Illegal missile strikes by US President Trump a blatant violation of Iraq’s Sovereignty

03-January-2020

Note: Today’s illegal missile attacks in Iraq by the United States must be condemned globally and unilaterally. Any attempts to escalate these tensions must be stopped. Furthermore, the United States needs to get out of the Middle East, West Asia and Africa. Illegal US intervention in Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen, Syria. Libya and Egypt […]

Note: Today’s illegal missile attacks in Iraq by the United States must be condemned globally and unilaterally.

Any attempts to escalate these tensions must be stopped. Furthermore, the United States needs to get out of the Middle East, West Asia and Africa.

Illegal US intervention in Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen, Syria. Libya and Egypt has devastated the region. Is it just a coincidence that illegal US intervention is always accompanied by Takfiri and Fascist forces.

Political Islam and sectarianism are the natural partners of illegal US intervention.

That is why today’s condemnable and illegal missile strikes in Iraq must NOT be reduced and restricted to a narrow sectarian lens.

Instead, the world community and Pakistan should use this event to support the Iraqi Parliament. The Iraqi Parliament should pass a resolution to ask the United States to end it’s illegal occupation of Iraq and its resources. The US has to pack up and leave Iraq.

It has to leave Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya , Bahrain etc. No more meddling.

We welcome the following Tweets by the United Nations and by US Senator (D) Chris Murphy. So far, only he and Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard have spoken against this illegal attack against Iraq’s sovereignty.

The justification for the assasination is to “deter future Iranian attacks”.

One reason we don’t generally assasinate foreign political officials is the belief that such action will get more, not less, Americans killed.

That should be our real, pressing and grave worry tonight.

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) January 3, 2020

No one can claim to know with certainty what happens next.

But the neocons thumping their chest tonight should recall that the worst mistakes global powers make are when they strike militarily in complicated places with few friends, with no consideration of the consequences.

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) January 3, 2020

Secretary-General @antonioguterres has consistently advocated for de-escalation in the Gulf. He is deeply concerned with the recent escalation.

This is a moment in which leaders must exercise maximum restraint. The world cannot afford another war in the Gulf.

— UN Spokesperson (@UN_Spokesperson) January 3, 2020

Multiple United States administrations have ignored Congress and started more illegal wars. Americans need to hold their Executives to account.

#Iraq: The targeted killings of Qasem Soleiman and Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis are most lokely unlawful and violate international human rights law: Outside the context of active hostilities, the use of drones or other means for targeted killing is almost never likely to be legal.

To be justified under international human rights law, intentionally lethal or potentially lethal force can only be used where strictly necessary to protect against an imminent threat to life.

In other words, whoever targeted these two men would need to demonstrate that the persons targeted constitute(d) an imminent threat to others. An individual’s past involvement in “terrorist” attacks is not sufficient to make his targeting for killing lawful.

Furthermore, drone killing of anyone other than the target (family members or others in the vicinity, for example) would be an arbitrary deprivation of life under human rights law and could result in State responsibility and individual criminal liability.

The use of drones on the territory of other States has also been justified on the basis of self-defence. Under customary international law States can take military action if the threatened attack is imminent, no other means would deﬂect it, and the action is proportionate.

The test for so-called anticipatory self-defence is very narrow: it must be a necessity that is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation”. This test is unlikely to be met in these particular cases.

Source:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1212918159096864768.html

Author’s Introduction: Agnès Callamard is a French Human Rights expert and Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions at the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. She is also the Director of Columbia University’s Global Freedom of Expression project.