Immediacy, ability, and intent.

[SkunkApe]

When I took a class concerning the lawful use of deadly force, the instructor taught me that I could only use deadly force against an attacker that intended inflict death or serious bodily harm upon me, and when these three conditions were met:

1) Immediacy - the assailant will attack me now, not an hour later or tomorrow.

2) Ability - the assailent has the means to inflict serious bodily injury or death upon me.

3) Intent - the assailant's intent is to do me harm; if he's about to accidently drop a piano on me, I can't shoot him.

This legal principle is consistent with my own moral beliefs regarding the use of deadly force.

I was wondering how you all think this moral/legal principle applies to foreign policy, and if the difference between your views and mine could help to explain the general unpopularity of my opinions regarding he Iraqi war.

This is how I see it if we apply these three requirements to Iraq at the point in time prior to our initiation of deadly force:

1) Immediacy - No. We were in no immediate danger of attack.

2) Ability - No. None of Iraq's weapons or military forces posed a significant threat to the United States. (Except, perhaps, their ability to disrupt our oil supply.)

3) Intent - Maybe, but thats my gut feeling and not based on evidence. Having a hunch probably wouldn't hold up in court.

What do you think? Or is the beer getting to me?

 

[grampster]

It is the beer, Skunky.

IMHO the rules that apply to individuals do not necessarily, for good reason, apply to the dealings of national welfare. Rather than go on a long explaination of my comment, just mull it over for awhile.

grampster

 

[Ian]

See, SkunkApe, if a LOT of people get together and want something, they don't need to bother with rules and principles and such. This is called "democracy." You can see the principle in action with war, as you have pointed out, and also in such matters as gun control, the War on Some Drugs, and welfare. Note that if needed, corrupt politicians with ulterior motives can be substituted for masses of people.

 

[David Park]

SkunkApe, if your assailant notices your gun and decides to halt his attack and walk away, you can (and probably should) let him go. However, if you were a police officer, allowing a violent criminal to escape instead of apprehending him would get you into serious trouble. That's because there are different rules for police officers who have the job and responsibility "to serve and protect." The police are, in effect, our chosen representatives for dealing with criminals. Similarly, our representative government and military is charged with the defense of the nation.

It's not a perfect analogy, and I'm not sure if it's the way our country should operate (I'd like to see a return to the citizen militia), but it's the way our country does operate.

Anyway, analogies aside, here are my answers to your questions about Iraq:

1) Immediacy - They had violated the Gulf War cease-fire agreement repeatedly, and intelligence suggested they were (once again) close to developing WMDs. We gave them 12 years, and didn't want to risk waiting any longer, especially after 9/11.

2) Ability - Republican Guard weren't going to come marching up on our beaches, but Saddam's regime did have the ability to wage an asymmetrical war while getting rich on UN Oil for Palaces, I mean Food, dollars. They funded terrorism, tried to assassinate G.H.W. Bush, provided a safe haven for guys like Abu Nidal, and could have supplied WMDs to terrorists.

3) Intent - Wolfowitz recently said that he believed Saddam was a backer of the first World Trade Center bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing, and 9/11(link), something others in gov't have been saying for a long time. There's plenty of evidence out there showing connections if the gov't would only run with it. Assisting in three attacks on American soil, to me, indicate Saddam's intent.
(But I guess I'm just a tinfoil-hat-wearing far-right kook.)

 

[jmbg29]

Another vote for beer.

 

[Jim March]

It's faster to phrase it as a single question?

Am I now in danger of losing my life or suffering great bodily injury from criminal assault?

See? By putting it as a single question, you get the same result quicker. And speed *matters*.

Two other points:

If it's animal attack, the risk need be less but still at least somewhat present. Put another way, you can draw a gun against a human when you're *sure* there's a threat, but against an animal when there "might be, but intent isn't 100% sorted out yet". If you're being watched by a large dog 20 feet away, but he's not moving or growling, putting your hand on the grip would be less legally risky than against a human in the same circumstances.

Sometimes your life is in danger but it's not about "attack" - you're in a burning building, you could die, and the door you're trying to get through is deadbolted. Is blowing the lock out with a 357 round reasonable? Depends on how many people you suspect are on the other side, and/or if you can angle the round into the main door frame to slow it down some. But such "emergency tool use" is at least possible. (Hunting for food if you're stranded and hungry and ain't got a deer tag falls along the same lines.)

 

[TarpleyG]

Somebody say beer?

 

[Esky]

I'm pretty much in agreement with the comments of Jim March and David Park.

Another point worth mentioning is that Saddam was well known to reward terrorists' families for suicide bomb murders. It isn't much of a stretch for me to think that he'd have been happy to encourage & reward terrorists to attack any part of the Great Satan.

That he had terrorist training camps has been proven.

I'm agreeing that defense of country is not the same thing as personal self defense. Even so, it seems to me that all three conditions are met:

1. immediacy- Saddam would attack as soon as he thought he could get away with it (which we wouldn't know until he did it.)

2. ability- he had that too, if small portable WMDs count (and there is LOTS of evidence that he had them, and was trying to get more)- besides the WMDs, all you need is some loonytunes who's willing to blow himself up or kill himself in the delivery (dime-a-dozen all over the Middle East.)

