I know we'll never hold Bush accountable, nor Cheney nor any of the real players in this situation. But still, America is supposed to be free, and part of that is punishing police, soldiers, fbi agents, or even presidents when they break the law. The idea that somehow they are above the law, the very *idea* that they are above the law kind of obviates the whole fucking spirit of freedom and why America was founded.
Let me say this exactly once: These FBI agents are *citizens*, and so are soliders, and so are Bush and Cheney. They are not above the law.
Are you in some sort of bizzarro world? The whole point of this article is how some FBI workers are being prosecuted for breaking the law. They are being held accountable, and they are clearly not above the law. This only proves that the system works and there are proper checks and balances to prevent abuse. I'd recommend you go waste your tears on something else.
There was reason to believe that Armitage was willing to be the fall guy for an orchestrated attempt from the administration to "out" Plame to punish a political thorn in their side
Why? Armitage and the State Department argued against the administration on the war. Why would you assume that Armitage would willingly become the "fall guy" to protect a policy that he disagreed with?
My prediction is that Libby will be fully pardoned in December 2008, after the election results are in.
I hope you are right. That politically motivated conviction is a severe black eye on the face of justice in the US.
Wrong. What Scooter Libby was guilty of was not remembering the inane details of minute conversations he had several months before he was questioned, and then having the gall to tell the jury that he didn't have a perfect memory. He was never accused of leaking the name of a CIA agent, and the person who did leak the name came forward and confessed to the prosecutor during the first week of the "investigation", but was never charged.
You really need to recheck your "facts", because most of what you just wrote is complete garbage. Let's review the timeline of events.
- The US-backed Shah in Iran fell in 1979 and became an Islamic theocracy
- Revolutionary leaders labeled the US as "the Great Satan", and the US embassy was raided an hostages taken in 1979
- Iraq attacks Iran in 1980, believing that the political instability would lead to a quick victory
- The US is officially neutral in the conflict, but unofficially supports Iraq because they are fighting our new enemy
- After a strong offensive in 1981, Iraq is driven back and is on the defensive front by 1982
- The US determines that an Iranian victory is not in their interest, so they begin supporting Iraqi measures, including removing them from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list for 18 months in 1982
- The US Pressures the Import/Export bank in 1982 to extend credit to Iraq to finance the war, and the US Departmant of Agriculture approves loan subsidies to Iraq to buy US grain
- President Reagan issues a National Security Directive in the summer of 1983 stating the goal of resolving regional conflicts and increasing political stability in the region , to serve US interests
- Iran accuses Iraq of using WMD in the fall of 1983
- By late 1983, Iran is lobbying for a UN Security Council resolution condemning the use of WMD
- In November 1983 US intelligence confirms the use of WMD by Iraq. The state department condemns the actions, and the National Security Council issues a directive for the military to respond to tensions in the area.
- Donald Rumsfeld leads an envoy to Baghdad in December 1983 to establish direct contact between Washington and Baghdad. Rumsfeld specifically tells Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz that Iraq's use of WMD and human rights record is inhibiting a direct relationship between the two countries.
- In early 1984, Iraq issues a threat to Iran that they will use WMD on any invading troups.
- In March 1984, Iraq tried to import 22,000 lbs of Phosphorous fluoride (a precursor to chemical weapons) from the US. The State Department blocks the sale and issues a harsh condemnation of Iraq's continued WMD use. Iraq is place back on the State Sponsors of Terrorism
- In March 1984, the US voted for a UN Security Council Presidential Statement condemning the use of chemical weapons
- In March 1984, Donald Rumsfeld returned to Iraq, but was received coldly because of the recent public condemnation by the US. Rumsfeld blames it on Iraq for ignoring the repeated US warnings that the WMD issue would emerge if they did not discontinue using them.
- In April 1984, the US strengthened controls on the export of WMD precursors to both Iraq and Iran.
- In April 1984, President Reagan issued another National Security Directive to help avert an Iraqi defeat to Iran. The directive required "unambiguous" condemnation of the use of WMD in all US policy
- On November 16th 1984, the State Department reports that Iraq had discontinued using Chemical Weapons in the war.
- Less than 2 weeks later, on November 26th 1984, the US and Iraq formally restored diplomatic ties.
As others have noted, the US provided a minute portion of Iraqi foreign arms imports (less than 1%), and the chemical weapons used by Iraq were provided by the USSR, not by the US or other western countries. The US was very careful not to support any WMD usage by Iraq, and was very quick to condemn it, and they refused to restore diplomatic relations with Iraq until after it had been confirmed that WMD usage had stopped.
Your factless claim that the US provided WMD to Iraq is completely without merit.
Bull. The US never supplied Iraq with WMD, and did not turn a blind eye when Iraq used WMD. A comprehensive study performed on trace remnants of the WMD's used by Iraq found that Iraq used WMD from the USSR, Germany, and Japan, and completely ruled out the US or Britain as the source of the weapons. The US also publicly condemned Iraq's use of WMD, and enforced the exportation of dual-use materials to Iraq. That picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand? He was visiting as a Presidential envoy trying to repair relations after our strong and public condemnation of their WMD usage, and to convince them not to use WMD any more.
Sure we threw some weight behind Iraq in the conflict, but considering what kind of enemy Iran had just become, that isn't a shocking revelation.
The practice of limiting the voting rights of convicted criminals isn't unusual or unique to the US. I don't see how this could make the USA a "global laughing stock" considering a majority of democratic nations do it.
Good idea. But, again, what does this have to do with Jeb Bush? The law banning felons from voting in Florida has been on the books since the 1860's, and the law requiring the felon "scrub" list was passed by Democrats before Jeb Bush got elected as Governor. So how does this equate to an "allegation of fraud" against Jeb Bush when he was simply following the laws that already existed when he was elected?
The obvious answer is that it doesn't. Unless, of course, you disagree with the policies of the current administration and are desperately seeking ways to undermine its legitimacy.
When has a lack of evidence stopped a Democrat from accusing a Bush of doing something nefarious?
The only way that a name was removed from the voter registration rolls was if the local county election officials removed it. Period. It's asinine to try and blame anybody else.
Excellent selective quoting, AC. The complete quote, of course, was "Of this, over 14,600 matched a felon by name, birth date, race and gender". In other words, of the 19,398 voters removed from the rolls, over 75% of them were 100% positive matches. Smart people realize that this doesn't make the remaining 25% of removed voters "innocents". It simply means that they matched in different degrees of certainty. But the two things that we do know for sure about these 5,000 people is:
1) County election officials verified the voter on the ChoicePoint list as ineligible to vote, and they either got no response or an insufficient response from the voter during the course of the appeals process so they were removed from the voter registration rolls.
and
2) Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris had no legal authority nor means to remove them from the voter registration rolls, so it makes no logical sense to blame them.
Fair enough. That should be debated. Certainly Florida is not the only state that has such voting restrictions on convicted felons. But that is a completely different discussion than the issue of whether or not Jeb Bush "stole" the election for his brother.
The thing you seem to be missing is that inclusion on the felon list did not automatically remove you from the voter registration rolls. The law by design cast a wide net to screen out illegitimate votes. The way it was supposed to work was if your name was on the ChoicePoint list, it was forwarded to your county election supervisor who was required to verify it. Names that were verified were then notified by the county and given an opportunity for a hearing to dispute. Names that had been identified by ChoicePoint, passed the verification from the county, and had not been disputed were then removed from the registration rolls.
