>Brad DeLond wrote:
>
> > Perhaps the thing "wrong" with traditional just war theory in this
> > context is that it points the other way: After 9/11 the Taliban
> > government had an obligation to reveal everything it knew about the
> > perpetrators, and to turn over all the perpetrators and all the
> > material witnesses it could find to the United States government as
> > the U.S. government undertook its own investigation.
> >
> > The failure of the Taliban government to fulfill its obligation was a
> > casus belli.
>.
>
That's totally contrary to anything I have ever thought of as just war theory. A causus belli is first of all an affirmative act, not an omission. Omissions may be culpable, but they are not acts of war, which is what a causus belli requyires, an act. Besides, you can't even say the T regime had any special relation or responsibility to the US, which refused to recognize it, put it under sanctions, and generally treated it like an enemy.
I think Seth's wquestion, derived from Noam Chomsky's, is a good one. There are a lot of people in the world who have excellent reason to be really ticked at the US for overthrowing their governments, attacking their leaders, supporting invading contra armies, and the like. We cannot reasonably say that the US had the right to blast the T regime off the face of the earth because of 9/11 unless we also say that the Haitains, Nicaraguans, Cubans, Salvadorans, Guatamalans, Chileans, Vietnamese, etc. have the right to attack the US and overthrow the US govt. I don't think either of those is true, jsut to be clear. Of course they can't we can can, but is that a morally relevant distinction, Brad?
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp