Comments on: Confessions of an Obamaniac in Canada http://lawiscool.com/2008/11/02/confessions-of-an-obamaniac-in-canada/?nucrss=1 The law school blog and podcast from Canada Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:00:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Omar Ha-Redeye http://lawiscool.com/2008/11/02/confessions-of-an-obamaniac-in-canada/comment-page-1/#comment-3744 Omar Ha-Redeye Sat, 08 Nov 2008 00:04:01 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=1006#comment-3744 Rick, Thank you for your comments. Walkom used the term "pre-emptive war." You are right, I prefer "preemptive regime change." The link directs to the first public policy paper on the subject by those involved in American politics. Pre-emptive strikes are only a part of a larger policy that is unique, and clearly <a href="http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm" rel="nofollow">against</a> international <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0321-10.htm" rel="nofollow">law</a> by near <a href="http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2770&lang=en" rel="nofollow">complete consensus</a> of international law scholars. Specifically, Articles 2, 39, 41, 42, 51 of the <a href="http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/" rel="nofollow">UN Charter </a>are frequently invoked by such critics. I'll change it above to reflect this to avoid further misunderstandings. If you have any sources demonstrating an earlier use of this doctrine in contemporary American politics I would gladly welcome it. I also agree that it does depend on the definition of race, which is why the examples of Germany and Japan are quite distinct, although issues of discrimination do exist there and elsewhere in the world. Again, if you do have an example of a single country in the world that is more racially polarized, using the popularized <a href="http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm" rel="nofollow">definitions</a> of race since as a social construct, I would encourage you to provide it. Rick,
Thank you for your comments.

Walkom used the term “pre-emptive war.” You are right, I prefer “preemptive regime change.” The link directs to the first public policy paper on the subject by those involved in American politics. Pre-emptive strikes are only a part of a larger policy that is unique, and clearly against international law by near complete consensus of international law scholars. Specifically, Articles 2, 39, 41, 42, 51 of the UN Charter are frequently invoked by such critics. I’ll change it above to reflect this to avoid further misunderstandings.

If you have any sources demonstrating an earlier use of this doctrine in contemporary American politics I would gladly welcome it.

I also agree that it does depend on the definition of race, which is why the examples of Germany and Japan are quite distinct, although issues of discrimination do exist there and elsewhere in the world.

Again, if you do have an example of a single country in the world that is more racially polarized, using the popularized definitions of race since as a social construct, I would encourage you to provide it.

]]> By: Rick http://lawiscool.com/2008/11/02/confessions-of-an-obamaniac-in-canada/comment-page-1/#comment-3740 Rick Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:08:35 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=1006#comment-3740 I would add that it is highly contentious to declare the United States "the most racially polarized country in the world". Have you tried being a Turk in Germany, for example? Or a racial minority in Japan? It also depends on what you mean by "race", as countless countries are more ethnically polarized. I would add that it is highly contentious to declare the United States “the most racially polarized country in the world”. Have you tried being a Turk in Germany, for example? Or a racial minority in Japan? It also depends on what you mean by “race”, as countless countries are more ethnically polarized.

]]> By: Rick http://lawiscool.com/2008/11/02/confessions-of-an-obamaniac-in-canada/comment-page-1/#comment-3739 Rick Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:04:22 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=1006#comment-3739 Pardon me, you state that "the doctrine of pre-emptive strike ... , completely contrary to principles of international law, was first developed in 1997 by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC)." The link you provide does not support that assertion, which is incorrect in any event. Depending on your definintions, pre-emptive strikes have been a part of international law for centuries. Perhaps you refer to the idea of a preventive war, which Malkom asserts was the basis for the second Iraq War, but which I and many others would dispute. In any event, the idea that either of these concepts was "first developed in 1997" is outlandish. Pardon me, you state that “the doctrine of pre-emptive strike … , completely contrary to principles of international law, was first developed in 1997 by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC).” The link you provide does not support that assertion, which is incorrect in any event. Depending on your definintions, pre-emptive strikes have been a part of international law for centuries. Perhaps you refer to the idea of a preventive war, which Malkom asserts was the basis for the second Iraq War, but which I and many others would dispute.
In any event, the idea that either of these concepts was “first developed in 1997″ is outlandish.

]]> By: skdadl http://lawiscool.com/2008/11/02/confessions-of-an-obamaniac-in-canada/comment-page-1/#comment-3680 skdadl Sun, 02 Nov 2008 23:37:40 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=1006#comment-3680 Very rich post. Thanks so much. Very rich post. Thanks so much.

]]>