September 27, 2006
RE: Cheney’s Statements on Justification of War Must Be Challenged
On September 10th in a televised interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, Vice President Dick Cheney stated with little ambiguity that we would have invaded Iraq in 2003 even if we knew that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction. This statement by our nation’s Vice President repudiates the legal and moral principle of non-aggression which has been accepted by the international community and has won the United States international trust and respect. This repudiation must not go unnoticed or unchallenged by Congress and the American people.
Of the many findings of “fact” in the Joint Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, the key finding was that Iraq was producing and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and had both the capability and intent to use them in short order. Under the principles of international law that we helped design, and to which we have committed ourselves, only a perception of imminent armed attack justified our first use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq in 2003.
Congress must clarify to the administration and to the American people that Congress would not have supported an invasion of Iraq in the absence of the intelligence reports and administration assurances that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction posing a threat of imminent attack to us and our allies. In addition, it is vital that Congress demand that the President correct, or repudiate, the recent remarks made by Vice President Cheney.
In the aftermath of the death and economic devastation of World Wars I and II, the United States led the world in the development of an international legal framework condemning non-defensive acts of war. This was codified and ratified by all major powers in the United Nations Charter, and explicitly accepted as binding by all members of the United Nations (now including virtually every nation in the world). Regardless of other concerns we have had about the UN over the ensuing years, this aspect of international law codified particularly in Articles 2 and 51 of the UN Charter has often been re-affirmed and never repudiated by the United States.
For over half a century our government has recognized that this legal framework serves our long-term interests and faithfully reflects the moral stance of the American people. The American people do not approve of war as an instrument of foreign policy, but only as a justified and necessary response to forceful attacks upon us or our allies. Even when the case was not clear, in certain conflicts, our government has at least formally supported the international legal framework of the UN Charter.
In 2003, the Bush administration assured Congress and the American people that there was no doubt that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Many in our military, intelligence, and diplomatic communities still had doubts. Many in Congress expressed concerns, but in the end a majority decided to authorize the President to respond to the immediate threat his administration described.
Alternative justifications offered by Vice President Cheney during the recent interview are clearly legally insufficient for military action. A capability to produce weapons of mass destruction in the future, the use of weapons of mass destruction in the past, crimes against the people of Iraq, possible connections with terrorist organizations – all of these qualify as grievances which the United States might bring against Iraq in the United Nations, as we did, but do not constitute grounds for the first use of force without UN approval.
In particular, the justification offered by Cheney that Iraq would have become a threat in the future is exactly the kind of argument that the international legal principles are designed to inhibit. Any nation might perceive another nation as a future threat. Germany perceived France and Russia as threats in 1914. Japan perceived the United States as a threat in 1941. North Korea and Iran view the United States as a threat today, particularly after our invasion of Iraq. China could view Taiwan or the United States as a future threat. A non-imminent future threat justifies preparedness, diplomacy, changes in policy, and appeals for UN action, but does not justify military force.
Vice President Cheney’s statement that we would have invaded Iraq even if we knew they had no weapons of mass destruction is a repudiation of what we have repeatedly avowed for more than fifty years: that we shall not attack another nation in the absence of an attack or truly imminent attack on us or our allies, unless it is done under the authority of international law and/or the direction of the United Nations, e.g. in response to a humanitarian crisis. We cannot allow Cheney’s repudiation to stand, even if it was made extemporaneously and unofficially. Congress and the President must provide a clear statement that Vice President Dick Cheney’s remarks do not represent U.S. policy and that we remain committed to a policy of non-aggression.
Signatories
Organizational affiliations are listed only for identification purposes. Signatories are acting in their individual capacity and not in representation.
