And what crime praytell, would you impeach him for?

Simply, for leading his country into an illegal war?

What legal basis is there for this war (taking into account the international treaties to which the US is a signatory) if there was never any WMD-based threat?

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Define "illegal war."

If I remember correctly the vast majority of Americans approved the war on the basis of terrorist ties to Al Qadea and the potential for aggression from Iraq in the future. If you want "illegal," look at the way Iraq and Saddam treated UN resolutions and sancations against them prior to the onset of war. If you want the UN to mean anything, you need to enforce what it says. In my opinion, Iraq had ample (ten plus years) to comply with the sanctions the UN had imposed upon it, but did not. The US simply took advantage of a hostile world situation after 9/11 to enforce the mandates the world had set upon Iraq. I think the only people upset that there is no "smoking gun" is the left. We went in there to remove a viable threat to peace. That was the basis of our attack, and WMD or not, we did just that.

Do we also impeach congress for authorizing the use of force? Since a major premise to going to Iraq in the first place was simply their failure to uphold and obey UN resolution 1441, do we also indict the entire UN?

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Define "illegal war." If I remember correctly the vast majority of Americans approved the war on the basis of terrorist ties to Al Qadea and the potential for aggression from Iraq in the future. If you want "illegal," look at the way Iraq and Saddam treated UN resolutions and sancations against them prior to the onset of war. If you want the UN to mean anything, you need to enforce what it says. In my opinion, Iraq had ample (ten plus years) to comply with the sanctions the UN had imposed upon it, but did not. The US simply took advantage of a hostile world situation after 9/11 to enforce the mandates the world had set upon Iraq. I think the only people upset that there is no "smoking gun" is the left. We went in there to remove a viable threat to peace. That was the basis of our attack, and WMD or not, we did just that.

The reason for the war were the WMD's. No Al Quaeda connections have been established. Iraq has complied with UN demands. The US and UK declared the reason for war is the "immediate WMD threat". The reason was, obviously, a false one.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Do we also impeach congress for authorizing the use of force? Since a major premise to going to Iraq in the first place was simply their failure to uphold and obey UN resolution 1441, do we also indict the entire UN?

Iraq complied with the resolution. Hans Blix said Iraq is cooperating. Besides, if we're going to talk about UN resolutions, let us not forget how many of those Israel broke.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Define "illegal war."

Gladly.

il·le·gal (-lgl)
adj.
1. Prohibited by law.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=illegal

war (wôr)
n.

1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on

between nations, states, or parties.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=war

quote:

If I remember correctly the vast majority of Americans approved the war on the basis of terrorist ties to Al Qadea

Ah yes, the completely unsubstantiated claims of ties to Al Qaeda, based on the premises that a man named Zarqawi received medical attention in Baghdad and some as yet unproven claims of clandestine meetings in Sudan in the mid 90s.

In opposition to these "claims" we have reality:

1) The ideologies of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are poles apart. The fact that they are both enemies of the US did not, in any way, make them friends.
2) Even those experts brought in to hype up the threat of Saddam's WMD stash dismissed the likelihood of Saddam's intimate involvement with groups such as Al Qaeda in front of a UN Senate Committee Hearing:

"But I have seen no evidence of Iraq providing WMD, as such, to non-Iraqi terrorist groups. I suspect that especially given his psychology and aspirations, Saddam would be reluctant to share with others what he believes to be an indelible source of his own power."

(See here.)

3) The UN Terrorism Committee announced in June that the taskforce investigating the activities of Al Qaeda found that "there was nothing to indicate a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda" (see here).

4) The CIA had expressed doubts for months prior to the Iraqi war about the alleged links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, yet these were never heeded by the Bush administration: "it suggests that officials ignored intelligence that did not fit with their plans for Iraq" (see here). Daniel Benjamin, "former terrorism adviser to the U.S. National Security Council" declared: "While there are contacts, have been contacts, there is no co-operation. There is no substantial, noteworthy relationship". George Tennet - the man who took the fall for Bush over that 16 word inclusion in the State of the Union Address - suggested that claims to such ties were based on "sources of varying reliability". Despite pressure placed on the CIA by the Bush administration "to produce evidence about the Iraq al-Qaeda link that it doesn't have", Vincent Cannistraro, "a former CIA chief of counter-terrrorism" declared: ""They are not getting it from the CIA because the CIA, to its credit, is telling it the way they see it, which is what they should be doing, describing the world as it is, not as policy-makers wish it to be, or hope it to be, but as it is." (all quotes, see here).

