Widow Testifies at a Military Court

[kandrathe]

Interesting analogy. Would the policemen come as your friends, or as law-enforcement officers? If the latter, wouldn't they need some kind of proof, or at least 'justifiable cause' to force entry? If they can't produce it, or perhaps even if they can, wouldn't it be my duty (by 'Natural Law' of course, which is above anything you can throw at me) to defend my home and those living in it? Especially considering I'd know for a fact that the accusations are false (as you say, the fugitive was hiding at your friend's place). Also, I might be tempted to think it's a scam and that in reality you are after my home, seeing how you don't 'actually recognize' it as my own.

No, not really. Go ahead and resist then. You and the innocents in the house don't deserve to die, but you might when you start shooting at the heavily armed police.

Ah, the old "if you are not with us, then you are against us" argument. It sure was popular back then. As for the ultimatum, are you saying that big powerful nations like China have the right to bully smaller ones around?

Actually, not quite "with us or against us". More like "stop harboring the criminals that are attacking us, or we will attack you". The you are with us or against us was said more to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordon, Egypt, etc. More of a warning for sovereign nations to get on board the train, of be run over by it.

Fact is that the Bush administration planned to put that ultimatum on the Taliban earlier, and merely used 9/11 as an excuse to hasten things up and gather 'police friends'.

Yeah, you forgot the "allegedly presented a plan" part of your flimsy evidence. I think Clarke maybe exaggerates the truth a bit when it comes to his own importance.

Fact is that starting the war with Afghanistan had no legal grounds. The presence of ISAF does not change that (it was installed by the UN after the war was started, mostly to protect the population).

Handy paraphrasing "must" and myopia by you in ignoring Article 51.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

And, they seem to be sending mixed messages then...
http://www.humanist.org.nz/docs/UN_Afghanistan.html

Specifically check out resolution 1378...
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2001/sc2001.htm