# Did the Bush Admin Make the Case that Iraq Presented an Imminent Threat? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 23, 2003, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124 "2003-10-23T14:59:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/181 "2004-03-24T01:41:46Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > This is mere assertion on your part. It’s an assumption which I declared as such. You have one too. I assume that it’s self-evident that if A and B agree to stop fighting on condition that B stop doing X, B going back and doing X means the deal is void. I allow that I could be wrong on this as a legal matter; but I regard an assertion to the contrary as so exceptional that I’d want a cite before I believed it. You seem to assume that such an agreement would still bind A even if B was in flagrant violation. That seems crazy to me, but as IANAL, I won’t say it’s impossible. You request a cite denying this principle. I request a cite affirming it. > [@](#): > > In addition, even if your mere assertion were correct, **the ceasefire is between the UNSC and Iraq** , not \*the US and Iraq. \* I do not recall blue helmets in 1991. The UN gave a thumbs up after the US and other nations said they would aid Kuwait, and the coalition voluntarily brought in the UN to mediate the ceasefire, and to allow the UN to monitor compliance. I see nothing in the resolutions that spells out what will or will not happen if Iraq violates the terms; thus we are both thrown back on our assumptions; mine that violations void the cease-fire, yours that they do not. IMO, for the UN to on the one hand declare Iraq in material breach, and on the other deny the US the right to do anything about it, is equivalent to a football referee holding up a red card but then saying the offending player doesn’t have to leave the pitch. Or more aptly, a civil judge ruling that I’m liable for something, but then denying you the right to collect them from me. To me, the one ought to follow self-evidently from the other, and the fact that they don’t suggests a crooked or incompetent judge. Obviously, you see things differently. > [@](#): > > This’s become a bit hijacked, eh what? Heartily agreed. As I said before, I do not see further discussion as being fruitful. Provided you credit me with debating fairly and in good faith, I am entirely willing to let you have the last word. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/182 "2004-03-24T02:05:23Z")
> [@furt](#): > > It seems absurd on its face to suggest that if two parties enter into a mutual ceasefire, both are still bound even if one violates it. If North Korea starts shelling Seoul tonight, do we expect the South Koreans to still be bound by the 1953 cease-fire? How do they go about getting approval, and from whom? As a factual answer to your question, the terms and conditions of the cease-fire would be moot, because Article 51 of the U.N. Charter allows any country to take action to defend itself against an armed attack. In case you’re interested in the broader principles involved, check out this [article](http://www.asil.org/ajil/lobel.htm) by two distinguished authorities on international law. See the section entitled “The Effect of the UN Charter,” about 40% of the way down. The short of it is that the Hague Convention of 1907 did, indeed, hold that cease-fires dissolved upon a violation, consonant with your view. However, that changed when the UN Charter was ratified, because the Charter, which is binding as international law and as the supreme law of the land as provided by the US Constitution, is that the principle of restraint from the use of force governs states’ actions until the Security Council authorizes force or a state is attacked. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/183 "2004-03-24T02:25:43Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > In case you’re interested in the broader principles involved, check out this [article](http://www.asil.org/ajil/lobel.htm) by two distinguished authorities on international law. See the section entitled “The Effect of the UN Charter,” about 40% of the way down. I’ll read it, honest, though I can’t do so right now. I can guess my likely response, though, which is the same as I gave in post #173 of this thread: > [@](#): > > The reason that it’s pointless to debate the UN charter is that there can never be any answer; there is no independent court to ajudicate. You say the war was illegal? Fine, but Bush and Blair and Howard and Aznar and the heads of Poland and Denmark and Japan disagree. You got lawyers; they’ve got lawyers. On what legal basis is your interpretation definitively better than theirs? > … > The case of the UN charter is only different in that there is no court to ever decide the issue so we won’t even get to enforcement. It’s like arguing Ruth vs. Aaron or Beckenbauer vs. Maradona, except not nearly as interesting. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/184 "2004-03-24T04:13:14Z")
> [@furt](#): > > I assume that it’s self-evident that if A and B agree to stop fighting on condition that B stop doing X, B going back and doing X means the deal is void. These were United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreements not treaties between the US and Iraq. And as such, they are the UN’s problem. The US ratified no such treaty with Iraq. > [@furt](#): > > I allow that I could be wrong on this as a legal matter; but I regard an assertion to the contrary as so exceptional that I’d want a cite before I believed it. The UNSC has the right to decide to resume hostilities. It did not decide to do so. > [@furt](#): > > You seem to assume that such an agreement would still bind A even if B was in flagrant violation. First, I said that I couldn’t find the language in the ceasefire agreements that establishes an automatic resumption of hostilities. Second, I said that the US is neither A nor B. Third, I don’t see where I made a judgement about the nature of unspecified ceasefire agreements generally. > [@furt](#): > > I see nothing in the resolutions that spells out what will or will not happen if Iraq violates the terms; That’s exactly what I’ve been saying. Neither you nor I can find the language in the agreements that establishes an automatic resumption of hostilities. I’ve asked, “Where is such language?” I shouldn’t’ve. It’s a hijack of a hijack. Pretty much beside the point because the ceasefire is between the UNSC and Iraq, not the US and Iraq. > [@furt](#): > > thus we are both thrown back on our assumptions; mine that violations void the cease-fire, yours that they do not. This isn’t an assumption of mine. You’ve asserted that Iraq’s violation of the