“Is war illegal if used to stop the carnage in Rwanda or Yugoslavia, where no imminent danger to your own country is present?”
To legalize a war it must be declared by that branch of the government entrusted by the Constitution with this power. And it seems it need not be declared by both the belligerent powers. By the Constitution of the United States, Art. I, Congress is invested with power "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; and they have also the power to raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain a navy."
“Is this board capable of analysis?”
Are we talking about a legal war here Mr. Moyer or are we talking about a state sanctioned “police action” that’s “passed-off” as “war”?
If we’re talking about a coalition of troops sent by an over-sight body created through investigation, negotiations and statements of principles and purpose, that’s not a “war” by any legal rubric with which I’m familiar. In fact it parallels the rationale cited by terrorist organizations to legitimize their criminality….
You’ve avoided speaking of pre-cursors, antecedents and analysis and jumped immediately to consideration of “war”… Are you suggesting that the situations and dynamics in either Rwanda or Yugoslavia developed spontaneously without any opportunity to bring other mechanisms or strategies of deterrence into play?
Are you asking a question or collecting plot ideas for a morality play?
Imminent danger…..
You state: “Is imminent danger….” That is I believe you labelling a situation or circumstance with frightening and morally laden metrics that demand ‘judgment’ by the individual but will invite knee-jerk reactionism and yet you seek an “answer” from the mob….?
(Part I)… “Is evidence ever complete enough where a decision can be automatic without the use of a judge?”
(Part II)… And isn’t that why we need a judge because the nature of evidence is never complete enough, yet the issue contains enough peril to require a proper decision?
Is this question rhetorical in nature or are you suspending the system of laws and jurisprudence that Americans have embraced and sworn allegiance to since the Declaration of Independence….?
If you’re talking about (or inviting consideration of…) a legal decision regarding some situation event or circumstance, your American system of laws addresses the quality character and process involved in collecting and presenting evidence. And no a judge provides guidance to people in understanding law and is not required nor expected to offer determinations regarding the veracity relevance or import… or lack thereof… of any evidence supplied the court.
Once again you invoke the moral inducement of coloring the question with “peril”…..
With all due respect Mr. Moyer, your questions and the presentation of your questions demonstrates a particular subjective (presupposition) tone that clothes the consideration of “war” in the camouflage of “morality”. In essence… “If we see these wrong terrible bad injurious bloody devastating destructive things going on…..don’t we have a moral obligation to go to war?”
I’m disappointed Mr. Moyer.
Honest questions perhaps…but couched in the terms of the the snake oil salesman and the preacher…..
Your looking for an answer you’ve already determined for yourself.
Ok then.