The USCCR listened to testimony from 5 people who were notified and successfully disputed to keep their names on the voter rolls. They could not find anybody to testify that they were not allowed to vote because of this felon list.
Now what actually happened was that most of the counties that received the list ignored it and the felons still illegally voted. In fact, the Palm Beach Post did an extensive review and found that out of the hundreds of thousands of names on the list, a total of only 19,398 were removed from voter registration rolls. Of this, over 14,600 matched a felon by name, birth date, race and gender, and over 6,000 had been convicted in counties other than where they voted, indicating that the ChoicePoint list was the onlyway to identify them. They also found that most of these convicted felons had no idea that it was against the law for them to vote, and they had been breaking the law for years. This, of course, corroborates with the findings from the Miami Herald, which concluded that the biggest problem with the Voter Felon list was that it allowed more felons to illegally vote because most counties didn't' bother to verify the list and simply scrapped it.
We should attack every instance of fraud, regardless of who is skewing the system.
Yes, and that is exactly what the Voter Felon list was designed to do.
He investigated the contract Jeb Bush gave to a company to filter out from the voter rolls the people who had no right to vote. He got their listings printed, and found out that they had prevented tens of thousands of african-americans from voting for no legal reason!
Then, of course, people started digging even more and found out that Jeb Bush didn't give any contracts out - the ChoicePointe contract was awarded by Ethel Baxtor (D)), the director of Elections in the Florida State Department. They also found that it was the Democrat-controlled Florida Legislature who passed a law requiring the State Department to create the potential felon voter list -- before Jeb Bush was elected to office. Then they read the USCCR report on the Florida 2000 election which failed to find a single voter (Black or White) who was incorrectly prevented from voting because of their inclusion on the felon list. Then they realized that the Governor and the Secretary of State didn't have any legal authority to remove voters from the voter registration rolls -- only county election officials can do that. Then they realized that, per state law, the county election officials were required to verify each of the names on the registered felon list before they removed anybody from the voter registration rolls. Then they realized that 75% of the county election officials scrapped the lists altogether because of a high number of "false positives". Then the Miami Herald concluded that the net result of the felon list was an increase in illegitimate votes for Democratic candidates because so many counties scrapped the felon list, allowing convicted felons (who vote overwhelmingly for Democrat candidates) to illegally vote.
There is a reason why the US "corporate" media "boycotted" what he found - namely, what he found was so full of crap that even they couldn't report it.
According to the UN, there is no difference between "Gulf 1" and "Gulf 2". The UN passed resolution 678 authorizing military force, resolution 687 specifying the conditions for cease fire while confirming the authorization to use force in 678, and resolution 1441 again confirming the authorization to use force in 678 and condemning Iraq for violating the ceasefire. It would be more accurate to state that the UN never passed a resolution revoking the authority to use military force because the resolution allowing invasion had been on the books for 13+ years.
In the U.S. you have a government that has... lied to the public for the purpose of invading a peaceful nation that had no ability to do you any harm
Wow. If you considered Iraq "peaceful", I would hate to see your idea of a violent nation.
However, I would say that the dozens of religious leaders who were abducted and murdered in 1977, and the 7,000 communists who were rounded up and slaughtered in 1978, and the 22 opposition party members where were personally executed by Saddam Hussein on TV in 1979, and the 750,000 Iranian solders (or as many as 1,000,000) who died in the Iran/Iraq war which Iraq was the aggressor, or the 1500 Kuwaiti civilians who were murdered by Iraqi forces when they invaded a sovereign nation (including the young women who were abducted, beaten, raped, and murdered in front of their families by IIS agents), or the 1,500,000 Kuwaiti refugees that were displaced by the Iraq invasion of their country, or the 100,000 civilians killed by Iraqi chemical weapons, or the 8,000 members of the Barzani clan who were tortured and murdered in Iraqi secret prisons, or the 180,000 ethnic Kurds killed and 4,000+ Kurdish villages razed, or the 7,000 nationwide prisoners where were executed in an effort to "cleanse" the prison system, or the 40,000 Shia's who were killed because of their opposition to the government in the mid 1990's, or the victims of suicide bombers whose families were paid $25,000 from Saddam on live TV, or the passengers of the cruise ship Achille Lauro who were hijacked and murdered by a terrorist organization that Saddam Hussein supported, or Saddam's Brother-in-law Hussein Kamal who was beheaded by IIS forces after being promised full immunity for talking to the UN weapons inspectors, or the hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of other Iraqi's who simply disappeared into a vast network of secret prisons or gulags and were never seen or heard from again would all strongly disagree with your assessment.
What evidence do you have that Bush is a man of honor? Because he professes to be religious? I'm sorry, but his record, both before and after becoming president, show him to be a callous opportunist with delusions of grandeur.
And what part of "his record" would show that? And, more importantly, is being opportunistic not honorable?
The man thinks God speaks directly to him.
So does a very sizeable chunk of the world's religious population. Does that preclude them from being honorable?
He has done everything he can to subvert the intent of our constitution.
Like what?
He has appointed people who call the most important document in our country a mere piece of paper.
No, he has appointed people who allegedly called the most important document in our country a mere piece of paper. And considering who is making the allegation, that doesn't concern me at all.
He and his crew are bandits.
Yeah? What did they steal?
They have come to power to sack the treasury, transferring as much cash to their cronies as possible.
And by "cronies", I assume you mean "people who had government contracts long before they came to office".
The situation is so bad that one risks sounding slightly insane even talking about it honestly.
You are right about that.
Cheney, the man who told someone, on record, to fuck off, is "quiet, calm, collected, well spoken, and brilliant?"
Absolutely.
The crew of pirates and thugs running the White House have demonstrated that they will throw absolutely anyone under the bus for the smallest of reasons.
And the crew if pirates and thugs running the Democratic party have demonstrated the exact same thing.
I'm sorry that we have such different viewpoints and I don't wish to offend, but you should know that the majority of Americans feel more like I do than like you do.
Well, I could go on, but I think we've both made our points. Again, though I disagree with your position, I respect it. Thanks again for the "civilized" debate. Have a good one.
Which brings us right back to the use and abuse of the resolutions. The Council authorized war in order to get Iraq back out of Kuwait. You want that to be available for the US to use indefinitely and at the government's unilateral whim. The Security Council did not agree with your interpretation. Which means that US had no standing to "enforce".
I disagree. As previously pointed out, the Security Council authorized war to get Iraq out of Kuwait, and to disarm Iraq and ensure they discontinue supporting terrorists. There is no indefinite or unilateral interpretation of this. In fact, all of the subsequent resolutions passed by the security council, and all of the subsequent military action taken against Iraq in the 1990's was done with this authorization, and the authorization was never revoked. The title of UNSEC #1441 is "The situation between Iraq and Kuwait", clearly showing that the Security Council didn't feel the ceasefire resolution was resolved. In my mind, the only people that didn't have any standing were those who refused to enforce the resolutions that had already been already passed by the Security Council.
You've yet to point out anything significant in the ISG report other than Saddam's desire to bring his programs back online. That was never a violation of any sanction. I'm sorry if you don't like the "excuse", but there was nothing wrong with Saddam wanting a weapons program or planning for one post-sanctions. You want to tie this into him actually having weapons, but fail to point to anything in the ISG report or the Duelfer report. Like it or not, wanting is not the same as doing or having.
Well, Saddam's desire to bring his programs back online is significant, and is without question contrary to UN mandate. Hiding research, development, and acquisition attempts of banned materials and technology from UN inspectors is also significant. Maintaining chemical factories that can be switched to full scale Mustard production in a month is significant. Operating clandestine chemical and biological agent laboratories is significant. Seeking ballistic missiles and UAV's with a range time times greater than the allowed limit is significant. The Duelfer report is over 1400+ pages long, which is why I encourage anybody to at least read the key findings summary so they can know exactly what we did find, and how it was in violation to UNMOVIC requirements. However, in my mind the first page says it all -- Iraq wasn't concerned about compliance, they were concerned about the illusion of compliance.
We're going in circles again. You're in the same trap as so many who take this position - you want to twist the UN resolutions into something they aren't and use them as justification and legal cover, yet ignore the basic rules of the UN that undermine you. You could make the argument that the UN was completely ineffective at disarming Iraq so the US had to do it (an opinion I shared back when the administration was telling the world about Saddam's massive stockpiles of weapons). But you aren't. If you want to use the UN resolutions as justification, then you have to be willing to accept that the Security Council did not support the US actions yet the US took them anyway. You have to accept that such actions are not in line with the UN charter.
I am arguing that the UN would have been completely ineffective if the US and UK had not enforced the resolutions. If you want to argue that there was absolutely no legal basis for military action in 2003, then you also have to argue that there was absolutely no legal basis for military action in 1998 for Operation Desert Fox under President Clinton, and that there was absolutely no legal basis for the military action taken against Iraq in 1993 for WMD non-compliance. It is incongruous to think that the UN gave specific authorization to enforce the ceasefire in 1991, used that authorization in 1993 and
No, we aren't nitpicking. This is a core problem for the US government - membership in the UN means accepting certain basic agreements. The UN Charter lays out a core understanding of how things operate, one being this issue. It is not the responsibility of any one member state to make such decisions and act upon them. It is the responsibility of the Security Council. If you don't like that, take the bars and stars off the flag pole in Manhattan and leave it for the other 191 countries. Otherwise, play by the rules.
The Security Council did make that decision - 17 times with a unanimous vote. Membership in the UN does mean accepting basic agreements, and Chapter VII clearly lays the responsibility of enforcement squarely on the shoulders of member states. When the US votes in favor of a Chapter VII resolution authorizing military force, we are voting to send our troops to carry out the will of the UN.
Ahh. Now I see the rub. That isn't what that passage means. "Unconditionally undertake not to..." is essentially "solemnly swear not to". It has no additional meaning and has nothing to do with planning to what it is not allowed. This is extremely common wording in legal documents, both international items like this and even local banking agreements.
I'm sorry, but I just cannot accept that excuse. When the UN security council forces you to "solemnly swear not to" do something (or "unconditionally undertake not to"), you can't secretly draw up plans, preserve capacity and technology, or illicitly try to acquire by other means the same materials that you "unconditionally" agreed to avoid. If that was acceptable, why all the deception and subterfuge? Why didn't Saddam just let the UN inspections to proceed, and every time they found something questionable, all he would have to do is say "Don't worry, those are just plans for the future, but I'm not interested in them now"? The obvious answer is that it wasn't acceptable. The "WMD weapons related programs" that were discovered by the ISG would have constituted a major violation with Iraq's WMD compliance had they been found before the war, just as the discovery of Vx was in 1998, or the admission of their BW program in 1995.
Clearly my statements regarding proportionality of response aren't getting through. Under international law, UN mandate, and most common law, a response must be proportional to the event that initiated it. In what turned out to be his final report before the invasion, Blix reported success in the inspections and requested more time. It is clear that we'll never agree on this one - you have no problem with the US's invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation without international backing and in defiance of international law and standards. You are willing to rationalize it because Saddam was a bad guy and deserved it. Vigilante justice seems appealing when you feel that the appropriate authorities aren't being effective. However, you also find that the vigilante solution quickly becomes much more of a problem. Saddam was a blight upon the Earth and a thorn in the side of the US, but that doesn't make our actions right.
That isn't an accurate characterization of my views, or of the historical events leading up to the war. We were responding to a nation that, in the previous two decades, had launched full scale invasions on two separate countries, had launched military attacks on two more, had used prohibited weapons against both military and civilian targets on numerous occasions, was responsible the deaths and oppression of millions of his own countrymen, was an open supporter of international terrorism and was indicted for supporting several terrorist attacks against western interests, and was openly defying 17 Chapter VII UN resolutions demanding disarmament and compliance to promote peace in the region. You bet I have no problem enforcing those 17 Chapter VII resolutions as requi
Wrong. Security Council resolutions are mandates enforced, modified, or terminated by the Security Council, not by states in general. Both the explicit terms of the UN Charter and the practice of the Security Council support this understanding.
Perhaps we are just nitpicking here, but the Security Council is solely comprised of member states, so I don't see much difference. If we are charged with enforcing ceasefire conditions, and we find that Iraq is in material breach of those agreements, it is our responsibility (as members of the UN security council) to enforce those resolutions.
Then please indulge my ignorance and explain whether he used, developed, constructed, or acquired missiles.
I don't know if it is deliberate or not, but you are excluding the rest of the wording included in the text of the resolution. Iraq had to "unconditionally undertake not to" engage in proscribed activities. They were not allowed to even plan on developing WMD, or talk with other countries about acquiring banned missile technology or prohibited materials.
If a judge issues a restraining order, and then finds out that the individual is still tracking their subject, recording their schedule, writing detailed plans about stalking, or watching from a distance without physically violating the order, is the judge going to let that fly?
I agree. However, my response was in regard to your quote: He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted as the smoking gun from the Duelfer report. You're now steering us back to the argument that was abandoned earlier regarding the use of pre-1441 resolutions and Iraq's responses.
I don't see any difference with the pre-1441 compliance issues and what the Duelfer report eventually concluded. From 1991 to 2003, Saddam tried to game the system and get away with as much as he could, while deflecting whatever heat he got from it and garnering as much international sympathy as he could. Both his public actions before 2002, and the subsequent findings of the ISG after the war paint a very clear picture of his intent and methods. UN condemnation, diplomatic pressures, and even economic sanctions were not enough to change his behavior - only brute strength and aggression.
Osama bin Laden was in Iraq?! I'm going to guess that your comments are in reference to Zarqawi. As I've said numerous times in this thread, he operated out of the northern part of Iraq which was outside of Saddam's control. Beyond that, a little knowledge of the two reveals the inconsistency with your claim - Zarqawi (and the nebulous Al-Qaeda network, for that matter) advocated the overthrowing of secular governments in favor of Islamic states. Saddam ran a secular state.
I didn't say that bin Laden was in Iraq -- I said that Saddam Hussein offered him political asylum after he was expelled from Saudi Arabia and was searching for a place to set up shop.
And I disagree with your characterization of Zarqawi. Ansar al-Islam was operating out of northern Iraq, but Zarqawi was operating in and out of Baghdad, and even received medical treatment from Uday Hussein's personal physician in the summer of 2002.
