What legal and international justifications can be used for the Bush doctrine and attack of Iraq?
In the report of Amnesty International, it pointed the human
rights violations committed the by the US against her prisoners.
However, the US justified it using the Bush doctrine and the
necessity of war or situation. The US is one of the signatories to
the different conventions and protocols regarding Human rights
including the most important of all the Universal Declaration on
Human rights. What could be the basis of this "necessity"? Under
what context could the US fully explain their actions? are
terroristic attacks enough to warrant such behavior? What could be the legal and international justifications use?
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
The United States not only DID NOT "justify using the Bush doctrine and the necessity of war or situation." in regards to the human rights violations that occured, the United States openly prosecuted and convicted those guilty of human
rights violations committed the by the US soldiers against their prisoners. They are serving time in prison for their actions. Out of curiosity, what does Amnesty International have to say about the daily killing of innocent people inside Iraq by the insurgents?
As for the "legal and international justifications" in favor of the War in Iraq
Following is a list of Resolutions passed by the United Nations in regards to Iraq and Saddam Hussein in regards to dismantling his weapons program.
661 (1990) of 6 August 1990,
678 (1990) of 29 November 1990,
686 (1991) of 2 March 1991,
687 (1991) of 3 April 1991,
688 (1991) of 5 April 1991,
707 (1991) of 15 August 1991,
715 (1991) of 11 October 1991,
986 (1995) of 14 April 1995,
1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999,
Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998.
In 2002 the UN Security Council held Iraq in "MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS" and "OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY"
Resolution 1441 was unanimously passed by the UN Security Council.
By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations.
The Resolution was co-sponsored by the United States and the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom’s representative said the resolution made crystal clear that Iraq was being given a final opportunity. The Iraqi regime now faced unequivocal choice: between complete disarmament and the serious consequences indicated in the resolution.
The representative of the United States noted that, while primary responsibility rested with the Council for the disarmament of Iraq, nothing in the resolution constrained any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by that country, or to enforce United Nations resolutions protecting world peace and security.
There was never any doubt what actions would be taken if Iraq did not comply. The Resolution cleared the way for military intervention if needed.
Basically, the United States and Great Britain chose to enforce the Resolution after waiting 120 days for Iraq to comply with the Resolution, which they never did. The United Nations was unwilling to enforce the Resolution, again, again, and again.
What more justification is needed?
- paradigm_thinkerLv 41 decade ago
The UN voted for the resolution then withdrew. Every country that voted for the resolution and later dissented should be held accountable because they had an equal share. Just because they didnt participate, does not make them unaccountable- just absent.
Every country that visited the prisons said that the prisoners were being treated well, with exception to those few where the prisoners were humiliated- but those people were not acting on orders and were punished.
Keep this in mind:
A sense of duty pursues us ever....If we take to ourselves the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, the duty performed or the duty violated is still with us, for our happiness or our misery. If we say the darkness shall cover us, in the darkness as in the light our obligations are yet with us.
- mayLv 44 years ago
There are no. think of if Germany attacked a usa, reported it became a secure practices undertaking began locking up loads of questionable human beings. safety became lots extra effective, so as that they have got been justified perfect? What if it became 6 million jews? What in the event that they lied? Is there any justification then? Bush Lied approximately WMD, he lied approximately connections to terrorists, he used those lies to alter from peruit of bin weighted right down to invade an harmless usa. ~ six hundred,000 harmless Iraqi civilians and extra effective than 3,000 of our countries properly suited youthful adult adult males and lady have additionally paid for his conflict!
- 1 decade ago
Iraq Is full of terrorist. They harbor terrorist sodom is a terrorist and a human torturer.
May be if it were animals sodom was killing and torturing or if it were apes that died in the 911 attacks you PETA type mentalities would concern yourselfs differently.
Do me a favor and stay in New York or california or massachusets or what other liberal quack infested place it is you may come from.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Cuz he is the man.
and you are just a computer GEEK