If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
pre-emptive action”
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
In this war on terrorism, is there justification for a country blowing away terrorists within the borders of another country - without getting permission first?
Australia and the US aer doing that. Malaysia told Australia if it happens, it would be an act of war.
I say whatever we have to do to keep our people safe in America or our allies safe. Like if we knew some terrorist army was going to attack the Queen and Tony Blair....I'd be proud if America hit them first.
Australia and the US aer doing that. Malaysia told Australia if it happens, it would be an act of war.
I say whatever we have to do to keep our people safe in America or our allies safe. Like if we knew some terrorist army was going to attack the Queen and Tony Blair....I'd be proud if America hit them first.
0
Comments
If so what are you complaining about then, why all the heart-ache?
OBL, knew the US was going to get him eventually so why not strike first?
finding out what their problem is and trying to solve it is the only way. but then again the only problem i can see that OBL had was america. im pretty sure he was jealous. or scared. i think its wrong how he tries to say its a muslim war against christians....
but the way to deal with it is up to diplomats not me - i just say it should be the diplomats who deal with it not the soldiers. any i agree this sould go in politics....
Now there's word Al Qaeda was going to do something at the Olympics in Australia. I think of them like a criminal, who is trying the doors and windows to see what house he can get in.
The form of Muslim religion they follow, needs to be totally wiped out. And I see that happening too by the moderate Muslims. Look in Bali, they've got that Muslim cleric behind the Christmas eve bombings of churches behind bars: Abu bakaa Bashire
Most people would not follow along with the fanatics if they had the same life chances that we enjoy, there will probably always be some but 'the crowd' would not be interested........
I think democracies that give their people are certain amount of freedom to pursue goals that excite them....will always do better - over-all.
So I put the blame back on the extemists Muslim clerics whose idea of employment is handing a teen a belt made out of bombs.
And Palestine will happen....no thanks to any Arab nation.
You cannot impose democracy on any group or nation. You can merely withdraw support from oppressive regimes and let the society take its own route to improvement by supporting the society rather than the government.
Kenya is a country on the cusp of democratic change. Yes Moi has been a virtual dictator in his decades in office, but he will go in the not too distant future and i think the public and various national institutions will be working to ensure that no single leader that succeeds Moi will ever remain leader for more than a short term.
Besides, if Western powers stopped propping up cruel and repressive regimes installed merely to ensure pre-eminent access to the particular nation's resources, and turned their energies and financial support to the populations (infrastructure projects, education, healthcare facilities - in a nutshell "nation building"), then the public would undoubtedly reject en masse any group or individual which represented a reversal of their good fortune.
No, there isn't. For several reasons. And this doesn't mean that I like it, either.
This is governed by Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations: The problem with terrorism is that it doesn't quite fit here. Terrorists do not act on behalf of or with the permission of governments. When States infringe rights of other States it is very rare that they don't make any kind of justification (self defence, or simple military manouevres that weren't a threat, etc). The reason they do this is because they don't want to set a precedent of attacking randomly because international relations would then deteriorate, and they don't want to justify being attacked randomly themselves.
The US could try to justify intervention in the affairs of Afghanistan on humanitarian grounds, since that could fall outside the scope of Article 2(4) as being consistent with the Purposes of the UN. Article 1 outlines the Purposes of the UN. Subsection 3 states that one of the Purposes is The reason the US won't do this, though, is because then they'd be bound to follow the rest of the UN Charter provisions and they would be limited in their action (i.e. must avoid hurting civilians, etc).
The US may also try to justify an attack against terrorists in another state through the doctrine of self-defence. Article 51 of the UN Charter: The right to self-defence also exists in customary international law, so it applies even to states that aren't members of the UN. The problem is that to attack another state they have to find a sufficiently strong link between that state and the terrorists, and it's doubtful that America would want to extend self defence this far.
In essence, Bush made up a new rule of international law when he said that their justification for acting was because Afghanistan was "harbouring" terrorists.
America could also try to bring an action through the UN Security Council. Article 39 allows the SC to decide if there's been a breach of of peace, but then we return to finding a sufficient link between the gov't and the terrorists. If the SC does find a breach, they can authorize the use of force in retaliation (Art 42). This sounds like a lengthy process but it can, and has in the past, happened quite quickly. In the immediate aftermath of Sept 11, no State on the Security Council would have denied that the US was entitled to use force in retaliation, but I think that now they've waited too long.
There's also a Security Council Resolution (possibly 1441?) that would have the effect of giving States carte blanche in their fight against terrorists (I'm kicking myself for not remembering the wording, sorry), but the US isn't using it because it's a vague Resolution and wasn't tied to Afghanistan or Iraq--it's quite possible that the wording there was just a slip. If the US uses this now, they'll set a precedent for others to use it in the future and they don't want to do that. If the weapons inspectors don't find anything, it will be harder for the US to justify action, but then with sufficient warning it's perfectly possible that all weapons could have been hidden, so that's really no help.
The attacks on the World Trade Centre could possibly fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court as a crime against humanity for the sheer scale of the attack. I think that, legally, this is the best option--to bring the terrorists to justice under the ICC. This is the only action that I think is justifiable, but then that's not what you were asking--you were alluding to attacks against another state.
Basically, the whole problem rests on Article 2(4)--it would be a breach of the territorial integrity of a state to attack terrorists therein without permission.
One point though...
The US, certainly under Bush, rejected any support for an ICC on the grounds that its own citizens could be brought up on "politically motivated" charges in the future.
This main argument was certainly not examined very critically by the media.
The reality of the US government's reasoning is that it wanted no authority to which it might have to answer for its continued presumption of unilateral "right" to do as it sees fit in the world (whether militarily or economically). If we had signed on then indeed, global terrorism could be handled on the basis of national policing or with the involvement of existing international investigation and law enforcement agencies (interpol for one).
Such an approach would go much further toward honouring international law, the safeguarding of civilian lives, and the isolation and extradition of fanatical cross-border militants without the devastation, and victimization that full scale war always brings.
When you think of what's Bush life outside of office where he really doesn't have to listen to anyone else except perphaps his wife....international laws must drive him nuts.
For such types the thought that America has a responsibility (as does every other nation) - as only one member of the family of nations and cultures on this planet - to honour international law and to curtail its self-interests when they cause suffering elsewhere in the world, is something they wish to transcend. What results is an administration and a nation which bullies and cajoles others into letting it have its own way (as we have been seeing throughout the current UN drama that is unfolding).
What we should be doing if we can get rid of Bush and get a rational and decent leader in office is to support international mechanisms to handle criminal threats and move this issue out of the realm of the Pentagon.
N.B. I have often used the analogy with European colleagues that my country, being as young as it is as a nation in terms of world history, is akin to a three year old child with a very large bazooka throwing another temper tantrum.