Foreign Correspondence

[Amaunet]

You are absolutely right. I want to make one observation and then get back to you later on something else. That point being the difference in the pre-emptive policies of the U.S. and Russia.

First a pre-emptive strike is exactly that of which Nuremberg condemned Germany.

"To initiate a war of aggression," said the judges in the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi leadership, "is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." In stating this guiding principle of international law, the judges specifically rejected German arguments of the "necessity" for pre-emptive attacks against other countries. – Pilger

A pre-emptive attack is an act of aggression, you better be damned sure of what you are doing.

Our pre-emptive attacks can include the possible use of nuclear weapons and we only need suspect that a country might be a threat in the future, no proof required, yet we will nuke them. Is it any wonder the world perceives China as being the more benevolent country? Considering China that is scary.

Russia says it will not use nuclear force in a pre-emptive attack.

UT – ( MOSCOW) Moscow’s recent announcement that it is prepared to act “preemptively” marks a much more important change in policy than has been recognized by most in the media.

It is true that the idea has been floated in the past, but in the aftermath of the slaughter in Beslan, there is an increasing possibility that Russia will do exactly that. Furthermore, the changes that recently occurred in the upper ranks of the Russian military will make implementing such a strategy considerably easier. First, the question of preemption. Just what do the Russians mean when they use that term. To begin with, Colonel General Yuri Baluyevsky, the new Chief of the General Staff, explained as follows. “Our position on preemptive strikes has been stated before, but I will repeat it. We will take steps to liquidate terror bases in any region.” Baluyevsky made it clear that while Russia would use all means possible to deal with terrorism, the use of nuclear weapons is ruled out. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Russians are ready to ignore national boundaries if the fight against terrorism demands it. At present, there is concern that the Russian military will move into Georgia to destroy what some in the Kremlin claim is a sanctuary for Chechen guerillas.
#msg-4020491


U.S. pre-emptive policy
The true horror of this administration’s pre-emptive policy is that it is based on SUSPICION. Suspicion is the act or an instance of suspecting something wrong without proof or on slight evidence No proof is required. In the wake of Sept. 11, we are told, a preemptive strike against Iraq (or any other unfriendly government or suspected terrorist state) is our absolute right as an aggrieved nation. Proof of hostile actions or evil intentions directed against the US is not necessary, just a reasonable suspicion that the bad actor in Baghdad wishes us ill and might, at some future date, act out his aggressive fantasies

Even more disturbing, however, the doctrine of preemption threatens not only to extend American hyperpower across the globe without limits, but to legitimize any nation's attack on any other based not on existing but on perceived threat. It vastly expands the scope of legitimate state-to-state combat. Such a change could redound against the United States should other beleaguered nations facing the specter of weapons of mass destruction-India, once again, could be a case in point-apply the administration's preemptive framework and let loose the dogs of war. The commentariat has debated ad nauseum exactly what “proof” George Bush and Tony Blair have of Iraq's misdeeds, but this line of questioning misses the point: for a preemptive strike, they need not proof but merely suspicion.
http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/~perspy/issues/2002/oct/editorial1.html


On Sept. 14, 2002, President Bush signed a secret document, National Security Presidential Directive 17, which stated, in part: "The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force—including potentially nuclear weapons—to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies."
http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2003/030224nukefirst.html


We note with grave concern the Los Angeles Times report of Jan. 25 and 26 that your administration is actively considering the use of U.S. nuclear weapons in the event that Iraq attacks with chemical or biological weapons, or to preemptively strike sites believed to store or manufacture chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

Sincerely,

Edward M. Kennedy
(D-Mass.) Dianne Feinstein
(D-Calif.)
Patrick J. Leahy
(D-Vt.) Jon S. Corzine
(D-N.J.)
Byron L. Dorgan
(D-N.D.) Patty Murray
(D-Wash.)
Frank Lautenberg
(D-N.J.) Jack Reed
(D-R.I.)
Daniel K. Akaka
(D-Hawaii) Tim Johnson
(D-S.D.)

http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/NPT/2003prepcom/10SenatorsLetter.htm

We can attack any country with nuclear weapons merely on suspicion that they might be a threat someday.

-Am