6 ms·

A complete lie which he was fully aware of. > At one point, he became so angry at the lack of adequate sourcing to intelligence claims that he declared: "I'm n

A complete lie which he was fully aware of. > At one point, he became so angry at the lack of adequate sourcing to intelligence claims that he declared: "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit," according to the magazine. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jun/02/usa.iraq https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jun/02/usa.iraq He did read it in full, of course. And he brought the fake vial of Iraqi anthrax to the presentation, too. A known unknown of known bullshit, I guess. A lie that probably cost hundreds of thousands of lives (unless, as he also said, they already decided to go to war in which case, he also lied to the UN Security Council about their intent). What a war criminal.

gralx 5y ago
As Powell's chief of staff Col. Lawrence Wilkerson once recalled, that speech resulted in a resumption of hostilities for a war that already received Security Council approval back in the '90s - the original war never stopped, as no truce was ever agreed to, only detente. North and South Korea are in a similar state of detente. Powell's speech itself was an effort to receive political support for reengagement.
paganel 5y ago
He was also successfully honey-pot-ed by my country, Romania, at about the same time (early 2000s), googling "corina cretu" and "colin powell" should reveal some Romanian texts (easily translatable via Google Translate) plus some photos. Old habits die hard, I guess (I'm talking about my country's tactics, which I guess we learned from our big neighbour further East).
betterunix2 5y ago
Is that really the standard for calling someone a war criminal? National leaders always lie about the reasons for war, whether they are the attackers or the defenders. No doubt that Colin Powell did the wrong thing when he lied to the UN, but let's not throw around the term "war criminal" to mean "someone who did the wrong thing."
- marricks 5y ago
  His lies at the time legitimized a war where hundreds of thousands of people died.
  - betterunix2 5y ago
    That is not a war crime. Keep in mind that the Allies lied about all kinds of things during WWII in order to legitimize our involvement, and that we killed millions of people during the war. Countries always lie about war and people always die in war, those are just facts.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      Yes, the Allies comitted war crimes in WWII, i don't see how that matters for modern war criminals. Conspiracy against peace is a real war crime, including in the US.
      - betterunix2 5y ago
        I guess you and I must disagree. Either you think war crimes are no big deal, because according to your broad reading of "conspiracy against peace" pretty much anyone who participates in any war is a criminal, or else you think there is no justifiable war whatsoever. Personally I think WWII was entirely justified, that the Allies had to win that war, and that fighting to win meant that large numbers of people would die. I also believe that war crimes are a big deal and that it is wrong to conflate "war crimes" with "doing something wrong" or "participating in war I disagreed with" or "being on the wrong side of the war."
        sofixa 5y ago
        I'll quote the definition for you: > crime against peace, in international law, is "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars 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".[1] This definition of crimes against peace was first incorporated into the Nuremberg Principles and later included in the United Nations Charter. This definition would play a part in defining aggression as a crime against peace. It can also refer to the core international crimes set out in Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression), which adopted crimes negotiated previously in the Draft code of crimes against the peace and security of mankind. > An important exception to the foregoing are defensive military actions taken under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Such defensive actions are subject to immediate Security Council review, but do not require UN permission to be legal within international law. "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations." (UN Charter, Article 51) The Security Council will determine if the action is legally the "right of individual or collective self-defence", or it may appoint another UN organ to do this. Meaning that defensive wars are OK. Conspiring against the peace, aka waging a war of aggression, is not. Which is why the Allies fighting against the Axis aren't war criminals for being in the war, but for their actions there ( unrestricted submarine warfare, the Laconia incident, the bombings of civilian targets including Nuremberg, etc.). The Axis' war crimes including them starting the wars ( against Poland, Soviet Union, Greece, Yugoslavia, etc.) and their despicable behaviour in them ( Holocaust, treatment of civilians and POWs, bombing of civilian targets, etc).

gralx 5y ago

As Powell's chief of staff Col. Lawrence Wilkerson once recalled, that speech resulted in a resumption of hostilities for a war that already received Security Council approval back in the '90s - the original war never stopped, as no truce was ever agreed to, only detente. North and South Korea are in a similar state of detente. Powell's speech itself was an effort to receive political support for reengagement.

paganel 5y ago

He was also successfully honey-pot-ed by my country, Romania, at about the same time (early 2000s), googling "corina cretu" and "colin powell" should reveal some Romanian texts (easily translatable via Google Translate) plus some photos. Old habits die hard, I guess (I'm talking about my country's tactics, which I guess we learned from our big neighbour further East).

betterunix2 5y ago

Is that really the standard for calling someone a war criminal? National leaders always lie about the reasons for war, whether they are the attackers or the defenders. No doubt that Colin Powell did the wrong thing when he lied to the UN, but let's not throw around the term "war criminal" to mean "someone who did the wrong thing."

marricks 5y ago
His lies at the time legitimized a war where hundreds of thousands of people died.
- betterunix2 5y ago
  That is not a war crime. Keep in mind that the Allies lied about all kinds of things during WWII in order to legitimize our involvement, and that we killed millions of people during the war. Countries always lie about war and people always die in war, those are just facts.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    Yes, the Allies comitted war crimes in WWII, i don't see how that matters for modern war criminals. Conspiracy against peace is a real war crime, including in the US.
    - betterunix2 5y ago
      I guess you and I must disagree. Either you think war crimes are no big deal, because according to your broad reading of "conspiracy against peace" pretty much anyone who participates in any war is a criminal, or else you think there is no justifiable war whatsoever. Personally I think WWII was entirely justified, that the Allies had to win that war, and that fighting to win meant that large numbers of people would die. I also believe that war crimes are a big deal and that it is wrong to conflate "war crimes" with "doing something wrong" or "participating in war I disagreed with" or "being on the wrong side of the war."
      - sofixa 5y ago
        I'll quote the definition for you: > crime against peace, in international law, is "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars 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".[1] This definition of crimes against peace was first incorporated into the Nuremberg Principles and later included in the United Nations Charter. This definition would play a part in defining aggression as a crime against peace. It can also refer to the core international crimes set out in Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression), which adopted crimes negotiated previously in the Draft code of crimes against the peace and security of mankind. > An important exception to the foregoing are defensive military actions taken under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Such defensive actions are subject to immediate Security Council review, but do not require UN permission to be legal within international law. "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations." (UN Charter, Article 51) The Security Council will determine if the action is legally the "right of individual or collective self-defence", or it may appoint another UN organ to do this. Meaning that defensive wars are OK. Conspiring against the peace, aka waging a war of aggression, is not. Which is why the Allies fighting against the Axis aren't war criminals for being in the war, but for their actions there ( unrestricted submarine warfare, the Laconia incident, the bombings of civilian targets including Nuremberg, etc.). The Axis' war crimes including them starting the wars ( against Poland, Soviet Union, Greece, Yugoslavia, etc.) and their despicable behaviour in them ( Holocaust, treatment of civilians and POWs, bombing of civilian targets, etc).