We are not at war!

August 9, 2005 9:13 AM

"..there is not, and has not been, a state of war between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Iraq..."

The Chancery Division of the High Court has held that the UK is not, nor has it ever been, at war with Iraq. Whew! I bet that's a relief to all the dead and injured... The question came up before the court because a certain Mr Brown was being sued by an Iraqi woman for money allegedly owed to her from property rental. Mr Brown's defence is that she cannot bring a claim against him because she is an 'enemy alien'. Judge says 'Bite me'.
posted by essexjan (47 comments total)

Of course, it's a "police action".

But technicaly the war today is with the "Insurgents". Although I wonder about the "and has not been" part...
posted by delmoi at 9:25 AM on August 9, 2005

OK, what ridiculous euphemism did they come up with this time? Assisting another country to invade and topple a regime isn't an act of war, it's a .... ? Police action? House-sitting exercise? Massive love-in?

Oh, wait, no euphemisms :
Because English courts do not recognise any intermediate state between peace and war, in the event of there being an armed conflict which does not give rise to a state of war, a state of peace would still be considered to subsist
All those troops and insurgents blowing each other up are actually peacefully coexisting. Got it.

Mind you, the guy claiming the "enemy alien" has no standing's still an asshole.
posted by kaemaril at 9:25 AM on August 9, 2005

46. I am satisfied that HMG's position is that there is not, and has not been, a state of war between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Iraq, and that it is therefore not necessary for me to ask any questions of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

We were always at war with Iran. Thanks for that Orwellian Moment of the Day, essexjan.
posted by Rothko at 9:27 AM on August 9, 2005

Rothko : We were? Hmmm. Orwellian historical editing already being primed and there's something you know we don't, or was that a typo for Iraq? :)
posted by kaemaril at 9:32 AM on August 9, 2005

Mind you, the guy claiming the "enemy alien" has no standing's still an asshole

I used to run across him from time to time when I was a divorce lawyer in east London, many moons ago. It was always, ahem, interesting to have him on the opposite side of a case...


posted by essexjan at 9:33 AM on August 9, 2005

Rothko : We were? Hmmm. Orwellian historical editing already being primed and there's something you know we don't, or was that a typo for Iraq? :)

No typo, maybe, not sure. It all goes into the same memory hole. :)
posted by Rothko at 9:36 AM on August 9, 2005

The UK is has never been at war with the current government/state of Iraq. They were at war with the Iraqi governement/state run by Saddam which is no more. Two different entities. Of course the UK isn't at war with the current elected government.
posted by Carbolic at 9:46 AM on August 9, 2005

Carbolic : Nope, they weren't at war with that guy either.

Apparently.
posted by kaemaril at 9:51 AM on August 9, 2005

The legal explanation is laid bare in that opinion if one bothers to read it. The judge found that the action was taken pursuant to the UN resolutions authorizing force to remove the Saddam regime. The judge found, correctly, that there was never a declaration of war from Iraq. I doubt anyone thinks his legal ruling is incorrect as a matter of fact, but I also doubt that the fact the judge will correct will stop the usual suspects from making their shrill and petty political comments (as already evidenced in this thread by the worst offender).
posted by dios at 9:53 AM on August 9, 2005

(The Royal) We are not a crook.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:54 AM on August 9, 2005

hmmm. Change "from" to "against" and "will correct" to "was correct." Sorry.
posted by dios at 9:55 AM on August 9, 2005

As dios always tells us, the letter of the law is the true spirit of the law and the arbiter of fact.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:56 AM on August 9, 2005

War is such an ugly term, maybe we should call Horseplay with Guns instead?

I liked it when The Daily Show renamed torture "freedom tickling". It sounds so much less like violent abuse if it has a nice little name. Like "No Child Left Behind" or "The Patriot Act", just don't look inside.
posted by fenriq at 9:59 AM on August 9, 2005

As dios always tells us, the letter of the law is the true spirit of the law and the arbiter of fact.

