THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

revel wrote:

So, the Bush administration is trying to use the old resolution that concerned Kuwait to justify invading Iraq even though we already went to war about kuwait?

Not really, the Bush administration is not nearly silly enough to try to make that case.

Quote:

Quote:
The UN charter outlaws the use of force with only two exceptions: individual or collective self-defence in response to an armed attack and action authorised by the security council as a collective response to a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression.

If the above is true, then no matter how you slice it, we had no legal basis to go to war with Iraq.

That's the gist of it. The only angle is a big stretch and has nothing to do with Timber's attempt to twist resolutions into what they clearly are not.

The only twist for legality would be to say that it actually was self-defence. The people who make the best case for the war's legality play up:

1) "Pre-emptive" threat

2) New world where the terrorist threats mean different thresholds for pre-emption

3) Used to be WMDs, not it's supposed to be an unholy alliance betwen Iraq and Al Qaeda.

That's the angle where a case for legality is made, and at that point the debate goes into a more ambiguous issue of where pre-emption begins and where unprovoked agression ends.

The case Timber is trying to make is a horse of a different color though.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
As of this post of yours, you have failed to provide evidence of your claim that you are in fact "well versed in this facet of International Law."

ican, you might also take note that I made no such claims about the wars legality that would be substantiated by knowledge of the law.

ican711nm wrote:

Until you do so, your questioning of others about International Law without contributing anything yourself about what about that law is relevant to this discussion is suspect.

I now draw the following inferences from our exchange:
#1 You believe you cannot provide evidence that you are "well versed in that part of International Law" applicable to US actions in the Iraqi war;
#2 You believe you made no claims about the Iraqi war's legality according to International Law;
#3 You believe no one here can make claims about the Iraqi war's legality that could be substantiated by knowledge of International Law;
#4 You believe International Law does not specify law from which one can rationally conclude whether or not the Iraqi war was/is illegal.

If my inferences are valid about what you believe, then I agree with what you believe.

In short, International Law neither prohibits or permits the US war with Iraq.

ican711nm wrote:

Also, do not fail to grasp a fundamental requirement. Only that International Law to which the US is a treaty signatory is also part of US Law.

Craven de Kere wrote:

[You are grasping at straws, this is not an issue.

No I'm not. I'm simply making a foundation statement. The only way the US can unlawfully not conform its actions to a provision of International Law is for the US to have been a signatory to a treaty specifying that provision.

ican711nm wrote:

Are you aware that the UN Treaty signed by the US (i.e., a part of the US's supreme law of the land, see above) grants to each member state the legal right to defend itself against aggression without obtaining an approving UN resolution?

Craven de Kere wrote:

I am far more aware of the intricacies of the UN documents that you are Ican, so the answer is yes.

ican711nm wrote:

That is exactly what the US is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US is defending Americans against those who have declared war against Americans.

Craven de Kere wrote:

False, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding about the aggression to which the UN charter refers.

No, it is true. The US is defending itself against those who have declared and/or made/make/will-make war on Americans or who have/do/will "adhere to, aid and comfort" those who have declared and/or made/make/will-make war on Americans. There exists no treaty to which the US is a signatory that proibits the US from defending itself against those who have declared and/or made/make/will-make war on Americans or who have/do/will "adhere to, aid, and comfort" those who have declared and/or made/make/will-make war on Americans.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Feel free to make your case for your claim. It will be fun.

I have done just that. Enjoy! Smile

Now let me enjoy while you attempt to make your case, whatever that case may be! :wink:

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Cdk, I refer you to the paper cited in THIS EARLIER POST OF MINE. I ask, if having read the article, do you still consider the central thesis laughable?

What is the central thesis? I do, in fact, consider several critical elements of that document (if it is, indeed, the document I read a year or so ago) to be laughable.

Element 1: the open-ended mandate for war. Really? I mean it is to laugh.

Ask yourself this question and answer it to youself honestly.

If Iran had invoked the resolution that mandated the first gulf war as an open-ended mandate for invading and occupying Iraq would you consider it legal?

Would the US?

Hell no! We'd be all over Iran like hairs on a gorilla and you know this.

The mandate was for the first Gulf War. Not any arbitrarily declared war a decade later.

Element 2: Iraq's obligations were to a) Kuwait and b) the UN. The US has no authority whatsoever to invoke UN resolutions as we like with an interpretation we decide on arbitrarily.

Frankly, the document makes a decent case for the reasons to go after Saddam but makes a laughable case at asserting its legality.

