|
Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
...to the Grauniad.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...471658,00.html Basically confirming what everyone thought it said - the attorney general said 'the war might well be illegal' before coming out 10 days later saying 'actually, it's not that illegal is it'. I wonder who leaked it. Alastair Campbell, probably, since it shoots a lot of peoples' fox. Cynical, moi? |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
oops!!!
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Quote:
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
It just said what we already knew. It didnt help the government but it didnt help anyone else. What it did do was bring Iraq up again and the Blair issue again. Which is music to the Torys ears as there last week of campaigning is based on Blair anyway
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
The Conservative's voted FOR the Iraq war when the commons had a vote on it and if I remember rightly, they saved the day as a lot of Labour MPs were voting against it.
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Yeah, but Howard isnt attacking the war. He still supports it and says it would vote the same way now. The thing is about blair and if he lied to go to war or if he had bad intelligence and went to war.
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Even if Saddam had disarmed everything, in a timely manner, I still would have voted to remove him. Tomorrow, if I had to.
Not that my opnion matters, but I still think the original resolutions are still active (no sunset clause, obligations not fulfilled in the appropriate timeframe).. This whole second resolution is not an issue. (its not ever a second resolution, Saddam has had enough of them in the past), but just shows what a complete waste of time the UN are. Whenever something comes up, they just talk about. They don't do anything about, just talk. A free trip to NYC with a nice bit of exes, an 18 year old prozzie, and a bit of shopping on 5th avenue to keep the missus happy - you can't blame them really. Saying this won't increase my fanmail, but I can't see how anyone would protest to keep Saddam in power. Disagree with the war, by all means, it was badly handled most of the way through, but I just don't want to believe there's people out there who'd like who want to leave Saddam, with his sick f**kups for children in power. If they had their way, it would be Idi Amin all over again, where some of the biggest mass murderers in history get to live a life of luxury in a foreign country with full state protection. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Quote:
*NOBODY* has argued to keep Saddam in power. This is a typical distortion that the government has used to cloud this issue time and time again to try to get away from the fact that what they did was (even according to their own Attorney General, as has now been reveled) *illegal*. Bush wanted a war, Bush got a war. Blair went along with him because he's an idiot. Quote:
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
EDIT: To clarify, the last statement I made doesn't refer to protesters who merely wanted a second resolution before agreeing to war, only those who would oppose it under all circumstances. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Bliar has now published the full document. BBC Report here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...ge/4492439.stm Download the document itself here (PDF): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/h...ey_general.pdf |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Quote:
Quote:
And indeed Amnesty's current headline article states "A year ago photographs of Iraqi detainees being tortured by the US military at Abu Ghraib prison shocked the world. Abuses by US forces in the †œwar on terrorÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã‚Â have not been confined to Abu Ghraib; punishment of those involved or responsible has been inadequate; and torture is also used by the Iraqi security forces." Quote:
Quote:
"regime change cannot be the objective of military action" although removing Saddam Hussein would be legal "if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq". Given that it has now been shown that Iraq did *not* have WMDs and thus the "disarmament" of Iraq was *not* necessary, the only conclusion is that this was an *ILLEGAL* action and I don't know about you, but I think it's a *good* idea to oppose illegal actions, no matter how morally justified you may consider them because that leads down a very dangerous path. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Ok, here is my only post on this thread.
Blair followed the advice he wanted to hear (as have we all from time to time). statement 1 - "not sure - may be illegal - may not". statement 2 - "not illegal in terms of the resolutions thus far passed" pretty similar - just a different angle. Personally, Saddam needed ousting, this was the best chance of that happening (as already stated by others, France had already said that they would veto any further UN resolution). Various states had a lot of money invested in SH (including the UK), and some of those were more afraid of losing that investment, than what SH was doing to his people, and what WMD he either did or did not have (even if he did not have them, the scientists to make them were still in Iraq, and he still had labs that could produce them if required). <off topic slightly> To those that want us to withdraw from Iraq before an Iraqi government is fully established and supported (including having the Iraqi Defense Force trained and fully manned), I can only say - do you want the sacrifices made by those of us that fought, and more importantly those that died, to give the average Iraqi their freedom to be for nought, by withdrawing from the country and leaving it to decline into civil war, and have another dictator take power ? <back on topic> It has been established that there was some "less that sound" information on which the decision was based - but lets stop bleating about that, and concentrate on how we can get the country stable, and get our boys back home knowing that the job is complete, and our comrades died for a reason.. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
For me, the only issue today is:
Attorney General, 7 March 2003: "the language of resolution 1441 leaves the position unclear." and "...there are a number of ways in which the opponents of military action might seek to bring a legal case ... against the UK ... we cannot be certain that they would not succeed." Letter from no.10 to Attoney General, 15 March 2003: "it is indeed the prime minister's unequivocal view that Iraq is in further material breach of its obligations". Lord Goldsmith, 17 March 2003: "Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of resolution 678, 687, and 1441. "The Security Council also decided that if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and cooperate fully with the implementation of 1441, that would constitute a further material breach. "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. "Resolution 1441 would have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended. All it requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force." What the ... :erm: :disturbd: :fit: 'Tail wagging the dog' springs to mind. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
"it is indeed the prime minister's unequivocal view that Iraq is in further material breach of its obligations".