There were never any substantiated claims about Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda. Most "impartial" organisations have dismissed such a link. If Bush was able to legitimise a war - in the eyes of the American public - on such a premise, then this only strengthens the case against him.

quote:

and the potential for aggression from Iraq in the future.

And what were they going to attack the US with? If there are no WMDs, this "potential threat" doesn't exist - ergo, this is not a legitimate basis upon which to wage war.

Even if the worry is that Saddam may have developed weapons in the future, this concern would have been more legitimately eased by a more stringent weapons inspection process: a process that was not - I am quite happy to admit - adhered to properly following the conlcusion of the first Gulf War, but that was not given an opportunity to succeed following its resurrection in September 2002 (in the form of Resolution 1441).

quote:

If you want "illegal," look at the way Iraq and Saddam treated UN resolutions and sancations against them prior to the onset of war.

I agree. Prior to the recommencement of hostilities in Sep 02, Saddam Hussein was allowed to get away with far more than he should have been allowed to. In the four yours of apathy directed against his regime by the west and by the UN between the conclusion of Desert Fox and commencement of the scope of Resolution 1441 - had he not been so restricted by said sanctions - he probably could have reconstituted weapons programs had he so desired. The fault here, though, lies as much with the late Clinton/early Bush administrations and the UN community for failing to in any way enforce the resolutions during this four year period as it does with Saddam failing to adhere to them.

I agree that the resolutions should have been adhered to and I agree that the enforcement of these resolutions should have been backed up with the credible threat of force. I do not believe, however, that this in any way gives the US the right to decide - unilaterally - that military force is the most preferable option (it should only be used as an absolute last resort in the event that every peaceful method has been summarily tried and failed) or that it gives the US the right to derail any attempts at a global solution that may preclude the use of force.

France opposed the war on the basis that the peaceful method had not been fully explored and it offered a compromise solution on the basis that, if in 30 days Iraq had not adhered precisely to a series of more specific demands than those made in the extremely vague Resolution 1441, then it - along with the rest of the Security Council - would support military intervention as a part of a true global coalition. The US did not oppose this new resolution because they thought it may fail (as, if it failed, they'd get their war anyway, only with a much greater degree of support) they opposed it, I suspect, because it may have actually succeeded and given rise to a peaceful solution, quite contrary to the more militant solution the US had been seeking for the past 6 months.

quote:

If you want the UN to mean anything, you need to enforce what it says.

Once again, I agree.

The war waged, by the US, however, was not waged on behalf of the UN, it was waged on the basis of its own culturally specific, hegemonic ideals. Have a read of Resolution 1441 and tell me which part authorizes the use of unilateral, military force in the "enforcement" of this resolution:

http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huri...34?Opendocument

Even if it was established, beyond doubt, that Iraq was in violation of this resolution, the resolution still states, explicitly, that the UNSC are to:

"convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security."

Firstly this convention would require the said "receipt of a report" provided by UNMOVIC or the IAEA indicating that provisions 4 or 11 had not been met by Iraq. Admittedly Blix's reports were somewhat ambivelent towards the degree of Iraqi co-operation during the process (substantial improvement in access to major sites - including the once unbreachable Presidential palaces - while lacking desired unrestricted access to Iraqi scientists, among other things) but there was never an intimation towards the possibility that the inspections were becoming unworkable, or that the conditions for inspectors were not continually improving. Similarly, there was no evidence found in the three-four months of renewed inspections that Iraq was in material (as opposed, possibly, to procedural) breach of Resolution 1441 (apart from permitted weapons that travelled too far and some empty warheads - in either case, their destruction was pro-actively instigated by the Iraqi government). The damning report necessary for this stipulated reconvention, however, never came.

Secondly, even if the US want to argue that Iraq was declared to be in incontrovertible violation by UNMOVIC and the IAEA (a possible - on the grounds of Blix's ambiguity - yet ultimately fallicious argument that I'll consider anyway) there would still need to be a reconvention of the UNSC at this point to decide on a unanimous agreement on the definition of the "serious consequences" (which in no way necessitates military force) to be meted out to Iraq. The US, at this point, wanted the immediate implementation of miltary force, the French wanted to introduce a resolution that would necessitate military force (as opposed the ambigious pseudo-implictation of military force contained within 1441) if the demands of 1441 were not said to have been explicitly met by Iraq within 30 days by UNMOVIC or the IAEA. The US immediately precluded any possibility of the passing of the compromised resolution proposed by the French and instead declared their intentions to push through a motion for war. In order to get this motion passed by the UN, the US would have required 9 votes in favour and no vetoes - by the time the US had finished pretending it cared about the diplomatic route, and withdrew any possibility of submitting this motion at the UNSC it had only four confirmed votes for (itself, the UK, Spain and Bulgaria) and two "likely" votes (Mexico and Chile - no economic reasons for supporting the motion there!) with four confirmed against the resolution (France, Russia, Germany and Syria) and one "likely" to vote against the resolution (China).

The ultimate reason why this motion was not put to the UNSC is precisely because it would have failed on both counts: it would have failed to receive the nine votes (if it thought it could have received nine votes, it would have put the bill to vote just for the chance to show France, Russia and Germany up) and three of the veto wielding powers (France, Russia, China) were likely to vote against it (or, in the case of the latter, possibly abstain). Thus, the condition within 1441 requiring the reconvention of the UNSC was never fulfilled, because the US resolution wasn't going to be passed, and they weren't willing to negotiate on any terms that didn't immediately necessitate their war. On these grounds, Resolution 1441 does not - in any way - make this war more legal: it was the US who precluded the possibility of this Resolution reaching a satisfactory conclusion, not Iraq.

quote:

In my opinion, Iraq had ample (ten plus years) to comply with the sanctions the UN had imposed upon it, but did not.

Once again, I agree. The UN should have certainly done more to enforce the resolution prior to Sept 2002.

For reasons provided above, that stil doesn't in anyway legitimise this war.

quote:

The US simply took advantage of a hostile world situation after 9/11 to enforce the mandates the world had set upon Iraq.

"Took advantage of" would be correct.

That's merely a demonstration of the methods used to lead the world into war, however, not a legitimate justification of these methods.

quote:

I think the only people upset that there is no "smoking gun" is the left. We went in there to remove a viable threat to peace. That was the basis of our attack, and WMD or not, we did just that.

That's what I'm saying though: there was no viable threat to peace. If there were large supplies of WMDs in Iraq and - as the Blair government declared - they were ready to fire upon western nations within 45 minutes, then - I'd agree - there may be a basis for a "pre-emptive" strike under Section VII of the UN Charter.

There are problems with this however:

1) These weapons don't exist. The whittling of weapons teams in Iraq seems to hint at the fact that the US are almost ready to admit this to themselves.
2) If the weapons don't exist, then there is no basis whatsoever for a pre-emptive strike and this war becomes - simply - an act of agression.
3) If this is the case then the US have blatently acted outside of International Law, therefore the war is illegal under Section VII of the UN Charter, in violation of several pertinent articles (see here).
4) If these assertions are correct, then several members of the Bush (and Blair and Howard) governments are technically in violation of Nuremberg tribunal, specifically Principle XI)a)i) (see here) and could be tried under Principle III of the same Tribunal.

If you can point to any piece of International Law (or even post Sept-11 US domestic law) that change the facts of this case and that would permit an aggressive act in the absense of any threat then I'd be happy to listen. As it is, however, in full knowledge of the fact that western leaders are never tried by the same laws they were instrumental in creating, I stand by my assertion that this was an illegal war.

(Edited to note that: Spelling and grammitcal errors may be attributed to my lack of sleep and that if I don't reply for several days it's because I've got a busy Christmas coming up, so if you respond you're just gonna have to wait a few days for my reply.)

