Widow Testifies at a Military Court

[Taem]

I'm curious Shadow, what do you want to see happen in this case? You obviously feel he is guilty of his crimes, correct? Assuming this is the case, then based on what I've read thus far, you think he should face punishment, however as a child solider, correct? So my question is, what is the difference between tried as a "child solider" vs an adult solider? Are there any distinctions?

Secondly, I'd like to comment about his nationality: it makes little difference what his nationality is or was; the point is he used weapons in an attempt to kill (this is not to be taken lightly) against the army which captured him. I read nothing into that which gives Canadian soldiers some kind of magical treatment over other opposing soldiers. Point is (pretty straightforward) he is an captured enemy combatant. His Canadian badge doesn't mean a thing in regards to [where] he was when he was captured, and [what] he was doing when he was captured.

Now I see what you've been saying, and I have to agree that it's an unfortunate situation, one this kid probably couldn't have gotten out of. He may have been born in Canada, but was raised ultimately as a solider and a fighter. His choice? Or all just part of "growing up"? Who's to say, and the morality of it will be argued for some time I presume, yet I cannot forget, even when acknowledging his possibly unavoidable past, that innocents die all the time, and rather this child was mentally innocent or not is irrelevant because the fact of the matter is he is a killer, and an enemy combatant. To me, it doesn't get much clearer than that. Should he be charged "as a child"? Sure, why not - if there are indeed rules for that sort of thing. But he must face judgment, mark my words!

[Zenda]

Um, we can the debate the reasons for the US going to Afghanistan after paramilitary (terrorists) outfitted and trained there to hijack multiple planes and fly them into assorted buildings in the US.

Are you saying that the people in Afghanistan deserve these razzias because of their role in 9/11? Someone better tell them that! (ICOS survey)

92% of respondents in the south are unaware of the events of 9/11 or that they triggered the current international presence in Afghanistan

Strange, though. Bin Laden is Saudi, and most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi's. Saudi-Arabia is a strong fundamentalist Islamic nation, and has a very poor human rights record. Yet, Afghanistan gets bombed for 8 years, and Saudi-Arabia is allowed to buy $60 billion worth of militairy equipment. (article).

No. I recall he did not.

Since you can answer for him, let me ask you this: if the 'unlawful combatant' status of Gitmo prisoners is not his legal ground to keep them there, what would it be?

the point is he used weapons in an attempt to kill (this is not to be taken lightly) against the army which captured him.

Is that a crime, if you are not wearing a uniform? Against what law exactly? In which country? I read somewhere that in the USA it's actually proper 'code of conduct' to kill in order to defend against arrests by foreigners (even if those are backed by international law), or against those that threaten to change your way of life.

Hey, stupid, I said I'd kill to protect my way of life. Kill. Got it? I even agreed to abide by the Code of Conduct, which means I would give my life, and kill, for our way of life.

Next, when you cite international law, by all means, come into my country and try to arrest my people. I'll shoot to kill, be it Obama you are after or Cheney.

[kandrathe]

Um, we can the debate the reasons for the US going to Afghanistan after paramilitary (terrorists) outfitted and trained there to hijack multiple planes and fly them into assorted buildings in the US.

Are you saying that the people in Afghanistan deserve these razzias because of their role in 9/11? Someone better tell them that! (ICOS survey)

Why? Did the people of Hiroshima or Nagasaki deserve to be incinerated or burned by nuclear fire? War is the horrific result of failed politicians. Innocent people never deserve to be killed or conquered. But, it happens when Islamic militants who trained in Afghanistan flew their missiles into US buildings. The response is to work to stop it.

92% of respondents in the south are unaware of the events of 9/11 or that they triggered the current international presence in Afghanistan

How many Germans were unaware their government was exterminating Jews? The purpose of being in Afghanistan was to deny Al Queda a safe haven. The effort began to fail as soon as we built up an illegitimate Afghan government, that we need to defend physically, and provide cover for morally.

Strange, though. Bin Laden is Saudi, and most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi's. Saudi-Arabia is a strong fundamentalist Islamic nation, and has a very poor human rights record. Yet, Afghanistan gets bombed for 8 years, and Saudi-Arabia is allowed to buy $60 billion worth of militairy equipment. (article).

The US and Europe deal with the extremists to get their oil cheap. Why do you think Saddam had chemical and biological weapons? Why were the French so eager to build him nuclear reactors? Beyond that... They sit on Mecca and Medina, and so have ultimate influence over 1/6 of the worlds population.

No. I recall he did not.

Since you can answer for him, let me ask you this: if the 'unlawful combatant' status of Gitmo prisoners is not his legal ground to keep them there, what would it be?

I won't speak for Occhi.

You should read the following links;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

Generally, war is without rules. We try to follow some. When soldiers wear uniforms, armies know who to shoot at. When they don't, armies tend to engage in actions brutally killing innocents ferreting out the "unlawful enemy combatants" from the civilians.

the point is he used weapons in an attempt to kill (this is not to be taken lightly) against the army which captured him.

Is that a crime, if you are not wearing a uniform? Against what law exactly? In which country? I read somewhere that in the USA it's actually proper 'code of conduct' to kill in order to defend against arrests by foreigners (even if those are backed by international law), or against those that threaten to change your way of life.

Yes, it really is against the law (international) to engage in warfare without a uniform.

I read that the Dutch kill off their old people. We can have a reasonable discussion about barbarity.

Hey, stupid, I said I'd kill to protect my way of life. Kill. Got it? I even agreed to abide by the Code of Conduct, which means I would give my life, and kill, for our way of life.

Next, when you cite international law, by all means, come into my country and try to arrest my people. I'll shoot to kill, be it Obama you are after or Cheney.

Yeah, so what?

It's pretty common for people in the US to have allegiance to the US, and the defense of the US constitution. Hence, this is why treaties like Kyoto have very little appeal, even to those of us who are ecologically minded. We don't mind working with Europe, but we'll make our own decisions, with or without Europe.

Most Americans would not feel bound by political kangaroo courts in Den Hague. When we start calling each others leaders criminals, we are moving closer to war. Like Occhi said, if Europeans try to come the the US to enforce international court decisions, the citizens would rise up against it, even if our own corrupt federal government were complicit.

Generally, the citizens of the US are against the ideas of the Bilderberg Group and would rather retain our national sovereignty. I think most Americans still have that strange understanding of "liberty" which caused our little struggle back in 1776.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I think most Americans still have that strange understanding of "liberty" which caused our little struggle back in 1776.

I would change that 'most' to 'some'. Otherwise, the Patriot Act should have started the second American revolution (or, perhaps, the second American civil war).

As to the rest of the discussion, when a land mass smaller than the lower 48 still hasn't learn to live in peace together after over two millenia, I take the opinion of anyone from that land mass with a grain of salt. And their accusations and innuendos with a Pooper Scooper.

--Pete

[Zenda]

But, it happens when Islamic militants who trained in Afghanistan flew their missiles into US buildings.

They trained with small propellar aircraft at a regular flying school in the USA, not how to launch missiles in the mountains of Afghanistan.

How many Germans were unaware their government was exterminating Jews?

If you want to go that way, I have these for you: How many Americans were unaware their government was torturing prisoners? How many Americans ARE unaware that their government IS violating international law with Gitmo?

The US and Europe deal with the extremists to get their oil cheap.

I see. Afganistan just hasn't enough oil to be granted a deal.

Why do you think Saddam had chemical and biological weapons?

Easy. Because the USA sold or gave it to him to fight Iran and the Kurds.

Why were the French so eager to build him nuclear reactors?

Bit of a trick question, but not too hard. Because they didn't discriminate between Iraq, Saudi-Arabia, and other nations.

