Bush Affirms Policy of "Preemptive" Attack
Bush reaffirmed Thursday his policy of willingness to strike first against states he considers enemies.
There is a real problem of definition here. If Bush means that he will strike at terrorists whom he has good reason to suspect of imminently carrying out an attack on the US, then that is in accord with the United Nations Charter. States can always engage in self-defense from imminent threat.
But if he means he can go around invading other countries because he doesn't like the looks of them--which is what he actually does seem to mean-- then that is a war crime both in US law and in international law.
You wonder if the Bushes will be able to vacation in Europe when he goes out of office, or if Pinochet's fate awaits George.
posted by Juan Cole @ 3/17/2006 12:38:00 AM
|
Facebook
16 Comments:
I hope that not just poor George Bush but Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Feith, to name just five off the top of the deck, are prosecuted for their crimes against humanity.
I was young enough and foolish enough to think that we as a nation had at least learned somethng from the war in Vietnam. It's obvious we learned not one damned thing.
I hope that the spectacle of a former president of the United States and his mentors sitting in the dock at the Hague or wherever the Anglo-American War Crimes Tribunal is held, broadcast live on TV day in a and day out will be enough to drive home the fact that murdering innocent people in an aggressive war is wrong.
I remember Gerhard Schroeder saying "No!" to this criminal clique's demand that Germany follow them across the border into Iraq.
That's what we in the United States have to learn to say when the neocons, or whatever they call themselves next time, pop up next time.
Yes to the Anglo-American War Crimes Tribunal!
Not being able to vacation in Europe is not much of a deterrent to GWB. I don't think that was ever his idea of a good time. Tell him he won't be able to do yard work on the ranch and you'll get his attention.
luckily europe is a fairly big place!
something shabby
'when he goes out of office'?
At this stage of history, why would anyone assume that Bush or his people will leave office?
Seriously.
In the last few years, there is nothing to show that this crew has any respect for elections or the consitution - so I will assume nothing in regards to upcoming presidential elections.
These people play for keeps.
Juan, this is the same preemptive war doctrine that George II articulated in his West Point commencement address, June, 2002. It is no less alarming now than it was then. What is alarming is that, when asked, Americans appear to believe we have a divine right to invade. Or, as Stephen Colbert put the question a couple of nights ago: "Can America ever be wrong? (__ Answer in words of two letters or less.)"
Bush is preparing the ground for the attack on Iran. He is reckless beyond belief and probably Rove is telling him if he starts another war his poll numbers will improve.
Regarding the Pinochet comparison, it seems unlikely that the US would turn on Bush. That scenario might change if utter ruin and devastation is visited on the US because of his actions. (I'm beginning to consider that possibility as real.)But he is going to have trouble travelling abroad. And he and his family won't have a moment's peace for the remainder of his days.
George will be confined to a cowless ranch in Texas, that so much is clear. I don't even think he'll be welcomed in Minnesota.
The determination of "imminent threat" would be derived almost always from intelligence. Iraq is a clear example that the world is far more complex, and imperceptible, than we make it out to be.
War on a hunch.
Speaking of courts, now we know why the 'publicans take such a dim view of international courts. It's just too bad they would not serve time in some of our finer penal establishments. Still, just the thought of bush, cheny and rummy doing time almost amkes me too excited to work.
"There is a real problem of definition here. If Bush means that he will strike at terrorists whom he has good reason to suspect of imminently carrying out an attack on the US, then that is in accord with the United Nations Charter. States can always engage in self-defense from imminent threat."
If there is one thing 9/11, and the London and Madrid bombings, made clear, its that successful and devastating terrorist attacks can not be stopped by preemptive military action.
9/11 was an act carried out by a group consisting mainly of Saudis, led by an Egyptian, and planned in Germany and the US. The London and Madrid bombings were, for the most part, planned and executed by locals. Why would one expect that the actions leading up to future terrorist attacks would present targets for preemptive military strikes?
So it does seem much more likely preemption strategy is about justifying discretionary military attacks when we please, as we please - Grenada 24/7 (no more Iraqs).
The Pentagon's huge budget and massive firepower will not make a terrorist think twice about going forward with the next attack, but smart police and intelligence work might.
