| |
|
Some quotes from the interview:
quote:
salon:So you don't think our war in Afghanistan is an example of self-defense?
Chomsky: Is the United States under an armed attack?
I would think so.
Article 51 [of the U.N. charter] is very explicit and I believe it's correct. It says force can be used in self-defense against armed attack. Armed attack has a definition in international law. It means sudden, overwhelming, instantaneous ongoing attack. Nobody believes the U.S. is under armed attack.
-snip-
I want to be clear: Are you saying that because we're guilty of abuses against the
Islamic world and elsewhere, the use of U.S. force to disable these violent extremists is not justified?
I thought Michael Howard's proposal was quite reasonable and that could very well have involved the use of force. If you have criminal atrocities, it is legitimate to use force to apprehend those who are guilty and give them a fair trial. Incidentally, notice that nobody,including you and me, believes that that principle should apply to us. So we're all hopelessly immoral, including me. None of us believes that that principle should have been applied to the people who were condemned by the world court.
Very eeenteresting... |
|
|
