More like grabbing for baseball bats. Chalabi was too overt to be an agent, but his funneling of “intelligence” to the Pentagon made him thier darling, over the objections from CIA that Chalabi was an opportunist trying to con the USA into installing him as the New Boss.
Try googling “Chalabi CIA”. Better take a sandwhich. Its a citeglut.
So are you saying that the CIA was on top of things and that over their objections the Bush Administration was duped by Chalabi. Whoever thought that up stays up later at night than I do.
What ever happened to Bush’s eloquent, diplomatic “Axis of Evil”?
I also like how GW refers to the enemy as “killers”. Hmm, let’s see, how many people did THEY kill last year, and how many people did WE kill last year? Oh I see, we’re not killers because we are killing killers, so that doesn’t count. :rolleyes:
Perhaps the above analysis would help. See in particular the top of p.6.
If you acccept the analysis it seems to me that the whole “imminent” versus “clear and present” threat debate is not actually relevant to how international law has developed on the issue of using pre-emptive force.
What the authors assert here is that both “necessity and proportionality” are the tests for the “common law” legal use of a pre-emptive military reaction to a threat. Those requirements are then modified for those signatory by the terms UN Charter. However unfortunately there is long standing dispute as to the correct interpretation of Art.51 in the context of the whole Charter text.
What a surprise…
However the Report concludes that:
(highlighting mine)
On the face of that, there is no evidence of WMD possession and little or no evidence of ties to terrorist groups seeking to use such weapons against the US. Both are required by the authors to justify the US ***even seeking *** to raise the question as to whether the law of preemption needs to be recast.
Sounds like they cannot use the UN Charter as justification for the attack to me.
I’m looking for use of the phrase “imminent threat” by Bush and have yet to find it. I suspect its a pointless exercise though as whether he did or didnt use that particular phrase it was definitely a concept that he communicated. Here for instance:
I’m completely failing to understand why the Administrations’s mouthpieces keep bringing this up. They use it in a fairly strange way. It started months and months ago as a reaction to taunts about failure to find WMDs.
But to bring it up now, after Kay has said that the WMDs didn’t exist at all, and neither did the WMD programs in any substantial way, is really bizarre. It’s like the Administration is saying: “Sure there was no legally acceptable justification for the war. We never said there was.”
To be clear, the term “grave and growing threat” was used far before it started to become clear that Iraq had no WMD. From what I can determine, the phrase was first used in reference to the Axis of Evil in the SOTU on January 29, 2002: "States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. "
I see now that the Administration claims that the term “grave and growing threat” was appropriate to Iraq because Saddam wanted to get WMD. Wow, one man’s pipe dreams are a threat to the U.S… If only we had realized that in the 1980’s when the Reagan Administration approved export licenses to sell samples of Class III biological agents to Saddam’s government. I suppose it was okay back then if Iraq only threatened Iran with BW… How times change.
Just out of personal interest, do you know where I might find a text of this justification?
It just seems to me that if they can’t even formulate a defense of the invasion based on imminent threat under 51, then they really don’t have a leg to stand on.
AQA:
You are right on all three counts:
That is the text of Article 51.
It does not include the word “imminent.”
This has been hashed over many, many, many, many times.
Apparently there exists a kind of “common practice” basis for the manner in which one interprets the phrase “self-defense.” Considering the history of state relations, states have often reacted to “imminent” threats by attacking first, as a means of trying to get the first punch in, as it were. Thus, there is a long tradition wherein a military response to imminent attack is considered legitimate. Of course, this tradition does contradict the wording of the Article, and I’m not sure how that contradiction is resolved, technically.
On top of that, the US (at least) has historically employed very broad interpretations of both the concepts “self-defense” and “imminent,” such that, for example, the invasion of Grenada was justified as an act of “self-defense against imminent attack” protected under the auspices of Article 51. To my mind, such a broad interpretation completely reverses the entire spirit of the Article: it becomes a pretext for engaging in aggressive military actions against other states, rather than a legal guarantee for the right to self-defense – a fairly transparent 180 as far as I can see.
