This 'incident' was part of the justification for the Iraq Invasion!!! Before reading the justification, I had never heard of this event.

24. Nevertheless, the right of anticipatory self-defence is quite narrowly defined. Ever since the United Kingdom-US exchange in what has become known as the Caroline case in 1837-38, the right has been confined to instances where the threat of armed attack was imminent. In my opinion, that still reflects international law and, in so far as talk of a doctrine of "pre-emption" is intended to refer to a broader right to respond to threats which might materialise some time in the future, I believe that such a doctrine has no basis in law.

[b...

This 'incident' was part of the justification for the Iraq Invasion!!! Before reading the justification, I had never heard of this event.

24. Nevertheless, the right of anticipatory self-defence is quite narrowly defined. Ever since the United Kingdom-US exchange in what has become known as the Caroline case in 1837-38, the right has been confined to instances where the threat of armed attack was imminent. In my opinion, that still reflects international law and, in so far as talk of a doctrine of "pre-emption" is intended to refer to a broader right to respond to threats which might materialise some time in the future, I believe that such a doctrine has no basis in law.

Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Minutes of Evidence

Memorandum by Professor Christopher Greenwood,
CMG, QC


THE LEGALITY OF USING FORCE AGAINST IRAQ

Well it's all very nice to quote "international law,' peace treaties, Geneva conventions, when is a first strike 'fair,' etc. and I DO wish such words had binding power.

But they don't.

Consequently the only way I see to moderate and control nations is to elect better leaders. Again and again.

The USA is wasting it's resources in Iraq, failing to capture the real guilty ones who did 9/11, planing to go to war again Iran because we have either a dupe or a madman for President and, basically, it seems he can invade whoever he wants.

So, to be real, we have to keep these madmen out of office because words and "law," mean nothing to them, not facts, nor empathy or compassion, justice or anyt...

Well it's all very nice to quote "international law,' peace treaties, Geneva conventions, when is a first strike 'fair,' etc. and I DO wish such words had binding power.

But they don't.

Consequently the only way I see to moderate and control nations is to elect better leaders. Again and again.

The USA is wasting it's resources in Iraq, failing to capture the real guilty ones who did 9/11, planing to go to war again Iran because we have either a dupe or a madman for President and, basically, it seems he can invade whoever he wants.

So, to be real, we have to keep these madmen out of office because words and "law," mean nothing to them, not facts, nor empathy or compassion, justice or anything like that.

This is not a New Issue. For one of the most blunt, ancient and classic impositions of 'might makes right,' the 'Melian dialogue," ...part of the History of the Peloponnesian War by the ancient Greek historian Thucydides, is very informative.

The Melian people had all the same wonderful sounding reasons and rationals for why they should not be invaded (or forced to pay heavy tribute).

The Athenians had ships and troops.

The coldness of the Athenians does stand out. Even the very discussion or talk or "justice," was 'not on.'

And this same story, from 416 B.C. to today, in most every country in the world, has happened the same way: "Power rules."

Might makes right. 'The only real power comes out of the barrel of a gun,' and other such sweet talk.

Thus, choosing who's in charge is the only real control over we have: i.e., electing better leaders.
IMHO.