And as we all know from elementary school, and as a strict Federalist like Dios would argue, when it comes to slaves, your master is entitled to get 3/5ths of a vote out of you. Strict interpretation of laws makes this country awesome!
posted by Rothko at 10:02 AM on August 9, 2005

Accept for the fact that anyone with even a modicum of intelligence or an ounce of good faith would know that the 3/5ths provision was repealed by the 14th Amendment. Way to make another stupid point, AlexReynolds.
posted by dios at 10:04 AM on August 9, 2005

Accept for the fact that anyone with even a modicum of intelligence

Just wanted to point that out.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:05 AM on August 9, 2005

Or, to be technically percise, the term is superceded, not repealed
posted by dios at 10:06 AM on August 9, 2005

Golly. Sorry about all the typos today.
posted by dios at 10:07 AM on August 9, 2005

But if it wasn't repealed, you'd be happy enough to live with this ruling, right Dios? I guess the point is that pedantic interpretation of law pretty much makes law pointless. We make laws to serve us, not the other way around.

This judge was deliberate in interpreting the law in bad faith, because he had a political agenda to put forward and had no other alternative than to read the government's actions in a very narrow way. Any reasonable human being knows this is a war, simply from the language used by the UK's leadership to describe it, this one judge's polemics notwithstanding.
posted by Rothko at 10:10 AM on August 9, 2005

hmmm. Change "from" to "against" and "will correct" to "was correct." Sorry.

Also change "WMDs" to "liberation" and "yellowcake" to "pattycake". Sorry.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:10 AM on August 9, 2005

Rothko : To be fair to him, I don't think he read the law in bad faith at all. He was strict about it, but frankly good for him. What would be even worse than saying there was no war would be to call the woman in question an enemy alien :)

As he said, as the law's written it's either peace or a time of war, and that only happens when war's been declared. Frankly, you'd think that should really be updated a little, but I suspect it'll never change: NOT officially calling a war a war whilst still calling it a war in the media suits governments a lot better than officially declaring it a war...
posted by kaemaril at 10:15 AM on August 9, 2005

pedantic interpretation of law pretty much makes law pointless

This is the most nonsensical comment I have ever read from you.... which his saying alot.

Anything other than a strict interpretation of law makes law pointless. If the words used in the law are subject only to the personal whim of a judge, then the law is pointless... the judge is free to make ruling based on his beliefs. It is the strict interpretation of the law as written that makes laws have meaning. Without that, a law isn't worth the paper its written on.

Perhaps you would perfer to live in a juristocracy where judges are free to rule however they personally see fit. But in a republican form of government, the people's will is expressed in laws. Judges do not make laws, the people do. So your suggestion that the judges shouldn't follow what we put down as laws shows a gross anti-democratic bent.

What's truly revolting is that your faith in a juristocracy exists only to the extent that a judge shares your views. I'm certain that if the judges views didn't comport with yours, you wouldn't be so willing to give the judge free reign to make decisions without a basis in the expressed will of the people.
posted by dios at 10:17 AM on August 9, 2005

dios says:
I also doubt this will stop the usual suspects from making their shrill and petty political comments (as already evidenced in this thread by the worst offender).
---------------------------------
Speak for yourself . . .
posted by mk1gti at 10:18 AM on August 9, 2005

I give up for today. My proofreading is suffering as I try to post quickly on a busy day. My apologies to those reading my posts.
posted by dios at 10:19 AM on August 9, 2005

Rothko says:

But if it wasn't repealed, you'd be happy enough to live with this ruling, right Dios? I guess the point is that pedantic interpretation of law pretty much makes law pointless. We make laws to serve us, not the other way around.
--------------------------
These days laws seem pointless as they are too commonly used against the weak and defenseless rather than against the rich and powerful.
I wonder how things would change if attorneys were allowed no higher wage than public defenders, if corporations were allowed to invest no more than an individual could invest for their own defense. . .

If ponies could fly and so could I . . .
posted by mk1gti at 10:21 AM on August 9, 2005

As he said, as the law's written it's either peace or a time of war, and that only happens when war's been declared.

This kind of dissembling is, ultimately, horseshit, and why we in the US can't even get an Act of Congress for our illegal war in Iraq, let alone the UK.

