BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Baghdad Broadcasting strikes again

31 comments on Baghdad Broadcasting strikes again

Baghdad Broadcasting strikes again

: The BBC, even the picture of balance, makes a big deal that we didn’t go to the DMV (Division of Military Vehicles) to get a license plate for our war in Iraq. Joe Territo reports:

The BBC today is making a big deal of an exclusive interview in which UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan says the War In Iraq was “illegal.” In the course of hyping Annan’s Bush/Blair-bashing position, a BBC reporter asked an Iraqi official about whether his government is essentially invalid because the war was illegal. My car-pool colleague chortled that this is the equivalent of saying that since the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center was illegal, the buildings that will replace the towers are invalid. What should this invalid government do? Reinstate Saddam Hussein?

Yes, and I’d like America to meet its Queen.

31 responses to “Baghdad Broadcasting strikes again”

  1. Kat Avatar
    Kat

    Too bad Koffi doesn’t think that tens of thousands of Blacks murdered,raped, and tortured by the Arabs in Sudan is illegal. Koffi is an irrelevant moonbat.

  2. O'McSomething Avatar
    O’McSomething

    Hadn’t read anything by River in a while…
    We have 9/11

  3. Andrea Harris Avatar
    Andrea Harris

    Riverbend can blame that on her heroes, the Baathist “insurgents” and the foreign terrorists they’ve brought in to help them kill their fellow Iraqis.

  4. alkali Avatar
    alkali

    Of course, the US never needs to check with the UN to defend itself, but it is not good news that people outside the US think that this war is illegal. The whole reason for Gulf War I was to defend the principle that countries shouldn’t attack each other without provocation. (Do you have any other reason to care whether Kuwait is ruled by this Arab dictator or that one?) That rule is not beyond criticism, but it is a rule that keeps peace among nations. It is not a good thing that every petty dictator on the planet is going to understand the new rule to be “f**k the UN, attack your neighbor, say that you were preempting some terrible threat just like the US was.”

  5. O' Avatar
    O’

    I seem to have a troll-groupie who hangs on my every post. Sorry, clue-less ‘drea can’t help herself.

  6. Faramin Avatar
    Faramin

    alkali,
    US defending itself?
    You’re way out body. Way out. By about two years.
    Enough said.

  7. sbw Avatar
    sbw

    Darn, it seems Uncle Sam might have misplaced his checkbook again… and when does Kofi’s term expire and need the U.S. vote to get reappointed?
    —
    Seriously, as a daily newspaper publisher I wrote to Kofi in 2001 and asked under what conditions he thought that a member state’s sovereignty might be suspended. Didn’t get an answer. Anyone with influence want to ask the question for me?

  8. Kat Avatar
    Kat

    Is Koffi a closet muslim? He sounds just like those mad mullahs when they go on their rant rampages.

  9. Tom (American Voter) Avatar
    Tom (American Voter)

    alkali, “It is not a good thing that every petty dictator on the planet is going to understand the new rule to be “f**k the UN, attack your neighbor, say that you were preempting some terrible threat just like the US was.”
    What lessoned do you think they learned when Saddam invaded Kuwait?
    Besides giving Europeans a place where they can pretend to still be important, I find it hard to figure out what purpose the UN serves. It’s time for the US to disengage from the Old World and look to the Pacific. Japan, China and India is where the action is.

  10. too many steves Avatar
    too many steves

    Mr. Annan, what can you tell us about Rwanda?
    “The US war on Iraq is illegal.”
    Mr. Annan, some are calling the situation in Sudan genocide, what is your view?
    “The US war on Iraq is illegal.”
    Mr. Annan, when will you release all the documents and information requested by the commission investigating the Oil for Food program?
    “The US war on Iraq is illegal.”

  11. Ed Cone Avatar
    Ed Cone

    Tom the voter, I would think that the lesson learned when Saddam invaded Kuwait is that the US and a large coalition of allies will come stomp you into submission if you try to do that kind of thing.
    That’s what makes the current situation dangerous. Not so much a particular UN statement, but the fact “large coalition of allies” is no longer an operative phrase.

