Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 10/07/2004 View Wed 10/06/2004 View Tue 10/05/2004 View Mon 10/04/2004 View Sun 10/03/2004 View Sat 10/02/2004 View Fri 10/01/2004
1
2004-10-07 International-UN-NGOs
U.N. panel to frame guidelines on legality of pre-emptive strike
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Super Hose 2004-10-07 3:56:27 AM|| || Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Tell all this BS to the terrorists. I'm certain they will follow all these nice civilized rules. The UN is lala land-a corrupt lala land. Will the terrorists give up their children killing, head decapitation, and killing innocents ways? I don't think so. Our decisions for pre-emptive strikes cannot be decided by anyone else but us.
Posted by John (Q. Citizen) 2004-10-07 9:19:35 AM||   2004-10-07 9:19:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Now see what Kerry's gone and done...he spouts off about a "global test" and now the UN is drawing one up. Be careful what one wishes for...it might come true!
Posted by RN  2004-10-07 9:24:24 AM||   2004-10-07 9:24:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Hey! This may be GOOD. This report will give us all the ammo we need to get the hell out of the U.N. and tell Anna to go take a flying fark at a rolling donut....

Guidelines for the use of Force? Why don't they simply outlaw war? I'm sure that will work.

Wankers.....
Posted by CrazyFool  2004-10-07 9:27:24 AM||   2004-10-07 9:27:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Global Test for a preemptive strike:

1. Don’t harbor terrorists.
2. Don’t provide training for terrorists.
3. Don’t provide money to terrorists.
4. Don’t provide (money) laundering services for terrorists (although they may need it).
5. Don’t provide diplomatic cover to terrorists.

If you do, be prepared to meet Allan.
Posted by RN  2004-10-07 9:32:02 AM||   2004-10-07 9:32:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 This is going to be one exercise in absolute mental masturbation. Are any of the following a causus belli?
Violating terms of ceasefire.
Attempted assasination of ex-head of state.
Attacking civilian populations with poisons, ricin, anthrax.
Sponsoring/funding/sheltering terrorist attacks.
Destroying the center of a major city and attempting to kill 50,000 office workers, succeeding at 3,000.
Indoctrinating population that killing infidels assures one of heaven.
Kidnapping, torturing, and executing diplomats.
Torturing and killing foreign visitors, reporters.
Suicide bombing peacekeepers and navy ships at anchor.
Imploring, threatening defeat to the Great Satan.
Repressing one's own population, especially religous and racial minorities.
Enthic cleansing and genocide of minorities and infidels.
Destroying religious houses, monuments, and artifacts of the infidels.
Sponsoring the extermination of a religion and its practitioners.
Stating that one's enemies will be nuked as soon one can get nuclear weapons.

Are any of these a cause for war? Is anything? Should the west adapt by engaging in the above same methods but at a pace, scale, and technical sophistication that a rich high tech society is capable of?
Posted by ed 2004-10-07 9:33:49 AM||   2004-10-07 9:33:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 "...the group hopes to lay down clear rules declaring when it is legal for a nation to use pre-emptive military force in its own defense."

Pretty cheeky, aren't they? Who do these people think they are, a World Government? They're going to "declare" when it is "legal" for us to defend ourselves?

I've got four words for the United Nations: "Fuck you. Get out."
Posted by Dave D. 2004-10-07 9:48:48 AM||   2004-10-07 9:48:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 I am surprised to hear an Aussie say something as stupid as "the resurgence of unilateralism from you know whom, and increasing willingness to bypass the Security Council" given the support we have received from Oz. I guess they have as much trouble with their diplomats as we do.

I wonder if flauting 16 UNSC resolutions during a truce will be sufficient to justify combat or if Clinton will come under ICC indictment for the illegal bombing of Serbia.

If these wingnuts had any sense, they would wait to pull this shit after the war is over when we've all gone back to watching the NFL instead of the USMC. If they tighten things too much, they may just drive us out of the UN. They should go back and check out why we didn't join the League of Nations. We can leave the UN for exactly the same reason with exactly the same result, except that next time. we won't pull anyone's Eurowenie out of the fire unless they make it worth our while.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-10-07 9:59:13 AM||   2004-10-07 9:59:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 ..This is the event that REQUIRES us to have a quiet little meeting with Kofi and tell him that this horses**t stops NOW, or we're gone.

Mike
Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2004-10-07 10:07:23 AM||   2004-10-07 10:07:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Violating terms of ceasefire.
I think so.

Attempted assasination of ex-head of state. Seems pretty clear. The counter argument is you need to act immediately, theres a statute of limitations effectively - blame slick willie.


Attacking civilian populations with poisons, ricin, anthrax. No, unfortunately. Genocide seems to be considered a CB, but again you need to act right away, not wait. In this case you can blame Reagan and Papa Bush, NOT slick willie.


Sponsoring/funding/sheltering terrorist attacks. Yeah, but if theyre against Israel, youd be saying youre going to war on a muslim state for the sake of Israel. Everybody from the Malaysian govt, to France, to Pat Buchanan will be on your case for that.



Destroying the center of a major city and attempting to kill 50,000 office workers, succeeding at 3,000.well, yeah, of course - that one is NOT in dispute.

Indoctrinating population that killing infidels assures one of heaven.No, and that wont change until something much worse than 9/11 happens.


Kidnapping, torturing, and executing diplomats.Yup. Of course if you do go to war, you cant let your choppers crash in the desert. Blame Jimmy, or the post-Viet Nam military?



Torturing and killing foreign visitors, reporters. Probably not.


Suicide bombing peacekeepers and navy ships at anchor.Yup.


Imploring, threatening defeat to the Great Satan.No. See above worse act.


Repressing one's own population, especially religous and racial minorities. As a general rule, no, but see below.

Enthic cleansing and genocide of minorities and infidels.Genocide - yes. Ethnic cleansing still a matter of controversy. US, UK, France and Germany said it was CB in Kosovo. Russia and China said no. Russia and China grudginly accepted the results of the war, but dont accept the legal principle.


Destroying religious houses, monuments, and artifacts of the infidels.No.


Sponsoring the extermination of a religion and its practitioners.See genocide above. Depends what you mean by "sponsoring"


Stating that one's enemies will be nuked as soon one can get nuclear weapons.The most interesting, and most relevant one of all. In general threatening war is not a CB, IIUC, - you cant go to war on rhetoric without an imminent threat. OTOH nukes are something else, obviously. And this is sort of unprecedented - no previous nuclear power, not US or Russia or China or France or UK, not Israel or South Africa, not India or even Pakistan, ever used this kind of rhetoric. We're on uncharted ground on this, and should it come to war over this, expect the international community to be divided.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-07 10:09:16 AM||   2004-10-07 10:09:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 It'll take quite a bit of creativity to craft a statement that allows preemptive striking against terrorists who kill women and children -- all the while condemning Israel.
Posted by PlanetDan  2004-10-07 10:16:30 AM||   2004-10-07 10:16:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 LH-Are you pulling your responses from a time-honored document on CB that all peoples live by, or are they your opinion?
Posted by jules 187 2004-10-07 10:16:32 AM||   2004-10-07 10:16:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 LH-How would you define aggression?
Posted by jules 187 2004-10-07 10:17:38 AM||   2004-10-07 10:17:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 it my understanding of the current state of international law.

as for all peoples live by? well thats something else. You can just about always manufacture SOME CB, if push comes to shove. And states DO violate international law - its not like theres a cop whos gonna show up at your door - its just that doing so repeatedly makes others a tad more reluctant to deal with you, is all. Which is sometimes a cost worth taking. And not all the above are universally accepted. Especially on ethnic cleansing. And of course theres always disputes about how you apply them in a particular.

For example the "Saddam violated the ceasefire" CB. Those who say the US had no CB say that the UNSC ratified that, and so only the UNSC can certify a war based on its violation. The counter is that despite Pappa Bush going to the UN for support he didnt need to - a state (Kuwait) has a right to self defense without going to the UNSC to do so, and it has the right to invite help in that defense. And further the Coalition made the ceasefire on its own behalf, not on the UNSC's behalf. Youre getting into legal nuance, as well as the details of what happened in the ceasefire negotiations in '91. In any case the Bush admin didnt push that, since they thought they COULD get UNSC backing in 2003. When they didnt, they scrambled ahead anyway.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-07 10:24:26 AM||   2004-10-07 10:24:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 and of coruse there no "document on CB" its a multitude of treaties, UNSC resolutions, and actual practice. thats the way international law, such as it is, works.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-07 10:26:41 AM||   2004-10-07 10:26:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 and of coruse there no "document on CB" its a multitude of treaties, UNSC resolutions, and actual practice. thats the way international law, such as it is, works.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-07 10:26:42 AM||   2004-10-07 10:26:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 I suggest googling "international law Bosnia" for some interesting disputes on Aggression, CB, etc. For even more fun google on "international law Bosnia Quebec" or "international law Bosnia quebec cree James Bay" Youll find lots of unsettled and bitterly disputed matters.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-07 10:28:59 AM||   2004-10-07 10:28:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 Let's not panic here. After all, this is a UN Resolution. A UN resolution is the equivalent to classroom rules developed by a middle school substitute teacher. It’s just not going to be enforceable. The UN can’t even hand out food.