<Additional signatories are welcome. Please send Name, Titles, and State of Residency to signup@principledaction.org>
Bryan Long
Social Systems Philosopher
Joe W. (Chip) Pitts III
Lecturer in Law, Stanford University
Dr. Susan Ariel Aaronson
Trade and Economic Policy Analyst; Author
William J. Aceves
Professor of Law
and Director of International Studies,
California Western School of Law
Janet Cooper Alexander
Frederick I. Richman Professor of Law
Stanford Law School
Professor Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na`im
Charles Howard Candler Professor of Law
Emory University School of Law
Cherif Bassiouni
Distinguished Professor of Law
DePaul University
Samuel R. Berger
Chairman, Stonebridge International LLC
Fmr. National Security Advisor
Bartram S. Brown
Professor of Law
Co-Director, Program on International and Comparative Law
Chicago-Kent College of Law
Illinois Institute of Technology
Douglass Cassel
Lilly Endowment Professor of Law
Notre Dame Law School
Marie Isabelle Chevrier
Associate Professor of Political Economy
and Public Policy
University of Texas at Dallas
Roger S. Clark
Board of Governors Professor, Rutgers-Camden School of Law
Gen. Wesley Clark
Fmr. NATO Supreme Allied Commander
Distinguished Sr. Advisor,
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Trustee, Center for American Progress
Sarah H. Cleveland
Marrs McLean Professor in Law
University of Texas School of Law
Joshua Cohen
Professor of Political Science, Philosophy, and Law Stanford University
Director, Program on Global Justice
Freeman Spogli Institute, Stanford
Anthony D’Amato
Leighton Professor of Law
Northwestern University
Mohamed Elibiary
President & CEO
Freedom and Justice Foundation
Richard Falk
Milbank Professor of International Law Emeritus Princeton University
Martin Flaherty
Co-Director, Crowley Program in International Human Rights
Leitner Family Professor of International Human Rights
Fordham Law School
Gregory Fox
Professor of Law
Wayne State University Law School
William B. Gould
Beardsley Emeritus Professor
Stanford University Law School
Former Chairman, US National Labor Relations Board
Morton H. Halperin
Director of U.S. Advocacy , Open Society Institute
Executive Director, Open Society Policy Center
Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress
Lynne Henderson
Professor of Law
William S. Boyd School of Law
University of Nevada Las Vegas
Paul Hoffman
Schonbrun, De Simone, Seplow, Harris and Hoffman LLP
Human Rights/Civil Liberties Lawyer
Jennifer S. Holmes,
Associate Professor of Political Economy and Political Science
School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences
University of Texas at Dallas
Scott Horton
Adjunct Professor, Columbia Law School
Committee on International Law,
Assn. of the Bar of the City of New York
Derek Jinks
Assistant Professor of Law
University of Texas School of Law
Carl Kaysen
Director, Program in Science, Technology and Society, M.I.T.
Frank Kendall III
Former Vice Chairman,
Defense Intelligence Agency Advisory Board
Former Director, Tactical Warfare Programs
Office of the Secretary of Defense
Robert O. Keohane
Professor of International Affairs
Woodrow Wilson School
Princeton University
Anatol Lieven
Senior Research Fellow
New America Foundation
Louis M. Lupin
Senior Vice President and General Counsel
Qualcomm, Inc.
Princeton Lyman
Adjunct Senior Fellow
Council on Foreign Relations
Thomas Wm. Mayo
Director, Maguire Center for Ethics and Public Responsibility
Associate Professor, SMU/Dedman School of Law
Adjunct Assoc. Prof., Internal Medicine
UT-Southwestern Medical School
Francisco Forrest Martin
President, Rights International
The Center for International Human Rights Law, Inc.
