S E R V E R   S I D E
View current page
...more recent posts

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.
- jim 3-17-2003 9:44 pm [link] [4 comments]

Fun bits from the Daily Koss coverage of the California Democratic Party's annual conference:

But then Edwards spoke in support of the Iraq war and all hell broke loose. The entire convention hall resonated in boos, the crowd chanting "no war! No war!" It was an amazing sight, and Edwards seemed a bit taken aback. Jerome thought it looked like '68. Edwards recovered with a line about Ashcroft, but the damage was done. The 20 or so brave souls waving Edwards signs were suddenly radioactive.
And on the Dean speech:
But the most amazing part was the finale, with a fiery Dean pounding the podium:
I want my country back!

I don't want to listen to fundamentalist preachers anymore!
When Dean uttered this last line, the whole place went nuts. Utter pandemonium....
Note, of course, that CDP crowds probably don't track with the viewpoints of a majority of voters. Even democratic voters. Still.
- jim 3-16-2003 11:04 pm [link] [1 comment]

older posts...