tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post111333956716409633..comments2023-12-05T07:50:19.855-05:00Comments on No Oil for Pacifists: Iraq Update@nooil4pacifistshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16688417615117569825noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-1113630045493708632005-04-16T01:40:00.000-04:002005-04-16T01:40:00.000-04:00Brian, I agree. 1) It's not at all clear that Ar...Brian, I agree. <BR/><BR/>1) It's not at all clear that <A HREF="http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm" REL="nofollow">Article 51 of the UN Charter</A> limits <A HREF="http://www.defence.gov.au/army/AbstractsOnline/AAJournal/2004_W/AAJ_w_2004_12.pdf" REL="nofollow">legitimate self-defense only to force following an armed attack</A>. <BR/><BR/>2) Even were the UN Charter interpreted to preclude anticipatory self defense -- i.e., <A HREF="http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html" REL="nofollow">President Bush's explicit abandonment of MAD in favor of preemption</A> -- <A HREF="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article06" REL="nofollow">treaties are subordinate to the US Constitution</A>. And as Justice Goldberg observed, "while the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact." <I>Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez</I>, <A HREF="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/372/144.html" REL="nofollow">372 U.S. 144, 160 (1963)</A>. So a Presidential determination that protecting America necessitated invading Iraq would be Constitutional. This is related to the concept that international law is not "self-executing," and thus <A HREF="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/cousclin-859F2d929.html" REL="nofollow">most claims that the United States has violated a treaty will be dismissed by U.S. courts</A>. <BR/><BR/>3) As a practical matter, what's the alternative? As <A HREF="http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html" REL="nofollow">President Bush said in his "West Point" speech</A>: <BR/><BR/>"For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack. <BR/><BR/>We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. . .<BR/><BR/>The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively. <BR/><BR/>The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world’s most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather." <BR/><BR/>I'm all in favor of legalities. But <A HREF="http://nooilforpacifists.blogspot.com/2005/04/hearts-maybe-brains-no.html" REL="nofollow">our enemy observes none</A>. The <A HREF="http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0851970.html" REL="nofollow">Peace of Westfalia</A> is over 350 years old. Terrorism, and chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, necessitate an update.@nooil4pacifistshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16688417615117569825noreply@blogger.com