Illegality of No-Fly Zones

Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation had this to say about The Embarrassment and Illegality of the No-Fly Zones:

President Bush’s “zero tolerance” for Iraqi violations of UN resolutions has apparently dropped to “two percent tolerance.” According to administration officials, Iraqi forces have once again fired on U.S. planes patrolling the no-fly zones in Iraq, which U.S. officials had previously claimed would constitute an immediate justification for invading Iraq, not only under the principle of “self-defense” but also for violation of the recently passed UN resolution.

The Bush administration, however, is backing off and so far is not using the shootings as a “self-defense” excuse to invade Iraq, and so far isn’t even taking the matter to the UN Security Council.

There’s a very good reason for the government’s decision: Despite their mild protestations to the contrary, U.S. officials know that the no-fly zones have been illegal from the get-go. And their decision not to use either “self-defense” or violation of the UN resolution as a justification for invading Iraq is an implicit acknowledgment of that illegality.

Jacob is right, and I ain't just saying that because we're both libertarians and (*disclosure alert*) I publish his syndicated commentaries in almost every issue of The Multiracial Activist either.

We cannot expect to fly over Iraqi territory whenever we please and not get fired upon. Our actions are clear violations of their sovereign territory and further, can rationally be considered acts of war. We cannot claim to be acting on behalf of the U.N. in the case of Iraq (we have no such authority to do so, by the way) when it suits us and then ignore them when it doesn't. But for this, and every Administration going back decades that hasn't been an issue.

Any rationale, no matter how flimsy, will do when you've decided to be World's Policeman.

—-

This entry also posted at Stand Down.

11 comments

  1. Aren’t the No-Fly zones attributed to in the treaty that ended the Gulf War? If so, then while they are despicable, they aren’t illegal.

    November 21, 2002 07:59 PM

  2. The US government just claims they are legal knowing that US media will print whatever they say. The no-fly zones have no relation to the UN. It’s simply an illegal bombardment that’s been going on for years and years.

    Actually because of Bush’s trash talking arrogance it has recently come out (in the US newspapers that is – its not news to the rest of the world) that the Bush regime has a “different opinion” of the legality of the no-fly zones than every other country — including the UK.

    But there’s more information on this in other threads here.

    This one has excellent links to a legal opinion (its long though):

    http://www.nowarblog.org/archives/000268.html#000268

    and this one has a link to the BBC’s page on the no-fly zones history.

    http://www.nowarblog.org/archives/000225.html

    November 21, 2002 10:56 PM

  3. There was a ceasefire – which is to say an agreement by the US and UK that they would NOT bomb.

    November 23, 2002 10:50 AM

  4. I wouldn’t say there’s any discussion there. The BBC presents the facts – which are that the no-fly zones are illegal. They don’t indicate what the opinion of the Kurds might be.

    November 25, 2002 01:44 PM

  5. Bush is going to kick ass and there is nothing any of your idiots can do about it. Stop your whining, pull up your panties and support your country. If you are not American and oppose it, tough shit.

    December 8, 2002 10:17 AM

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.