US bombs Pakistan

[Lawrence of Arabia]

and how, in fact did the UNSC react to the coaliton invasion of Afghanistan? Was there even the hint that it was a matter the UNSC wanted to take up, or considered a threat to the peace? Did not subsequent UNSC resolutions on Afghanistan accept and approve of the coalition actions? Did any state take the US before the ICJ?

Its irrelevant if the SC did its job or not - during the cold war, the SC was essentially disfuctional, but that didnt alter international law.
As for being takem before the ICJ I highly doubt that the taliban were aware of the finer points of international law.
Look, Im not against the invasion, im just saying that strictly speaking that it was illegal under international law. Most people will tell you that terrorism fits ackwardly into todays framework, and that changes must be made.

[Whoha]

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1517986

"U.S. Strike Killed Al Qaeda Bomb Maker
Midhat Mursi, 52, also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri, was identified by Pakistani authorities as one of three known al Qaeda leaders present at an apparent terror summit conference in the village of Damadola.
...
"

I've heard rumors that 11 al Qaeda fighters were killed in this, I can't say whether or not he was one of them.

[Arrian]

Not quite the cluster**** some would have us believe, eh?

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You think the Yank generals didn't want to send in the special forces to come back with the body of the guy who planned those attacks on the US? You think State didn't ***** slap them and say, 'no'?

State has had little to no authority under Bush. The #3 guy in our administration is Rummy. Rice knows how to take orders, which is why she's in charge of State.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I think the point is that the UN isn't that relevant.

Had the U.S. gone to the UNSC it's very probable they would have approved our attack. The horror was still fresh in everyone's minds, and only the most out of touch nutjob would argue that the Taliban weren't connected (even if they didn't order the attack).

Our Administration, however, chose to sideline the UN because they are ideologically hostile to it (despite the fact that the UN has only ever been effective as a shield for U.S. foreign policy).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Btw, LoA is right on the bombing of Pakistan being against international law if there was no permission given. I'm not sure how you can argue self-defense for an Al Queda official in an ALLIED country! Now if Pakistan said ok, that'd be far different. But the way it was done probably violated international law technically... but not like Pakistan is taking us to court, so whatever.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Btw, LoA is right on the bombing of Pakistan being against international law if there was no permission given. I'm not sure how you can argue self-defense for an Al Queda official in an ALLIED country! Now if Pakistan said ok, that'd be far different. But the way it was done probably violated international law technically... but not like Pakistan is taking us to court, so whatever.

More likely Pakistan okayed it, but then backed off once the people started protesting.

Just my two cents.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Thrawn05
More likely Pakistan okayed it, but then backed off once the people started protesting.

Just my two cents.

That's probably the case.

[chequita guevara]

Maybe, but I doubt it. This administration refuses to believe it is constrained by anything, and given the fact that the Pakistani government is riddled with terrorsymps, asking permission would likely result in the terrorists being tipped off (which might explain Zahari's absence).

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's what I was thinking. I found it interesting that he decided to cancel the trip at the last second.

[Dr Strangelove]

The latest news from Reuters says that Pakistan claims that 3 of the 4 intended targets the were killed. Al- Qaeda leaders killed included al Misri, al Maghribi, and al Sayid Omer. No bodies were produced. If Pakistan is providing this information I'd wonder if they weren't communicating tacit approval of the strike.

[Joseph]

Good reading

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I don't think the US, or the rest of NATO, wants to get into a ground war in Pakistan. Hense not sending ground troops there.

But it might happen if Mussharef can't keep his own house in order.

Would you like that, Ted? NATO invades a nuclear power?

Yes, I enjoy the far stretched strawman you have created based on nothing but your imagination.

Now proceed to argue against your setup.

Let the bombing of Toronto begin.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Whoha

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1517986

"U.S. Strike Killed Al Qaeda Bomb Maker
Midhat Mursi, 52, also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri, was identified by Pakistani authorities as one of three known al Qaeda leaders present at an apparent terror summit conference in the village of Damadola.
...
"

I've heard rumors that 11 al Qaeda fighters were killed in this, I can't say whether or not he was one of them.

Originally posted by Arrian
Not quite the cluster**** some would have us believe, eh?

-Arrian

YES, it is.

This is called spin to try and make up for the f up. Terrorist networks don't operate off of Western business organization charts but if you were to believe the White House, we've destroyed everyone from the Assitant to the Vice President of Al Queda and on down. We've killed the #3 guy in Iraq about 5 times already.

This "so and so leader of Al Queda division B" crap just doesn't fly anymore.

On top of that this, "maybe," "could have," "might have been," "was in the area," crap is also a complete sign of incompetence.

I'm going to go ask my boss for a raise, and tell him I "might have" saved the company "a bunch of" money but I have no way of confirming it.

I expect some phat loot from him.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. counterterrorism officials said Wednesday that al Qaeda's chemical weapons expert was "in the vicinity" when CIA airstrikes last week hit a dinner gathering believed to include terrorists in a Pakistani mountain village.

They said Midhat Mursi could have been killed in the attack, but stressed they cannot confirm that he was.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/01/18/pakistan.airstrike/index.html

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I dont see why the second half of your sentence follows from the first. International law is state to state, but that doesnt mean it cant hold a state responsible for actions based on its soil. Whether it has actually done so or not is an empirical question, but i dont see how the nature of IL as state to state enters in. Domestic civil law regulates relations among humans, but it can give one human a remedy against another who allows a dangerous animal to live on his property, and endanger others.

Its relevant, because it means that only when a state is acting in an official capacity is it constrainted by international law. Since there is no evidence that the government of afghanistan ordered al qaeda to attack the US, the attacks on 9-11 were thus NOT a state to state breach of international law, thus the US cannot plead self defense, since no state attacked it.

Did the government of afghanistan, in the years leading up to 9-11, fail in its international obligation under UNSCR 1193, 1214, 1267, 1333. (In fact, in UNSCR 1386, the UNSC authorized a 6 month police action in afghanistan. there is no doubt they would have done the same in the case of 9-11) Yes, they did fail. But as I stressed earlier (and I refer you to UK v. Albania) that does not give the US the right to unilateral self help.