News from the front
Various news reports are confusedly saying that they think US and affiliated troops may be closing in on Osama Bin Laden. This is one overseas military venture that I support. Bin Laden and his followers chose to commit acts of war against unsuspecting, innocent civilians, and they deserve to have the full wrath of God, or, in His absence, the full wrath of a powerful military and judicial system, come down upon their heads. I hope these reports are true.
Despite what the Bush administration may hope, it does not change my opinion that their attack on Iraq, and their ongoing assaults on Constitutional liberties within the United States, are unjustified and unacceptable.
If the news reports are true, and if these events result in the capture or elimination of those responsible for the September 11 attacks, it is my hope that the U.S. may return to some form of sanity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Trebor @ 10:08AM | 2004-02-23| permalink
It was my impression that Saddam wasn't living up to the terms set forth in his capitulation following his illegal invasion of his southern neighbor.
I feel he should have been removed from power at that time. The 2003 American action simply served as justice delayed. ~ Trebor
email | website
Fiend @ 1:27PM | 2004-02-23| permalink
Ah, but why should Bush (and whoever else he bullied, bribed or otherwise convincingly lied to) serve as self-appointed Guardians & Arbiters of World Justice & Peace?
email | website
Carlos @ 1:57PM | 2004-02-23| permalink
Who else was gonna do it, though? The U.N.? (snickers)
email | website
Felix @ 2:34PM | 2004-02-23| permalink
Immediately after the first Gulf War, I would have seen an invasion of Iraq as justified, since Iraq had initiated hostilities by invading a relatively inoffensive neighbor. Those who start wars have little cause to complain if those wars turn against them. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia did, as I recall, ask for aid from the U.S., and most of the U.N. was in accord with the action, although that support might have turned shaky as troops got closer to Baghdad.
Ten years is a long time to hold that kind of casus belli in abeyance, though. The 2003 invasion was for the wrong reasons.
email | website
Pablo @ 6:43PM | 2004-02-23| permalink
Insurance companies do not cover "acts of war whether declared or undeclared". But insurances companies had to pay up after September 11. So all talk of "war" is emotional/rhetorical and not juristic.
email | website
Trebor @ 11:31PM | 2004-02-23| permalink
Given the mood following 9/11, I don't think the insurance companies would have dared not pay out. However, I suspect that they might have eventually won their case in court had they tried to fight it. ~ Trebor
email | website
Pablo @ 11:38AM | 2004-02-24| permalink
For the record, I am for declaring 9-11 an undeclared act of war both in the courts and in the legislature. And then applying this definition consitantly.
I'm not a legal scholar, so I do not know if an act of war can come from a few individuals acting on their own and not from an entire country.
Timothy McVee, as you remember, considered the Oklahoma City bombings an act of war. He therefore said that he should be treated as a prisoner of war.
People call terrorism whatever is the more convenient for them at the moment - warfare or crime.
email | website
Felix @ 4:41PM | 2004-02-24| permalink
Pablo, you seem to be saying that it would just fine with you if the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks got away scot-free because. Is this the case? And are you willing to extend that approach to any group of criminals or self-styled "warriors" who are able to buy off a poverty-stricken third-world country to shield them from extradition and/or military reprisal?
email | website
Felix @ 4:46PM | 2004-02-24| permalink
Pablo, you seem to be saying that it would just fine with you if the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks got away scot-free if they took shelter in a country that refused to cooperate with the U.S. Is this the case? And are you willing to extend that approach to any group of criminals or self-styled "warriors" who are able to buy off a poverty-stricken third-world country to shield them from extradition and/or military reprisal?
email | website
Felix @ 4:47PM | 2004-02-24| permalink
I HATE ENETATION AND ITS REFUSAL TO LET ME EDIT COMMENTS!!!
And yes, that's me shouting.
email | website
Pablo @ 11:46AM | 2004-02-27| permalink
I believe in justice but I also believe in rule of law. What's the point of extradiction treaties in general if you're going to invade any country which doesn't cooperate with you? And is that just?
We invaded Afghanistan. We killed Afghan soldiers defending their homeland, and we even killed civilians. Was that justice?
If on a single day all Americans prayed that the United States receive justice, I wonder how God would answer that. He probably would not take that smug partisan view that all violence which Amercians receive is evil and all violence which Americans inflict is just.
email | website
Felix @ 5:03PM | 2004-03-14| permalink
You're probably right about that.
However, I still hold that a government has a right and a duty to protect its people from both crimes and acts of war, and the right and duty to respond militarily when (and only when) such acts occur. Extradition treaties exist between civilized governments precisely to keep criminals from hiding in one country while or after committing crimes in another. When that convention fails, or is ignored, it may be necessary to use other (military) means. I hate harm to civilians and non-decisionmakers -- but is there any other option, other than the unacceptable one of letting known murderers get away scot-free and laugh at the concept of justice? To what extent are citizens of a country responsible for the stupid decisions of their government?
Does anyone know, off hand, which government's decision resulted in the lack of extradition between the US and Afghanistan? Obviously the US could not put itself in the position of extraditing people for every crime that the Taliban might charge against someone, but I would like to think (in a perfect world) that some mutual acceptance of extradition for basic offenses like murder would be acceptable even between countries that radically disagree about politics and religion.
email | website
Post a Comment