  12. Billy West Avatar
    Billy West

    Jeff,
    4 questions:
    1)Do you believe the US should abide by international law?
    2)Do you believe the US Constitution requires the US to uphold treaty obligations ratified by Congress?
    3) Article 51 of the UN Charter states that member nations retain the right to defend themselves until the Security Council determines appropriate action. If the Iraq invasion was done in self defense (assuming an interest in preserving what’s left of international law) why didn’t the Bush Administration invoke Article 51?
    4) Are war crimes and crimes against the peace to be charged only against defeated states and leaders or should these laws apply universally?

  13. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    Billy:
    One question:
    Do you support Saddam Hussein?
    (I’m a New Yorker. We answer questions with questions.)

  14. Franky Avatar
    Franky

    Jeff,
    When did you stop beating your wife?
    What in all that’s holy does support for Saddam Hussein have to do with us committing illegal actions, creating tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of new terrorists, turning a previously secular country in to a new hotbed of fanatical islam, losing our credibility in the eyes of world for the foreseeable future (the morons can now chip in about not having to get permission from the French to secure our country, but now take a second and think about the possibility of a serious conflict, like North Korea or Iran or China – the US will want and need international help), all for a war against a tinpot dictator who in no way threatened us, who didn’t have any WMD and didn’t have any connections whatsoever to the terrorists that attacked us? Meanwhile said war diverted our resources away from hunting those who did attack us.
    With all that, all you can manage is some glib “do you support Saddam Hussien?”
    Jeff do you propose the immediate invasion of North Korea? No. Well, then let me ask you: Why do you support the North Korean government, Jeff? Why?

  15. Franky Avatar
    Franky

    I’m sorry if I’m sounding overly rude on this, but even the title you chose is dumb. You complain about mud in political debate, yet call the BBC the Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation. That’s about as true as calling the Republican Party the Nazi party or the Democrats the Communist party. Snappy little insulting slogans are a pretty obvious crutch for someone whose arguments can’t stand up to much scrutiny.

  16. pele Avatar
    pele

    America can do whatever it wants because it is the ‘Hardest’ country. It’s fun to hear jumped up do-gooders like Koffi Annan going on like that because he can’t actually do anything. Poland next sorry I mean Iran.

  17. Billy West Avatar
    Billy West

    I don’t. Now would you answer mine?

  18. alkali Avatar
    alkali

    Billy West writes:
    1)Do you believe the US should abide by international law? …
    I’ll answer this.
    In general, I believe I ought to comply with the law, and it would have to be an extreme situation if I chose to break the law. I think most people feel that way. But I don’t think that the US has the same kind of moral obligation to abide by international law.
    However, I do think the US ought to consider whether it is in its interest to comply with — or to be viewed as complying with — international law, and what the consequences might be if the US is seen as not complying with international law. That the US is viewed abroad as a rogue state is not a positive development, regardless of whether you’d ever want to invite Kofi Annan to a dinner party.

  19. yank in london Avatar
    yank in london

    Alkali – I think you need to read the US constitution (Article VI states that the “Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made or shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land”. The Charter of the United Nations, which clearly states the legal basis for war and self denfense, is a signed and ratified treaty of the United States and, ergo, the “Supreme Law of the Land”.
    Secretary Annan was merely stating the obvious.

  20. AlanC Avatar
    AlanC

    Nice try yank. You might want to try reading UNSC resolution 1441 and it’s links to the other preceding resolutions. You know, the ones that state explicitly that members are to use “all means necessary” to enforce them?
    This was legal vis a vis international or any other relevant law. Kofi is lying to try and coverup the billion $ rip off that our war stopped.

  21. Billy West Avatar
    Billy West

    AlanC
    Since you’ve read UNSC Resolution 1441 you are probably aware that there is no language specifying an enforcement mechanism in the resolution. Further, Paragraph 14 explicitly states, “The Security Council…Decides to remain seized of the matter.” which means that the Security Council as a whole, not some fraction thereof, had the legal authority to determine compliance and enforcement. You’re also going to reach a legal dead end if you appeal to earlier resolutions as the source of legal authority for the invasion – it doesn’t exist. The “all necessary means” referred to an explicit objective – the removal of Iraq from Kuwait. Once accomplished, a cease fire resolution was passed which also explicitly stated that the Security Council retained the legal authority over the matter. No resolution exists that grants the US the right to wage war on Iraq at will and for perpetuity. Such a resolution would be contrary to the spirit and letter of the UN Charter.

