Why is the President Lying ... again?

quote:

---

He was not just discussing invasions in general, he was discussing preemptive actions in specific. Its sort of a strain to call the first gulf war a preemptive act as Iraq had already taken Kuwait and the war was to liberate Kuwait. Those cases are well known and justified in international law. I mean what evidence would the US have to provide to make it more legit?

---

My point was that Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was illegitimate and we attacked him for it. Saddam's invasion did not pass the global test. At least I think I said that earlier, too many Iraq threads going.Kerry said that if America were to attack preemptively then we need to make other countries understand our reason for doing so, and make them understand it's legitimacy. In my mind this does not mean passing a test before hand, but running the invasion in a way that lends legitimacy.Now, if Bush were able to show massive stockpiles of WMD's and also find strong collaborative actions between Iraq and AQ then we wouldn't be having this conversation. If America has strong evidence, and believes that this evidence is strong enough to act on then they should be able to back this up after the invasion. Not being able to back up your claims removes legitimacy after the fact. The US has very little credibility because of this, and it has harmed our ability to pursue terrorism world wide.I think Kerry really needs to flesh out his idea of what the "global test" is. He also needs to state under which conditions that he feels the US would be justified in going it alone. I think it is somewhat unfair to criticize Bush for not creating a larger coalition since the US should never wait on other countries before it protects itself. However, in cases where the reasons for invading are not well supported it is better to spread the blame and rely on world opinion.Just as a side issue, I am really getting tired of people equating the vote to "give the president the authority to use force" as a vote to actually invade. This is perhaps the largest misrepresentation that the conservatives are spitting out and I am hoping that more of the media presses them for a better representation of what the vote actually was.

Not that I think any less of you, but I have to say this is the first time I've seen you not fully informed on something. Quite the surprise! Not that I am a Kerry fanatic, but I am happy to dispell your needless fears regarding his policy on pre-emptive strikes.Here is his direct quote from the debate: Thus you can see for sure that he is for the use of pre-emptive strikes when necessary. The question is their meeting the criteria for legitimacy. Pre-emption is allowed though I cannot cite the exact legal codes. Back before the Iraq War ever started I had produced citations (at EvC) from various legal analysts on the legal use of pre-emption. I'm not sure if I want to google it all over again, but I will if you want me to.Kofi Anan recently addressed this issue again when asked about the legality of the Iraq War and he mentioned that it had not fit international law.The legality of pre-emption should be obvious. No nation forming the body of laws would allow itself to not be able to attack an obvious aggressor until it actually launched the first attack. Especially since the Blitzkrieg it's been known that once the first attack has been launched the war might as well be over.The key components for legality are intelligence indicating forces (or weapons) capable of launching an attack, and a posture of readiness (or movement to readiness) for an attack such that it would be imminent. That last part is crucial.Although Bush and Co tried to say that they met the "imminent" requirement, it was an absurdity. Their claim was that (in this new post 9-11 era) if we waited till we had intelligence of someone with attack capability readying themselves...it may already be to late.Thus Bush transformed the pre-emptive attack into the pre-pre-emptive attack. A threat known to be 5 to 10 years off still counts as "imminent". Whoa, there's some negative thinking for you.Kerry has bashed Bush's pre-pre-emptive policy which is to hit before threats can begin gathering, but that does not rule out a realistic and legitimate pre-emptive policy of striking as a threat gathers.This is a return to international law and a precedent we actually want other nations to follow.Hope this helped clarify their stances.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I missed that point, sorry about confusing it. Although I should point out that Iraq's attack was not a pre-emptive attack either (not even meant to be in name) and so not really relavent. Bush did go in claiming this was a pre-emptive attack. Agreed. In other words we need to be able to make other nations understand our reason, not that we have to make them do so before launching an attack.It seemed though, and maybe I got it wrong, that you were implying the test of legitimacy was based on acceptance of the rationale (before or after). I was taking exception to that version of the "test". The fact is there are already grounds for legitimate pre-emptive attacks. We need to meet those criteria and that's all. Other nations should accept them but there is no reason that all of them will, or even a majority.For example it may be that the US learns that nation X is preparing a nuclear device that it intends to detonate in Israel. The US might decide to pre-emptively attack nation X. The facts would make our attack legitimate, though its popularity might be low, especially if we don't make a "clean" attack, or it seems we are playing favorites by allowing Israel to have nuclear devices.Thus it is not our ability to convince everyone to support or accept our attack which lends it legitimacy. It is our meeting international standards of legitimacy regarding pre-emption which should be enough, and indeed should be enough for other nations even if they decide not to play along.If it meets the criteria and they don't like it, that really is tough cookies. Absolutely. They played the "we know something you don't" card to everyone in the buildup to war, suggesting that Bush and Co were meeting the criteria for legitimacy. Now that we know they didn't know jack, they have lost even the semblance of legitimacy retroactively. I think it is fair to criticize him for this when it is clear that time is on our side. It was obvious that Hussein was not an imminent threat and so we could wait if it meant adding to the coalition.France signaled its willingness to come on board (contrary to Rice's assertion) if the inspectors were allowed to finish their job or felt they were being hindered too much. As they themselves stated they wanted to leave it up to the assessment of the only people who could tell us what was going on. Bush and Co pretended they had other sources but as it turns out, that was a complete lie.I'm not sure if I'd call it "spreading the blame" to include allies, and in any case I would be just as against a popular illegitimate attack as an unpopular one. The key is having the information which supports it's legitimacy no matter the popularity of the cause. I hate it too, though this habit dates back to the first gulf war. Democrats who wanted to be on board with the popular war said that their vote was a vote for war... but it wasn't. I do wonder how many Dems would be saying that again now if Iraq turned out to be legit?Heheheh... I distrust both sides.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

