And isn’t that itself a major cause for concern, when the government feels it can break laws with impunity? Or do you think it’s okay if the law-breaking is for an outcome you like?
A sure sign, IMO, that the pro-war pundits realize they’re on shaky ground. There’s no need to play Change-the-Excuse if your position is solid to begin with.
Really? I`m pretty sure that the stocks of illegal material that Iraq had was not accounted for in the end. Where it went or how it was destroyed was not conclusive. Ambiguity did them no good.
No. The resolutions of past had no expiration date.
Yes, except when they sought “permission” they did so to appease the greatest number of people. Not really a show of force was it? They didnt need the permission because Iraq was already in fault of 1441 and in effect in fault of the supporting resolutions. We may differ on the 1441 issue, but if there was overwhelming evidence that WMD were destroyed and documented then we very well couldnt be using that as a reason to invade, could we? I think the onus lies on you to prove that there was sufficient docs to support Iraqs compliance with the resolution. Until then, well go by what the official stance of the UN is/was - non-compliance.
Correct. It didn`t need to. The supporting/previous resolutions did.
That is kind of funny, isn`t it?
We all can agree that Iraq had WMDs. Where the hell did they go? Syria? If they were destroyed then why couldn`t they document the process?
You have a point, if I agree that they broke the law. I`m not ready to do that yet, but I am still here and listening.
OTOH - If you feel, like I do, that standing up for an overall just cause if worth breaking (allegedly) some rather vague UN law, then I support the actions of my country.
Excellent point, however, I haven`t changed my position since the effort began. Those who do have lost their focus and should be called on it.
OTOH - There is nothing wrong with pointing out all the good that comes of a situation in progress. In this case, the good outweigh the bad. I hope.
FTR-
The question (“Where are the WMDs?”) exists only in the “where-are-they-now” sense, not the “they-were-never-there sense”.
Well, bro, in November 1990, I watched the UN authorize the use of military force against Iraq. I awaited the same thing to happen in 2002 or 2003, but funny, I seemed to have missed that for some reason.
No. I’m happy to address that. UNSC Res 678 stated that member states were authorized to use force “to implement resolution 660 and all subsequent resolutions.” By subsequent resolutions, I think it can only be reasonably argued that the UNSC contemplated those such as 661, 662, and all the others that had been passed prior to 678. Although the verbage is awkward, I don’t think that there is any evidence to suggest that 678 was to continue in force, in perpetutity, to enforce any resolution whatsoever that would ever be passed that might pertain to Iraq.
Bolstering that view, in 686, the UNSC stated that, until Iraq stops military activity, “Recognizes that during the period required for Iraq to comply with paragraphs 2 and 3 above, the provisions of paragraph 2 of resolution 678 (1990) remain valid,” but that the UNSC “Decides that in order to secure the rapid establishment of a definitive end to the hostilities, the Security Council remains actively seized of the matter.” Sounds to me like a “definitive end” to the war was coming.
Lo and behold, in 687, the UNSC agreed that “as soon as the Secretary General notifies the Council of the completion of the deployment of the United Nations observer unit, the conditions will be established for the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end consistent with resolution 686 (1991).”
That’s a sunset clause if I have ever seen one. And the Secretary General accepted the situation on April 9, 1991, and that was all she wrote. The war was over, and 678 expired.
I can hear the argument already, that 1441 somehow breathed new life in 678. Wrong. Also in 687, the UNSC agreed to “remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the region.” That means that any future use of force would have to be authorized by future consideration of the UNSC. That never happened.
So, Amb. Negroponte’s speech is relevant because: a) he acknowledged that 1441 did not authorize force; b) he asserted that 678 was still in effect, which can be seen as factually wrong and simply a rhetorical effort to not subjugate the US to the letter of the UN Charter; c) that the US could use force in self-defense consistent with Article 51, but the Administration brazenly states that there was no imminent threat from Iraq.
I assert that international law required the United States to achieve a new UN resolution to authorize the use of force or to act in self-defense against an imminent threat. The US did neither. But the Administration has tried to re-write history by arguing that the UN somehow authorized force without realizing it, which is CYA and a lie.
A strongly worded document dated Jan. 20th 2003.
Resolution 1456
The council called on nations to become a party to all international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism; help each other to the maximum extent possible to investigate, prosecute and punish terrorist acts wherever they occur; and cooperate closely to fully implement sanctions against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, especially denying them access to financial resources.
The council said that nations must help each other bring to justice those who finance, plan, support or commit terrorist acts or provide safe havens to terrorists.
