humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mar 20, 10:05 am, Reggie Perrin wrote:
> On 19 Mar, 22:32, Charles Bell wrote:
>
> > On Mar 19, 10:20 am, Reggie Perrin wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > 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 military action against any nation which
> > harbors international terrorists, and not just fall back on what the
> > U.N. wished to do?
>
> Because the Bush administration wanted to secure the
> legal ground for attacks on Iraq and Iran.
>

Exactly so, the Bush Doctrine is to make international law clearly be
that which you and Sollars say it may or may not be: the invasion and
change of regime in Afghanistan was just.


> > 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?
>
> Depends on which instances you are referring to.
> Israel has often fallen foul of the requirement of
> proportionality.

The notion of "proportionality" simply does not fit in a case when
there is no tit-for-tat retaliation but rather an overarching goal of
fixing the problem of atate-supported or hosted terrorism. There is
nothing in international law or the U.N. Charter that sanctions
civilian casualties within a country that never was an aggressive
nation -- the U.S. in Afghanistan and Israel in Lebanon, despite your
claims to the contrary. More on this below.

> Also the law has changed since the
> 1970s.

Again, you feel no need to fill in the details of how this might be.
As anonymous poster assured us all that _Nicaragua_ was not the last
word, he failed to show how.


> > 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?
>
> "Reaffirming the inherent right of individual or
> collective self-defence as recognised by the
> Charter of the United Nations as reiterated in
> Resolution 1368 (2001)". The reference to the
> right of self-defence in a resolution condemning
> the harbouring of terrorists implies that harbouring
> States may be legitimate targets of self-defence.


There is nothing whatsoever in that language that justifies anything
outside Article 51 by 1368 or by 1373 which specifically includes:
"affirming the need to combat by all means, in accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations." Which is to say that Article 51 is
not altered to include situations when the offending nation (the one
harboring terrorists) has not attacked.


> > 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?
>
> I didn't say that and it is not neccessary for
> my argument that I prove it.


Yes, it is necessary to offer up *something* by way of demonstration
of alleged invalidity of the Bush Doctrine. I can concede that for
every one expert in the field that says "yea" one can find one that
says "nay", and that the thrust of my argument that international law
(and the U.N) is not settled on the issue, and yet you give the
impression that it is, and that the Bush Doctrine is somehow redundant
or contravening, I am not sure which.

Thus . . .

> I'm arguing
> about what the law is, not what it ought to be,

Your argument about what the law is, is mere assertion, especially as
it relates to the Bush Doctrine.

> and I think it is clear that the Bush Doctrine is
> not part of international law.


What part of the Bush Doctrine is not part of international law: the
part about invading and conquering Afghanistan which you assure us is
perfectly legal under international law? because the U.N. was mute,
with a wink and a nod? or the part about Iraq or Iran or N Korea
possessing WMD, in direct contravention of dozens U.N. resolutions?


> > [...]
> > Israel started the '67 war against Egypt and Syria "preemptively" but
> > for very good reason.
>
> And Israel's actions were legal -- that's a
> textbook case of Caroline preemptive action.
>
> >  Israel destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in
> > 1981, for very good reason.
>
> Debatable, and the operation was illegal.
>
> > 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 1967 war was not condemned by
> the UN or the US. Operation Opera was
> condemned by both, though the US indicated
> some sympathy with Israel's claim of self
> defence and criticised the operation on the
> alternate ground of failure to exhaust peaceful
> alternatives.
>
> > > 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".
>
> You are almost certainly incorrect.

I am most probably correct in that at least some of the members of the
S.C. did not want to go on record as condoning the invasion of
Afghanistan for many political reasons.


>
> > > 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.
>
> I am not talking about 9/11 (the UN
> was perfectly clear about the illegality
> of 9/11 in Resolution 1368);


Not clear on issue about the people of Afghanistan's role in it and on
their just fate at the hands of the American and allied forces.

No, says John Quigley, an international law professor at Ohio State
University.

For Quigley, the resolutions do not overcome the weaknesses in the
U.S. legal position. For him, the Sept. 11 attack doesn't fit the
implicit meaning of Article 51. The authors of that language were
thinking of situations in which one nation invaded another, he says.

Even if the Taliban is harboring the terrorists, and even if the
Security Council has made clear that harboring international
terrorists violates international law, Quigley said, Article 51
doesn't justify a military attack to punish a country for the crime of
harboring.

What say you to that? He's wrong, and you do not have to "prove" it?
Supposing he is right, is there then not a need for the U.S. to
explain, and give moral argument for, its actions, as in the Bush
Doctrine?