I’m not going to go on and on here, but #8 is the most insulting of red herrings and requires insulting back:
Whatever War Party libertarian wrote that question would have us believe that some panties on the head were the worst things to happen to Iraqi prisoners. Even Rush Limbaugh retracted his comments equating Abu Ghraib to frat house pranks. He had only seen a few pictures at the time, and hadn’t yet read or seen the pictures in Sy Hersh’s article in the New Yorker which told of men being electrocuted, children raped, men beaten, attacked by dogs while shackeled, hog tied for weeks, and Murdered. Eight of them have been convicted and sentenced to years in prison for their crimes.
Frontline interviewed a young man who talked about how the worst abuses happen in people’s houses, and about how at his camp “hypothemia was a common practice.”
So, please gimme a break with your less than Weekly Standard level bunk.
1.
I’m operating on the premise that nothing the state does is ever justified. The state is illegitimate in my view. Therefore preemptive war in that case is never justified. A preemptive attack by an individual would be justified only if a threat were imminent. As Rothbard put it, someone would almost have to be raising a gun to shoot at you before you could take them down. As Chomsky puts it, if the Soviets have bombers in the air flying towards targets in the US, then it’s legitimate to shoot them down, and possibly bomb the base they were launched from. Anything beyond that is excessive force.
2.
Never. It is not the business of the US government to remove foreign dictators, or even to assign them the status of “dictator”.
3.
Islamic terrorism is not a serious threat to me. It may be a serious threat to the US government, but I’ve seen no evidence of it.
4.
Precisely nothing. The US could do something about its own nuclear weapons program, by far the world’s most dangerous. The US has, in case anyone cares to keep track, 18,800 nukes. That should be worrisome to anyone who’s serious about the survival of the species. I am not worried about what Iran is doing, but the Middle East region should be. The likelihood that Iran could build an intercontinental rocket and launch against the West is about the same as the likelihood that I will be the Yankees’ new center fielder. The likely reason for Iran’s nuclear program, assuming it even exists, is the Israeli program (which Israel does not officially admit exists). The US government could do something about that program, simply by picking up the phone and placing a 5 minute call to Tel Aviv.
5.
The US should not be giving or selling weapons to any states anywhere, including Israel, the most militarized state in teh world. To do so would constitute taking sides, a particularly dangerous activity for any State to do.
6.
That question is misleading. Such cases would no doubt be state secrets. Name a specific instance where a whistleblower is allowed to discuss such a case in the public domain without breaking national security laws.
7.
Don’t make me laugh. The “consequences to Iraqis”? what do you think the US soldiers are doing there now, passing out flowers? It’s far safer for all sides to be done with each other as soon as possible.
8.
Any incarcerations or interrogations carried out by the State are illegitimate, so in that sense, the question is irrelevant. However, physical and mental torture are clearly different things and should be treated as such.
9.
The question is too generalized. The only thing either side in a war is legitimately allowed to do under the old international law (which collapsed after World War 1) is attack military targets and soldiers. So, for instance, any targeting of civilians or non-military buildings etc. was a war crime. Declaring war would not absolve the State from responsiblility for atrocities, if that’s the meaning of the question. The US hasn’t declared war anyway, as Anthony pointed out, since Truman conjured up the euphemism “UN police action” to authorize his attack on Korea (an attack which left Truman at about the same level of popularity as Yellow Fever by 1952).
10.
No one who’s serious about the issue still denies that fact. Admonitions from “critics” like the quote whores from the Weekly Standard et al. should be ignored, unless you’re a complete fool.
I remember a few years ago as a “brand new Libertarian convert,” reading Liberty and being impressed with some things Timothy Sandefur wrote, but then later on seeing evidence of his bloodlust and wondering “what the…?”
Thanks, Scott, for this blog and best wishes for your radio future. And thanks Anthony for this post.
I find the question about Iran getting nuclear weapons the most ignorant and insulting of all these questions. By what God given right is it the United States that decides who can and who cannot have nuclear weapons? We made hardly a peep when Pakistan got nukes…and the Pakistanis have far more ties to Bin Laden and terrorism than the Iranians could ever hope to have.
But more importantly, we must understand that if Iran is attempting to get nukes, it is in response to Israel’s acquisition. In other words, it is a defensive countermeasure. The Iranian mullahs may be evil, but they are not stupid. They will not give nukes to a rogue group like al-Qaeda.
The real reason we don’t want Iran to have nukes is because one they have the bomb, we won’t be able to intimidate or invade them easily. The US government motives in stopping Iran from getting a nuke are not ‘pure” (surprise, surprise)
This Q&A reminds me of those questionnaires they have in COSMO magazine. Anyhow here goes…
1) When, if ever, is preemptive war is justified?
A high standard of proof is required to prevent war on a whim. The Iraq case clearly failed this test.
2) When, if ever, is the United States justified in removing a foreign dictator from power?
The US constitution does not put the US government in the global dictator removal business. Foreign government removal requires a clear and unambiguous threat, probably actual attack, to be justified. The constitutional pecularities of the enemy state are their business. Even if the US defeats them in war.
If democrats in other countries wish to overthrow their dictator they may want to get a few ideas for their new regime from US models, they can look up the US constitution on the net if they wish.
