[ssf] Legal eagles

[Chris Malins]

My favourite comment from the attorney general:

	Resolution 1441 would have provided that a further decision of 			the 
Security Council to sanction force was required if that had 		been 
intended. All it requires is reporting to and discussion by 	the 
Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express 			further 
decision to authorise force.

I think its pretty clear that the security council always intend to go 
to war if they don't explicitly state otherwise. The very idea that they 
would have included an explicit authorisation to go to war, just because 
that was what they in fact meant, is clearly preposterous. Imagine the 
extra paper it would have wasted.

And surely the important question here, behind the general principle of 
waging war willy nilly, is not whether the war was legal, but that Tony 
'I'm a barrister' Blair thinks that war is the sort of thing where it is 
appropriate to use convoluted lawyeristic arguments, rather than 
obtaining clarity. Wouldn't we rather have Blair either say, 'although 
war may not be legal, i believe it is necessary and right' which would 
at least show intellectual honesty, or else 'the rule of law must be 
upheld, therefore I will not go to war without the explicit 
authorisation of the security council, the only body the international 
community empowers to make such decisions', rather than 'I want to go to 
war, so I am going to weasel my way through the imprecision of 
legislation drafted by those self same powers now intending to go to war'.

And last but not least, surely this sort of thing must be a barrier to 
future action by the security council. Russia, China and France may be 
legitimately suspicious of passing any resolution which may leave 
wriggle room for unwanted military action by the US/UK, and this may in 
fact prevent the UN from taking relatively legitimate measures not 
including warfare in the future.

Bastards.

Chris