I'm rapidly entering brain meltdown here, but doesn't Lord Goldsmith's advice (very strongly worded, incidentally) on the 7th say that it *isn't* the PM's role to decide whether Iraq was in breach. Even if his view was unequivocal, it still wasn't his job to decide. Yet ten days later it suddenly is his role and the war's legal because Tony says it's legal? This stinks of herrings somewhere. The 'you'd have left Saddam in power' argument is the last throw of a very dirty dice. He was 66 years old, bluffing on no cards, wasn't in control of more than the middle slice of his country (remember the Kurds have had democracy for years under UN-mandated no-fly zones), didn't have an army worth the name and was desperate to avoid people seeing him as being as weak as he was (scared of Iran, scared of internal dissent). Quite why we needed to enhance his big bad boy image by pretending he was about to attack us all with non-existent weapons is beyond me - portraying him as he really was would have been quite damaging to his prestige. We could have got him out without war (and without the sacrifice of, thankfully, not many lives on our side), but that would have left the country run by the Iraqis, the US without its airbases, its lucrative contracts for friends of George, its secure, pliant base in the middle of the Middle East and of course the undemocratic restructuring of the Iraqi economy along neo-liberal lines without so much as asking the people first. By the time the Iraqis get a representative government (next year, actually) the economy will effectively be out of their control and in the hands of the corporations, the rape will be complete. Fallujah will still be in ruins though. Still, hey ho, another day, another dollar. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Excellent post BB.
I tend to agree with Andrew Marr's analysis that the Government made it much worse by not disclosing this document much earlier. One of the big questions to emerge is the style of Government pursued by Blair and following Mrs T's lead - ie, he knows best. To not provide the Cabinet with all the evidence on an issue of such importance beggars belief. The fact that the Attorney General's deputy resigned over this issue also speaks volumes. Meanwhile this secretive and manipulative govt continues with such idiocy as ID cards. I know this takes us into new territory - but,I wouldn't trust Blair not to abuse such a system on the evidence of the handling of this issue. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Worthy though these issues are, they are a bit of a side-show in the context of the announcements made over the last couple of days. Let's retain a focus here: The Attorney General talks to the PM privately in very cautious terms, then 10 days later the Attorney General tells Parliament, in strident terms, that he belives all is legal and above board.
Some (principally Andrew Marr, who when push comes to shove is a Blair sympathiser) have tried to suggest that the former was just the unpublished musings of the AG, a work in progress and not his final conclusions, whereas what he said 10 days later is his settled view. Frankly this simply doesn't wash - well not with me anyway. Goldsmith underwent something of a Damascene conversion in the intervening period and I would dearly like to know how that happened, and whether the fact that Tony B. Liar sent to him on the 15th to make clear that as far as he was concerned, everything was legal, was significant. Subtext: "Fall into line, Goldsmith"? |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Quote:
France disagreed with a proposition to pass a resolution justifying an invasion. That does *not* mean they approved of what Saddam was doing. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The little people have been made scapegoats and the people who really gave the orders (however they might have phrased them) have got away with it and, as it says, the *new* Iraqi security forces are using methods that sound very similar to those used by Saddam et al that were supposed to have been *eliminated* when we invaded! Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That is just sheer, sickening hypocrisy. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Most of these posts are going into the same old moral justification, which we have been through, ad nauseam, so I am going to ignore anything which doesn't realte to Goldsmith's report, or the UN up to then.
Quote:
Quote:
Moving on, I can't let you just accuse me of being a hypocrite, but i'm taking it into PM, rather than putting it in this thread. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Calm down dears, it's only a Current Affairs thread (said the pot calling the kettles black!) ;)
Could I quietly mention Hans Blix and the state of his WMD investigation at the time of the proposed 2nd resolution. To justify military action, you have to justify threat, which in terms of citizens external to Iraq did not exist. The appalling human rights record of the baathist regime is not one to be ignored (but let's not forget our and the Americans previous support for it). Regime change was a righteous goal, but the means used to achieve it much less so, not just because of the death toll caused by the conflict but the wider damage to relations in the Middle East. There appears to have been an immutable plan to invade rather than await the outcome of Blix's investigation and no real desire to achieve a wider consensus which could have reduced the death toll - particularly in the post Saddam era - and created a more stable world than we have now. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
I have always said the war was badly handled, the 2nd resolution would have been better, for one reason as you said Andy, it would have helped create a more stable world (although that would be limited, as the UN hardly carries any weight or respect in that area of the world). But that leads us back to the question, is it legal, or justified to go ahead without it. With the second resolution the it would have mean relations between the coalition and the rest of the world wouldn't be so bad, but I stand by what I said, that the second resolution isn't compulsary.
