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

[Paul Mackin]

Michael Baum writes"

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

First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

                --William Shakespeare


----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Baum" <michael.baum at nist.gov>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: NP? US Campaign Against Afghanistan Not Self-Defense Under
International Law


>
> 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
>