Besides, if the UN wants to play with the big boys, then conversely, the U.S. Congress can come with its own mandate for pre-emptive strikes. This will override the U.N. So, even if the President of the U.S. is bugs bunny, he will have no choice, but to act.
Posted by Poison Reverse 2004-10-07 10:29:47 AM||   2004-10-07 10:29:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 LH:

Legal nuance?

Try this. Iraq welched on a deal we made and they fired of our aircraft. The 'CB' is sufficient enough for me.
Posted by badanov  2004-10-07 10:30:10 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org]  2004-10-07 10:30:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 more significantly its only a report. The only UN body that can make international law is the UNSC, where we have a veto. Of course vetoing a proposal like this could be embarrasing, but its quite doable.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-07 10:31:44 AM||   2004-10-07 10:31:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 they fired of our aircraft

Yah, well, the Russkies and the frogs never accepted that we had a right to enforce the nofly zones anyway. As far as they were concerned THAT was aggression against Iraq. Of course they were clever enough not to make a big stink about it, seeing as how Clinton, who was harder to isolate than Bush, considered them OK. Thats one thing to keep in mind, the legal position of Chirac on Iraq is NOT the historic legal position of the Clinton admin, much though folks on both sides would have you think so.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-07 10:35:08 AM||   2004-10-07 10:35:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 Part of Kofi's "No Dictator Left Behind" program
Posted by RWV 2004-10-07 10:39:59 AM||   2004-10-07 10:39:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 "The exercise is really to make the U.N. work so well in these areas that the U.S. won’t be tempted, or tempted as often, to walk away from the system,"

This isnt loony tunes, this is smart. Its saying look, the current system makes it so hard for the US, which is the number one power, and the global policeman against loonies, to do what it feels it has to do. This has made the US work OUTSIDE the system, which is BAD for the system, since it leads to the US disrespecting the system, and to others claiming the right to. We need to accommodate, within reason, what the US wants to do, IN ORDER to resuscitate international law.

Seems long overdue, to me.

Kinda like raising the speed limit to 65, so that the speed limit can have some real credibility.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-07 10:44:55 AM||   2004-10-07 10:44:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 Why wouldn't these fall under CB?

Attacking civilian populations with poisons, ricin, anthrax.
Sponsoring/funding/sheltering terrorist attacks.
Destroying religious houses, monuments, and artifacts of the infidels.

Honest to God, is there any common sense in the international community anymore? I feel like we're trying to talk to people who bullheadedly insist the world is flat.
Posted by jules 187 2004-10-07 10:49:38 AM||   2004-10-07 10:49:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 "Honest to God, is there any common sense in the international community anymore?"

No. At least nothing other than what we ourselves provide.
Posted by Dave D. 2004-10-07 10:54:42 AM||   2004-10-07 10:54:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 Now see what Kerry's gone and done...he spouts off about a "global test" and now the UN is drawing one up. Be careful what one wishes for...it might come true!

In this case, the panel was convened long before Mr. Kerry was nominated. It's more likely that the 'global test' remark is tied to the panel's work; the campaign probably has someone monitoring UN/foreign affairs matters.
Posted by Pappy 2004-10-07 10:55:10 AM||   2004-10-07 10:55:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 The real list of guidelines for when a pre-emptive strike would and would not be apropos according to the UN:

1: It must benefit the cause of tyranny.
2: It must harm the cause of liberty.
3: It must never uncover any dishonesty on the part of top UN officials.
4: It must never lead to a refutation of UN orthodoxy.
Posted by Steve from Relto 2004-10-07 10:55:16 AM||   2004-10-07 10:55:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 Members of an international panel studying United Nations’ operations say the group hopes to lay down clear rules declaring when it is legal for a nation to use pre-emptive military force in its own defense.

Legal? And what would the UN do if these "rules" aren't followed? Imprison a country's president? Please.

Anyone playing along with this legality BS is as clueless as those proposing it.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-10-07 10:59:19 AM||   2004-10-07 10:59:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 Ignore the diplomatic circle-jerk. It doesn't mean squat.
Posted by mojo  2004-10-07 11:16:52 AM||   2004-10-07 11:16:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#29 Sponsoring/funding/sheltering terrorist attacks

Once again, this clearly is a CB. In international law. The US COULD go to war tomorrow against Iran, for their support to Hamas - assuming that we have clear proof of such support. We WONT go to war on that basis however, cause the last thing we want to do is say to the world that we're going to war cause of attacks on Israel. It sucks, dont it?


Attacking civilian populations with poisons, ricin, anthrax.
.
Destroying religious houses, monuments, and artifacts of the infidels.

Cause the basic principle of international law, for the last 350 years, is that states are soverign - they can do whatever the fuck they want in their own territory, and you cant invade them on that account. For an understanding of why this was adopted, it would be worth reading a history of the 30 years war.

In the 20th century this began to change, notably on the issue of genocide. Its still not quite universally accepted that genocide is a CB, and there are difficulties with exactly what constitutes genocide, and if there is a statute of limitations. Certainly there is no distinction in law between committing genocide with chemcial weapons and doing so with say, machetes. (of course then youd be in violation of other treaties regarding chemical weapons, but being in violation of a treaty is not usually a CB)
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-07 11:32:17 AM||   2004-10-07 11:32:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#30 Legal? And what would the UN do if these "rules" aren't followed? Imprison a country's president? Please.

International law is "self-enforcing" You dont follow it, and others dont wanna play with you as much anymore. Thats about it. International law says for ex, that when some drunk from the Georgian embassy runs down a little girl on the streets of DC, we gotta let him go. Now if we DIDNT let him go, would the forces of Russia, China and France descend on us? No, of course not. But wed have a harder time getting other countries to treat OUR diplomats according to principles of diplomatic immunity. We could always threatent to invade them every time they arrested a US diplo over some petty crime, but that would be a rather costly exercise over time. Better to let one drunken Georgian diplo go.

Does that apply when your existence is at stake. NO, obviously not. Does Israel care that the international community says the wall is illegal - no, it gives the middle finger to the international community, cause the wall saves lives. But even Israel would return a drunk driver homicadal diplo. Well, the problem for the international community, is that making the US (a more important player than Israel) give the middle finger to international law, tends to undermine all the places where international law is terribly useful - from things like diplo immunity, to the law of the sea, to aviation law, to about a thousand other topics. So its better to accomodate the US.

Its like banning pot, and not enforcing it. It undermines respect for everything else.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-07 11:40:33 AM||   2004-10-07 11:40:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#31 Easier to ask forgiveness than permission if one is so inclined to ask for either.
Posted by John (Q. Citizen) 2004-10-07 12:18:00 PM||   2004-10-07 12:18:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 #17 poison reverse: while I'm not panicking, it's worth looking at what these folks are trying to do. They've announced they will coordinate closely with the International Court of Justice on this initiative.

They hope the end result will be that US officials are subject to arrest in foreign countries and that they will have a basis to discriminate against the US in trade laws and subsidies once we are declared in breach of their "rules". Just because they can't enforce them directly doesn't mean these rules wouldn't be of great help to them in isolating and/or tieing us down.
Posted by rkb 2004-10-07 12:56:22 PM||   2004-10-07 12:56:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Call me old fashioned but... There is nothing like winning the war to sort out debates.
Posted by John (Q. Citizen) 2004-10-07 1:06:28 PM||   2004-10-07 1:06:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 ...the last thing we want to do is say to the world that we're going to war cause of attacks on Israel...

I will say the outrageous-I think attacks against Israel are a CB. The alternative? A Muslim state taking over the entire territory, using Saudi Arabian holy ground principles to bar Jews and Christians from setting foot inside Bethlehem, Jerusalem, etc. I understand what you are saying about world reaction, LH, but the world has no business denegrating American moral authority when it has so little of its own.

Cause the basic principle of international law, for the last 350 years, is that states are soverign - they can do whatever the fuck they want in their own territory, and you cant invade them on that account.

If this is the "rule", then it will have to be applied consistently, right? We can do whatever we want in our territory, and they can, too.

According to this philosophy, it would have been ok for Germany to slowly kill off their population a la Darfur--i.e., secret extermination camps tucked away in a sovereign territory, doing a slow, steady, and unverifiable job of extermination. The UN, had it existed at that time, might have found it difficult to call the holocaust genocide for the same reasons, but the result would have been the same: by the time the world was willing to call it genocide and do something, everyone within that group would already have died.

I can already hear RBers saying we didn't get involved in WWII to save the Jews; but without our entrance into that war, would the Jews in Europe have lived?
Posted by jules 187 2004-10-07 2:59:05 PM||   2004-10-07 2:59:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Winning the war in Iraq, stabilizing the country, and promoting Iraq self-governance is a powerful message to other countries in the region.

I don't see israel being taken over by any Muslim countries in the region. It was a disaster for them in 1967. There is no reason to think it wouldn't be a disaster for them today. They made a pre-emptive strike against Iraq nuclear facilities in 1980s. and basically pissed off the region but little was done about it.
Posted by John (Q. Citizen) 2004-10-07 3:48:04 PM||   2004-10-07 3:48:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 I think you're right in terms of probability, JQU, but before the Iranians finish their nuclear bomb and put our notions to the test, it would be a good idea for us to clear up what is and isn't a just cause for war.
Posted by jules 187 2004-10-07 3:50:21 PM||   2004-10-07 3:50:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Agreed Jules that it would be good idea to clear up what is and isn't just cause for a war. I just don't think the UN is going to clear this up in any meaningful way.
Posted by John (Q. Citizen) 2004-10-07 4:17:00 PM||   2004-10-07 4:17:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 rkb,

When it comes to trade, the EU is already trying to tie us down, without any new UN resolutions. I don't want to get into trade on this thread. I will save it for another thread.

"They've announced they will coordinate closely with the International Court of Justice on this initiative."

Here is basis for not panicking. Any cooperation with the International Court will need Senate ratification. I know, I know, what that jackass Clinton tried to do. He tried to sell this country down the river (ICC) while the Senators were on Christmas vacation. Bush stopped it dead in its tracks and that’s wonderful. I am not panicking, because as long as we have strong Judeo-Christian and pro-(US) Congress, we will be just fine. There is strong pro-US Republicans and Democrats in our Congress that refuse to give our freedoms to the UN. There are some down right sell outs in Congress. There is a small revolution going on right now, here in the U.S. NO longer is the case, where a politician can get away with the things they used to get away with; without the bloggers in the Internet knowing about it. In other words, MSM is DEAD and that’s great news. Also, there is a huge interest (uprising) in this country concerning politics. People are rising up one way or another and that is great for this country. MSM was rotten the core and was taking this country with it. I feel more confident in the future of this country now, than I did, just 7 years ago. I will give you an example, due to the enormous pressure in South Dakota, even the liberal pig himself; Tom Dashle is stating that he is now for making abortion illegal. He is against jail time for the offenders but I consider it progress. I give the Internet and its bloggers, the credit. As long as we have strong and politically active constituents, the UN can’t do a damn thing to us.
Posted by Poison Reverse 2004-10-07 4:50:08 PM||   2004-10-07 4:50:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Check out this site for a really interesting article on this topic.

Gulliver's Travails: The U.S. in the post-Cold-War world
Posted by Anonymous6176 2004-10-07 5:32:51 PM||   2004-10-07 5:32:51 PM|| Front Page Top

11:22 tu3031
11:22 .com
11:13 WhyNot
18:34 Sock Puppet of Doom
18:18 DustbinUK
23:37 ex-lib
17:25 jules 187
17:20 BigEd
10:55 lex
06:54 Poison Reverse
02:39 Sock Puppet of Doom
00:24 Super Hose
00:08 tu3031
23:58 BigEd
23:53 BigEd
23:50 WhiteHouseDetox
23:38 Mark Espinola
23:37 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:36 Pappy
23:33 Asedwich
23:33 tu3031
23:24 Bored with knee jerk reactions.
23:20 Bomb-a-rama
23:19 Bomb-a-rama









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com