XXXI. Commentary-The Road Ahead: Jane Dalton

• Author: Jane Dalton
• Pages: 477

believe that September 11th proved beyond any reasonable doubt that international treaties and other negotiated documents are not sufficient, by themselves, to win the War on Terrorism. I was in the Pentagon when the attack came and there is no doubt in my mind that the Pentagon and the United States were attacked with weapons of mass effects. Some 3,200 people from more than 90 countries throughout the world died on that day.2 This was an attack on democracy, on liberty and on religious freedom. This was not the first armed attack by these terrorists on these core American values either. This was one of a continuing series of attacks, beginning in 1993, if not before, with the first World Trade Center bombing. These armed attacks included the 1998 embassy attacks in Kenya and Tanzania and continued with the tragic attack on USS Cole in 2000.

For me then, it is interesting to consider the concept of preemption or anticipatory self-defense while in the middle of an armed conflict as these two concepts do not seem well juxtaposed at times. In World War II and the Gulf 1. Navy Captain Jane Dalton is currently the Legal Advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

2. See Fact Sheet: September 11th, 2001 Basic Facts, Department of State (Aug. 25, 2002), available at http://www.state.gov/coalition/cr/fs/12701.htm (Oct. 30, 2002).

   War, enemy forces were declared hostile. No hostile intent was necessary before striking enemy forces. Being engaged in armed conflict, the United States appropriately took the fight to the enemy, not waiting for the enemy to come to us, nor waiting for some indication of hostile intent or hostile act. Looking at the series of events occurring since 1993, it is clear that the United States is currently involved in an armed conflict, an ongoing conflict where preemptive or anticipatory self-defense is not an issue.

   If one were to ask leaders of al Qaeda this instant, whether or not they were involved in an armed conflict with the United States, they would assuredly answer yes. Their actions have made this clear as have their words. I believe that they are at this very moment planning more attacks on the Unites States for the very next possible instant that they can accomplish these attacks.

   I concur with John Murphy that imminence takes on a new meaning when you are talking about weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps the new paradigm regarding such imminence 6r immediacy is not that used in World War II or in Iraq...