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Quote:
Quote:
I am with you on that aspect though, that is wrong to be sent to a war on a lie. I don't expect politicians to be whiter-than-white, and a little exageration here-and-there is need to make things a bit more glossy, but exagerating so far out of context as to portray a lie was wrong. It isn't so bad for me, because in the end, I got the result I wanted, that Saddam is in prison and Uday/Qusay are dead. If I was against the humanitarian aspect (like some are) i'd feel pretty cheated and quite rightly so. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Quote:
The fact that no one actually questioned the advice also speaks volumes according to the interveiw with Hewitt on PM today... |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Quote:
The advice here isnt the smoking gun, it is in fact what was already known before. A lot of people will be disappointed in that but there it is. As Marr has said they made this document worse than it is by hiding it when in reality it isnt anything like what some people thought it would be |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Quote:
Not as drastic?! :confused: The (now released) initial document contained lots of reasoning for *and* against, & included a whole load of qualifiers. The final "summary" released to Parliament contained none of Lord Goldsmith's earlier warnings about how it could easily be found to be illegal to act without further specific authorisation from the UNSC. Also, whereas initially Goldsmith had said that it's up to the UNSC alone - not individual member states - to determine if Iraq was in breach of 1441 or not, he later determined that there was a breach simply based on Blair's inaccurate claim that there was a breach. Plus, the earlier document said that if action were to be taken without obtaining a further resolution (& so solely using the "combined authority" of 1441, 687, & 678), "we would need to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation" & "you will need to consider very carefully whether the evidence of non-cooperation and non-compliance by Iraq is sufficiently compelling to justify the conclusion that Iraq has failed to take its final opportunity". There was no hard evidence of non-compliance sufficient enough to declare a breach - the Iraqis were actually starting to cooperate, & Blix's latest report was much more favourable than earlier ones (plus we now know there were no weapons anyway). The only evidence used to justify the declaration of a breach is, again, Blair's own "unequivocal" view that there was indeed a breach (and remember, Goldsmith had previously said it was up to the UNSC to determine such a thing). Sounds quite different to me! Another thing: Remember Elizabeth Wilmshurst, former deputy legal advisor to the Foreign Office, who resigned because she believed the war was illegal? Her resignation letter, bits of which were leaked recently, "gave us to understand" that Lord Goldsmith initially agreed with her & other Foreign Office lawyers that the war would be illegal unless a further resolution was passed, but then allegedly twice changed his advice just before, so that it would match the "...now [the] official line". Quoting Chris & BBKing to re-iterate their similar points in case you missed them... Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Quote:
Another interesting point - Lord Goldsmith's original highly hedged and conscienscious legal advice of the 7th March came out on the same day as Hans Blix' third report from Iraq after he'd gone back in in December 2002. The third report stated that Iraq was being more and more co-operative, and had started destroying missiles and by the way we haven't found any WMDs where you said they'd be. The previous reports had complained about obstruction by the Iraqis *and* the fact that Western intelligence agencies had frequently given false leads to Blix, leading to wild goose chases. In other words Blix was doubting the quality of intelligence, and asked for more time to search. Let's apply logic The evidence of the weapons inspectors was key to Goldsmith's legal opinion Goldsmith presumably hadn't read the third report which stated that Iraq was co-operating when he was weighing the evidence (unless he dashed a 13 page document for the attention of the Prime Minister in a couple of hours, which top lawyers don't do) Blair and Goldsmith had 10 days to read it. Blix asks for more time. Having read it, Goldsmith then stands by idly while ministers state unequivocally and categorically that the war is legal because there is unequivocal evidence of non-compliance, even though Blix reports increasing compliance, that there is categorical evidence of a growing WMD programme even though there is evidence of the opposite. Given that Blix is now forced out of Iraq for his own safety in the forthcoming war, is it any wonder that it looks very much as if his report was ignored, the legal caveats from Goldsmith were ignored and the very real possibility that Iraq would be found to have no WMDs at all would be ignored. Do you like being led by people who ignore truths that would avoid war, or do you prefer being led by people who are willing to ignore the truth to go to war? Incidentally, as far as France is concerned, Goldsmith is explicit that no court would find that France or any other Security Council member would be acting unreasonably in vetoing a second resolution. So that's that argument knackered then. Anyway, I suggest we all read the full 13 pages. Not often we get interesting stuff like this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...472450,00.html |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
At the end of the day this does not clear up the issue of if the war is legal or not. It is focusing on advice and frankly we knew all this already, the timing of all this means that it gets a lot more time and anger but this does not prove Blair lied, it does not prove the iraq war was illegal. Even if it was classed as 'illegal' it is still muddy waters. This is a big and difficult issue and Iraq was in breach of the UN resolutions, the intelligence that Blair received is available online and despite constants attacks on this issue no one has proved blair lied.
