Are you anti USA or anti Bush?

[KrustyKidd]

I don't know who aid that Resolution 678 was rescinded. I did not. It was however, suspended pending the operation of 1441.

Then show me wherre it was 'suspended then. Thank you. None of this 'it is quite obvious' shtick, show the actual quote in the resolution.

That is clear

Proof please. Quotes, credible news sources whatever.

and even the US no longer tries to argue that it can be operated on without the authorizarion of the UN. .

Why should they? Like you are required to explain to the Mayor of Toronto why you chose a blue tie instead of a beige one every day. If they did nothing wrong legally, (and if you will note, the UN has not called them to task or even bring forth any resolution to oppose this action) why would they feel compelled to even say anything? You can only say the same thing to people who don't believe you so many times before you are simply wasting your time.

There have been so many opinions in the news from international legal exoerts, including American, that the argument seems just a little redundant

Are any of those opinions of the calibre that somebody like say ... a king, President, Prime Minister might employ? Like 50 of them? Also, do any of them say for certainty? If you take a hard look, they all use guarded terms like 'most likely' 'probably' 'is thouht to be' 'in my opinion.' The last, 'in my opinion' is interesting as it gives simply 'an opinion.' For it to mean anything it would have to become an actual resolution condeming the action and such. Any in force that make this action illegal?

Oh, BTW, you have Kerry and his Lawyer buddy running for the White house. I would imagine these guys are fairly up and up on the law both UN and otherwise. Do you think that Lurch and John would benifit from saying this action was illegal? Of course they would, could even say he was tricked into voting for it to exxoneratte himself. Does he? No. Reason: It wasn't. If he brings this up he would quickly get shot down and look like a bloody idiot for being wrong like some people I know.

You constantly assert that Memeber states can do as they think fit about out of date Resolutions. If you believe that the UN supports international anarchy, then possibly it would be so.

Out of date resolutions? With each new resolution they specificaly mention 678 to ensure idiots don't ever make the assumption that they are out of date. Give us a break and show me the expiration dates on resolutions. Are they like a jug of milk with a best before date or what? Well, it seems they agree with it enough not to have voted that the action would be illegal so that might be the first clue that it wasn't illegal.

You don't need specific quotes from 1441. You have read it and so have I. It is replete with phrases stating that 1441 governs. It says that there must be reports back to the UN before the UN decides.

I would like to actually have you quote the paras and such that support your position that 678 was suspended. It will be humerous to see how you ignore the para in 1441 when it is actually said 678 is still in force so that everybody, every idiot on any internet forum can see that it is still in effect. So, while 1441 may have new things to say, it makes a point of letting the world know that most of the old stuff is still applicable and even says the terms again in black and white instead of simply reffering to them. You know, that handy phrase that's in bold quotes for all to see.

It says that the UN is "seized" of the affair. That means that no Member can make any decision on its own and that no decision will be made except by the UN. That is not arguable. All you have to do is to look at the legal definition.

Not arguable? I asked you for examples and you gave none. I might say that it means they are talking about getting free parking spots or whatever. Show me where it means anything more than how they will be watching the situation just in case nobody else is.

If it meant what you say it does it would have been "Para 2 or res 678 has been suspended pending the outcome of this matter and Iraq's adherence to this resolution. No further action will be taken until this council moves on the matter. We remain seized."

It didn't though. Instead, it leaves para 2 of res 678 specificaly mentioned as is still being in force and says nothing about 'nobody moves until we say so.' Even though they have no troops under their control. If you are familiar about legal proceedings, if the Judge gives a stay so that the defendent can get more counter evidence or whatever, he spells it out and counsels the prosecution to not take any further action until the specific date that the next action will take place. He doesn't say "I will remain seized of the matter. interpret it any way you want guys." And then doffs the black robe for his John Travolta platform shoes until it's time to go back to work.

The Gulf War was not a war, if that makes it clearer. It was an intervention by a United Nations force. 

Here, try this. It was the US who formed a coalition. The UN authorized the use of force by this coalition. It was never a UN force. There were no troops with blue berets there. Clear? I thought we went over this and I asked you to tell me who the Security council had placed in charge, you didn't answer it. In any UN actin, the Commander is appointed by the UN. Was Shwartzkoff appointed by the Pentagon or by Boutros Boutros? Answer that one and it will tell you a lot. Also, you will note that the coalition to this day does not wear blue berets, that should tell you another. Sorry, it will tell you the same thing, that you are wrong.

It needs no treaty to end it. The Resolutions have not been fully adhered to by Iraq though some parts have

I'm still trying to figure out if you missing the non UN force part of this argument means you haven't a clue of what you are on about or maybe it's just a fluke mistake. In any case, I'll test you a bit. Tell me which specific terms of all the resolutions pertaining to the invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent ceasefire of the (cough) non - war that took place did Iraq adhere to? You adhere or you don't. Like you can't be a 'little bit pregnant' can you? Human rights reforms, return of Kuwaiti nationals (most dead in mass graves with a bullet in the back of their head, war reparations, cessation of all WMD programs and destruction of all material related to it, cessation of attempts to aquire same, destruction of all programs to aquire missiles that reach beyond 150 km and of course

destruction of all WMDs themselves. Now which of those did they comply with fully as they were required to do to be legally immune to any act by the member states that had the authority to carry out whatever means necesary to ensure they were? Got to hear this one. Now don't tell me they were tryng because they wern't. South Africa became clean in a matter of months showing how things move along when you actually intend on doing it. Iraq had twelve years, ever figure they didn't really get with the spirit of the resolutions?

and Resolution 1441 makes it clear that the enforcement procedures will be taken if, after the reports have been received by the UN, it was shown that action would need to be taken. That may not have included military action. Those reports include the reports of the Inspectors whose inspections were cut short by the US - not by Iraq.

Show me where the UN is permitted to take over the military forces of fifty countries and do whatever they want. Show me where the UN can muster the forces to do this. I'll help you, they can't, never could. However, if they had said that nobody can move until they say so then certainly that would be relevent. Show me where, by quoting the actual paras , they had rescinded or 'suspended' the resolution giving the member startes that were assisiting the government of Kuwait the authority to take whatever action necessary to ensure Iraq complied with the origional and all subsequent resolutions. You keep saying it is clear but cannot show us. If it is clear, then would you not think there would be a sentence or two in at least one resolution that said that, a sentence that kept on being reffered to over and over to make sure people such as myself didn't think this was legal? I asked you before, was it written in invisible ink? It must be as you have not produced it.

Legality is very simple so don't keep accusing me of ignoring legality. Legality is 1441 and adherence to that resolution by Iraq and by the Members of the UN. I have very clearly shown that and there is nothing more to it.

It is simple. Show me the proof, don't say stuff like 'it is clear' and all, when you cannot back it up with the actual text of the resolution. If it is that clear then you should be able to whip up the quotes in a flash. Instead, you dance around providing it by saying "I assume you have read....'" and all. Dig them out and show them to all those who have not read. Prove your point not by your opinion but by word of law.

The requirement for reports before a decision on what action should be taken and the emphatic statement that the UN is seized of the affair are unarguable. Those two mean that the UN will decide and not the USA and that the UN will not allow its authority to be assumed by another party. Really, nothing else matters.

Well then, according to you, being 'seized of the matter' means that they are in control and will decide. To me, that is easily understood to mean that in their message to Iraq (you know, the guys that all these resolutions are being written for) that they will be watching and making sure they don't slip up. It never said that they are controling the Coalition of the Willing nor does it say they have taken away the authority the coalition is working with. In fact, they reittlerate the authority of the coaliton members that are helping the government of Kuwait. IOWs, the coalition has Iraq cornered and they will, if necessary, intervene with rulings while the Coalition carries out their mission to do whatever it takes to make sure Iraq complies with WMD and material, human rights reforms, return of Kuwati nationals, war reparations and such. In no way does that mean that the coalition cannot continue on their path, even if they deemed that the only way to get Iraq to comply was to commit themselves to a Regime Change.

[caesar]

The first gulf war was a UN action and I believe that is what they are refering to.

Oh yes, sorry. thanks. It was a busy weekend; I rushed that one. thanks. I try to forget that one. I supported it at the time. Now there is reason to believe that the USA may have used manipulation to get that whole thing rolling. I have seen evidence of some very unsavoury actions of the American regime and use of unsavoury weapons. Napalm and more of the "depleted uranium shells which they deny caused Gulf War syndrome????

[Guest eureka]

This has become an exercise in futility: t'is - tisn't about says it.

It really is quite simple and all your wordiness will not get around the point that 1441 is the Resolution that is operative. No other resoulution can be enforced while that is waiting to be heard. That legal construct is VERY obvious. Being "seized" of the hearings means just that and can be given no other interpretation. Reports back means that there must be reporting back to the UN for the "hearings" to continue. That is also not arguable and I fail to see how you can think that poring out a ton of words referencing earlier resolutions alters it.

They cannot be enforced until the "new trial" has been concluded and a "sentencing heaing" held. It really is quite simple.

As for Kerry and Edwards, I am sure they know the legal position. They also know their political position.

I am sure, also, that even Dubbya knows now. That is why his cabal no longer tries to mislead the people over that particular question.

Anyway, there seems to be no more to be said on this. There is the world and there is you. But, then, minorities, even minorities of one, are sometimes right.

[KrustyKidd]

It very specifically says that there must be reports back to the UN for consideration of action.

Where, be specific, the whole document isn't any more than a page long. Can you narrow it down to a paragraph or two that 'specifally says 'member states assising the government of Kuwait are to suspend all aggression until we get the score cards?' Where is anything reguarding this remotely 'specific?'

This has become an exercise in futility: t'is - tisn't about says it.

On the contrary, I provide quotes to back my points up, you say it is clear without being able to provide anything more than your opinion.

No other resoulution can be enforced while that is waiting to be heard.

Yes, and here is what your resolution said;

Resolution 1441 8 November 2002

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,

Seems pretty 'clear' to me and the high priced lawyers used by all the Coalition of the Willing partners.

No other resoulution can be enforced while that is waiting to be heard.

First, read the above quote where 1441 says that Member States have the authority once again and possibly you will understand why I know you are floundering in this argument. I hate to get off track here but this is similar to your idiocy of thinking the UN had a force in the Gulf all those years. Where does it say that the UN cannot walk and chew gum at the same time? Just show me something in an official document that says that. You keep spewing out all this crap saying 'it is clear' but don't back any of it up. Why? No time, no research capability or maybe it just doesn't exeist.

1.      Decides  that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

Decides to remain sieized of the matter.

Let's see, they give authority to Member States to use whatever means necessary to force Iraq to adhere to previous resolutions, then in every subsequent resolution reiterate that authority as well as pledge to remain seized. this one is no different, it gives authority and the pledge to remain seized, even though they know the US will probably go to war when they get the crap report on the seventh. It takes nothing away from the authority of the member states and does not issue a caution to them. Under those circumstances, they would have if that is what they meant, not leave them open for you to grasp at in search of meaning.

Being "seized" of the hearings means just that and can be given no other interpretation. 

To you probably, as you think there is a half million man UN army in the Gulf somewhere. The UN had no army and such was a law maker here strictly. The US and it's coalition had the legal authorization to enforce the previous and subsequent resolutions and the UN knew that. They also had no say over those forces and could neither tell them when, where or how to attack. Clear? They could make legal rulings and keep on forcing pressure on Iraq by way of resolutions and if you will note (I know you hate actually reading resolutions as you seem so .. out of touch with them) most of the resolutions are directed at Iraq, not the Member States. you would almost think that they are standing around making sure Iraq does it's part wouldn't you? Like they were seized of the matter while the Member States carried on with their legal mandate of doing whatever it took to get Iraq to adhere.

And finally, you say the stupidest utterence I have gotten from you in this discussion here;

  There is the world and there is you. But, then, minorities, even minorities of one, are sometimes right.

I am hardly in the minority, the UN agrees with me as do the lawyers of every state that took part in this action. That's lawyers dedicated to making sure their head of state commits no war crime or illegality by taking part in this. I should think they are more up to date on what is going on than say, a pony tailed law proffesor at an Ohio University or a poster on a Canadian internet forum. As for the UN, was there any ruling made that stated this was illegal? Comon, you said I was a minority, prove to me the UN says that it is illegal. They knew when Iraq is doing something wrong, they make and make no bones about ruling on it, wouldn't you think they would have uttered an OFFICIAL peep if this was illegal? Instead, they have guys going on news shows giving OPINION and opinion only. If the UN thought this was illegal there would have been a world condemnation inside the security council chambers in the form of a ruling within a couple of days, there wasn't, nor has there been. Instead, we get officials giving news conferences and legal experts interpreting what they think using couched terms like 'possibly' and 'probably' and 'maybe' and so on ansd forth. It isn't illegal until a ruling is made by the only authority on the planet that can do so, and they ain't said squat. This leaves the majority of uniformed idiots who don't do their homework floundering as they cannot deal with the actual laws when making their flawed determination and instead give sweeping muddled statements like 'it is clear' and such with no actual laws to support their oposition. Of course, you are not one of those as you would unboubtably tell me that there is 'clear' evidence (wihich you have no time to post) that syas otherwise.

[Guest eureka]

You can't be serious. The UN agrees with you I don't think. Almost noone agrees with you. I have said all that is need for any reasonable person. The two observations about 1441 say it all and, no matter how many excerpts you write, you cannot get away from the,

1441 rules. 1441 says that the UN will decide AFTER it has heard the reports of the inspections. Nothing else matters. Of course it says the earlier Resolutions will be upheld and enforced - if necessary. They will not be enforced until the UN says they should be. They will not be enforced unilaterally by any power but the UN. The argument about the previous intervention by a Coalition on behalf of the UN holds no water and has been shot down to where even the US no longer tries to make the foolish argument.

The argument made after the failure of those arguments is about WMD's - initially. That also has failed since the lame excuse of Hussein's capability to attack the Wesy has been shown up in all its absurdity.

Pre-emptive attacks then! The problem with that is that it brings up the other legal questions of legality beyond the Resolutions. There is no such permissible notion in international law. Pre-emptive attacks are illegal as was Pearl Harbour.

So what are we left with? Saddam was a bad man. Oh Dear!. So are scores of others some of whom, like Saddam, were propped up by the USA for decades.

The final conclusions are that it is all about oil; American hegemony; and getting even on behalf of Daddy.

[KrustyKidd]

You can't be serious. The UN agrees with you I don't think. Almost noone agrees with you.

Show me the resolution where the UN rules the action was illegal. Scince they did not, whether it was decision by non ruling or whatever, the default position is that it was legal. Sorry. I think OJ was guilty, so do you. He walked. Legal Determination - not guilty.

Of course it says the earlier Resolutions will be upheld and enforced - if necessary. They will not be enforced until the UN says they should be. They will not be enforced unilaterally by any power but the UN.

"if necessary?" I don't recall seeing that in th1441. Show me where it says this. Matter of fact, show me anything that proves what you say here. Give us all the actual quote. Prove to me you are not making this up.

The argument made after the failure of those arguments is about WMD's - initially. That also has failed since the lame excuse of Hussein's capability to attack the Wesy has been shown up in all its absurdity.

Follow the resolution, not Bush's preamble for public support. Nowhere in any of the resolutions does it say that Iraq has to be a threat to anybody. The closest they come to sayng Iraq is a threat is in reference to how they wish for peace and stabilty to return to the region. In this argument, it matters not if Bush went there to get free beer, it was legal no matter what the underlying purpose was.

Pre-emptive attacks then! The problem with that is that it brings up the other legal questions of legality beyond the Resolutions. There is no such permissible notion in international law. Pre-emptive attacks are illegal as was Pearl Harbour.

I think it was far more than a pre-emptive attack but we can go into that in another thread. As it was a ceasefire that was breached by Iraq and had been for quite some time, it was justifiably in the legal sense, resumption of hostilities if you wish, or, simply carrying out the law of the UN as authorized. As I just finished saying, it mattered not the reason for the action, the legality was behind it even if the US and it's coalition had that as their core rationale.

The final conclusions are that it is all about oil; American hegemony; and getting even on behalf of Daddy.

No, the final conclusin is that your argument is flawed because you are trying to get the resolution to fit your emotional call and left wing rhetoric. In a legal argument, It matters not what the reason for the action was or the result. The action itself is importent and this action was legal no matter what reason or excuse was used to get support from others for it. Iraq could be legally invaded by the Member States under the guise of enforcing the ceasefire resolutions.

[Guest eureka]

I knew you would do it. When there is no argument left, then resort to "left wing rhetoric."

It does matter what the reason for the action was and the result, by the way. In law, there is the question of "Mens Rea."

You still are ignoring the fact that the UN required reports back before it would decide on action; the fact that it said it was "seized" of the affair. Those two facts alone make any action by any member, unauthorized and illegal. There are also the fallback arguments of the aggressors which, as I have shown, were also illegal

What ceasefore was breached, incidentally. It is well documentet that the boundaries of the "no-fly" zone were routinely breached by the Coalition. Is that what you are referring to.

If the attack was "more than pre-emptive," then why was the whole case put to the UN by Powell, and suggested by Blair, based on the supposed miltary capabilities of Iraq and its supposed intention to use those capabilities?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK,

Here's an interesting take on the matter...it could be argued that Iraq was in compliance with the UN disarmament resolutions. They indeed destroyed their WMD stockpiles (but did not provide proper documentation) and the UN inspectors were there to prove (or disprove) that compliance.

However, the US/UK coalition simply called the Iraqis 'liars' and invaded, under different auspices other than the UN resolution, namely, a 'regime change'.

Robbespierre, defending Louis XIV, (I think) had a very interesting argument regarding the trial of the king after his overthrow. He claimed that if the trial were to be fair, there must be the possibility that the king could be found innocent, as well as guilty. If there was a possibility that the king could be found innocent, then the overthrow itself was not justified. He claimed that the overthrow WAS the judgement of the people, and therefore a trial was not neccesary.

[KrustyKidd]

I knew you would do it. When there is no argument left, then resort to "left wing rhetoric."

“The final conclusions are that it is all about oil; American hegemony; and getting even on behalf of Daddy.”

‘On behalf of daddy.’ I saw that on some sandwhichboards. Rhetoric. I have over fifty UN resolutions to quote, and am only a third of the way through. You on the other hand only have the overworked flacid ‘it is clear’ without back up.. Seems you ran out of steam the second post.

It does matter what the reason for the action was and the result, by the way. In law, there is the question of "Mens Rea."

Ah yes. The guy that thinks there is a half million man UN army in the desert of Iraq at this moment gets this one backwards as well. Sorry chum, only works when something illegal has been done and the accused is about to get put away. He uses this as an excuse (I only wanted to scare him) or, the prosecution uses this to influence the judge to put him away for longer rather than give him a probabtion or whatever (he had every intention of killing that day). It has nothing to do with legalities on whether the act was legal or illegal. Try this one, guy goes out one day intent on killing innocent bystander with his bare hands. Can’t find one and on the way home, is wrongfully arrested by a cop for ‘thought crime.’ They get a warent and search his cardboard box apartment and find hate letters, physco writings and a list of victims and methods of murder for each. Nothing illegal happened but the cops and the prosecution say ‘Mens rea.’ Good one.

Now, prove this was illegal and you might be able to use this argument somehow. As it stands, as usual, you have squat.

You still are ignoring the fact that the UN required reports back before it would decide on action;

No, I am ignoring the fact that you have not shown exactly where this is written. The UN was ‘seized of the matter’ the day they said ‘member states are authorized to take whatever action necessary to ensure Iraq complies' so you must have something else right?

Resolution 678

2.  Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

5.  Decides to remain seized of the matter. 

Oh, BTW here is something else. Para 3 of the same res

3.  Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution;

Guess some states didn't. Like Canada, they ignored para 3 of resolution 678 for reasons of their own. France had lucrative contracts and was owed a lot of money by Saddam as was Russia. Canada didn't and still does not have a military that can participate. Possibly their reason may even have contained some actual wishes for peace, who knows? In any case, ignoring their responsibilities and attempting to circumvent their UN responsibilities for whatever reasons, they came up with giveing themselves one last chance to avoid being called to do what they are already authorized to do Second guessing the past and UNSC they went back and requested another resolution if they were going to take part. They knew that they didn't want to, knew that members like France would veto so it was a shoe in to save face. And so, we end up with Cretien asking if what they meant is what they said and if 'da poof is in da poof.' When he didn't need squat and admitted so saying that if he gets a resolution authorizing force specifically, he will go. No demands for anything else. The UNSC says it and he will go even if nothing is there. {You don't have to reply to Canada has nothing to do with the argument but I thought I would throw it in as an interest point for future debate.)

In this argument it is relevent though. While the wording is not legally binding in any way it does convey the intent that no future rulings are necessary for member states to act as they ask that ALL STATES help out member states. And they don't even say they need a ruling to do it! Imagine that.

What ceasefore was breached, incidentally. It is well documentet that the boundaries of the "no-fly" zone were routinely breached by the Coalition. Is that what you are referring to.

Resolution 687 set up the ceasefire,

“1. Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly

changed below to achieve the goals of this resolution, including a formal cease-fire”

If Iraq had a problem, they could go to the UN to voice their disagreement, whatever that has to do with this argument. If a cop gives a wrongful parking ticket to a criminal then arrests him for murder the crook is well withing his rights to file a complaint to have the ticket anulled. Maybe get a refund before he goes to the chair.

If the attack was "more than pre-emptive," then why was the whole case put to the UN by Powell, and suggested by Blair, based on the supposed miltary capabilities of Iraq and its supposed intention to use those capabilities?

It was put to the UN because some countries like Canada would not participate without a second resolution that specifically authorizes the use of force. In order to have more support than the 50 odd countries already signed onto the coalition to carry out this legal action, the US would need to have that resolution. It takes away nothing from the legality or illegality. I'll be upfront with you as you seem to be out of touch with the whole thing and say that France was going to veto this resolution for sure. The US had seven votes in their pocket out of 15 and needed 9 out of the 15 members. Once France let their intent be known it was useless to go on, even to try and paint France as .... well, French. If they had've gone forward and put forth the resolution and it had failed ...... well, you and I might be agreeing that this was illegal. Or at least my position might be seriously weakend by the fact that the security council did not say that it was ok to use force. My counter in that case would be that they did not say that it was not ok to use force which would be a severe discount from the already in place permission from para 2 of 678.

Here's an interesting take on the matter...it could be argued that Iraq was in compliance with the UN disarmament resolutions. They indeed destroyed their WMD stockpiles (but did not provide proper documentation) and the UN inspectors were there to prove (or disprove) that compliance.

You have a couple of things wrong here Lonius. Most of the world figured they had gotten rid of their huge stockpiles so that was only an issue for propaganda via Bush and Co. The legal issue is that they had to get rid of every program, piece of material, percursor agent, delivery vehicle as well as plans and programs to develop or aquire same, as well as give up on all of it. I think res 686 outlines that pretty in depth. The falicy in your post is in thinking that Blix (poor guy, he just wanted to verify and go home at the end of the day) was a detective. He was not. Iraq was to give full co-operation with UNSCOM meaning that they were to be showing them where stuff was and help.. help.. helping get rid of everything and fully document it like they were Santa's elves getting ready for Christmas.

The second is that Blix’s job was not to find anything. He was supposed to be the leader of a group of people who were supposed to be getting active participation and co-operation from Iraq in this matter so that they could report to the UN on how things were going. As Iraq had agreed to this they should actually been getting reports from Iraqs like “Hans baby, Colonel Abib here, I have five shells with VX nerve agent, do you want to send somebody down here or should I bring them there? I can destroy them but I know you need to verify. ...Oh yes, we're still on for Saturday night right? The kids would love to see you again. ... Anyhow, Lt Mahmood just found a crate of Anthrax viles north of Basra at that storage dump you and I inspected yesterday, just brought in. Can I burn it or do you guys want to see it?“ No, there was none of that.

Blix was not building a case for peace or war intentionally. He began, under pressure from the world to take on that responsibility though. He was a team leader to carry out disarmament verification and having an unco-operative partner in Iraq watched it sadly turn into a battle of 'catch as catch can' as he put it. Like Powell said using South Africa’s rapid disarmament as it fully co-operated with the UN “This isn’t fuc#ing rocket science.”

After fourteen years and umpteen resolutions he gets the big report, on the eve of destruction. Is it an open door and a complete turnaround from Iraq?

Blix: “Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. “

No wonder Powell was able to convince so many with his briefing, Iraq wasn’t taking this serious enough to make sure they co-operated in the way they were required to. I mean, a cop in a dim alley yells at you to drop the gun and you only have a pipe wrench in your hand so do nothing but hang onto it in a casual manner, you can expect for stuff to happen rather quickly.

However, the US/UK coalition simply called the Iraqis 'liars' and invaded, under different auspices other than the UN resolution, namely, a 'regime change'.

Welcome to the thread then. Me and Eureka are going on about legalities, not reasons the US might have had. Once we get over this, we can go onto that.

Robbespierre, defending Louis XIV, (I think) had a very interesting argument regarding the trial of the king after his overthrow. He claimed that if the trial were to be fair, there must be the possibility that the king could be found innocent, as well as guilty. If there was a possibility that the king could be found innocent, then the overthrow itself was not justified. He claimed that the overthrow WAS the judgement of the people, and therefore a trial was not neccesary.

Good argument for another thread. Here it means nothing. The Coalition could have legally invaded without WMD pretext using human rights reforms Iraq was required to implement with it’s own people in it’s place, none of which were even started. Or ,,,,, reparations to Kuwait, none of which were paid contrary to UN resolutions, or ...... environmental issues and repair to the oilfields none of which they addressed comming from their action against Kuwait, or ...... the return of Kuwaiti nationals and POWs many of whom to this day have not been returned or accounted for, or ..........

[caesar]

Well Krusty, if broken resolutions call for invading such a country; better go invade Israel. They have more than Iraq had; despite the American veto protecting them from being held accountable for their illegal invasions, human rights vilations, etc, etc.

[Stoker]

Well Krusty, if broken resolutions call for invading such a country; better go invade Israel. They have more than Iraq had; despite the American veto protecting them from being held accountable for their illegal invasions, human rights vilations, etc, etc.

Since Krusty has laboured to keep this on topic WRT legal rights and wrongs, what resolutions has Israel broken caesar? Also, what UN resolutions gave the threat of punishment to Israel if they didn't comply with the said resolutions?

[caesar]

http://www.amenusa.org/Iraq15.htm

There's a starter for you Stoker. Israel leads the pack in ignoring resolutions.

[caesar]

http://www.geocities.com/famousdog/RESOLUTIONS.HTM

This gives the lists of Iraq resolutions ignored vs Israel resolutions ignored. Israel's list was too long to copy

[KrustyKidd]

Well Krusty, if broken resolutions call for invading such a country; better go invade Israel.  They have more than Iraq had; despite the American veto protecting them from being held accountable for their illegal invasions, human rights vilations, etc, etc.

Right on. Now find a UNSC resolution that authorizes any means necessary and kick some serious Jew butt. Watch out though, I doubt if the US will have a coalition ready to help as was their perogative in the Gulf War and Israel is wating for derranged idiots to attack. Better find some help and a legal basis as well.

Now, just wondering, what has this to do with the legality of the US action in Iraq? As I stated before and you would know if you read any of the legal documents known as Security Council Resolutions. Iraq was required to do many things which they did not do. All with the member states authorization to take whatever means and action necessary to do them. Israel had no such mandate hanging over them so stop this bullshit and get to the legalities. For the sake of the argument, which is legality BTW, have you facts of law that you can back up to make your point? It seems that both you and Eureka are intent on going on about sideline issues that are moral arguments rather than legal ones.

Now, if you want to start a human interest thread entitled "The US liked Israel more than Saddam" these points would be applicable. As they stand in this argument, until Israel is involved in a ceasefire after being attacked by a coalition centered around a superpower and finds itself in breach of those resolutions under threat of 'any means necessary' it means nothing.

Nothing. Zip, squat, nadda, zilch.

Zero.

[caesar]

The invasion of Iraq was a morally and unjustified action it only escapes being tried as a war crime due to the USA belly aching and bullying its way into being exempt for prosecution for war crimes.

Israel only escapes taking responsibility for its unjust actions thanks to the veto by the USA. The USA misuses its veto; it even vetoed a resolution against Saddam for using poison gas. Real nice; eh. Support that USA action, too???? Bah

[KrustyKidd]

War crime? Hardly, it has to be illegal first and it is not. Do you think there are that many irresponsible lawyers advising heads of ste of onver fifty countries that would see their rulers put in the docket beside Milosivic at the Hague? They know this stuff inside and out far more than Moveon.org does. Remember, we were talking legality. You couldn't handle it so, instead turned to morality. Start a thread and we can do it. you know, don't mention legality and simply go on with morality, there, you might find me a bit surprising in my views. A secret for a teaser Ceasar as I do like you, the US did this underhanded, legal but they took advantage of a situation for sure.

[caesar]

That is your opinion. You listen to too much Bush propaganda. They escape prosecution due to getting the exemption from prosecution for war crimes. Fortunately, that will end within the year. The Iraq fiasco was the last straw. I was disgusted with the bow down to USA blackmail to get such exemption.

[KrustyKidd]

They escape prosecution due to getting the exemption from prosecution for war crimes.

No, they are exempt becasue they did nothng ilegal. If you read a few of the resolutions you will see that. In Rev Blair's fantasy world they have mock courts and all bring him up on charges but no UN body has done so. Get off the idiot pot and recognize it for what it is, a legal action that you don't like and can't accept because it doesn't fit in with your bias.

That is your opinion.

And the opinion of the UN Security council. I imagine France, Germany and all would bring charges up if there were a basis for them. Are you calling them or acusing them of being in league with America? What is stopping them? Maybe legality?

[Guest eureka]

It is about time you used your head for more than tiring your eyes. If you could stop reading legales in documents for long enough to think, you would understand how absurd your position is becoming.

The last action of a legal authority is all that counts. The last action of the UN was to pass Resolution 1441. That is all that matters. No other Resolution can be enforced even if it is still in effect, until the conditions of 1441 are concluded. That is most deffinitely NOT arguable. Even a slight acquaintance with Law and common sense would tell you that.

The addendum by three permanent members of the Security Council is for the sole purpose of putting the USA on notice that it could NOT act without the Security Council authorizing action under 1441.

These are simple ideas.

The fallback position of the US and Britain that they were taking pre-emptive action also does not work since pre-emptive actions are, in no way, justifiable and are acts of aggression. Only the UN could decide on what is a dispute between nations where the bigger proposes to attack the smaller under such a pretext.

Mens Rea! Look it up: you are getting it backwards.

[Guest eureka]

More than the Resolutions that Israel has ignored (and there are many of them) is the list of proposed Resolutions condemning Israeli actions that the USA has vetoed. More than half ( I believe over fifty) are on the list.

The UN has been powerless to act on Israel because of the abuse of its position on the Security Council by the US.

[KrustyKidd]

Mens Rea! Look it up: you are getting it backwards.

How a Defendant's Mental State Affects His or Her Responsibility for a Crime

What a defendant intended to do often affects how severely he or she will be punished -- but not always.

First you have to have a crime or an illegal act. Then mens rea comes into play.

The last action of a legal authority is all that counts. The last action of the UN was to pass Resolution 1441. That is all that matters. No other Resolution can be enforced even if it is still in effect, until the conditions of 1441 are concluded. That is most deffinitely NOT arguable. Even a slight acquaintance with Law and common sense would tell you that.

Well then, it seems that they have forgotten to give instructions to the member states assisitng the government of Kuwait them as the whole document is instructions to Iraq and UNMOVIC. Oh wait a minute ..... they didn't. It says here in 1441 ....

" 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,"

It seems the only instructions 'member states assisting the government of Kuwait' get is authorization to do whatever it takes which in case you hadn't noticed, they did. Iraq is now in compliance with the terms of the ceasefire - yea!.

More than the Resolutions that Israel......

This belongs on an Israel thread or a morality one or something, definitely not on this one as we are talking about legalities of the action in Iraq here, not Israels score card and how the US helps them.

It is about time you used your head for more than tiring your eyes. If you could stop reading legales in documents for long enough to think, you would understand how absurd your position is becoming.

Maybe if you read a legal document before you start firing off 'it is clear' and 'guite evident' and 'well documented' and all the 100% for sure things you allude to instead of grasping at any non related straw you can, you will find you would flounder a lot less. My position is that this was legal. Not right, but legal. I offer the only proof that makes it legal, law. You offer nothing but opinion and attempts to sidetrack this into a moral discussion because you can't change what is written in UN documents, hence, you don't quote any to prove your baseless points.

Do you know how to use a quote function? You find your proof and show it. You have showed nothing. In order for there to be criminal intent, there must first be a crime.

Let's add a few things up;

You think there is a large UN force in the Gulf right now under UN command.

You think even though the UN has written one up in the form of resolution 686 that there was never a cease fire after Iraq was removed from Kuwait.i

You think that the Gulf War ended and a peace treaty was signed between Kuwait and Iraq yet cannot give the terms, signatories or date this occured.

You think mens rea is an indication of a crime even when none has been committed when all it does is take the mind set of the criminal into account to determine if they knew what they were doing was illegal or for sentencing purposes, determine criminal intent.

You read between the lines of UN resolutions inserting your own meanings as you go while discounting what is actually written.

You think UN resolutions have an automatic expiry date or a sundown clause that is automatily applied making them redundant.

You think that a UN resolution is thrown out once another comes along. Would this mean that Iraq no longer has to repay Kuwait for the damages they incurred? I mean, 1441 makes no mention of reparations.

You think that a document written by three of 15 UNSC members carries more weight than an actual UN resolution.

In short, you have a long way to go to touch down with reality, use the weekend to bone up.

Got to go Eureka, my debating friend. Have a good weekend!

Drew

[Guest eureka]

K.K.

I think that perhaps it is getting throuhj to you but you, as a contrarian do not want to let go.

"Mens Rea" in law means, simply interpreted, that an act has been done, not necessarly a crime. If there is an absence of Mens Rea, it will not be a crime. There are offences in which the test to decide on dismissal is Mens Rea..

As for proofs, there is little you can tell me. You think that debate consists of citations until your audience is glassy eyed. That is the Condoleezza Eice technique as partially absorbed by Dubbya. But it is not debate, proof, or discussion.

This debate revolves around only one area. That is, what act of the United Nations governs the conduct of the Iraq affair. The last relevant act before the military adventurists acted unilaterally, was Resolution 1441.

You can write till the cows come home that this act states that Resolution 678 is recalled. What does that mean? It means that the UN has decided that it will take under advisement the circumstances andecide what to do AFTER its investigations.

You need no quotes or citations. Resolution says 1441 quite clearly that there must be reports back before it will make a decision. You know that and have, in the past, said so.

Resolution 1441 says that the UN is seized of the matter. That means only one thing in law. It means that the UN has decided that it and it alone will hear the representations on the matter and that they will come after the reports are received. It means that it announced that no other authority would hear or pronounce on the affair.

The three who wrote the addendum are 3 o5 (not 15) permanent members. It would not matter if it was one. The addendum is added to prevent the kinds of arguments (?) you are making: to make certain that nobody is unaware that there will be no action without UN sanction.

My comments about the vetoing of Resolutions by the US are entirely appropriate.

First, they are in response to the raising of the issue.

Second, they reflect on the behaviour of the US before the Un in the Iraq affair. The US was most upset at the prospect of vetoes of any Resolution authorising its activities and promised unilateral action in the event. It effectively told the Un that it was the law and would veto what it did not like but would tolerate any veto of its freedom to place above the law - God's law or man's.

I will not respond to your listing of my thoughts although it is somewhat amusing. In most of the items, you imply the reverse to actuality. That, unfortunately, is an amateur debating technique and ineffective with respect to any who have followed the argument. It is an example of the technique that is finally catching up with Bush et al.

[Guest eureka]

There are a few mistypes there and a "not"missing at the last. Howevr, I think it is clear what should be read.

[KrustyKidd]

K.K.

I think that perhaps it is getting throuhj to you but you, as a contrarian do not want to let go.

"Mens Rea" in law means, simply interpreted, that an act has been done, not necessarly a crime. If there is an absence of Mens Rea, it will not be a crime. There are offences in which the test to decide on dismissal is Mens Rea..

As for proofs, there is little you can tell me. You think that debate consists of citations until your audience is glassy eyed. That is the Condoleezza Eice technique as partially absorbed by Dubbya. But it is not debate, proof, or discussion.

This debate revolves around only one area. That is, what act of the United Nations governs the conduct of the Iraq affair. The last relevant act before the military adventurists acted unilaterally, was Resolution 1441.

You can write till the cows come home that this act states that Resolution 678 is recalled. What does that mean? It means that the UN has decided that it will take under advisement the circumstances andecide what to do AFTER its investigations.

You need no quotes or citations. Resolution says 1441 quite clearly that there must be reports back before it will make a decision. You know that and have, in the past, said so.

Resolution 1441 says that the UN is seized of the matter. That means only one thing in law. It means that the UN has decided that it and it alone will hear the representations on the matter and that they will come after the reports are received. It means that it announced that no other authority would hear or pronounce on the affair.

The three who wrote the addendum are 3 o5 (not 15) permanent members. It would not matter if it was one. The addendum is added to prevent the kinds of arguments (?) you are making: to make certain that nobody is unaware that there will be no action without UN sanction.

My comments about the vetoing of Resolutions by the US are entirely appropriate.

First, they are in response to the raising of the issue.

Second, they reflect on the behaviour of the US before the Un in the Iraq affair. The US was most upset at the prospect of vetoes of any Resolution authorising its activities and promised unilateral action in the event. It effectively told the Un that it was the law and would veto what it did not like but would tolerate any veto of its freedom to place above the law - God's law or man's.

I will not respond to your listing of my thoughts although it is somewhat amusing. In most of the items, you imply the reverse to actuality. That, unfortunately, is an amateur debating technique and ineffective with respect to any who have followed the argument. It is an example of the technique that is finally catching up with Bush et al.

As for proofs, there is little you can tell me.

Only way to change my mind is to actually have some to counter mine. Please supply something other than your 'it is clear' opinion.

[Guest eureka]

And the only way to change mine would be for you to tell me that 1441 does not say that the UN requires reports and that it is seized of the affair. I would then prove that, as you know.

However, we seem to have reached an impasse. Somebody else needs to pick up the ball and introduce fresh viewpoints.