Skip to main content

View Diary: Noam Chomsky: Why It's "Legal" When the U.S. Does It (17 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Strangely ahistorical (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eikyu Saha, blackjackal, VClib
    Centuries ago, there used to be something called presumption of innocence. If you apprehend a suspect, he’s a suspect until proven guilty.
    I don't think the notion that OBL should be apprehended rather than killed on sight would've arisen in any other historical milieu but the post-WWII one where we've seen the rise of IHL and IHRL.
    •  And some hackish dishonesty: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Take the Clinton doctrine. The Clinton doctrine was that the United States is entitled to resort to unilateral force to ensure “uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources.”
      This is FNC-level dishonesty.  The Clinton doctrine tells us that we should use military action when (1) we may do so in self-defense, and (2) when our national interest is sufficiently implicated.  (2) is where we assess economic effects, but (1) is a necessary condition.  ie, we can't use military force just to protect access to markets; the military action must also be legitimate.
      •  I think it's hard to differentiate. (0+ / 0-)

        Attacks can always be made to appear as if they fulfill military security interests when the deeper motivation is economic.  Bush overplayed his hand in Iraq and made it embarrassingly obvious what he was up to.  With others it's less clear -- which is another reason why Chomsky needs to back off his one-size-fits-all claims and show, painful point by painful point, how his claims hold up.  It's all to be found within the Chomsky oeuvre, -- somewhere, always somewhere -- but he renders himself about as transparent and accessible as Marx.  You can win battles (i.e., Chomsky versus U.S. standard media) and still lose a war, but you can't win the war without winning battles.  

      •  Where do you get that from? (0+ / 0-)

        The Kosovo war was not in self-defense. There was no military threat whatsoever to the US. Clinton said he waged war because it was a "moral imperative" and "important to America's national interests".

        uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources.
        That statement comes from the 1997 Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review by Clinton's Defense Secretary, William S. Cohen.

        Decisions about whether and when to use military forces should be guided, first and foremost, by the US national interests at stake - be they vital, important, or humanitarian in nature - and by whether the costs and risks of a particular military involvement are commensurate with those interests. When the interests at stake are vital - that is, they are of a broad, overriding importance to the survival, security, and vitality of the United States - we should do whatever it takes to defend them, including, when necessary, the unilateral use of military force. US vital interests include, but are not limited to:

        protecting the sovereignty, territory, and population of the United States, and preventing and deterring threats to our homeland, including NBC attacks and terrorism;

        preventing the emergence of a hostile regional coalition or hegemon;

        ensuring freedom of the seas and security of international see lines of communication, airways, and space;

        ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources.

        deterring and, if necessary, defeating aggression against US allies and friends

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site