Not to extend this hijack too much, but it would depend on the circumstances. If Powell wrote a tell-all just to cash in on the scandal and pocket the money, then the shame would be on him. On the other hand, if Powell wrote a tell-all because he believed a wrong was being committed and that his tell-all would be the only way to stop it, then the shame would be on Bush (for perpetuating said wrong to begin with).
But it’s all hypothetical; I don’t expect anything like that to happen in this reality.
Why so little mention of the dozen or so UN resolutions requiring Iraq to abide by the terms of the cease-fire ending the first Gulf War?
There was even one warning Iraq of “serious consequences” if she did not fully comply. Being invaded and overthrown sounds pretty serious to me.
By violating the terms of the cease-fire, Iraq invalidated the conditions under which the US and her allies agreed to end hostilities. Ergo, the invasion was an extension of the fully authorized first Gulf War.
Although it is a lost cause to try to establish anything “under international law”. The only thing I can think of to establish clearly the illegality of the overthrow of Saddam by the coalition of the willing would be a UN resolution clearly condemning the US for the invasion.
Which I doubt could be obtained, and which we would promptly veto.
The invasion was clearly legal under US law. The US Supreme Court has found that no international treaty, including the UN charter, can overrule the right of the US Congress to declare war. The Congress clearly authorized the use of force in Iraq.
So it was legal. QED.
“The dogs bark, but the caravan marches on.” Ultimately, Bush will answer to the voters as to whether the invasion was justified or not, come next November.
I am astounded by the continued insistence that UN resolutions from a decade ago should take precedence over 1441, in spite of the fact that the UN was quite unambigous in their denial of authorization for use of force. A specious argument if you ask me.
1441 denies authorization for the use of force?i missed it. And if not, what resolution was passed that denied authorization for the US to multilaterally invade Iraq? Don’t say the UN Charter either. If that wernt ambiguos then we wouldnt need resolutions and could just follow the old rule book on how to act.
From my link:
And as Ana had said :
9/11 has changed the world. I am pretty sure that those who drafted the UN Constitution had no idea what “wars” would be like in our day and age. they were used to tank-to-tank, bullet-to -bullet armed conflicts. The US (most powerful nation in the world by far) does not engage in wars to acquire influence or grab land as was done in WWII or 1990 by Saddam. The UN CHarter, in no way, references on what should be done to fight terrorism. And terrorists never signed the UN charter.
1441 denies authorization for the use of force?i missed it. And if not, what resolution was passed that denied authorization for the US to multilaterally invade Iraq? Don’t say the UN Charter either. If that wernt ambiguos then we wouldnt need resolutions and could just follow the old rule book on how to act.
From my link:
And as Ana had said :
9/11 has changed the world. I am pretty sure that those who drafted the UN Constitution had no idea what “wars” would be like in our day and age. they were used to tank-to-tank, bullet-to -bullet armed conflicts. The US (most powerful nation in the world by far) does not engage in wars to acquire influence or grab land as was done in WWII or 1990 by Saddam. The UN CHarter, in no way, references on what should be done to fight terrorism. And terrorists never signed the UN charter.
Please don’t twist what I say. I said no such thing. 1441 does not authorize the use of force; not precisely the same as denying it. I also said “the UN was quite unambigous in their denial of authorization for use of force”. We asked for UN approval, and they flatly rejected the idea. Nowhere did I claim that 1441 “denies” the use of force. But then I don’t think the UNSC is in the habit of passing resolutions for everything you can’t do. Maybe we should have passed a resolution telling Hitler not to kill the Jews? (Oops, that was a Godwin, wasn’t it?;))
What is ambiguous about the UN Charter? This silly argument that we somehow were carrying out the wishes of the UN even though they didn’t want us to gets more absurd every time I hear it.
No, the US never does that. Now hurry up because the Good Ship Lollypop is about to sail for never-never land.
It explicity addresses the invasion of sovereign nations. Maybe you haven’t been around for the last 6 months, but Bush’s case for linking Saddam to the terrorists fell apart big time. You could possibly make the case that Afghanistan was a defensive action in response to a terror attack, but not Iraq.
Come on, Shodan, can’t you give it a break sometimes? At least come back to reality and provide some logical reasoning and some cites for your views.
You said:
“Why so little mention of the dozen or so UN resolutions requiring Iraq to abide by the terms of the cease-fire ending the first Gulf War?”
What UN resolution didn’t Iraq abide by? They never found any unproscribed weapons in Iraq, not in 1991-98, nor in 2002-2003. And the no-fly zones were a US-UK invention, they were not originally a part of any resolutions.
You said:
“There was even one warning Iraq of “serious consequences” if she did not fully comply. Being invaded and overthrown sounds pretty serious to me.”
I bet you are fully aware that a country has to be declared in “material breach”; UN-language for authorizing military force. You are probably also aware that the orginal text of resolution 1441, submitted by the US, did threaten Iraq with material breach, however this was rejected by the UNSC and replaced with “serious consequences”, which does not authorize the use of military force. In fact, the US ambassador to the UN stood up in the UNSC and acknowledged that 1441 did not authorize military force (where’s my cite). How can you contradict him?
You said:
“By violating the terms of the cease-fire, Iraq invalidated the conditions under which the US and her allies agreed to end hostilities. Ergo, the invasion was an extension of the fully authorized first Gulf War.”
Once again, I’m not aware of that Iraq violated the terms of the 1991 ceasefire in such a way that they were in “material breach”. However, only the UN and the UN alone may determine that. Member nations are not free to take unilateral actions based on interpretations of resolutions many years after such resolutions have been passed. Newer resolutions trumph older resolutions.
You said:
“The only thing I can think of to establish clearly the illegality of the overthrow of Saddam by the coalition of the willing would be a UN resolution clearly condemning the US for the invasion.”
And this will never happen, because the US and the UK both have veto power in the UNSC. It’s not likely they will pass a resolution condemning their own war, is it?
As to this highly interesting OP, there are two questions to discuss here. The first is whether the war was legal/illegal according to US laws. The other whether the war was legal/illegal according to international laws.
As I’m not a US citizen, I’m not going to pretend that I can debate US laws. But I haven’t seen any valid arguments suggesting that the war was illegal according to US laws. The only exception I can think of is that Congress acted on outright false information, but that’s another debate.
A sideissue is whether international law surpasses US law. Im my view it does. There is no point in having international treaties if a nation, whenever they feel like it, can pass a bill suspending (but not retracting from) a given treaty. Whether international law surpasses, the US Constitution is an entirely different matter, but last time I looked the Congressional approval of the war in Iraq was not a part of the US Constitution.
The second issue, whether the war was legal/illegal according to international laws is easier to answer. Unlike with domestic issues, where everything is allowed until a law says otherwise, the UN Charter declares that any military actions taken against a sovereign nation is prohibited, with the exception of self-defense (under attack or an immediate threat). Any other disputes involving the use of military force must be brought before the UNSC, who must authorize such use beforehand - no exceptions. In other words, if a war is not in self-defense or if it’s not authorized by the UNSC, then it’s illegal. Note the difference from domestic laws where any action is “legal” until a court determines otherwise.
Strictly speaking, even the invasion of Afghanistan was illegal because even though the US was attacked 9/11 (several weeks earlier), they were not under a continuous attack, a condition necessary for invoking self-defence.
But whether international laws and the UN Charter is able to handle the immediate threat of international trerrorism, that’s another matter.
Cite? I seem to recall us not asking them because France threatened a veto. I need to see a resolution that was “flatly rejected” the idea. Remeber, the only time the UN, as a body, can reject something is by vote. I remember Powell stating we would probably have the nine votes needed to pass a resolution if it wasnt for those pesky vetos. So don’t try to quote a UN ambassador from a dissenting nation because that is all fluff as was Powell’s statement.
No, that was just silly.
Is this sarcasm? I would like one instance where the US went to war since the UN was created to grab land or solely to expand their influence. Otherwise if you do not have anything to intelligent to add to a point I would advize you not to point that fact out.
