[wapo] U.S. strikes within Pakistan — without notice

It is legal on the basis of self defense. Nations are granted the right under international law to use force to defend themselves. The terrorists attacked on 9/11, and have expressed their intent to attack the U.S. again. They struck first, and our retaliation is legitimate.

At least that's how I see it. I honestly wouldn't support going after them if it wasn't. It is the same reason I said that if terrorists who attacked another nation resided in the U.S. and were at large, they would be justified in taking the terrorists out in a strike within the U.S. borders

 

even if we assume you are right. you are saying the US has a right to bomb any country which contains people which the US deems to have contributed in anyway to september 11th. based on the US's intelligence which has been proven faulty. and without the approval of the attacked nation. and without consideration of its desires perhaps to seek a more peaceful solution or resort to actions which perhaps limit casualties? that doesn't just scream at you to be a blatant violation of civilized nations? do you attack us going into saudi and yemen and iran right now as well? what about gaza and west bank? syria? egypt?

and again i ask you. what about the many torturers and other leaders of third world nations who committed massive atrocities that are in the west today? those same nations have a right, after asking the state department to hand them over, and the state department not doing it...to take whatever actions they want? i sure as hell don't think they have that right.

 

I think the intel has to be actionable before we act. The nation of Pakistan wasn't attacked. Technically we could say their borders were violated, but I think self defense trumps that. Pakistan has been dealt with via diplomacy and the terrorists that reside in their borders. It isn't as if nothing was done to entice them to deal with the issue themselves. As far as those other nations go, they either don't have terrorists that have attacked us, or we don't actionable intel specifically on where inside those nations where they are, or those nations are doing more to get the terrorists themselves.

I believe that in some cases the third world dictators that have taken safe haven in western nations have done so based on agreements of exile, and things like that. But I'm not opposed to any nations seeking retributions for war crimes, etc. through legal channels. If that leader is holding out in another nation, and raising forces to attack their original nation, then it is possible that a military strike would be warranted.

 

Why do you insist the foreign countries to get thru the legal channels when we simply fly drones in and fire hellfires as we please?

 

Using force in a matter of self defense, is going through the legal channels.

If a third world country was attacked by terrorists, and those terrorists were inside the U.S., but the U.S. didn't do enough to get rid of them, and the third world nation knew exactly where the terrorists were hold up, I would have no problem with them getting those terrorists via air strikes, or even a small special ops team coming in and taking the terrorists out.

The scenarios are different that's why I advocate different course of action. It isn't because in one case it's third world nations and in the other it is the U.S.

If we are talking about a single ruler who made some sort of agreement for exile, or extradition, or whatever is the legal channel, then any nation should go through that, including the U.S.

If Dick Cheney was found to have done all sorts of horrible things, and took off for some third world nation(with a good hospital) and the U.S. wanted to put him on trial, I would be against the U.S. using unauthorized military force to get Cheney out. They should go through war crimes trials, extradition etc. just like anyone else.

If the scenarios are the same then I will agree or disagree with the same courses of action.

But I was asked about two scenarios. 1. Terrorists hold up and the nation where they are not doing anything to get rid of them, or 2. A dictator strong arm govt. butcher is currently residing in a different nation.

Because you attach a third world country to one of the scenarios and not the other doesn't mean that I'm against 3rd world nations defending themselves.

 

theres a huge degree of arrogance and hypocrisy in your argument. it is essentially that might is right. would you concede that syria or jordan or egypt bombing anywhere that sharon may be according to their actionable intelligence since israel's accountability only had him resign for a little bit? do you really want to open this pandora's box? do you really think self defense means unlimited unhindered attack on any nation whenever a country deems it has intelligence to attack those who may have been responsible? it doesn't. you are joining the ranks of this admninistration's neocons.

as far as the notion that attacking a nation's sovereignty by bombing its territory is not attacking a nation...what are you on? at least hayes would have a rational textually based argument...no matter how strained. you are just being dumb.

 

Parts of the Northwest Frontier province is part of the "sovereign territory of Pakistan" in name only. The Pakistani government exercises little to no control over many outlying areas. Is it part of Pakistan? On a map it is. In reality - it's something different. Something to be considered.

 

while this is certainly a more credible argument than franchise's rubbish. points remains that this wins no friends in an area that there is a desperate need for friends.

 

The attack was certainly limited. I'm saying a limited attack in self defense is good. You are the one who mentioned having to declare full blown war in order to take that kind of action.

Sorry you feel I'm being dumb, but I don't think attacking terrorists in a non-population center is the same as attacking the nation of Pakistan.

 

While I agree with Sam Fisher's comments as well. It certainly doesn't play to your rule of law argument. The rule of law recognizes the boundaries as laid out on the map.

I say this because you seem to be inconsistent in your appeal to following the rule of law.

 

And if it had been Bush's idea, rather than Obama's, you would have blasted him for not gathering an international coalition and seeking approval from the UN. Sheesh.

 

I agree.

 

Pakistan has gotten a free pass when it comes to harboring terrorists. their government is doing very little despite us giving the millions of dollars.

 

bingo. FB is a trip

 

For one strike at known terrorists who were part of Al Qaeda leadership? No I wouldn't. I would be rejoicing that he was actually focusing on the terrorists that killed 3000 citizens rather than focusing on Iraq. I would welcome focus and new ideas from Bush on going after Al-Qaeda rather than wasting lives, time, and money in Iraq.

 

I don't think anyone's ever criticized going after terrorists with force. Where we know they are, which was not iraq.

 

I can see this happening. While I hate Bush, the guy is pretty damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. He's earned that unfortunately but it's still probably the case none the less.

 

No doubt that Bush has brought a large degree of that on himself. Sad, but true.

 

I've just skimmed this thread and am dissapointed but not surprised as this is being spun as a pro-Obama action. What Obama said regarding taking action in Pakistan without Pakistani approval wasn't radical as its an open secret that the US has been operating in Pakistani's NW frontier. About 3 years ago a US airstrike took out another sheik and a family in a town in Pakistan without the approval of the Pakistanis and the fact that we can tell where these people are indicates that we already have forces in the air and on the ground gathering intel.

The problem with Obama's statement wasn't that it wasn't necessarily going to be followed but that it was rash and undiplomatic. It was a public slap to an ally in a precarious political position. Given US actions in Pakistan it seems very likely that Musharraf is aware to a high degree that the US is there acting covertly and as much as possible takes a blind eye to it. That a major presidential candidate not only publically states this should be the policy only really helps to weaken Musharraf's position and irritate the Pakistani populace.

This goes back to why I am leery about Obama. While he is a masterful speaker and inspirational he might not have the experience and knowledge to address delicate diplomatic issues.

 

yeah, pakistan is nice and docile instead of hostile without those statements. its not like they kill presidential candidates or anything or have suicide bombings. wouldn't want to set them off.