"The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the United States and thus part of US law. Under the charter, a country can use armed force against another country only in self-defense or when the Security Council approves. Neither of those conditions was met before the United States invaded Afghanistan. The Taliban did not attack us on 9/11. Nineteen men - 15 from Saudi Arabia - did, and there was no imminent threat that Afghanistan would attack the US or another UN member country. The council did not authorize the United States or any other country to use military force against Afghanistan. The US war in Afghanistan is illegal."
â€
— Marjorie Cohn, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of the
MY POINT EXACTLY!!!
"Self defense" is an imprecise term, there is not a definite limit to what it entails. It can be applied or misapplied as the 'Eye of the beholder' sees fit, to criticize or justify any modern-era war. It is so flexible that Germany's attack on Poland in 1939 would even fit into it as actually applied by the UN member states over the past 40 or so years, based on the Danzig Corridor issue. The US case for attacking the Taliban government was founded on its creation of a sanctuary for the terrorist organization that committed the attacks, which appeared to constitute a continuing threat, thereby raising a legitimate claim of self-defense. Senator, then President, Obambi certainly stood behind that justification so far. While he certainly has a great big bus for throwing people under, he doesn't seem inclined to throw himself there (Intentionally, anyway).
Ol' Marjorie doesn't seem to have figured out that nobody else is bound by her subjective interpretation of 'Self defense,' which apparently is limited situations where bombs, missiles, or landing craft (All bearing clear and correct national markings of an opposed belligerent nation-state, busily violating that charter itself, or more likely having formulated a rationale based on the attack being a necessary self-defensive move) are actually inbound on US national turf, which bears no recongnizable resemblance to the way 'Self-defense' has been applied in customary international law for the last 300 years or so. Such conceits are not an uncommon failing with profs, especially lib law school profs.