You’re asking for a cite that the UN wouldn’t approve military action against Iraq?:dubious: Are you kidding me? Would you like a cite that we are on planet Earth? Did you forget the whole “The UN is irrelevant” speech from Bush?
No, what’s silly is the idea that anything is OK as long as there isn’t a written resolution saying “don’t do that”.
Grenada, for one. Sorry, but when you say something as absurd as “The US has never gone to war to grab land or expand their influence”, the only appropriate response is sarcasm. It’s a little ironic that you are talking about whether anything intelligent has been contributed.
Why did you quote that? It’s patently false. THe UN Charter is quite explicit about what kind of wars are allowed, and what kinds aren’t. And the WMD and terrorism angles have both proven to be lies advanced by Bush and Blair. We went though acrimony and division because they were wrong to do what they did.
Shodan, you should consider the three important things said in 1441 as a whole, not as stand-alone pieces, mainly:
[as you said] Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under previous resolutions
and: “false statements or omissions in the [new] declarations submitted by Iraq … shall constitute a further material breach…”
Iraq is given a final opportunity to comply with both the new 1441 and previous resolutions
In other words, 1441 declares Iraq in material breach#1 in conjunction with older resolutions, and threathens Iraq with another material breach(#2) if they don’t comply with the new provisions in 1441, BUT Iraq is given a final opportunity to comply with both 1# and 2#. If not, they will face “serious consequences” (instead of “all necessary means” which is UN language allowing use of force), consequences yet to be determined by the UNSC.
1441 doesn’t declare Iraq in material breach directly without this final opportunity, which was what the US and UK originally wanted. And as we all know, the UNSC never declared that Iraq had missed its final opportunity and therefore was in material breach according to 1441 (which also gave Iraq a final chance to comply with previous resolutions), and obviously they never issued a later resolution about which consequences Iraq should face.
Also see FindLaw at:
To quote a source you probably will accept, here is Condi Rice at Newsmax:
Note that Condi Rice said that there would be material breach the next time Iraq didn’t comply, instead of Iraq already being in material breach.
A highly interesting article about the actual content of both 1441 and previous resolutions can be found at the Crimes of War Project’s website. A few snaps:
"The resolution [1441] was carefully drafted to suggest that authorization to use force should rest on a simple determination of fact - e.g. whether Iraq was complying completely with its disarmament obligations. The implication is that, once it is clear that Iraq has not taken its “final chance,” “serious consequences” are likely to follow. In this context, the phrase “serious consequences” is clearly intended to suggest the possibility of the use of force.
But despite this, there is nothing in the resolution that gives anyone apart from the Security Council itself the right to decide when the final chance has been exhausted.
Moreover, Lowe argued, even if the Security Council were to agree that Iraq remained in material breach, there would still need to be a clear statement that the use of force was now authorized. The phrase in the resolution, “serious consequences,” falls short of a clear and unambiguous statement that force may be used – for instance it does not say that “all necessary means” may be taken to disarm Iraq. It hints that the use of force may be decided on - but it does not itself give authority for the use of force."
And from the same cite, about earlier resolutions:
"British and U.S. officials tend to base their arguments for the legitimacy of an attack on two resolutions from the time of the first Persian Gulf War in 1990-91: Resolution 678 (which authorized the use of force to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait) and Resolution 687 (which declared a cease-fire, and imposed the inspection regime on Iraq).
…
According to Lowe, these resolutions “were creatures of their time.” Resolution 678 “was addressed to a particular situation at a particular time, and it authorized the states acting in coalition with Kuwait to take a certain action.” The problem to which it was addressed “was wrapped up with the ceasefire,” and “to say that any state that happened to be a member of that coalition ten years ago has for perpetuity the right to use force to restore peace in the Middle East, I think is just obviously absurd.”
It’s sometimes said that the ceasefire declared by Resolution 687 was conditional on Iraq fulfilling the conditions required of it. However a close reading of the text of the resolution makes clear that the ceasefire will come into effect if Iraq simply accepts the terms of the resolution; the resolution goes on to state that it is then up to the Security Council to “take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the current resolution.”
