Powell Undercuts Entire Rationale for War

by Chris Bowers, Fri Jul 02, 2004 at 01:55:48 PM EST

Two weeks ago I wrote an article nearly 6,000 words long in order to provide a brief overview of why all twenty-seven arguments in favor of invading Iraq were invalid. Today, Colin Powell accomplished the same task in one sentence:
Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Friday former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein should be assumed to be innocent in his trial...

"Assume he's innocent if you will, and let's assume that, and let the Iraqi people through their courts decide," Powell said in an interview with Indonesian television channel RCTI on the sidelines of an Asian security meeting in Jakarta.

Of course, assuming someone is innocent instantly debunks every single rationale for pre-emptive invasion. Pre-emption not only assumes that people are already guilty, but in Minority Report fashion assumes that these same people will be guilty of acts they have yet to commit.




Tags: World (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 4 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Powell Undercuts Entire Rationale for War (none / 0)

we had to justify the reason to go to war but we have to continue to uphold our traditions of the 'innocent until proven guilty' in court.
this country makes me laugh

but also makes me cry...

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Jul 02, 2004 at 02:07:49 PM EST

Re: Powell Undercuts Entire Rationale for War (none / 0)

This sort of logic is also consistent with our stance on not being a party to the ICC assuming that there are things that we will do, but have not yet done.
Mark
by Mark J. Bowers on Fri Jul 02, 2004 at 02:16:01 PM EST

Re: Powell Undercuts Entire Rationale for War (none / 0)

There are a few problems with Powell's formulation:
  1.  The people appointed as judges were not appointed by the Iraqi people or their elected representatives.
  2.  The judges aren't even trained judges.  They are lawyers.  
  3.  There isn't any legitimate Iraqi law, since there's no elected government.  As there is no law, there's no designated punishment and any sentence will necessarily be arbitrary.
  4.  Some of the charges, such as invading Kuwait, are not crimes under any national law. They are crimes by international law.  
  5.  Logically, it would have made sense to try the case under international law.  That, however, would have involved assembling an international tribunal of judges versed in such law.
  6.  The tribunal, such as it is, has already committed a grossly illegal act (under international law) by preventing the accused from meeting with his lawyers.  
Yeah, sure, let the Iraqi people decide.  Half of them want to let Saddam walk and half want to lynch him and then give him a fair trial.  Powell is an utter $#%!.  

(signed) CharlesUtwaterII@aol.com

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Jul 02, 2004 at 02:28:18 PM EST

Wait... (none / 0)

Isn't this the same sort of comment the press fried Dean over regarding how a trial for OBL would go....?

Just noting the irony.

by Lavoisier1794 on Fri Jul 02, 2004 at 10:41:55 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: