what are you thoughts on afghanistan...since the only real govt they had was the taliban...and we basically invaded that country...was that too, illegal?
First my thoughts on the use of military force in Afghanistan. International law did not define terrorist acts. US law does, including a defintion of 'international terrorism' which the attacks of 9/11 match up with. Terrorism is a police problem and the use of the military is not necessary or appropriate. From that p.o.v., the use of military force by the US and Britain in Afghanistan was not appropriate. Some 7500 civilians were killed in that attack...a small town wiped out.
9/11 was not an act of war under any legal definition b/c that would require state on state violence. Terrorism was always handled as a police problem b/c legally it is not and cannot be an act of war. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a state sanctioned attack. 9/11 was not.
The UN denied the US's request to use force against Afg. The UN charter, to which the US is a signatory, requires members to first attempt to settle international differences peacefully--negotiation, arbitration, judicial settlement or such. The US did not do that. When the Afghan government asked for a modicum of proof that Bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks, the US ignored the request and attacked Afghanistan without seeking other means of settling the dispute.
Article 51 of the Charter states that self-defense does not require UN Security approval for use of force b/c that is an "inherent right". The right exists where there's an armed attack against the country.
But this assertion also fails. The UN denied the request for use of force and the right to use force in self defense (unilaterally) expires once the Security Council has acted. As for the 'armed attack', the International Court of Justice (the UN's criminal court) has handled a case like this before. Nicaragua asked for restitution from the Court for the US's support of the Contras (and mining of Nicaraguan harbors) in defending El Salvador from anti-governmental rebels allegedly assisted by the Nicaraguan government. The IC rejected the US's contention of self-defense of El Salvador b/c the court "does not believe that the concept of 'armed attack' includes assistance to rebels in the form of the provision of weapons or logistical or other support."
If the IC did not recognize that instance as an armed attack, how on earth could it be concluded that the Taliban attacked the US b/c it is responsible for the actions of Al Qaeda? It cannot.
Geoffrey Robertson, a leading authority on international law, said, "It cannot sensibly be asserted that invading Afghanistan is necessary to protect America."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1645564.stmIn 1985 Israel bombed a PLO headquarters in Tunisia claiming that it harbored terrorists. The Security Council unanimously condemned that act.
Did the US attempt to settle this dispute by means alternative to military attack? No.
As you can see from my post, this is a very complex topic which provides terrific cover for someone asserting that we have been attacked in an act of war and our enemy is reachable so we must strike quickly.
This what I mean when I talk about the Bush administration's penchant for skirting, obfuscating and confusing the issues for political ends.