Going back to the international law v. domestic law discussion. International treaties are considered on par with American law (which are also considered supreme law of the land if not in conflict with the Constitution) and customary law is considered federal common law.
So yes, later statutes CAN override treaties. As the Supreme Court said in Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190 (1888), “the last one in date will control”. Also, “By the Constitution a treaty is placed on the same footing, and made of like obligation, with an act of legislation”.
So international treaties are, in essence, statutes of another form.
This sounds too much like saying that it doesn’t matter if Iraq really did what they promised, as long as they claim they will.
The whole purpose of the inspection regime was for Iraq to prove that they had no WMD. Not for them to claim that they were, not for the rest of the world to keep telling them not to try to obtain them - for them to cooperate fully with the inspection regime - fully - and to be completely transparent about their regime and their weapons program.
They did not do so.
This stuff about claiming that they should be afraid of “serious consequences”, but not to the point where they fulfill their obligations, or that they can accept the terms of the cease-fire but aren’t expected to abide by them, is so much hot air from the Axis of Weasel. Iraq and Saddam were given twelve years to comply, did not do so, and were finally confronted by a President of the only remaining superpower who was not prepared to fool around any longer. For the war in Iraq to be illegal, as has been said, there would have to be a resolution stating explicitly that the UN condemned the action. And certainly a body which could not get its act together to the point that they would enforce a cease-fire is not going to be able to push thru a resolution complaining when its leading members do so without asking “Mother May I?”.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by blowero *
**You’re asking for a cite that the UN wouldn’t approve military action against Iraq?:dubious: Are you kidding me? Would you like a cite that we are on planet Earth? Did you forget the whole “The UN is irrelevant” speech from Bush?
[quote]
**
No, I want a cite stating that the UN was obviously against going to war with Iraq. France, Germany, Russia, China, and Belgium are not the UN. If a resolution was submitted before the SC and 9 votes were in favor, then the UN would have obviously been in favor of the war. But that would not have been allowed had a threat by one of the dissenting parties went through and the resolution been vetoed.
Where do you come up with this crap? As I said many times before, the US has claimed support from the UN for the war with resolution 1441 and previous resolutions. With the UN being silent on such a claim, then yes, without a new resolution, or ruling, saying “don’t do that” then they are saying it’s ok.
While I admit, I do not know all of the nuances of the reasons for going to war with Grenada, I was under the impressions that it was because US citizens were in danger, the Soviets planned on putting an airstrip that was a threat to National Security, and for humanitarian reasons.
Well thank you Mr. Secretary general. While I myself would never claim what Annan says in an interview as material fact, for you to claim that it is a blatant lie would require you to put up more official cites or some-such. I have yet to see a cite that Bush and Blair lied about WMD and terrorist “angles”.
And if you are claiming that the UN only allows wars in obvious self defense, meaning that the attacking party must only respond to an attack on them self, or one that a resolution from the UNSC, well I believe the latter was already brought up in defense of the US actions. The US claims the UN allowed the war. 1441 recalled the specific resolution that allowed the war. My last 2 statements are facts my friend. Anyone’s assertion that the US can’t do that or that something has expired, or whatever is not fact, but speculation, and probably wishful thinking.
I, myself, have always claimed that Saddam was never entitled to the presumption of innocence, I will admit that others that have a beef against this country can see it how they want. France, China, Russia, or whomever, is perfectly able to put sanctions , diplomatic barriers, or even go to war with us if they think the US guilty of ‘sedition’ against the Holy UN. However, to claim that something was patently illegal, without having the verifiable evidence that backs that claim up, and I am not talking about your personal opinion, then you have to admit that your argument is not fact, but just an argument. You are quick to claim that the US defense for going to Iraq is not acceptable, yet you have not put any evidence that what they submitted would not be allowed. And until you are willing to acknowledge that I can only classify your arguments as specious and ideal driven.
If you would bother to look at the UN Charter, you would know that they don’t have to write a resolution saying “don’t invade other countries”, every time they don’t want someone to invade a country. duh.
