hint of "gee, we're so happy to have medicine, as we didn't for years."

Those sanctions, as I recall, limited *amounts* of many things without outright banning them. Don't hold me to it -- I'm not an expert on the sanctions and don't pretend to be. I just saw so much hype about them before the war and I've seen no reported after-effects since the war.

I did:
Add this bit from Article 22 and I feel secure in my analysis:
Brits say no problem, can ICC bring charges?
Yes, but only if the Britts did not properly investigate or did not investigate impartially:
From what I saw on the floor of the House of Lords, Tony Blair was not only investigated "impartially," some of his follows seemed out for blood. With all of England hating him anyway, it's hard to say the government didn't investigate the issue properly. Unless you discredit the British criminal/investigatory system altogether,I'd say the court will not second-guess it. ;) I could be wrong -- but I don't think I am.

Penalties?
Where is time served?
Read the full text if you like.

[ 07-30-2003, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

The sources came directly from the UN Oil for Food Programme website and UN relief agencies. But I will allow yours to be the last word on the matter, for fear of running a circular 'off-topic' argument. We can agree to differ on that subject.

Well, first and foremost there has been no official and impartial inquiry by the judiciary.

In any event, the charges being laid by the Athens Bar Association have *never* been addressed in the British Parliament - most of the fuss has centred on whether or not Blair lied about the reasons for going to war - not on the consequences and conduct of the troops nor whether the action was legal.

<font color="#C0C0C0">
"The Athens Bar Association accuses the government of breaching almost every international treaty and the entire spectrum of human rights in the 47-page complaint.

"The repeated, blatant violations by the United States and Britain of the stipulations of the four 1949 Geneva conventions, the 1954 convention of the Hague as well as the charter of the international criminal court, constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity," the lawyers said in a statement.

"[The accused] intended to cause severe psychological distress or major physical or psychological damage to individuals who enjoy the protection of the Geneva conventions."...

...The association, which has 20,000 members, said the campaign against Iraq was highlighted by attacks on a non-combative population, non-military targets and defenceless towns, villages, settlements and buildings.

The natural environment was also destroyed by air assaults that were disproportionate to the desired military objective, it argued.
The Guardian

"The lawyers, from the Athens Bar Council, say they have compiled a dossier of "strong evidence" against the officials, including more than 20 alleged war crimes.

They include the killing of Iraqi civilians, depriving the population of drinking water in cities such as Basra, the destruction of food supplies and the bombardment of residential areas."
BBC
</font>

If Blair really believes that he has no case to answer for, he should be asking for a copy of the charges in order to hand them over to an independent judicial inquiry - so that he can clear his name. The fact that he doesn't is mystifying...

[ 07-30-2003, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

At least four errors in this paragraph Timber!!

Tony Blair is not even allowed to enter the House of Lords. The thought of the Lords questioning him is hilarious. We fought a Civil War to stop all that palaver. MP's can't even use the phrase 'the House of Lords'. They refer to it as 'another place'. I'm not sure what you witnessed, possibly Question Time in the House of Commons. The poodle never put himself forward to answer questions by the Parliamentary Committee although he may well have been questioned by the Intelligence and Security Committee. Unfortunately this committee reports directly to him so is hardly independent.

It isn't all of England that hate him, it's the all of Britain.

The Government didn't investigate the issue at all. If it were up to the Government the issue wouldn't never be mentioned. His own party members questioned him but as usual he sidestepped them.

The British criminal/investigatory system was hardly used despite calls from members of all parties for a full independent judicial review into the reasons for going to war.

Then came Kelly and all of a sudden the Poodle is in the full glare again!