I thought you needed UN approval before using unilateral, preemptive action
Little Green Footballs has a post (click headline above) about idiot Ward Churchill's advocacy for U.S. troops in Iraq ing their officers, like the scumbag Sgt. Hasan Akbar who rolled a into the tent of his fellow soldiers at the beginning of the war, Army Capt. Christopher S. Seifert of Easton, Pa., and Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone of Boise, Idaho. (Had I been the officer in charge there I would have shot Sgt. Akbar in the head right there on the spot.) The story got me to thinking -
It is the position of liberals and the UN that unilateral preemptive military action is illegal and thus those responsible should be prosecuted in the Hague for war crimes. This is the liberal position no matter what the cause for the preemptive military action - in the case of the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq it was self defense with an added helping of saving other lives (the Iraqis). So, the position of liberals is that preemptive military action is never justified, either for self defense or the defense of others, unless the UN (or other apropriate governing body) approves in advance, like the U.S. invasion of Kosovo under Bill Clinton. (Oh, wait, the UN didn't approve that. Don't hold your breath on the ICC indicting Clinton for war crimes.)
Hopefully you can see where this is going. A soldier taking the law into his own hands by ing his fellow soldiers and/or his superior officer(s) is just as "illegal" and just as much of a war crime under the liberal view as U.S. preemptive military action in Iraq. Has the UN (or any governmental body anywhere) approved of U.S. soldiers ing other U.S. soldiers - even assuming, as the Ward Churchills of the world do - that U.S. soldiers would be morally justified, in the perverse liberal world view, because of self defense (not applicable) or the defense of others' lives (again, a factually false assumption, but an assumed fact for liberals)? No, the UN has not so approved. Therefore, the unilateral, premeditated action Ward Churchill advocates that U.S. soldiers take is no different in his and the prevailing liberal view of international law than the U.S. invading Iraq.
It is the position of liberals and the UN that unilateral preemptive military action is illegal and thus those responsible should be prosecuted in the Hague for war crimes. This is the liberal position no matter what the cause for the preemptive military action - in the case of the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq it was self defense with an added helping of saving other lives (the Iraqis). So, the position of liberals is that preemptive military action is never justified, either for self defense or the defense of others, unless the UN (or other apropriate governing body) approves in advance, like the U.S. invasion of Kosovo under Bill Clinton. (Oh, wait, the UN didn't approve that. Don't hold your breath on the ICC indicting Clinton for war crimes.)
Hopefully you can see where this is going. A soldier taking the law into his own hands by ing his fellow soldiers and/or his superior officer(s) is just as "illegal" and just as much of a war crime under the liberal view as U.S. preemptive military action in Iraq. Has the UN (or any governmental body anywhere) approved of U.S. soldiers ing other U.S. soldiers - even assuming, as the Ward Churchills of the world do - that U.S. soldiers would be morally justified, in the perverse liberal world view, because of self defense (not applicable) or the defense of others' lives (again, a factually false assumption, but an assumed fact for liberals)? No, the UN has not so approved. Therefore, the unilateral, premeditated action Ward Churchill advocates that U.S. soldiers take is no different in his and the prevailing liberal view of international law than the U.S. invading Iraq.
posted by Ben at 9:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home