But if I remember correctly it touches on the only valid case as well (this skim through I didn't see it but I remember it being there) which is the issue of a threat.

The only standing international law on things like invading countries is really simple, and is why I was saying it can be summed up in mere sentences.

revel found it.

It basically works like this:

1) Agression is illegal.

2) Self-defense or defense against agression is legal.

Part one is stated unambiguously, part two is a briefly worded exception to all the part one texts.

So, the only legal case without the UN is one of defense against a threat.

What is or is not a threat is subjective and that's why I do not assert illegality.

I think the precedents that have been set make it clear that this does not fall into the category of pre-emption against a military threat, but that is debatable and international law is ambiguous enough that it has no venue to be settled except the United Nations, where we can simply veto any finding of illegality.

Quote:

I just don't share your opinion; I don't see that the March '03 action against Iraq was a new, separate, standalone event, I see it as an evolution in the chain of events cascading from Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the resultant UN action to redress that transgression.

Everything can be called an evolution in a chain of events, but a harder case to make is that our invasion of Iraq was not an agression initiated by the US (for whatever the reasons).

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Bill, your participation in this discussion for your last several posts has been nearly exclusively limuted to throwing out strings of epithets and insults and you wish that I care about being insulting by being "smug"?

Correction: not nearly exclusively... Exclusively. I wasn't part of this discussion until you began insulting me... So yes, that's what I've responded to. Had you, or if you, attack any position I've been discussing, I'll defend it or rescind it. I haven't yet repeated my complaint 20 times like you did, but I bet you're starting to see how annoying it can be. The difference is; your attack was unprovoked, I am merely responding to it.

No worries Timber, I have always and will continue to have a tremendous amount of respect for Craven. It was one of his discussions that caused me join the site in the first place and I've learned a great deal from him. But that doesn't mean I won't point out and call him an ass when he behaves like one. I do hope there are no hard feelings. :wink:

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

I now draw the following inferences from our exchange:
#1 You believe you cannot provide evidence that you are "well versed in that part of International Law" applicable to US actions in the Iraqi war;

I have made no claims about whether the war in Iraq was legal or illegal.

I have no claim to substantiate except the claim that I am well-versed in this regard.

Whether or not you believe that is of precious little import to me, and precious little import to the discussion and only of marginal import to my ego, which though prodigious, is extra-curricular.

Quote:

#2 You believe you made no claims about the Iraqi war's legality according to International Law;

Yes I used to. But I was doing so more out of a knee-jerk wish than factual basis. My claims of the war's illegality were nothing short of intellectual dishonesty and idiocy and I no longer make a claim of legality on this because I do not believe there are any mechanisms through which the theory can be adequately tested.

Quote:

#3 You believe no one here can make claims about the Iraqi war's legality that could be substantiated by knowledge of International Law;

False, I believe no such thing. To name but one illustrious individual a certain Craven de Kere, noted for his pious nature can do so. A stout fellow if there ever were one.

Quote:

#4 You believe International Law does not specify law from which one can rationally conclude whether or not the Iraqi war was/is illegal.

Close. I do not believe International Law has an authority capable of enforcing it even though the case in this regard seems pretty clear.

Without a mechanism to enforce the law the law's authority itself is weakened because it can't be put to the test. Law, by it's nature, must have a means to dispute the differing interpretations and there are none that can apply to a security council member.

Quote:

If my inferences are valid about what you believe, then I agree with what you believe.

In short, International Law neither prohibits or permits the US war with Iraq.

Agreed for the most part, but with a minor quibble.

"International Law, as it exists prohibits the US invasion of Iraq but lacks a mechanism to enforce this interpretation of the existing laws."

The end result is the same.

Quote:

ican711nm wrote:
Also, do not fail to grasp a fundamental requirement. Only that International Law to which the US is a treaty signatory is also part of US Law.

Craven de Kere wrote:
[You are grasping at straws, this is not an issue.

No I'm not. I'm simply making a foundation statement. The only way the US can unlawfully not conform its actions to a provision of International Law is for the US to have been a signatory to a treaty specifying that provision.

The reason this is not an issue is because the US is signatory to any of the relevant documents that would indict the war. The US, in fact, had a great hand in the very creation of said documents.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
False, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding about the aggression to which the UN charter refers.

No, it is true. The US is defending itself against those who have declared and/or made/make/will-make war on Americans or who have/do/will "adhere to, aid and comfort" those who have declared and/or made/make/will-make war on Americans.

Your definition of threat is ever-widening. What is your criteria. Where is the threshold?

I maintain that you set it far beyond what anyone imagined when framing things like the UN charter.

Please delienate the line you are trying to draw.

For example, if 2 British people threaten the US would it mandate a war? I doubt you think so but you get the point, where is your line? What constitutes a threat worthy of invoking self defense?

Does the threat have to be meaningful? Do empty threats mandate invasion of circumstantially related nations?

Where is this line of yours? You've moved it far beyond any precendent in terms of pridian interpretation, so what have you done with it?

Quote:

There exists no treaty to which the US is a signatory that proibits the US from defending itself against those who have declared and/or made/make/will-make war on Americans or who have/do/will "adhere to, aid, and comfort" those who have declared and/or made/make/will-make war on Americans.

No kidding, but in your ever-widening criteria lies the disagreement.

For example, you include "will-make war" and this is a very very tricky criteria. Care to flesh out what exactly the criteria is? Care to explain how you deal with avoidance of slipperly slope?

Does this line apply to all (someone tell India they have an air-tight case to attack Pakistan)? When it was painfully clear that the US "will-make war" with Iraq did they have a legal case for attacking the US?

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Feel free to make your case for your claim. It will be fun.

I have done just that. Enjoy!

I did enjoy, but I fear a lot is missing from your case. You have delienated it in only the most general terms. At the general level of mottos and pithy statements.

For it to be a rounded legal case you might need to flesh out your (IMO widely diverging) interpretation of threat and justifiable response.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

But that doesn't mean I won't point out and call him an ass when he behaves like one. I do hope there are no hard feelings. :wink:

Please do this Bill, I can always stand to improve or at least be aware of ways in which people think I can/should improve.

And no, there're no hard feelings. Love you tons.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:
The UN charter outlaws the use of force with only two exceptions: individual or collective self-defence in response to an armed attack and action authorised by the security council as a collective response to a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression.

"The UN charter outlaws the use of force with only two exceptions: individual or collective self-defence in response to an armed attack and action authorised by the security council as a collective response to a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression."

Quote:

The Constitution of the United States of America
Effective as of March 4, 1789
…
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
...

Hmmmmm: Aggression against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

For example: 9/11/2001
This "armed attack" was made by those who had declared war against Americans in 1996 and 1998. Since the attackers were "adhered to, aided, and comforted" by the government of Saddam Hussein, the US launched pre-emptive strikes against some of those who were a threat of future attacks on Americans (Afghanistan and Iraq), or were a threat of future aderence to, aid, and comfort of those who were a threat for future attacks on Americans (Iraq).

Craven de Kere wrote:

The only twist for legality would be to say that it actually was self-defence. The people who make the best case for the war's legality play up:

1) "Pre-emptive" threat

2) New world where the terrorist threats mean different thresholds for pre-emption

...

That's the angle where a case for legality is made, and at that point the debate goes into a more ambiguous issue of where pre-emption begins and where unprovoked agression ends.

Yes

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

For example: 9/11/2001

This is a poor example for making a case for invading Iraq.

Quote:

Since the attackers were "adhered to, aided, and comforted" by the government of Saddam Hussein....

You stretch the bounds here. Seriously, it's a lot easier to make a case for invading Iraq without such liberties of interpretation you exhibit.

Anywho, here's an interesting twist. The USA was bombing Iraq on a nearlky daily basis long before 9/11.

By your simplistic (if hyperbolically stretched) criterias they had a legal right to not only conspire to attack the US but to actually do so.

Hint: there are valid points about the mandate the US had but they contain multiple pitfalls for your line of reasoning.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
The only twist for legality would be to say that it actually was self-defence. The people who make the best case for the war's legality play up:

1) "Pre-emptive" threat

2) New world where the terrorist threats mean different thresholds for pre-emption

...

That's the angle where a case for legality is made, and at that point the debate goes into a more ambiguous issue of where pre-emption begins and where unprovoked agression ends.

Yes

So the extent of the case you are making is centered on the links you assert between 9/11 and Saddam?

Fair enough, I personally think that's a very weak case.

0 Replies

Quote:

This "armed attack" was made by those who had declared war against Americans in 1996 and 1998. Since the attackers were "adhered to, aided, and comforted" by the government of Saddam Hussein, the US launched pre-emptive strikes against some of those who were a threat of future attacks on Americans (Afghanistan and Iraq), or were a threat of future aderence to, aid, and comfort of those who were a threat for future attacks on Americans (Iraq).