Why was planning on developing WMD not an option?
Let me turn it around. Why do you think it was an option? I've already explained why I believe it wasn't an option. As Tommy Franks said: "While we may not have found actual WMD stockpiles, what the Coalition discovered was the equivalent of a disassembled pistol, lying on a table beside neatly arranged trays of bullets". Why is this acceptable to you from a nation that is under UN mandate to disarm?
If the cease-fire was an agreement between two countries, perhaps you can make the argument. However, the agreement was between Iraq and the UN.
Which is the same thing as an agreement between Iraq and UN Member states that were obligated to enforce the UN resolutions.
The resolution doesn't say he can't talk to other countries about missiles. It is patently false to claim that his inquiring about missile technology was in violation of the sanctions.
Sure it does. The resolution specifically required Iraq to "unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire" these items. It would be patently false to claim that these actions did not violate that clause.
I can't believe you tossed up a softball like this. The best information indicates that there might have been some communication between Niger and Iraq about expanding business relations, but that there was zero mention of uranium and that Niger didn't pursue the potential relationship because of concerns about UN sanctions. This became an issue because of the forged documents used by the Bush administration in their push for war. Even today, I bet a full third of the American public don't realize that the whole story was a hoax.
I'm confused about where your conflict is here. It is a documented fact agreed upon by all parties that Iraq sent an envoy to Niger to discuss business relationships. It's also a documented fact that Niger understood these overtures as an attempt to buy Yellowcake from them. Considering that Yellowcake was a major export, this isn't a stretch. It is, once again, also a documented fact that Iraq was required to "unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire" these items. This information is completely independent of the documents that were later discovered as forgeries.
If you want to talk about yellow cake, let's discuss Tuwaitha. This facility already possessed yellow cake uranium in the remains of nuclear reactors (the ones bombed by Israel in 1981 and the United States in 1991). The facility was frequently inspected by the IAEA after the Gulf War, but was left unattended during the US invasion. Almost two metric tons of yellow cake and 500 tons of unrefined uranium went missing during this period, thanks to the US. When U.S. Marines arrived at the Tuwaitha factory, they reported it as an illegal weapons cache and broke the IAEA seals. After a month of indecision, the Pentagon finally dispatched a team to survey the site and found it heavily looted.
Very valid point, and I am in complete agreement. However, this is completely irrelevant to the issue of Iraq trying to acquire banned materials prior to the war.
So what? He is the leader of a nation in the most violation geopolitical region on earth. He has made serious enemies over the years. Of course he wants to end the sanctions and restart his weapons programs. Again, this is in no way a breach of the cease-fire. Dreams aren't illegal, yet.
Unfortunately, his own actions backed him into the corner that it was in fact illegal. When the United Nations prohibits you from using, developing, constructing, or acquiring WMD, you can't hide your Vx nerve gas production, fail to disclose the status of other WMD programs or stockpiles, import or produce dual-use materials, harass, intimidate, or expel UN weapons inspectors, covertly develop weapons grade biological agents, covertly try to acquire proscribed materials or technologies from other countries, or bury prohibited technology in a schoolyard playground with the hopes that you can dig it up someday and use it -- without expecting consequences from those who are in charge of ensuring your compliance. And you certainly cannot offer political asylum to the world's most wanted terrorist, or allow known terror groups that have connections to the larges
Since most of your post is simply the same legal twisting of the UN resolutions and charter, I'll point you to http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=230647&c id=18782515 and let you read what I've already posted on these attempts.
Well, I, along with a host of other legal scholars, disagree. I suppose that is were we will leave it - agree to disagree. I will only leave one final point: If a party agrees to certain conditions for the terms of a ceasefire, and then is found in material breach of those conditions, is that ceasefire still in effect?
But they did declare them and therefore were not in breach of the cease-fire. This only demonstrates that 1441 was working, much to the chagrin of the US administration.
Unfortunately, given the history of the previous 12 years, it only proved that Saddam was still trying to play the game. If you recall, in 1991 Iraq provided a full and complete accounting of their WMD stockpiles and programs. In 1992, UN inspectors discovered an undeclared stockpile, and Iraq was forced to revise their disclosure and admit they had them, and provided another full and complete disclosure. In 1994, they prohibited UN inspectors from visiting specific suspected sites until the UN threatened military action, when they made another full and complete disclosure, admitting to even more WMD violations. In July 1995, another discovery of undeclared and prohibited items by the UN inspectors prompted another full and complete disclosure by Iraq. A month later, Hussein Kamal defected from Iraq and disclosed that Iraq still had a very extensive Biological Weapons program that was hidden from UN inspectors, forcing Iraq to make another full and complete disclosure of their WMD programs to the UN. In November 1995, Jordon intercepted a shipment to Iraq of prohibited material used to make long range missiles, forcing Iraq to revise and issue another full and complete disclosure of their prohibited programs. In September 1997, UN inspectors stumbled across evidence of a significant Vx nerve agent program in Iraq, forcing Iraq to admit that they were still developing Vx contrary to what they had claimed over the past 6 years. They still would not allow UN inspectors to visit certain suspected sites, causing the US and UK to threaten military action. Kofi Annan personally negotiated with Saddam Hussein, who granted "full" access to any site. Four months later, Iraq abruptly suspended cooperation and forced the UN inspectors out of Iraq. The US and UK responded with Operation Desert Fox, bombing suspected WMD facilities. In 1999, the UN assembled a new weapons inspection team, but Iraq refused to allow them into the country. Iraq went four years with no international supervision and oversight on their WMD programs, until late 2002 when UNSEC #1441 was passed. Iraq provided another full and complete disclosure that Hanx Blix described as "most[ly] a reprint of earlier documents, [which] does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate questions". This was once again found to be incomplete because of the discovery of the Al-Samoud 2 missiles, which Iraq immediately admitted to and tried to pacify the inspectors with, just as they had done a half dozen times over the past decade. So, no, I don't think that the disclosure of the Al-Samoud 2 missiles was an indication that UNSEC #1441 was working. Based on the subsequent findings of the ISG regarding unknown and undeclared prohibited programs, dual use materials, and research, I think it is clear that UNSEC #1441 was not working.
DEAR GOD! Saddam still wanted missiles?!! Did he get those No Dong missiles? No.
You seem to be missing the point. He was not allowed to have these missiles, and he was clearly trying to acquire them against UN mandate. Just as
The US did not depend on 678 - they considered 1441 the loophole they needed. Resolution 1441 did not authorize the use of force. In fact, both the U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, and the UK ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, gave assurances that the resolution provided no "automaticity", no "hidden triggers". The US and UK ambassadors agreed that 1441 included no step to invasion without consultation of the Security Council. The US was keenly aware of this and tried desperately to get UN approval via a new resolution, but they could not. And keep in mind that both Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei had just given the UN reports that further undercut the US push for war - they had found nothing worthy of concern and wanted more time to continue the inspections. The American attack forced the weapons inspectors back out of the country.
Don't get me wrong - Saddam was jerking around the international community and playing games with the system. Some of those on the Security Council refusing to authorize war were profitting from illegal deals with Iraq. However, none of that gives the US the right to launch a war of aggression against another sovereign nation.
I disagree for two reasons. First, the US and their allies certainly did rely on UNSEC #678 and UNSEC #687. Here is an op-ed by a State Department ambassador laying out the exact same case. You can find the same rational from Australia, The UK, and even the National Security Council, among others.
Second, UNSEC #1441 specifically recalled and reaffirmed UNSEC #678 and UNSEC #687 which gave authorization to use force, and deplored the fact that Iraq was in "material breach" of the requirements in UNSEC #687.
You mean the Al-Samoud 2 missiles that were declared to the UN in December of 2002 and were considered a violation because they could potentially exceed the 150 km range limit by 30 km? The same Al-Samoud 2 missiles that Iraq was in the process of destroying when the US invasion occurred?
Bingo. They declared these weapons to the UN in December of 2002, but had been banned from possessing them or developing them 12 years prior to that. The fact that it took a carrier group parked on their doorstep in the Gulf to make this declaration is hardly comforting.
I have to admit that I'm at a loss to explain your "North Korean No Dong 2000km ballistic missiles" comment. I'm not aware of any reports about No Dong missiles in Iraq and I can't find anything on Google. No Dong missiles do not even have a 2000 km range.
This information is directly pulled from the 2004 Duelfer report: Iraq entered into negotiations with North Korean and Russian entities for more capable missile systems. Iraq and North Korea in 2000 discussed a 1,300-km-range missile, probably the No Dong, and in 2002 Iraq approached Russian entities about acquiring the Iskander-E short-range ballistic missile (SRBM).
My apologies about the mis-information on the range, however 1300km is still well above the 150km limit.
Again, I'm at a loss. The Duelfer report was considered a scathing rebuke of American rhetoric and propaganda. It indicated that Saddam wanted to restart his weapons programs as soon as the sanctions were lifted, but I don't think that was disallowed. The report demonstrated that his nuclear program was in shambles, and his chemical and biological programs nonexistent. And why do you guys love to reference David Kay's interim repor
UNSEC 678 authorizes the use of military force to "uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area".
UNSEC 687, sections C through H, spelled out exactly what was required of Iraq to restore international peace and security to the area, including: a complete declaration and destruction in the presence of UN observers of their WMD stockpiles, a complete declaration and destruction of their ballistic missile and UAV programs with a range of at least 150km, a specific prohibition that Iraq was not "to use, develop, construct or acquire" WMD, and that Iraq "will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory", along with condemning any other acts of international terrorism.
Under no stretch of the imagination had these requirements been met. Iraq may well have destroyed their WMD stockpiles, but they did not declare these weapons to the UN, and UNMOVIC had declared them in violation of this up until the March 2003 invasion. Iraq did not dismantle their prohibited ballistic missile programs as was proven by the discovery of the Al-Samoud 2 missiles, and the development of the North Korean No Dong 2000km ballistic missiles. We know for a fact from the Duelfer report, and from the interim ISG report by David Kay, that Iraq did not discontinue the development and acquisition of WMD. Both reports clearly detail WMD development activities that were in violation of UN mandate.
These two resolutions were passed under chapter VII of the UN charter, which mandates all UN member states to participate in their enforcement. All of the subsequent resolutions passed against Iraq, including UNSEC 1441, referenced and reaffirmed these two resolutions, and Iraq was clearly in violation.
As to your WMD point, I would strongly encourage you to at least read the 20+ page summary of the 2004 Duelfer ISG report. No doubt that much of our prewar intelligence was flawed, and that we did not find the remnant munitions from the Iran/Iraq war that we expected to find (because Iraq offered no documentation to prove their destruction, and no UN inspector had observed the destruction of these weapons). But there is also no doubt that Iraq was still in violation of UNSEC 687 paragraph 10, leaving a clear authorization to use military force for compliance.
You are actually claiming that Iraq in 2003 was the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism? Before it was removed from the State Dept's list of states supporting terrorism, Iraq was listed as being a sponsor of the following groups: Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO). None of these are exactly the "A-team" of international terror.
While I strongly disagree with your characterization of the above terrorist groups (particularly the PLF and Abu Nidal organization, both which have carried out some very vicious attacks against the west - and I'm sure the Klinghoffer family agrees with me), I find the groups that you left off your list interesting. The 2002 list also included: HAMAS, ALF, Palestine Islamic Jihad, and (most importantly) al Qaeda affiliated groups like Zarqawi's Ansar al-Islam. You also failed to mention the acts of international terrorism that were attempted and carried out by Iraqi Intelligence Services (IIS), including the attempted assassination of a former US President, successful assassinations of dissidents, and the attempted bombing of the Radio Free tower in Prague.
Did this make them the largest state sponsor of terrorism? I suppose that is debatable, and as such I should have avoided the superlative, but the original point stands. Iraq's sponsoring of international terrorism (including groups led by Zarqawi) was one of the many reasons that justified action against them in the global war on terrorism.
If you really believe that the war on terror requires the US to invade the worlds largest sponsors of terrorism, I assume you are lobbying your representatives for an immediate invasion of Iran, Syria, and IMHO, Saudi Arabia.
Excellent straw man. You will note that I never claimed that every state sponsor of terrorism needs to be invaded, only that they could not be ignored. In fact, Iraq and Afghanistan were unique in this regard in that their situations did justify military invasion. You would be hard-pressed to identify similar justifications in the current situations with Iran, Syria, and especially Saudi Arabia. Contrary to what you seem to be pursuing, a policy of "bomb now, ask questions later" has never been effective. Diplomacy is always the first step.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you in some sort of bizzarro world? The whole point of this article is how some FBI workers are being prosecuted for breaking the law. They are being held accountable, and they are clearly not above the law. This only proves that the system works and there are proper checks and balances to prevent abuse. I'd recommend you go waste your tears on something else.
Why? Armitage and the State Department argued against the administration on the war. Why would you assume that Armitage would willingly become the "fall guy" to protect a policy that he disagreed with?
I hope you are right. That politically motivated conviction is a severe black eye on the face of justice in the US.
No, that's documented history. My dreams are quite a bit more exiting than that.
Interesting rebuttal, by the way.
Wrong. What Scooter Libby was guilty of was not remembering the inane details of minute conversations he had several months before he was questioned, and then having the gall to tell the jury that he didn't have a perfect memory. He was never accused of leaking the name of a CIA agent, and the person who did leak the name came forward and confessed to the prosecutor during the first week of the "investigation", but was never charged.
You really need to recheck your "facts", because most of what you just wrote is complete garbage. Let's review the timeline of events.
- The US-backed Shah in Iran fell in 1979 and became an Islamic theocracy
- Revolutionary leaders labeled the US as "the Great Satan", and the US embassy was raided an hostages taken in 1979
- Iraq attacks Iran in 1980, believing that the political instability would lead to a quick victory
- The US is officially neutral in the conflict, but unofficially supports Iraq because they are fighting our new enemy
- After a strong offensive in 1981, Iraq is driven back and is on the defensive front by 1982
- The US determines that an Iranian victory is not in their interest, so they begin supporting Iraqi measures, including removing them from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list for 18 months in 1982
- The US Pressures the Import/Export bank in 1982 to extend credit to Iraq to finance the war, and the US Departmant of Agriculture approves loan subsidies to Iraq to buy US grain
- President Reagan issues a National Security Directive in the summer of 1983 stating the goal of resolving regional conflicts and increasing political stability in the region , to serve US interests
- Iran accuses Iraq of using WMD in the fall of 1983
- By late 1983, Iran is lobbying for a UN Security Council resolution condemning the use of WMD
- In November 1983 US intelligence confirms the use of WMD by Iraq. The state department condemns the actions, and the National Security Council issues a directive for the military to respond to tensions in the area.
- Donald Rumsfeld leads an envoy to Baghdad in December 1983 to establish direct contact between Washington and Baghdad. Rumsfeld specifically tells Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz that Iraq's use of WMD and human rights record is inhibiting a direct relationship between the two countries.
- In early 1984, Iraq issues a threat to Iran that they will use WMD on any invading troups.
- In March 1984, Iraq tried to import 22,000 lbs of Phosphorous fluoride (a precursor to chemical weapons) from the US. The State Department blocks the sale and issues a harsh condemnation of Iraq's continued WMD use. Iraq is place back on the State Sponsors of Terrorism
- In March 1984, the US voted for a UN Security Council Presidential Statement condemning the use of chemical weapons
- In March 1984, Donald Rumsfeld returned to Iraq, but was received coldly because of the recent public condemnation by the US. Rumsfeld blames it on Iraq for ignoring the repeated US warnings that the WMD issue would emerge if they did not discontinue using them. - In April 1984, the US strengthened controls on the export of WMD precursors to both Iraq and Iran.
- In April 1984, President Reagan issued another National Security Directive to help avert an Iraqi defeat to Iran. The directive required "unambiguous" condemnation of the use of WMD in all US policy
- On November 16th 1984, the State Department reports that Iraq had discontinued using Chemical Weapons in the war.
- Less than 2 weeks later, on November 26th 1984, the US and Iraq formally restored diplomatic ties.
As others have noted, the US provided a minute portion of Iraqi foreign arms imports (less than 1%), and the chemical weapons used by Iraq were provided by the USSR, not by the US or other western countries. The US was very careful not to support any WMD usage by Iraq, and was very quick to condemn it, and they refused to restore diplomatic relations with Iraq until after it had been confirmed that WMD usage had stopped.
Your factless claim that the US provided WMD to Iraq is completely without merit.
Bull. The US never supplied Iraq with WMD, and did not turn a blind eye when Iraq used WMD. A comprehensive study performed on trace remnants of the WMD's used by Iraq found that Iraq used WMD from the USSR, Germany, and Japan, and completely ruled out the US or Britain as the source of the weapons. The US also publicly condemned Iraq's use of WMD, and enforced the exportation of dual-use materials to Iraq. That picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand? He was visiting as a Presidential envoy trying to repair relations after our strong and public condemnation of their WMD usage, and to convince them not to use WMD any more.
Sure we threw some weight behind Iraq in the conflict, but considering what kind of enemy Iran had just become, that isn't a shocking revelation.
The practice of limiting the voting rights of convicted criminals isn't unusual or unique to the US. I don't see how this could make the USA a "global laughing stock" considering a majority of democratic nations do it.
Good idea. But, again, what does this have to do with Jeb Bush? The law banning felons from voting in Florida has been on the books since the 1860's, and the law requiring the felon "scrub" list was passed by Democrats before Jeb Bush got elected as Governor. So how does this equate to an "allegation of fraud" against Jeb Bush when he was simply following the laws that already existed when he was elected?
The obvious answer is that it doesn't. Unless, of course, you disagree with the policies of the current administration and are desperately seeking ways to undermine its legitimacy.
When has a lack of evidence stopped a Democrat from accusing a Bush of doing something nefarious?
The only way that a name was removed from the voter registration rolls was if the local county election officials removed it. Period. It's asinine to try and blame anybody else.
Excellent selective quoting, AC. The complete quote, of course, was "Of this, over 14,600 matched a felon by name, birth date, race and gender". In other words, of the 19,398 voters removed from the rolls, over 75% of them were 100% positive matches. Smart people realize that this doesn't make the remaining 25% of removed voters "innocents". It simply means that they matched in different degrees of certainty. But the two things that we do know for sure about these 5,000 people is:
1) County election officials verified the voter on the ChoicePoint list as ineligible to vote, and they either got no response or an insufficient response from the voter during the course of the appeals process so they were removed from the voter registration rolls.
and
2) Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris had no legal authority nor means to remove them from the voter registration rolls, so it makes no logical sense to blame them.
Fair enough. That should be debated. Certainly Florida is not the only state that has such voting restrictions on convicted felons. But that is a completely different discussion than the issue of whether or not Jeb Bush "stole" the election for his brother.
The USCCR listened to testimony from 5 people who were notified and successfully disputed to keep their names on the voter rolls. They could not find anybody to testify that they were not allowed to vote because of this felon list.
Now what actually happened was that most of the counties that received the list ignored it and the felons still illegally voted. In fact, the Palm Beach Post did an extensive review and found that out of the hundreds of thousands of names on the list, a total of only 19,398 were removed from voter registration rolls. Of this, over 14,600 matched a felon by name, birth date, race and gender, and over 6,000 had been convicted in counties other than where they voted, indicating that the ChoicePoint list was the onlyway to identify them. They also found that most of these convicted felons had no idea that it was against the law for them to vote, and they had been breaking the law for years. This, of course, corroborates with the findings from the Miami Herald, which concluded that the biggest problem with the Voter Felon list was that it allowed more felons to illegally vote because most counties didn't' bother to verify the list and simply scrapped it.
Yes, and that is exactly what the Voter Felon list was designed to do.
There is a reason why the US "corporate" media "boycotted" what he found - namely, what he found was so full of crap that even they couldn't report it.
According to the UN, there is no difference between "Gulf 1" and "Gulf 2". The UN passed resolution 678 authorizing military force, resolution 687 specifying the conditions for cease fire while confirming the authorization to use force in 678, and resolution 1441 again confirming the authorization to use force in 678 and condemning Iraq for violating the ceasefire. It would be more accurate to state that the UN never passed a resolution revoking the authority to use military force because the resolution allowing invasion had been on the books for 13+ years.
However, I would say that the dozens of religious leaders who were abducted and murdered in 1977, and the 7,000 communists who were rounded up and slaughtered in 1978, and the 22 opposition party members where were personally executed by Saddam Hussein on TV in 1979, and the 750,000 Iranian solders (or as many as 1,000,000) who died in the Iran/Iraq war which Iraq was the aggressor, or the 1500 Kuwaiti civilians who were murdered by Iraqi forces when they invaded a sovereign nation (including the young women who were abducted, beaten, raped, and murdered in front of their families by IIS agents), or the 1,500,000 Kuwaiti refugees that were displaced by the Iraq invasion of their country, or the 100,000 civilians killed by Iraqi chemical weapons, or the 8,000 members of the Barzani clan who were tortured and murdered in Iraqi secret prisons, or the 180,000 ethnic Kurds killed and 4,000+ Kurdish villages razed, or the 7,000 nationwide prisoners where were executed in an effort to "cleanse" the prison system, or the 40,000 Shia's who were killed because of their opposition to the government in the mid 1990's, or the victims of suicide bombers whose families were paid $25,000 from Saddam on live TV, or the passengers of the cruise ship Achille Lauro who were hijacked and murdered by a terrorist organization that Saddam Hussein supported, or Saddam's Brother-in-law Hussein Kamal who was beheaded by IIS forces after being promised full immunity for talking to the UN weapons inspectors, or the hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of other Iraqi's who simply disappeared into a vast network of secret prisons or gulags and were never seen or heard from again would all strongly disagree with your assessment.
