Widow Testifies at a Military Court

[kandrathe]

I'm not sure how that matters. Law is definitionally a matter of opinion. That's what lawyers give - opinions. If you reject them solely on an Ad Hominem basis, then I don't see on what basis we decide these matters at all.

Also, the link I supplied for Franck, dissects the "Afghanistan war is illegal" argument step by step. He discusses how article 2(4) of the UN charter is an partial solution, since it depended upon the implementation of a permanent UN peacekeeping force that was never implemented. He talks about the myopia of a Westphalian system, in the age of instant death weaponry, proxy wars, and non-state (terrorist) aggressors. He talks about Article 51, in conjunction with Article 2(4).

The US did exercise the provision for informing the security council, and the security council did not act to protect the US from further attacks from the non-state actors holed up within Afghanistan. The Taliban (also suspected accomplices) were not willing to cooperate with the US' attempts to prevent what might have been additional imminent future catastrophic attacks within the US borders.

"Self-Defense" in the UN charter imagined the staging of troops across state borders, and that in the face of aggression, the victim would be able to defend themselves. How does that work when the non-state aggressor (terrorists) are dispersed across 4 or 5 weak or failed states?

Did the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 qualify as an armed attack? Article 51 also limits the defensive action to such time as "the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." Has the Security Council taken such action? The UNSC resolution of September 12, not only condemned the attacks but also called for the perpetrators and those who harbor them to be brought to justice. In addition, it called upon all UN members to cooperate in the suppression of terror. Finally, in the resolution the Security Council "expresses its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist acts of 11, September."

Technically, as of December 22 2001, the UN has recognized the Karzai government, and we are no longer fighting the same war. NATO is now there aiding the new Afghan government repel an insurgency from multiple sources (Al Queda, Taliban, assorted disgruntled war lords).

On the other side of the argument, Franck rightly questions whether "Self Defense" intended dismantling of sovereignty, or what appeared to be more or less unilateral retaliation, and the implementation of a "Middle-east democratization" policy. The overwhelming power of the US, arrayed against Afghanistan, or Iraq has resulted in total domination within hours or days. By the time the UN gets around to debating the situation, the US has utterly destroyed any organized resistance and is in mop up / occupation / state building mode. This raises the concepts of the proportionality of response. While offering NATO the evidence it needed, the US failed to enlighten the world on the details of the evidence on the implication of Al-Queda and OBL in 9/11. This allowed our enemies to craft an alternative propaganda narrative, which sold well in anti-American, anti-Western venues. This lack of US transparency and attention to details (such as staying well on the legal side of the line) was a crucial element in building the insurgencies in Iraq, and Afghanistan.

So, not only did I impugn the source (who offers her biased political agenda vs sound legal arguments), I offered a well respected source (and not one that wholeheartedly agrees with my position) who argued for and against the merits of that "anti-war" argument as well. I'm just also railing at the inanity of something akin to expecting "Mothers Against Videogame Addiction and Violence" to argue the merits of GTA4.

The argument "X is wrong about Y because they are a Z" is fallacious.

In this case, I believe she is extremely biased, therefore her arguments are suspect (due to her political biases). I don't reject them as necessarily false, but still, I must consider the source and her possible bias motives. Since we are talking about her academic opinions (not ones presented before a court), we need to measure the quality of her opinions and therefore her qualifications to make them. Now, considering her article, which on the one hand is an emotion led plea for the prospect of suffering Afghan civilians, and on the other hand suggests imposing economic sanctions until the Taliban capitulate. In hindsight, she was wrong in all of her doom and gloom predictions of a massive humanitarian crisis, in either bombings or famine. The Taliban was routed within a month for the sparsely populated foot hills in the south, that is until we took our eye off the ball in Iraq long enough to allow them to regroup. The on-going primary danger to the populace in Afghanistan now are IED's and continued acts of reprisal and terrorism by the insurgency. To put even the high 3286 war caused deaths in 2010 (76% caused by anti-government forces) in perspective, about 8000 people die there every year in road accidents of the approximate 484,000 deaths per year. Poor health care, and the resulting disease are by far the bigger concern.

For me, being that she has been a leader of two of the most extreme left-wing legal organizations in the world, disqualifies her as being an impartial unbiased source for international legal opinions. I think I did ask; "what purpose it would serve to fling hard left legal opinions against hard right legal opinions?" Should I go dig up Pat Buchanan's take on the US rights to defend itself? As I said, it serves no purpose to fling ultra left against ultra right and I don't believe that Zenda is interested in considering a middle ground either. And so, the possibility of a "reasonable" discussion on the legality of the Afghan war is merely another pile of dead horse meat.