The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

No Inspections = Aggression Against U.S.: Draft Bill Text Urls, Cursory Analysis and Sponsors

Bill Url (Html):
Bill Url (Pdf):
Bill Url (Pdf - CASI):


Excerpted concluding paragraph: "the refusal by Iraq to admit United Nations
weapons inspectors into any facility covered by the provisions of Security
Council Resolution 687 should be considered an act of aggression against the
United States and its allies".

Below find:
* Initial, cursory analysis
* Previous statement by the bill's lead sponsor
* List of sponsors, along with Urls and occasional background information


On 4 December 2001, U.S. Representative Lindsey Graham (Republican - South
Carolina introduced to the U.S. House of
Representatives' Committee on International Relations H.J. RES. 75.  The official
title, as introduced, was:

"Regarding the monitoring of weapons development in Iraq, as required by
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991)".

Please note that this bill declares that "Security Council Resolution 687
was adopted under chapter VII of the United Nations Charter and therefore
can be enforced through military action".

Iraq-related Security Council practice and Chapter VII guidelines do not
seem to support the conclusion that SCR Chapter VII invocation:

* Authorizes States to use force to support a Security Council resolution
* Gives individual States the authority, effectively cart blanche, to
determine on their own if and when they will use force to enforce Security
Council resolutions generally or particular resolution components

Explicit force use authorization appears to be requisite.

Chapter VII itself also seems
to suggest that Council-sanctioned force may only follow some combination of
Security Council recommendation, determination and authorization.

Recall that SCR 678 (1990) explicitly authorized "Authorizes Member use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660
(1990)" and subsequent resolutions (para. 2) ordering that "Iraq withdraw
immediately and unconditionally all of its forces to the positions in which
they were located on 1 August 1990" (SCR 660, para. 2).

No other Security Council resolution on Iraq during the subsequent time
period authorizes the use of force.  E.g., in SCR 1205, passed on 5 November
1998 (just over a month before the U.S. and UK began Desert Fox), the

Para. 1.: "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease
cooperation with the Special Commission as a flagrant violation of
resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions"

Para. 2.: "Demands that Iraq rescind immediately and unconditionally the
decision of 31 October 1998, as well as the decision of 5 August 1998, to
suspend cooperation with the Special Commission and to maintain restrictions
on the work of the IAEA, and that Iraq provide immediate, complete and
unconditional cooperation with the Special Commission and the IAEA"

Yet, the Security Council did not authorize the use of force to enforce its

However, other, more expert opinions in this regard would be most welcome.


For Graham's homepage announcement, see:


You may wish to note Graham's earlier remarks about large-scale Iraq-focused
military operations:


"If you go to downtown Baghdad, the whole thing changes" and the coalition
against terrorism falls apart, said Graham, who is running for the U.S.
Senate seat that will be vacated next year by the retiring U.S. Sen. Strom

Graham added that the battle will not be short, like the Gulf War of a
decade ago. "This is not going to be a 100-hour war," he said.


Source: Associated Press, "Congressman: War on Terrorism Will Affect All of
American Life", 28 September 2001


Bill Co-Sponsors (sponsorship date in parenthesis):

Rep. Richard Burr (6 December 2001)
* Republican - North Carolina
* and
Rep. Eric Cantor (6 December 2001)
* Republican - Virginia
* and
Rep. John Cooksey (6 December 2001)
* Republican - Louisiana
* On a Louisiana radio station, Cooksey said that "If I see someone that
comes in that's got a diaper on his head and a fan belt around his diaper on
his head, that guy needs to be pulled over and checked".
Source: NBC Nightly News, "Muslims now victims of both hate and terror", 20
September 2001
* Cooksey later apologized for those particular remarks, but additionally
argued that law enforcement and immigration officials should engage in
regional profiling.  "America's security is at stake. We know the faces of
the terrorists and where they're from. Terrorist profiling is essential for
our nation's security. Slam shut loopholes in immigration, especially those
from terrorist countries".
Source: Associated Press, "Congressman's Ad Urges Profiling", 9 October 2001
* and and
Rep. Porter J. Goss (4 December 2001)
* Republican - Florida
* Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence
* Former "Clandestine Services Officer", CIA,
* and
Rep. Henry J. Hyde (4 December 2001)
* Republican - Illinois
* Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (6 December 2001)
* Republican - California
* and
Rep. Edward L. Schrock (6 December 2001)
* Republican - Virginia
Rep. Wes Watkins (6 December 2001)
* Republican - Oklahoma
* and


Nathaniel Hurd
Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR)
162 Montague Street, 2nd Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel.: 718-237-9145, x 21
Fax: 718-237-9147
Mobile: 917-407-3389
Personal E-Fax: 707-221-7449
Afghanistan Factsheets:

*The contents of this message may contain personal views which are not the
views of ISP, unless specifically stated*

This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq
For removal from list, email
CASI's website - - includes an archive of all postings.

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]