--- On Wed, 7/15/09, Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com> wrote:
> But back to the topic at hand, I don't think you can cite
> this as a counter-precedent, because I think most
> international law scholars agree that this attack did break
> international law. There's also lots of other things
> that make it legally essentially different from drone
> attacks, like being on a head of state, and, obviously, not
> condoned by that state.
>
[WS:] But my argument was not for legality of such actions - but that they are fait accompli, a modern version of gunboat diplomacy if you will i.e. something that is probably illegal, but that is carried out anyway because (i) it serves the perpetrator's vital interest and (ii) the perpetrator is in a position of carrying them out without suffering any significant consequences. In that context, the question of legality is a diversion. it is all about power and winning. Wasn't it McNamara who said that had the US lost WW2, its leaders would have been tried as war criminals for firebombing of Tokyo? The same principle applies to air raids.
I take your point, however, that Libya air raid is fundamentally different from drone attacks, because the latter has at least nominal consent of the authority that nominally governs the territory under attack.
Wojtek