Resolution 1441

[rguymon]

{While it is inconceivable for everybody to learn C, and VB, it is still advisable that all computer users have a basic knowledge of the file storage architecture and graphic interface norms of the computer he/she is using. Similarly, the UN resolutiosn are neither written in legalese nor 5000 pages long. Therefore, intelligent people should be able to discuss it without much training in law}

My point is this stuff is deliberatly written vauge to keep from pinning anyone down. Lawyers are used to approve every word before anything passes. Reading the document for its literal meaning is like reading the bible for its literal meanings.

Rember when lawyers are involved we need a precise definition of the word 'is" The US and Briton have very good lawyers. They know what they can and can't do. If anyone here concludes that they think the actions are legal or illegal based on the what they read Ok. You might feel better but its really meaningless.

 

[metalhead]

Originally posted by nihilistic
metalhead, maybe I wasn't clear before when I said "Even if 687 also authorizes force". The fact is that resolution 687 does not authorize force.

The resolutions 660 and 678 authorized force, but only to curb the Iraqi invasion into Kuwait. Note that these resolutions are voted in before the Gulf War.

Resolution 687 was voted in after the Gulf War. It included requirements for Iraq to disarm as you have attached, and the provisions for it, which Iraq obviously violated. However, the only passage which "might" be a candidate for affirming military action is this one:

1. Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goals of this resolution, including a formal cease-fire;

Too bad it was referring to the first Gulf War too.

Well, I think the following from 1441 is concrete proof that 660 and 678 did not just pertain to the first Gulf War only.

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Now, I don't know why they would have brought up 660, 678, and 687, and mentioned again that all available means were to be used to disarm Saddam, unless those are, in fact relevant to Saddam's continued refusal to disarm.

Also, a ceasefire is plainly contingent on Iraq disarming as laid out in Resolution 687. Which means, in other words, that if Saddam does not unconditionally comply with the UN guidelines for disarming, than there is no cease-fire.

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

According to this passage from 1441, Iraq has not complied with resolution 687. Therefore, it is safe to assume that there is no valid cease-fire between Iraq and UN member forces. That would seem to say that the war is still going on, and has been from the first time the UN declared that Iraq did not comply with 687.

 

[Plastic]

I have laid out a case based on the text of 1441. I also know due to a NY Times report that Colin Powell asked the French not to vote yes on 1441 if the French didn't agree that noncompliance would immediately lead to war. The French assured Powell that this would be the case. Therefore I believe that those who passed 1441 knew damn well what serious consequences meant.

Your case relies almost solely on asserting that 678, which clearly says that the UN must enforce all relevant resolutions concerning Iraq, only deal with the first Gulf War. This is a very weak case that only works if you disregard at least half of 1441. The other part of your case concerns the affirmation in 1441 for the soverignty of Iraq. Thus you would have this 1 term supercede and disallow all other terms of 1441 and all other UN resolutions concerning Iraq. However, that is based on the interpretation that since the UN believes Iraq to be a soverign country, the UN has no right to attack it. If you interpret the soverignty of Iraq to mean that the UN will not attack Iraq without giving it a final chance to comply, then suddenly the affirmation of Iraqi soverignty no longer contradicts the other terms of 1441. Therefore, I would think that the affirmation of Iraqi soverignty must be interpreted the second way, as it is illogical that one term in 1441 contradict and overrule all other terms of 1441.


The only thing this debate has cleared for me is that you have no case at all but that despite this, you will find any way to win including ignoring the actual text of 1441 that contradicts your argument and examining 1441 in a vacuum ignoring how it came to be written and approved.

 

[etj4Eagle]

Originally posted by Plastic
I have laid out a case based on the text of 1441. I also know due to a NY Times report that Colin Powell asked the French not to vote yes on 1441 if the French didn't agree that noncompliance would immediately lead to war. The French assured Powell that this would be the case. Therefore I believe that those who passed 1441 knew damn well what serious consequences meant.

And at least in US courts, that verbal acknowledgement of understanding of what the resolution mean is binding, just as binding as the written words of the resolution.