A Trial to End All Terrorism: How America Could Have Won the War on Terrorism Before it Even Began, with the Trial of Only One Man
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. - Sun Tzu (The Art of War, Chapter 3: Attack by Stratagem) Operation Enduring Freedom, America’s military mission in Afghanistan, was launched on October 7, 2001. This was less than a month after the entirely unexpected events of September 11, 2001, leaving very little time for scrutiny, analysis, or discussion over the merits of any potential options, and the legal basis for the war. Canada had even less time to assess its participation. Canadians have since been given reason in the subsequent invasion of Iraq to doubt the credibility of claims made by the Bush government. But this skepticism has not been applied retroactively to the first response to September 11, 2001 to view the Afghan mission with a critical eye. Although Canada's current role in Afghanistan is sanctioned under the United Nations Security Council through the International Security Assistance Force in December 2001, Canadian military involvement in Afghanistan precedes this date. This paper will consider the legal basis used by the U.S. for invading Afghanistan, and the legal obligations it creates for Canada as a NATO member. An overview of the legal requirements of necessity and proportionality will be provided, as well as examples of numerous opportunities for non-military solutions, especially as it relates to extradition. Background information distinguishing the Taliban and Al-Qai'da, as well as the legal systems and Pashtunwali cultural code that govern Afghanistan, will also help identify the legal obligations the Taliban may have had towards the United States and the global community as it related to terrorism. The conclusion will examine what the consequences may have been if alternative courses of action had been adopted. In light of Senator Kenny’s revelations that Canada cannot achieve its goals in Afghanistan, that the mission will cost over $18.14 billion ($1,500 per household), and with recent allegations in the House of complicity in torture, these legal questions form an important backdrop to the ongoing dialogue in Canada about the Afghan mission.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".