3. intent- the USA may or may not be the highest priority on his little black list but I'm sure the Great Satan wouldn't be far from the top (again, we wouldn't know his intent until too late.)

There's also the factor of "amount of risk"-- I'd run away from an attacker, if I could do so without increasing my risk of getting hurt or killed. But I'd certainly fight if I were cornered, or if the risk of running away was unacceptably high. We found on 9/11 that we as a country can't run, and we can't hide, and our attacker(s) will stoop to nothing to do us harm.

But I gather from your post, SkunkApe, that you are looking at this question from more of a Iraq-as-a-country attacking (in more conventional ways) the USA-as-a-country. I never saw it like this at all. For me Iraq as a country has been a helpless pawn, used to promote a murderous dictator's agenda.

Esky
who'd much rather face a gangsta than a megalomaniac dictator, but who doesn't want to face either one

 

[Drjones]

Frankly Skunk, neither you, I, nor anyone else here is capable of answering your question.

Nobody here has all the information as to the immediacy, ability, and intent of Iraq to harm the US, and we probably won't see it for a while. That stuff is going to remain classified for pretty far into the forseeable future, and that's just the way it is.



Politely waiting to get called a blind, Republican Bush worshipper,
Drjones

 

[Gordon Fink]

You’re right, SkunkApe, but don’t waste your breath. The war is over. Thankfully, it went relatively easy on our troops. Hopefully, the same will be true of the occupation.

Even I thought Iraq had biochemical weapons, but now that “fact†is starting to look like a sham, too. So stop wasting your energy debating what is already done and start concentrating on voting the warmongering sons of bitches out of office!

~G. Fink

 

[DRC]

Hello to all.

Gordon,

WMD were in Iraq. What's being reported is that they didn't exist. What isn't being reported is a concern for where they went. Believe what you will as will I
http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000454.php http://wcco.com/topstories/topstories_story_019183037.html

During the campaign ground troops located 20 warheads tipped with Sarin gas on a transport. I saw this on Fox News but saw little else ever reported about it. I've been trying to find a link to the story but have only found a page with a lead in to an article but can't find the archive date April 7, 2003.

Dr Jones,

You are the quintasential blind, Republican Bush worshipper but I mean that in a nice way and do hope I've not offended you by saying so. Was that what you were waitng for? I too fall into the catagory of Republican and Bush supporter so I too will politely wait to be called what you said as well I just hope they also include "Staunch Conservative" in their name calling as well

DRC

 

[Standing Wolf]

Beer.

 

[grampster]

Geez, gordon fink,

With a philosphy that mirrors your comment on "hope", I guess one can see why you are so shortsighted and bitter. (My comment meant in the spirit of amused puzzlement not criticism.)

grampster

 

[jmbg29]

Somebody say beer?

LMAO

 

[Drjones]

The silence is positively deafening.




I stand your blind, line-towing Republican, Bush-worshipper,
Drjones

 

[DonQatU]

and intelligence suggested they were (once again) close to developing WMDs.

Intelligence? Who's intelligence?

Still waiting for all those nasty WMDs that could have been deployed in 45 minutes to pop out of the desert sand!

And what's the story on those mobile "bio-weapons labs" now?

Seems those were sold to Iraq by Marconi (now AMS).

"Bio-weapons labs"? Well, Bush said so!

Hope they keep international inspectors away from those "bio-weapons labs" ..... like they're keeping them away from the Tuwaitha nuclear facility! The administration might get some news it doesn't want to hear!

Don

 

[DonQatU]

During the campaign ground troops located 20 warheads tipped with Sarin gas on a transport.

Well, that WOULD be newsworthy, DRC! Wonder why there was no follow-up on that incident? Maybe ........ because it NEVER HAPPENED????!!

Got to love FOX! They put out false "speculative" reports. Never a retraction when they're proven to be false.

But how about US security at the Tuwaitha nuclear facility (or lack thereof)? Anybody know if they're missing any Cesium-137 (ideal material for a dirty bomb) from the storage site?

That stuff was REAL! Not FOX hype! The UN inspectors were brought back in to determine if any is missing.

I guess the "Inspector Clouseaus" are smarter than Rush Limbaugh made them out to be!

Don

 

[DRC]

Hello Don.

I don't believe we've spoken...and I can see now why

Anyway I did find a link for this short blurb on NPR (which would seem to be what you might consider a reliable source for all of your news edification) http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1223246

I, personally, do not consider npr reliable however they have a story on it, Reuters has one (but my page wouldn't load) and if I could find the archive I'm sure Fox would as well. So quite a hodge podge of folks reporting on this. Evidently there is even an audio report on NPR. Feel free to take a look if you wish. I haven't found any retractions of this story thus far but at least I've proven I'm not crazy in any event

As to Fox News being what you claim, they just might be but CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC and all their ilk could be lumped into the same descriptives that you've given for Fox. You trust your sources and I'll read all and discern the BS from the truth. So in short MAYBE IT DID HAPPEN????!!

You take care and keep doing whatever it is you do.

