Are the Republicans falling into a dangerous trap by arguing

[GumboYaYa]

that Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States?

Before the war started, many legal scholars argued that the war in Iraq would be illegal under current norms of international law. There are apparently two justifications for war. Self-defense and U.N. authorization. Pre-emptive war stretches the concept of self defense to argue that a country need not wait to be attacked, but may defend itself if there is an imminent threat of attack.

The Republicans are now arguing that Iraq was not an imminent threat and Bush never said or thought it was. If so, are they not also making the argument that the invasion of Iraq was illegal and Bush is a war criminal?

I see no point to search through speeches and press releases to argue that Bush really did say Iraq was an imminent threat. We can simply point out that if it is true that Bush did not feel Iraq was an imminent threat then the war was illegal.

[MrBenchley]

1. Agreed...

If Iraq WASN'T an imminent threat AND the Chimp never said so, why the rush to war? Because he gets belligerent when he's drunk?

[blackcat77]

2. They're just trying to cover all the bases

But it's self-contradictory and really is a sign of desperation on their part.

[TacticalPeek]

3. What an obvious insight, now that you mention it.

I'm surprised I've heard no talking heads beat the R's about the head and neck with this petard they've handed us.

Then again, I've watched the last year of their killing and looting only show up in the press as 'his popularity is coming back'.

:shrug:

[GumboYaYa]

6. The problem is that recognizing the obviousness

requires holding more than one thought in your head at one time. The talking heads seem to have trouble with that these days.

[radwriter0555]

4. oooooooo THANKS. I'm going to USE that. Good observation!

very nice.

[Brotherjohn]

5. That is considered true under the "norms of international law". BUT...

...there is no enforcing body, short of perhaps the U.N. I believe the U.S. is not subject to the war crimes court because they did not sign on to it. And short of the U.N. passing a Security Council resolution condemning the U.S. and allowing for some form of "enforcement", there's not much anyone can do. Of course, the U.S. holds a veto and would certainly use it in any such resolution, so it won't ever even come up.

Of course, the Bush administration DID NOT ever argue that there was an "imminent" threat using that specific word. But so what. They constantly implied it. But the payback they receive for that Big Lie will have to be political (let's hope).

Your argument is basically what most anti-war types have been arguing all along. The very policy of pre-emption is illegal according to "many legal scholars... under current norms of international law". If it were meant to apply to situations where there was an imminent threat, then there would be no need for a new "doctrine". It would fall under self-defense. It is specifically invoked by Bush to apply to situations where they feel there is "a gathering threat" (in other words, whenever they feel they want to use it).

Bush, of course, is talking out of both sides of his mouth on this, and always has. To make it sound legal, and to convince the American public, he had to make it SOUND as though there was an imminent threat. But to cover his ass now that it is known that there was no imminent threat, he says it was just a "grave and gathering danger" that had to be viewed "through the lens of 9-11". Of course, the latter is illegal under international law. But again, who's going to enforce it?

ON EDIT (addendum):
From what I have read, it has always been acceptable to go to war if there is a clear and imminent threat, under the guise of self-defense. The "Bush Doctrine" does not stretch the self-defense justification, it goes way beyond it. It goes into conjecture and hypothetical arguments for war by any given country, which is one of the very things the U.N. was set up to counter.

Not only did Bush never say Iraq was an imminent threat (although, again, he repeatedly implied it to win political support), but he even went so far as to say that the threat was NOT imminent. In his State of the union address, he said something along the lines of "if we were to wait until the threat was imminent..." in arguing that we should attack Iraq BEFORE then.

[GumboYaYa]

7. Enforcement won't happen for the reasons you mentioned,

but itwould be very damning for any respected international body to accuse the U.S. President of war crimes. The repuke argument sets them up for such allegations.

More importantly, I am addressing the means to respond to Repuke BS from a political perspective that will score points with voters. People understand "well if there was no imminent threat ther was no legal justification for war" better than trying to compile all the quotes that imply imminent threat and then make a detailed argument as to why that tye words imply imminent threat. The former is packaged in a nice sound bite that requires little effort. The latter makes people's eyes glaze over.

[Brotherjohn]

10. I agree. People understand "well if there was no imminent threat...

...there was no legal justification". I agree that people will understand such a soundbite much better than extended arguments over whether they specifically said the threat was "imminent" or not.

A similar soundbite, addressing the same point, is "Where are the WMDs?" People understand that, too, and it is in large part responsible for Bush's decline in approval. It does not specifically address the legality of the war, but (perhaps more important to the public) it addresses the necessity of it (or lack thereof).

[GumboYaYa]

11. Read the National Security Strategy of the United States

signed by Bush.

In there he says:

"For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat, most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies and air forces preparing to attack.

We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries. Rogue states or terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means...."

In other words, it is the announced policy and position of the Bush administration that rogue states who possess unconventional means to attack the United States pose an imminent threat justifying preemptive attack. Every time Bush described the purported WMDs in Iraq, he was describing an imminent threat as defined by his very own policy.

But having said that, I again point out that I am merely crafting a political response that avoids the drudgery of so many arguments that liberals make. I'm not discounting your arguments; I'm merely trying to think in terms that score points with people not sophisiticated enough to follow the legitimate points you make.

[htuttle]

12. Actually, there very much is an enforcing body

It's the US Constitution and Congress.

We signed the UN Charter in good faith, with proper ratification and such. It's a bona-fide Treaty that the US is signatory to.

That's where the Constitution comes in.

Article VI of the Constitution states, among other things:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

So the enforcing body is the US government itself, our Consitution and mechanisms to enforce the Constitution.

Of course, I'm aware of the political reality that the Republicans are in control of all branches of government, and thus, are unlikely to enforce the Constitution against their own pResident.

However, there's no reason to let them off the hook with the idea that 'there's no one to enforce it'. The rest of the world was counting on us to enforce our own laws, and we failed them. Badly.

[BigMacAttack]

8. There is no illegal or legal.

There is no legitimate legislative body that passes laws detailing what international behavior is and is not legal.

There is no legitimate international court that adjudicates such issues.

There is no international police force that enforces such laws and decisions.

Such institutions are badly needed. In the meantime discussing how many angels can dance on the top a pin head are distractions from the work involved in creating such institutions.

BMA

[GumboYaYa]

9. You're falling into the same pattern that gets liberals burned all

the time. Yes you are correct from a technical legal standpoint, but most people are not sophisticated enough to follow your arguments. People understand "If the threat was not imminent there was no legal justification for war. Which was it George, did you believe there was a legal justification for war or did you knowingly lead us to violate international law." Depsite there being no enforecement mechanism, there are precepts and principals of international law and those clearly say that war is illegal if there is no imminent threat.

[BigMacAttack]

13. I disagree.

'there are precepts and principals of international law and those clearly say that war is illegal if there is no imminent threat.'

I disagree. No legitimate legislative body has determined those precepts and principals do not exist.

No legitimate court has established those rules.

It should be easy to prove me wrong.

If you do, I will lobby that court and legislature to make removing criminal despots like Saddam legal.

As an aside, Bush pretty much stated the threat was NOT imminent in his State of the Union address.


BMA

[GumboYaYa]

15. Try Article 51 of the United Nations charter,

which permits making war in self defense, but the attack must be actual or imminent. I think the U.S. signed the U.N. charter.

<on EDIT> as an aside, Bush clearly said that possession of nonconventional weapons by a rogue state (like Iraq) is an imminent threat in the National Securioty Strategy of the United States, but that is not really relevant to the point I am making.

[HFishbine]

14. Beautiful

I love this type of analysis. Now, who's going to enforce the law, or does this just become a clever debating point?

[htuttle]

19. Congress should enforce it

Again, according to Article VI of our own Constitution, we are REQUIRED to honor the treaties that are properly ratified and signed. (see reply #12)

Otherwise, the word of the US government isn't worth a warm bucket of spit. Some would argue that it isn't worth spit anyway (just ask the Lakota Sioux), but the existence of past transgressions do not excuse present ones..

If a treaty is no longer acceptable, then the executive branch is required to follow the proper legal procedures for nullifying the treaty -- it can't just ignore them as Bush has done.

[TacticalPeek]

22. This clever debating point is nontrivial if used to frame a discussion.

Along these lines:

"If we faced no imminent threat, why are our sons and daughters spilling their blood in foreign sand?"

[ComerPerro]

16. No, they aren't

Because, honestly, who is manning the traps? Who will catch them in their lie?
Really. Who? The media? Please.

