Thursday, March 6, 2003

Article 51 and the argument for pre-emptive self-defense.

What follows is a the World Press Review's careful analysis of how the preemptive strike squares with current international law.

The international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule: when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII).

The first exception, self-defense, has long been discussed and debated among international legal scholars. Although the text of Article 51 explicitly provides only for "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs," over the years, scholars have expanded the required trigger for self-defense to include both when an armed attack occurs and when an armed attack is imminent. The legal definition of "imminent" has grown out of an 1837 incident in which British troops attacked the ship Caroline, which U.S. citizens were using to take supplies to Canadian rebels fighting British rule. In his much-quoted analysis of the confrontation years later, then-Secretary of State Daniel Webster argued that the use of force in self-defense is justified when the need for action is "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." Webster's criteria subsequently became the standard in international law.

But such circumstances—in which an armed attack occurs or is imminent—do not aptly describe the current Iraqi crisis. And so President George W. Bush, over the past several months, has introduced a new category of self-defense—pre-emptive self-defense—that he claims is legally justified in the new post-Sept. 11 world.

Bush first planted the roots of the argument for pre-emptive self-defense in his address to the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 12, 2002, when he said, "The first time we may be completely certain [Saddam Hussein] has a nuclear weapon is when, God forbid, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming."

Five days later, he spelled out the case for pre-emptive self-defense more fully and forcefully in his National Security Strategy, now known as the "Bush Doctrine," in which he vowed to defend:

The United States, the American people, and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders. While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country….Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today's threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first….For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of pre-emption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack. We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries….The United States has long maintained the option of pre-emptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction—and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act pre-emptively.

Bush pursued this line of argument again in his Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address, saying, "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

But critics of Bush's argument point out that the notion of pre-emptive self-defense is not mentioned in Article 51 of the U.N. Charter and is therefore illegal under international law. Moreover, some have noted, Article 51 allows for self-defense "until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." This suggests that the right to self-defense exists only when there is no time to take the issue before the Security Council, and that if there is time for deliberation, the use of force is not justified. In the case at hand, the threat posed by Iraq has neither occurred nor is imminent, and time clearly exists to take the case to the Security Council. Thus, many claim, there is currently no legal justification for using force against Iraq in self-defense.

Thursday, March 6, 2003

Excerpt from Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay, "Heroism".

Self–trust is the essence of heroism. It is the state of the soul at war, and its ultimate objects are the last defiance of falsehood and wrong, and the power to bear all that can be inflicted by evil agents. It speaks the truth, and it is just, generous, hospitable, temperate, scornful of petty calculations, and scornful of being scorned. It persists; it is of an undaunted boldness, and of a fortitude not to be wearied out. Its jest is the littleness of common life. That false prudence which dotes on health and wealth is the butt and merriment of heroism. Heroism, like Plotinus, is almost ashamed of its body. What shall it say, then, to the sugar–plums and cats’–cradles, to the toilet, compliments, quarrels, cards, and custard, which rack the wit of all society. What joys has kind nature provided for us dear creatures! There seems to be no interval between greatness and meanness. When the spirit is not master of the world, then it is its dupe. Yet the little man takes the great hoax so innocently, works in it so headlong and believing, is born red, and dies gray, arranging his toilet, attending on his own health, laying traps for sweet food and strong wine, setting his heart on a horse or a rifle, made happy with a little gossip or a little praise, that the great soul cannot choose but laugh at such earnest nonsense. “Indeed, these humble considerations make me out of love with greatness. What a disgrace is it to me to take note how many pairs of silk stockings thou hast, namely, these and those that were the peach–colored ones; or to bear the inventory of thy shirts, as one for superfluity, and one other for use!”

Thursday, March 6, 2003

Where US tech companies are going.

Since US markets no longer seem to be expanding, US investors are looking to markets in China, Russia, and India for growth potential. Among the companies taking overseas options seriously: Veritas Software, IBM, Dell, Hewlett Packard, Wipro Ltd., Infosys Technologies, and various others.

Thursday, March 6, 2003

Why are some races more "out" than others?

Linda Greenhouse reports on the recently-reconfirmed status of California's three-strikes law.

A deeply divided Supreme Court upheld California's "three-strikes" law today, rejecting constitutional challenges to sentences of 25 years without parole for a man who stole three golf clubs from a pro shop and 50 years without parole for another for stealing children's videotapes from a Kmart store.

Both men had previous convictions for a string of mostly minor property offenses that qualified as prior strikes under California's recidivist sentencing law, adopted by the state's voters in a 1994 referendum. More than 7,000 people are now in California prisons serving sentences of at least 25 years under the law, including more than 300 whose "third strike" was a "petty theft."

Thursday, March 6, 2003

Money talks.

Dafna Linzer reports on the Bush administration's anxious efforts to create a coalition of the purchased.

