[Peace] Fwd:[ANSWER]: WHY BUSH'S PREEMPTIVE WAR IS ILLEGA (2 of 3)

[jencart]

--------------------------------------------------------------
PREEMPTIVE WAR OR FIRST STRIKE PLAN

Bush has asked the U.N. Security Council to support 
execution of Bush's policy of a potentially nuclear 
"preemptive" war, as if that Council could endorse a war  of aggression. The Security Council lacks the legal 
authority to grant such permission. The Security Council,  by affirmative vote or by acquiescence to U.S. policy, 
cannot abrogate its own mandate. No collective action by  the fifteen permanent and temporary members of the 
Security Council can lawfully violate the Charter which is  the sole source of their collective authority.

This is made clear in the U.N. Charter itself, which 
provides in Article 24, that "In discharging these duties 
the Security Council *shall act in accordance with the 
Purposes and Principles of the United Nations*."

While there are, of course, procedures by which collective  use of force may be authorized by the Security Council to  maintain or restore international peace and security 
(Articles 41 and 42) those procedures may not be used to  endorse aggression in violation of the primary purposes of  the U.N. Charter. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter 
acknowledges the right to self-defense ?if an armed attack  occurs against a Member of the United Nations until the  Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain  international peace and security."  None of the provisions  allow for authorization for Bush's war plans and first 
strike strategies. Any resolution authorizing a preemptive  war of aggression is *ultra vires*, or null and void as 
beyond the authority of the Council to enact.

The very issuance of the Bush doctrine of preemptive 
warfare and also the threat to wage war against Iraq are,  each, a violation of international law as a crime against 
peace, which is defined in the Nuremberg Charter as the  "Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of 
aggression or a war in violation of international 
treaties, agreements or assurances."

RESPONSIBILITY FOR WAR CRIMES

Neither Congress nor the President has the right to engage  the U.S. in a war of aggression and any vote of 
endorsement, far from legalizing or legitimizing global 
war plans, serves only as ratification of war crimes. 
Under the principles of universal accountability 
established at Nuremberg, "The fact that a person who 
committed an act which constitutes a crime under 
international law acted as Head of State or responsible 
Government official does not relieve him from 
responsibility under international law." (See source VI)

The execution of economic sanctions by the Bush I, Bush II  and Clinton Administrations, which has caused the deaths  of over one million people, primarily children and their 
grandparents, is likewise sanctionable as a crime against  humanity under the Nuremberg Charter and under the 
International Criminal Court Statute as  "the intentional 
infliction of conditions of life, . . . the deprivation of 
access of food to medicine, calculated to bring about the  destruction of a part of a population. (See source VII) 

The Bush Administration has rejected the International 
Criminal Court treaty signed by over 130 countries. This  rejection is an admission of the administration's 
consciousness of guilt and of criminal intentions. The 
Bush administration acts with a conscious disregard of 
humanitarian laws and a stated intention to avoid 
accountability for their crimes under international law 
prohibiting crimes against the peace, war crimes and 
crimes against humanity. The National Security Strategy  promulgated by the Bush administration states that the 
United States "will take the actions necessary t