…assist each other, to the maximum extent possible, in the prevention, investigation, prosecution and punishment of acts of terrorism, wherever they occur;
Cooperate closely to implement fully the sanctions against terrorists and their associates, in particular Al-Qaeda and the Taliban and their associates, as reflected in resolutions 1267 (1999), 1390 (2002) and 1455 (2003), to take urgent actions to deny them access to the financial resources they need to carry out their actions, and to cooperate fully with the Monitoring Group established pursuant to resolution 1363 (2001);
Almost sounds like a plea to take action.
Geez, what’s next? The Secretary General looks askance at an ambassador, and the US interprets that to mean that the UN has approved military action?
I have a pretty hard time interpreting “bring to justice those who… support… terrorist acts” as meaning “Member States are authorized to invade countries who have something to with terrorism, even if no imminent threat exists.”
Further, the resolution states:
“States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, and should adopt such measures in accordance with international law, in particular international human rights, refugee, and humanitarian law;” and
“reaffirms its strong determination to intensify its fight against terrorism in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations, and takes note of the contributions made during its meeting on 20 January 2003 with a view to enhancing the role of the United Nations in this regard, and invites Member States to make further contributions to this end;”
Sounds like the UN wanted to remain involved in any decision to use military force.
IIRC, you’re correct that they couldn’t prove a negative with regard to some stockpiles they supposedly had in the 80s, but the UN voted on whether Iraq was cooperating and whether inspections should continue, or whether there was a material breach of 1441 that required military intervention. I believe the vote was for the former. I’m not defending Saddam or anything, but the US can’t just up and decide unilaterally that Iraq breached 1441 in such a manner as to require military intervention, when the other member nations disagree.
I think Ravenman covered this one.
Like I said, there are explicit rules governing how the UN works. I’m pretty sure that the U.S. doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally decide when Iraq has breached a resolution, and implement whatever punishment we feel like.
If you’re so sure the WMDs were there, why didn’t we find them?
Uh, you’re the one claiming what the “official stance” was. I believe that puts the onus on you.
Yeah, where did they go? They aren’t there now.
And I waited for Saddam to comply with the Security COuncil resolutions and he didnt. If you say he did, I want a cite stating that the UN acknowledged Iraq was in full compliance.
Fine then, address it, take Bush to court, try him there, but nothing you have stated specifically rules the war in Iraq illegal, nor does it negate the defense of using past resolutionsas justification and allowance. As a matter of fact, i see a little bit of quoting and a whole lot of editorialization, And I am sorry, but your humble opinion don’t make it illegal.
Have you established that fact all by yourself? Beg my pardon if I say that I would like an opinion of someone of more authority. And to prove to you that the US has never seen it in that light, look at the no-fly-zone and all other diplomatic relation towards the UN from the US, UN and most other countries of the world.
Have you ever read 1441 and all of the re-affirming in the text? And where does it say that a new resolution was required exactly? I think I missed it. It looks to me that that sentence affirmed the desire to impliment the resolution using further steps. I assert “further steps” means any means necessary Your Honor, how about them apples?
No one has ruled this war illegal. Legal experts around the world cannot agree on if it was legal or not. And once you acknowledge these “facts” you cannot assert that this was illegal. To do otherwise to make specious arguments based on your personal desire to see a set outcome with the facts getting in the way.
My opinion appears to differ from Blowero here, but in my view, Saddam did not comply with 687 or 1441. He was obligated to provide all sorts of information that he did not. However, that does not mean that war automatically was authorized, for there was no authorization in 687 or 1441.
If you read my previous posts, you’d know my opinion that there is a strong prima facia case that the US acted illegally. But I don’t think any good can come out of hauling the US before the World Court.
Ah. Nice ad hominem attack. When you can’t address the substance of an argument, attack the person. For your information, foreign policy is my profession.
I understand your sentence up to the No Fly Zone. Again, as I stated earlier, I don’t think the NFZ were authorized by the UN, but the US acted as though they were, in a self-interested claim to instill international legitimacy to them. It was not as a dispassionate reading of the law.
And because I know you’ll try to personally attack me again, I think the NFZ were a great idea, essential to keeping the peace for more than a decade. But that doesn’t mean that we can invent from thin air an authorization for them that never existed.
Since I’ve been quoting from 1441 for some time now, one could safely assume that I have read it. :rolleyes: And the whole reason that a second resolution was required before the US could claim UN authorization for the war was that 1441 did not authorize force. But the resolution does say that further material breaches by Iraq will be referred to the UNSC for further consideration (since you’re a good reader, you can find that yourself) and that the UNSC decides to remain seized of the matter.
As far as you reading “further steps” to means an authorization for force, I have two responses:
I can read “Raymond Luxury-Yacht” to be “Throat-Warbler Mangrove.” That doesn’t make it accurate.
The words “further steps” do not appear in 1441. Perhaps you would like to re-write 1441 in your own mind to make it say that France is a poopyhead, too.