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Last edited by Renegade on Dec-22-2003 at 17:34

Links between Iraq and Al Qaeda

Here

You may think the source is funny, but they give connections in a list form, rather than having me list seperate sources for each one.

quote:

And what were they going to attack the US with? If there are no WMDs, this "potential threat" doesn't exist - ergo, this is not a legitimate basis upon which to wage war.

So now it takes WMD to pose a threat? Since when were airliners considered WMD? It doesn't take WMD to be a threat.

quote:

France opposed the war on the basis that the peaceful method had not been fully explored and it offered a compromise solution on the basis that, if in 30 days Iraq had not adhered precisely to a series of more specific demands than those made in the extremely vague Resolution 1441, then it - along with the rest of the Security Council - would support military intervention as a part of a true global coalition.

Wonderful in theory, but after 10 years of empty threats and no action by the UN, 30 more days would have done nothing. Saddam had mastered evading the UN, and more so, the UN refused to ratify any declerations in those 10 years promising definitive action within any set time frame. More politics by both sides, no action.

quote:

That's what I'm saying though: there was no viable threat to peace. If there were large supplies of WMDs in Iraq and - as the Blair government declared - they were ready to fire upon western nations within 45 minutes, then - I'd agree - there may be a basis for a "pre-emptive" strike under Section VII of the UN Charter

Again, it does not take WMD to be a threat to peace. I've listed in the article above several ways in which Iraq was helping Al Qaeda and other terrorist cells. Although WMD were at the forefront of the debate, this has always been a "war on terrorism" and Iraq posed a very real threat.

The problem with the UN and its resolutions is in its language. Instead of 1441 outlining responses for non-cooperation by Iraq it simply threatened "severe consequences." Along with that was the unclear interpretation of "material breeches" also found in 1441. While the US and UK found that after Iraq's submitted report was in fact lacking many weapons in question and was therefore in breech, Mohammed ElBaradei stated there had to be a pattern, not just one episode to be considered in breech of the resolution. That in my opinion is rediculous. considering the pattern Iraq had shown for the past 10 years.

As far as inspections go, UNSCOM, the original Iraq inspection organization was unable to completely remove Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs before it was kicked out of Iraq in 1998. UNMOVIC was also severely limited in their ability to search by both the Iraqi government as well as the UN, who allowed "presidential sites" to be ommitted from inspection.

In September of 2002, the US and UK submitted a plan that would set undeniable consequences for Iraq's continued failure to permit inspections. This resolution circulated for 8 weeks, and there was no progress. In fact it was during these 8 weeks that France said they would veto this resolution regardless of the compromises. These 8 weeks in my opinion were plenty of extra time (besides the 10 years following the gulf war) for Iraq to comply. It is rediculous that after that, France wanted to submit their own bill giving 30 additional days...a wonderful bit of politics.

The UN is weak in that it is filled with definitions that can be interpreted differently by many and no real backing to its resolutions, not to mention the exteme politics that occur within its walls. The UN tried in vain for 10 years to make Iraq follow its wishes using diplomacy backed with no might. After these ten years, in the volatile situation surrounding 9/11, the UN continued to stumble, trying to use more politics then reason to deal with the Iraq situation. The US had just been the victim of a terrorist attack, and the removal of a clear ally to those terrorists, after ample time had been given to do so diplomatically, was warranted in my opinion.

IMPEACH!!! = "End of Discussion"

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX IMPEACH!!! = "End of Discussion"

Translation = Remove Dubya from office BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. I'll do just about anything to get this looney out of power. God damn him for being proactive and actually being successful, we HAVE GOT to get him out of office ASAP. Democrats are losing ground on every passing day, we must do something drastic and we must do it now!

yap they were a major threat to the world, i couldnt sleep at night. Now i can

___________________

"They might attack us in the future"

Using that anyone could attack anyone else. Why can't North Korea attack us becuase you know, we might attack them in the future. That's just a stupid argument for war.

Oh and WMDs have been found, he's just waiting for October 2004 to tell us all

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by davedresden oh my fucking god i die, dave