Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: D. Long who wrote (47832)	9/29/2002 10:05:58 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) of 281500

Derek, No one is arguing we are in a court of law. You moved a discussion of rights of self defense to a generic case, away from international relations. Now you wish to move it back. Okay. Let's take the case on the table, should we accept the Bush administration claims to a justification for unilateral preemptive attacks. I think not. 1. A doctrine of preemption offers other nations a language and very powerful precedent to do the same. Pakistan or India in Kashmir is the most obvious example but there are many others that could be advanced. 2. Such a doctrine without a reasonably careful stipulation of the conditions under which it could be applied makes the precedent even worse. It then does become an argument that the US can do it whenever it decides to do so. And, in the very bald form put forth in the Bush papers, can do so without some sort of multilateral agreement. Forget the UN, since it seems to be such a bogey in your mind. Just to advocate the government of any country can do it whenever it so decides without some sort of shared agreement, leaves the international scene without any checks and balances.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next