What method or source could Bush find credible to be able to conclude that Iraq was** ‘hiding’ **WMD from the 1441 inspectors? That is what I asked. The method or source must have the capability to identify **what was being hidden **and where or how it was being hidden. Why wouldn’t Bush’s source have to know that critical information to be considered credible?
I must remind you that Bush accepted the language of 1441 and agreed to provide UNMOVIC and the AIEA all intelligence they had or acquired that could identify where proscribed materials were being hidden. If Bush had such information he could have sent Blix and El Beradai to all those locations because Iraq was not reported to have denied access to any sites during 1441. -Post#321
Actually, no, the method or source would only have to be capable of informing the President that Iraq was in possession of WMDs. As Iraq was being inspected at the time, and ordered to comply with those inspections, any information that Iraq was in possession of WMDs also would also indicate that Iraq was hiding them (or is profoundly inept and disorganized, I suppose, if that’s any better).
Example: Source A convinces Bush that in 2001 Iraq was in possession of a 10-kiloton nuclear warhead through some method (personal observation, documentation, etc). No such warhead is discovered in the inspection process, nor admitted to in the documents provided to the inspectors by Iraq. Therefore, assuming the credibility of the source as a given, Iraq is hiding the warhead (or, again, is so disorganized as to be incapable of complying with the demands of the inspection regime, which has the same effect).
As articulated above, knowledge of a specific location is not necessary to conclude that materials were being hidden. That’s a far more reliable method, of course.
Is it your position that the top most powerful law enforcement officer unofficially in the world is not required to adhere to basic evidence gathering standards to conclude that it is necessary to start a war?
Withholding intelligence of any significant nature from UN inspectors was not what Bush agreed to when he allowed Amb. Negroponte to vote yes for 1441.
Is your view that loose on all law enforcement matters?
What are you even suggesting, here? That Hussein was entitled to a speedy trial by jury, and the right to confront witnesses against him? No, when deciding whether or not to start a war, the President isn’t required to abide by criminal-law procedures. What law or court do you assert “requires” him to do so?
I’m not suggesting he withheld anything; I suggest that he chose to believe his sources rather than UNMOVIC’s reports debunking those sources.
No, but this wasn’t a law enforcement matter, at all.
My argument does not rely on International Law being processed exactly the same as Domestic law, however I am quite sure that reasonable application of standard practices do indeed apply to such things as gathering evidence and not relying upon hearsay alone in all matters of law enforcement or UNSC Resolution enforcement.
And Bush was supposed to be engaged in enforcing all relevant UNSC Resolutions because S.H.'s regime was in violation of international law. To enforce those resolutions Bush needed reliable evidence not just evidence that he may have been eager to hear.
But you are apparently lenient to Bush on his weak evidence gathering when it comes to international law.
B. Who, exactly, is tasked with holding the President to these standards? You’re saying that whatever sources he may have had, the quality of the evidence was beneath some standard. Well, says who? What judge rules on the quality of the evidence the President is weighing in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief to wage war when so authorized by Congress?
Again, who decides whether the evidence is reliable or not? By what statute?
No, I just have a firmer grasp on the law than you. You describe what you wish the law was, I prefer to discuss what it actually is.
When Bush negotiated and accepted the way 1441 was written Bush decided it was ok to give what intelligence he had and to allow UNMOVIC and the IAEA to determine the merit of it. By submitting evidence as you claim? but ignoring it being debunked makes it clear that Bush did not enforce what he signed onto and that means he did not abide by the AUMF.
Bush agreed when he signed on to 1441 to let the inspectors decide if his intelligence was reliable or not.
Its time to quit ignoring the fact that Bush is the one who backed out of 1441 and his agreement to allow the inspectors evaluate all the intelligence Bush and Blair thought they had.
No, he didn’t. And this doesn’t even relate just to Bush- - no US president would cede his authority to make US foreign policy decisions to some international party. Witness Obama and what he’s saying about Syria.
