![handle is hein.journals/nfdnsaisy4 and id is 1 raw text is:
EDITORIAL
John B. Bellinger III, principal legal counsel to Condoleezza Rice, gave a speech
at the London School of Economics on October 31, 2006. His subject was the
legality and legitimacy of the United States' actions in its 'global war on terrorism',
with a special focus on the issue of the Guantinamo detention camp. Subsequently,
the speech was published in the German Law Journal, which is the version of the
speech referred to here.1 In London, Bellinger described as 'vexing' the situation
whereby 'so many myths and misunderstandings about United States policies [had]
proliferated' and wanted 'to provide a comprehensive public explanation' (Bellinger
2007a, 735).
Bellinger's first point was that the United States is not conducting police action,
but rather waging a genuine war against an identifiable enemy, the Taliban, formerly
the government of Afghanistan, and al Qaida. Some of the critics had argued that the
war must have ended when the Taliban were removed from power and the new
government was installed. According to Bellinger, this is an incorrect view in that it
wrongly presumes that there can be war only between nation states. The Taliban
group and al Qaida still exist and continue fighting the United States, in Afghanistan
and elsewhere. Thus, the war-is-over argument is evidently not 'consistent with the
facts on the ground' (id. 737). It is thesefacts on the ground that determine whether
there is a war still going on.
Other critics, according to Bellinger, admit that it is appropriate to consider the
United States action as war. Yet the United States should not, according to those
critics, be conferred the rights of a warring state anywhere on the globe: it should
limit its military action to Afghanistan. This, for Bellinger, is wishful thinking. If al
Qaida restricted its activities to the territory of Afghanistan all would be fine, he
maintains, but 'that is not the reality we face' (id. 739). According to Bellinger, the
United States has the right to use military force in the territory of another country, if
that country fails to prevent terrorists using its soil (ib.). The United States does not
1 The speech is also available on the London School of Economics homepage
<www.lse.ac.uk>, search 'Bellinger', and on the United States' Department of State
homepage <www.state.gov/s/l/rls/76039.htm>. Doctor Silja N.U. Vaneky from the
Heidelberg-based Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law
responded to Bellinger's speech in the same issue of the German Law Journal. In reply to
Vaneky, Bellinger wrote another piece that was published in the German Law Journal in
September this year. See Vaneky 2007 and Bellinger 2007b.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/nfdnsaisy4&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most