The sad truth is that regular folks on both sides pay with their lives and livelihoods because of this legal tapdancing game, where apologists talk out of one side of the mouth and then the other. Either this is a war or it isn't. If it isn't a war, our military should not be there. If it is a war, say so officially.
posted by Rothko at 10:21 AM on August 9, 2005

If all you want is a strict interpretation, a computer will do that for you. A judge must use his judgement to interpret the law, to answer questions of law, within the already established boundaries (or beyond, if you're the supreme court) of prior precedent and the wording and, to a degree, spirit of the law. There must always be room for leeway, surely?

In this case, I don't think the judge had leeway. If he'd have gone the other way and declared we were at war he'd be contrary to the pretty explicit wording of the law, as well as having the Lord Chancellor breathing down his neck for an explanation, I suspect :)
posted by kaemaril at 10:24 AM on August 9, 2005

So-called "strict interpretation of the law" is like so-called "strict interpretation of the Bible": applied only and precisely when it suits the interpreter.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:26 AM on August 9, 2005

Rothko : I agree with you, but the law as it's written is quite clear-cut. Don't like it? Change it.

The law's outdated, back to times when it took significant time and resources to get even a few troops overseas and going to war was a big thing that involved the entire country. The use of "Fast reaction forces", "Police actions" etc requires a rethink.

But, as I said, I suspect that no government will be interesting in changing it. It suits them so too much as a nifty little get out clause.
posted by kaemaril at 10:28 AM on August 9, 2005

Dios: "But in a republican form of government, the people's will is expressed in laws. Judges do not make laws, the people do. So your suggestion that the judges shouldn't follow what we put down as laws shows a gross anti-democratic bent."

You have your premises wrong, as usual. We're straying from the UK now, but if "people" made laws, the US would not have gone to war in Iraq, because there was no official declaration of war from Congress.

Would you be willing to extend your strict interpretation of law to that situation, or will you grant that laws, in practice (and certainly in this case) are not serving the people?

Either we're at war or we're not. You can't have it both ways, unless you're a judge with a political axe to grind, willing to dissemble to serve the interests of your friends.
posted by Rothko at 10:33 AM on August 9, 2005

The use of "Fast reaction forces", "Police actions" etc requires a rethink.

I might agree with you in the big picture sense; however, this kind of "rethinking" has become a quasi-official, unwritten policy designed to do an endrun around laws meant to serve the general population, so as to benefit those in charge.
posted by Rothko at 10:36 AM on August 9, 2005

As far as clear cut vs. interpreting, which is it going to be?

As Rothko said, these is nothing more than legal tapdancing, when a judge wants a law to represent one thing, it's as clear as black and white. When a judge wants it to interpret something else it's 'oh, there's lots of greys in the interpretation of the law, my little gumdrop.'

It's morally dishonest and there is no other way to put it.

Laws as they are written and practiced today are simply bullshit and when they harm the interests of the weak and disenfranchised they need to be done away with or disregarded.
posted by mk1gti at 10:37 AM on August 9, 2005

mk1gti : Mayhap I'm feeling far less cynical than usual today due to it being my day off, but I think you do the judiciary a disservice. If there's anybody who likes twisting the law one way one day and another way the next day, it must surely be the political types.

Rothko: Agreed, which is why I think somebody ought to sit down, think out and properly debate the issue, and rewrite the rules to be more relevant on what constitutes warfare, acts of war, states of war etc, rather than simply reinterpreting them when it suits them. "War on terror" and "illegal combatants" (WWII nazi precedent notwithstanding) being the classic examples.
posted by kaemaril at 10:52 AM on August 9, 2005

kaemaril writes "War on terror"

Ahem. I think you mean "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism".
posted by mr_roboto at 11:19 AM on August 9, 2005

War was never declared by Great Britain against Iraq - or vice-versa. Therefore a state of war didn't, doesn't and couldn't exist between Great Britain and Iraq.

If my memory serves me correctly, war was never officially declared by Great Britain against Argentina over their occupation of The Falkland Islands either. Which is why the Falklands Conflict was just that, a conflict, and not a war.
posted by DrDoberman at 11:43 AM on August 9, 2005

Some of you are really blaming a judge for accurately noting that the government of the UK did not make a declaration of war against Iraq? What the hell else could he have done? The alternative decision would have been utterly indefensible and quickly overturned. Its the politicians who created this absurdity.