You should read the following links;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

Already did, but thanks. Hope you did too. From your first link:

The term "unlawful combatant" has been used for the past century in legal literature, military manuals, and case law. However, unlike the terms "combatant", "prisoner of war", and "civilian", the term "unlawful combatant" is not mentioned in either the Hague or the Geneva Conventions. So while the former terms are well understood and clear under international law, the term "unlawful combatant" is not.

If there is any doubt about whether a detained alleged combatant is a "lawful combatant" then the combatant must be held as a prisoner of war until his or her status has been determined by "a competent tribunal". If that tribunal rules that a combatant is an "unlawful combatant" then the person's status changes to that of a civilian which may give them some rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Now you should read this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

Generally, war is without rules.

But you just referred to those rules!?

It's pretty common for people in the US to have allegiance to the US

I think that also goes for people of other nations, like Afghanistan.

Most Americans would not feel bound by political kangaroo courts in Den Hague

The people in Afganistan seem to feel the same way about (international) laws against fighting without a uniform. That should be no surprise, given their history. Nevertheless, you made your point clear enough: for Americans it's patriotism, for others a crime.

[kandrathe]

Hi,

I think most Americans still have that strange understanding of "liberty" which caused our little struggle back in 1776.

I would change that 'most' to 'some'. Otherwise, the Patriot Act should have started the second American revolution (or, perhaps, the second American civil war).

Which is why they had to call it something like, "The Patriot Act"... Much better propaganda than the "Domestic Spying and Civil Rights Removal Act". Just after 911, you could wrap anything up in the flag, and can sell it through our politically correct congress. I noticed how quickly the Obama change machine was right on that too. I guess it is hard for whomever is in the WH to relinquish power back to the people. They just call it a war, and do whatever they like.

As to the rest of the discussion, when a land mass smaller than the lower 48 still hasn't learn to live in peace together after over two millenia, I take the opinion of anyone from that land mass with a grain of salt. And their accusations and innuendos with a Pooper Scooper.

I chalk it up to the mental ravages of centuries of really bad decisions. I really don't understand the European (and US European wannabes) psychosis of suicidal self-hatred, where they seemingly have embraced the perspectives of their nation's worst enemies. It's made them all the more easy to destroy from within. As the US and Europe suffer the deprivations of economic warfare, we need to open our eyes to see who is walking away with our wealth.

[Jester]

I really don't understand the European (and US European wannabes) psychosis of suicidal self-hatred, where they seemingly have embraced the perspectives of their nation's worst enemies. It's made them all the more easy to destroy from within. As the US and Europe suffer the deprivations of economic warfare, we need to open our eyes to see who is walking away with our wealth.

While I'm no fan of Chinese monetary policy, the notion that anyone is conducting economic warfare against the US and Europe seems a little absurd. Those two economies together are *half* of world income. Almost all rich countries are in this zone - "deprived" it is not. If someone is "walking away with your wealth," it's because you're giving it to them in exchange for things you apparently want.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

While I'm no fan of Chinese monetary policy, the notion that anyone is conducting economic warfare against the US and Europe seems a little absurd. Those two economies together are *half* of world income. Almost all rich countries are in this zone - "deprived" it is not. If someone is "walking away with your wealth," it's because you're giving it to them in exchange for things you apparently want.

Yes, we like to be clothed, drive to work and eat food. But, rather than digress into another discussion on world economics, I'll stay on topic and point out that Omar Khadr is just a political casualty in a much broader global struggle for dominating and controlling the worlds resources. If Al Queda were merely like previous terror organizations and blowing up the random discotheque, seizing an airplane once in awhile, or terrorizing cruise ships, the US would not be in Afghanistan. But, drop a couple of huge buildings on Wall Street, and you get the US's attention and wrath. Now they are a threat to the bottom line.

[kandrathe]

Nevertheless, you made your point clear enough: for Americans it's patriotism, for others a crime.

All the other nitpicking aside, for brevity's sake, that is not it. You've missed the mark entirely. What I said is that "might makes right". If we were a defenseless Caribbean nation facing the might of Europe, or the US, then we'd capitulate making unholy deals for survival too giving up much of our liberties in exchange for peace.

