Read other letters about this article

• Wednesday, November 19, 2008 04:03 PM

  -- jschultz

  "So long as our response was a proportional response to Canadian aggression then we would not be guilty of any war crimes." -- jschultz

  If that's the case, we should never have put Japanese on trial for war crimes after WWII since both sides in that conflict engaged in atrocities.

  I find your explanation regarding claiming "self-defense" as a justification for responding to a war crime against it rather confusing also. If there is no danger of the initial attack continuing, the term self defense is not applicable.

  If, for instance, a person gets his ass kicked in a bar fight which was started without justification, you're saying that the victim may claim the right of "self defense" to retaliate against the aggressor some time after the initial fight.

  If we were to use nuclear weapons in retaliation for a nuclear strike upon us with the expectation that such retaliation would end further nuclear attacks on us, then I can see where you could justify their use by the attacked country. However, once the immediate threat of attack has ended, self-defense no longer applies.

  Should we immediately declare that anyone attempting to board an aircraft with a "cutting instrument" be charged with terrorism and hauled off to Guantanamo? Of course not.

  —Jebbie Read Jebbie's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel