Of course I'm not a lawyer, so it may be stupid to analyze something like this. But even to my untrained eye this looks like a complete sham. So I'm going to give it a go.
Here is the 9 step argument from U.K. Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, laying out the case for why an invasion of Iraq is legal under international law. Note that Lord Goldsmith was saying thought to believe as late as yesterday Wednesday March 12 that an invasion without a second (second to 1441) security council resolution would be illegal.
You've got to keep your eye on the ball here. To me the interesting thing is that, while he mentions resolution 1441 in 5 of the 9 points of his argument, a close reading reveals that 1441 plays no real role in the argument itself. Strange. Why mention it so much then?
The main point is number 8: "Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today." The problem here is with the '[t]hus'. One would think this 'thus' refers to, and builds upon, the previous point which is that Iraq is in material breach of 1441. Unfortunately this doesn't follow, even according to his argument.
Look closely at the very careful wording of point number 7: "It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach." Note that the material breach he is refering to cannot be of 1441, because he says that Iraq is already in material breach "at the time of resolution 1441."
What he means is that Iraq is in material breach of 687 and this is what revives the use of force granted in 678, thus making the war legal. But then why all this talk of 1441?
Try this: read the argument again, but throw out points 4, 5, 6, and 9 and add the following phrase to the end of 7: "of resolution 687."
I think this shorter version is actually his argument, and it may well be correct. I don't know. But I can see linguistically, and logically, that it sure doesn't depend on 1441 in any way. So this begs the question (again,) why put in so much about it?
Well, to distract us of course. Both from the fact that 1441 doesn't authorize force (even if Iraq is in material breach,) and also from the fact that Bush and Blair both held up material breach of 1441 as being the reason for military action. So as not to confuse the public they are trying to fool, he has to make it sound like a breach of 1441 is the reason for war (thus the tricky 'thus' in 8 which would seem to refer to 1441 in point 7, but doesn't really) while still make a legally sound case for war (which would have to hinge on a resolution that actually authorizes force - like 678.)
I'll leave aside the fact that the rather bald factual assertion implicit in number 7 - that Iraq has not eliminated its weapons of mass destruction - is nowhere backed up with any facts. It's merely given as "plain." Uh huh. Isn't this precisely what the UN inspectors were trying to ascertain?
I'm searching for, and would love to find, actual knowledgeable commentary on this obviously technical matter. Pointers welcome.
Bush followed the British script to the letter in his speech last night. 678 is going to be their legal cover. I guess we're just supposed to forget all about 1441?
Remember Bush's "promise" to put a second (to 1441) resolution to a vote in order to make everyone "show their cards"? Not only did we not get a second vote, but now they're not even talking about 1441 any more. These guys are impressive in their audacity.
If 678 was enough, why did they introduce 1441? (Hint: because 678 isn't really enough.)
678 is from 1990! It authorized the use of force to drive Saddam out of Kuwait. I think we did that some time ago. But there was also a sort of rubber band clause - "to restore peace and security in the area" - that they are now using as justification.
This is absurd. Immoral. And illegal. What is the specific threat to peace in the region that Sadam poses? All Bush could offer were multiply qualified, completely unsubstantiated links to unprovable terrorist networks. "If Sadam stays in power, and if he can continue his weapons programs with UN inspectors on the ground, and if he develops contacts with terrorists and if they can get his weapons into the U.S. we might have a really bad situatuion."
Welll, OK, true enough. But we're going to throw out all hope of a global justice system we've been negotiating towards for over 50 years over this tenuous threat? That is cowardly. Peace takes courage. The courage to not kill everything and everybody who might, someday, possibly, be a threat to you - especially when you are powerful enough to do so.
A friend was reminding me last night that "people have long memories" and I hope he is right. But I can't believe so many people are presently duped by the very low quality arguments the administration is making.
Jon Stewart on The Daily Show had amusing coverage of the speech. Best line: "The coalition - otherwise known as England and Spain..."
How many times did Bush use that word? It would be laughable if so many people weren't about to die.
Comment on Jim's analysis of Lord Goldsmiths argument.
A translation of Lord Goldsmith's argument was published yesterday in a Swedish newspaper ("Dagens nyheter"), signed by John Grant, Britain's ambassador in Stockholm.
Evidently, I didn't read closely enough to detect the irrelevance of resolution 1441 in the argument (I'll reread it), but what struck me was that referring to resolution 678 seems not to justify declaring war on Iraq, at least not as formulated in the 9 step argument (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2857347.stm).
The crucial phrase is found in the first premise, in step Number 1. It states that resolution 678 authorises force against Iraq "to eject it from Kuwait". That is, provided Iraq is invading Kuwait force may be used. Today, this condition is not fulfilled.
