Chertoff: The Bush doctrine expanded definition of self-defence

The US would like to rewrite the definition of torture and also to rewrite the definition of self-defence to accomodate the practices of the US hegemon. Of course many in the world community object as even the UK has objected to the attacks in Pakistan. But the US is the world's most powerful military power by far and so it makes no difference.


Of course Pakistan is itself on an offensive against Islamic militants and suffering many casualties in the process. It is also using methods that no doubt cause many civilian casualties and also resulted in a huge refugee problem. But this is apparently not enough for the US. It needs to protect its own occupying forces in Afghanistan. Imagine if the Russian occuppiers of Afghanistan who also led incursions into Pakistan made the same pitiful arguments as the US. The world press would attack them and their arguments would be laughed out of court.. But Chertoff has the worlds biggest military behind him.





LONDON, Oct 31 (Reuters) - A country should have the right to attack another if it is harbouring a potential terrorist threat, the U.S. homeland security chief said in remarks appearing to justify recent U.S. raids in Pakistan and Syria.




Laying out what amounts to a broadened definition of self-defence, Michael Chertoff said international law should accommodate a country's need to deter a possible threat abroad even if it meant taking pre-emptive action.
His remarks, at a discussion on democracy held in the British parliament, follow recent secret raids by U.S. forces into Pakistan and Syria that were justified using a similiar rationale and drew condemnation from those countries.
"International law must begin to recognise that part of the responsibility of sovereignty is the responsibility to make sure that your own country does not become a platform for attacking other countries," Chertoff told an audience on Thursday night.
"There are areas of the world that are ungoverned or ungovernable but nevertheless technically within the sovereignty of boundaries. Does that mean we simply have to allow terrorists to operate there, in kind of badlands, where they can plan, they can set up laboratories, they can experiment with chemical weapons and with biological weapons?" he said.
His remarks, challenged by some members of parliament in the audience, follow comments made by U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates on Tuesday in which he said Washington would hold countries fully accountable for their actions.
Gates' remarks, made to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, included a warning that the United States should modernize its nuclear arsenal as a hedge against "rogue nations" such as Iran and North Korea.
WIDER DETERRENCE?
The expanded definition of what constitutes self-defence and could be permitted under the concept of deterrence has important implications for U.S. foreign policy at a time when it is engaged in two wars in unstable regions and when it has expressed frequent concern about actions by Iran.
In Afghanistan in September, the United States conducted a raid across the border into Pakistan, striking at suspected Taliban militants hiding there despite objections from Pakistan, which said its sovereignty had been violated.
Last weekend, U.S. troops went across the border from Iraq into Syria and attacked a suspected insurgent hideout. The U.S. military says the head of a militant cell and his accomplices were targetted. Syria says eight civilians were killed.
Chertoff described a world in which the United States, and other democracies, were facing extraordinary threats that required them to be super-vigilant and responsive. Waiting to see if others would attack was not good enough, he said.
"If country X, within its borders, is openly tolerating or incapable of managing a location where people are consistently attacking a neighbour, is it sufficient to say, 'well, it's within their sovereign territory, nobody can do anything about it'? I think that's not true and I think there's a serious question about whether that's what the law ought to be.
"The larger question of the responsibility to make sure your own country is not a platform for attacking others is a matter that needs to be seriously considered in terms of what the law should be," he said. (Editing by Angus MacSwan)
Source: Reuters North American News Service

The attack on Syria and self defence

The Bush amplified definition of self-defense is simply a self interested definition that supports US aggression. It also removes any credibility that the US still has on the international scene. The same self-interested redefinition of terms has occured in the definition of torture. Experts can always be found to support these redefinitions and they are usually well rewarded for doing so. The second quote is from the NYTimes.
The first quote is from a widely accepted view of what would constitute justified anticipatory self-defence by the famous American Daniel Webster. The Syrian attack as the Pakistan attacks hardly fit the terms of this definition. Neither did the original invasion of Afghanistan let alone Iraq.

The most widely accepted modern standard for anticipatory self-defense was articulated by U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster in diplomatic correspondence with his British counterpart over the Caroline incident (often mischaracterized as the Caroline "case") and consisted of two prongs. One was that the need to use force in anticipatory self-defense must first rise to the level of being a necessity, and one that is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation. The other requirement was that the action taken must be proportionate to the threat and not be excessive.




But in justifying the attack, American officials said the Bush administration was determined to operate under an expansive definition of self-defense that provided a rationale for strikes on militant targets in sovereign nations without those countries’ consent.
Together with a similar American commando raid into Pakistan more than seven weeks ago, the operation on Sunday appeared to reflect an intensifying effort by the Bush administration to find a way during its waning months to attack militants even beyond the borders of Iraq and Afghanistan, where the United States is at war.
Administration officials declined to say whether the emerging application of self-defense could lead to strikes against camps inside Iran that have been used to train Shiite “special groups” that have fought with the American military and Iraqi security forces.