Comments on: Why they hate us

By: Wallsy

Wallsy — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 12:46:50 +0000

Oh my God, very amusing! Reminds of British politicians who get caught in the act, “it wasn’t me it was Michael Brown”.

By: Kat

Kat — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 03:49:31 +0000

This post made me cry.

By: Wallsy

Wallsy — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 13:55:12 +0000

Precisely, Eric, the stated doctrine is anticpatory self-defence which is, if I am not mistaken, a home-grown doctrine concocted by the Administration. The semantic dance they perform, however, is to conflate it with Article 51. This mechanism is similoar to the Al Qaeda/Saddam conflation in a sense, although the latter was more purposive. Indeed, if we follow Bush’s logic then we could justifiably “forgive” the Pearl Harbour attacks since it was certainly obvious to the Japanese that the threat from the US was palpable. But the BUshites stretch even the boundaries of this by attempting to predict the future and indeed furture foreign policy intentions on the part of, say, IRan and others. But even if an attack on Amrica were Iran’s intention, there would still have to be an unequivocal amount of proof (weapons made, posed, aimed at America, dates set etc). To attack on a whim, especially given the horrors that war incurs, would be (and is in light of Iraq) a war crime beyond the pale.

By: Eric

Eric — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:45:07 +0000

Yes, Rodger, I agree that the semantics of international law are often misused. I don’t think Helen was referring to Article-51-based preemption under “…the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations”. She’s really talking about preventive war, or what I’m referring to here as “anticipatory self-defense”.

If the Bush Doctrine were to be enshrined with legality under international law, what would stop, say, Iran or N. Korea from attacking US missile silos or aircraft carriers arguably poised to “materialize” into a threat to these countries. (Desire not to commit suicide, I suppose is the simple answer.) This is interesting enough to warrant a post. Looking forward to your IISS article.

By: Rodger

Rodger — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:38:16 +0000

Well, Helen Thomas is pushing admirably, she has the international law wrong. Preemptive war is legal, and the longstanding requirement is the existence of “imminent threat.” No state has to wait until it has been attacked.

However, preventive war has long been illegal. These are attacks launched before a threat fully materializes, they are not imminent.

That said, more and more states are moving toward accepting preventive war against threats that are not readily identifiable in advance — like terrorists and terror-supporting states. They are arguing vehemently, however, that no single state can decide this on its own. I have a coauthored forthcoming article on the latest developments in Survival, which is published by London’s IISS. They are aiming for summer.