Widow Testifies at a Military Court

[Zenda]

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.

You still haven't explained about this heavily armed police. Are they your friends, joining a lynch party, or policemen in official capacity, with a proper warrant? Very interesting analogy, indeed. Anyway, regardless of the outcome, I'm bound by 'Natural Law', "which is beyond the capacity of the Federal or State (or international) authorities to overrule".

More of a warning for sovereign nations to get on board the train, of be run over by it.

Threating neutral parties to make them choose your side you doesn't really make it look better.

Yeah, you forgot the "allegedly presented a plan" part of your flimsy evidence.

I don't see any "allegedly", and what has mister Clarke to do with all this? The article you refer to seems to be about Iraq, not Afghanistan. But I'll readily agree that planning the ultimatum in advance is not much proof of anything, just like setting the ultimatum doesn't prove anything.

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

Ignoring, yes, because it doesn't apply:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew36.htm

The bombing of Afghanistan is not legitimate self-defense under article 51 of the Charter because: 1) the attacks in New York and Washington D.C. were criminal attacks, not “armed attacks” by another state, and 2) there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the U.S. after September 11, or the U.S. would not have waited three weeks before initiating its bombing campaign. The necessity for self-defense must be “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” (Caroline Case, 29 BFSP 1137-8; 30 BFSP 19-6 (1837)). This classic principle of self-defense in international law has been affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the U.N. General Assembly.

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

I see you noticed the mentioning of article 51 in the foreword written by the Humanist Society of New Zealand. Perhaps they made a mistake, because the UN releases they quote do no such thing. In fact, militairy action seems to be excluded:

To defeat terrorism, we need a sustained effort and a broad strategy to unite all nations, and address all aspects of the scourge we face. The cause must be pursued by all the States of the world, working together and using many different means including political, legal, diplomatic and financial means.

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

It looks like you didn't read this yourself. There is no mentioning there of any article 51, or causes for militairy intervention.