Following repeated warnings voiced in the United Nations and through media outlets, the British rally the support of Spain to create a “coalition of the willing” to oust the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson, who was seen as directly responsible for not fully supporting legislation to implement a Civil Rights Act, in strict violation of the Magna Carta.

I only presented the view of the US regarding the use of military force during the post-Gulf War years, with quotes and evidence. There are plenty of reputable international lawyers that disagree with Kofi and you, as did the previous administration.

I’m also well aware of the arguments claiming 678, 687, 1441, etc do not justify the use of military force against Iraq. I don’t need to read your POV, as your credibility is suspect. Your condescending comments and personal attacks lead me to believe you’re are not interested in honest debate. Your agenda is to embarrass the US and smear political enemies. I did google BNF and found just that. However, I can’t find critical comments on the war policies of the previous administration against Yugoslavia and Iraq…war policies that were not explicitly authorized by the UN. As the evidence clearly shows, Clinton justified military force under existing S.C.R.’s and felt he had the authority he needed to act against the threat from Saddam’s Iraq.

You, my friend, are guilty of special pleading.

You also have refused to ackowledge that there have been more than 100 acts of military aggression by many member countries since the UN Charter, resulting in the death of millions. It seems you may be cherry-picking here, promoting the idea that the US is one of the worst offenders of human rights (according to one of your posts), at least when a Republican is in power, while ignoring the violations of others. Like I said, special pleading.

How Secretary Albright dealt with hand-wringing lawyers like you: “Get new lawyers.”

If you look at this theory, as Lord Goldsmith first did in March 2003, you’d conclude that ready-to-launch-WMD damn well better be found in order for the “revived” 678/687 theory to hold. Obviously this was not the case, and Iraq did not lie in its December 2002 declaration. But does anyone suppose the Security Council will ever again take this up in a meaningful way and hold anyone responsible? Of course not!

Ex-lie – I’ve already refuted Steed’s BS months ago. I’m not at your nor his beck and call to continue to dredge up the same arguments. Use “the Google” and you can find my previous arguments. I’m tired of doing your homework for you. You’ll note Steed refused to do just that. So it’s not me that’s avoiding anything, it’s you and Steed who refuse to look.

But then, in your mind, you know better than the Secretary General of the U.N.

MARCH 14, 2002

I had dinner with Condi on Tuesday; and talks and lunch with her an NSC team on Wednesday (to which Christopher Meyer also came). These were good exchanges, and particularly frank when we were one-on-one at dinner. I attach the records in case you want to glance.

IRAQ

We spent a long time at dinner on IRAQ. It is clear that Bush is grateful for your support and has registered that you are getting flak. I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option.

From what she said, Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions:
- how to persuade international opinion that military action against Iraq is necessary and justified;
- what value to put on the exiled Iraqi opposition;
- how to coordinate a US/allied military campaign with internal opposition (assuming there is any);
- what happens on the morning after?

MARCH 22 2002

US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Aaida is so far frankly unconvincing. To get public and Parliamentary support for military operations, we have to be convincing that:
- the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for;

- it is qualitatively different from the threat posed by other proliferators who are closer to achieving nuclear capability (including Iran).

CONFIDENTIAL AND PERSONAL

JULY 23, 2002

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.

But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

2. In the UK’s view a violation of Iraq’s obligations which undermines the basis of the cease-fire in resolution 687 (1991) can revive the authorisation to use force in resolution 678 (1990). As the cease-fire was proclaimed by the Council in resolution 687 (1991), it is for the Council to assess whether any such breach of those obligations has occurred.

The US have a rather different view: they maintain that the assessment of breach is for individual member states.

We are not aware of any other state which supports this view.

The US have on occasion claimed that the purpose of the NFZs is to enforce Iraqi compliance with resolutions 687 or 688. This view is not consistent with resolution 687, which does not deal with the repression of the Iraqi civilian population, or with resolution 688, which was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and does not contain any provision for enforcement.

