Widow Testifies at a Military Court

[kandrathe]

Well, no. He refutes your position as well. According to the quote I left for you, Article 51 would provide for instant movement to prevent further attacks.

Franck did not refute my position, nor the position of the victim of your red-baiting. He didn't deny that invoking Article 51 requires "armed attacks", and his statement that in cases of self-defense the evidence can be provided afterwards is totally in line with the necessity for self-defense being "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation". Also, I never claimed the issue is lack of evidence, or the timing of presentation. There are some points to be made there, but so far I didn't.

He only concerned himself with evidentiary issues, not with other issues regarding the validity of Article 51. To better understand the meaning behind Franck's quote, I suggest you read this page (first hit in a Google search with 'Thomas Franck on the war in Afghanistan'), and give special attention to the follow-up on that quote:

In actuality, though, this scenario leaves the Taliban with two problematic options. The first option is to initiate more attacks on the U.S. and/or U.S. allies, justified under Article 51 if the Taliban deems the U.S.-led invasion aggression (a determination to be made by the Taliban’s “sole volition,” according to Franck).

The second option isn’t really an option. An appeal by the Taliban to the UN Security Council would be met with the U.S. veto, for the U.S. would not authorize military actions against itself.

But, were it unjustified, the aggrieved party could seek redress from the Security Council to force the aggressor to desist.

The 9/11 attacks were unjustified too, so the USA had every right to invoke the Security Council as well. They certainly would have had a good chance to get everyone behind them, where the Taliban has not. Imagine that: bombing Afghanistan while the UN gets all the burdens of cost and responsibility. Wouldn't that be nice?

Then you didn't understand what Franck wrote. His position is much more ambiguous. You quoted back to me, some commentary by Rob Grace. And, I could care less if your source is a Marxist, but I do impugn her for being obviously rabidly partisan. So, it's not that she is a Marxist, it is that she is not being an impartial, and fair minded Marxist. I could toss at you some rabid right winger like Laura Ingram. Does that help in the discourse? So don't give me Raul Castro's views, or Noam Chomsky, or Rob Grace if their position is hard left. Yes, there is a huge contingent of leftist lawyers who believe that war is immoral. You don't need to prove that.

Looks like things will go on for a while, then.

This, we agree upon.