Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

To quote Churchill "'Jaw jaw' is better than 'war war'"

Hmmm. I am glad he didn't think that during World War 2, or we could be jaw-jawing in German right now.

Fine, why don't you put yourself up for the job since you know what's wrong and I'm sure you know how to fix it too...

Because if anything happens that someone (usually the Americans) doesn't like (such as condemning Israel for Human Rights abuses) the Yanks veto it.

Which is much worse than France threatening to veto any second resolution regardless of what it says?

There is a big difference between vocally condeming someone, and removing a tyrannical dictator and his sons, who used to torture people for fun.

Fine, why don't you put yourself up for the job since you know what's wrong and I'm sure you know how to fix it too... :rollleyes:

That's funny coming from you. Whenever anyone asks you what you'll do in a situation, you just say its not you job to fix things, only criticise.

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.

[BBKing]

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.

I am glad he didn't think that during World War 2, or we could be jaw-jawing in German right now.

An invalid point in this context, since
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.

removing a tyrannical dictator and his sons, who used to torture people for fun.

It's still illegal (as Annan pointed out, if you're looking for him doing something good) to go in and overthrow governments without UN approval, whatever those heads of state are doing. There's a reason for this. Care to propose why making this legal would make the world a better place?

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.

[punky]

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.

Originally Posted by punky

Hmmm. I am glad he didn't think that during World War 2, or we could be jaw-jawing in German right now.

Predictable answer #1

Which is much worse than France threatening to veto any second resolution regardless of what it says?

Which country holds the record for the most number of vetos of UN resolution???

There is a big difference between vocally condeming someone, and removing a tyrannical dictator and his sons, who used to torture people for fun.

Predictable answer #2

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[

Fine, why don't you put yourself up for the job since you know what's wrong and I'm sure you know how to fix it too...

That's funny coming from you. Whenever anyone asks you what you'll do in a situation, you just say its not you job to fix things, only criticise.[/quote]

And that's predictable answer #3 (and a total failure of your irony detector).

If I did at least one half-decent thing for the UN, I would have done more than Annan ever has.

The point is that being Secretary General of the US isn't some sort of cushy sinecure to be glibly dismissed as you seem to want to do, it's a bloody difficult job and frankly I think anyone who has it should get proper support, not constant carping from people who are doing their damndest to make his job even more difficult for him.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

The point is that being Secretary General of the US isn't some sort of cushy sinecure to be glibly dismissed as you seem to want to do, it's a bloody difficult job and frankly I think anyone who has it should get proper support, not constant carping from people who are doing their damndest to make his job even more difficult for him.

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.

[Matt D]

Originally Posted by punky

Which is much worse than France threatening to veto any second resolution regardless of what it says?

Few things on that:


1)

Originally Posted by Lord Goldsmith

I do not believe that there is any basis in law for arguing that there is an implied condition of reasonableness which can be read into the power of veto conferred on the permanent members of the security council ... So there are no grounds for arguing that an "unreasonable veto" would entitle us to proceed on the basis of a presumed security council authorisation ...

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

Attorney general subject of Bar complaint

Clare Dyer, legal editor
Monday May 2, 2005
The Guardian

The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, faces a possible Bar Council disciplinary hearing over his advice on the legality of war against Iraq, after the council's conduct committee decided to consult a constitutional law expert on whether it has jurisdiction to deal with complaints that he breached the Bar's code.

If found guilty of breaching the requirements of the code of conduct, which require barristers to act independently at all times, he could be reprimanded, suspended from practice or even disbarred.

(snip)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...ge/4503061.stm

Originally Posted by BBC News

Mr Blair told BBC One's Breakfast with Frost the decision had not been taken at that point to attack Saddam Hussein.

"You have got to discuss everything as you go along, but the point is that after that meeting we decided to go back to the UN and give him a last chance.

"If the UN resolution had been adhered to by Saddam that would have been the end of it, despite the fact it was the most appalling regime."

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

(snip)
That regime change was an objective of the prime minister appears clear from a document leaked last year. It records Sir David Manning, the prime minister's foreign policy adviser, writing to Mr Blair about a meeting with Condoleezza Rice, then President George Bush's national security adviser, on March 14 2002, a year before the war. Sir David reported: "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".

Another document leaked last year records Sir Christopher Meyer, British ambassador to the US at the time, as telling Sir David on March 18 2003, the eve of the invasion, about a meeting with the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz. He said: "I opened by sticking very closely to the script that you used with Condi Rice. We backed regime change, but the plan had to be clever and failure was not an option."

(snip)

(plus add the above to the recent leaked memo I posted previously in this thread)

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Psst don't you mean the UN?

I'm sure they'd be perfectly happy to have *total* control over that organisation!

PS could you go back and change "Predictable answer" to an actual answer which takes the discussion forward?

I'm sorry, but I can't edit Punky's posts, so I am unable to change his predictable answers into something that *would* actually take the discussion forward.

[punky]

OK, lets have another go... I am not sure if this takes the discussion forward, but here goes...

Originally Posted by Graham

To quote Churchill "'Jaw jaw' is better than 'war war'"

If you honestly think merely talking about human rights abuses, is better than rectifying them, then I am glad you aren't in charge of my human and civil rights.