The important thing is if you believe the War was right or not. If you dont then you can say so on may 5th. But those of us who did support the war and still think its good are not ignoring the legal issues or the intelligence or what other issues there are. Today Iraqi got a new government, they have had free elections, saddam has gone and is getting tried by the Iraqi people. You cannot dismiss that by saying it wasn't the reason we went to war. Everyone spins, the newspapers do it, people on forums do it, everyone selects facts in such a way to support there view. If you think he went as far to cause him to lie then fine. If you think that he lied about the intelligence then fine, say so on May 5th |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Whether the outcome of the war is good or not doesn't matter if parliment and the public were lied to.
I support the general outcome of the war, that an oppressive regime was removed from power (even though according to the UN that's illegal), but that doesn't stop me demanding the truth behind what was said which lead us to our present position. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The General Election is about who runs the country and what policies they follow, not a referendum on the war in Iraq. People will be voting on a whole raft of issues although even then, many of those will be voting for a particular party simply because that was how their parents voted etc. To suggest that people should vote based on only a single issue is naiive. Quote:
What is the truth...??? Quote:
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
One of the key things to have emerged is that the AG seems quite clear in his opinion that to go to war seeking regime change would be unlawful. This presumably explains why WMDs rather than regime change were cited at the time, despite growing evidence of increased Iraqi co-operation and a lack of WMDs. Two things then happened. No WMDs were found to the surprise of precisely nobody. The argument then switched to 'isn't it great that we've got rid of 'Saddam'. My interpretation is that the Govt knew precisely what it was doing in ignoring Hans Blix and others because it knew it could not justify, in law, military action for regime change. So the only defence Blair has is that they had to pursue the WMD angle in order to achieve the real objective. But that defence has more holes in it than Rab C's vest.
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
I think you've hit the nail on the head, Andy... But I think it is a sad state of affairs when someone who is proven (or at least probably cause) to be commiting crimes against humanity, seems to be immune from any legal real action. I read about his regime, and I can't think theres any possible way anything but prison is for him. The UN needs to tie this down and become more proactive in making sure people like Saddam (And the Papa Docs, Idi Amins, Mugabes, Castros, etc) get stopped, not on weapons grounds, but on humanitarian... Not to let him carry on for 30 years like he did. In my mind, watching someone die, and not helping, when you can, is complicity to murder. The UNSC needs that on their minds. The sanctions wern't a punishment for him, they were a punishment for the country's citizens. It can't (or rather shouldn't) be right to let Saddam live out his reign as BBking suggested. Partly because his sons would inherit it, and another 30-40 years starts all over again. And then they have sons, and so on.
I can't help it, its the bleeding-heart liberal in me (that I keep trying to hide :disturbd: ) All I can think about, is that if I was trapped under Saddam's regime, I would just think... "Why isn't anyone helping? Why are they letting this go on?" I wouldn't care who helped, and the majority of Iraqis don't, so long as Saddam is removed and a different successor is in place. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Punky, I've told you off before about agreeing with me. Puts me right off my stride. Please do your lines :)
Of course if we're going to attack countries with appalling human rights records then I guess we'd better get those missiles trained on China! And, in the light of Guantanomo and the executing of someone with learning difficulties... that big place on the other side of the Atlantic, what's it called again? No easy answers. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Just a quick point, as I haven't had time to read the whole thread. Mr. Blair is a lawyer by trade, and another legal person once gave me the sage advice that "lawyer is another word for liar"...
I am resistng the urge to read more on this thread as I've just seen the mention of "human rights", and I don't want to get started on that again! |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Quote:
Of course this is a brave new world here... The UN would be forced to do something productive for a change. As far as I can see, the UN wants world peace, but if that means no war, but people like Saddam are in power, then I don't consider that to be good enough. And furthermore, when the US...: 1. ...president orders people he doesn't like to be fed into a wood chipper, feet first... 2. ...the opposition party disappears overnight and is never seen again... 3. ...rapes the family members of the supporters of the opposition party, as 'punishment'... 4. ...when the first person to stop clapping and sit down at every presidential rally is killed, and the same to people who don't look happy enough during rallys (this was Hitler, but I think Saddam did it too)... ... then I will personally enlist in any army and go there and fight them (providing the UN considers this to be bad enough to warrant action, and we know from Saddam, the above isn't bad enough). |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
A big part of the problem is the make up (and veto power arrangements) of the Security Council.