And what part of "his record" would show that? And, more importantly, is being opportunistic not honorable?
So does a very sizeable chunk of the world's religious population. Does that preclude them from being honorable?
Like what?
No, he has appointed people who allegedly called the most important document in our country a mere piece of paper. And considering who is making the allegation, that doesn't concern me at all.
Yeah? What did they steal?
And by "cronies", I assume you mean "people who had government contracts long before they came to office".
You are right about that.
Absolutely.
And the crew if pirates and thugs running the Democratic party have demonstrated the exact same thing.
Excellent Argumentum ad populum.
Well, I could go on, but I think we've both made our points. Again, though I disagree with your position, I respect it. Thanks again for the "civilized" debate. Have a good one.
I disagree. As previously pointed out, the Security Council authorized war to get Iraq out of Kuwait, and to disarm Iraq and ensure they discontinue supporting terrorists. There is no indefinite or unilateral interpretation of this. In fact, all of the subsequent resolutions passed by the security council, and all of the subsequent military action taken against Iraq in the 1990's was done with this authorization, and the authorization was never revoked. The title of UNSEC #1441 is "The situation between Iraq and Kuwait", clearly showing that the Security Council didn't feel the ceasefire resolution was resolved. In my mind, the only people that didn't have any standing were those who refused to enforce the resolutions that had already been already passed by the Security Council.
Well, Saddam's desire to bring his programs back online is significant, and is without question contrary to UN mandate. Hiding research, development, and acquisition attempts of banned materials and technology from UN inspectors is also significant. Maintaining chemical factories that can be switched to full scale Mustard production in a month is significant. Operating clandestine chemical and biological agent laboratories is significant. Seeking ballistic missiles and UAV's with a range time times greater than the allowed limit is significant. The Duelfer report is over 1400+ pages long, which is why I encourage anybody to at least read the key findings summary so they can know exactly what we did find, and how it was in violation to UNMOVIC requirements. However, in my mind the first page says it all -- Iraq wasn't concerned about compliance, they were concerned about the illusion of compliance.
I am arguing that the UN would have been completely ineffective if the US and UK had not enforced the resolutions. If you want to argue that there was absolutely no legal basis for military action in 2003, then you also have to argue that there was absolutely no legal basis for military action in 1998 for Operation Desert Fox under President Clinton, and that there was absolutely no legal basis for the military action taken against Iraq in 1993 for WMD non-compliance. It is incongruous to think that the UN gave specific authorization to enforce the ceasefire in 1991, used that authorization in 1993 and
The Security Council did make that decision - 17 times with a unanimous vote. Membership in the UN does mean accepting basic agreements, and Chapter VII clearly lays the responsibility of enforcement squarely on the shoulders of member states. When the US votes in favor of a Chapter VII resolution authorizing military force, we are voting to send our troops to carry out the will of the UN.
I'm sorry, but I just cannot accept that excuse. When the UN security council forces you to "solemnly swear not to" do something (or "unconditionally undertake not to"), you can't secretly draw up plans, preserve capacity and technology, or illicitly try to acquire by other means the same materials that you "unconditionally" agreed to avoid. If that was acceptable, why all the deception and subterfuge? Why didn't Saddam just let the UN inspections to proceed, and every time they found something questionable, all he would have to do is say "Don't worry, those are just plans for the future, but I'm not interested in them now"? The obvious answer is that it wasn't acceptable. The "WMD weapons related programs" that were discovered by the ISG would have constituted a major violation with Iraq's WMD compliance had they been found before the war, just as the discovery of Vx was in 1998, or the admission of their BW program in 1995.
That isn't an accurate characterization of my views, or of the historical events leading up to the war. We were responding to a nation that, in the previous two decades, had launched full scale invasions on two separate countries, had launched military attacks on two more, had used prohibited weapons against both military and civilian targets on numerous occasions, was responsible the deaths and oppression of millions of his own countrymen, was an open supporter of international terrorism and was indicted for supporting several terrorist attacks against western interests, and was openly defying 17 Chapter VII UN resolutions demanding disarmament and compliance to promote peace in the region. You bet I have no problem enforcing those 17 Chapter VII resolutions as requi
Perhaps we are just nitpicking here, but the Security Council is solely comprised of member states, so I don't see much difference. If we are charged with enforcing ceasefire conditions, and we find that Iraq is in material breach of those agreements, it is our responsibility (as members of the UN security council) to enforce those resolutions.
I don't know if it is deliberate or not, but you are excluding the rest of the wording included in the text of the resolution. Iraq had to "unconditionally undertake not to" engage in proscribed activities. They were not allowed to even plan on developing WMD, or talk with other countries about acquiring banned missile technology or prohibited materials.
If a judge issues a restraining order, and then finds out that the individual is still tracking their subject, recording their schedule, writing detailed plans about stalking, or watching from a distance without physically violating the order, is the judge going to let that fly?
I don't see any difference with the pre-1441 compliance issues and what the Duelfer report eventually concluded. From 1991 to 2003, Saddam tried to game the system and get away with as much as he could, while deflecting whatever heat he got from it and garnering as much international sympathy as he could. Both his public actions before 2002, and the subsequent findings of the ISG after the war paint a very clear picture of his intent and methods. UN condemnation, diplomatic pressures, and even economic sanctions were not enough to change his behavior - only brute strength and aggression.
I didn't say that bin Laden was in Iraq -- I said that Saddam Hussein offered him political asylum after he was expelled from Saudi Arabia and was searching for a place to set up shop.
And I disagree with your characterization of Zarqawi. Ansar al-Islam was operating out of northern Iraq, but Zarqawi was operating in and out of Baghdad, and even received medical treatment from Uday Hussein's personal physician in the summer of 2002.
Let me turn it around. Why do you think it was an option? I've already explained why I believe it wasn't an option. As Tommy Franks said: "While we may not have found actual WMD stockpiles, what the Coalition discovered was the equivalent of a disassembled pistol, lying on a table beside neatly arranged trays of bullets". Why is this acceptable to you from a nation that is under UN mandate to disarm?
Which is the same thing as an agreement between Iraq and UN Member states that were obligated to enforce the UN resolutions.
Sure it does. The resolution specifically required Iraq to "unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire" these items. It would be patently false to claim that these actions did not violate that clause.
I'm confused about where your conflict is here. It is a documented fact agreed upon by all parties that Iraq sent an envoy to Niger to discuss business relationships. It's also a documented fact that Niger understood these overtures as an attempt to buy Yellowcake from them. Considering that Yellowcake was a major export, this isn't a stretch. It is, once again, also a documented fact that Iraq was required to "unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire" these items. This information is completely independent of the documents that were later discovered as forgeries.
Very valid point, and I am in complete agreement. However, this is completely irrelevant to the issue of Iraq trying to acquire banned materials prior to the war.