In your dreams you may wish it were so, but we live in the waking world.
Hmmm. That’s sort of an answer to the (snipped, oddly) question I posed. To recap, as best I understand your point:
You wrote that, in the event that Bush determined that the threat from Iraq was so great that peaceful means couldn’t protect the U.S., or if peaceful means were unlikely to result in the enforcement of all relevant UNSC resolutions. You are correct, the AUMF says exactly that.
You also argue that, in order to make either determination, the President must have evidence that adheres to some lofty standard. You have not articulated a source for this standard.
When asked who, if not the President, is empowered to determine whether said evidence is sufficient for one of the two determinations in the AUMF, you responded with the above.
Here’s why you’re wrong:
The AUMF unambiguously empowers the President and only the President with making those determinations. It reads:
Bolding mine. The President. No one else. That’s who gets to decide if evidence is sufficient for war, or whether it has been debunked.
UNMOVIC and IAEA don’t even have the powers you’re assigning them under 1441. You wrote:
But 1441 actually says:
All UNMOVIC and IAEA were empowered to do is issue reports. They didn’t get to decide if intelligence was reliable and thus whether or not Iraq was complying with inspections, whether peaceful means would protect the U.S., or whether peaceful means were likely to lead to enforcement of resolutions. They were tasked with making regular reports about the inspection process to the UNSC, which retained the power of determining compliance, penalties, and all other 1441-related matters.
Prove that Bush held back intelligence from the inspection regime.
Your response was to a point have made that Bush backed out of 1441. That would be based upon Bush withholding intelligence but it is also made in response to your view that Bush ignored Blix and el Beradai when they debunked something you say Bush gave them.
Bush did share a lot of intelligence and all of it led to nothing. It is quite obvious that he did not share the intelligence he referred to on March 17 that left no doubt that Iraq was concealing weapons with Dr Blix or El Baradai.
If he did they could have debunked that too for Bush to ignore.
Bush backed out of 1441 because it was obvious to all looked past the pro invasion hype that the inspections were working very well and would have served their purpose.
But Bush defied 1441 he did not just back out. The evil dictator did what he was supposed to do within ninety days. Our president lied and defied the very agreement he sought and received from the international community.
It was debunked…in the opinion of UNMOVIC and IAEA. It led to nothing…in the opinion of UNMOVIC and IAEA.
Bush disagreed. Given the he had the power to determine if peaceful means would keep America secure or likely lead to the enforcement of UN resolutions, his disagreement was all that was needed to start the war.
Unless you have something besides conjecture and moral condemnation to support the idea that Bush’s determination had to meet some legal standard for evidence, or that he alone wasn’t empowered to make the determination. Do you?
It isn’t obvious at all. Prove it.
Sure, that could be the case. The matter at hand, though, was under what circumstances Bush could start a war while complying with the AUMF. You’re getting further and further afield from that.
It would have been rather uncouth for Bush to invade Iraq while the inspectors were still there, in harm’s way.
Under the AUMF Bush could certainly determine, despite all factors & reality, that peaceful means would not lead to enforcement of all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq - and Bush certainly did that. But when he made that invalid, corrupt and dishonest determination he is no longer in compliance with the authorization clause that gives him the authority to use force in order to enforce all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq.
And that is because Bush cannot be enforcing UNSC resolutions on his own after he agreed to 1441 and SH cooperated to the satisfaction of the UNSC to leave 1441 in effect.
The President was authorized to use military force for two distinct purposes; if Bush determined that reliance on peaceful means alone wouldn’t adequately protect the U.S. from Iraq, he could invade, whether or nor it he also intended or did enforce UNSC resolutions. Again, as it happened, Bush’s letter containing his determination invoked both the national security and the UN resolution authorizations, but he didn’t need to do that. Just the national-security one was sufficient to legally (under domestic law) invade while complying with Congress.
