Widow Testifies at a Military Court

[Jester]

Marjorie Cohn is a person hopelessly biased by her political prejudices. It's like using Genghis Khan as your source to debate for military action.

Aren't you always the one telling me not to attack the source, but rather, the argument?

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Aren't you always the one telling me not to attack the source, but rather, the argument?

Not all ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies, only those not pertinent to the argument. If a person is a Neo-nazi, that fact has no bearing in a discussion on floral arrangement, but would be central to one on race relations.

--Pete

[Jester]

Not all ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies, only those not pertinent to the argument. If a person is a Neo-nazi, that fact has no bearing in a discussion on floral arrangement, but would be central to one on race relations.

All Ad Hominem attacks are logical fallacies, unless the argument itself turns on the person's characteristics, which this obviously does not - the Afghanistan war is not more or less legal on the basis of the someone's political bias.

Kandrathe appears to be dismissing a law professor's views on the legality of the Iraq war on the basis of their belonging to a leftist legal organization, which makes them "rabidly partisan". Apparently, we're not supposed to listen to Noam Chomsky, either.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

All Ad Hominem attacks are logical fallacies, ...

No.

... the Afghanistan war is not more or less legal on the basis of the someone's political bias.

The issue is not the legality of the war, it is the *opinion* of the legality of the war. And, in matters of opinion, the person is always a factor.

--Pete

[Jester]

No.

Yes - with the proviso I already put above, which is when the issue itself turns on the person's qualities.

The argument "X is wrong about Y because they are a Z" is fallacious. It might be a very helpful heuristic, but it's not logical.

The issue is not the legality of the war, it is the *opinion* of the legality of the war. And, in matters of opinion, the person is always a factor.

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.

-Jester

[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.

[Jester]

For what it's worth, I agree with Franck. The US was within its rights, if not well-advised strategically, to do what it did in Afghanistan. September 11th was an attack, and Al Qaeda sufficiently connected to the Taliban government to justify unilateral action. I don't like the what they did, but it wasn't illegal. (Unlike Iraq.)

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.

Inane, perhaps, but not necessarily wrong. Dismissing their beliefs because of the group they belong to on the basis of those same beliefs is circular, at best.

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.

Opinions do not have to be impartial or unbiased to be true, valid, or correct. Example: Ludwig von Mises is one of the most extreme economists ever to live - his positions are to the right of basically everyone. Nobody expects him to ever accept any argument in favour of socialism. He was not interested in compromise - "ever more boldly." This has precisely zero bearing on whether or not his economic propositions are true or false, useful or useless. Likewise here - the arguments stand or fall on their own merits, not the social status ("impartial, unbiased") of their maker.

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.

One does not require "moderates" to have a reasonable discussion. One needs only stick to facts and logic. There is no valid reason to suspect the answer does not lie with one extreme or another.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

... I must consider the source ...

Exactly.

Also, this discussion has been beating dried glue for a while.

And Zenda is either a troll or a fool. He'll either misinterpret or twist anything said to forward his anti-USA agenda. Not worth discussing anything with a bigot.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

One does not require "moderates" to have a reasonable discussion. One needs only stick to facts and logic. There is no valid reason to suspect the answer does not lie with one extreme or another.

"Moderate" in discussion, as in "not a raving moron". Someone willing to, at the least, consider and evaluate the opponent's position. Not "moderate" as in accepting the middle of the road viewpoint. And, yes, one requires moderates to have a reasonable discussion, otherwise one ends up with a shouting match. And it usually only takes one bigoted, prejudiced, small minded, a-hole to bring that about by forcing the polarization of opinions.

And, while the answer (is there really only one?) might indeed be at an extreme, I'm hard pressed to think of a situation in history where an extreme answer proved itself right in the long run.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

And, while the answer (is there really only one?) might indeed be at an extreme, I'm hard pressed to think of a situation in history where an extreme answer proved itself right in the long run.

This is hard for many, but you'd have to try to step into GWB's shoes on September 12th while he cruised around in AF1 in the hot seat.

{Wearing my hindsight glasses}

First, consider the boiling blood of 80 to 90% of the US, and as Marjorie pointed out, at that time 45% would be willing to torture terrorists themselves to get information. Rescue efforts are getting under way to recover bodies and any remaining survivors. The dust hasn't settled, literally. Airlines are shut down, the stock market is closed, etc. etc. This was an economic Pearl Harbor, as the original one nearly crippled us militarily, this one almost crippled us financially. It was the blow that signaled the impending recession in 2001, and Greenspan's response, amongst other players and choices they made eventually brought about this latest financial crisis in 2008. But, the seeds of it were sown in 2001 by how Greenspan intervened, and failed to intervene.

The evidence and intelligence was slowly trickling in that this was an Al Queda operation, masterminded by OBL, who happens to be a guest of the Taliban in Afghanistan. There were already numerous failed, weak and rogue states in the region, Iran, Iraq, Yeman, Somalia, Syria, and Sudan. Then, Pakistan, which doesn't fit any of the above, although their military dictators grip on power was tenuous.

The war in Iraq was obviously trumped up, and I was also swept up in the US propaganda (with Colin Powell) justifying the war there. Now, looking back, I can only guess that it was a part of a larger Middle East stabilization strategy where the US and Europe can better isolate and deal with Iran, and ignore or placate the others (Yeman, Sudan, Somalia, Syria) for now. The radical Shiites were mostly contained by the radical Wahhabi surrounding them. But altogether it is these nations(plus Palestine) that act like a machine pumping out wave after wave of radicalized fundamentalist terrorists.

Bush's choices were limited and he opted for the ones that were most politically palatable to his base. This eventually led to the Republican defeat in 2008, as the Democrats had an activated base which mobilized many new voters and a charismatic young candidate who's vague promises of "Change" swept over the middle of the road "independent" voters. And...

The administrations mistakes during their two terms were legion; the feeling of rushing to war without much diplomacy, the failure to fully marshal alliances, the trumping up of evidence against Saddam's regime to justify war, Abu Garib, Gitmo, Renditions, Patriot Act, TSA, DHS, etc. etc. And, then he also ticked off his base with big government domestic spending, and during his term never addressed the looming ditch we were heading right into (by that time it was Paulsen's job to steer).

Were any of Marjorie Cohn's suggested options any better, or might they have changed the course of any of this? Probably, yes. But, politically, and practically, they were mostly unfeasible solutions that would have kicked the problem down the road a few more years. If this Middle East strategy is/was in place, then the Bush (and Clinton, and Obama) administration could/should have spent more time educating people before and after the fact. This reveals parts of a larger puzzle, bringing along "the people" in the master plans, allowing us to either support or reject them.

Maybe it needed to be done, but it certainly could have been done better. That is Bush's legacy. He bit off more than he could chew, and it's the people who must pay the price. He was pretty mediocre at best, and that's what we get when we elect people without any experience.

Of course, you know my answer. Bite off less, and there is less to chew. The panoply of nations is currently a huge dysfunctional family. The US is the physically abusive rich relative who first has to beat the snot out of you, and then cleans you up and takes you out for dinner and ice cream (reminding me of the movie; "The cook, the thief, his wife, her lover").