The media doesn't even have the balls to even suggest that Bush might have deliberately overhyped the case for war and may have willingly used intelligence that he knew was either bad or forged. And they will never in a million years outright say that he lied.

I don't want to rain on your parade, and I certainly don't mean to be rude, but haven't you noticed that Republicans can say anything they want, anytime they want, something contrary to everything they have ever said, and they are NEVER questioned???

[GumboYaYa]

18. There is no question that the media has been very kind to GWB.

I for one think that part of the reason is conservayive control of the media, but I think Dems are also share in the blame. We like to make big reasoned and principled arguments that are true but sophisticated. Americans (and the press) like simple packaged soundbites that take five seconds on the evening news and are easily repeated. We need to work harder to fight fire with fire. I have not given up the fight yet.

[Bandit]

17. This is why I love DU

It is logic like this that is compelling.:thumbsup:

[librechik]

20. they're making us all accomplices

since we approved the war and it wasn't "imminent" i.e. legal

[Toucano]

21. Their argument

is that UN Resolution 1441 authorized "consequences" if Saddam failed to fully disclose (and prove a negative). Their invasion and subsequent occupation is a consequence, so the UN has already approved it.

I don't agree with that, but I think 1441 is carefully worded to give them a technically legal way out of the argument you offer.

[GumboYaYa]

23. Except that three countries with veto power explictly

conditioned consent to 1441 on it not being an authorization for war, but nevertheless they will make that argument.

[htuttle]

24. False

The 'automaticity' of the use of force in Resolution 1441 was a hotly contentious item. The only way that the US was able to get it passed was to make it very clear that there was NO automatic authorization for the use of force implicit in Resolution 1441.

Here's an article describing the debate:

http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/IRAQ/PRSC7564.HTM

Also speaking after the vote, Council members said that their views had been taken into account in the final version of the draft, which was co-sponsored by the United States and the United Kingdom. The representative of France welcomed the two-stage approach required by the resolution, saying that the concept of “automaticity” for the use of force had been eliminated. The representatives of China and the Russian Federation stressed that only UNMOVIC and the IAEA had the authority to report violations by Iraq of the resolution’s requirements.

Somewhere, I had a link to Powell himself stating that there was no automaticity in Resolution 1441, but it eludes me at the moment. I'll find it if required.

[Brotherjohn]

25. One of the last phrases in 1441 is that the UNSC "remains seized...

...of the matter" or something close to that. In plain English, that means that THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL is to decide IF 1441 is violated and, if so, what the consequences are to be.

They did not authorize an invasion, and the U.N. chose to simply continue the inspections and sanctions... which,as we know now, were enough to keep Hussein and the threat he posed contained. Wise, that U.N. is.

So I DON'T think the language gives them a technically legal way out. I think the administration is selectively reading only part of the resolution (the part that says "consequences") and ignoring everything else about the way U.N. resolutions work.

[TacticalPeek]

26. Or else why did they try to get a second, 'authorizing' resolution?

To no avail, justifiably, because try as they might, they could not point Blix and team to ANY WMD. Not even after Blix asked for 'better' intelligence. The problem was the 'better' intelligence told the wrong story for bushco, so Blix was working from the 'faith-based' intelligence.

[Career Prole]

27. Thanks, George Will!

Your column in my paper today was timely indeed!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3436-2003Oct22.html

The administration's critics would be more credible if they had a few doubts of their own concerning their own judgments, such as their reiterated insistence that only mendacity can explain the failure, so far, to find weapons of mass destruction. After all, they say, Rumsfeld, the president and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell repeatedly asserted that Iraq's weapons programs posed an "imminent" threat.
Such assertions by those three officials may have numbered zero. Rumsfeld is more bemused than angered, and certainly not shocked, that critics profess themselves shocked and angered because he, Powell and the president supposedly said, repeatedly, something that none of them actually ever said. At least, says a Rumsfeld aide, an electronic search finds not a single instance of them using the argument that Iraq posed an "imminent" WMD threat to the United States.

Thanks to DU, I've already fired off a letter to the editor. I had already written my letter using various and sundry quotes where although the actual word "imminent" was never used, imminence was sure as hell implied...then I read this thread. Sure put the gravy on my letter.
"However, if Mr. Will insists there was no administration claim of an imminent threat, what effect does this have on their stated need for preemption?"

Thanks DU!
Rick