Article

2003-03-16 Iraq

Blair plans for war as UN is given 24 hours

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2003-03-16 09:53 am|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Who cares what the entity - UN - whose members applauded Yassir Arafat when he addressed them, while carrying a gun on his hip. A majority of the stupid, doesn't count.

Posted by Anonon 2003-03-16 02:08:47|| 2003-03-16 02:08:47|| Front Page Top

#2 Is it true Blair requested the Royal Family to remain in Britain next week? Doesn't the PM have to inform the Queen of a decision for war before undertaking action? If so does this indicate war is near?

Posted by TJ Jackson 2003-03-16 03:37:36|| 2003-03-16 03:37:36|| Front Page Top

#3 Apparently, this is what we have been waiting for. Note this phrase from article posted above, "In the next 48 hours, in one of the last moves before military action is announced, the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, will say Britain is within its legal rights to launch an attack without a second resolution. The [British] Government's chief law officer will say 1441 warns of 'serious consequences' if Saddam does not comply fully with UN resolutions. Earlier UN resolutions passed at the end of the Gulf war in 1991, which say that nations can use 'all necessary means' to disarm Saddam, back Britain's legal position.

On March 13, 2003, the US also recieved such a legal ruling. In a link to Instapundit, (you have to scroll down ( http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:lyfF2iimyuQC:64.247.33.250/index.php+%22serious+consequences%22+1441+John+Doe&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 ) alert reader Bert Wolff noted that in Bush v. Doe, the First Circuit notes that: "In diplomatic parlance, the phrase 'serious consequences' generally refers to military action."

Eugene Volokh has the goods at, http://volokh.blogspot.com/2003_03_09_volokh_archive.html#90665908 "Today's ["Today" being March 13, 2003] First Circuit decision (Doe v. Bush) made the same point:
The plaintiffs appropriately disavow the formalistic notion that Congress only authorizes military deployments if it states, "We declare war." This has never been the practice and it was not the understanding of the founders. See J.H. Ely, War and Responsibility 25-26 (1993). Congressional authorization for military action has often been found in the passage of resolutions that lacked these "magic words," or in continued enactments of appropriations or extensions of the draft which were aimed at waging a particular war. See, e.g., Laird, 451 F.2d at 34 ("[I]n a situation of prolonged but undeclared hostilities, where the executive continues to act . . . with steady Congressional support, the Constitution has not been breached."); Orlando, 443 F.2d at 1042-43 ("[T]he test is whether there is any action by the Congress sufficient to authorize or ratify the military activity in question."); see also Ely, supra, at 12-46 (arguing that Congress gave constitutionally sufficient authorization for ground war in Vietnam and Cambodia).

Here is the legal decision for the interested:
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/03-1266-01A.pdf

So it looks as if both Britian and the US were waiting for these legal decisions to show that the wording of 1441 stating "serious consequences" was indeed sufficient to go to war.

Both US and Britian have it now. It will begin. Pray for our troops as well as the innocent Iraqis!

Posted by becky 2003-03-16 07:29:25|| 2003-03-16 07:29:25|| Front Page Top

#4 Leave it to the American legal profession to take credit for the liberation of Iraq. What a bunch of ass-kissing pansies.

Posted by badanov 2003-03-16 08:19:21|| [www.rkka.org] 2003-03-16 08:19:21|| Front Page Top

#5 What I find really amusing about Doe v. Bush is that it did exactly the opposite of what the plaintiffs wanted. Now we've got a finding that under US law, it's legal. Not only that, but the court went on to suggest legal basis under UN resolutions.

Posted by Dishman 2003-03-16 13:52:26|| 2003-03-16 13:52:26|| Front Page Top

#6 If the UN inspectors don't leave within the next 12-24 hrs, they are even more stupid than the "human shileds"!

Posted by mcat 2003-03-16 16:06:48|| 2003-03-16 16:06:48|| Front Page Top

18:11 raptor
08:38 liberalhawk
07:39 raptor
00:05 badanov
23:26 Alaska Paul
23:13 Anonymous
22:23 Anonon
22:17 Anonon
21:54 tu3031
21:48 Lexicon
20:47 Mark
20:45 H.D. Miller
20:41 Alaska Paul
20:34 Alaska Paul
20:27 Alaska Paul
20:26 Govy
20:26 Crescend
20:22 Alaska Paul
20:22 Brian
20:12 Tom
20:01 Frank G
19:47 Ptah
19:42 JDB
19:42 Frank G