humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mar 21, 6:57 am, Reggie Perrin wrote:
> On 21 Mar, 00:18, Charles Bell wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 20, 10:05 am, Reggie Perrin wrote:
> > > On 19 Mar, 22:32, Charles Bell wrote:
> > > > [....]



> > > > Chicken or egg?  Who said what first?  

>
> > > 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.
>
> Total non-sequitur. The invasion of Afghanistan
> was legal within existing international law at the
> time


You have expressed that opinion, and I have provided at least two
contrary opinions from International Law experts. Why should anyone
believe you over someone who has, at least, credentials within the
field of the subject under discussion, and you are just some goof on
the Internet?


> (of which the Bush Doctrine was not part).


It is NOW. Tough, if you do not like it, but you cannot have it both
ways: invasion of Afghanistan for 9/11 is legal because the U.S. under
the Bush Doctrine made it legal, as it was not (unambiguously) before.


> > As anonymous poster assured us all that _Nicaragua_ was not the last
> > word, he failed to show how.
>
> He showed how by directing
> you to Resolution 748.

. . . and not in the least demonstrating how Libya/Lockerbie could
possibly be relevant to Afghanistan/Al-Qaeda. If indictment and
extradition and prosecution was all that was sought, no invasion could
ever be justified in light of resolution 748 and several other
ineffective U.N. resolutions with respect to the Taliban government in
Afghanistan. Answer the question of what in international law --
before 2001 -- can permit the invasion and removal of government of a
third-party nation to what criminals, residing in that nation, may
have done. Was Libya invaded and Qaddafi removed because of
Lockerbie? or was the Montreal Convention of sanctions extended ONLY
to merely entering an accused country and taking the individuals
sought in connection with terrorist acts? Any assertion that the U.S.
and allied invasion of Afghanistan beyond that of an attempt to
apprehend OBL and associates for indictment and trial was clearly
legal by 748 is utterly false. Find language in Resolutions 731, 748,
883, 1192 1269, 1368, 1373, 1377, 1378, 1383, 1386, and 1390 that
supports invasion and regime change.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > 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.
>
> Again, non-sequitur. A51 says nothing about
> the targets of self defence, therefore there is
> no reason to suppose it excludes the right to
> take forceful action against harbourers.
> Resolution 1368 impliedly confirms this
> interpretation.


Again, if that interpretation before 2001 held true then there would
be nothing new in the Bush Doctrine. You are claiming contradictory
positions, that the acts under that Bush Doctrine were already legal,
but the Bush Doctrine is illegal.


>
> > > 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.
>
> All that is necessary is that I point
> to its rejection (as I already have) by,
> e.g. the UN High Panel and by various
> Member States such as France.


No, that is not enough. In that the Bush Doctrine means no more that
what it has done in Afghanistan, and your claim that the action in
Afghanistan was already legal prior to 2001, then you contradict
yourself in claiming these conditions are illegal (Bush Doctrine) and
legal (Afghanistan) at the same time. Moreover, what some members of
the U.N. may claim is completely irrelevant to the discussion, except
to say as it may relate to those countries.

>
> >  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.
>
> Redundant insofar as it purports
> to legitimise the war in Afghanistan;
> contravening the basic principles of
> modern international law insofar as it
> seeks to make the injured State judge
> and jury of the lawfulness of its response.


. . . if one's perspective is that no law can be violated unless a
perpetrator is tried for violation of a law. This also relates to the
inherently contradictory part of your argument: that what the U.S. has
done in Afghanistan is legal under the U.N. while at the same claiming
that any future actions by the same principle would be illegal unless
ruled "legal" by the ICJ.


>
> > [...]
> > 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?
>
> I say that he's wrong and I can give my
> reason for thinking that. The proper
> interpretative question is not what
> the authors "were thinking of" but what
> the language of the Charter means.


Nonsense. Up until Bush introduced the first facet of the Bush
Doctrine, the language of Article 51 always had referred *only* to one
nation attacking another. Afghanistan did not attack the U.S.

Article 51 mas made to be interpreted differently on October 8, 2001
when in a letter to the Security Council, U.S. Ambassador to the
United Nations said the strikes underway against Afghanistan were acts
of self-defense under article 51 of the U.N. Charter. In spite of
your claims to the contrary there is nothing in the U.N. Charter or
its Resolutions that would permit and invasion of Afghanistan for the
purpose of regime change. "We may find that our self-defense requires
further action with respect to other organizations and other states."

Is this last statement a reflection of what is legal or not? If not,
then why do you insist on contradicting yourself on the issue of the
"wide range of targets" under Article 51?


> The
> language of A51 does not restrict the
> range of targets of lawful self-defence,
> therefore there is no reason to believe
> that self-defence cannot be directed
> against State harbourers.


It does not restrict the range of targets, NOW. The Bush Doctrine
changed the interpretation. Contrary to your assertions otherwise,
international law now includes the Bush Doctrine as it did not
unambiguously encompass its principles of "Article 51 with
unrestricted range of targets" beforehand.