"Two interesting passages in today's Nobel acceptance speech."

[ProSense]

Obama on jus in bello and jus ad bellum

Posted by The Editors

The following post is by Gregory H. Fox, international law scholar and and friend of Democracy Arsenal

Two interesting passages in today's Nobel acceptance speech. First, Obama seems to endorse a right of humanitarian intervention:

This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

Second, he rejects the idea that adherence to humanitarian law is based on reciprocity:

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant - the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.

This is what happens when your President is a lawyer!

[SpiralHawk]

1. "Thank heavens Obama has prohibited torture." - JC

"Because the republicon chickenhawk faux 'christians' were just going ape shit with their unmitigated, dehumanizing brutality -- the same as the chickenhawk hate-mongers of 2,000 years ago did to me." - JC

[Clio the Leo]

2. And yet many of our own party seem to have adopted the notion...

.... that the only human rights that should be protected our those belonging to Americans.

Sad.

[Duende azul]

4. Misleading. The human rights america is interested in strangely pop up in

geostrategically significant places.
That's all about that.

And as you seem pretty intelligent you must know that you are delivering a cheap talkingpoint in justification of the war.
How about the human rights of the dead and mutilated civilians?

You warapologists never cease in trotting out the meme "we are in it for the human rights", don't you? Preferably in oneliners.

In the current case of Afghanistan, the shit started when the US (Brzezinski) propped up the mujahedeen against the secular government. In order to lure the Soviets into their Vietnam. Your allies were of a really dubious human rights record.

[GeorgeGist]

3. As I'm sure you are unaware ...

Lawyers bullshit when necessary to protect their clients.

[Duende azul]

5. If he wants to abide abide by the Geneva Conventions, why are there no prosecutions

of warcriminals?

Why is there even the need to "re"affirm? Is he admitting there have been violations?

Wow the deeper one looks into this, the scarier it gets.
"a vicious adversary that abides by no rules" wtf?
America wanted to go there, not the other way around.

[Cha]

6. Thank you, Pro Sense..

I want to read this furher when I get back to night.