It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Imminent Threat: From the White House web site

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 04:38 PM
link   
September 17, 2002
"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."

www.whitehouse.gov...

www.whitehouse.gov...

************************

February 10, 2003:

QUESTION: What about NATO's role? Belgium now says it will veto any attempt to provide help to Turkey to defend itself. Is this something the administration can live with, or is it a major obstacle?

[White House spokesman] MR. McCLELLAN: Two points. We support the request under Article IV of Turkey. And I think it's important to note that the request from a country under Article IV that faces an imminent threat goes to the very core of the NATO alliance and its purpose.

..................................

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I think what's important to remind NATO members, remind the international community is that this type of request under Article IV goes to the core of the NATO alliance.

QUESTION: Is this some kind of ultimate test of the alliance?

MR. McCLELLAN: This is about an imminent threat

www.whitehouse.gov...



At what point do some of you acknowledge that your team is lying to you?

At what point do you acknowledge that this is an impeachable offense?




posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
February 10, 2003:

QUESTION: What about NATO's role? Belgium now says it will veto any attempt to provide help to Turkey to defend itself. Is this something the administration can live with, or is it a major obstacle?



It's a little bit old now.


Anyway, we ( Belgians ) had great fun with that situation. We had fun for 2 reasons. The first one was to seeing Belgium trying to oppose to the USA. And the sec one was to hear Turkey crying for help because of a " possible " Irak threat. We really laughed with the last one.



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 05:09 PM
link   
I laughed right along with you!



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 05:41 PM
link   
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 pre-emptive strike."



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 threat".

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"
www.spinsanity.org...



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.



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Seekerof]



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join