I wonder how Americans would feel if their soldiers were kept like the Al Qaeda POW's

[Comrade Tribune]

But I´ll accomodate you: It´s legally irrelevant if you think someone presents a threat to you. Even if your intuition is correct, that still doesn´t entitle you to a preemptive strike. Nothing does.

[DinoDoc]

Your arguement is flawed, Comrade.

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Even if your intuition is correct, that still doesn´t entitle you to a preemptive strike. Nothing does.

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter permits the use of preemptive strikes as a matter of self-defense when a nation is threatened.

[RUFFHAUS 8]

Re: I wonder how Americans would feel if their soldiers were kept like the Al Qaeda POW's

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Have you seen that set up in Cuba? They are keeping the prisoners in what looks like dog kennels.

Well, they are dogs, aren't they?

You talk about the US being the only country that refuses to consider these maggots 'prisoners of war.' Intereseting. I wonder how in how many countries would have these dirtbags still be alive. It's absolutely amazing how anyone has an ounce of pity on them. But then again, it the presence of attitudes like this that led to the dismantling of the intelligence communities and the necessary preventitive measures to have avoided this tragedy in the first place.
.

[DinoDoc]

Here's an interesting article I found:

Preemptive Military Strikes: A Viable Option Against International Terrorism?

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Article 51 of the United Nations Charter permits the use of preemptive strikes as a matter of self-defense when a nation is threatened.

So maybe "911" was a pre-emptive strike on behalf of the Taliban?

Good article:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1990/ADR.htm
It is important to remember that the terrorist threat
will not be easily resolved. The use of military force is
not a unique solution. It must be used in concert with other
instruments of national power in a coordinated national
strategy to influence terrorists and states that support to
cease their campaign of terror.

Originally posted by RUFFHAUS 8
Well, they are dogs, aren't they?

No, they are human beings. I said it before, you do not change species via your actions. Learn some biology before making sweeping statements. Metaphorics do not hold up in court.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
So maybe "911" was a pre-emptive strike on behalf of the Taliban?

Maybe the moon is made of green cheese as well. At least be somewhat serious in questions.

Good article:

I thought so. All though some of its more powerful arguements aren't in the executive summary.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Maybe the moon is made of green cheese as well.

Well Bush wasn't going to let the Taliban get away with being all Talibanny for ever now was he? No. So why not attack the USA first. Demoralise you. Get the first strike in to protect themselves [er... scrap that]

At least be somewhat serious in questions.

Its more fun not to be. I have to argue creationism tomorrow...

[Comrade Tribune]

Re: Your arguement is flawed, Comrade.

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Article 51 of the United Nations Charter permits the use of preemptive strikes as a matter of self-defense when a nation is threatened.

That is a lie.

All that the Charter allows you is defend yourself (within your borders, of course.)

"Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

[DinoDoc]

What did you think of the article, Comrade?

That is a lie.

No, it isn't. There now that you've been refuted, here's some additional facts to consider.

Under Article 51 of the United Nations charter nations have the right to individual and collective protection against armed aggression. Additionally, Article 2 of the charter clearly defines what is unlawful intervention and lawful interposition. Essentially, intervention is the intrusion into another sovereign nation with the intent of changing the existing government, employing occupation forces for an extended period, or otherwise altering the ability of the government to exercise self-rule. Interposition, on the other hand, is for a "limited purpose" and "limited objective".

The rest of the argument can be read in the article I linked to.

[Comrade Tribune]

"Additionally, Article 2 of the charter clearly defines what is unlawful intervention and lawful interposition."

The guy is blatantly lying. There is *no* such thing as 'lawful interposition.' He is making it up, and you are too lazy to check. Armed aggression is illegal under any circumstances.

Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
The guy is blatantly lying. There is *no* such thing as 'lawful interposition.' He is making it up, and you are too lazy to check.

You've piqued my interest. If you can string together a post longer than three sentence a post streak that has been your forte since you enterest the thread that explains to me why the arguement is flawed, I'll give it the consideration I feel that it deserves and consider changing my opinion.

[Comrade Tribune]

He has no argument! Can´t you read? 'Lawful Interposition' simply isn´t in the Charter.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
He has no argument! Can´t you read? 'Lawful Interposition' simply isn´t in the Charter.

That's still three sentences and not within the bounds I set forth. Please do try again.

[Immortal Wombat]

He has no argument! Can´t you read? 'Lawful Interposition' simply isn´t in the Charter. Discuss.

[DinoDoc]

Bravo, IM. I tip my hat to you, good sir.