Hans Blix: Iraq war was illegal

[pappajacks 0]

Blix: Iraq war was illegal

 

Blair's defence is bogus, says the former UN weapons inspector

By Anne Penketh in Stockholm and Andrew Grice

05 March 2004

 

 

The former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has declared that the war in Iraq was illegal, dealing another devastating blow to Tony Blair.

 

Mr Blix, speaking to The Independent, said the Attorney General's legal advice to the Government on the eve of war, giving cover for military action by the US and Britain, had no lawful justification. He said it would have required a second United Nations resolution explicitly authorising the use of force for the invasion of Iraq last March to have been legal.

 

His intervention goes to the heart of the current controversy over Lord Goldsmith's advice, and comes as the Prime Minister begins his fightback with a speech on Iraq today.

 

An unrepentant Mr Blair will refuse to apologise for the war in Iraq, insisting the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in power. He will point to the wider benefits of the Iraq conflict, citing Libya's decision to give up its weapons of mass destruction, but warn that the world cannot turn a blind eye to the continuing threat from WMD.

 

But, in an exclusive interview, Mr Blix said: "I don't buy the argument the war was legalised by the Iraqi violation of earlier resolutions."

 

And it appeared yesterday that the Government shared that view until the eve of war, when it received the Lord Goldsmith's final advice.

 

Sir Andrew Turnbull, the Cabinet Secretary, revealed that the Government had assumed, until the eve of war in Iraq, that it needed a specific UN mandate to authorise military action.

 

Mr Blix demolished the argument advanced by Lord Goldsmith three days before the war began, which stated that resolution 1441 authorised the use of force because it revived earlier UN resolutions passed after the 1991 ceasefire.

 

Mr Blix said that while it was possible to argue that Iraq had breached the ceasefire by violating UN resolutions adopted since 1991, the "ownership" of the resolutions rested with the entire 15-member Security Council and not with individual states. "It's the Security Council that is party to the ceasefire, not the UK and US individually, and therefore it is the council that has ownership of the ceasefire, in my interpretation."

 

He said to challenge that interpretation would set a dangerous precedent. "Any individual member could take a view - the Russians could take one view, the Chinese could take another, they could be at war with each other, theoretically," Mr Blix said.

 

The Attorney General's opinion has come under fresh scrutiny since the collapse of the trial against the GCHQ whistleblower Katharine Gun last week, prompting calls for his full advice to be made public.

 

Mr Blix, who is an international lawyer by training, said: "I would suspect there is a more sceptical view than those two A4 pages," in a reference to Clare Short's contemptuous description of the 358-word summary.

 

It emerged on Wednesday that a Foreign Office memo, sent to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on the same day that Lord Goldsmith's summary was published, made clear that there was no "automaticity" in resolution 1441 to justify war.

 

Asked whether, in his view, a second resolution authorising force should have been adopted, Mr Blix replied: "Oh yes."

 

In the interview, ahead of the publication next week of his book Disarming Iraq: The search for weapons of mass destruction, Mr Blix dismissed the suggestion that Mr Blair should resign or apologise over the failure to find any WMD in Iraq.

 

But he suggested that the Prime Minister may have been fatally wounded by his loss of credibility, and that voters would deliver their verdict. "Some people say Bush and Blair should be put before a tribunal and I say that you have the punishment in the political field here," he said. "Their credibility has been affected by this: Bush too lost some credibility."

 

He repeated accusations the US and British governments were "hyped" intelligence and lacking critical thinking. "They used exclamation marks instead of question marks."

 

"I have some understanding for that. Politicians have to simplify to explain, they also have to act in this world before they have 100 per cent evidence. But I think they went further."

 

"But I never said they had acted in bad faith," he added. "Perhaps it was worse that they acted out of good faith."

 

The threat allegedly posed by Saddam's WMD was the prime reason cited by the British government for going to war. But not a single item of banned weaponry has been found in the 11 months that have followed the declared end of hostilities.

 

Mr Blair will argue that similar decisive action will need to be taken in future to combat the threat of rogue states and terrorists obtaining WMD.

[Guest hunger4unger]

It's established that the war on Iraq was unjustified and illegal.

[Vyce 0]

Actually, it's not.

 

Trying to convince you otherwise is an exercise in futility, though.

 

Continue onward with your ignorance, young lad.

[snuffbox 0]

Actually, it's not.

 

Trying to convince you otherwise is an exercise in futility, though.

 

Continue onward with your ignorance, young lad.

Youre more knowledgeable on this situation than Hans Blix?

[Guest Cerebus]

So was this.

[Guest hunger4unger]

Let's see..NO UN RESOLUTION, NO WMD...NO JUSTIFICATION TO GO TO WAR.

 

You're the ignorant one, "young lad."

 

This is going to turn into another thread discussing the rights and wrongs of the Iraq invasion. ..let's keep this on the thread matter.

 

The chief UN WI claims the war was illegal as no WMD's were found, let's continue..

[Guest hunger4unger]

So was this.

All I get from that link is a log in page.

 

I'm assuming that the article claims that some kind of missile was found in Iraq.

 

Still no WMD.

[Guest JMA]

The war itself was justified, IMO. Any country that takes down a dictator is justified (with a few exceptions). The war in Iraq is one of the very few things I agree with Bush on. I do think the WMD claim was inaccurate, though. Still, that doesn't change my opinion on the war itself.

 

There should be NO tolerance for dictators. NONE.

[Guest Crazy Dan]

Unfortunately, that is not what we were sold on. Saddam was supposed to be this huge threat to the US. He was supposed to have all these WMD's, which was posing a imminent threat to the US safety. So that was the basis of going to war. When we don't find the imminent threat, no WMD's, it hurts the credibility of the country. We launched for the first time in this country's young history a preemptive strike based on false intelligence gathered. That is never a good thing. Sure, Saddam being finally gone is a postive, but going to war based on false intelligence, is not a good thing, IMO.

[Vyce 0]

The war itself was justified, IMO. Any country that takes down a dictator is justified (with a few exceptions). The war in Iraq is one of the very few things I agree with Bush on. I do think the WMD claim was inaccurate, though. Still, that doesn't change my opinion on the war itself.

 

There should be NO tolerance for dictators. NONE.

No offense to you, JMA, but my God, it's a sad day when you're the moderate "liberal" on the board.

 

Oh, and snuffbox: silly me, I forgot - we need the U.N. to hold our hand and tell us everything we can and cannot do. Cause God knows, there's just no legitimacy to the world without them.

[Guest SideFXs]

This is nothing more than a diplomatic two-year-old-baby temper tantrum. Blix reminds me of the crooked international banker in “The Godfather III.” Hell, they sound exactly alike. And the U.N. is just trying to find some international legitimacy. They may get it if Kerry or H. Clinton gets the office. Then God help us.

 

Oh, and Crazy Dan, Saddam, in his young dictatorship, launched a preemptive strike against Kuwait, with his heart set on taking over the world oil supply. He plundered the country and stole their national treasures, then blew up all of Kuwait’s oil wells, in retreat . Remember that, the next time you watch some federally funded PBS program criticizing the American Army for not stopping the looting of Iraqi museums. Not to mention the mutilation, torture, and murder of 1 million of his Iraqi citizens.

 

I get so tired of the WMD argument. As if that makes your American President a criminal. The man is trying to make the world safer. Ignoring the problem and U.N. diplomacy gave us 9/11/0

[Guest Crazy Dan]

No, but when you base your whole entire reason to go to war over something, shouldn't that argument hold up. Heck if Bush had said the main reason was to remove a terrible dictator, then I would feel that would make a much more stronger argument, than this immininent threat that he posed to the US, based on false intelligence, which is the case here.

 

I by no means consider Bush a criminal. Heck, I don't know if I would consider this war "illegal" by no means, but I do feel we jumped into this thing without fully knowing what was in store. And you are sick of WMD talk, I was sick of it last year when that was the word of the year. When the case to go to war were these potential WMD's and that was why we need to go to war ASAP. I just feel if we are going to do a preemptive strike on a country, it better be justified, backed up with intelligence which sipportsyour case. When the basis of justifying this war was false, that to me doesn't make it right.

 

And you are right, Saddam has done many things, I know this. Saddam has done many terrible things. He deserves what he gets, but at the same time, he didn't have anything really to do with 9-11, which is what we are scared of happening. I still feel that the Iraqi war might have taken much needed man power away from the real imminent threat. I do hope that this does make the world safer, I really

do. But, what happens if this doesn't? And no, I could care less if a museum gets looted, that never bothered me. I am concerned about going to war based on false intelligence.

[Vern Gagne 0]

The President said action needed to be taken against Hussein before he became an imminent threat. He never said Hussein was an imminent threat.

[Guest Crazy Dan]

Good point...

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Yawn.

 

If Blix was doing his thing back in the 1930s, we'd still be waiting for him to give the OK for us to attack Germany...

[pappajacks 0]

The war itself was justified, IMO. Any country that takes down a dictator is justified (with a few exceptions). The war in Iraq is one of the very few things I agree with Bush on. I do think the WMD claim was inaccurate, though. Still, that doesn't change my opinion on the war itself.

 

There should be NO tolerance for dictators. NONE.

There are many other dictators out there. Why doesn't the US go after them?

[pappajacks 0]

Not to mention the mutilation, torture, and murder of 1 million of his Iraqi citizens.

Sadaam isn't the only dictator in the world guilty of those crimes. Many are still running their countries the same way and yet the good ol' USA doesn't give a damn about them. To think that the US attacked Iraq to "liberate" the Iraqi people is naive.

 

To also think that Sadaam was a threat or would be a threat to the US is also naive. The man isn't as stupid as you think. The last thing he wants is to give a reason for the most powerful country in the world to attack him and consequently remove him from power. The last thing he wants is to give a reason for the UN and ally nations to support the US in a war. Sadaam might be evil, but even he knows his limits.

[NoCalMike 0]

Well the fact that Bush used 9/11 paranoia to force chicken shit politicians (democrats) into signing onto the War in Iraq, pretty much sums up my feelings on this matter. Illegal, I dunno, wrong.....YEAH. However I am not really in the mood to debate this for the 100000th time.

[Guest JMA]

There are many other dictators out there. Why doesn't the US go after them?

We can't take out every dictator in the world in such a short time. Better to do things gradually. Hopefully, we can oust many dictators on intimidation alone. The war in Iraq has sent a clear message to them.

[snuffbox 0]

The President said action needed to be taken against Hussein before he became an imminent threat. He never said Hussein was an imminent threat.

Can I get a link to that quote?

 

I could have sworn I heard Bush/Cheney/Powell/Rumsfeld/etc harping on the imminent threat...

[Guest thebigjig]

The President said action needed to be taken against Hussein before he became an imminent threat. He never said Hussein was an imminent threat.

Can I get a link to that quote?

 

I could have sworn I heard Bush/Cheney/Powell/Rumsfeld/etc harping on the imminent threat...

Cheney to this day still claims there is a link between Osama and Saddam... even when everyone else in the administration, when pressed, admits there is no evidence of that lol

[Guest OctoberBlood]

Wrong? Nope.

 

Illegal? I don't give a shit.

 

Justified? You fucking bet.

 

Democrats are fucking jokes living in a different little nice world? Yep.

 

I'm not posting in this thread again?! Exactly.

 

[Guest thebigjig]

Wrong? Nope.

 

Illegal? I don't give a shit.

 

Justified? You fucking bet.

 

Democrats are fucking jokes living in a different little nice world? Yep.

 

I'm not posting in this thread again?! Exactly.

 

Yes, please go run and hide lol, you wont be missed

[Justice 0]

Let's see..NO UN RESOLUTION, NO WMD...NO JUSTIFICATION TO GO TO WAR.

Well, that makes Kosovo illegal, numbnuts. The UN didn't take action on Kosovo, NATO did, so the UN was perfectly content to stay out of what amounted to Genocide.

 

I know you won't say it, but I'm sure your peers are already saying "But that was only Russia holding us up!" To that I say that "Hey, only France was holding the Iraqi War up!" Face it, the only countries that raised major objections to the war in Iraq were France, Germany, and Belgium. Russia said that they would abstain from fricken voting. Three countries does not the UN make. Get your facts straight, ignorant one.

 

And on the WMDs... give me one intelligence agency that said that Iraq didn't have any WMDs and you have an argument. The fact that the American, British, , German, and French intelligence agencies all thought that Iraq had WMDs was pretty much why the Bush Administration was sure that they were right.

 

I'm assuming that the article claims that some kind of missile was found in Iraq.

 

Still no WMD.

 

Actually, that's all the justification we actually need. The missiles in question that we found were in direct violation of the UN Resolution 1441, thereby justifying immediate action to rectify this. But hey, you knew that before, right? Right?

 

There are many other dictators out there. Why doesn't the US go after them?

 

Because people like you will bitch at us for "empire building". I like how some people can oppose the war and then suddenly start pushing us to go all the way in a year. Talk about hypocrits...

 

Sadaam isn't the only dictator in the world guilty of those crimes. Many are still running their countries the same way and yet the good ol' USA doesn't give a damn about them. To think that the US attacked Iraq to "liberate" the Iraqi people is naive.

 

Jesus, ever heard the term "Rome wasn't built in a day" (Empire-building pun intended)? Do you have any idea how long it takes to successfully put up a working government in a country that, in its entire history, has NEVER had a democratic government? Not as easy as saying "And POOF! Democracy!" Give it time, unless you want the UN to screw it up like Bosnia, Cyprus, and God only knows how many other fiascos they've had...

 

Can I get a link to that quote?

 

I could have sworn I heard Bush/Cheney/Powell/Rumsfeld/etc harping on the imminent threat...

 

I'm not going to go on record and say that they didn't say that, but one of his big quotes was that if we waited for them to be an imminent threat then it would already be too late to stop them or something along those lines. And it is true: Why wait for a madman to get in striking position of you to strike when you can take him out of power before he can hit you?

[Guest MikeSC]

Actually, it's not.

 

Trying to convince you otherwise is an exercise in futility, though.

 

Continue onward with your ignorance, young lad.

Youre more knowledgeable on this situation than Hans Blix?

My nephew Carter, who just turned 5 months old, is more knowledgable about this Hans Blix.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

The war itself was justified, IMO. Any country that takes down a dictator is justified (with a few exceptions). The war in Iraq is one of the very few things I agree with Bush on. I do think the WMD claim was inaccurate, though. Still, that doesn't change my opinion on the war itself.

 

There should be NO tolerance for dictators. NONE.

There are many other dictators out there. Why doesn't the US go after them?

If our attack on Iraq was something you'd oppose, why would you support an attack on somebody else?

 

What is it about Saddam that makes him such a martyr for you?

I know you won't say it, but I'm sure your peers are already saying "But that was only Russia holding us up!" To that I say that "Hey, only France was holding the Iraqi War up!" Face it, the only countries that raised major objections to the war in Iraq were France, Germany, and Belgium. Russia said that they would abstain from fricken voting. Three countries does not the UN make. Get your facts straight, ignorant one.

You ALSO ignore that documents from Iraq indicate that French officials received bribes from Saddam to oppose the action.

 

As for Bush's quote, perhaps Marney can repost the link.

-=Mike

[pappajacks 0]

The war itself was justified, IMO. Any country that takes down a dictator is justified (with a few exceptions). The war in Iraq is one of the very few things I agree with Bush on. I do think the WMD claim was inaccurate, though. Still, that doesn't change my opinion on the war itself.

 

There should be NO tolerance for dictators. NONE.

There are many other dictators out there. Why doesn't the US go after them?

If our attack on Iraq was something you'd oppose, why would you support an attack on somebody else?

 

What is it about Saddam that makes him such a martyr for you?

My question was rhetorical. I know why the US went into Iraq (and spent $87 billion) and not into other countries with dictators. Iraq possessed a resource that the US wants (oil). Let's not be foolish and believe that the US went into Iraq primarily to eliminate a threat or to "liberate" the Iraqi people. Those were secondary factors. The US gov lied to its citizens, just like the French gov lied to its citizens. The French didnt oppose the war for moralistic reasons, they opposed it because the US and US companies would get to the "resource" quicker. The French are just as guilty (or innocent, depends on how you look at it) as the US. Both countries acted for their own benefit.

 

As for Hussein, no one answered my question yet. Why would Hussein even consider attacking the US? The guy might be evil and despises the US with a passion, but even he isn't that dumb to attempt to attack the most powerful country in the world and give the US sympathy from the international community like it had after the 9/11 attacks. The last thing he wants is to give a reason for the most powerful country in the world to attack him and consequently remove him from power. The last thing he wants is to give a reason for the UN and ally nations to support the US in a war. He saw what happened to Bin Laden, who now has to hide in a cave for the rest of his life. Hussein would gladly remain President of his country and live as a king for the rest of his life than to give a reason for the world to remove him from power.

 

Hussein knows his limits: he could torture his own citizens. The day where he attempts to attack anyone else (whether the US or neighbouring countries), is the day he stops living as a king and has to hide for the rest of his life (because the international community will come after him). Like I mentioned, the man might as evil as they get, but he isnt stupid.

 

By the way, did Hussein attack anyone outside his country since Kuweit? He learned his lesson and was warned that if he did it again, the allies will go all the way next time and invade his country instead of merely chasing him out of another country. I dont blame Hussein to have weapons (not WMDs though). Hell, he has a resource, and if he doesnt protect it (or give the impression that he has the means to protect it), neighbouring countries will take advantage of his weakness (lack of defense) to get to the resource.

