I will endevour to get a post up soon, however this is a long weekend for me (Waitangi Day is Monday, i.e. NZ's founding day) so I am quite busy this weekend with stuff, like seeing family, fixing up the house, that sort of thing... Doesn't help that it is also the Lantern Festival this weekend, and that I dodn't see this till now...

In any case, can I have an extension if I don't get the opening argument up today?

I'll be waiting

Did the US have legality to go to war om Afghanistan? The answer to this is complex and is filled with emotive arguments and morality, none of which really touch on the logical realities of the question, not the actualities and facts of the circumstances that lead to the war. Both sides to the debate tend to argue morality and try to dress it up as legality (or lack thereof) and tend to ignore the facts. The facts are that on Sep 11 2001 3 terrorist attacks were carried out, plus an additional failed attack. This attack made news around the world, and shortly after the attacks Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda claimed responsibility, all of whom were well known on the balance of probability to be in Afghanistan, a Nation-state whose ruling figures were also well known supporters of terrorists. Shortly after the attacks the US led a coalition of nations into a land war in central Asia and since the people have been arguing the legality and morality of the war.

The simple to the answer to the question of legality is that yes the US had legality to go to war as the US congress passed the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists" resolution which gave the US military the legal basis for the war in Afghanistan (or where ever they felt it necessary.)  Some may argue that this law itself was illegitimate, though that wasn't the case. It was passed in the US congress, Senate and signed by the President in accordance with the US legislative system. The law itself did not break any treaties or UN laws as all it did was give a legal basis for bringing criminals to justice by what ever means was deemed necessary. The subsequent invasion however are on much more shaky ground in regards to if they breach the UN Charter, however does breaching the articles of the UN Charter constitute a lack of legality in regards to the actions of the US? Or does it just mean that they have not lived byu the founding principles of the UN and thus are in breach of its code of practice. Does this just mean that if it had acted in violation of the charter that it should just be dropped from the UN since it broke the treaty? Whilst the Charter does hold some legal significance, it's bearing on the legality of any other law is only significant if that law goes against the charter and if the nations legislative and/or Judicial bodies uphold the Charter as legal over the specific law. The most telling part of all on the legality of the US actions is that the UN has not passed any resolution censoring or punishing the US or it's coalition partners in anyway, which tends to point to the at least De Facto status of having legality, even if de jure is that the actions were in violation of the Charter. Added to that is another fact, that the UN did pass a resolution which allowed for foreign military force to be in Afghanistan, albeit that such a resolution did not get passed until two months after the US had lead the invasion. This does show however that the UNSC did see the logic in a war in Afghanistan.

The facts themselves do not lend towards the invasion being in breach of the Charter in any case, as the Charter allows for the use of force in self defense. The USA had clearly been attacked, the people claiming responsibility normally reported their location as being within Afghanistan, and the Afghanistan government was unwilling to bring criminal proceedings against the individuals responsible for the attacks. Thus the US did a rather logical act and invaded, an invasion that was full of control and precision (as much as can be in the technological climate of the early 2000's.) The full might of the US army was brought to bear, but not in an over-the-top display of muscle, but in technological superiority, thus the force used was measured and appropriate and targeted to where terrorists were highly probable to be located, thus the force used was reasonable force was used furthering the case for the action to have been in self defense. The fact that this war was self defense was also supported by a UNSC resolution 1368 & 1373 which recognised the September 11 attacks as an inherent threat to international peace and security.

Thus there was legality to the War in Afghanistan, as there was specific legislation allowing it, the UN Charter allowed for action to be taken in self defense, the UNSC made resolutions in support of the US using force in self defense against those responsible (either directly or indirectly) and the US has never been sanctioned by the UNSC or GA for it's actions, and in fact the troops on the ground were eventually given unarguable legality when the UNSC passed a resolution expressly creating a UN task force to be in Afghanistan.

References:
Understanding September 11th - An International Legal Perspective on the War in Afghanistan
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID920902_code113378.pdf?abstractid=920902&mirid=4

UN Charter
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml

UN Security Council Resolutions
1368 http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/533/82/PDF/N0153382.pdf?OpenElement
1373 http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/557/43/PDF/N0155743.pdf?OpenElement
1378 http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/638/57/PDF/N0163857.pdf?OpenElement
1383 http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/681/09/PDF/N0168109.pdf?OpenElement

Authorization for Use of Military Force Bill (H.J.RES.64)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:H.J.Res64:

Replacement here, give me a bit

Ladies and Gentlemen I am here today to talk of why the United States should not have gone to war.

In these modern days we have formed a more powerful Union, known as the United Nations.

The reason for the United Nations first and foremost is peace. This at times includes actions against aggressors by the community of nations, so long as that community agrees.

The actions of the United States included a clear threat to a bordering nation, Pakistan, to allow troops to cross freely through. The or else war statement was more than implied with speeches by George W. Bush. He in fact stated, while as President that to prevent actions against those he called terrorists was akin to aiding the terrorists and that the United States would go after terrorists and their supporters where ever they may be.

This entire action by the United States was done to fast for the news services that existed in Afghanistan to report the severity of American anger, as well as prevented a political coalition to over-rule the protections for Osama Bin Ladin.

That the peace of Pakistan was violated, that a nation such as Afghanistan would not be given but a few weeks before a full scale invasion... speaks against the design of the United Nations and of peace itself.

The fact that intelligence services found Osama Bin Ladin points to the fact he could have been caught anyways.

Now the entire region is destablized and may remain so for more decades.

War is permissible, yes... but it should be the last action taken period.

And why was the strongest and harshest approach used? In Yugoslavia the United States won with airpower alone... often by targeting infrastructure and not personnel.

Some could say the war started due to the Arab effort to assissinate his father, and that George W. Bush merely thought all Muslims are wrongful.

The so called war on terror was also innapropriately applied due to the fact it applies to individuals, groups, and organizations... but not nations.

One does not war in individuals... one has police or intelligence servies handle such.

Groups and organizations are targets for Interpol, and not for the armed force of a nation.

This war was morally wrong with the charter of the UN, morally wrong against the peoples of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and morally wrong for a President of the United States to engage in...

(Disclaimer: Not representative of my true views, for purposes of political debate)

I am going to wait for Wormstum's decision on this, however I am happy to debate Flint on this, even so far as I am going to write my next post, just not actually post it until Wormstum has made a ruling.

Also to RisingDown: No hassles, it wasn't like I don't understand... it did take me a week ot post in the first instance.

Nothing that has been stated by the negative side in his response has argued against the legality of the war, merely the morality of the war. As stated the morality of the war has little or nothing to do with the legality, because however you feel about the war makes no difference to the fact that both the USA and the UN have legal provisions which allows the actions of the US armed forces in late 2011 and neither of these legal systems have ever changed that.

As I said in the opening post, we are not here to discuss the morality of the war in Afghanistan, but the legality of the war and the legality of an action is determined by the facts and how the line up with the written law. Just like any other legal case the facts should be considered, weighed and then compared to the laws that apply to the situation, whilst morals, ethics and what one

I am driving.

Not a good time for anything except a short break.

Let me have through tomorrow.

Short small posts.

Now if I did a large new post (like I have a major itch to do) then you could slap me

Ok I am due back in Portland on Thursday night. Then I am off.

Would be easier.

Hmmmmm, I would be very hesitant, but if Flint is ok with this, then I will allow it

i am fine not doing it. I am happy with the content, just the ending bothered me, mostly cause i moved it to the start, re-worded it there and then didn't really finish the post nicely... its a style thing, but as i said i am happy to not edit...