ZGram - 10/7/2002 - "Scott Ritter: Help us stop the war"

[irimland@zundelsite.org]

ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny

October 7, 2002

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

We are entering a crucial week and an extremely serious period in the 
political arena.  This essay is one of many that appeared today - all 
pleading with us to call - call  - call our representatives and tell 
them not to sell out on America.

[START]

Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help us to stop the war

As a US Republican, I reject George Bush's illegal and 
unconstitutional plan to attack Iraq

Scott Ritter
Monday October 7, 2002
The Guardian

As a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and as a registered 
member of the Republican party who voted for George Bush in the last 
presidential election, I have to admit to a certain trepidation and 
uncertainty when I was asked by Labour MPs to participate in the 
massive anti-war rally in London on September 28.

In my way of thinking, mass demonstrations, regardless of the 
righteousness of the cause, were the theatre of the political left, 
and not something with which I should be associated. I was proven 
wrong on all counts. The outpouring of democratic will that occurred 
on that day came not only from the left, but from across the breadth 
of mainstream British society. It sent a message to a Blair 
government that had grown increasingly isolated from public opinion: 
UK support for an American unilateral war on Iraq would not be 
tolerated. That message met a response a few days later from the 
Labour party at its annual conference in Blackpool. Democracy in 
action is a wonderful thing.

Across the Atlantic, in the United States, a debate is about to begin 
in the US Congress over the granting of sweeping war powers that 
would enable President Bush to wage war against Iraq, even if such 
action were unilateral and lacking in authority from the United 
Nations.

To many Americans, myself included, the granting of such powers 
represents a breach of constitutional responsibility on the part of 
Congress, which alone under the constitution of the United States is 
authorised to declare war. There is at least one US senator - Robert 
Byrd of West Virginia - who recognises this, and has indicated his 
willingness to launch a filibuster of the debate. Senator Byrd is 
famous for carrying a copy of the US constitution in his breast 
pocket, and pulling it out on the floor of the Senate to remind 
fellow senators what American democracy is founded on. One man 
fighting in defence of the basic foundation of American society. 
Where are the large-scale US demonstrations in support of this 
struggle? Where are the voices of outrage over what amounts to a 
frontal assault on the constitution of the United States? Democracy 
silenced is awful.

The constitution has always guided me in my actions as an American 
citizen. It establishes the US as a nation of laws, and sets high 
standards for the ideals we Americans strive to achieve as a nation. 
As an officer of Marines, I took an oath to defend the US 
constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is an oath 
I take very seriously and I am willing to give my life in defence of 
this document - something I demonstrated during my time in uniform, 
including service in Operation Desert Storm.

I am no pacifist, but I am opposed to President Bush's rush towards 
war with Iraq this time around. As signatories to the UN charter, 
Americans have agreed to abide by a body of international law that 
explicitly governs the conditions under which nations may go to war. 
All require authority of the security council, either through an 
invocation of article 51 (self defence), or a resolution passed under 
chapter seven of the charter (collective security).

President Bush's case for war simply has not been demonstrated to 
meet any of these criteria. The president repeatedly announced that 
Iraq has failed to comply with its obligation to disarm, and as such 
poses a threat to international peace and security. The president 
declared that Iraq must allow weapons inspectors to return to Iraq, 
without conditions, with unfettered access to all sites. Iraq's 
failure to allow inspectors to return to work since their withdrawal 
in December 1998 has prompted fear in many circles (recently 
demonstrated by the UK government's dossier on Iraqi weapons 
programs) that Iraq has taken advantage of the intervening time to 
reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs dismantled 
under UN supervision. With no inspectors in Iraq, it was impossible 
to know for certain what the regime of Saddam Hussein was up to; and, 
given Iraq's past record of deceit over these weapons, the US and 
others were justified in presuming ill intent.

But now Iraq has agreed to allow the inspectors to return, 
unconditionally, and to be held accountable to the rule of law as set 
forth in existing security council resolutions governing Iraq's 
disarmament. The opportunity finally exists to bring clarity to years 
of speculation about the potential threat posed by Iraq's weapons of 
mass destruction, as well as an opportunity to resolve this ongoing 
crisis of international law peacefully.


B ut President Bush refuses to take "yes" for an answer. The Bush 
administration's actions lay bare the mythology that this war is 
being fought over any threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass 
destruction. It has made it clear that its objective is the 
elimination of Saddam Hussein. And this is where I have a fundamental 
problem. The UN charter prohibits regime removal. The US constitution 
states that international agreements entered into by the United 
States carry the force of law. The US has signed the UN charter. 
Regime removal is not only a violation of international law, it is 
unconstitutional.

There is a way to deal with the need to change a regime deemed to be 
a risk to international peace and security, and that is through the 
UN. If President Bush truly wanted to seek regime removal in Baghdad, 
then he would push for an indictment of Saddam Hussein and his senior 
leadership in the international court for crimes against humanity, 
something that should not prove hard to do, given the record of the 
Butcher of Baghdad (and something other members of the UN would 
clearly support as an alternative to war). But seeking judgment 
through the international court requires a recognition by the US of 
the primacy of international law, something the Bush administration 
has been loath to do.

The fact of the matter is this crisis between Iraq and the US goes 
beyond even the issue of regime removal. It represents the first case 
study of the implementation of a new US national security strategy, 
published last month, which sets forth a doctrine of unilateralism 
that capitalises on American military and economic might to maintain 
the US as the sole superpower, to impose our will on the rest of the 
world, even through pre-emptive military action. This strategy is a 
rejection of multilateralism, a turning away from the concepts of 
international law.

This new Bush doctrine of American unilateralism reeks of imperial 
power, the very power against which Ameri cans fought a revolution 
more than 200 years ago. The streets of Washington DC are empty of 
demonstrators protesting at this frontal assault on American 
democracy. Will the streets of London be filled again with protesters 
against this assault on the rule of international law? I certainly 
hope so, because the people of Britain could lead by example, sending 
a clear signal to fellow practitioners of democracy in America that 
when it comes to determining what actions a government takes in the 
name of the people, the will of the people cannot, and will not, be 
ignored.

=====

Scott Ritter was a UN weapons inspector in Iraq in 1991-98 and chief 
of the concealment investigations team. His interview with William 
Rivers Pitt forms the core of War on Iraq (Profile Books)

WSRitter@aol.com

[end]

==============

How to call your representative:

Go to http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html

Scroll to the bottom of this article.  Type in your zip code.  You 
will find convenient links to the people who are there to do the 
people's bidding.  Tell them to vote accordingly.

This upcoming war is unworthy of America and those who love this 
country.  Please let your senators and congressmen know where you 
stand.

I spent all afternoon doing exactly that.

Ingrid