I think you are hopelessly naive, Sean. You do realize the every invasion ever launched in the history of the world had some sort of rationalization behind it. Nobody ever says: “We’re doing this for a power/land grab.” If you take the rationalization at face value every time, you would be forced to conclude that there has never been an unjustified military action, ever. Maybe you believe that, Sean, but I don’t. IIRC, we used the flimsy excuse that we were rescuing some students who were in danger. It wasn’t a very good excuse.
Are you kidding me? The cites have been done to death. You haven’t looked at any of the Iraq threads that have been in this forum? You don’t remember how Bush and Blair got blasted in all the papers for putting forward questionable “evidence” to justify the war? You haven’t noticed that we never found the WMDs that we supposedly had rock-solid proof for? When I have time, I’ll search the threads and give you some links if you want, but I can’t believe you actually don’t remember this, and aren’t just being deliberately obtuse.
Before you continue spouting such misinformation, please read Alien’s last post, because he explains it very well. You obviously don’t understand what 1441 says. And a question for you: If Bush claims that the UN “allowed the war”, why did he also say the UN was “irrelevant”? Obviously, both can’t be true. If they are “irrelevant”, then it wouldn’t matter if they allowed the war.
This is simply a strawman. Give me one cite where anyone ever said “Saddam is entitled to the presumption of innocence.” The issue is whether the US acted in violation of its duty to the UN. Don’t try to turn this into some “Gee, don’t you think Saddam is a bad guy?” garbage. Of course he’s a bad guy; that’s not the issue.
Oh my God - not the “it’s not illegal until you get busted” argument AGAIN. Can’t we put this shit to rest?
The evidence is here, pal - you just need to read it.
Every time they don’t want someone to invade another country? your not going to acknowledge that this isn’t an “every time”? That they US said that the UN allowed military force per resolutions? Your just going to generalize that even if a country claims allowance by resolution it is the same as a whim? You are beginning to bore the shit out of me with your repetitiveness. No one said they have to pass a resolution every time. No one claimed that, however, if a country is using one of the UN’s resolutions to claim legitimacy then they should make a statement otherwise. And you tell me how the UN makes a statement as a body? You tell me how you feel the UN was obviously against the war? IIRC the 40 some-odd countries in the coalition were part of the UN. And I only remember a handful of countries openly against the war.
And I think you are hopelessly arrogant to presume you have made your point based on a you sole assertion and personal opinion on how good of an excuse you find it. If you want to enlighten me on Grenada then do so. Otherwise I stand by my assertion, from what I know of the conflict, that the US had a valid reason, other that solely to exert influence, for the actions in Grenada. SO you can keep your condescending attitude.
Proof that he deliberately lied bucko. If you don’t want to try to explain here, I think there is a fresh topic on these forums where you can provide a cite to all of the speculating SDMB’ers about your evidence that Bush lied on purpose, with forethought. The UN unanimously affirmed that Iraq posed a threat with it’s WMD. I don’t care if he personally ate every ounce of his stockpiles so that he would not be a threat. The fact is he never proved that to the UNSC much less attempted to. That was the casus belli. The onus was never on the US to prove he did have them.
I have read his post. And I find it one of the best arguments I have come across. But that is not testimony or any other kind of evidence. But an argument. And for you to espouse that as “evidence” would make you the one “spouting misinformation”
[quote]
I never said they did say that. I am saying that the US is not entitled to such in the international community either. It is within the rights of the countries I listed to ‘punish’ the US for what they may deem as misdeeds. They do not need a UN mandate to do so. However, if the UN ‘obviously’ finds the US acts illegal, then it must pass a resolution to punish the US as they did Iraq.
Let me let you in on a little secret. It will never be established on these boards as “patent evidence” that the US is in violation of it’s commitment to the UN by argument or not. Cites, rulings, and the like are what is needed. The US never used force to settle it’s issues with Iraq. It used 12 years of UN resolutions, sanctions, threats, and even diplomacy and finally resorted to force when all other options were exhausted. So your claim that the Charter is blatant and inescapable proof that what the US did was illegal is not holding water.
