SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Lord Bingham, one of the English-speaking world’s most famous judges, just went into retirement, and used the occasion of his first public speech to lambast the Bush and Blair Administrations over their joint decision to invade Iraq. The Guardian reports:
Contradicting head-on [the advice of Lord Peter Goldsmith, Blair’s attorney general] that the invasion was lawful, Bingham stated: “It was not plain that Iraq had failed to comply in a manner justifying resort to force and there were no strong factual grounds or hard evidence to show that it had.” Adding his weight to the body of international legal opinion opposed to the invasion, Bingham said that to argue, as the British government had done, that Britain and the US could unilaterally decide that Iraq had broken UN resolutions “passes belief”.
Governments were bound by international law as much as by their domestic laws, he said. “The current ministerial code,” he added “binding on British ministers, requires them as an overarching duty to ‘comply with the law, including international law and treaty obligations’.”
Bingham’s remarks reflect the emerging consensus in the international law community that the March 2003 invasion of Iraq by America and Britain was contrary to international law. At the time of the invasion, many prominent figures were prepared to accept at face value American claims of an imminent threat from Iraq based on evidence of the existence of WMDs. Almost six years later, that support has been eviscerated—not by disclosure that there were no WMDs, as by disclosures suggesting that the intelligence American and British authorities had at the time never supported their claims.
Note that this does not mean that the American presence in Iraq today is unlawful. It was authorized by a United Nations Security Council resolution in June 2004, which meets the concerns that Bingham addressed. In Britain the political configuration on the war issue clashes with that in the United States: Conservatives push for a probe into the launch of the war, and the left-leaning Labour Party opposes these efforts.
More from Scott Horton:
Six Questions — October 18, 2014, 8:00 pm
Nathaniel Raymond on CIA interrogation techniques.
I recently spent a semester teaching writing at an elite liberal-arts college. At strategic points around the campus, in shades of yellow and green, banners displayed the following pair of texts. The first was attributed to the college’s founder, which dates it to the 1920s. The second was extracted from the latest version of the institution’s mission statement:
The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.
Let us take a moment to compare these texts. The first thing to observe about the older one is that it is a sentence. It expresses an idea by placing concepts in relation to one another within the kind of structure that we call a syntax. It is, moreover, highly wrought: a parallel structure underscored by repetition, five adverbs balanced two against three.
Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:
An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.
A naked man believed to be under the influence of LSD rammed his pickup truck into two police cars.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”