Will wonders never cease.

[kellinator]

There are a couple of Stormtroopers in full uniform wandering around the law school.

I have no idea why, but hey, I can dig it.

Comments

[juanfandango.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to opine on the veracity of general or specific sources - that's been done elsewhere and in greater depth, eg the Butler report summarised neatly here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3892809.stm which also notes that the sarin gas, etc, has not been discovered in significant quantities. Yes, I'm confident Saddam wanted all kinds of icky weapons. No, I'm confident he didn't have them in any useful form.

The legality of going to war on the back of UN 1441 is, at best, dubious. It does not specifically authorise force to be used in compliance (but c.f. e.g. UN 678), and part of the UN charter specifically prohibits nations from relying on the implied use of force.

Whilst I agree that politicians (and others) often have to rely on soundbites to convey a story to the media, such a serious issue should not have been decided on these soundbites - and not only were they abbreviated facts, they were also highly selective facts.

[dwivian]

There is a resolution that authorized the no-fly zone that was enforced by UK and US together... I'd guess that one would suffice for the use of force for compliance with UN actions.

And, that report is out of date; there are more recent discoveries, and will be from here on out as more and larger areas of Iraq are searched. I'd think that cyclosarin sufficient to kill half-a-million people qualifies as a sizeable quantity, although in volume it's rather tiny. I have friends over there that have seen lots more than the press has seen fit (or been allowed) to print, but I think it is primarily the old stuff that is less potent (though, to be sure, less dead is still dead).

[juanfandango.livejournal.com]

The Articles of the UN make it very clear that the use of force has to be spelled out explicitly on a case by case basis, which 1441 did not, and not extrapolated from other resolutions.

As has been noted elsewhere, you can have sarin sufficient to kill half a million people, but it's useless unless you can aerosolerize it without destroying it, which is the really tricky part - and that, Saddam didn't have.

[dwivian]

There are thousands of Kurds that would disagree with your assessment of Saddam's ability to deliver sarin, except they are dead now...

And, I stand by my statement that there exists sufficient UN resolution that allowed military action, as such resolutions were used to justify the no-fly zones for such a long time.

Now, if you want to argue THOSE were inappropriate, as well, I'm willing to entertain that....

[dwivian]

Worthy of consideration is the statement lodged to both Houses in the UK, concerning the authority to take action in Iraq:

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page3287.asp

[juanfandango.livejournal.com]

Indeed, Blair set out his case along the lines you suggested in the other reply, that the authority under 678 was revived. This is the advice that Goldsmith, the UK Attorney General gave, but refused (and still refuses) to give his rationale behind his decision. I find that curious - if his case is so bombproof, as it were, why not publish his rationale? Particularly since many lawyers disagree that the resurrection of 678 is valid; for the counter arguments to Goldsmith, see, eg,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3522807.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,6512,913589,00.html

Without Goldsmith's full advice being published, I find it hard to agree that the war was lawful. (I may still think the same were he to publish the advice, of course). An unlawful action, even if it were made for the best intentions, still leaves me squirming uncomfortably.

[dwivian]

I will NEVER argue that point -- this whole war is an uncomfortable thing for me, too. And, not because it is potentially illegal, but because of the previously argued idea that pre-emptive action, once justified in the world, leads to war on all sides. ::ugh::

Remember, though, that the advice of the magistrates/laywers in the UK could be couched in intelligence we are not at liberty to know, so the reasoning may be understood or revealed at the appropriate levels, but not to the masses. That's the only "out" I see, but I'll have to go with it for the time being (the whole point of the House of Commons is to debate the hell out of stuff, so if he didn't present his logic, his arguments would have been tossed on their ear just on general principle).

Thanks for those alternative points, btw... I'll be reviewing them for office discussion (I'm often the intermediary between radical right proponents and the one voice of the left when they have lunchtime vocal altercations)