Yeah, but when Kofi Annan and Richard Perle both agree that it was not legal, that’s saying something. At least some folks (Perle) have the intellectual honesty to state their view that the war was so important that it was worth violating international law. Others must resort to Clintonian dissembling to try to manufacture legality. Very, very sad.
Hmmm…well 3 people say I’m wrong on that, so maybe I am. The way I remember it, Iraq was required to provide a list of all the weapons they possessed. And I thought they did that. The reason I remember it is because they made a big deal in the news about how the documentation was thousands of pages or something like that, and how long it would take to go through it. I also remember a point of controversy being that Iraq supposedly didn’t have sufficient proof that they had destroyed certain weapons. They were claiming they didn’t have the weapons, but the UN was asking for proof that they didn’t, and what they provided was insufficient. In light of all that, the decision was made to continue the inspections, and Iraq was allowing the inspectors to do their work until the Bush Administration warned them to get out of Iraq. I don’t remember there ever being an official UN consensus that Iraq was not cooperating with the process.
So am I remembering this wrong?
You know, the least you could do is read the thread because I find it insulting that you are asking for something which I have already cited in this thread and which is what we are talking about. You have not bothered reading the UN charter have you? You can find my quote of article 2 of the UN charter on the first page of this thread and the entirety of the UN charter on the Internet. Read it and tell me if it does not say (a) member nations will not use force or the threat of force to solve their differences and (b) this shall not be interpreted to disallow a nation which is under armed attack to defend itself. Please read the thread and the relevant cites before you post because otherwise we are waisting our time.
The charter of the UN is clear: No use of force or threat of using force. The only exception is if you are under armed attack and the USA was not under armed attack.
The UN can authorize enforcement actions (like Korea and like the first Gulf war) but this was clearly not authorized no matter how you twist resolution 1441. It is ludicrous to say the USA was acting on behalf of the UN against the wishes of the UN. The UN clearly refused to sanction the invasion. Or do we conveniently forget now the bitterness with France and germany for refusing their support?
Also, the argument of self defense is bullshit spouted by someone who has not read the UN charter. It does not say “self defense” , it says “under armed attack” so there is no way to interpret it in favor of the USA because the words “self defense” are just not there.
“It is ludicrous to say the USA was acting on behalf of the UN against the wishes of the UN.”
Hear, hear!
You are obviously not following the news. The US government has gone to great lengths to justify their actions to their own people, to the UN and to the rest of the world. Their justifications have all been exposed as lies but they did try to put a semblance of legality and morality on it. They just failed miserably but don’t tell me they didn;t try. Or didn’t you hear about the imminent 45 minute threat and the weapons of mass destruction and all that BS?
In this case it was wrong and it was illegal. And if the USA does not care about doing the right thing then it should fucking stop preaching to the world and acting like it is so morally superior. Let Bush tell it like it is: We kicked Saddam’s butt because we kick ass but we are not concerned with right or wrong, only with oil and power. But one gets tired of hearing his preachy voice about how bad Saddam was and how much better America is supposed to be. So what is it? Is America concerned with right and wrong or not?
You got it pretty much right. But the documentation submitted was basically what Iraq had turned over prior to 1998. There’s no doubt that UNSCOM destroyed a huge amount of WMD in the '90s, but it was never quite clear if they got all of it, thus there were open questions that Iraq failed to answer.
I believe Hans Blix described Iraqi cooperation in early 2003 as “cooperative on process, but not on substance,” or similar words.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution
[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]
The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
** Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,**
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,...................
Doesn`t this mean that they considered 678 still valid and referenced it on purpose to strengthen their positition relative to 1441?
sailor, I think you clearly have a hang up with the US. One that clouds your vision and your ability to debate without emotion. I`m not so sure it matters what the debate is. Your dislike for the current state of affairs in this country puts in you in such a postition of extreme bias that it is hard to take your words seriously.
I respect you as a poster, but try to ease up a little.
You are totally wrong when you say I am viscerally anti-American. Others before you have made the same accusation when they ran out of valid arguments. That is a non-argument if there ever was one. You do not address my arguments at all and you just question my motives which, in fact, are totally irrelevant. So I cite the UN charter and you call me anti-American? I take that as an admission that you have no arguments. Please address my arguments and leave me out of your it. Being irrationally pro-american is no better than being irrationally anti-american. I am neither and I am explaining my reasons. I am not inherently anti-american but I am definitely against some things this Admininstration has done. And coincidentally I believe those things go against what America is supposed to stand for so, if there is someone who is anti-american here I believe it is this Administration. Insult me once more and I’ll see you in the pit. Please limit yourself to addressing my arguments. If you have nothing to say with respect to my arguments then please don’t say anything.
That was then. Nowadays, its most frequently the first refuge.