[Justice 0]

My question was rhetorical. I know why the US went into Iraq (and spent $87 billion) and not into other countries with dictators. Iraq possessed a resource that the US wants (oil). Let's not be foolish and believe that the US went into Iraq primarily to eliminate a threat or to "liberate" the Iraqi people. Those were secondary factors. The US gov lied to its citizens, just like the French gov lied to its citizens. The French didnt oppose the war for moralistic reasons, they opposed it because the US and US companies would get to the "resource" quicker. The French are just as guilty (or innocent, depends on how you look at it) as the US. Both countries acted for their own benefit.

Then why did we go into Afganistan? Why did we go into Kosovo? Why Bosnia? Why Somalia? Just because Iraq has oil doesn't mean anything since it is quite obvious that we haven't taken any of it yet.

 

And why did it have to be for oil? Could it not be because, you know, we've let Iraq go on for way too long? You say "Why not other dictators?", and I'll point out that we have a very direct relation to this one's regieme in that we (Along with the rest of the world) made the mistake of letting this one stay in power because we thought someone more horrid would come into power. Not only this, but Iraq has been a cornerstone in both parties' foreign policy plans since the Gulf War that there is no reason why Iraq SHOULDN'T be first: It has been one of the most dominant issues and concerns in American Foreign policy for 12 years. Explain to me why not...

 

As for Hussein, no one answered my question yet. Why would Hussein even consider attacking the US? The guy might be evil and despises the US with a passion, but even he isn't that dumb to attempt to attack the most powerful country in the world and give the US sympathy from the international community like it had after the 9/11 attacks. The last thing he wants is to give a reason for the most powerful country in the world to attack him and consequently remove him from power. The last thing he wants is to give a reason for the UN and ally nations to support the US in a war. He saw what happened to Bin Laden, who now has to hide in a cave for the rest of his life. Hussein would gladly remain President of his country and live as a king for the rest of his life than to give a reason for the world to remove him from power.

 

Why was he developing missiles with a range of 1,000 miles? Understand that it isn't just about attacking the US, it is also attacking US allies and interests in the region, #1 being Israel. These missiles allowed him to launch whatever payload he wanted to right into Jeruselum or Bethlehem or whatever other city he wants to, which would definitely tick off Israel and could quite easily destabilize the region. The US, being allies with Israel and trying to iron things out for the entire Middle East, would not take kindly to this since it would sort of, you know, fuck up everything that we've been working towards in the area. The US has a vested interest in the entire Middle East and its well-being, and Saddam (With his weapons and army) were an obvious threat to that well-being.

 

Hussein knows his limits: he could torture his own citizens. The day where he attempts to attack anyone else (whether the US or neighbouring countries), is the day he stops living as a king and has to hide for the rest of his life (because the international community will come after him). Like I mentioned, the man might as evil as they get, but he isnt stupid.

 

Then why fund weapons programs like the missiles and rebuild (Still the largest in the Middle East at the time) his army like he did? The guy basically had a loaded weapon and we couldn't stand there on the charge that "Hey, we think he learned his lesson..."

 

By the way, did Hussein attack anyone outside his country since Kuweit? He learned his lesson and was warned that if he did it again, the allies will go all the way next time and invade his country instead of merely chasing him out of another country. I dont blame Hussein to have weapons (not WMDs though). Hell, he has a resource, and if he doesnt protect it (or give the impression that he has the means to protect it), neighbouring countries will take advantage of his weakness (lack of defense) to get to the resource.

 

That doesn't mean shit. After the World Trade Center Bombing, Osama waited 9 years before making another shot on US territory. UN inspections had only stopped 5 years before, so he only really had 5 years to start rebuilding without obstruction.

 

Secondly, when you say "Giving the impression that he has the means to protect it", does that allow him to make it look as though he has weapons that would directly violate UN Resolutions against him? I mean, he can say (Or even have) these weapons because "Hey, I gotta protect my own stuff, yo"?

[Guest frowned]

Just because Iraq has oil doesn't mean anything since it is quite obvious that we haven't taken any of it yet.

bleh - frankly I don't care about the war, it's happened - the legalities and moral issues and stuff I'll leave to people who give a toss.

 

My only question is, if the oil was so insignificant, why was one of the US' first acts once the government was gone to change Iraq's oil trading currency from the Euro to the US Dollar?