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Quote:
A new council should be formed, because crimes against humanity doesn't come under the security umbrella, it comes under a justice one. Their descision would be final, rather than all this: "is it legal to do x" or "is it illegal to do y". Basically a much more organised, and proactive role to protecting human's rights. Some people are very concerned about their human rights (and mine, I guess) with regards to ID cards, etc, but seem much less concerned with the human rights of Iraqis to be able to support an opposition-to-government party. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Quote:
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Quote:
And with the US being the most universally despised country in the world (on par with Israel, which also, sensibly rejects the ICC), its not like it would be subject to frivilous complaints, would it? Furthermore the immunity only applies during UN-sanctioned peacekeeping, and it has been granted to other countries before. Indeed, the UNSC voted in favour of extending the immunity against the US. Of course, Saddam wouldn't even be awaiting trial in the ICC if it wasn't for the US. He'd still be feeding people into the woodchipper. I doubt Blair would have had a sudden attack of conscience, or anyone else in the world. Besides, if the UN dealt with who gets complaints against, theoretically there wouldn't be any frivilous complaints... but then again, when was the last time someone at least hwal-way sensible worked for the UN? |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
Quote:
[quote]And with the US being the most universally despised country in the world (on par with Israel, which also, sensibly rejects the ICC), It's only sensible for them because they, too, could be subject to its attentions for their treatment of the Palestinians (illegal occupation of land. Building settlemnts in violation of international law...) Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked
ROFL..... More leaks.... Some very interesting stories in the Sunday papers :D
From today's Sunday Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...592904,00.html Quote:
Plus there's also: Blair planned Iraq war from start (related story) Quote:
And the *very* interesting leaked memo itself...definitely worth a read! - "The secret Downing Street memo" Menawhile, over at the Sunday Indy... "Revealed: documents show Blair's secret plans for war" Quote:
Very juicy stuff. Plus these leaks contain more ammo IMO for the case alleging that Blair lied & misled. Wonder who's leaking all this? And finally, an interview with Admiral Sir Michael Boyce: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/polit...474276,00.html Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Basically confirming what seems to have been the case
It was Bush's idea Blair went along with it They were worried about public opinion but thought they could persuade us, which explains the dodgy dossiers and the presentation of a heavily biased case They weren't worried about legality until the armed forces starting getting worried So we've effectively neutralised our permanent security council seat (since it's now established that you can bypass the SC if you feel like it) for the dubious privilege of being George Bush's best mate, benefits to the UK uncertain. Nice foreign policy, Tony. Quote:
* Iraq's WMD capability (as wrongly estimated by the security services and presented to ministers) was less than Libya, Iran or North Korea * Iraq wasn't a threat to it's neighbours. Quite where 'less than Libya, Iran or North Korea' became '45 minutes from attack' is an interesting question, as it implies that either Blair lied or he thought that those three countries could use WMDs in less than 45 minutes. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Quote:
The whole organisation needs a complete re-organisation, starting with firing Annan for gross incompetence. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There is a big difference between vocally condeming someone, and removing a tyrannical dictator and his sons, who used to torture people for fun. Quote:
I'll quite happily become UNSG if they'd let me. $350k a year, plus free palatial manson, top notch security, and more freebies than I could list. I couldn't be any worse than Annan anyway. If I did at least one half-decent thing for the UN, I would have done more than Annan ever has. If I just wanted to follow Annan's lead, I could just do a few speeches, that someone else wrote for me, and the odd press conference/interview. Doesn't sound like a bad old life to me. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
The reason I like the UN is the same reason I like the EU - it's turned international relations from a constellation of dubious treaties and blocs into a bunch of old, fat men jabbering at each other. Not very edifying, but lethargy is preferable to blitzkrieg any day.