Even if the UK and US were at war, they are not now. They are presently engaged in an occupation and the legal ramifications are quite different.
Rothko, if you maintain that your country is currently at war, please, with what entity, is it at war?
And, Dammit, Rothko, you've made me appear to be (in part) siding with Dios. That's bullshit. I hate that.
posted by Zetetics at 11:50 AM on August 9, 2005

DrDoberman: I believe that this is true, although at the time the Argentinian foreign minister, Costa Mendez, told reporters that Argentina was now "technically" in a state of war with Britain when British forces retook South Georgia.
posted by kaemaril at 11:59 AM on August 9, 2005

Judge says 'Bite me'.

Find: "Bite Me"
Phrase Not Found

Fark Much?
posted by AspectRatio at 12:25 PM on August 9, 2005

This appears to be in the grand tradition of British judges making fine distinctions in order to achieve a just outcome, eg in this case not being swindled out of your rent money by your crooked lawyer.

Note he is very careful to distinguish the legal sense of "state of war" from the factual existence of hostilities. He is well aware that there are hostilities. He is merely establishing through careful reference to precedent (going back to 1608, tee hee) that the plaintiff is not an enemy alien and therefore has standing to sue for her rent money.

You guys are blowing this up to be way more than it is.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 1:02 PM on August 9, 2005

I just want to make it clear, I am not currently at war with anyone.
posted by blue_beetle at 1:12 PM on August 9, 2005

Noted
posted by Zetetics at 1:50 PM on August 9, 2005

blue_beetle: currently, eh? Subtle. C'mon, you can tell us ... what have you got planned? :)
posted by kaemaril at 2:12 PM on August 9, 2005

As long as I can remember there was always the retort of 'It's the best law (or laws) that we have.
This current situation and issues going on with the current administration and governments seem to be clear indications that laws need to be revised to prevent this kind of legal mumbo-jumbo from occuring.
Here's hoping these revisions and improvements are sooner rather than later.
posted by mk1gti at 4:57 PM on August 9, 2005

As I understand it, from a legal perspective, there must be a declaration of war for a state of war to legally exist. This judge is precisely correct that there is no war, because none was declared. In the US, I believe the Senate must declare war. I'm not sure offhand whether the House is involved, and I'm too lazy to go look. In the UK, presumably, Parliament has the equivalent power.

Now, I fully agree that the laws should be updated to reflect modern reality. But it would be dangerous for a judge (either here or there) to rule that we were in a state of war just because the President said so. If the President has that power, then we declared a War on Drugs a long time ago, armed drug dealers are enemy combatants, and they are quite eligible to be disappeared into the black hole of Guantanamo.

Be very careful what you wish for.
posted by Malor at 7:46 PM on August 9, 2005

I think somebody ought to sit down, think out and properly debate the issue, and rewrite the rules to be more relevant on what constitutes warfare, acts of war, states of war etc, rather than simply reinterpreting them when it suits them. "War on terror" and "illegal combatants" (WWII nazi precedent notwithstanding) being the classic examples.
posted by kaemaril at 10:52 AM PST on August 9 [!]

I can't think of anybody cometent in this administration to do it. Can you?

There was a recent referendum to create a 'comittee' to review 'old laws' and take them off the books. I am actually for something like this, but I can't trust those in charge not to have an adverse agenda as to the editing of the laws they chose. Therefore I voted it down.
It passed.
Haven't heard a peep from this 'comittee' as to how things are going, or what laws they have considered.

That's how we loose it. Beaurocracy. "I'll set up a special panell do discuss a contingency plan to set up a comittee in case this news ever gains traction."

Welcome to America. Exportable.
posted by Balisong at 8:28 PM on August 9, 2005

er competent..
posted by Balisong at 8:32 PM on August 9, 2005

(gotta say, this is one of the few times I find myself agreeing with dios...)
posted by hattifattener at 11:06 PM on August 9, 2005