Widow Testifies at a Military Court

[kandrathe]

Why, exactly?

I would hope my side would be the one where reason and discourse triumph over partisan shills like Professor Marjorie Cohn (IADL activist, who is a rabid Bush basher, and the definition of BDS if not also a Marxist).

Oh, yeah. I guess not everyone has heard of Thomas Franck. He was probably America's (former Canadian), if not the world's, most distinguished legal expert on international law.

NYT Obituary


Franck doesn't agree with me. I believe article 51 is a given, but Franck has reservations about the responsibilities of a powerful nation like the US going the extra mile to justify unleashing their military. For me, providing incontrovertible evidence to the world falls under the "it would be nice and probably prudent" category. It may have helped to squelch the conspiracy idiots who were able to propagandize many Islamic nations people into believing it was an Israeli operation.

If some nation harbored a group who went to London and fly planes into Big Ben, I'd also believe Britain would be justified in finding them, wherever they might be, and bringing them swift justice.

In hindsight (i.e. always easier), our government may have acted rashly (within 20 days) in order to try to capture the perpetrators, and we almost had him at Tora Bora, but he escaped. After the big fish got away, the US gradually lost interest and was busy in Iraq. I know you've dismissed the linkage, but I'm not convinced yet that Saddam's unit 999 was not providing support in the manner of providing forged passports or training them how to forge passports, and other necessary documents. A role now probably provided by "rogue" elements of Pakistan's military intelligence.