When reading a biography of James Madison by Ralph Ketcham I came across this historical tidbit which I had never heard. During the “nullification crisis” in South Carolina from 1828 to 1833 John C. Calhoun and others based their assertion of the validity of nullification on the Virginia Resolutions (which opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts) written by Madison. Madison, an elder statesman by this time, rejected that claim. The nullifiers then said that people should listen to the words Madison wrote in 1800 instead of his current opinion that the Resolutions didn’t support nullification.
So here is a case of citing an authority (Madison as author of the Resolutions) and defying the very same authority (Madison as explainer of the Resolutions).
I was reminded of this odd situation when I heard the justification for invading Iraq. There was a period when prime justification depended on the resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations. Resolutions were cited, but then the authority behind the resolutions was defied. The Security Council, being the authority behind the resolutions as established by the U.N. charter and undersigned by the U.S., is the sole power determining the consequences of a breach.
So how can the U.S. authoritatively *cite * the determinations of the Security Council and *defy * the determinations of the Council at the same time?
The short answer to the question of why this happens is the ability of the human mind to change. One man, a society (such as a nation), or a large group of nations (U.N.) can, and very often do, change their beliefs and interpretations of certain concepts and events through the passage of time. In the case of nullification, Madison could very honestly and thoroughly supported nullification at the time he was responding to the Alien and Sedition Acts (the target of the Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions) and just as honestly and thoroughly rejected the notion of nullification later in his life. The change can be due to any number of reasons ranging from further reflection on the nature of the American Republic to a rejection of the causes of the latter nullification crisis.
Similarly, the United Nations could have simply changed the collective opinion during the intervening period. The US was basing justification for invasion on the UN resolutions requiring Iraqi cooperation in disarming and monitoring by the UN of Iraq’s WMD programs. When the US claimed that Iraq was not complying with these resolutions, the UN refused to explicitely authorize action, seemingly denying the earlier resolutions.
This could be seen as a reversal of the collective opinion of the UN, but is that really the case? The UN neither repealed these resolutions nor did they forbid the use of force. Of course, these attempts would have been vetoed by the US, but they were not even raised. The UN as a body refused to act, but it did not (again as a body) deny the right of any member nation to do so. The actions taken by the US did not, in that manner, defy the decision of the Security Council (rather they did not take the feelings of the other member nations into account).
Specious reasoning. The aggressive use of force is already explicitly forbidden by the UN Charter itself. A new resolution or declaration forbidding such a specific action against Iraq would have been redundant.
Look at it this way. Let’s say there’s a gang running a crackhouse in your neighborhood. You go to the cops and they say, “yeah…well…we need some hard evidence to go bust the place.” You’re pissed because the cops won’t do anything so you round up a bunch of your buddies and go roust the house on your own. You bring guns and you kill a few junkies and gangbangers. You even catch the leader of the gang.
Now, is it a legal defense to your actions to claim that the cops didn’t tell you you couldn’t go blasting away in the house? It goes without saying that your actions were illegal. It did not require a special new law to specifically forbid you and your buddies from busting up that specific crackhouse.
Oh…and it turns out there wasn’t any crack in the house.
I think it can be done, but only if the reason why the authority should be defied on some points is made abundantly clear.
For example, keeping on the Iraq thing, Scott Ritter was once an acknowledged authority in his field. Now he is batshit crazy. I might say he had something interesting to offer several years ago, but now I don’t trust a single word that comes from his mouth, what with all the questions surrounding his finances in recent years and such.
I didn’t say what Ritter SAID was batshit crazy, I said HE’S batshit crazy. He may be right about Iraq and WMD – at least, his most recent version of his views – but I think it is impossible to distinguish between his insightful views based upon his experience and his whacko fantasyland conspiracies. I don’t trust that guy more than I can throw him.
To be more specific, here’s a bunch of data points that lead me to the conclusion that he’s nuts:
1 - In 1998, when he resigned from UNSCOM, he basically told Richard Butler that he was not being aggressive enough in inspections, more or less saying that Iraq was getting away with murder. Lo and behold, in 2003, he claims that the inspections were an unqualified success. Link to letter.
2 - I think there’s more than a grain of truth to the allegation that he may have taken money from Iraqi intelligence. Story from last year.
3 - He was arrested (but not convicted) of soliciting sex with a 14 year old girl on the Internet. In the absence of other strange behavior, I’d let this slide (innocent until proven guilty and all) but not when this character already seems so erratic. Story.
4 - While conducting arms inspections in the Soviet Union just before the Gulf War, he dumped his wife for someone who was believed to work for the KGB. Link.
Now let me be clear - this does not mean that everything he says is wrong. He can stumble onto the truth just like the next guy. But it does mean that I have serious questions about his motivations and whether he should be trusted at all. I do not trust a damn thing that he says until someone else can back it up.