DRC

 

[jmbg29]

Don, it is things like this

Seems those were sold to Iraq by Marconi (now AMS).

that just drive me crazy about your posts. What is that quote supposed to mean exactly? Instead of all of the exclamation points, and the cryptic BS, why not just state the facts plainly?

I can't think of a single thread where you haven't resorted to the "we shall see" sniggering - as if you know something that the rest of the world doesn't - that is more becoming of 12 year olds, and fruitcake leftists.

I guess the "Inspector Clouseaus" are smarter than Rush Limbaugh made them out to be!

If they were so smart, then why did they never succeed in their work?

 

[Erik]

It is best to not juxtapose some things.

 

[DonQatU]

I haven't found any retractions of this story thus far but at least I've proven I'm not crazy in any event

DCR, there were a series of "smoking gun reports" fed to the embedded reporters. When they turned out to be false, there were never any retractions! This is one of those "false positives" that later proved to be false...... never retracted.

I know you want to believe what you think you heard.......... but I'd recommend you listen to that report again....... carefully!

Who fed this journalist this "information"? Is it first hand? Or second or third hand unconfirmed info? You find it surprising that those second and third hand sources never make any retractions?

I DO agree with you that this NPR journalist put out a lot of crap. But notice how he distanced himself from the sources who were feeding him this crap?

"If true......this would be very important....... etc. Well it turned out to be untrue so not that important!

In a nutshell, if this report were true, George Bush would be in hog heaven! Because he would have something more than the two "mobile bio-weapons" labs he keeps talking about, to support his weak claims of WMD developement and current employment.

Don

PS - Do BM-21s really have a range of about 300 miles like the NPR journalist reported?

 

[Zander]

Or second or third hand unconfirmed info? -- Don

Congratulations...you've broken the bounds of philosophy and are assured that you've proven a negative. Thus, by your standard of proof, Saddam Hussein never existed.

One question:

If further proof that WMDs were, and likely still are, present...or are proven to have been shipped out of Iraq...are you willing to admit publicly that you have made a false accusation?

Before you snap off one of your pithy replies, do a little homework on the last UN resolution re: Iraq.

Resolution 1441 [8 Nov 2002] begins:

"Recalling all its previous resolutions...

You assert that darn near every source, from our intelligence services to the anti-American fools who "run" the UN, lied repeatedly about the presence of WMDs in Iraq.

The complete and utter failure of Hussein's regime to prove [as required by multiple resolutions] that such weapons had been destroyed is a matter of fact, not speculation.

For once, let the process of logic drive your responses instead of your blind hatred of the current administration.

 

[DonQatU]

Zander, those WMDs got to be there somewhere! Just BELIEVE!

These good folks wouldn't lie!

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
George W. Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them."
Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003

"I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction."
Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003

"One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites."
Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003

I especially love this one!
"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003

"Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty."
Neocon scholar Robert Kagan
Washington Post op-ed
April 9, 2003

But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003

"We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them."
George W. Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003

"There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country."
Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing
April 25, 2003

"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now."
Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003

"We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country."
Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003

"I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program."
George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 6, 2003

"U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction."
Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview
May 12, 2003

This is another great one!
"I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden."
Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing
May 13, 2003

"Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found."
Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003

"Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction."
Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003

Another great one from Rumsfeld!
"They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer."
Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003

Wolfowitz let's it out of the bag!
"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003

This guy has seen his last star!
"It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there."
Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
May 30, 2003

A classic!
"Do I think we're going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there's a lot of information out there."
Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency
Press Conference
May 30, 2003

Don

 

[Destructo6]

And what's the story on those mobile "bio-weapons labs" now?

Seems those were sold to Iraq by Marconi (now AMS).

Uh, AMS makes/sells electronics for air defense and air traffic control. I don't see that they make fermentors, much less mobile fermentation systems.

Besides, what was the point of this non-sequitor?

 

[DRC]

I'm with Destructo on this one...

Don,

What was the point of your last post? That people said things? None of these things have been proven true or false and your post doesn't prove any falsities either. I'm assuming that by the loosest form of syllogism you've singlehandedly proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that all these things are false and that all these people are liars? You are a god in my book

I will also assume that you're suggesting I "read between the lines" regarding the report of the missiles tipped with chemical gas? Perhaps you might try not looking for a conspiracy theory. The missile story wasn't true but no one retracted the report? Here's my thinking; the report was short lived because it was an expected find as were many others that have not turned up yet (emphasis on "yet") Did you hear the report about the two mobile missile launchers found in two garages outside of Bagdad I believe it was? The military would still be looking for them now if they had not been told by a local where they were simply because of the shear number of places they have to cover and look into.

Keep in mind too that Iraq is roughly the same square mileage as California and the military has been there...three months? They have to secure the facilities and cities first (so they don't get shot while trying to do the rest of their job) which takes time AND THEN they have to scour the countryside.

I'm sure you're an expert on any and everything based on your postings thus far but I'll deffer to the information of those that are actually in the "loop" and not speculate around facts for my own amusement.

Thanks for your input regardless of how baseless it may be. Always nice to see opinions and ideas from others.

DRC