No I do understand. You and Ravenman are taking the position the United States military engagement in Iraq violated international law, specifically those provisions in the UN Charter addressing military action. I am arguing the U.S. military engagement may be justified under international law as it existed prior to the formation of the UN Charter and presumably afterwards. Specifically, I am arguing the right to “self-defense” as it existed in international law before the UN Charter came into existence remained the same and unabridged by the UN Charter and consequently, presumably operates as a foundation of international law regarding “self-defense”. The UN Charter merely protected the right of “self-defense” as it existed prior to the UN Charter. If this is true, then U.S. military engagement in Iraq may be justified under this theory. I say may because I have to do more research into the exact extent of the “self-defense” doctrine as it existed in international law before the UN Charter. I say may because Ravenman seems to take the position that if the UN Charter did not abrogate the doctrine of self-defense then opinions by the International Court of Justice may have done so.
Despite this I think an argument can be made to justify U.S. military action in Iraq on other grounds.
Sources of International Law. 1. A rule of international law is one that has been accepted as such by the international community of states (a) In the form of customary law. Customary international law results from a general and consistent practice of states followed by them from a sense of legal obligation.
There is a particular general and consistent practice by a majority of states around the world and among those who are members to the UN that is no different from what the U.S. did in Iraq. **Between 1945 and 1999 two-thirds of the members of the United Nations-126 states out of 189-fought 291 interstate conflicts in which over 22 million people were killed. This series of conflicts was capped by the Kosovo campaign which nineteen NATO democracies flagrantly violated the Charter. The international system has come to subsist in a parallel universe of two systems. The de jure facto system consists of actual state practice in the real world. Harvard Journal Law and Public Policy volume 25, number 2. Page 540, Author Michael J. Glennon, Self-Defense and Inchorence in the U.N. Charter. **
The United States’ military campaign in Afghanistan most likely also violated the UN Charter, as did Kosovo, and a plethora of other examples where the UN Charter was flagrantly breached. Hence, we do have state practice and it has been consistent over the years. UN member nations have consistently and flagrantly violated UN Article 51. *The reality is Article 51 is grounded upon premises that neither accurately describe nor realistically prescribe state behavior. (M. Glennon page 549). Ruling out anticipatory self-defense fights a losing battle with common sense. In its actions if not in its words, the United States rejected this corollary de facto throughout the Cold War by maintaining a launch-on-warning option in response to the threat of nuclear attack. Had this corollary been in effect at the time of Pearl Harbor it would have insisted the United States wait until bombs actually fell before using defensive action. No rational decision-maker can be expected to exercise such restraint. And few have, as Israeli officials demonstrated when Israel destroyed an Iraqi nuclear plant in 1981. * It doubtless steered clear of the touchy question of state practice because state practice concerning use of force demonstrates precisely the opposite of what the Court strained to conclude. So many states have used force with such regularity in so wide a variety of situations that it can no longer be said that **any customary norm of state practice ** constrains the use of force."
So there is a consistent state practice of violating the UN Charter, specifically in regards to UN Article 51. So it would seem to me the United States actions in Iraq were no different from that of the other 128 nations who are members to the UN. The United States engaged in a course of conduct practiced and engaged in consistently and with such regularity as to constitute a “custom” of practice among the states. Possibly for these reasons the U.S. did not violate international law since it is in part derived from custom among the states and the custom has been to flagrantly defy the UN Charter article 51.
Or, as Napoleon once said of a different situation: “No, it was worse than a crime. It was a blunder.”
Im sure we can keep this out of the pit, were both adults after all.
I will address your response in a light and polite way, and I mean it to be taken that way.
First, Im not in the camp with those who have called you "viscerally anti-american". In fact those thoughts never crossed my mind. What I was saying was that your emotions may have overtaken your reasoning and/or your ability to deal with this topic in a levelheaded fashion, that is all. If this is your usual way of debating and everyone else is ok with it then maybe Im wrong, or maybe I`m being oversensitive.
Secondly, I purposely worded my response as to not be insulting. It was not intended as an insult. I did not use the words “anti-american”, I believe those words came out of your “mouth”.
Thirdly, I did address your points. I even included links and spent of great deal of time going over the information I found on the internet. Re-read my earlier posts on this page. I think you may have brushed over them as I see you haven`t responded to them in detail.
Finally, I`m not the one who used the following terms when responding to a post;
All smoke, no substance.
Hah!
smokescreen
ludicrous
ridiculous
unsupportable
doubtful arguments
incredibly ridiculous
invent justifications
lie
indefensible.
PS - when you enter a debate with such emotion and apparent disgust with any and all opposing view points (extreme bias) people will try to step around you rather than engage you. Or, you may be met with similar emotion and bias, the likes of which you yourself don`t want to deal with (as you stated above).