especially on this board. in fact, i still haven't gotten even replies to some of my hard questions posed to fundamentalists. i was just comparing who dodged worse, not especially favoring either candidate when i watched the debate. because it's the american duty to stand behind the president, didn't you know? questioning authority is unpatriotic nowadays.

Well, Al-Queda doesn't draw any distinction between acts against American citizens and acts against our occupying soldiers, so why should we?When the Cole was bombed, didn't we consider that terrorism?

Since I need to cogitate on Holmes' response a bit, I'll answer the easy one now... No. Or rather, the media and (IIRC) the administration called it terrorism in their rhetoric. It did not then and does not now fit either the internationally accepted definition of terrorism, OR the operational definition of terrorism used by US policy makers in making actual decisions. Note well the Patterns of Global Terrorism report I referenced earlier in the thread. Terrorism is a deliberate act of violence directed against non-combatant civilians for the sake of, well, fomenting terror. As such, acts of sabotage (for ex, against Iraqi oil facilities and pipelines) or guerrilla actions directed against purely military targets (like the Cole) are not terrorism. It is the target and objective that defines terrorism, not the nature of the act (i.e., not all suicide bombers are terrorists). 9/11 was a terrorist act, blowing oneself up to kill some Iraqi security forces is not - rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding. Recommend you look back over the longish albeit truncated discussion holmes and I had in the "War on Terror" thread awhile back. You have something of a point here. Al Qaeda among others doesn't make the distinction - an enemy's civil populace is considered fair game. This is why I have no problem labelling the group as terrorist. OTOH, most of the so-called "terrorist groups" involved in the Iraqi insurgency aren't terrorists - they're insurgents. Some of the non-Iraqi rifraf that has joined the fighting ARE terrorists, however. However, I think that it's important for US to make the distinction where possible. Otherwise, we aren't much better than they are.

I don't see that this is anything but beside the point - Bush's actions have exposed more people to terrorism than before. It doesn't matter if they're in uniform or not.If Al-Queda shoots 100 people here instead of 50 there, does it matter that the 100 were soldiers but the 50 weren't? Do we say that there's 50 less victims of terror, as a result?That's a specious moral caluclus. Dead is dead. I don't see that it matters what counts as terror, or what doesn't - it's all a result of Bush's actions.

I wasn't aware that there was an internationally accepted defintion of terrorism - pretty sure that the UN couldn't agree one:http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.htmlThe difficulty in defining terrorism, of course, is not the glib and facile "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", but to define it such that the term can never be applied to us in any meaningful way. Even if we take what you describe as the US operational definition (think this may be the FBI definition), then what about US funding of the Contras, or the deliberate bombing of a Serbian tv station and Iraqi water treatment facilities? Was the 'shock and awe' campaign really aimed only at the Iraqi military?And how important is pure intent here anyway? Things get muddy very quickly. If I drop a 500lb bomb in the middle of a Baghdad slum because I know that there may be "insurgents" there (love the word "insurgents" - hadn't really heard it much before this war. I guess you can't call them "rebels" as that conjures up images of Luke Skywalker fighting Darth Vader) then civilians are going to die - yet somehow that is not considered to have the same "boogyman" stigma as a terrorist car-bomb. I seem to recall when a large bomb hit a village in Afghanistan because the ordinance had been punched in incorrectly (I think) aresulting in the deaths of 20+ civilians. While this wasn't intentional, it certaoinly was negligent.Surely the while point behind intent is that it means that the act of violence itself is may well be repeated, thus making it morally reprehensible? If this is the case, can we say that lessons have been learned so that coalition acts of neglect haven't been repeated? I met a US sailor the other day who went to great length to tell me about all the cruise missiles which missed their targets and landed in the Saudi desert.Personally, I don't think we can say that the negligent acts by the military have been stamped out - accidents ciontinue to happen almost unabated, which is why repeated acts of neglect are as morally reprehensible as deliberate acts of violence against civilians. "Terrorism" becomes a somewhat redundant term.PEThis message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 10-05-2004 06:39 PM

