The US, The UN and Iraq

trespassers will

Did I misread something or wasn't it Bush, who started a "crusade"?

Quote:

I pretty much think "Shock and Awe" is likely to work pretty well, and we have the capability to put significant ground presence in place in many widely scattered areas in very short order. New since The Gulf War is the Real-Time-Awareness of the overall battlefield, something which will play an enormous role. Any organized Iraqi movement, surface or air, can expect to draw attention, risking assured destruction. The precisely directed nature of the lethality of our weapons systems will within hours inflict irrecoverable losses on Iraq. Additionally, the precision of attack will likely occasion astonishingly low "Collateral Damage"; civilian cost, both human and material, attributable to US munitions will be exceptionally rare.

I get the impression you can't wait for the precisely directed nature of the lethality of your weapons systems to demonstrate itself.

From
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,908157,00.html

Legal opinion varies on the basis for war under resolution 1441, but yesterday Cherie Booth's own legal chambers, Matrix, advised there was no authority for war without an unambiguous fresh resolution.

The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, has already flown to Washington on an unpublicised trip to discuss the legal ramifications with the US attorney general, John Ashcroft.

Lord Goldsmith's job is to advise ministers on the legality of all their actions, but his office has refused to divulge his opinion on a future war with Iraq.

"I want to underline that I would like to see journalists and MPs expose this for what it is. It is nothing more than a con trick."

Talking about the wording of UN resolution 1441, Mr Shiner said the threat of "serious consequences" over noncompliance with weapons laws was meant as a warning to Iraq, and not a threat of war.

Mr Shiner said: "Are we going to let the UK get away with a very clear violation of international law?

"Secondly, are we going to let them get away with this second resolution?

"And thirdly, are we going to do something about their behaviour before we go to war and there is a repeat of what happened in 1991?"



This morning he was forced to deny to the Financial Times rumours that he may resign if bombs are dropped without a second UN resolution.

Lawyers, MPs and anti-war campaigners today held a meeting to discuss legal work which stated that military action against Saddam Hussein's regime would violate international law. Today's meeting was led by Phil Shiner, of Public Interest Lawyers, who repeated the views voiced by Matrix lawyers Rabinder Singh QC and Charlotte Kilroy.

Mr Shiner accused the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, of "clever spinning" to make the general public believe that a second resolution would give the US and UK a mandate for war.

"The question of legality is this: will it be lawful or will it not be lawful to go to war on the present draft resolution?

"I am saying without hesitation that it will not be," he said.

Do you really want the history of "edgarblythe's" thread, Kara?

from http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,908152,00.html

Pupils walk out over war

Schoolchildren in the south-east took their protest to the heart of government with a noisy rally outside parliament, moving on to Downing Street, where a handful of demonstrators tried to climb the security gates at the entrance to the street.

Police dragged them away and kept other protesters behind barricades on the opposite pavement.

Police in Cambridge made three arrests as hundreds of students staged a peace protest in the city centre. They said two 16-year-old boys and a 17-year-old girl had been arrested on suspicion of public order offences.

You don't further world peace by starting wars.

I don't believe that Hazlitt suggests, nor do i suggest, letting the idito gon his own way unmolested. But we currently choke him with an embargo, and blast his AAA off the map any time they pop their heads up. Absent proof of criminal intent AND means, we've got no right to roar in their with six guns blazing--and the rest of the world knows that, and would prefer to prevent us from doing it. They're right, and as long as "we" means the Shrub and company, we're wrong.

You don't further world peace by starting wars.

I don't believe that Hazlitt suggests, nor do i suggest, letting the idito gon his own way unmolested. But we currently choke him with an embargo, and blast his AAA off the map any time they pop their heads up. Absent proof of criminal intent AND means, we've got no right to roar in their with six guns blazing--and the rest of the world knows that, and would prefer to prevent us from doing it. They're right, and as long as "we" means the Shrub and company, we're wrong.

tres, I'm witcha here.

A different case is the story of the school-boy with a tee-shirt calling Bush a terrorist, and the school ordered him to turn it inside-out. He refused, and they sent him home.

He has the ACLU backing him in a law suit. I just dunno if I would've carried it that far. But the case is a first-amendment one, as opposed to the one you talk about.