by Francis A. Boyle
On 19 March 2003 President Bush Jr. commenced his criminal war against Iraq
by ordering a so-called decapitation strike against the President of Iraq in
violation of a 48-hour ultimatum he had given publicly to the Iraqi
President and his sons to leave the country. This duplicitous behavior
violated the customary international laws of war set forth in the 1907 Hague
Convention on the Opening of Hostilities to which the United States is still
a contracting party, as evidenced by paragraphs 20, 21, 22, and 23 of U.S.
Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956).
Furthermore, President Bush Jr.'s attempt to assassinate the President of
Iraq was an international crime in its own
right. Of course the Bush Jr. administration's war of aggression against
Iraq constituted a Crime against Peace as defined by the Nuremberg Charter
(1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950)
as well as by paragraph 498 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956). . . .
On 1 May 2003 . . . the United States government became the belligerent
occupant of Iraq under international law and practice.
This legal status was formally recognized by U.N. Security Council
Resolution 1483 of 22 May 2003. . . .
Only when that U.S. belligerent occupation of Iraq is factually terminated
can the people of Iraq have the opportunity to exercise their international
legal right of sovereignty by means of free, fair, democratic, and uncoerced
elections . . .
Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations on land warfare flatly prohibits
the change in a basic law such as a state's Constitution during the course
of a belligerent occupation. . . .
[Mr. Boyle is professor of International Law at Univ. Illinois - Champaign.
He is a mangna cum laude Harvard graduate and specialist in international
Enver Masud, "New Iraq
Constitution a Pretext for Exploitation," The Wisdom Fund, September 16, 2003
[The constitutional process culminating in Saturday's referendum is not a
sign of Iraqi sovereignty and democracy taking hold, but rather a
consolidation of U.S. influence and control. . . . The proposed constitution
would strip Iraqis of future control over their nation's oil wealth by
opening all new oil exploration and production to foreign oil
companies.--Phyllis Bennis, "THE IRAQI
CONSTITUTION: A Referendum for Disaster," Institute for Policy Studies,
October 13, 2005]
Patrick Cockburn, "Deep
divisions remain over Iraq's constitution as the country prepares to
vote," Independent, October 15, 2005
[All of the women's groups are against this constitution, but unfortunately,
a big majority is voting yes, because they are under the impression that a
vote yes will lead to more secure times in Iraq, and it's not just something
that they are assuming, but they were told this over and over again by the
puppet government that has been selected by the Americans and also by the
occupying forces, that a vote yes is a yes for democracy.--"Iraqi
Feminist Yanar Mohammed on the Iraq Constitution Vote," DemocracyNow,
October 17, 2005]
[ABC World News Tonight shows an Iraqi marking seven ballots with a "yes"--
October 17, 2005]
[Iraqi election officials said today that they were investigating what they
described as "unusually high" vote totals in 12 Shiite and Kurdish
provinces, where as many 99 percent of the voters were reported to have cast
ballots in favor of Iraq's new constitution--Dexter Filkins, "Vote Totals Under Inquiry in 12 Iraqi Provinces, Panel
Says," New York Times, October 17, 2005]
Mark LeVine, "Iraq's Oslo
moment," Asia Times, October 18, 2005
Hatem Mukhlis, "A
disastrous constitution," International Herald Tribune, October 19, 2005
Edward Wong, "Iraqi Officials Declare Charter Has Been Passed," New York Times,
October 26, 2005
[. . . it is disunity, diminished sovereignty and years of future discord
that lie in store for Iraq if the Constitution is not overhauled.Kanan
Makiya, "Present at the Disintegration," New York Times, December 11, 2005]