"The UNSC's does NOT have the right to commit the armed forces of its sovereign members to the enforcement if its binding resolutions"
OK. Show me where the Constitution gives the US the right to commit the armed forces to the enforcement of its (UN) binding resolutions. (I don't even want to get into why we don't enforce resolutions about Israel) It does say we have to honor treaties one of which is the UN Charter, part of which prevent pre-empitve war unless under acute danger.
And, if the UN had authorized this, and was behind it, this wouldn't have happened...Not even good bud Vincente Fox...
=======
Prior to the invasion, the United States' official position was that Iraq was in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 regarding weapons of mass destruction and had to be disarmed by force.[4] The United Kingdom and United States attempted to get a U.N. Security Council resolution authorising military force, but withdrew it before it could come to a vote after France, Russia, and later China all signalled that they would use their Security Council veto power against any resolution that would include an ultimatum allowing the use of force against Iraq
en.wikipedia.org
===============
The language contained in UNSC 678 stated that "all necessary means" were authorized to evict Iraq from Kuwait and restore regional peace and stability.
Damn; I thought they had been kicked out in '91.
15. Does the U.S. have the right to invade Iraq?
No. The UN resolution passed in November 2002 sent arms inspectors back into Iraq to verify Iraq's disarmament, the final requirement before lifting sanctions. The resolution says there will be "serious consequences" if there is a "material breach" of the resolution, but it specifically does not identify what those consequences should or might be. The resolution states that a finding of "material breach" requires both omissions or lies in Iraq's arms declaration and non-compliance with inspectors. It reserves for the Council as a whole, not any individual country, authority to make those determinations.
When the resolution was passed, every Council ambassador other than Washington's made clear the resolution provides no authorization for war. According to Mexico's Ambassador, Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, force could only be valid, "with the prior, explicit authorization of the Security Council." The U.S. may decide to go to war without the Security Council's OK, and regardless of what the UN inspectors find or don't find. But the terms of the UN resolutions are very important considerations for Security Council countries such as France, Mexico, Germany and others, whose governments must balance their desire to join Bush's war with widespread public anti-war sentiment.
16. Does the U.S. have the right of self-defense against Iraq?
According to the United Nations Charter, no nation has the right to attack another. The only exceptions are 1) if the Security Council specifically authorizes a military strike, or 2) in self-defense. "Self-defense" is defined very narrowly. Article 51 of the Charter says a country has the right of self-defense only "IF an armed attack occurs." Iraq has not attacked the U.S. (see section 5 on "no-fly" zones), so self-defense does not apply. The U.S. claims it has the right of "preemptive self-defense" to go to war against Iraq, without any further authorization from the United Nations. But the UN Charter does not authorize such a claim. Some scholars believe that stopping an imminent attack would also give a country the right to use military force in a kind of self-defense. But even that argument fails, because no one, even the Bush super-hawks, claims that an Iraqi attack of any sort, especially on the United States, is "imminent."
ips-dc.org |