For Mexico, which has come under the most intense U.S. pressure to go along with Washington on the vote, the accounting is more subtle. While Mexico doesn't receive any direct aid, the United States is its biggest trading partner as a result of the North American Free Trade Act. The accord has been a boon for Mexico, and current tariff negotiations could potentially boost Mexico's economy even further.

Cameroon and Guinea, two poor African nations, are both eligible for preferential access to U.S. markets through the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. Enacted in 2000, the AGOC grants preferential treatment to sub-Saharan African countries that meet a list of eligibility criteria and do "not engage in activities that undermine U.S. national security of foreign policy interests."

Voting against a resolution authorizing the United States to restore international peace and security could certainly be construed as undermining national security.

On Chile, the administration has said it will push later this spring for congressional approval of a free trade agreement that would give the South American nation the economic prize it has sought for more than a decade.

In addition to U.S. aid and market access, there is also the promise of lucrative cleanup and rebuilding contracts for a postwar Iraq.

During a visit to Bulgaria last month, Secretary of Commerce Don Evans was asked whether countries that support the war would be able to take part in the economic rebuilding in Iraq after the possible war. He replied: "I assure you we will remember our friends and those that were there alongside of us, and those that made sacrifices along with us."

I might hazard a guess that Romania is receiving a few trade contracts or aid contracts as a result of its cooperative demeanor.

Thursday, March 6, 2003

How government monopolizes meaning.

A letter circulating on the Hill:

Good Morning! For those of you who didn't see this on the RSC email last night, our office is circulating a letter to House Food Administrators requesting the removal of all "French" words on the menus replaced with "Freedom." There is a great deal of press circulating around this, and if you want to get your boss on board, now is the time. We've also got a letter for STAFF to sign.

Let me know if your boss wants to sign onto the Member letter and if you want to sign onto the staff letter.

Thanks,
Lanier

Lanier Swann
Communications Director
Congressman Walter B. Jones (R-NC)
422 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Looks like to Congressman from North Carolina is working hard for the tax money, eh?

Thursday, March 6, 2003

Don't sell short-selling short.

Or so sayeth the wise men at The Economist, who defend short-selling against its bad reputation. Short-sellers are often the first to spot trouble. Owen Lamont of the University of Chicago studied 270 companies that fought short-sellers by demonising them publicly, hiring private investigators to spy on them, or taking them to court. The companies' shares fell on average by more than 40%, relative to the market, over the next three years.

Thursday, March 6, 2003

The war machine.

Thursday, March 6, 2003

Sonnet 116 by William Shakespeare.

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove.
O no, it is an ever-fixèd mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wand'ring bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come;
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.

Thursday, March 6, 2003

Soul mates a pigment of the hyperactive imagination?

New research suggests that we can lead happy lives without ever finding our "true soul mates". A recent study by the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology says that we simply need to believe we’ve found them. According to the authors of the study, Sandra L. Murray of the State University of New York at Buffalo and her associates, "Satisfaction [in a romantic relationship] seems to require leaving some assumptions about similarity untested and unquestioned."

It's a kind of romantic spin on Descartes, if you want to get all philosophical about it. "I think we are soul mates, therefore we are." It wouldn't work under any other set of circumstances, but this is that sweetest of all cases in which self-delusion can become self-fulfilling prophesy — and can bring happiness to all parties involved.

According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, it's single men, not single woman, who now face the longer odds of making a match. For every million thirtysomething single women, there's a ''man surplus'' of some 80,000-with things looking even worse for men holding out for younger mates. The bachelor blues deserve more attention than they are getting.

I wonder if women are too good at the delusional stuff of soul-mate-dom? Watching Dangerous Liasons again, one is inclined to think in the affirmative. Valmont certainly benefits from being able to convince otherwise-overleisured ladies that he might be the pixie-dust of soul. Men might do better to practice a little creative soul-visualization themselves, especially as the market for potential mates narrows. Desparate times call for desparate measures.

Thursday, March 6, 2003

Nikki Giovanni gets personal.

Poet Nikki Giovanni encourages a bit of humility in light of the human propensity to self-obssession.

"The one thing that's been consistent through my work has been my interest and my fascination with human beings....We are an interesting species, but we are not the only life form. We're not the highest life form, and I am not even sure that we are an intelligent life form. We can use some humility in this time that we have on this planet."

Personally, humans fascinate me, which is not to say that the hubristic elements of our interactions don't seem quite ridiculous at times.

Thursday, March 6, 2003

Critical thought.

One of my favorite websites, AltMuslim.com features a memo from Dr. Muqtedar Khan urging bin Laden to go to hell for his misinterpretations and perversions of Islam. Also, Zahed asks how much torture is appropriate for Khalid Shaikh Muhammad.

CASTIGAT RIDENDO MORES.

SEARCH THIS WEBLOG Search www