>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
>
>>Ian Williams cited two General Assembly resolutions. I don't have my
>>copy of the mag here, so I can't give their numbers.
>>Also, didn't Congress pass something very much like a declaration of
>>war? I'm a bit confused by people who've said they didn't.
>
>I think the "illegal war" rhetoric is ridiculous, since this is as
>sanctioned a war by both domestic and international law as they come.
>
>Domestically, Bush sought and received a very broad declaration of war and
>Congress has specifically allocated funds for the effort.
>
>Internationally, the basic righteousness of US grievances have been
>recognized by the UN (the resolutions mentioned) and while they did not
>officially endorse the bombing, righteous acts essentially justify military
>action ("self defense") as allowed by the UN. The fact that the Northen
>Alliance is the still recognized government of Afghanistan just strengthens
>the right to the US to be there.
***** On the Illegality of This War
by John Quigley
In a letter to the United Nations Security Council, dated October 7, 2001, the United States justified its military action in Afghanistan on the basis that it was defending itself against Afghanistan. It stated that Afghanistan was harboring the Al-Qaeda organization, which, it stated, was responsible for attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001. It stated that its aim was to deter further attacks. This justification is invalid because:
1. Force may be used in self-defense only in the event of an ongoing, or imminent attack, and the United States did not allege that it anticipated such an attack.
2. In the event of an attack by non-government elements, a state is responsible only if it organizes the attack. Even if it allows Al-Qaeda to use its territory, Afghanistan did not organize the September 11 attacks, and there is no reason to believe that Afghanistan is organizing any imminent attacks on the United States.
3. Force may be used in self-defense only when necessary, pending action by the United Nations Security Council. Here the United States had time to take the matter to the Security Council and to seek action by it, as the United States is obligated to do in such a situation by virtue of US membership in the United Nations.
4. Acting in self-defense, a state may not use force that is out of proportion for its own protection. The bombing of Afghanistan, and, even before the bombing started, the anticipation of such bombing, caused a significant refugee flow, and many of these persons will be in jeopardy of death, in particular during the coming winter months. Further, as result of the bombing, distribution of aid to persons already in jeopardy of death has been disrupted. The bombing is creating the risk of too many civilian deaths to be considered proportional to the US need for self-protection.
<http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/quigley.html> *****
Here's a brief bio of Prof. Quigley: <http://www.osu.edu/units/law/quigley2.htm>. -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Anti-War Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Anti-War Organizing in Columbus Covered by the Media: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/media.html>