I’m not going to go on and on here, but #8 is the most insulting of red herrings and requires insulting back:
Whatever War Party libertarian wrote that question would have us believe that some panties on the head were the worst things to happen to Iraqi prisoners. Even Rush Limbaugh retracted his comments equating Abu Ghraib to frat house pranks. He had only seen a few pictures at the time, and hadn’t yet read or seen the pictures in Sy Hersh’s article in the New Yorker which told of men being electrocuted, children raped, men beaten, attacked by dogs while shackeled, hog tied for weeks, and Murdered. Eight of them have been convicted and sentenced to years in prison for their crimes.
Frontline interviewed a young man who talked about how the worst abuses happen in people’s houses, and about how at his camp “hypothemia was a common practice.”
So, please gimme a break with your less than Weekly Standard level bunk.
Here are my answers.
1.
I’m operating on the premise that nothing the state does is ever justified. The state is illegitimate in my view. Therefore preemptive war in that case is never justified. A preemptive attack by an individual would be justified only if a threat were imminent. As Rothbard put it, someone would almost have to be raising a gun to shoot at you before you could take them down. As Chomsky puts it, if the Soviets have bombers in the air flying towards targets in the US, then it’s legitimate to shoot them down, and possibly bomb the base they were launched from. Anything beyond that is excessive force.
2.
Never. It is not the business of the US government to remove foreign dictators, or even to assign them the status of “dictator”.
3.
Islamic terrorism is not a serious threat to me. It may be a serious threat to the US government, but I’ve seen no evidence of it.
4.
Precisely nothing. The US could do something about its own nuclear weapons program, by far the world’s most dangerous. The US has, in case anyone cares to keep track, 18,800 nukes. That should be worrisome to anyone who’s serious about the survival of the species. I am not worried about what Iran is doing, but the Middle East region should be. The likelihood that Iran could build an intercontinental rocket and launch against the West is about the same as the likelihood that I will be the Yankees’ new center fielder. The likely reason for Iran’s nuclear program, assuming it even exists, is the Israeli program (which Israel does not officially admit exists). The US government could do something about that program, simply by picking up the phone and placing a 5 minute call to Tel Aviv.
5.
The US should not be giving or selling weapons to any states anywhere, including Israel, the most militarized state in teh world. To do so would constitute taking sides, a particularly dangerous activity for any State to do.
6.
That question is misleading. Such cases would no doubt be state secrets. Name a specific instance where a whistleblower is allowed to discuss such a case in the public domain without breaking national security laws.
7.
Don’t make me laugh. The “consequences to Iraqis”? what do you think the US soldiers are doing there now, passing out flowers? It’s far safer for all sides to be done with each other as soon as possible.
8.
Any incarcerations or interrogations carried out by the State are illegitimate, so in that sense, the question is irrelevant. However, physical and mental torture are clearly different things and should be treated as such.
9.
The question is too generalized. The only thing either side in a war is legitimately allowed to do under the old international law (which collapsed after World War 1) is attack military targets and soldiers. So, for instance, any targeting of civilians or non-military buildings etc. was a war crime. Declaring war would not absolve the State from responsiblility for atrocities, if that’s the meaning of the question. The US hasn’t declared war anyway, as Anthony pointed out, since Truman conjured up the euphemism “UN police action” to authorize his attack on Korea (an attack which left Truman at about the same level of popularity as Yellow Fever by 1952).
10.
No one who’s serious about the issue still denies that fact. Admonitions from “critics” like the quote whores from the Weekly Standard et al. should be ignored, unless you’re a complete fool.
I remember a few years ago as a “brand new Libertarian convert,” reading Liberty and being impressed with some things Timothy Sandefur wrote, but then later on seeing evidence of his bloodlust and wondering “what the…?”
Thanks, Scott, for this blog and best wishes for your radio future. And thanks Anthony for this post.
I find the question about Iran getting nuclear weapons the most ignorant and insulting of all these questions. By what God given right is it the United States that decides who can and who cannot have nuclear weapons? We made hardly a peep when Pakistan got nukes…and the Pakistanis have far more ties to Bin Laden and terrorism than the Iranians could ever hope to have.
But more importantly, we must understand that if Iran is attempting to get nukes, it is in response to Israel’s acquisition. In other words, it is a defensive countermeasure. The Iranian mullahs may be evil, but they are not stupid. They will not give nukes to a rogue group like al-Qaeda.
The real reason we don’t want Iran to have nukes is because one they have the bomb, we won’t be able to intimidate or invade them easily. The US government motives in stopping Iran from getting a nuke are not ‘pure” (surprise, surprise)
This Q&A reminds me of those questionnaires they have in COSMO magazine. Anyhow here goes…
1) When, if ever, is preemptive war is justified?
A high standard of proof is required to prevent war on a whim. The Iraq case clearly failed this test.
2) When, if ever, is the United States justified in removing a foreign dictator from power?
The US constitution does not put the US government in the global dictator removal business. Foreign government removal requires a clear and unambiguous threat, probably actual attack, to be justified. The constitutional pecularities of the enemy state are their business. Even if the US defeats them in war.
If democrats in other countries wish to overthrow their dictator they may want to get a few ideas for their new regime from US models, they can look up the US constitution on the net if they wish.
3) Do you agree with the position
Thanks for you site! My – lipitor and bad credit loan.