Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
IMO, Chertoff's proposal would simply empower our rivals by giving them a legal instrument that we claim to support.
Empower them to do what?

We claim to support the UN as well but ignore it when it suits us. We've been doing that for over 50 years.
The Russians did this exact thing with Georgia using the Kosovo precedent we set.
So they said. Sophomoric sophistry designed to appeal to European social democratic values. The Russians and the US (and the French and the British...) have been intervening in violation of one rule or precedent or another for years. that's unlikley to change. China, India and / or Japan and Brazil may join the party but it'll likely be a while.
The proposal by Chertoff was not necessary for US/NATO action in Afghanistan -- what has changed to make us need to use it now?
Not necessary, just to our future advantage to have it available -- not that we'll necessarily totally heed it.
And if it's not necessary (read: there are alternatives to justifying US action), why bother legitimizing the intentions/actions of our near-peer competitors?
Because the power structure likes to have the law on their side realizing full well that they'll ignore it when they wish -- knowing that applies to others as well. As I said above, it's a 90% or thereabouts solution, no more.
I also wonder what the consequences are at home in forming domestic concensus on policy when we make these kinds of institutions/laws based on moral arguments, only to selectively apply them.
As we have done for over 200 years? Same reaction in the future as in the past, I suspect -- the One Third Rule applies then, now and probably in the future.