$350k and a nice house? That's f'ck all in terms of the remuneration for heads of international organisations, for that matter. You didn't see George Bush trying to smear and remove the head of Enron (who was on rather more than $350k), suck up to him, possibly. Frankly, given what's happened to world peace and stability after a major state that should know better deliberately sabotaged the UN (and then tries to blame the UN for being sabotaged, which is chutzpah of a high order) and goes it alone I think the case for the UN is stronger than ever. My point was actually that we have, through historical accident, a seat at the top table - whether we should have it is one point, but it's preferable to have it and use it in the spirit its founders intended* than tag alone on the bully's coat-tails while he steals everyone's pocket money, hoping he'll share what he nicks with us. *The first meeting of the UN was in London, of course, there's a strong case for saying that the British were partly responsible for inventing the idea in the first place. Which is just one reason we shouldn't support its destruction. Quote:
1) Germany definitely was a threat to the UK 2) Churchill didn't start WW2 3) He became PM in the middle of it 4) He actually came out with that quotation in 1954. This was of course after the experience of WW2 (and WW1 and the Boer War, for that matter), which hadn't exactly made him a fan of pre-emptive military action (or 'invading someone else's country because you feel like it' as it used to be known). It's often been pointed out on here that Churchill would not have been a supporter of the recent Iraq jaunt. Quote:
France, Russia and China used their SC vote correctly on Iraq - they knew the US was engaged in something underhand and wrong (the amount of coercion, threats and bribery put on non-permanent SC members for instance), and didn't want to back it, hence no second resolution. The SC is a world body set up to keep the peace, not a shop for rubber stamping the self-interested policies of the Republican Party. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
I am not anti-UN. The UN is something the world it needs to protect itself, from itself. I am against most of the influential people within the UN who are either inept, corrupt, or both. They need to be replaced, and the entire organisation needs a u-turn.
You say the war on Iraq is illegal without tacit UN approval (I agree with that, but that means that the older existing resolutions aren't valid here, which I disagree with, hence it had UN approval), but I think that, as well as people of the world who seem more or less content to stand by while the situation dragged on, speaks volumes about what we have become. It is ok for you and I, in luxury, afforded wonderful civil and human rights, and state protection that the Iraqis never had. People in general have become numb to atrocities commited around the world, and that is an extremely appalling and unacceptable state of affairs, I feel. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And again I point out all the *other* countries in the world who have dictatorial leaders who torture or abuse or starve their populations... [quote[ Quote:
And that's predictable answer #3 (and a total failure of your irony detector). Quote:
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Quote:
Psst don't you mean the UN? PS could you go back and change "Predictable answer" to an actual answer which takes the discussion forward? ta very much. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Quote:
Few things on that: 1) Quote:
2) IIRC, Chirac didn't say France would veto *any* further resolution - he said France would veto any further resolution *which contained an automatic trigger for war* 3) The US & UK did not have enough votes anyway for their "second" resolution, hence it was pulled & was not voted on. It was not pulled because France would veto it anyway. Even if France had not threatened the veto, the "second" resolution could not have passed at that time due to the lack of positive votes for it amongst the Council. If the US & UK had had the votes required, I'm sure they would have gone ahead & called a vote - even if they thought France would veto it - as they could have used their legally dubious "unreasonable veto" arguement, & claimed it had support enough anyway. Shifting back to the main topic........... http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpo...474584,00.html Quote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...ge/4503061.stm Quote:
Really, Mr Blair? So you say it was not about Regime Change, & was only about WMD? Are you sure Mr Blair?........... http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpo...474587,00.html Quote:
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
OK, lets have another go... I am not sure if this takes the discussion forward, but here goes...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Quote:
How many times have I expressed my views on human and civil rights in these forums? Do you *honestly* think that blatantly misrepresenting my position like that is a way of taking a debate forward? Quote:
And what does a sweeping generalisation like "The UN has been thoroughly impotent for years" have to do with Iraq? Does that justify attacking Iraq because the UN have been (according to you) unable to do anything about anyone else's human rights abuses elsewhere in the world? Quote:
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I said the UN needs a lot of new staff, but thinking about it earlier, it needs a bit more than that. It needs a whole new change of attitude. The UN was created to prevent another world war. That translates to "peace at any cost". That means so long as regimes aren't warring, what they do to their citizens go largely untouched. It needs to be proactive in protecting the citizens of countries, who, when they needed it most, never recieved it. I.e. millions of Iraqis in the 1990s. Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
I know this is all off-topic, but all this talk of sanctions makes me remember the infamous Albright quote (she was Secretary of State under Clinton)
Quote:
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
At the moment, we have the US acting as "world policeman" which most people would agree is not the best thing to have.
Much better would be an international force (ie the UN) playing the role of world policeman, sure using sanctions at first, but time limited (ie if the sanctions haven't resolved the issue within a specific time period, then military action must be used) Anyway, from the looks of things, Bliar decided to go to war long before it was made public, and just because he attempted to get a second resolution does not mean he hadn't already decided, despite what labour are claiming. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
A lot of people criticise the US for being the "World Policeman" role, and that's fair enough. They don't always do good, or even, what's right. I have this really horrible feeling, that in about 10 years time, when China is the dominant super power, and the US, like the rest of the world, has to answer to them, then I think a lot of people, (well, me at least) will wish to go back to having the US as the lead.
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Quote:
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Quote:
Seconly just because I don't agree with *your* proposals for action does *not* mean that I am in favour of doing nothing. Quote:
Quote:
So what are the options? Remove the sanctions and give Saddam a victory and make the UN look even weaker? Or invade any country that's abusing human rights and killing its own population in which case Iraq is only one on a very long list? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Quote:
He was going to go war anyway resolution or not, so it's non-issue. Quote:
Quote:
The role of international peace keeping should and must stay with the UN. We cannot afford to have other countries "policing" other sovereign states |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Quote:
Anyway, let's examine some human rights abusers who could use some of that ole' doctrine of pre-emption stuff: Uzbekistan - nasty Stalinist dictatorship, disappearances, secret police, lack of press freedom, no democracy. Friend of the USA, of course, so that's out China - proof that capitalism can function without freedom or democracy, WMDs, large military power. Bit big, and makes things cheap for us, so that's out Zimbabwe - nasty madman in charge who rigs elections and persecutes opponents while starving the country into the stone age. No oil, so that's out. Sudan - Government supported Arabs pursuing a war of racist genocide against the Africans in the south. No oil, but a bit close to the Middle East, so a slap on the wrist from Colin Powell. Saudi Arabia - dodgy judicial system, not much democracy, not much in the way of rights for women, cradle of al-Qaeda. Lots of oil, though, and they're quite happy to swap it for our military hardware, so that's ok. Russia - deeply worrying centralisation of power at the expense of democracy, run by an ex-KGB man, WMDs not totally under control, lots of crushing internal dissent by falsely linking it to international terrorism (it's national terrorism, of course, which is different. No one links ETA or the UDA to al-Qaeda, do they?). Bit big to invade Belarus - see Uzbekistan, minus the US bases, the only country in Europe with a death penalty. Doesn't like human rights much. Several contributors to this board should absolutely love it there. High on my list for regime-change-plus, before gallivanting over the world trying to impose democracy with bombs let's sort out this blot on the landscape of Europe. Turkmenistan - see Uzbekistan, with added oil pipelines from Afghanistan, so they're our mates Israel - whew, where to start? WMDs, openly defiant of myriad UN resolutions, internally repressive along racial/religious lines. Apparently you can invade Iraq when this happens, but not Israel. Odd. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Quote:
Quote:
And you are right, Iraq is top of a (disgracefully) big list. Why is it a big list? Because the UN's apathetic and lethargic attitude to rogue regimes has meant that such regimes can flourish. It has nothing to stop them, unless the country is re-taken by force by its own people, which rarely happens, and when it does, it causes instability. You think Iraq was bad under Coalition control, you should look at some African states. Quote:
The US is called a bully because it is its own country, which doesn't give itself legitimacy whilst performing these actions. The UN wouldn't be called a bully if it had a fair and just system for dealing with this. Quote:
Quote:
I don't like war for precisely the same reasons as everyone else. Innocent people lose lives, things are destroyed, and it costs a fortune. If there was any other way to remove Saddam and his 2 sons from power without force, I would have supported that before war. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Quote:
http://www.un.org/News/ossg/iraq.htm There is *nothing* there about removing him from power because that is *NOT* the UN's job. Quote:
Quote:
2) It's *still* not the UN's job. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/135.html |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Quote:
I can't speak for you of course, but I know that if I, in this country, was ever put into the position like the Iraqis were in 1990, then I wouldn't give a s**t who helped me, so long as someone did. I wouldn't expect everyone to just say "tough" and turn their backs. That's indecent. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Quote:
Surely you're not suggesting that the saudi goverment backed the attacks? It would be like saying Eire is to blame for all the IRA bombings! Quote:
When was the last time the BBC pointed out the Israel wanted to return Gaza but Egypt refused to take it because of the Palestinians? When was the last time the BBC showed the million dollar houses in Gaza instead of run down ruins? When was the last time the BBC explained the actual reasons behind buldozing houses? When was the last time the BBC pointed out that Israelis give free healthcare to palestinians because the PA has been too busy embesseling the billions we've given them rather than building hospitals? When was the last time the BBC showed how muslims, druze, jews, christians and all the other beliefs/races actually get on together? When was the last time the BBC pointed out that Sinai, the west bank and golan heights were taken after its neighbouring countries tried to invade to wipe Israel off the face of the map? When was the last time the BBC pointed out how appaulingly the Jordanians and Egyptians treated people in their refrugee camps and how much better they were treated when Israel took them over? |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Quote:
That is an entirely different discussion to the topic about the legality (or lack thereof) of attacking Iraq. Quote:
Quote:
Yes, things should change, but *not* at the point of a gun, not even if it's under the direction of the UN. __________________ Quote:
Don't blame the BBC for the world's wrongs. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Quote:
But using violence to change people's minds does not work. Quote:
I think it may be a case of the BBC being the worst, apart from all the rest. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Quote:
There have been many invasions which have been stopped through violence, this changing the invading country's leaders mind that invading would be a good idea. Quote:
And all leaders *should* be honest and truthful. I'm starting to think you're talking about a perfect world after all :) To me, it is looking like Mr B Liar colluded with the Bush administration and decided to attack iraq, then to try and cover his back when the legality looked dubious by trying for a second resolution (if he was serious he would not have gone to war without it, otherwise what was the point of trying for it?), the AG spoke with bush's lawyers and changed his mind, parliment was betrayed and mislead and our forces were sent into a mess. Someone please remind me this is the UK, because from the above it doesn't sound like it! Sure the outcome is potentially a good one, Iraq no longer under the rule of an "evil dictator" but it could have been handled so much better. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Quote:
|
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Quote:
Ah, Uzbekistan. The (now former) British Ambassador to Uzbekistan spoke out quite strongly & openly about the awful human rights' abuses which take place there (including boiling "dissidents" alive). He was, of course, removed from his job (can't upset our "friends"). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3743052.stm He's now standing against Jack Straw in Blackburn. http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1439384,00.html |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Shoot me if this is off topic but.....
