c-The threat of terror can use as anticipatory self-defense
Another justification used by USA in the war with Iraq that Iraq has linked with terrorist organization, the evidences cited in the report shows that Hussein supported a number of terrorists and a terrorist be an active not merely a passive supporter of the attack. These two statements illustrate the extent to which the U.S regards WMD and terrorism as being the paramount threats of our time. It is for this reason that the U.S and its allies cited the possession of WMD and links to terrorism as justifying the use of force against Iraq, under the doctrine of self-defense.
The U.S. military's first and only study looking into ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda showed no connection between the two, according to a military report released by the Pentagon, the report released by the Joint Forces Command five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, said it found no smoking gun after reviewing about 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the invasion. According to this argument the Iraq was not active terror threat for the U.S and they did not find any evidence the link between both of them. This is two justification to the use of force by the U.S to anticipatory self-defense in 2003. Under charter UN Article 51, intervention Iraq in 2003 was unlawful by USA. Under …show more content…
Under customary international law, states use force in anticipatory self-defense in order to avoid impending attacks. The established doctrine arises from an incident known as the Caroline incident. In 1837, the United States and the Great Britain were at peace and Canada was under British occupation rule, Canadians were engaged in an armed rebellion against the British. The Caroline, a privately-owned American steamship owned and operated by Americans, was used to transport men and provides across the Niagara River to assist the Canadian
Another justification used by USA in the war with Iraq that Iraq has linked with terrorist organization, the evidences cited in the report shows that Hussein supported a number of terrorists and a terrorist be an active not merely a passive supporter of the attack. These two statements illustrate the extent to which the U.S regards WMD and terrorism as being the paramount threats of our time. It is for this reason that the U.S and its allies cited the possession of WMD and links to terrorism as justifying the use of force against Iraq, under the doctrine of self-defense.
The U.S. military's first and only study looking into ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda showed no connection between the two, according to a military report released by the Pentagon, the report released by the Joint Forces Command five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, said it found no smoking gun after reviewing about 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the invasion. According to this argument the Iraq was not active terror threat for the U.S and they did not find any evidence the link between both of them. This is two justification to the use of force by the U.S to anticipatory self-defense in 2003. Under charter UN Article 51, intervention Iraq in 2003 was unlawful by USA. Under …show more content…
Under customary international law, states use force in anticipatory self-defense in order to avoid impending attacks. The established doctrine arises from an incident known as the Caroline incident. In 1837, the United States and the Great Britain were at peace and Canada was under British occupation rule, Canadians were engaged in an armed rebellion against the British. The Caroline, a privately-owned American steamship owned and operated by Americans, was used to transport men and provides across the Niagara River to assist the Canadian