ceasefire negates the ceasefire agreements. I say that even if the ceasefire agreements have been negated, there’s still not authorization for the US to initiate hostilities toward Iraq on behalf of the UNSC. Previously, the US acted under the authority of the UNSC resolutions, co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, and used all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 etc. There was a ceasefire established. Nowhere in the ceasfire is there authorization for the US to initiate further hostilities toward Iraq. The UNSC has the right to decide to resume hostilities. It did not decide to do so. Iraq was the UNSC’s problem. > [@furt](#): > > IMO, for the UN to on the one hand declare Iraq in material breach, and on the other deny the US the right to do anything about it, is equivalent to a football referee holding up a red card but then saying the offending player doesn’t have to leave the pitch. Or more aptly, a civil judge ruling that I’m liable for something, but then denying you the right to collect them from me. To me, the one ought to follow self-evidently from the other, and the fact that they don’t suggests a crooked or incompetent judge. The analogy game only works with a sympathetic audience. It’s almost always a very nearly pointless game. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/185 "2004-03-24T04:39:26Z")
Simon, do you want to keep flogging this horse, or can we let it rest? We’re both saying the same things, and neither is moving anywhere. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/186 "2004-03-24T13:13:07Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Simon, do you want to keep flogging this horse, or can we let it rest? We’re both saying the same things, and neither is moving anywhere. I geuss you got around to reading the \*\*[American Society of International Law\*\*](http://www.asil.org/ajil/lobel.htm) piece that **Ravenman** linked to. > [@](#): > > The Effect of the UN Charter > > Pre-Charter law permitted a party to a cease-fire to treat its serious violation as a material breach, entitling it to resume fighting.81 The United States and the United Kingdom rely on this law to argue that Iraqi violations of the inspection regime established during the cease-fire revived the Resolution 678 authorization to use force. This view ignores the prohibition on the use of force under Article 2(4), which, properly understood, "changes a basic legal tenet of the traditional armistice."82 Post-Charter law holds that UN-imposed cease-fires reaffirm the basic obligation of states to refrain from using force. **Therefore, a violation of the cease-fire, even a material breach, is not a ground for the other party to revive hostilities** , at least short of an armed attack giving rise to an Article 51 right of self-defense.83 As one scholar writes, \*\*“Although terms of the armistice agreements dealing with important but collateral issues such as verification regimes or implementation mechanisms may fail, the overriding obligation not to resort to force as a means of dispute settlement is deemed severable and continues to be binding.”\*\*84 in re: > [@furt](#): > > The reason that it’s pointless to debate the UN charter is that there can never be any answer; there is no independent court to ajudicate. You say the war was illegal? Fine, but Bush and Blair and Howard and Aznar and the heads of Poland and Denmark and Japan disagree. You got lawyers; they’ve got lawyers. On what legal basis is your interpretation definitively better than theirs? > … > The case of the UN charter is only different in that there is no court to ever decide the issue so we won’t even get to enforcement. It’s like arguing Ruth vs. Aaron or Beckenbauer vs. Maradona, except not nearly as interesting. Immediately, off the top of my head, I can think of three entities fit to ajudicate and render _relevant and meaningful judgements_ on at least some, if not all, aspects of the issue: The **US Supreme Court** , as the alleged perpetrators were Americans and the laws alleged to be violated were US laws; the **US Senate** through their power to try impeachments; and the highest sovereign body in the US, the **US electorate**. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/187 "2004-03-24T14:53:45Z")
> [@furt](#): > > I’ll read it, honest, though I can’t do so right now. I can guess my likely response, though, which is the same as I gave in post #173 of this thread:…The case of the UN charter is only different in that there is no court to ever decide the issue so we won’t even get to enforcement. I know you’re anxious to let this drop, so let me just correct this misperception, and I’ll let it drop, too. The International Court of Justice is the judicial body of the UN. (This is not the International Criminal Court which came into being about two years ago that the US has refused to join – the ICJ was established at the same time as the UN.) The US has once been brought before the ICJ for violoations of the laws of war: in 1986 Nicaragua sued the US for illegally mining the harbor of Managua. Nicaragua won. Now I promise not to respond anymore. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/188 "2004-03-25T13:41:37Z")
Sigh. I weep bitter tears knowing this thread won’t go away. SimonX, I feel courtesy-bound to respond until you give me leave to go. > [@SimonX](#): > > Immediately, off the top of my head, I can think of three entities fit to ajudicate and render _relevant and meaningful judgements_ on at least some, if not all, aspects of the issue: The **US Supreme Court** , as the alleged perpetrators were Americans and the laws alleged to be violated were US laws; the **US Senate** through their power to try impeachments; and the highest sovereign body in the US, the **US electorate**. The electorate does not interpret laws. If the Congress wanted to impeach Bush, or if someone wanted to bring suit in a federal court, yes, they could do so, and if they won it would vindicate your point. No one has done so. I wonder why? Now, say whatever you want to say, but for the love of Og, please let’s end this thing, OK? [extends hand] ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/189 "2004-03-25T16:49:52Z")
C’mon, do you \*seriously \* wonder why a House controlled by Tom DeLay hasn’t impeached Bush? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/190 "2004-03-25T17:37:33Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > C’mon, do you \*seriously \* wonder why a House controlled by Tom DeLay… That [could change shortly](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/25/politics/main608582.shtml). 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124.md?page=9)