We are not defenseless, and so when you come to enforce your laws, we have the power to rebuff you in favor of our quaint notions of liberty. Here, the power rests with the citizens of the US, and not with the Federal government. Theoretically, we choose and allow them to govern us, but we are not ruled by Washington DC, or any State capital either. Our liberty and freedom are innately bestowed by Natural Law, which is beyond the capacity of the Federal or State (or international) authorities to overrule.

Patriotism to a European is an expression of nationalism. Here its an understanding that we are not subservient to any ruler, and are willing to die to defend our "freedom" from being dominated by despots and tyrrants.

[Zenda]

What I said is that "might makes right". If we were a defenseless Caribbean nation facing the might of Europe, or the US, then we'd capitulate making unholy deals for survival too giving up much of our liberties in exchange for peace.

Afghanistan deserves this because they didn't capitulate to a stronger USA? I'm not even sure the Taliban is the weaker party here, seeing how they are winning.

Our liberty and freedom are innately bestowed by Natural Law

Amen.

[kandrathe]

What I said is that "might makes right". If we were a defenseless Caribbean nation facing the might of Europe, or the US, then we'd capitulate making unholy deals for survival too giving up much of our liberties in exchange for peace.

Afghanistan deserves this because they didn't capitulate to a stronger USA? I'm not even sure the Taliban is the weaker party here, seeing how they are winning.

Deserve? No one deserves war, except the foolish leaders who bring it about. War comes when rational discourse ends.

Actually, they did bring it upon themselves. Let's say someone blew up my house, and they happen to have been known to be living at the house you are occupying (as we don't actually recognize you as the rightful owner). I go and get 49 of my well armed police friends and I go to your house and tell you, "give up the bomber, or we'll assume you are a co-conspirator." You refuse, and we resort to using force to go in and get you and rip up the house looking for him. It doesn't help that he's hiding in the basement of the house next door, who happens to be pretending to be one of our well armed police friends.

Before the declaration of war on Afghanistan, on the 21st of September, the US gave the Taliban an ultimatum; Hand over OBL and his co-conspirators or we will assume you are in league with them and you will share their fate. What was their response? They described OBL's the attack on America as just according to the Koran since the US had engaged in warfare on Islamic soil. They called for an independent Islamic and UN inquiry to "prevent unjustified harassment of innocent people." In that case the "innocent people" meant the Taliban's guests (Al Queda).

If by winning, you mean people still get murdered, they can set up ambushes on trucking, or sneak close enough to US bases to lob Molotov's. The tide has changed in the past few months with the increased manpower. What is missing is a legitimate Afghan leadership plan acceptable to the majority of Afghans. If we pulled out now, the existing government would crumble.

[--Pete]

Hi,

If we pulled out now, the existing government would crumble.

Yes. So what? Let them work out their own internal problems internally. We have no right (other than might) to interfere. Whether we did right or wrong in invading is immaterial except as a fault finding exercise. However it came about, the present situation IS the present situation. Instead of trying to correct the past, let's start doing what's best for the future.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Yes. So what? Let them work out their own internal problems internally. We have no right (other than might) to interfere. Whether we did right or wrong in invading is immaterial except as a fault finding exercise. However it came about, the present situation IS the present situation. Instead of trying to correct the past, let's start doing what's best for the future.

Generally, I agree. I was explaining the US government's reasoning, not my own.

In order to "win" there, we'd need to occupy dominate it for a very long time. I'd say 20 to 40 years, (one or two generations). They would need to have a leader like Atatürk, who would have a vision for bringing Afghanistan out of the 12th century, such as Mustafa Kemal's six arrows.

But, otherwise, yes. We might just leave them to fester and return to destroy them once in awhile when they concoct and carry out further acts of terrorism. It's the Somalia approach.