In my opinion, more than half the British public were behind the government when they entered into confict with Iran. A lot of those gullible people now blame Tony Blair for taking them in. Well there's nothing you can do about it now. Labour will be in office for another 4 years. But that's nothing to the pain that has been heaped upon the Iraqi people. Their country is an absolute mess. How much better are the Iraqi people now as they were under Saddam? I hope that the US and Brits have learned a big lesson here. If you take out a dictator who you dont like, first make sure you ask yourself "what will happen next?". |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Quote:
The marshlands are recovering, letting wildlife return. They now have the ability to vote for who's in charge without fear of death from whomever they didn't vote for. Tens of thousands of shia men, women and children are no longer being lined up and shot simply for their religious beliefs. Medical supplies and aid is now getting where it is needed, unlike under sanctions when it wasn't, which caused thousands to die. There is now a thriving technology trade and comerce is booming. The ailing infrastructure is being serviced and rebuilt, many towns now have constant electricity and fresh water which they didn't have under saddam. So for the majority of iraqi's things are much better or soon will be better. |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Xaccers has clearly been reading US and UK military press briefings rather than anything particularly accurate. No point refuting each point individually, except to say they're mostly wrong, particularly the one about the fear of the knock at the door, given the level of political assassinations at the moment, often preceded by, er, a knock at the door, and the fact that several hundred people have died violently in Iraq since that posting. Obviously it's a different, better sort of corpse than under Saddam.
Anyway, I was reviving this thread because of Matt D's comments about Uzbekistan - people may have noticed the US and UK supported Stalinist dictatorship there is in a spot of trouble - troops on the street, violence, crackdowns, systematic human rights violations. When other countries in the area (Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, Georgia) overthrow Soviet throwback *******s and seek a bit of freedom we support them (the Ukrainian revolution was a carefully stage-managed one using American money, then again, the election-rigging chap on the other side was backed with substantially more cash from Russia) and send our people over to congratulate them. So how come when it's the much bloodier Uzbekistan situation we 'call for restraint from both sides'. In Ukraine the election was rigged - in Uzbekistan the opposition aren't even allowed to stand in elections and there's no free press and people get boiled alive to make them talk or just because their face doesn't fit. So what I'm wondering is, if Saddam was so nasty that it's better to bomb his country to bacteria and start a civil war there what's so special about Uzbekistan that we support their government as a 'stable force' and ship terrorist detainees over there to be tortured on our behalf? |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Quote:
No strategic value? Nah. Couldn't be anything like that ;) |
Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
Actually, being a boring sod, I looked up Iraq and Uzbekistan in the CIA factbook
Both about the same land area. Both about the same population (26m). Iraq produces 2.2m barrels of oil/day, Uzbekistan produces 146,000. Comment column in the Grauniad today* asking how the hell you are supposed to move towards democracy by peaceful means in a country where the security services use torture, bullets and boiling alive, where the 'judicial system' has a 99% conviction rate (i.e. none of the people sprung from prison the other day were guilty in the sense we know, much less 'terrorists' as the US maintains) and all that lot is propped up by $80m of US money last year. 500 killed in Iraq by rebels and Condoleeza Rice visits 500 killed in Uzbekistan by the regime and it's dismissed with calls for restraint from both sides. How do you restrain yourself from getting shot, I wonder? *Edit - by the former UK ambassador http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...484631,00.html |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:08. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are Cable Forum