Big Media Refuses to Report this Basic Fact: Attacking Iraq Violates International Law
one mainstream media outlet has reported the truth:
How does mainstream media serve the war agenda? Public opinion is based on what the media feeds them and by what it withholds from them. A basic Fact of law has not been reported by the mainstream media. While polls have show that the majority of Americans oppose "going it alone", "unilaterally", "with a coalition" or "without the UN" as the media has deceptively called violating International Law, what would be the opinion of the others be if they knew all the facts? Those in positions of power and influence intentionally keep facts from the public in order to sell this war. Mainstream reporters don't have journalistic integrity, they have refused to report that attacking Iraq would violate U.S. and International Law.
A preemptive attack on Iraq violates the United Nations Charter, which is a treaty and part of the supreme law of the United States under Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. signed the UN Charter and we are obligated to uphold the law according to our own Constitution. A treaty that we sign becomes the "law of the land" according to our Constitution.
Contact every media outlet you can and demand that they report basic facts and to stop trying to sell this war to the American public by withholding basic facts. Mainstream media reporters are a disgrace and an insult to this country. This lie of omission is committed in order to manipulate the public into a war with Iraq. Mainstream media serves state power. This is a glaring example of journalists' abuse of their power. The total exclusion of the fact that Bush's war violates International Law and U.S. Law highlights how extreme Big Media really is. It is hard, if not virtually impossible, for the average viewer to know what isn't reported. Most people assume that basically everything gets reported and that it then may get slanted one way or another. But it is the withholding of information that is perhaps the most dangerous threat to our liberties.
The media's assumption that lawlessness does not even merit a mention is sickening and actually it is a violation of the licensing agreement they have with the public. Broadcasters are obligated according to Telecommunications Act to serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity, not just the interests of the rich and powerful. The current media system is corrupted by unequal power. They present what "news" they want to the American public and they abuse their power by not presenting things they don't want to be news. One of the common myths is that "if it was hot enough story" or "was big enough" it would be news. The fact is: "The press is owned by wealthy people who only want certain things to reach the public." - Noam Chomsky
Contact these Bastards
Contact these media bastards and tell them you know the sick game they are playing and they must stop it. Tell them to start reporting the facts! (Here is another fact they refused to report: "Iraqi troops satellite photos" were fake ) If the network is broadcast, tell them they are in violation of their obligations under the Telecommunications Act. Here is a Media Contact List : http://www.fair.org/media-contact-list.html
We are a nation of laws
Published on Wednesday, September 25, 2002 by CommonDreams.org
Abiding by the Rule of Law by Arlene Zarembka
The oft-repeated declaration -- "We are a nation of laws, not men" -- expresses a bedrock principle of our country. It signals our resolve to be governed by laws and legal process, not by the impulses of individuals in power.
The rule of law seems to mean little, however, to President Bush. Despite his address to the United Nations seeking UN action against Iraq, he continues to insist on the United States' right to launch war against Iraq, with or without authorization from the UN Security Council.
As a signatory to the UN Charter, the United States is bound by the Charter's requirements. Article 39 specifically gives the UN Security Council, not individual nations, the authority to determine "the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression", and the authority to "decide what measures shall be taken ... to maintain or restore international peace and security."
Article 42 authorizes the Security Council, if non-military measures fail, to "take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security." No nation can take it upon itself, without Security Council approval, to act to enforce UN resolutions.
While there is a right of self-defense contained in Article 51 of the Charter, it is very limited: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective 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." No nation has a right under the UN Charter to take pre-emptive action.
There has been no armed attack by Iraq on the U.S. or any other country since the Gulf War, and there is absolutely no evidence of Iraqi involvement in the September 11 terrorist attacks. Iraq does not even pose an imminent risk to the U.S. -- it has no long-range missiles that could reach us. Despite Iraq's past history of aggression in the Middle East (the only region that Iraq could strike with its missiles), all Arab nations oppose a unilateral U.S. attack against Iraq.
To support its claim that the U.S. has the right to act against Iraq in self-defense, the Administration contends that Iraq has or is developing weapons of mass destruction. That is precisely the point of UN weapons inspections -- first, to determine the existence of weapons of mass destruction, and second, to destroy them.
Iraq has agreed unconditionally to renewed UN inspections. So what's Bush's beef? If Saddam is recalcitrant after the inspectors are in Iraq, the UN can ratchet up the pressure, and, if necessary, approve military force against Saddam.
If President Bush jumps the gun and strikes pre-emptively against Iraq, he will undermine the United Nations as an institution (perhaps this is his goal), and he will diminish respect for international law as the means to resolve conflict (perhaps also his goal).
A unilateral attack on Iraq will foster international anarchy, as other nations emulate U.S. disregard for international law. Wars of aggression will be cloaked in the rhetoric of pre-emptive "self-defense". Will India or Pakistan -- both having nuclear weapons and both facing a far greater risk of attack by its neighbor than the U.S. faces from far-away Iraq -- take a cue from the U.S. and pre-emptively attack its neighbor in "self-defense"?
President Bush has asked Congress to grant him unbridled authority to use "all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force," against Iraq, and for that matter, to use whatever means he deems necessary to "restore international peace and security in the region." Congress should not approve any resolution that gives the President carte blanche to unleash the dogs of war against Iraq or other countries or peoples.
To do so would subvert our Constitution, which provides that all treaties to which the U.S. is a party are part of the "supreme Law of the Land" (Article VI, Section 2), with as much validity as the Constitution and federal laws. Accordingly, violating the UN Charter transgresses the U.S. Constitution as well. Congress, the only body that has the power to declare war (Article I, Section 8, Clause 11), should not abdicate its responsibility to uphold the Constitution in the face of a grab for unlimited war powers by the Executive Branch.
The only resolution that Congress should adopt at this time is one directing the President to abide by the UN Charter and to work with the UN Security Council to get the inspectors back into Iraq, so that any weapons of mass destruction can be destroyed. If the UN Security Council later concludes that Iraq is reneging on its commitment to unconditional inspections, or is blocking destruction of any weapons of mass destruction, then and only then should Congress vote on whether to authorize the President to take military action against Saddam or Iraq ... and with US action limited to what the UN Security Council specifically authorizes. Arlene Zarembka is an attorney in private practice in St. Louis, Missouri. She has been active in peace and justice issues since the 1960s. http://www.apomie.com/ruleoflaw.htm
INVADING IRAQ WOULD VIOLATE U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL
ISee also: International Law and a War on Iraq
War Crimes & Imperial Fantasies
Other Chomsky Books and CDs Here
|©2003 Representative Press Contact Support Representative Press Representative Press Blog|