Did Bush contemplate violating int'l law, to provoke Iraq to violate int'l law?

  • Kagro X's picture
    Kagro X
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

By now you've doubtless heard about the New York Times coverage of still more memos from high up in the British government that blow the doors off the "we got bad intelligence" garbage we've been fed from the beginning.

It's no news to us, of course, that Bush was warned that the alumninum tubes Iraq had procured were for conventional weapons, not uranium refining. And we already know that Bush knew he wouldn't find WMD in Iraq, either.

But here's a new twist:

"The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."

So, blogosphere-based experts and Google monkeys, what's the deal with this? Doesn't it strike you as likely that this would represent some sort of enormous and glaring violation of international law and/or the U.N. Charter? To bait another sovereign nation into war by deliberately violating its airspace, with military aircraft repainted in U.N. colors?

Thoughts? References? Citations to authority?

Comments

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions

  • Bob Fertik's picture
    Bob Fertik
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Jonathan Schwarz found this:

at the very least it would have violated the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions, which entered into force in 1979. Specifically, Article 38 of the Protocol Additional states:

"It is prohibited to make use of the distinctive emblem of the United Nations, except as authorized by that Organization."

However, the U.S. has never ratified the Protocol Additional -- in fact, Ronald Reagan refused in 1987 even to submit it to the Senate for ratification.