posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 05:41 PM
Yeah, I'll take a stab at this post.....
BT, I'm going to try and be as objectively fair as possible on this by simply quoting from this very nuetral article on "imminent threat":
"So why has the phrase become so commonly used and an object of such contention? It first gained wide usage based on the National Security
Strategy of the United States, a document published in September 2002 that outlined the U.S. government's policy for national defense. In it, the
Bush administration argued that the concept in international law of "imminent threat" - which allows countries to defend themselves against
opponents who are poised to attack them - must be given a new meaning in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks:
'For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against
forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the
existence of an imminent threat-most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.
We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to
attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of
mass destruction-weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning...
...The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the
threat, the greater is the risk of inaction- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty
remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if
necessary, act preemptively.'
Blogger Josh Marshall argued that this assertion justifies claims that the White House did say Iraq poses an imminent threat. "For my money, one of
the most revealing quotes is the passage in the National Security Strategy the White House released in 2002, which essentially argues that the concept
of 'imminent threat' must be reinterpreted to apply to countries like Iraq," he wrote.
However, the National Security Strategy language above does not actually apply the term "imminent threat" to Iraq. It instead contends that the
legal concept "imminent threat" embodies should be expanded to allow action against threatening "rogue states" and terrorists even when there is
not direct evidence that they are mobilizing forces for an attack. Essentially, it argues that we sometimes cannot wait for imminence to launch a
The article is a very informative one and given from a non-bias and as nuetral an article as I have seen on this subject or topic of "imminent
The article ends with this:
"As we have pointed out before, many of the arguments for war made by the Bush administration were deceptive or false. However, critics who make
it appear that the Bush administration's case relied primarily on claims of an imminent threat distort a more complex argument that painted Iraq as
an intolerable, but not imminent, threat. Those unfair attacks do not make it legitimate for Bush supporters to jump on any critic who uses the
phrase, however, or claim that nobody in the administration ever suggested Iraq could pose an "imminent threat." Complexity is not an excuse for
cheap shots from either side."
If one reads and fully understands what the last paragraph mentions, they will come to the conclusion that it implies far more descretion in using the
"claims of lie or policy (imminent threat)." A very good read and very well said and layed out.
"Sorting out the "imminent threat" debate"
As to the impeachable offense....I guess time will determine this, though in 'searching' on what and how the impeachment process defines and
clarifies "an impeachable offence", I was unable to find any set definitive definitions or such clarifications. I guess if you and others seek an
"impeachment", I would say 'do' what you feel that you need to do and in the process of how it is determined and done, but do it from a objective
view point and stance rather than a more subjective viewpoint and stance.
[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Seekerof]