Saddam to be executed

[empip]

What were the views of the weapons inspectors?

Hans Blix, the head of Unmovic, moved to the opinion that Iraq was beginning to comply with 1441's call for it demonstrate it had disarmed. On February 14 2003 he delivered a report to the security council listing examples of Iraqi compliance and questioning some of the US intelligence behind Colin Powell UN presentation on Saddam Hussein's weapons programmes. He followed up on February 28 with a more mixed assessment but marked out Iraq's commitment to comply with a deadline to destroy its illegal Samoud 2 missiles as a positive development. The Swede's final report to the council, delivered on March 7, was also ambivalent but Mr Blix stressed the disarmament under way: "We are not watching the destruction of toothpicks," he told the security council.

Guardian opinion - ambivalent - (characterized by a mixture of opposite feelings or attitudes.)
Maybe the Inspectorate now regret the perceived lack of hard evidence included in their final reports... But then, perhaps dealing with the Arab leader's obstinacy, machismo and brinkmanship was always going to be a slow teasing process...

Lord Goldsmith 17 Mar 2003

Iraq: Legality of Armed Force
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the Attorney-General's view of the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq. [HL2172]

The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security:

1. In Resolution 678, the Security Council authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.

2. In Resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area. Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under Resolution 678.

3. A material breach of Resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under Resolution 678.

4. In Resolution 1441, the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of Resolution 687, because it

17 Mar 2003 : Column WA3
has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.

5. The Security Council in Resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" if it did not.

6. The Security Council also decided in Resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and co-operate fully in the implementation of Resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.

7. 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.

8. Thus, the authority to use force under Resolution 678 has revived and so continues today.

9. Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended. Thus, all that Resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force.

...Tony Blair, the prime minister, insists the written answer of March 17 was a "fair summary" of the advice he was given and Lord Goldsmith said it was "consistent" with the longer document. But leaked documents and disclosures suggest the full 13 pages Lord Goldsmith wrote for the prime minister 10 days before were more ambiguous.

....A summary of the advice, obtained by the Guardian and Channel 4 News, said resolution 1441 was "capable in principle" of reauthorising 678 (the gist of his written answer) but it added two qualifications omitted on March 17. First, that the language of 1441 suggests "differences of view within the [security] council" on the legal impact of 1441 so the safest legal course would be to secure a second resolution. Second, that the eventual argument he did deploy - the reactivation of 678 - would only be "sustainable if there are strong factual grounds for concluding Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity" to comply with the Gulf war ceasefire.

"In other words," read the summary of Lord Goldsmith's advice to the prime minister, "we would need to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation. Given the structure of the resolution as a whole, the views of Unmovic and the IAEA [the two UN weapons inspections authorities] will be highly significant in this respect."

Could more positive and politically savvy reports from the weapons inspectorate have defused the situation?

 

[Softus]

Could more positive and politically savvy reports from the weapons inspectorate have defused the situation?

A reasonable postulate.

A cynic might argue that the inspectors were fed up with the delaying tactics and that they could have predicted unilateral action-without-resolution in the absence of hard evidence. After all, it was no surprise to anyone else when the US and UK muscled in.

 

[ETHunter]

...immient...imoral...defence...agressor...Prsident...

It's spelling Jim, but not as we know it.

Mispellings corrected thank you. I take it your a Star Trek fan by your comment?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Richardp wrote:

interesting that you also happen to be someone who is originally from the US icon_wink.gif I mean you don't have the same respect for life as we do here. icon_wink.gif perhaps.


Are you able to justify that rather insulting and bigoted comment? I would agree that there are those in US society who fit that description, but then there are those in all societies and cultures, I think your wrong to tar a whole nation state with that label, and it certainly is an unhelpful comment.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Softus wrote:
ETHunter wrote:
The problem I have always had is when people discuss whether a war is legal or not

Well then, you must be one very naive US citizen Eddie.


Why is that? I am aware of the debate regarding the legality of the war, but my point was that discussing the legality of mass murder seems somewhat hypocritical for any society, unless that killing can be justified purely on the grounds of self defence or defence of those unable to defend themselves, and the Iraq and Afghan conflicts meet neither of these criteria. There was no real threat to the West from either nation, our respective governments may not have liked those running the countries, and terrorism was certainly exported from Afghanistan, but I do not see there was a need for the military interventions that occurred.

 

[Richardp]

Are you able to justify that rather insulting and bigoted comment?

no and you may be right!
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3127.htm

 

[ETHunter]

Could someone please explain what happened to my posts and why that rather infantile posting effort now exists?

MOD 2

use the edit key

 

[Richardp]

you reap what you sow

 

[Softus]

Mispellings corrected thank you.

You're welcome - here's one you missed:

Using this definition then president Bush...

_______

I take it your a Star Trek fan by your comment?

The word "your" is a possessive pronoun; I believe that you meant to write "you're". FYI, truth and accuracy are actually my idols. However, as we say in this country, 'whatever' :shrug:

Or, in American, it would be "You take it any goddamn which way you like, pardner."

The problem I have always had is when people discuss whether a war is legal or not.

Well then, you must be one very naive US citizen Eddie.

Why is that?

You seem unware of the official view that it was illegal. I call that naive. Even for a US citizen who from hails the town of Phillips in the northern state of Wisconsin and came here only seven years ago to do some mysterious work.

 

[Moz]

Hang B'liar .....

an you would think a nation like the US with everyone owning guns an the
huge knowledge about assassination ,you would get one person with a conscience there to do the RIGHT thing regarding the US WAR CRIMINAL President Monkey bush

 

[ETHunter]

Could someone please explain what happened to my posts and why that rather infantile posting effort now exists?

MOD 2

use the edit key

Why don't you simply leave posts alone instead of interfering when there is no need

MOD 2

so why don't you comply with the rules if you dont like it e mail admin

END OF

 

[Softus]

You seem unaware of the official view that it was illegal.

I am not unaware of it, that is your assumption...

I haven't assumed anything - the incontravertible fact is that you seem to be unaware of it, and that's what I wrote.

Perhaps you might like to read what is written instead of reading what you want or think is written, it'll make communication so much simpler.

Right back at ya!

 

[Bahco]

My opinion............... It WAS right to execute Saddam ( though not in a barbaric and unprofessional manner ) as it sends out a message to the world that any would be dictators that commit murder on a mass scale against innocent human beings will be held to account!

The Nuremberg trials were held mainly for this reason and evil individuals were given their just deserts.

The saddam hanging was akin to a lynching and has no place in a civilised society.

Hope the world learns from this one

 

[empip]

Just a thought - He was a hard b'stard! ... I bet there are more than a few who would not have faced the rope as he finally did.