NP? US Campaign Against Afghanistan Not Self-Defense Under International Law

[Michael Baum]

DM> http://www.counterpunch.org/
DM> US Campaign Against Afghanistan Not
DM> Self-Defense Under International Law
DM> By Brian J. Foley
DM> "[...] The U.S. campaign has been relentless and expansive. The following
DM> analysis will show that it has already exceeded the extremely limited right
DM> to self-defense under international law. [...] "
DM> Brian J. Foley is a professor at Widener University School of Law in
DM> Wilmington, Delaware.

It's a well-known law school. Brian Foley's penetrating analysis
observes that among other things the U.S. is guilty of something
called "anticipatory self-defense"


"... many people do not appreciate that the legal definition of
self-defense is much narrower than our intuitive conception. That "the
best defense is a good offense" may be true in football and other
sports, but it is not enshrined in international or even our domestic
law. For example, you can use force to fend off someone coming at you
with a knife or gun, but you can't seek out and kill someone who is
plotting to kill you.

"An example of "anticipatory self defense" is Israel's strike against
an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, to keep Iraq from developing a
nuclear arsenal. The U.N. Security Council condemned the attack,
because the threat to Israel, though foreseeable, was not "imminent":
there was time to try other measures. Similarly, the U.N. Security
Council also rejected Israel's argument that its 1985 attack on PLO
headquarters in Tunis was self-defense."
-- Prof. Brian J. Foley


So, if I read this aright, even the august U.N. Security Council
agreed that the "foreseeable" outcome of the Iraqi nuclear program was
a pile of radioactive slag at the former location of Tel Aviv, but it
was wrong -- WRONG, DO YOU UNDERSTAND?? -- for the Israelis to
destroy the reactor. No, no they should have allowed the nuclear
program to proceed and tried to forestall the Iraqi plan by more
UN-approved means.

Such as international trade sanctions. Oh, no, wait... We can't do
that because of the starving kiddies.

Ummm. Well, it's a poser, it is.

maab