Reply #22: I think we should look at exactly what Dershowitz is saying

[Jack Rabbit]

I'm looking at Atomic Kitten's post (thank you, Atomic Kitten). Dershowitz appears to be using the term pre-emptive war as it should be used. This is to say a pre-emptive war is one where an attack is immanent and the defending nation, rather than just wait to get pulverized, strikes first. There's nothing wrong with that and it is already a circumstance where the UN Charter recognizes an attack as justified.

Dershowitz is not arguing for preventive war, which is what Mr. Bush's misnamed doctrine of pre-emption actually sets in motion. That is war to pre-empt a threat that is vague and which might materialize at some undefined date in the future. It is really just a pretext to go to war against any one at any time for any reason, or no reason at all. A preventive war, such as Bush's invasion of Iraq, is a war crime on its face.

I would have a problem with Dershowitz if he said either that preventive war was justified or that invading Iraq was pre-emptive. It was not. There was no threat at all, and certainly not an immanent threat. The only immanent threat was to Iraq from Bush and Blair. Nevertheless, Dershowitz is not arguing that the invasion was a pre-emptive strike.

Before I get flamed, I will add that I have many problems with Mr. Dershowitz' pronouncements on other issues, especially his ideas about torture. For those who missed it, please read here.