And in every case the 'attackers' where almost solely Saudi Arabians, with Saudi money and Saudi help from elements of their government and security forces. The US response should be to remove the Saudi regime, neutralise its military capability and invade the country to remove any WMDs and A-Queda. F@ck yeah, that's gonna happen. It is the fault of everbody but the Bush Administration that is beholding to the House of Saud and their petro-chemical empire. It's still all about the oil!

0 Replies

Mr Stillwater wrote:

Quote:
This "armed attack" was made by those who had declared war against Americans in 1996 and 1998. Since the attackers were "adhered to, aided, and comforted" by the government of Saddam Hussein, the US launched pre-emptive strikes against some of those who were a threat of future attacks on Americans (Afghanistan and Iraq), or were a threat of future aderence to, aid, and comfort of those who were a threat for future attacks on Americans (Iraq).

And in every case the 'attackers' where almost solely Saudi Arabians, with Saudi money and Saudi help from elements of their government and security forces. The US response should be to remove the Saudi regime, neutralise its military capability and invade the country to remove any WMDs and A-Queda. F@ck yeah, that's gonna happen. It is the fault of everbody but the Bush Administration that is beholding to the House of Saud and their petro-chemical empire. It's still all about the oil!

It wasn't "saudi" money. It was money from people in Saudi Arabia. King Fahd has been a long standing partner of the US and would never be stupid enough to fund al Qaeda. Therefore, removing the regime in Saudi Arabia would be a stupid idea.

0 Replies

Quote:

I remain convinced ....that ....without....stockpiles of WMD, Iraq retained .....the capability to rapidly .....deploy same.

How? You mean Saddam could conjour up stocks of VX out of thin air? Thats some magic trick. He should have his own show.

0 Replies

Quote:

The only way the US can unlawfully not conform its actions to a provision of International Law is for the US to have been a signatory to a treaty specifying that provision.

Jeez, glad I'm not a lawyer, it'd do my head in

0 Replies

Quote:

It's still all about the oil!

(Stilloilman. Shush. If the secret gets out it will ruin a perfectly good argument).

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

The only twist for legality would be to say that it actually was self-defence. The people who make the best case for the war's legality play up:
1) "Pre-emptive" threat
2) New world where the terrorist threats mean different thresholds for pre-emption
...
That's the angle where a case for legality is made, and at that point the debate goes into a more ambiguous issue of where pre-emption begins and where unprovoked agression ends.

ican711nm wrote:

Yes

Craven de Kere wrote:

So the extent of the case you are making is centered on the links you assert between 9/11 and Saddam?

Fair enough, I personally think that's a very weak case.

Because your ego appears to me to be a fair match with my own ego, I'd like to further discuss this point with you. :wink:

Before commencing my supplementary argument, I wish to check the following with you.

I think we agree on the following history:
1. Osama's 1996 declaration of war against Americans;
2. Osama's 1998 declaration of war against Americans;
3. The 9/11/2001 Osama led attack on Americans;
4. The American 10/2001 attack on Osama's troops (i.e., Al Qaeda trained terrorists and support personnel) in Afghanistan;
5. The American 3/2003 attack on Saddam in Iraq;
6. Osama's 2004 declaration of war against Americans.

I think we disagree on the following history:
1. Osama and Saddam's pre 9/11/2001 secret agreement that Saddam will aid Osama's preparations for Osama led attacks on Americans;
2. Osama and Saddam's post 9/11/2001 secret agreement that Saddam will aid Osama's preparations for Osama led attacks on Americans;
3. Saddam's post 10/2001 harboring of some of Osama's troops that fled the American attack in Afghanistan on Osama's troops in Afghanistan.

By the way, fellow egotist, unless you fly at the altitudes I do, your perspective is not as high as mine. Smile

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Because your ego appears to me to be a fair match with my own ego, I'd like to further discuss this point with you. :wink:

You have 24 hours to remove that hand kneading my buttocks Ican.

Quote:

I think we agree on the following history:
1. Osama's 1996 declaration of war against Americans;
2. Osama's 1998 declaration of war against Americans;
3. The 9/11/2001 Osama led attack on Americans;

Yes

Quote:

4. The American 10/2001 attack on Osama's troops (i.e., Al Qaeda trained terrorists and support personnel) in Afghanistan;

Agree with the war? Yes (with some quarterbacking complaints). Agree that the war was an attack on Osama's troops? Less so, the war was an attack on the Taliban much more so than Al Qaeda.

