Ten answers to ten questions

I am probably not the target of these questions, since I am not pro-immediate withdrawal, but I found them interesting none-the-less. I probably would have left answers to a few of the ones I found more compelling as a comment over on Positive Liberty, but comments were closed. Since this is more than a comment, I will answer them all.

1) When, if ever, is preemptive war is justified?

I'll assume that "war" means a commitment of U.S. military forces with the intent of overthrowing a government. Grenada was a war by this definition. When

• there is a consensus that there is a imminent and specific threat to United States interests to preempt
• the evidence for and against the imminence of this specific threat has been communicated to the American people
• there is sufficient political support for a universal draft to support the war effort

Anything short of that, and a preemptive war is not justified.

2) When, if ever, is the United States justified in removing a foreign dictator from power?

When said dictator has comitted an act of war against the United States or against someone with whom the United States has treaty obligations with which require our intervention; in the situation covered in question 1; and in the case of a broad international consensus action which is also supported by the citizenry.

3) Do you agree with the position—recently quoted approvingly on this blog by Dr. Kuznicki—that Islamic terrorism is not a serious threat, but a hobgoblin used by the Bush Administration to increase its authority?

To some extent. I think the administration's failing is not so much in the overstatement of the threat of terrorism as in the conflation of that threat with the problems in Iraq.

4) Precisely what (if anything) do you propose the United States do about the Iranian nuclear weapons program?

The same thing we do about the North Korean nuclear weapons program.

5) Do you believe that the United States should defend Israel, either militarily, by the sale of arms, or in other ways (please specify)?

Yes. I also think that the U.S. should call Israel on violations of international law no more (and no less, not that that has been a real issue) than it calls Syria, the PA or Saudi Arabia on such violations.

6) Can you name a specific case in which an American dissenter, not actually affiliated with a terrorist organization, has been jailed or otherwise deprived of civil rights under the PATRIOT Act?

Can you name a specific case in which a specific act of terrorism was prevented for each provision of the PATRIOT Act? I don't need a specific case of bad faith on the part of the federal government to question giving it some power or other; the government needs to give me some justification for ceding to it a given power.

7) Do you believe that we ought to remove American troops from Iraq immediately, regardless of the consequences to Iraqis?

No. However, I do believe that the Iraqis should have a say in the matter.

8) With regard to interrogation or incarceration: do you believe that infringements of religious sensitivities (e.g., mistreating the Koran) or personal sensibilities (e.g., making men wear women’s underwear on their heads) ought to be regarded as comparable with physical torture?

No. But I should note that being "regarded as comparable with physical torture" is an extremely low bar.

9) What, if any, legal consequences do you believe flow from a declaration of war?

I disagree with Clarence Thomas that executive actions are immune from judicial review after a congressional authorization of military force. The executive should be given some latitude during a time of war, but that does not exempt it from review.

10) Do you believe that the Bush Administration purposely manipulated intelligence information in order to persuade the Congress to authorize military intervention in Iraq?

I do believe that the "mushroom cloud" language used by the administration was intentionally hyperbolic. I believe that the administration did not share the caveats of the intelligence community regarding the threat of Saddam Hussein with the people in order to minimize opposition to the war. I also believe that the reasons that motivated the administration to war in Iraq, the establishment of a Democracy (other than Israel) in the Middle East, did not have the support of the American people, and that the administration intentionally overstated the threat of Iraq and intentionally mingled references to the threat of Saddam Hussein with references to September 11th in order to generate additional support. And I believe that these actions have had the effect that you cite in this earlier post (quoting Angelo Codevillia)

The United States is not at peace, and it is not making war. To this extent alone the accusation of empire—the dawdling kind that wastes its core resources—sticks. If we continue to trifle with empire rather than establishing peace, we shall reap stalemate, retreat, and the domestic strife that is empire’s bitterest consequence.

The Bush administration brought us into war without the full and informed support of the American people, and without an adequate post-war strategy. Bush should have listened to his father:

"Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
--George Herbert Walker Bush, A World Transformed, 1998

By ignoring this, George W. Bush has harmed our country.