No, US citizens were breaking the laws. The Iran Contra affair had no sanction from the US government (and by “government”, I mean the US use).
Colinito67
So the Taliban is such a poor government that its citizens can’t survive without outside aid, they defy the US, causing bombings, and we’re the bad guys? Do we have some sort of moral obligation to help out our enemies?
Do you swat mosquitoes? Are they powerful enough to kill you?
The Taliban were sheltering al-Qaeda. They refused to stop doing so or hand over the persons who were responsible for the attacks of September 11th. Not only that, but they threatened further attacks. Throw in the whole “unrepentantly evil motherfuckers” thing, and I’d say the world is a better place for them being gone.
I’m a little lost on your thesis here, Mr. Pacifist. Should we topple Saddam militarily (the only way that will reliably work), or not?
I’m sure that airdropping fluffy bunnies and chocolate chip cookies was discussed. Got any other ideas?
You are clueless.
The Holocaust was an attempt to eradicate multiple ethnic groups from the face of the Earth. U.S. sanctions against Iraq are in place because of a megalomaniacal dictator who refuses to comply with U.N. directives and wages genocidal war on his own people. They do not, as you may have been told, keep medicines or food from entering Iraq. Nor do they keep such things from being distributed to the people who need that. The Iraqi government is doing that.
U.S. interventions have NOT been done because we wanted to destroy entire ethnic groups. Does that enter into your moral equation, or does the “U.S. is bad” part cancel all that out?
Then please tell us exactly what your alternative is. “There is one, but I can’t think of it now” is not an acceptable answer.
This is monumentally stupid.
Repeat after me: “Three Thousand People are dead.” Say that about a dozen times until it sinks in. This is not a punch in the nose. This is a war. They want to kill us. They want to kill you.
Who do you think the fucking authorities are? The UN? The World Court? There is nobody else. We ARE the the only authority that can handle this.
My god. This is the most pathetic thing I’ve ever heard. No, my freind, it is you who do not have a world perspective. You have the perspective of someone who swallows a lot of shit pumped out by the college-Marxist crowd, and has no real experience in life.
I’d start a BBQ thread on this tripe, but frankly, you aren’t worth another instant of my time.
It seems to me you’ve created a negative tautology here. The U.S. wasn’t acting officially, therefore it wasn’t breaking the law. But the reason it wasn’t acting officially was because to do so would have broken the law. Ollie and pals were clearly acting as agents of the U.S. government, not as private citizens, so I will continue to regard this as a de facto government action.
The UN is merely an advisory body?
I was debating with a pro-Palestinian Muslim the other night who told me that the UN charter, which must be signed by all member nations, dictates that when the UN says “jump”, we are ordered to say “How high?”
I also remember watching a few news bulletins during the Balkans War where analysts were claiming that the US bombings were illegal because they didn’t seek UN approval. Were the Belgrade bombings in “self-defence”?
Alessan, the UN is not merely an “advisory body.” The US has voluntarily signed the UN Charter and numerous UN treaties. All treaties are considered the “supreme law of the land” according to Article VI of the US Constitution.
Northern Piper, I’m confused by your post. Colinito does not buy the self-defense argument, but it appears that his analysis of Article 51 is correct. You disagree on what constitutes “self-defense” under international law. The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX). Definition of Aggression can help here. Note Article 3(g): “The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.” Significantly, this Article was interpreted in U.S. v. Nicaragua (sorry I can’t find a link): "But 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.” I haven’t seen any evidence that Afghanistan was directly involved in the WTC attack.
ruadh makes a good point. The Ryan, if you don’t think Iran-Contra is a good example, how about the overthrow of Allende in Chile?
It doesn’t matter if Al-Qaeda can topple the government. We know that they are equipped to kill thousands of Americans in a single attack. We know they have the will to make such an attack. There’s no reason to believe they won’t ever attack us again. Now, I’d consider killing thousands of American civilians to be something that should be prevented from happening again. Since we can say that Al-Qaeda will almost certainly attempt another such attack, we should get rid of them before they have a chance to do so. After all, one of the main purposes of governments is to protect its citizens from those that would do them harm.
We are NOT doing the same thing. Al-Qaeda purposely targeted civilians. The U.S. and Allied forces attacked military targets of a hostile government sheltering Al-Qaeda leaders. Yes, some civilians died. Yes, it is a tragedy that they died. No, it is not the same thing, because we were not trying to kill them.
I imagine this would be a surprise to the dozens of Al-Qaeda and Taliban members that are currently being detained at Guantanamo Bay.
Um, so, the National Security Council isn’t a part of the government? The Secretary of Defense and the head of the CIA aren’t part of the government?
The president wasn’t a part of the government?
:rolleyes:
Indeed.
Your freind is clueless. Refer him to the UN Charter and ask him to find the part where nations surrender ther sovereignty.
Which “analyst” are you referring to? I can find an “analyst” to say that we should nuke our way to a better world. And CNN would put them on TV. Which specific law did he say was being violated?
furt: nations retain their sovereignty, but the U.N. (as opposed to the General Assembly) is more than just an “advisory body”. Most members of the U.N. have signed various treaties and agreements and such and as sovereign nations they are expected to keep them. There’s no military force saying they have to, but breaking those rules without a damned good reason earns one little credibility on the world stage and makes others think that nation is untrustworthy.
On the other hand, if a state has near-hegemonic power they can get away with rather a lot before the rest of the world cries “hold, enough!” Thus we get the upcoming war on Iraq, which I seriously doubt the U.N. will sanction unless there’s a relevant section buried in their constitution I’m not aware of. Barring proof of Iraq’s involvement in 9/11, self defense does not apply.
ask the indians, oops Native Americans, and the Vietnamese.
Dal Timgar
While I don’t doubt that Uncle Sam has stuck his proverbial nose in places where it may be best unstuck, I wonder where the distinction is drawn between “terrorism” and “warmongering”. If one were to ask me, I’d say that the majority of U.S. involvement (where it is not strictly political) might be more readily classified as the latter (or, at the very least, as “combat action-mongering”).
“War” and “terrorism” are not synonymous. As far as I’m concerned, if I see uniformed combat troops, I’m more inclined to believe it’s an instance of the former.
It’s often seemed like the line between war and terrorism are often blurred, and some times the two seem to pass eachother.
People destroy a US Marine baracks with a truck bomb, and it’s terrorism.
US destroys an enemy baracks with a laser-guided bomb, and it’s a successfull and legitimate millitary action.
They’re slightly different, but they’re also quite similar. Pinning down exactly where the line is between the two seems rather hard…
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
I think the point of division between a terrorist and an act of war is accountability. A terrorist action has no accountability, whereas a nation is held accountable for it’s actions. Therefore the United States is not a terrorist, it may be an oppressor, however it is not a terrorist entity.
The United States has a legitimate government that the world can take their grievances too, and that can be bombed if need be.
A terrorist organization like Al Qaeda is a criminal organization that uses high profile violence to further a political cause.
It’s very similar to the problem with Israel and Hamas. The PA can claim that they have no authority over Hamas, thus Israel has no legitimate authority against which to vent it’s grievances, therefore it must go after the organization itself, which is unfortunately operating from within the midst of a civilian population, with or without the consent of that civilian population, as it is not an established authority in regards to that civilian population. If Syria were to attack Israel, there would not be too many people in the world that would denounce Israel for bombing Syria. However now they are acting against a non-legitimate authority at the expense of a civilian population, and that is where people bring issue.
I don’t mean to hijack this into a thread about Israel, it’s just that I felt it was an appropriate analogy.
As far as all this Iran Contra nonsense goes. The US did not sanction the Iran-Contra actions, even though it was perpetrated by members in high level positions within our government. The US held trials to see what would happen in relation to this scandal. However it was not an action of the US government, it was a few individuals within the government acting on their own for their own agendas. Now if you want to argue that the trial was a farse, that’s another thread.
Erek
Then one could argue that the United States is merely fighting for its freedom (based on the assumption that someone, somewhere, feels the U.S. is, indeed, a “terrorist organisation”).
Demo: You might find it useful to match up people’s names with their words. See, the trick is, if you want to critique somebody’s argument, you have to critique their argument. Assuming that because X and Y are broadly on the same side of an issue one can safely assign the words of one to the other is not going to cut it. Unless you would like me to put Beastal and Colinito 's words in your mouth.
To repeat something I did say, which law or treaty was broken in the Balkan conflict?
What’s the point with having near-hegemonic power if you can’t use it?
That was a joke but there is a reality behind it. The US bears special responsibilities and bears special burdens. Please note the excessive hand-wringing in Europe this week that the US wasn’t sufficiently “engaged” in the PLO/Israeli conflict. The assumption is that only the US can mediate. Why not Switzerland? They’re neutral. Why not Germany or France or anybody else? Hell, even the Arabs who think we hate them were begging us to “get involved.”
Whether it’s a good idea or not, the rest of the world does expect the US to play policeman. And we go along with it. Everybody talks about our being involved in the Middle east because of oil … but look it up and notice how many developed countries are more dependant on Middle East oil than we are (hint: most of them). Not that it matters; the marketplace for oil is global. The point is that the US can and does do most of the heavy lifting when it comes to securing peace – or at least stability – in the world, which benefits everyone. In return, yeah, we get little bit more of a free hand. It seems a pretty fair trade to me.
And the idea of needing a UN sanction to attack Iraq is seeing it in a black/white. They may not sanction it, but neither will they stop it. Why? Because Japan and Europe know that Hussein is dangerous to everyone; but they (excluding the UK, and maybe the Ozzies and one or two more) aren’t going to risk their own combat troops (and goodwill among the Arabs) to do it.
I’m not playing the “poor US” bit. Just pointing out the rather obvious fact that special responsibilities engender special privleges.
No, it’s not. Darwin’s Finch is exactly right. Terrorism is an attack against civilians. Warfare is an attack against targets for specifically military aims, which may sometimes, unfortunately, result in civilian casualties.
Armed US troops in Beirut were legitmate targets; attempts to call it terrorism are propaganda. Unarmed civilians in New York or Tel Aviv are not legitimate targets; attempts to call them “freedom fighters” are similarly ridiculous.
I, for one, would have a thousand times more sympathy for the Palestinian cause if they were suicide-bombing the Israeli tanks and troops that are the instruments of their oppression. But they aren’t; they are attacking civilians, including some who support them. And that is the line between fighting for freedom and being a barbarian and murderer.
Are you insinuating that a mosquito’s life is as valuable as that of a human being?
mrwas is getting at the core issue here, though I think the better word would be “legitimacy” instead of “accountability.” Generally, an act is considered terrorist if it is performed by a non-state actor. (See here for a UN attempt at defining terrorism.) Max Weber wrote:
So, if you accept that the state should have a monopoly on violence and that the US government is legitimate, then you probably won’t see them as a terrorist organization. In my opinion, the US government is not legitimate because it does not represent the will of the people it purports to represent, because its leaders were not democratically elected, and because it routinely engages in illegal acts (if you don’t buy Iran-Contra, what about the numerous other examples?), among other reasons. And I do not believe that the state monopoly on violence should be complete. I’m not doing this subject justice, but I want to raise these issues.