To this somebody could object that I've omitted the latter part of the condition, namely that force may be used "to restore peace and security in the area".
But note that the compund condition is a conjunction "to eject [Iraq] from Kuwait AND to restore peace and security in the area", and not a disjunction. In the latter case ("eject Iraq from Kuwait OR restore peace" a need of restoring peace and security in the area would be sufficient for considering to use force.
In other words, the scope of the resolution seems to be only the situation where Iraq invades Kuwait and there is risk of insecurity in the region.
The validity of my objection to Lord Goldsmith's and Grant's inference is one thing. From a logical point of view, whether the war can be justified or not depends on the actual wording of resolution 678, and the others of course, and what is the intended interpretation of the resolutions.
Whether war on Iraq, at this moment, can be justified from a moral point of view is another issue. But to me it seems difficult, to say the least.
Thanks for your thoughts Rikard.
I like this notion of the 678 clauses being a conjunction. Still, I guess the other side could argue that the peace the U.S. is "restoring" by invading Iraq now is connected (in a cause and effect sense) to the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. Or, in other words, just because over 10 years have passed, it doesn't necessarily mean that there is a disjunction between the present war, and the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. If you take into account the policing of the no fly zones, we practically have been at war with them constantly since Gulf War 1.
I'm glad I don't have to argue such a line, but it seems possible.
My point about 1441 isn't legally important I guess. But it should be embarassing for the administration, yet no one is calling them on it. They introduced it, presumably because they felt they needed it. Or in other words, because they didn't think 678 was enough. But then they didn't get it worded the way they wanted (they were forced to change the specific military trigger language to the much more vague "serious consequences" in order to get it passed) so in the end they had to fall back on 678 in order to get the aura of legality.
But we should all be sceptical of this because of the very fact that they felt it necessary to introduce 1441.
This patern was repeated with the phantom "second resolution" (second to 1441) that Bush promised to put to the UN. When it was clear this wouldn't pass (and not just because of a French veto - this thing would have been defeated outright!) the U.S. turns around and says: guess what? We don't need that anyway!
But again, the very fact that they thought they needed it should give us a clue that maybe it really was necessary.
And now we hear that none of that matters now, because the war has started, so of course we are expected to "support the troops." This argument makes so little sense I want to slap somebody. Just because something you don't believe in is underway you are supposed to suddenly start being for it? WTF?
|
Here is the 9 step argument from U.K. Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, laying out the case for why an invasion of Iraq is legal under international law. Note that Lord Goldsmith was
sayingthought to believe as late asyesterdayWednesday March 12 that an invasion without a second (second to 1441) security council resolution would be illegal.You've got to keep your eye on the ball here. To me the interesting thing is that, while he mentions resolution 1441 in 5 of the 9 points of his argument, a close reading reveals that 1441 plays no real role in the argument itself. Strange. Why mention it so much then?
The main point is number 8: "Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today." The problem here is with the '[t]hus'. One would think this 'thus' refers to, and builds upon, the previous point which is that Iraq is in material breach of 1441. Unfortunately this doesn't follow, even according to his argument.
Look closely at the very careful wording of point number 7: "It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach." Note that the material breach he is refering to cannot be of 1441, because he says that Iraq is already in material breach "at the time of resolution 1441."
What he means is that Iraq is in material breach of 687 and this is what revives the use of force granted in 678, thus making the war legal. But then why all this talk of 1441?
Try this: read the argument again, but throw out points 4, 5, 6, and 9 and add the following phrase to the end of 7: "of resolution 687."
I think this shorter version is actually his argument, and it may well be correct. I don't know. But I can see linguistically, and logically, that it sure doesn't depend on 1441 in any way. So this begs the question (again,) why put in so much about it?
Well, to distract us of course. Both from the fact that 1441 doesn't authorize force (even if Iraq is in material breach,) and also from the fact that Bush and Blair both held up material breach of 1441 as being the reason for military action. So as not to confuse the public they are trying to fool, he has to make it sound like a breach of 1441 is the reason for war (thus the tricky 'thus' in 8 which would seem to refer to 1441 in point 7, but doesn't really) while still make a legally sound case for war (which would have to hinge on a resolution that actually authorizes force - like 678.)
I'll leave aside the fact that the rather bald factual assertion implicit in number 7 - that Iraq has not eliminated its weapons of mass destruction - is nowhere backed up with any facts. It's merely given as "plain." Uh huh. Isn't this precisely what the UN inspectors were trying to ascertain?
I'm searching for, and would love to find, actual knowledgeable commentary on this obviously technical matter. Pointers welcome.
- jim 3-17-2003 9:44 pm
Bush followed the British script to the letter in his speech last night. 678 is going to be their legal cover. I guess we're just supposed to forget all about 1441?