[Zenda]

Let's say someone blew up my house, and they happen to have been known to be living at the house you are occupying (as we don't actually recognize you as the rightful owner). I go and get 49 of my well armed police friends and I go to your house and tell you, "give up the bomber, or we'll assume you are a co-conspirator." You refuse, and we resort to using force to go in and get you and rip up the house looking for him. It doesn't help that he's hiding in the basement of the house next door, who happens to be pretending to be one of our well armed police friends.

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' ofcourse, 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.

Before the declaration of war on Afghanistan, on the 21st of September, the US gave the Taliban an ultimatum; Hand over OBL and his co-conspirators or we will assume you are in league with them and you will share their fate.

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?

But never mind that.

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'.

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).

War in Afganistan (2001-present)

One day before the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush administration agreed on a plan to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by force if it refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. The plan involved using escalating methods of applying pressure over a three year period. At that September 10 meeting of the Bush administration's top national security officials, it was agreed that the Taliban would be presented with a final ultimatum to hand over Osama bin Laden. If the Taliban refused, covert military aid would be channeled by the U.S. to anti-Taliban groups. If both those options failed, "the deputies agreed that the United States would seek to overthrow the Taliban regime through more direct action."

The United Nations Charter, which has been ratified by the United States and to which other members of the invasion coalition are signatories, provides that all UN member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and no member nation can use military force except in self-defense. The United States Constitution states that international treaties, such as the United Nations Charter, that are ratified by the U.S. are part of the supreme law of the land in the U.S. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom).

[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

[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.

[kandrathe]

blah blah blah...

Wow. Are you pretending to be obtuse? If not, it's probably not in me to enlighten you further. Every statement you made above ignores the obvious in what appears to be 100% intellectual dishonesty.

Yes, you MUST follow Natural Law, defend that home and get your head blown off. Have a safe day!

Threaten? Or was it a warning that there is no neutral side for terrorism. You either expunge it from your borders, or you are a part of the problem. Is it a comprehension problem? Would it make any sense that the US President would declare war on upwards of 30 to 40 nations at the same time. No, no really. In the context of his statements about terrorism, it was entirely clear. Some people like to take things out of context and add hyperbole to justify their own distorted politically minded discourse.

At the risk of further attempting to teach the pig to sing...

The law does have an evidentiary requirement, but it arises after, not before, the right of self-defense is exercised. Thus, if a state claiming to be implementing its inherent right of self-defense were to attack an innocent party, the remedy would be the same as for any other aggression in violation of Article 2(4). The innocent party would have the right of self-defense under Article 51, which is exercisable at its sole volition. It could also appeal to the Council to institute collective measures against its attacker under Chapter VII.

-- Thomas Franck

The evidence? Yes, it was provided to our NATO allies in secret meetings, but not broadcast to our enemies. That evidence convinced the NATO countries to invoke Article 5.

When two US embassies in Africa were bombed, didn't it seem odd that the US response was sending bombs to OBL's base in Afghanistan, and it was not met with any UN condemnation? Why was that? Shouldn't Afghanistan sought refuge from Article 2(4)? There are holes and ambiguities in the UN charter large enough to fly a fleet of B52's through. It was designed for a pre-nuclear age where war took time to amass armies across borders, and didn't account for asymmetric or proxy warfare. If Article 51 does not apply, then neither does the UN.

So, I would urge you to research and read up on Thomas Franck's writings, rather than justify your position by culling any of 100 obscure liberal minded left wing law professors opinions (and that one written within the month of 911).

[Jester]

So, I would urge you to research and read up on Thomas Franck's writings, rather than justify your position by culling any of 100 obscure liberal minded left wing law professors opinions (and that one written within the month of 911).

"I advise you to listen to people who agree with me, rather than people who agree with you."

Why, exactly?

-Jester

[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.

[clownhoof]

All i have to say is, If kids right away know right from wrong, if they dont they are even more of a danger to society. I hate the lame argument of kids just dont know any better. Yes they do! Its just hard for most people to picture some one so young doing something so evil, in the 1920 women never faced murder trials because it was thought they were incapable of such a thing.