Quote:

5. The American 3/2003 attack on Saddam in Iraq;

Since the beginning, my criteria for accepting this war was the capability of the US to convince others of the threat.

I thought the threat angle was ludicrous. But I've no problem with regime change there.

I do however have a strong distaste for undermining global rule of law and sovereignty and thusly the way the war's case was made is such that I think it is one of the worst things my country has done.

So I suspect we do not come close to agreeing on this one.

Quote:

6. Osama's 2004 declaration of war against Americans.

What declaration? If anything all the repeated items of declarations should in fact be reaffirmations.

As in: "we reaffirm that we are really pissed off and really don't like America".

Quote:

I think we disagree on the following history:
1. Osama and Saddam's pre 9/11/2001 secret agreement that Saddam will aid Osama's preparations for Osama led attacks on Americans;

I have not yet fully evaluated this. I don't think anyone anywhere has.

My suspicion is that it sounds more juicy than it was.

Quote:

2. Osama and Saddam's post 9/11/2001 secret agreement that Saddam will aid Osama's preparations for Osama led attacks on Americans;

Ican, I'd love to see you try to make a case for these things. I mean, people here really seize upon anything. Some judge declares Saddam complicit in 9/11 and they tout it as evidence.

Now you get a whiff of this unholy alliance and you are already touting it here.

Frankly, I don't think you can come close to making a case for this. But would love to see what you can come up with.

Quote:

3. Saddam's post 10/2001 harboring of some of Osama's troops that fled the American attack in Afghanistan on Osama's troops in Afghanistan.

Is this a misleading way of saying:

"Some bad guys went to Iraq"

-----------------

Very important note:

I'm weary of people taking the most superficial connectiosn and touting it as a casus belli. With nations like Iraq many equate mere presence of bad guys there as being indicative of a whole network of support.

When said bad guys operate out of our own country or that of staunch allies we don't immediately act like the whole damn nation needs to go down and I wish people would pay more attention to evidence and not play games of connecting only circumstantially related dots.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Quote:
I remain convinced ....that ....without....stockpiles of WMD, Iraq retained .....the capability to rapidly .....deploy same.

How? You mean Saddam could conjour up stocks of VX out of thin air? Thats some magic trick. He should have his own show.

Real simple, Steve. The dual-use agricultural chemical production facilities (which gave Iraq, a nation roughly the size of California though possessed of very little arable land, an agricultural pesticide production capability among the largest in the world) could in very short order be switched from legitimate production to the production of chemical weapons of various types, and the precursor agents were at hand and/or readily producible with chemicals used for pesticide production. The dual use facilities, if you will recall from the Kay and Duelfer reports, were located contiguous to artillery and rocket munitions depots. Also found were equipment suitable for chemical munitions transport, handling, and decontamination, and vast quantities of chemical protection suits and antidote injection kits. I suppose all that might have been all by coincidence, but I find it insufferably difficult to believe, given the extensive and complex interconnection of suspicious indicators any coincidence was involved. A thing which waddles, is feathered, and quacks very likely is a duck.

0 Replies

timber wrote:

A thing which waddles, is feathered, and quacks very likely is a duck.

But, sometimes, when you pluck it - it becomes a bush Cool

0 Replies

Um, so what timber?

The admin claimed over and over that not only the facilities for producing WMD existed, but the WMD themselves existed in large quantities.

The evidence has not supported either of these conclusions.

Possible production facilities for chemical weapons are not justification for the invasion of a soveirgn country. Non-existent stockpiles of WMD are not, either.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I think timber looks more like a duck every day.

0 Replies

Timber

I don't doubt Saddam employed dual use facilities to produce chemical agents. He was doing that during the war with Iran. But there is a difference between having the residual capacity of switching from organo phosphate insect killer to actually deploying chemical warfare agents. Before during and after the war, no trace of sarin or vx or tabun has been found. Remember we were told these wmd could be deployed in 45 minutes of an order to do so. Its not possible to do that unless you have stocks of agent ready to send up the line, and he didnt have those stocks. Moreover I think we knew he didnt have any. Inspections and spies gave USUK a good idea about what Saddam really had and did not have. We would not have been so keen to go charging in there if we thought he could fire vx loaded missiles at us or Israel. And yes I am saying we as the public were deliberately misled, lied to, about the real threat Saddam posed to us as we slept in our beds.

Ican your single handed effort in fighting a lost cause never ceases to impress

Quote:

1. Osama's 1996 declaration of war against Americans;
2. Osama's 1998 declaration of war against Americans

What happened in 97, did he forget Very Happy

?

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know