Because if anything happens that someone (usually the Americans) doesn't like (such as condemning Israel for Human Rights abuses) the Yanks veto it.

Because the US vetoed Rwandan resolutions (of course, the UN didn't get that far, t? Because the US vetoed Iraqi resolutions? Because the US vetoed resolutions against, Libya, Iran, China, North Korea? Furthermore The US vetoing the condemnations of Israeli actions (which lets face it, being condemned by the UN verbally is hardly the end of the world. You know they won't do anything about it.) is nothing to do with the situation in Iraq.

Fine, why don't you put yourself up for the job since you know what's wrong and I'm sure you know how to fix it too...

Like you say I have the right to criticise whoever I want. Unlike you, I am willing to actually stick my neck out and say what I think would do better. It might not work, but I am trying. Could you say the same thing?

Originally Posted by punky

OK, lets have another go... I am not sure if this takes the discussion forward, but here goes...

If you honestly think merely talking about human rights abuses, is better than rectifying them, then I am glad you aren't in charge of my human and civil rights.

So we go from a predictable answer to a Straw Man

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?

Because the US vetoed Rwandan resolutions [etc etc] is nothing to do with the situation in Iraq.

No, but as Matt has pointed out you were claiming that France would veto *any* second resolution regarding Iraq when actually it was any resolution aimed at triggering war with them.

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?

I am willing to actually stick my neck out and say what I think would do better. It might not work, but I am trying.

And what the UN was doing might not have worked, but they were *also* trying. Of course it's always easy to criticise something and say it didn't work with 20/20 hindsight.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

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?

It doesn't matter what you say, if aren't prepared to back it up with action. You can say "Saddam was a terrible man, Iraq is full of human rights abuses", etc, but if aren't prepared do anything about it, then words are worthless.

No, but as Matt has pointed out you were claiming that France would veto *any* second resolution regarding Iraq when actually it was any resolution aimed at triggering war with them.

See first point.

And what does a sweeping generalisation like "The UN has been thoroughly
impotent for years" have to do with Iraq?

Actually, everything, which is why I am bringing it up. The UN's shamefully lackluster attitude to Iraq and its citizens are precisely why we have this mess. They put sanctions on Iraq, patted themselves on the back, saying they did all they can do. How many children were dying under sanctions that wern't working? How can sanctions work on such a sadistic man who doesn't care his citizens are dying? And how many people died, or were abused, during the 12 years between Gulf War 1 & Gulf War 2? All those opponents to the regime, and those who were there to satistfy the trio's sick sadistic bloodlust.

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.

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?

The UN should never have allowed Iraq to drag on like it did. The only justification needed was that what Saddam was doing, ignoring his weapons, was unacceptable. Respectable people in civilised countries shouldn't allow this to go on in other places.

And what the UN was doing might not have worked, but they were *also* trying. Of course it's always easy to criticise something and say it didn't work with 20/20 hindsight.

I have always said this. I have always had little respect for the UN, and I have resented it for his attitude towards Iraq. You call sanctions trying? It is amazing to think anyone would think sanctions would fix the problem, or work on someone like Saddam (off hand, I can't think of any situation that sanctions has actually solved a problem like this). I would say that with foresight, let alone hindsight. Throughout the 90s, the UN had enough opportunity to say "nothing is changing, lets change gear", because what changed in the 90s? Nothing. The sanctions went on, and the US/UK bombed targets in the no-fly-zones. What did it achieve? Nothing. The situation would have rolled on for many more years. Soemone said that Saddam wouldn't live forever. Well, when he have died naturally, control would have passed to Uday who much, much worse, because he is much more sadistic, and psychotic. They would die, but then they would have sons... etc.

[Matt D]

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)

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

[Xaccers]

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.

[punky]

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.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by punky

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.

This is it, I believe we need a world policeman to keep dictators in check, but the problem with having one country in that role is that they'll do what's best for them rather than what's best for the world, that's why having an international organisation like the UN behind it would be better

Originally Posted by punky

It doesn't matter what you say, if aren't prepared to back it up with action.

Firstly it matters a lot if what I say is misrepresented.

Seconly just because I don't agree with *your* proposals for action does *not* mean that I am in favour of doing nothing.

See first point.

See my second point above.

Actually, everything, which is why I am bringing it up. The UN's shamefully lackluster attitude to Iraq and its citizens are precisely why we have this mess. They put sanctions on Iraq, patted themselves on the back, saying they did all they can do. How many children were dying under sanctions that wern't working?

Unfortunately even with programmes like the "food for oil" one, it's impossible to enforce them on a country or a ruler who doesn't care.

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?

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.

Which is *not* the same as acting as "The World's Policeman"!

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.

As I said above, in which case Iraq is only one of many. And the UN is not there to be The World's Policeman. Were it to try to be "proactive" it would only succeed in being revealed as a bully and a hypocrite by attacking small countries whilst ignoring ones like China who engage in massive abuses of rights, but which couldn't be touched.

I have always said this. I have always had little respect for the UN, and I have resented it for his attitude towards Iraq. You call sanctions trying?

As opposed to invading and taking over by force? Yes.

It is amazing to think anyone would think sanctions would fix the problem

It's amazing to think that someone would think that starting a war is really a good way of trying to fix a problem like this. (And don't start dragging in Hitler again because the situations are totally different).