Widow Testifies at a Military Court

[kandrathe]

blah blah blah...

Wow. Are you pretending to be obtuse? If not, it's probably not in me to enlighten you further. Every statement you made above ignores the obvious in what appears to be 100% intellectual dishonesty.

Yes, you MUST follow Natural Law, defend that home and get your head blown off. Have a safe day!

Threaten? Or was it a warning that there is no neutral side for terrorism. You either expunge it from your borders, or you are a part of the problem. Is it a comprehension problem? Would it make any sense that the US President would declare war on upwards of 30 to 40 nations at the same time. No, no really. In the context of his statements about terrorism, it was entirely clear. Some people like to take things out of context and add hyperbole to justify their own distorted politically minded discourse.

At the risk of further attempting to teach the pig to sing...

The law does have an evidentiary requirement, but it arises after, not before, the right of self-defense is exercised. Thus, if a state claiming to be implementing its inherent right of self-defense were to attack an innocent party, the remedy would be the same as for any other aggression in violation of Article 2(4). The innocent party would have the right of self-defense under Article 51, which is exercisable at its sole volition. It could also appeal to the Council to institute collective measures against its attacker under Chapter VII.

-- Thomas Franck

The evidence? Yes, it was provided to our NATO allies in secret meetings, but not broadcast to our enemies. That evidence convinced the NATO countries to invoke Article 5.

When two US embassies in Africa were bombed, didn't it seem odd that the US response was sending bombs to OBL's base in Afghanistan, and it was not met with any UN condemnation? Why was that? Shouldn't Afghanistan sought refuge from Article 2(4)? There are holes and ambiguities in the UN charter large enough to fly a fleet of B52's through. It was designed for a pre-nuclear age where war took time to amass armies across borders, and didn't account for asymmetric or proxy warfare. If Article 51 does not apply, then neither does the UN.

So, I would urge you to research and read up on Thomas Franck's writings, rather than justify your position by culling any of 100 obscure liberal minded left wing law professors opinions (and that one written within the month of 911).