Nika2013
Rookie
- Banned
- #1
Under international law the sovereignty of a country is an essential right of statehood. The doctrine of proportionality and right of self-defense extend only to countries that have been personally attacked by another country. Proportionality means that the defending country may only offer the same degree of force presented against it and self-defense is to be restricted to regaining balance and stability and may not go further. The defending country must STOP once the immediate threat has ceased. Since America was not attacked by the people of Afghanistan, but by Saudi Arabian terrorists, how is a presence in the country legal? In addition, the US State Department was negotiating with the Taliban for a pipeline through the country prior to 9/11 and within the prohibition against giving aid or support to the same. When Geo. W. Bush started bringing prisoners to Guantanamo, he said that the Taliban were not the leaders of Afghanistan and therefore not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions....If, this were true, then the Taliban as non-official leaders of the country, could not have been and cannot be viable targets for warfare. Our government cannot have it both ways. At the time of the beginning of the war, only three countries recognized the Taliban as sovereign leaders and these were Arab countries. The UN did not recognize them. So....what is the legal justification for being in the country, especially when the people did not invite the United States? This can have application to Iraq, too.