>> A right to self-defense
<br>
<br>Indeed, sadly selfdefense can never be reworded in a pro-active manner. And I'm just echoing normal legal practice. I can't kill somebody and not be prosecuted when the only defense I have is that the oter was planning to harm but wasn't doing anyting like that at the time of my lethal response. Your law system works the same, at least when it comes down on the definition of "self-defense"
<br>
<br>>>International law provides clear standard for U.S. action against terrorists
<br>
<br>Indeed, difficult part is to define who is a terrorist and who isn't. I say CIA is creating, helping, training and funding terrorists all over the world (You can't deny this for Bin Laden was a product of these CIA dealing as we all know). Do I now have the right to wage war on the whole USA ? Even the moral right to do this ? Of course not.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>Many nations have communicated a willingness to join with the United States in its fight against terrorism. Now some are trying to attach a condition to their support. These are the nations that insist that any action initiated against terrorists be taken under the authority of the United Nations.
<br>
<br>Actually, I have been watching CNN world, BBC World, Dutch news broadcasts and others like German News bulletins for it is providing a great opportunity to study media behaviour and I found that :
<br>
<br>- The EU countries have put this condition forward right from the start.
<br>- The US has been, again, unable to show an attention span that is long enough to enclose the whole sentences that EU ministers and others formulate. I mostly see minister quotes shortened to sound bites on CNN that only show what US people want to hear and see. The second part of the sentences nearly always got lost. This is sad, for it is skewing you perception of events and situations.
<br>
<br>Even more so, the calling of article 5 of the NATO treaty transformed the USA solo action into an action that is governed by an international body in this case NATO. And if you want justice than some sort of trial must be held somewhere = "international court of justice ?". The rest is not justice just vengence.
<br>
<br>(Mind you I'm not giving my opinion here, just stating normal procedures and facts)
<br>
<br>
<br>>> Tony Snow of Fox News Sunday to ask National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, "Are we willing to hand over control of this operation to the United Nations?"
<br>
<br>In her reply, Rice made some very important points. She described the act of Sept. 11 appropriately as "an attack on the United States, an act of war against the United States." She further stated, "The United States has the right to self->>defense that is fully recognized in international law."
<br>
<br>
<br>Okay, in that case you won't need the international coalition and you do it on your own right ?
<br>
<br>However, you've chosen to make it a joined effort and this mains that the world is not falling at your feet and does what ever teh USA demands of them. Coalition implies working together on an equak basis and does not imply a slave like attitude of the non USA countries. Otherwise you would need to call it enslavement or Cohersion in stead of Coalition.
<br>
<br>One other thing , the USA is showing two stands :
<br>
<br>- Attack on the USA and therefor our decision to do what we want
<br>- Attack on the free world and freedom and humanity and what else and says it needs a coalition to fight this effectively.
<br>
<br>Okay guys which one is it that you are going to run with in the future. I'm sure many countries with mixed people would vry much like to know for the first stance is destabilizing them.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>Rice is referring to a source of law that predates use of multi-lateral treaties, international organizations and the United Nations. It springs from the philosophy upon which our nation was founded. It is referred to as customary international law. As clarified by Hugo Grotius in the 17th century, customary law is akin to domestic common law. The foundation for these rules of conduct, for individuals as well as nations, lies >>in something called "natural law."
<br>
<br>
<br>Somebody once said :" we both have truth, is mine the same as yours ?"
<br>
<br>This is a kind of obscure answer isn't, I'm sure there are as many "natural laws" as there are peoples or countries. Hardly a good basis for a civilized country like the USA to act up. I've got another natural law for you that the USA should take to hard : "Blood feud", I was personally hoping that we had passed this stage in the civilized world.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>It is this body of law on which the Declaration of Independence relies, when it states that the justification for the separation of America from Britain is the "Law of Nature >>and of Nature's God."
<br>
<br>And this make it a world over accepted truth. I wonder what it says in the Taliban charter. Weak ground guys.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>The nation's inherent natural right to defend its citizens fully empowers our representative government to do that which is necessary to restore sufficient security to our >>country so that freedom remains a way of life.
<br>
<br>I must say that I fail to see how freedom is harmed by this attack. I know it sounds great and mytical but honestly; a few terrorist can not in any way harm my freedom of speech and willingness to do so. Only an occupying force can do that and these group are no where as powerfull to do this. No freedom, democracy and moral values are under attack from ourselfs when congresses and goverments are given unprecidented powers to tap phoneline indescriminately. When we bomb a people to extintion because :"we need to do something and are unable to bring the planner to proper justice". When USA marks every country that isn't fully supportive (what ever that means) as being aiding terrorists and threatening them with reprisals. Sounds likes something that a certain group did when they wanted to flush out resistance fighters of a village in WW2.
<br>
<br>NO, I give the terrorists who planned the action one thing : There action has really shock up our societies to the extend that we are about to undermine our on principles and believes. That our stock markets crashed even though the economical damage inflicted by the attack itself was minute. That they are using our our system against ourself (speculation on airline put options) to finance the organisations and next actions.
<br>
<br>The really sad part is that most damage was inflicted by us on ourself in the period that followed the horrific attack, not be the attack itself. Lets not do more damage.
<br>
<br>Another example, UK (and others) have been subject to terrorisme for many years and none of those countries have been harmed in there freedom or democraties in any way. So come on USA, your deomcracy and freedom will survive this attack; that is unless you're so frightened that you abandon these principals yourself.
<br>
<br>>>In his speech to the joint session of Congress, President Bush was emphatic when he said that demands on the Taliban were non-negotiable. Potential enemies and allies alike, who wish to impose conditions, insert limitations or determine the manner in which this war is waged, have been >>put on notice.
<br>
<br>Exactly what I'm talking about.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>No country or international organization is going to tell the United States of America what to do or how to do it, when more than 6,000 of our fellow citizens have been slain. Law, >>morality and history stand fiercely at our side.
<br>
<br>
<br>Yeah, yeah. You need Pakistan as a staging area, you need Russian intelligence, you need Irans religious support, you need the Aghan Nothern Alliance's help, etc, etc, etc.
<br>And I' beginning to have difficulty to distingious between : "Allah Akbar" and "God is on our side"
<br>
<br>
<br>>Knowing that our actions are both legally and morally justified will help us to meet one of our most critical >challenges, that being, to maintain our resolve.
<br>
<br>>Our march forward begins with this commitment. We will not be swayed, neither by whisperings of doubt nor peddling of guilt. As long as terrorist cells operate unrestrained, America >is not safe, freedom is not secure and the war must go on.
<br>
<br>
<br>In that case I wish you all the luck in Afganistan for a Indian Maharadja once said quite a few years back. "May the gods shield me from the bite of the cobra and the wrath of the Afghans"
<br>
<br>Once again, WE are on the same side. I'm NOT in favour of the terrorists. I AM condemming the attack in the strongest words possible and I AM only using my god given mind to make this Quest to rid the world of terrorism (NOT WAR) an EFFECTIVE one where we e eventually win more than we loose.
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>