Ray McGovern
Retired CIA Analyst
Political Policy Analyst and Commentator
Julie Mertus
Associate Professor and Co-Director of Ethics, Peace and Global Affairs Program,
American University
2006 Senior Fulbright Fellow, Danish Institute of Human Rights
Mary Ellen O'Connell
Robert and Marion Short Chair in Law
Notre Dame Law School
John Quigley
President's Club Professor in Law
Moritz College of Law
The Ohio State University
Henry J. Richardson III
Professor of Law, Beasley School of Law
Temple University
Michael P. Scharf
Professor of Law and Director
Frederick K. Cox International Law Center
Case Western Reserve University
School of Law
Thomas C. Shelling
Distinguished University Professor
University of Maryland
Nobel Laureate 2005
Barbara Stark
Professor of Law
Hofstra University School of Law
Beth Stephens
Professor of Law
Rutgers-Camden School of Law
Ralph Steinhardt
Professor of Law and International Affairs
Arthur Selwyn Miller Research Professor of Law
George Washington University School of Law
Andrew Strauss
Professor of Law
Widener University School of Law
Nancy Talanian
Executive Director, Bill of Rights Defense Committee
Connie de la Vega
Professor of Law and Academic Director of International Programs
University of San Francisco School of Law
Jon M. Van Dyke
Professor of Law, William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawaii at Manoa
Allen Weiner
Warren Christopher Professor of the Practice of Law and Diplomacy, Stanford University
David Weissbrodt
Professor of Law, University of Minnesota
Burns H. Weston
Bessie Dutton Murray Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Interim Director/Senior Scholar, UI Center for Human Rights (UICHR)
Vermont Law School Visiting Distinguished Professor of International Law & Policy
College of Law, The University of Iowa
Mort Winston
Professor of Philosophy
The College of New Jersey
Timothy Wu
Professor of Law
Columbia Law School
References:
NBC Meet The Press Interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, 9/10/2006
(Transcript available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14720480/)
MR. RUSSERT: But Mr. Vice President, the primary rationale giving—given for the war in Iraq was Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. You—on August of 2002, this is what you told the VFW. Let’s just watch it.
(Videotape, August 26, 2002):
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
(End of videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: In fact, there is grave doubt, because they did not exist along the lines that you described, the president described, and others described. Based on what you know now, that Saddam did not have the weapons of mass destruction that were described, would you still have gone into Iraq?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yes, Tim, because what the reports also showed, while he did not have stockpiles—clearly the intelligence that said he did was wrong. That was the intelligence all of us saw, that was the intelligence all of us believed, it was—when, when George Tenet sat in the Oval Office and the president of the United States asked him directly, he said, “George, how good is the case against Saddam on weapons of mass destruction?” the director of the CIA said, “It’s a slam dunk, Mr. President, it’s a slam dunk.” That was the intelligence that was provided to us at the time, and based upon which we made a choice.
MR. RUSSERT: So if the CIA said to you at that time, “Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction, his chemical and biological have been degraded, he has no nuclear program under way,” you’d still invade Iraq?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Because, again, look at the Duelfer Report and what it said. No stockpiles, but they also said he has the capability. He’d done it before. He had produced chemical weapons before and used them. He had produced biological weapons. He had a robust nuclear program in ‘91. All of this is true, said by Duelfer, facts. Also said that as soon as the sanctions are lifted, they expect Saddam to be back in business.
Joint Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
“Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; …“Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Nuremberg International Conference on Military Trials, Agreement and Charter, 8/8/1945
Article 6. (a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing
United Nations Charter
Chapter I, Article 2:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Chapter VII, Article 51:
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. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Vice President Dick Cheney, Speech to Veterans of Foreign Wars, August 26 2002
“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”
President George Bush, Press Conference at Camp David September 7th, 2002:
“the one thing that no one can deny is that Saddam Hussein is in breach of the United Nations resolutions on weapons of mass destruction -- that is, chemical, biological, nuclear weapons; that that poses a threat not just to the region, because there is no way, if those weapons were used, that the threat would simply stay in the region.”
Comments of Scowcroft, Baker, Kissenger, Kroesen, Zimmerman, Powell, Zinni, et. al. (Ricks, Thomas: Fiasco, Penguin Press, 2006). Various content within the National Intelligence Estimate presented to Congress (ibid)
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld before the House Armed Services Committee, September 18 2002:
“[Saddam] has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly Smallpox. He’s amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas.” “We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, they're pursuing nuclear weapons, that they've proven willingness to use those weapons, and that they have a proven aspiration to seize territory of their neighbors and to threaten their neighbors, and that they cooperate with terrorist networks and that they have a proven record of declared hostility and venomous rhetoric against the United States. Those threats should be clear to all. “
Statements of past presidents confirming U.S. acceptance of the legal principles embodied in the United Nations Charter
President Harry Truman, Address to the Opening Session of the United Nations General Assembly, 10/23/1946
The United States of America has no wish to make war, now or in the future, upon any people anywhere in the world. The heart of our foreign policy is a sincere desire for peace. This nation will work patiently for peace by every means consistent with self-respect and security. Another world war would shatter the hopes of mankind and completely destroy civilization as we know it.