Making the determination that peaceful means alone wouldn’t likely lead to the enforcement of UNSC resolutions, and nothing else, is what causes a subsequent invasion to be complying with the authorizations given in the AUMF. I’ve been pretty clear on this point, I think, and you’ve marshalled nothing to rebut it: there is no authority outside the President himself who got to decide if a given military action was enforcing UN resolutions or not.
You do not allow the effect that passage of 1441 has on the terminology of ‘enforcing all relevant UNSC Resolutions’ has on the meaning of the authorization clause in the AUMF. And you ignore that the enforcement clause connects both justifications for war with ‘and’ and with ‘and’ only. For you to be right you must alter the language to suit your argument, but I quote it exactly as written.
Not sure which point that was in reply to; evidently it was neither. It can’t be #1, because that’s in reference to the authorization to use force to protect the U.S.
It can’t be #2, since it does nothing to address a core problem with your theories: that no one is empowered to decide whether Bush was using the Armed Forces to enforce UNSC resolutions, or not. Perhaps a federal court, but they didn’t weigh in, now did they?
I’ve covered that before, though I don’t think you ever responded to it (shocking, I know), so I’ll repeat myself (shocking, I know).
The AUMF supported Bush’s efforts to obtain a new resolution and work through the UNSC. 1441 was the result that Bush was seeking. The reporting clause you cite is NOT the authorizing clause. Congress left Bush an out in the turn of events that Bush did not see a 1441 coming in which case Bush was in fact being authorized to enforce all the UNSC Resolutions that existed in September 2002. That is because the UNSC was not capable of enforcing them.
Your fallacy is that the reporting clause negates the authorizing clause. And you ignore the fact that 1441 changed the circumstances in that Bush could not enforce 1441 because 1441 was being enforced by peaceful means at the time Bush finally decided to invade.
Since Bush was not enforcing 1441 there is no way he was enforcing all resolutions and he thus did not abide by the authorizing clause.
Notice the reporting clause does not say that Bush would be enforcing all resolutions if he determined that diplomatic means would not lead to enforcement.
Bush was not enforcing any resolutions because of 1441 although he wrongly determined after 1441 that continuing under 1441 would not lead to enforcement because of his suspected lie that he had intelligence that Iraq was still hiding WMD from the 1441 inspectors.
Your reply above was just a rehash of your talking points, and not a substantial answer. So, I’ll rephrase to make it simpler:
If Congress intended to authorize war only if it was necessary to BOTH protect the U.S. and to enforce UNSC resolutions, why would Congress require the President to formally determine that only one, but NOT both, of those conditions existed in order to go to war?
Just like the conspicuous lack of an outcry from Congress is evidence that Bush didn’t violate the AUMF, the language of 3(b) is evidence that the President was authorized to go to war to protect the U.S., or to enforce UNSC resolutions, or both. Also similar: the lack of any evidence to the contrary presented by you.
To the specifics of your word salad:
That’s a strawman argument, I never said it (also, calling it the reporting clause is a bad idea, since section 4 of the law is titled “Reports to Congress”. A better name would be the determination clause, since 3(b) is titled "Presidential Determination) negated anything, it’s evidence that you are misinterpreting the authorizaiton.
Aaaaand we’re back to square one. Delightful. Any progress on coming up with an authority outside the President who got to decide if 1441 was being adequately enforced, or if military force was needed?
Huh?
Seems pretty clear-cut to me: the President is authorized to use force to enforce UNSC resolutions (or to protect the U.S.). He can use that authorization if he determines that peaceful means will likely not lead to the enforcement of UNSC resolutions. I’ve no idea what you mean here.
That is because it was not known in October that something such as 1441 would pass the UNSC on November without a permanent member veto and that Bush would accept language in 1441 that did not give UNSC authorization to use force.
That wording in the reporting clause does not negate the requirement in the authorization clause to use force in order to enforce UNSC Resolutions.
And Bush did not follow through with 1441 by enforcing it or any others that were put on ‘final opportunity to comply’ hold unless the UNSC majority and inspectors would determine 1441 not to be working.