  22. yank in london Avatar
    yank in london

    Resolution 1441 only uses the language “all necessary means” in reference to resolution 678 which clearly did not authorise the use of force in any way. 1441 goes further to say that the Security council “decides to remain seized of the matter” which means that the Security Council does not cede any responsibility to member states to resolve the matter unilaterally. 1441 also quite specifically spells out, as noted above, the steps to be taken should Iraq not comply with the “final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations”. None of the steps so mentioned authorise the use of force – either under the UN umbrella or unilaterally.
    Clearly 1441 did not authorise force in any way shape or form and that is why it was adopted. If it did authorise force why did both the UK and the US return to the security council to obtain such authorisation? Clearly this would have been unnecessary if force where authorised.

  23. MD Avatar
    MD

    Oh lord, my eyes glaze over with this resolution and that resolution. Thank God I never went to law school :)
    Still, I’ve never understood why the US signed up for, or rather, continues to underwrite a large chunk of the UN. By what rights does a non-elected body, a good chunk of whom are ‘representatives’ of despotic nations, claim to speak for me, or any other citizen of a democracy? I don’t remember voting for Kofi. I don’t remember voting on whether we should be a part of the UN. And why has the UN been unable to stop the genocide in the Sudan. I thought after Rwanda….

  24. Kat Avatar
    Kat

    Koffi is just pissed that the US disabled his cash cow. Koffi should worry more about all his illegal activities. There is no bigger hypocrite than that useless tit.
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132682,00.html

  25. pezza Avatar
    pezza

    Resolution 1441 confirmed that Iraq was in breach of the ceasefire agreement of resolution 687. The ‘all necessary means’ was the authorisation mentioned in resolution 678 to enforce resolution 660 ‘and all subsequent relevant resolutions’. Iraq did not meet any of the subsequent relevant resolutions, thus member states were authorised to enforce these by ‘all necessary means’. The fact that the UN remained ‘seized of the matter’ did not make a difference as the body had already authorised its member states to use all necessary means to enforce its resolutions. Furthermore, under resolution 1441, the UN did, as a body confirm non-compliance with previous resolutions. There is simply no valid argument that the invasion was illegal under international law.

  26. shark Avatar
    shark

    Speaking of illegal, Kofi want to update us on the money your son stole through UNSCAM?
    Thought not.
    Keep your big yap shut you empty vessel.

  27. AndrewBB Avatar
    AndrewBB

    Yep giving the finger to the world is entirely gratifying – if you’re 10 years old.
    Lose yourself …

  28. AndrewBB Avatar
    AndrewBB

    Sorry I wish I was in the mood to be as thoughtful a some of those above.

  29. Billy West Avatar
    Billy West

    Pezza,
    Wrong. The “all necessary means” to enforce “all subsequent resolutions” language in 678 refers to the resolutions passed between 660 and 678 – it does not authorize a resumption of hostilities in case Iraq did not comply with the cease fire resolution (687), which hadn’t yet been written. To find such an authorization, you would have to refer to the terms of 687, which offers no such thing. Indeed, Paragraph 34 says the opposite: “The Security Council…Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.” This refutes any attempt to use prior resolutions as a justification for the use of force without new and explicit approval from the Security Council.

  30. Franky Avatar
    Franky

    Yeah Shark, tens of thousands die in an uncessary war, but you’ve got your eye on the missing millions (even billions?). Good one.

  31. Pezza Avatar
    Pezza

    Er, Billy, 687 wasn’t subsequent to 660? Just cos’ 687 hadn’t been written yet doesnt mean it wasn’t subsequent and relevant. And by the way, Iraq remained in violation of 660 and 678 anyway! So the justification for the first war still existed.