Remember Bush's "promise" to put a second (to 1441) resolution to a vote in order to make everyone "show their cards"? Not only did we not get a second vote, but now they're not even talking about 1441 any more. These guys are impressive in their audacity.
If 678 was enough, why did they introduce 1441? (Hint: because 678 isn't really enough.)
678 is from 1990! It authorized the use of force to drive Saddam out of Kuwait. I think we did that some time ago. But there was also a sort of rubber band clause - "to restore peace and security in the area" - that they are now using as justification.
This is absurd. Immoral. And illegal. What is the specific threat to peace in the region that Sadam poses? All Bush could offer were multiply qualified, completely unsubstantiated links to unprovable terrorist networks. "If Sadam stays in power, and if he can continue his weapons programs with UN inspectors on the ground, and if he develops contacts with terrorists and if they can get his weapons into the U.S. we might have a really bad situatuion."
Welll, OK, true enough. But we're going to throw out all hope of a global justice system we've been negotiating towards for over 50 years over this tenuous threat? That is cowardly. Peace takes courage. The courage to not kill everything and everybody who might, someday, possibly, be a threat to you - especially when you are powerful enough to do so.
A friend was reminding me last night that "people have long memories" and I hope he is right. But I can't believe so many people are presently duped by the very low quality arguments the administration is making.
- jim 3-18-2003 6:33 pm
Jon Stewart on The Daily Show had amusing coverage of the speech. Best line: "The coalition - otherwise known as England and Spain..."
How many times did Bush use that word? It would be laughable if so many people weren't about to die.
- jim 3-18-2003 6:58 pm
Comment on Jim's analysis of Lord Goldsmiths argument.
A translation of Lord Goldsmith's argument was published yesterday in a Swedish newspaper ("Dagens nyheter"), signed by John Grant, Britain's ambassador in Stockholm.
Evidently, I didn't read closely enough to detect the irrelevance of resolution 1441 in the argument (I'll reread it), but what struck me was that referring to resolution 678 seems not to justify declaring war on Iraq, at least not as formulated in the 9 step argument (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2857347.stm).
The crucial phrase is found in the first premise, in step Number 1. It states that resolution 678 authorises force against Iraq "to eject it from Kuwait". That is, provided Iraq is invading Kuwait force may be used. Today, this condition is not fulfilled.
To this somebody could object that I've omitted the latter part of the condition, namely that force may be used "to restore peace and security in the area".
But note that the compund condition is a conjunction "to eject [Iraq] from Kuwait AND to restore peace and security in the area", and not a disjunction. In the latter case ("eject Iraq from Kuwait OR restore peace" a need of restoring peace and security in the area would be sufficient for considering to use force.
In other words, the scope of the resolution seems to be only the situation where Iraq invades Kuwait and there is risk of insecurity in the region.
The validity of my objection to Lord Goldsmith's and Grant's inference is one thing. From a logical point of view, whether the war can be justified or not depends on the actual wording of resolution 678, and the others of course, and what is the intended interpretation of the resolutions.
Whether war on Iraq, at this moment, can be justified from a moral point of view is another issue. But to me it seems difficult, to say the least.
- Rikard (guest) 3-21-2003 8:06 pm
Thanks for your thoughts Rikard.
I like this notion of the 678 clauses being a conjunction. Still, I guess the other side could argue that the peace the U.S. is "restoring" by invading Iraq now is connected (in a cause and effect sense) to the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. Or, in other words, just because over 10 years have passed, it doesn't necessarily mean that there is a disjunction between the present war, and the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. If you take into account the policing of the no fly zones, we practically have been at war with them constantly since Gulf War 1.
I'm glad I don't have to argue such a line, but it seems possible.
My point about 1441 isn't legally important I guess. But it should be embarassing for the administration, yet no one is calling them on it. They introduced it, presumably because they felt they needed it. Or in other words, because they didn't think 678 was enough. But then they didn't get it worded the way they wanted (they were forced to change the specific military trigger language to the much more vague "serious consequences" in order to get it passed) so in the end they had to fall back on 678 in order to get the aura of legality.
But we should all be sceptical of this because of the very fact that they felt it necessary to introduce 1441.
This patern was repeated with the phantom "second resolution" (second to 1441) that Bush promised to put to the UN. When it was clear this wouldn't pass (and not just because of a French veto - this thing would have been defeated outright!) the U.S. turns around and says: guess what? We don't need that anyway!
But again, the very fact that they thought they needed it should give us a clue that maybe it really was necessary.
And now we hear that none of that matters now, because the war has started, so of course we are expected to "support the troops." This argument makes so little sense I want to slap somebody. Just because something you don't believe in is underway you are supposed to suddenly start being for it? WTF?
- jim 3-21-2003 8:25 pm