Quote:
Originally Posted by Parihaka
Well, you can say that but where is your evidence? What International Laws has the US broken? What case has been brought against her in relation to Iraq, and by whom?
|
If a battered wife or rape victim is too afraid to bring charges, does it absolve the perpetrator?
The war against Iraq was undoubtedly a war of aggression.
Waging a war of aggression is a crime under customary international law and refers to any war waged not out of self-defense or sanctioned by the UN.
The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
The "Unlawful use of force" is legal speak for international terrorism. So no, not different at all. The reason we don't use "terrorism" in the sphere of international law is that it is too subjective. For example, the US calls Hamas a terrorist organisation, Gazans feel the same way about the US or the Zionist regime. So we just use "unlawful use of force".
Definitions of terrorism have always been thrown out, simply because when we apply them, we get all the wrong results.