Big Media Refuses to Report this Basic Fact: Attacking Iraq Violates International Law

Not one mainstream media outlet has reported the truth:
Bush's war violates International Law

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 :

We are a nation of laws

Published on Wednesday, September 25, 2002 by

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.


Professor Marjorie Cohn
Thomas Jefferson School of Law
JURIST Contributing Editor

Despite opposition by many prominent Republicans, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush are mounting an intensive public relations campaign to justify their pre-ordained invasion of Iraq. A preemptive strike against Iraq would
violate the Constitution and the United Nations Charter.

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution empowers Congress, not the president, to debate and decide to declare war on another country. The War Powers Resolution provides that the "constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories, or possessions or its armed forces."

Congress has not declared war on Iraq, no statute authorizes an invasion and Iraq has not attacked the United States, its territories, possessions or armed forces. President Bush's lawyers have concluded that he needs no new approval from Congress. They cite a 1991 Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in the Persian Gulf, and the September 14, 2001 Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.

These two resolutions do not provide a basis to circumvent Congressional approval for attacking Iraq. The January 12, 1991 Persian Gulf Resolution authorized the use of force pursuant to U.N. Security Council Resolution 678, which was directed at ensuring the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait. That license ended on April 6, 1991, when Iraq formalized a cease-fire and notified the Security Council. The September 14, 2001 resolution authorized the use of armed force "against those responsible for the recent [Sept. 11] attacks against the United States." There is no evidence that Iraq was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.

A preemptive invasion of Iraq would also violate 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 Constitution. It requires the United States
to settle all disputes by peaceful means and not use military force in the absence of an armed attack. The U.N. Charter empowers only the Security Council to authorize the use of force, unless a member state is acting in
individual or collective self-defense. Iraq has not attacked this country, or any other country in the past 11 years. None of Iraq's neighbors have appealed to the Security Council to protect them from an imminent attack by
Iraq, because they do not feel threatened.

Cheney and Bush cite the possibility that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction as the rationale for a preemptive strike. Iraq is in violation of Security Council Resolution 687, which requires full cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors. But this issue involves the Iraqi government and the United Nations. The Security Council did not specify any enforcement mechanisms in that or subsequent resolutions. Only the Security
Council is empowered to take "further steps as may be required for the implementation of the resolution." Although the Security Council warned Iraq, in Resolution 1154, of the "severest consequences" if it continued
its refusal to comply, the Council declared that only it had the authority to "ensure implementation of this resolution and peace and security in the area."

Articles 41 and 42 of the U.N. Charter declare that no member state has the right to enforce any resolution with armed force unless the Security Council decides there has been a material breach of it resolution, and
determines that all nonmilitary means of enforcement have been exhausted. Then, the Council must specifically authorize the use of military force, as it did in November 1990 with Resolution 678, in response to Iraq's
occupation of Kuwait in violation of Security Council resolutions passed the previous August. The Security Council has not authorized any use of force for subsequent violations involving Iraq.

Moreover, the claim by Cheney and Bush that Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction is spurious. Scott Ritter, who spent seven years in Iraq with the UNSCOM weapons inspection teams, has said, "There is absolutely no reason to believe that Iraq could have meaningfully reconstituted any element of its [weapons of mass destruction] capabilities." Ritter, a twelve-year Marine Corps veteran who served under General Norman Schwarzkopf in the Gulf War, maintains that the Iraqis never succeeded in developing their chemical and biological agents to enable them to be sprayed over a large area. It is undisputed that Iraq has not developed nuclear capabilities.

There is no legal justification for a preemptive attack on Iraq. Only Congress can authorize the use of United States armed forces, and only the Security Council can sanction the use of force by a U.N. member state. Both
are necessary; neither has been forthcoming.

Marjorie Cohn, an associate professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, is on the national executive committee of the National Lawyers Guild.

ISee also: International Law and a War on Iraq
Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, AND FOR THESE ENDS to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, HAVE RESOLED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

no fly zones
"No Fly Zones"
were not
UN sactioned.

An increadible 2 CD set by Noam Chomsky. This is something you must hear if you want to understand what the agression agaisnt Iraq is about (also includes discusion of economic system and human rights) It includes a comprehensive analysis of the economic sanctions against Iraq and explains why the U.S. wants to control Iraq. Chomsky takes the major points of State Department rhetoric and systematically and brilliantly, destroys them all. He explains why excuses such as, "Saddam is a threat to his neighbors", "he's building chemical and biological weapons", "he oppresses the Kurdish and Shiite populations of Iraq", etc., are hardly sufficient to explain the sanctions, the inspections teams, and the relentless bombings and the planned war.

Case Studies in Hypocrisy

The Emerging Framework of World Power The Emerging Framework of World Power


Hegemony or Survival : America's Quest for Global Dominance
Hegemony or Survival
with Amazon

Buy Hegemony or Survival
with Powell's

War Crimes & Imperial Fantasies

War Crimes & Imperial Fantasies

Other Chomsky Books and CDs Here

©2003 Representative Press ContactSupport Representative Press Representative Press Blog