| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Blair plans for war as UN is given 24 hours |
| 2003-03-16 |
| Tony Blair held an emergency 'war Cabinet' meeting yesterday to finalise plans for military action against Iraq and demand that the United Nations comes to a decision on the vital second resolution against Saddam Hussein within 24 hours. I think it's time for the UN observers and inspectors in and around Iraq to scoot. As Number 10 made clear that the chances of a diplomatic breakthrough in the Security Council were now 'bleak', the UN was given until tomorrow evening to come to a final choice on whether to back a second resolution or see America and Britain launch military action alone. If it is clear Britain and the US cannot get the necessary nine votes to pass the resolution in the council, they will dump plans to put it to a vote and announce that Saddam is in 'material breach' of UN resolution 1441 passed last November. That will be seen on both sides of the Atlantic as a trigger for war, which Ministry of Defence sources said would happen 'in short order'. It is expected that an air bombing campaign, followed by a massive ground offensive, would start within a few days. It followed the disclosure by America yesterday that two US Air Force B-1 bombers knocked out truck-mounted anti-aircraft radar systems designed to alert Iraq to attack by British and US forces - a signal that war was imminent. As tensions in the region heightened hour-by-hour, it emerged that Blair is also planning to hold an emergency meeting of the full Cabinet this week and announce a vote in the House of Commons, probably on Tuesday, if the UN route has been exhausted by tomorrow night. In a high-wire act, the Prime Minister will hope that with British troops about to go into conflict, the rebellion will be smaller than the 121 MPs who voted against the Government last month. Here's where we'll see if the "unreasonable veto" of the French pays off. Downing Street is braced for the resignation of Robin Cook, Leader of the House of Commons, by Tuesday night if the second resolution fails but officials said they hoped to keep Clare Short, the International Development Secretary, in the Cabinet. In the next 48 hours, in one of the last moves before mili tary 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 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. Goldsmith, whose legal advice to the Government advice is usually private, has told colleagues he feels he must speak out after reports that Britain had a weak legal case for an invasion. 'He's found all the reports that he's telling the Prime Minister that this might be illegal highly irritating,' said a senior Number 10 figure. Not as irritating as Tony found them, I'll bet. Blair and President Bush meet in the Azores today to finalise military plans and make a last assessment of the chances of squeezing a vote through the UN. France has said it will veto any resolution that automatically triggers war. Increasingly angry British government officials said France was acting in an 'arrogant manner' that was 'an affront to multilateralism'. France countered that it was seeking a peaceful resolution to the crisis. Yesterday, Bush made clear that war was now almost inevitable. 'There is little reason to hope that Saddam Hussein will disarm,' the President said in his weekly radio address. 'If force is required to disarm him, the American people can know that our armed forces have been given every tool and every resource to achieve victory.' Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, agreed that military action was now likely. 'The prospect of military action is now much more probable and I greatly regret that,' he said. However, throwing a spanner in the already convoluted works, the Iraqi government yesterday invited the leader of the weapons inspectorate Hans Blix and his colleague on the International Atomic Energy Authority, Mohammed ElBaradei, to visit Baghdad. The invitation, said officials at the United Nations in New York, where the invitation was delivered, asked for their presence to help 'accelerate the inspections process'. Hey Blixie, you wouldn't be that dumb, would you? In a signal that Blair is moving into 'high gear' as military action approaches, the Prime Minister called an emergency meeting of his closest aides and colleagues. The Prime Minister's official spokesman said: 'We need to take stock and realise things are difficult. But in the end you reach a point of decision. We are at that stage.' In the end, I think Rummy's 'loose cannon' remarks last week had the desired effect. Rummy appealed to British honor and the Brits responded as we knew they would. A poll of half of all backbench Labour MPs for today's BBC TV's Politics Show suggests the rebellion could be even larger than last time if Blair seeks support for war without a second resolution. Only 17 of the 129 MPs, asked if they would support military action against Iraq without a second resolution said that they would, and 95 said that they would not. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |