When is preemption justified?

Here's the new (as of 2002) National Security Strategy of the United States.

Here's an article from the PBS show Frontline assessing this new strategy.

Give some thought to how justified you think it is for a nation to launch a preemptive attack on another nation. What conditions, if any, justify a preemptive attack?

Consider this article from a Yale Law School professor, who is critical of preemption.

Then consider this article from a legal advisor to the Department of State, who supports preemption.

Finally, below is an article about the meaning of the word "imminent" from the February 8, 2004 New York Times.

THE WAY WE LIVE NOW: 2-8-04: ON LANGUAGE; Imminent

'I have always been against George Bush's war in Iraq,'' Gen. Wesley K. Clark said the week before the New Hampshire primary. ''Not because Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat. But because Saddam wasn't an imminent threat.''

Next day, in a televised debate, Dr. Howard Dean, prefacing a statement with ''my words are not always precise, but my meaning is very, very clear,'' stated, ''Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States.''

That adjective has emerged as central to the charge being made by those critical of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq that there was no urgent reason -- no triggering impetus in international law -- to justify our pre-emptive military action to overthrow Hussein's regime.

(In my other columnar life, I am an unreconstructed Wilsonian interventionist; in On Language, however, I knock myself out to play it straight.)

First, let's handle the easy part: the difference between immanent and imminent. The one with the a means ''inherent,'' rooted in the Latin for ''remaining within''; you can believe that God is immanent in humans.

Imminent means something else entirely, rooted in the part of a mountain that projects overhead, threatening those below. ''Overhanging'' is its essence -- an immediate threat, a sinister event close at hand -- unlike impending, which is not so near in time. It looms ominously, with none of the hopeful connotation of the voguish upcoming. (Vermont Royster, the late editor of The Wall Street Journal: ''If I see upcoming in the paper again, I'll be downcoming and someone will be outgoing.'') Imminent is alarming, its menace nigh: ''something bad is on the way and soon.''

Now to the political controversy surrounding the word. On Sept. 17, 2002, just after the first anniversary of the terrorist attack of 9/11, the Bush White House issued a white paper spelling out the need for ''preemption'' (not hyphenated) in the national security strategy of the U.S. ''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.'' The legitimacy of ''preemption'' was often conditioned ''on the existence of an imminent threat -- most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies and air forces preparing to attack.'' Because rogue states and terrorists strike without such warning, ''we must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries.'' Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, brought this bureaucratese down to earth with ''new technology requires new thinking about when a threat actually becomes 'imminent.'''

Did Bush ever apply that adjective to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein? Two weeks after the white paper, the president in a radio address on Sept. 28, 2002, said of Hussein's regime, ''The danger to our country is grave, and it is growing.'' He said that Iraq ''could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes,'' but he did not use the legal trigger word imminent.

Evidently Bush had been briefed on the weight of that word. On Oct. 21 of that year, asked by Ron Fournier of The Associated Press whether North Korea was ''an imminent threat to the U.S.'' in its nuclear buildup, the president replied carefully: ''You know, that's an operative word. . . . I believe we can do it peacefully.''

A White House spokesman used the word in February 2003 in the context of NATO protecting Turkey from retaliation, but Bush used it in his 2003 State of the Union address in a way that disputed its necessity: ''Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?''

Pentagon reporters aware of the trigger word followed that up in asking Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld if Hussein's threat was imminent. He answered with a question of his own: ''At what moment was the threat of Sept. 11 imminent? . . . Was it imminent a week before, a month before, a year before, an hour before? Was it imminent while you could still stop it, or was it imminent only after it started and you couldn't stop it?'' Though pressed further, he would say only that the Hussein regime, with weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorist activities, was ''a danger to the United States and a danger to the region.''

Senators supporting and opposing the president's girding for war showed their understanding of the operative word. ''The threat posed by Saddam Hussein may not be imminent,'' Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader, said on Oct. 10, 2002, ''but it is real, it is growing and it cannot be ignored.'' John Kerry, basing his judgment on the intelligence supplied him and on the Bush address, picked up Daschle's adjective on Jan. 23, 2003: ''So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real . . . .'' At the same time, Ted Kennedy saw that the president had deliberately avoided the use of the trigger word and demanded ''convincing evidence of an imminent threat'' before committing troops to war, although a resolution authorizing the use of force had been passed months before.

So . . . did Bush claim an imminent threat? Interrogated in detail on this by Tony Snow of Fox News, Senator Jay Rockefeller, ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, who said in 2002 that ''I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat,'' replied about the Bush address in 2003: ''If the word imminent threat wasn't used, that was the predicate, that was the feeling that was given to the American people and to Congress.''

In case you've been wondering why this adjective has been the focus of so much attention, such careful use and nonuse -- you've just seen why. It's a word that issues a warning that marches a nation to war.

First, watch this short video to remind yourself of the characters...

Then, consider this parable...

And while we are thinking about the turn of the century, here's a report that contains that statistic I was looking for about the percent of houses with flush toilets in 1900... My stat is on page 20. There are some other interesting statistics as well, such as pages 10 and 11, which show how the country has shifted its population in the past 100 years.

Here's a video made to go with the Bob Dylan song The Ballad of Emmett Till.

Here's a video made by a high school student (I think) about a teenager named Martin Lee Anderson, who died while in custody of the Florida juvenile justice system. This happened one year ago, in January of 2006. The guards and the nurse in this case were charged with aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony. Trial is set for April 16, 2007.

Here's a Wikipedia article about the case.

Here's a video from the AP, posted by the New York Times.

Here's a link to the full video (this may not work on a Mac).

This is a good site for pictures of child laborers from 1908-12.

The second industrial revolution changed the face of America.

One of the biggest figures of that age (and that's kind of ironic, because he was only about five feet tall) was Andrew Carnegie.

The book talks about some of the amazing things that Carnegie did, and he did basically create the public library system in the US (before that, libraries were by subscription only)... but there was also the Homestead Strike, which understandably got him some bad press.

I find it interesting that Carnegie and Frick both seem to have, in some sense, "bought" history, so that their names today are associated with positive foundations and museums, rather than the gory details of how they treated workers.

This is actually a solid thesis about how Carnegie (and other "great" figures in history) should not be put up on pedastal, but should be viewed for all of his positive traits as well as his faults.

How do you think history books that your kids will read will treat someone such as Bill Gates?

I found this article about how Bill Gates works (it's paperless).

Here's a useful outline of US History.

Good job pointing to some of the highlights of chapters 13-15 in class.

Here's some more context for you:

Expansion of Industry:




Westward Expansion:

Here's the pile of dead bison Jonathan found (from the 1870s).

Frederick Turner's Frontier Thesis is worth mentioning as well.

Politics (populism), Immigration and Urban Life:

details go here...

On top of page 2 this article, I wondered who Daniel Russell was, and why he didn't do something to stop the violence in Wilmington.

I also wanted to learn more about Alfred Waddell (fourth line from the bottom of page 2).

What questions did you have as you read this article? And what have you done to try to answer your questions? Please comment below.

Here's a PBS source about 1898.

Here is the 1898 Wilmington Race Riot Commission's website.

And here's a UNC website about the events of 1898.

And here's a controversy about a statue of Josephus Daniels.