If the neocons have their preemptive way, not even God can save the doomed All Volunteer Military.
professor Cole,
Please blog about this article on the Israel Lobby, it is very important:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
thanks
To the tune of "With God on Our Side":
"Our strategy now is Pre-emptive Attack.
Strike first and hit so hard they cannot fight back.
Remember the last time these tactics were tried?
The bombs at Pearl Harbor had Bush on their side."
You wonder if the Bushes will be able to vacation in Europe when he goes out of office, or if Pinochet's fate awaits George.
I am afraid that attacking Iran is not a family vacations question :-(((
Somebody please explain to me the part of the constutution that reserves the power to make war to congress?
I know there is a war powers act, which gives the executive 90 days.
But the founders, placed real controls on the war making powers of an excutive.
Strange, a professor of history would miss that.
Soldier's Dad,
'But the founders, placed real controls on the war making powers of an excutive.'
You're joking right?
Are you also not aware that your Son (Daughter?) in the military also swore to uphold the Constitution?
US Constitution Section. 8. - Clause 11: 'The Congress shall have Power' [....] 'To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water'
House.gov
The American Constitution does not contain any so-called "inherent" powers. The Constitution only contains "enumerated" powers. All other powers not specifically granted to the Federal government remain "inherently" with the States and the People, respectively.
While the Congress -- and not the President -- has the enumerated power to declare war, the designers of the Constitution did not put their faith in "parchment provisions," as Alexander Hamilton called toothless paper exhortations that have no supporting sanctions. All powers rest ultimately on the Power of the Purse. Or as the bar girls on Tu Do Street in Saigon used to say to the broke and hard-up GIs: "No money, no honey!"
President Lyndon Johnson asked for and received Congressional passage of the now-infamous "Tonkin Gulf Resolution" which he then expansively interpreted as license to wage unrestricted war in Southeast Asia. Later, Congress finally rebelled -- during the Nixon administration -- and revoked the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, but Nixon just ignored the Congress and went on with the war -- then expanded to include Laos and Cambodia -- on the specious grounds that his status as "commander in chief" gave him the power to wage war as he saw fit. In the end, Congress remembered Alexander Hamilton and just cut off the funding for the war. No money, no honey.
Princes and Presidents only care for Parliaments and Congresses when they need money. No President gives a damn about what Congress "resolves." Only what it will pay for. A Republican Congress voted specifically not to declare war on Yugoslavia and specifically not to authorize the bombing of Yugoslavia. Then, the same Republican Congress gave President Bill Clinton the money he wanted to bomb Yugoslavia. So he did precisely that.
Presidents don't care what Congress "resolves." Just what it will pay for. An inverse relationship exists between the "resolving" Congress does and what it actually accomplishes. The more "resolving," the less accomplishing. You'd think the stupid and gullible Nation of Sheep would have figured this out by now.
The Power of the Purse and the Power to Impeach exist for good reasons. As James Madison said, angels don't govern men: corruptible men govern other corruptible men; and with that as the case, men must divide the government against itself in order that men may remain the masters of government and not its slaves. If Americans want to retain what few and vanishing freedoms they still have, they'll demand that Congress first cut off funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and then impeach both President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for "high crimes." Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert can fill out the remainder of the Bush administration as caretaker President (like Gerald Ford did after Nixon resigned) until new elections in 2008 can choose a President Americans really want.
We did all this before and we can -- indeed we must -- do it again. And again, as many times as necessary.
Dubya vacationing in Europe? I don't think the 'Powers that be' would like that at all. In fact I suspect that Bush will never be allowed near a microphone again.Imagine Dubya with a few drinks in him being allowed to speak freely without his 'prompter'I think there is a real chance that the assassination of Dubya will be the next 911.Then the evil Grand Vizier Cheney and his acolytes will have a free hand to arrest all of us who think the U.S. has been hijacked by 'white trash'.With apologies to John Donne.When foriegners are not people/just enemies of the status/We'll demand their love/ then bomb them/'til they hate us./ Now everyone's a prisoner/ With no-one left to set us free/So ask not for whom/ The Camps are built/ They are built for thee. Regards and love to all peaceniks. Denis Foley
Post a Comment
<< Home