Unfortunately, his own actions backed him into the corner that it was in fact illegal. When the United Nations prohibits you from using, developing, constructing, or acquiring WMD, you can't hide your Vx nerve gas production, fail to disclose the status of other WMD programs or stockpiles, import or produce dual-use materials, harass, intimidate, or expel UN weapons inspectors, covertly develop weapons grade biological agents, covertly try to acquire proscribed materials or technologies from other countries, or bury prohibited technology in a schoolyard playground with the hopes that you can dig it up someday and use it -- without expecting consequences from those who are in charge of ensuring your compliance. And you certainly cannot offer political asylum to the world's most wanted terrorist, or allow known terror groups that have connections to the larges
Well, I, along with a host of other legal scholars, disagree. I suppose that is were we will leave it - agree to disagree. I will only leave one final point: If a party agrees to certain conditions for the terms of a ceasefire, and then is found in material breach of those conditions, is that ceasefire still in effect?
Unfortunately, given the history of the previous 12 years, it only proved that Saddam was still trying to play the game. If you recall, in 1991 Iraq provided a full and complete accounting of their WMD stockpiles and programs. In 1992, UN inspectors discovered an undeclared stockpile, and Iraq was forced to revise their disclosure and admit they had them, and provided another full and complete disclosure. In 1994, they prohibited UN inspectors from visiting specific suspected sites until the UN threatened military action, when they made another full and complete disclosure, admitting to even more WMD violations. In July 1995, another discovery of undeclared and prohibited items by the UN inspectors prompted another full and complete disclosure by Iraq. A month later, Hussein Kamal defected from Iraq and disclosed that Iraq still had a very extensive Biological Weapons program that was hidden from UN inspectors, forcing Iraq to make another full and complete disclosure of their WMD programs to the UN. In November 1995, Jordon intercepted a shipment to Iraq of prohibited material used to make long range missiles, forcing Iraq to revise and issue another full and complete disclosure of their prohibited programs. In September 1997, UN inspectors stumbled across evidence of a significant Vx nerve agent program in Iraq, forcing Iraq to admit that they were still developing Vx contrary to what they had claimed over the past 6 years. They still would not allow UN inspectors to visit certain suspected sites, causing the US and UK to threaten military action. Kofi Annan personally negotiated with Saddam Hussein, who granted "full" access to any site. Four months later, Iraq abruptly suspended cooperation and forced the UN inspectors out of Iraq. The US and UK responded with Operation Desert Fox, bombing suspected WMD facilities. In 1999, the UN assembled a new weapons inspection team, but Iraq refused to allow them into the country. Iraq went four years with no international supervision and oversight on their WMD programs, until late 2002 when UNSEC #1441 was passed. Iraq provided another full and complete disclosure that Hanx Blix described as "most[ly] a reprint of earlier documents, [which] does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate questions". This was once again found to be incomplete because of the discovery of the Al-Samoud 2 missiles, which Iraq immediately admitted to and tried to pacify the inspectors with, just as they had done a half dozen times over the past decade. So, no, I don't think that the disclosure of the Al-Samoud 2 missiles was an indication that UNSEC #1441 was working. Based on the subsequent findings of the ISG regarding unknown and undeclared prohibited programs, dual use materials, and research, I think it is clear that UNSEC #1441 was not working.
You seem to be missing the point. He was not allowed to have these missiles, and he was clearly trying to acquire them against UN mandate. Just as
I disagree for two reasons. First, the US and their allies certainly did rely on UNSEC #678 and UNSEC #687. Here is an op-ed by a State Department ambassador laying out the exact same case. You can find the same rational from Australia, The UK, and even the National Security Council, among others.
Second, UNSEC #1441 specifically recalled and reaffirmed UNSEC #678 and UNSEC #687 which gave authorization to use force, and deplored the fact that Iraq was in "material breach" of the requirements in UNSEC #687.
Bingo. They declared these weapons to the UN in December of 2002, but had been banned from possessing them or developing them 12 years prior to that. The fact that it took a carrier group parked on their doorstep in the Gulf to make this declaration is hardly comforting.
This information is directly pulled from the 2004 Duelfer report:
Iraq entered into negotiations with North Korean and Russian entities for more capable missile systems. Iraq and North Korea in 2000 discussed a 1,300-km-range missile, probably the No Dong, and in 2002 Iraq approached Russian entities about acquiring the Iskander-E short-range ballistic missile (SRBM).
My apologies about the mis-information on the range, however 1300km is still well above the 150km limit.
UNSEC 678 authorizes the use of military force to "uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area".
UNSEC 687, sections C through H, spelled out exactly what was required of Iraq to restore international peace and security to the area, including: a complete declaration and destruction in the presence of UN observers of their WMD stockpiles, a complete declaration and destruction of their ballistic missile and UAV programs with a range of at least 150km, a specific prohibition that Iraq was not "to use, develop, construct or acquire" WMD, and that Iraq "will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory", along with condemning any other acts of international terrorism.
Under no stretch of the imagination had these requirements been met. Iraq may well have destroyed their WMD stockpiles, but they did not declare these weapons to the UN, and UNMOVIC had declared them in violation of this up until the March 2003 invasion. Iraq did not dismantle their prohibited ballistic missile programs as was proven by the discovery of the Al-Samoud 2 missiles, and the development of the North Korean No Dong 2000km ballistic missiles. We know for a fact from the Duelfer report, and from the interim ISG report by David Kay, that Iraq did not discontinue the development and acquisition of WMD. Both reports clearly detail WMD development activities that were in violation of UN mandate.
These two resolutions were passed under chapter VII of the UN charter, which mandates all UN member states to participate in their enforcement. All of the subsequent resolutions passed against Iraq, including UNSEC 1441, referenced and reaffirmed these two resolutions, and Iraq was clearly in violation.
As to your WMD point, I would strongly encourage you to at least read the 20+ page summary of the 2004 Duelfer ISG report. No doubt that much of our prewar intelligence was flawed, and that we did not find the remnant munitions from the Iran/Iraq war that we expected to find (because Iraq offered no documentation to prove their destruction, and no UN inspector had observed the destruction of these weapons). But there is also no doubt that Iraq was still in violation of UNSEC 687 paragraph 10, leaving a clear authorization to use military force for compliance.
While I strongly disagree with your characterization of the above terrorist groups (particularly the PLF and Abu Nidal organization, both which have carried out some very vicious attacks against the west - and I'm sure the Klinghoffer family agrees with me), I find the groups that you left off your list interesting. The 2002 list also included: HAMAS, ALF, Palestine Islamic Jihad, and (most importantly) al Qaeda affiliated groups like Zarqawi's Ansar al-Islam. You also failed to mention the acts of international terrorism that were attempted and carried out by Iraqi Intelligence Services (IIS), including the attempted assassination of a former US President, successful assassinations of dissidents, and the attempted bombing of the Radio Free tower in Prague.
Did this make them the largest state sponsor of terrorism? I suppose that is debatable, and as such I should have avoided the superlative, but the original point stands. Iraq's sponsoring of international terrorism (including groups led by Zarqawi) was one of the many reasons that justified action against them in the global war on terrorism.
Excellent straw man. You will note that I never claimed that every state sponsor of terrorism needs to be invaded, only that they could not be ignored. In fact, Iraq and Afghanistan were unique in this regard in that their situations did justify military invasion. You would be hard-pressed to identify similar justifications in the current situations with Iran, Syria, and especially Saudi Arabia. Contrary to what you seem to be pursuing, a policy of "bomb now, ask questions later" has never been effective. Diplomacy is always the first step.