I was recently involved in a fairly deep-going discussion about these issues with Ravenman and a fella named, I believe, Jimmy1; I had just brought up this very issue, but he dropped out. I don’t remember the thread title. Desmos:
There was a Frontline news program which had a substantial interview with Chalabi about his role in the intelligence gathering process. He said he himself provided key documentation about WMDs in Iraq to the OSP and to Paul Wolfowitz in particular. He also said he had documentary evidence of Saddam Hussein passing funds to Al Queda. The interviewer told him pretty much flat out that he thought Chalabi was lying and that this document was either a fabrication or didn’t exist. Chalabi swore up and down that the documentation was genuine and accurate. He also promised to get Frontline a copy of it immediately after the interview. Frontline said they never received a copy of the document. You can find the show archived online and all the interview segments are viewable through downloadable video clips. I would provide a link, but I’m having trouble with my connection at the moment. Googling “Frontline Chalabi” should get you mostly there. I did find a transcript of the interview here. Beware, it is quite lengthy.
The same program also had footage of Chalabi after he returned to Iraq following US forces as they marched northward towards Bahgdad. Almost the first thing he did was try to organize his own militia who took orders straight from him and had their own weapons and territory. He claimed his militia would work with the US troops to topple Saddam and provide a peacekeeping force afterwards. Of course part and parcel with the deal is that he runs it and they take orders from him. Essentially he becomes a local warlord, head of his own little military regime. The US military dismantled his militia and he’s back to playing politics.
Mr Svinlesha did you read as high as my earlier post when I tried to assist in how that contradiction has been at least addressed, if not resolved.
It is only an opinion of some experts in international law, but they have concluded that Art.51 does not, on previous precident, prove any justification for the US attack. However they also conclude that the US have not necessarily given up their “common law” rights to self defence and pre-emption generally accepted internationally before ratification of the UN Charter just because they are now party to the Charter.
To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand: “A great effort was made… to obscure or obfuscate the truth” (Robert Conquest).
To render indistinct or dim; darken: The fog obfuscated the shore.
I just wanted to clear this up for the ongoing discussion.
It seems to me the Bush Administration has succeeded in its attempt, deliberate or otherwise, to sufficiently cloud what was said and not said, that nothing will come of this.
What are you guys talking about? Clinton received blowjobs in the oval office and then lied about it!
I cannot believe folks are willing to participate in this particular exercise of “what-did-he-say-and-when-did-he-say-it.” Can any one deny that a major - if not THE major emphasis of administration arguments for war stressed a serious threat to the US via Iraqi WMD - and that to date, we have not discovered any capability to carry out such threat?
At best, one can argue that Bush acted based on wildly incorrect intelligence. Which, for most of us working stiffs, would be plenty enough to earn us our walking papers - even without a trail of dead bodies.
Funny, I thought we *were * arguing with the doctrine, what it means, and what Bush wants it to mean. An “imminent” threat can require action that a longer-term threat may not, eh bien? There are other means available to deal with a “grave and gathering” danger short of getting people killed - means Bush never tried, and that you supporters tie yourselves in knots trying to avoid facing. Much ado about “nothing” you say? There are 500+ service families who might be interested in hearing you say that.
It’s damage control. The administration needs to create the impression that it hasn’t lost every single argument. This one it can not-lose.
Get inside the collective headspace of the administration. It communicates to the faithful on the impulse and impression level. Trying to understand it and the electorate as engaging in closely watched rational discussion will only succeed in alienating you from where the popular mood actually is.
Consider the outrage and giddy triumphalism found here over the No-WMDs concession. The US general public is indifferent. See.
All this semantic quibles are completely irrelevant in the face of facts, the USA invaded Iraq because it presented an alleged threat; it turns out, quite unsurprizingly, that there was no threat at all.
So, “imminent” “grave and gathering”, etc… just don´t matter at all, the actions prove that the invasion had to be done RIGHT NOW, no matter how the thread is qualified it was alleged to be big enough to start a war ASAP.
