[Majordomo,
Saturday February 26, 2005 at 4:00pm]
Panel 6: Debate - Freedom and Preemption
This post open for comments below:
The title of Panel 6 is: Freedom and Preemption: Strategic Considerations Concerning Preemptive Action in Iraq and Beyond, and it features:
* Professor Alan M. Dershowitz, Harvard Law School
* Mr. David B. Rivkin, Jr., Baker & Hostetler, LLP
* MODERATOR: Professor Steven G. Calabresi, Northwestern University School of Law and Chairman, The Federalist Society
The official description of this debate follows:
This panel will examine the strategic equities—the costs and benefits—of the use (and corresponding threat) of preemptive action both in the Iraqi theatre and as a general policy of the United States. The Bush doctrine explicitly mentions strategic preemption and assigns it a high priority as a tool of statecraft. While many see preemption as a necessary policy in light of modern security threats, the doctrine remains highly controversial. This panel will debate such questions as: Under what circumstances (if any) should preemptive action be used? Was the use of preemptive action in Iraq justified from a strategic perspective? To what extent should preemptive action be highlighted in our declaratory policy? Has the Bush Administration properly balanced the use of preemption and deterrence with other foreign policy imperatives, e.g., maintaining good relations with our allies and international organizations? The debate will be pertinent not only for analyzing the strategic decisions in Iraq but also for determining the optimal policy for the future.
Don't expect much blogging on this panel until Sunday, as the banquet, and keynote speech, follow immediately afterwards.
The title of Panel 6 is: Freedom and Preemption: Strategic Considerations Concerning Preemptive Action in Iraq and Beyond, and it features:
* Professor Alan M. Dershowitz, Harvard Law School
* Mr. David B. Rivkin, Jr., Baker & Hostetler, LLP
* MODERATOR: Professor Steven G. Calabresi, Northwestern University School of Law and Chairman, The Federalist Society
The official description of this debate follows:
This panel will examine the strategic equities—the costs and benefits—of the use (and corresponding threat) of preemptive action both in the Iraqi theatre and as a general policy of the United States. The Bush doctrine explicitly mentions strategic preemption and assigns it a high priority as a tool of statecraft. While many see preemption as a necessary policy in light of modern security threats, the doctrine remains highly controversial. This panel will debate such questions as: Under what circumstances (if any) should preemptive action be used? Was the use of preemptive action in Iraq justified from a strategic perspective? To what extent should preemptive action be highlighted in our declaratory policy? Has the Bush Administration properly balanced the use of preemption and deterrence with other foreign policy imperatives, e.g., maintaining good relations with our allies and international organizations? The debate will be pertinent not only for analyzing the strategic decisions in Iraq but also for determining the optimal policy for the future.
Don't expect much blogging on this panel until Sunday, as the banquet, and keynote speech, follow immediately afterwards.
Professor Dershowitz extended a similar line of reasoning in his assessment of what pre-emptive actions are acceptable. It was most apparent during the q&a, when he evaluated Israeli preemptive actions as "legal" and "illegal" based on how other countries have come to view them in the light of history. Thus, he reaches the conclusion that Suez was illegal preemption, but Osirak was legal preemption.