|
by Tansin A. Darcos (TDARCOS) 04/25/2012, 10:02am PDT |
|
 |
|
 |
|
In view of 9/11 and Afghanistan's refusal to turn over Osama Bin Laden I believe a war with Afghanistan was inevitable. I personally have no disagreement over it; OBL had attacked the United States many times before then. So demanding his deportation - or whatever the word is when one country delivers someone to another country as a result of a formal demand - and that country's refusal to either deliver him or put him on trial could be constituted as that country's refusal to deliver up someone guilty of war crimes. (Clearly, targeting a civilian building like World Trade Center I or WTC2 for destruction violates section 4(A)2 of the Geneva Convention of 1949 on legitimate combatants.)
But I do believe we should have declared war on Afghanistan. If anyone believes Bush Jr. couldn't have gotten a declaration of war once the country holding the party responsible refused to disgorge him, they're kidding themselves. A declared war defines a specific target and a specific reason and thus limits the conditions to those causing the emergency which required the declaration of war.. Also, once the emergency is over the war ends.
I point this out because the term "emergency" is well defined, as I wrote in my book, Instrument of God: But when someone violates someone else's rights, the person who does so causes an exigent circumstance, an emergency, in effect. What is an ‘emergency'? There was a real simple definition printed in every telephone book in the United States, so people would know when it was permissible to demand exclusive use of a telephone. ‘An emergency is a situation where life or property is in jeopardy and the prompt summoning of aid is essential.' When an emergency exists, it becomes impossible for normal circumstances to continue until the emergency is abated. When the emergency ceases, the exigent circumstances end. Or rather, when the exigency ceases, the State of Emergency ends.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