For the exercise of the right to self-defence there must be more than “a threat”. There has to be an armed attack actual or imminent. The development or possession of nuclear weapons does not in itself amount to an armed attack; what would be needed would be clear evidence of an imminent attack.

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/FCOlegaladvicetext.html
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/strawtext.html
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/rickettstext.html
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/rickettstext.html

A very impressive recitation of the facts, the various resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council in the 1990s re: Iraq, and the Clinton administration’s interpretation of those resolutions.

It is always a pleasure to see someone stick to the facts rather than resort to invective and diversion.

At least, Spudge engaged you on the facts and argued his case based on the wording of the resolutions. BnF, on the other hand, did not even try to argue the facts or the law, choosing instead — as he so often does when he finds himself outclassed by someone with a superior grasp of the facts and the law — to divert attention from the substance of the debate by claiming he once took part in some moot court competition.

Again, Steed…Well done.

I guess real news will be the day we don’t have a scum-bag, boy-touching, Troll-Aid drinking, completely worthless Repugniscum telling the truth, uh?

I’ve already refuted your arguments before you ever showed up here under this alias.

Now unless you can somehow demonstrate that you are more versed in International Law than Kofi Annan your entire argument is entirely without merit.

Because, you see, the examples you mentioned are readily distinguished from Bush’s invasion of a sovereign country. I know, it’s a subtle distinction, but the U.N. is surprisingly resistant when it comes to invading sovereign countries. And the “necessary means” phrase you toss about so freely was limited to enforcing sanctions, not deposing a head of state.

The U.N. Charter clearly prohibits wars of aggression. And because war is so devastating both in human and property costs, any U.N. sanction for war must be clear and unequivocal. It is a violation of international law to take a resolution calling for the enforcement of sanctions and claim it is an authorization to invade a sovereign country.

You see, Steed, I have studied international law, at the International Court of Justice, at the European Court of Human Rights, and other venues throughout Europe. I have studied International Human Rights, and argued a case in an International Moot Court.

Your arguments are flat-out wrong, and if you used them in defense in a War Crimes Tribunal your client would be convicted. Fortunately, however, the maximum penalty in international courts is life without parole, so your client would not be hung like Saddam Hussein, with a lynch mob taunting him as he plunged through the trap door.

Why would I read your condescending crap? You have no argument other than descreditng the messenger. VENI VICI VETI.
Comment by Steed Lankershim — February 26, 2007 @ 8:07 pm

This is what Resolution 678 states:

“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 above-mentioned 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;”

Resolution 660 and on condemns Iraq for invading Kuwait, demands that Iraq withdraw and meet Kuwait at the negotiation table.

It looks like Clinton f*cked up.

Why would I read your condescending crap? You have no argument other than descreditng the messenger. VENI VICI VETI.

If he is, he’s not a very good one. Any post to thoroughly explore the contexts of these various resolutions he cherry picks would be way too long for this forum. Besides, I’ve debunked this crap before. So “steed” don’t bother going off on me. Google my name and you’ll find lots of posts I’ve made here at Think Progress over the past several months. Frankly, debating with you would be like beating a dead horse.

Personally, I would put more stock in a Secretary General’s interpretation of the U.N. Charter and the various resolutions than I would in an annonymous poster who comes on this site to support the Bush Administration’s spin.

So, Steed, what’s your background in International Law? Any experience reading the U.N. Charter? Or the Charter of the International Court of Justice? Or the European Convention on Human Rights? Or the Geneva Conventions? etc., etc., etc. How about the cases from the International Court of Justice? Read any of those? The U.S. came out rather poorly in the Nicaragua case. Did you catch that one? Did you note how it shaped international law regarding clandestine operations? How about arguing a case in an International Law forum, or even in a International Law Moot Court?

It’s bad enough the trolls post this talking point, now the White House itself is pushing this lie. I wonder how the White House is going to deal with the inevitable backlash.

In fact, now that I scroll back up and read it again:

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

It is quite clear that force was NOT what was called for.