humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mar 19, 10:20 am, Reggie Perrin wrote:
> On 19 Mar, 12:27, Charles Bell wrote:
>
> > On Mar 19, 6:44 am, Reggie Perrin wrote:
>
> > > On 19 Mar, 09:52, Charles Bell wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > Glennon's argument is that Operation Enduring
> > > Freedom was unlawful, based on the ICJ's judgment in
> > > Nicaragua. But Nicaragua was not the final word on
> > > self-defence against non-State actors, so any conclusion
> > > premised purely on Nicaragua is unsafe.
>
> > No, it means that NO DEFINITIVE conclusion can be made on the issue.
> > Again, that necessitates U.S. leadership, and not the sort of hand-
> > wringing of the Clinton Administration of what is or is not legal.
>
> "Definitive" conclusions, in the sense of conclusions that
> no-one could possibly disagree with, are non-existent in any
> field of law. The conclusion that Operation Enduring Freedom
> was legal, without any helping hand from the Bush Doctrine,
> is about as definitive as it gets. The US was supported by
> NATO, the OAS, ANZUS, the EU, China, Russia, Japan and
> Pakistan and by the Security Council in Resolution 1373.
> Only Iraq and Iran questioned the legality of its actions.
>
> > > Notice that if Glennon were correct, and the Bush Doctrine
> > > were needed to legitimise US operations in Afghanistan, one
> > > would have expected serious questions to be raised about the
> > > legality of those operations (since the Bush Doctrine has been
> > > repeatedly rejected by the rest of the world). But instead of
> > > widespread criticism, the operation was widely supported --
> > > only Iran and Iraq expressly challenged its legality.
>
> > You only emphasize what I claim: there is NO DEFINITIVE international
> > law on the issue. The Bush Doctrine has been "repeatedly rejected" by
> > the rest of the world, and yet that was the premise behind the
> > invasion of Afghanistan and the destruction of its government even
> > though the fact is that no Afghani was even involved in 9/11 and no
> > state support was given for the attack.
>
> You're repeating yourself, Charles. My argument
> is that the invasion of Afghanistan was lawful without
> the Bush Doctrine


Chicken or egg? Who said what first? If it was so obvious as you
claim that initiating as war against a country that never attacked
another country was internationally legal then why proceed with a
Declaration of a Doctrine of miltary action against any nation which
harbors international terrorists, and not just fall back on what the
U.N. wished to do? Moreover, why would any U.N. nation dare to
criticize Israel for invading Lebanon because that country has been
harboring and abetting terrorists who constantly attack Israel across
a border that has not been in dispute?

Resolution 1373 is effectively meaningless. It requests states to take
strong action against those who finance or engage in terrorist acts,
but it does not define terrorist acts or terrorism. [Freedom fighters
versus terrorists conundrum.] Perhaps you can correct me on this, but
what in the language of Resolution 1373 would authorize the U.S. to do
what it did in Afghanistan? I believe the U.N. had been slapping the
Taliban on the wrist since 1999 to no effect whatsoever.

By the way, why do you think that the Bush doctrine is *necessarily*
though "preemptive" as in anticipatory of grave acts of violence
against the U.S., irrationally and easily construed as aggressive and
not self-defensive? Bush used the the word "preemptive" but look at
the context in which he used it:

(1) "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed
these acts and those who harbor them."

(2) "The United States of America," he stated, "will not permit the
world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most
destructive weapons." Not satisfied with this general statement, as
important as it was, Bush named names: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea
constituted the "axis of evil" that the US had in mind

(3) "Deterrence - the promise of massive retaliation against nations -
means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or
citizens to defend. Containment is not possible when unbalanced
dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons
on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies.

"If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too
long. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the
path of action [...] our security will require all Americans to be
forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when
necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives."


Israel started the '67 war against Egypt and Syria "preemptively" but
for very good reason. Israel destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in
1981, for very good reason. What was "world opinion" [and the
official U.S.opinion] of those pre-Bush Doctrine preemptions that
initiated attacks against a country that had not actually ever
attacked Israel?


> The UN did not direct military action against
> Afghanistan because it was not asked to.


It was not asked because the answer was going to be "no".


> The UN
> is not under an obligation to pronounce on the legality
> of every action undertaken by a Member State and in
> practice it rarely does.


We are not talking about "every action" as you trivialize the events
of 9/11.

>
> > > > [...]
> > > > What is self-defense to one state is aggression, armed reprisal, armed
> > > > attack, intervention, or forcible counter-measures to another.
>
> > > Irrelevant. The difference between self-defence, aggression, armed
> > > reprisal etc can be determined by the Security Council and the ICJ,
> > > as it has been in the past.
>
> > But not consistently so
>
> Agreed.
>
> > The Bush Doctrine means that if for whatever reason the U.N.
> > S.C. fails to go far enough to allow actual military intervention --
> > which is very likely -- the U.S. will act on its own despite the U.N.
> > and contrary interpretations of international law.
>
> If that's what you take the content of the Bush Doctrine
> to be, we are talking at cross purposes. I was referring
> to the attempt in the "National Security Strategy" of September
> 2002 to extend the right of anticipatory self defence to cover
> armed responses to non-imminent threats.

And the lawyers of the nations of the world can debate what is an
"imminent" threat forever and never get agreement. Would you agree
that Israel's start of the '67 War was anticipatory of an imminent
threat or not?


> Even if this were
> to become part of international law, it would not render an
> American pre-emptive attack legal if the ICJ, the Security Council
> and the rest of the world did not consider it justified.


Yes and no. There is no requirement that the Bush Doctrine be
implemented so unilaterally without international debate and
consideration and with no provocation or warning. You have nothing to
point to as evidence that that has ever been the intent. Bush
denounced the Cold War strategy of MAD as useless now. Iran and Iraq
and N. Korea *will not* have nuclear weapons and that is the foreign
policy of the U.S. Beyond that the Bush Doctrine has had little
application.