I am sure that every delegate in this hall will join me in rejecting talk of war. No nation wants war. Every nation needs peace.
To avoid war and rumors and danger of war the peoples of all countries must not only cherish peace as an ideal but they must develop means of settling conflicts between nations in accordance with the principles of law and justice.
The difficulty is that it is easier to get people to agree upon peace as an ideal than to agree upon principles of law and justice or to agree to subject their own acts to the collective judgment of mankind.
But difficult as the task may be, the path along which agreement may be sought is clearly defined. We expect to follow that path with success.
In the first place, every member of the United Nations is legally and morally bound by the Charter to keep the peace. More specifically, every member is bound to refrain in its international relations from the threat, or use, of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
In the second place, I remind you that 23 members of the United Nations have bound themselves by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal to the principle that planning, initiating or waging a war of aggression is a crime against humanity for which individuals as well as states shall be tried before the bar of international justice.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Address Before the 15th General Assembly of the United Nations, 9/22/1960
The first proposition I place before you is that only through the United Nations Organization and its truly democratic processes can humanity make real and universal progress toward the goal of peace with justice. Therefore, I believe that to support the United Nations Organization and its properly constituted mechanisms and its selected officers is the road of greatest promise in peaceful progress. To attempt to hinder or stultify the United Nations or to deprecate its importance is to contribute to world unrest and, indeed, to incite the crises that from time to time so disturb all men. The United States stands squarely and unequivocably in support of the United Nations and those acting under its mandate in the interest of peace.
…
The United States wants the Soviet Union and all the nations of the world to know enough about United States defense preparations to be assured that United States forces exist only for deterrence and defense-not for surprise attack. I hope the Soviet Union will similarly wish to assure the United States and other nations of the nonaggressive character of its security preparations.
President Richard Nixon, Address Before the 24th Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations
The test of the structure of peace is that it ensure for the people of each nation the integrity of their borders, their right to develop in peace and safety, and their right to determine their own destiny without outside interference.
As long as we live with the threat of aggression, we need physical restraints to contain it.
But the truest peace is based on self-restraint--on the voluntary acceptance of those basic rules of behavior that are rooted in mutual respect and demonstrated in mutual forbearance.
The more closely the world community adheres to a single standard in judging international behavior, the less likely that standard is to be violated.
President Ronald Reagan, Remarks Before the United Nations General Assembly, 6/17/1982
As both patriots of our nations and the hope of all the world, let those of us assembled here in the name of peace deepen our understandings, renew our commitment to the rule of law, and take new and bolder steps-to calm an uneasy world. Can any delegate here deny that in so doing he would be doing what the people, the rank and file of his own country or her own country want him or her to do? Isn't it time for us to really represent the deepest most heartfelt yearnings of all of our people?
Let no nation abuse this common longing to be free of fear. We must not manipulate our people by playing upon their nightmares.
President George Bush, Sr., Address to the 46th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, 9/23/1991
Where institutions of freedom have lain dormant, the United Nations can offer them new life. These institutions play a crucial role in our quest for a new world order, an order in which no nation must surrender one iota of its own sovereignty, an order characterized by the rule of law rather than the resort to force, the cooperative settlement of disputes rather than anarchy and bloodshed, and an unstinting belief in human rights.
Finally, you may wonder about America's role in the new world that I have described. Let me assure you, the United States has no intention of striving for a Pax Americana. However, we will remain engaged. We will not retreat and pull back into isolationism. We will offer friendship and leadership. And in short, we seek a Pax Universalis built upon shared responsibilities and aspirations.