Thanks for the responses. Let me see if I can articulate the global test we are all talking about.The global test refers to two basic criteria, as Kerry stated:1.) The nation understands the reason for attack and the majority are behind it.2.) The preemptive action is legitimized by agreed upon international standards.In the event that the fulfilling of the international standards is questionable, it is pertinent of the nation that is using preemptive action to prove the legitimacy of the action after the fact. If this is done, we passed the global test. If not, we failed. It is up to the nation to take a gamble with their credibility.I also just realized that Kerry speaks in the past tense when he says, "you can prove to the world that you did it for legitmate reasons."The Iraq War would fail on a couple of counts. First, there was little evidence for the WMD programs, making the justifications at best questionable. Second, much of the evidence that was used was based on unsubstantiated interpretation of the intelligence and was the result of data mining (Aluminum tubes, for instance. Why were we not told that the top experts questioned the stance that these we used for nuclear weapons production?). And Third, we could not prove the war was justified after the fact.First, is this an accurate interpretation of the Global Test? And second, are there any problems with this test if I interpreted correctly

Uhh, since I don't support Bush, and have even stated that I intend to vote for Kerry, I think YOUR comment here is "besides the point". In fact, I've never even mentioned Bush in this context. You appear to be dragging in irrelevancies rather than addressing the substance of my remarks - very unlike you, Crash. I think I said that. Yes. The soldiers were "legitimate" targets. The civilians were victims of terrorists. Specious?! Specious!! When have you ever known me to use a specious argument? You might disagree with me, but you need to do better than simply denigrate the argument. Try showing how I’m wrong. Oh, and again, I’ve never even mentioned Bush. Whether or not we are in better or worse shape now than before the last election is a completely different topic — and one which I haven’t even broached. You need to re-read my posts.To substantiate my contentions, let’s see some definitions of terrorism:This one emphasizes the civilian nature of the target, but shows the indirect nature of terrorist acts: This is about as close as the UN has come to a definition although I find it rather vague. Note the emphasis on civil targets. This one is perhaps a bit broad, and it is arguable whether or not warfare is an appropriate characterization, but also emphasizes the civilian nature of the target. And of course, US law states: Terrorism in general (as opposed to international terrorism) is defined by US law (USC 22.256.f.d.) as I actually don’t agree with this definition, simply because it seeks to absolve States of the moral responsibility and consequences of deliberately targeting civilians. And yes, I include acts such as the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo — acts deliberately targeted at a civilian population in order to achieve a political or ideological objective — as terrorist acts. Hamas, before they slipped over the line and started blowing up school buses, was a legitimate guerilla group, for example.However, my lengthy point here is that there is a single thread running through the vast majority of definitions: attacks against non-combatants. There is no moral calculation, rather an attempt to objectively separate freedom fighter or guerilla or revolutionary from terrorist. All too often the term is used simply as a way to demonize the opponent, rather than recognizing the special status of the perpetrator by keying on the target, rather than the method.For further reading, I suggest: Henri Boshoff, Anneli Botha and Martin Schnteich 2001 Fear in the City, Urban Terrorism in South Africa, especially chapter 1 THE MULTI-HEADED MONSTER: DIFFERENT FORMS OF TERRORISM contains an excellent overview and discussion of what terrorism is. Available on-line here

Maybe I don't understand your point, then. If we both agree that the activities of Al-Queda, etc., are on the increase, then what exactly is under discussion? I'm not particularly interested in addressing what "technically" constitutes terrorism or not, because that's not of interest to me, nor do I see it as relevant to the topic. I know, and those remarks aren't directed at you, but rather, serve to place my arguments in the context of the thread. Ok, I see that now, but that was the discussion I was having with Creationistal, and that's the discussion I'm interested in. I'm not interested in discussing what constitutes terror or not; I'm happy to use whatever definition Bush supporters care to use when I'm talking to them, or whatever definition you prefer when I'm talking to you.I'm sorry that I "strung you along" without realizing that we were having a discussion I wasn't interested in. I am, truly. If you feel I've wasted your time then I do apologize; it was purely through my own error and not malice.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-06-2004 11:27 AM

Ok, Quetzal shows up this week, then SLPx appears and now salty is back as of yesterday...c'mon..conspiracy? When Wordswordsman and Ten-sai show up tomorrow, then I start believing you are all the same one guy

Yeah, I probably overstated the case. However, the UN (and others) is creeping toward an operational definition (see the GA resolution I quoted to Crash above). Basically, the problem is almost a West vs East ideology. In the West, there appears to be at least a general (if not the specific wording) agreement on a relatively narrow definition, whereas in the East (as characterized by, for example, the Ayatollah Tashkiri's definition often quoted by Middle Eastern sources) is IMO way too broad. Tashkiri appears to lump ALL anti-government efforts or acts of violence into the terrorism category. I don't see much hope of getting a solid, useable concensus any time soon. I totally agree with the first part of your statement. As I noted to Crash, the US (and btw several other Western country) definitions tend to reserve the right to absolve themselves of the moral responsibility for targeting civilians by restricting the definition to non-statal actors. I disagree with this policy. Until EVERYBODY agrees that targeting civilian populations is an illegitimate act, States will continue to use this abhorrant form of action when it suits their purpose. Not a good way to gain concensus and put a stop to it, IMO.As far as the specific cases you mention, in none of them do I see "terrorism" as I've defined it. Infrastructure - including state-controlled media outlets, etc - have long been considered legitimate targets. Might their destruction kill civilian (i.e., non-military) personnel? Yes, obviously. However, the intent was not to terrorize civilians, but rather to impede or destroy some element of the enemy's (using the term loosely) capabilities. I'll admit I'm not clear on the military necessity of destroying a water treatment facility, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it as a military target per se. As to the Contras, well, fomenting revolt and/or supporting guerrilla groups fighting against a country someone doesn't agree with has a rather long history. Now providing funding and support to a group whose entire purpose is terror or who use terrorist tactics to accomplish their aims WOULD be tantamount to terrorism. The Contras are a case in point - most were simply rebels. Some were little more than bandits, and some were terrorists. I think it would be a mistake not to make the distinction when we support such groups. I'd say the term insurgent also has a fairly long history. I'm not sure of the etymology of the word, nor when it was first introduced, but insurgents are generally considered "legitimate" combatants - unless they're goring YOUR ox, in which case they're either bandits or terrorists . But honestly, as long as they stay on the right side of the terrorist/guerrilla divide, demonizing them as "terrorists" is simply propaganda. Interestingly, there appear to be both in Iraq right now. Most of the Iraqis fighting the Coalition forces are probably rightly termed insurgents, rather than terrorists. Most of the "volunteers" there and in Afghanistan from other countries appear to be more in the nature of terrorists as I've defined it.On the collateral damage issue (isn't that a quaint euphemism? Sort of makes the mess all clean and fluffy while glossing over the horrors of living in a war zone), anytime civilians are killed it's a tragedy. It's also a practically unavoidable consequence of war, or if you prefer, military action in a built-up area. However, I would maintain that there's a very important distinction to be made between accident (whether caused by negligence or bad luck) and deliberately carpet bombing a city. The latter would be terrorism. Again, we can argue over specific cases, but that doesn't really further the dialog that's needed to be able to discriminate between the tragic costs of war and deliberate acts of terror. I'm honestly not clear on the point you're attempting to make here and in the subsequent paragraph. If you're asking me whether I consider the deaths of civilians caught in the cross-fire or killed by stray ordinance are morally equivalent to acts conducted by persons or groups who are deliberately targeting them, then I'd have to say, "No, I don't, tragic though it may be." If you're asking me whether I think that the Coalition forces are randomly throwing ordinance downrange regardless of the potential for civilian casualties on the off-chance they'll hit something important, then again I'd have to say, "No, I don't." Maybe you could clarify what you mean, and I'll try and answer your point.

Sorry - I realise wasn't very clear. I'm saying that what ought to be a pure distinction between intentional acts of violence and accidental acts of violence blurs into a morally murky area where we have accidental, but wantonly reckless acts. Is there much moral difference between a terrorist car bomb that seeks to kill enemy soldiers or collaborators but will undoubtedly kill mainly civilians, and a precision bomb dropped in the middle of a crowded slum where it may kill the enemy, but will probably kill mainly civilians?IMO, the number of avoidable accidents which have occurred to date and continue to occur smacks to me of wanton recklessness (e.g why did they not have an extra pair of eyes to check the ordinance coordinates?). I honestly don't think there is much distinction to be drawn between wanton recklessness to this degree and the intentional targetting and killing of civilians.PEThis message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 10-06-2004 12:58 PM

Okay, I see and understand your point. Obviously, I do draw a distinction between accident and deliberate targeting of civilians. I think to change my mind you'd have to show that the amount of civilian casualties caused by US/Coalition forces is actually representative of "wanton recklessness". I simply don't think the media coverage to date is in-depth enough to make the case, but I'm open to convincing. It would be quite uncharacteristic of our military to operate in that fashion today (in the past, possibly different story), both because of technological advances and substantial doctrinal changes over the last couple decades.