How would you compare and contrast it to:

http://tinyurl.com/ay7f4nf

**
Israel’s Preemptive Strikes On Syria: Self-Defense Under International Law?

By Stewart M. Patrick and Andrew Reddie
COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS/Worldcrunch

SNIP

Judgement about the legality of armed force in instances of self-defense typically have to pass what is often referred to as “the Caroline test” of imminence. In 1837, British forces attacked a U.S.-flagged steamboat (the SS Caroline) being used to supply rebels in Upper Canada against the British colonial government. In his famous analysis of the incident, the U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster exculpated the British. “[E]ven supposing the necessity of the moment authorized them to enter the territories of the United States at all, [they] did nothing unreasonable or excessive.” The act was justified, inasmuch as the “necessity of self-defense was instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.” Subsequent international legal development has generally embraced this idea insofar as self-defense is allowed in anticipation of attacks that are imminent, though the precise contours of this standard remain contested.

Much more problematic is the launching of a “preemptive” attack against a threat that is developing but not yet imminent. A decade ago, in its 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States [PDF], the administration of George W.Bush enunciated a right to “preemption”. The basis of this controversial doctrine was that in an age of catastrophic threats, the United States needed the leeway to launch armed attacks to protect itself from catastrophic threats that were emerging but not yet fully realized.

SNIP

Clearly, Israel holds a broad view of what constitutes its self-defense. This view is sustained by the fact that Israel and Syria have failed to sign a peace agreement following their most recent conflagration in 1982. For their part, Israel and Hezbollah have remained at odds following conflict in 2006 while Israel, along with the United States, has labeled them a terrorist organization. These geopolitical concerns explain the circumspect reaction from Washington. As Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta explained drily, “the United States supports whatever steps are taken to make sure these weapons don’t fall into the hands of terrorists.”

Israel’s use of force may be a prudent act of statecraft. Whether it is formally legal is another matter, and doubtless of secondary concern in Jerusalem.
**

Yup, yup, & yup.

—–

Re: Sandi Saunders @ 12:26 pm

I’d agree, were the “experts” not saying that alternative power was going to replace petroleum fuel over time and were that process not already afoot (as a small %, so far, to be sure).

IMHO, it is time to get ahead of the curve and level the playing field before we are too far down the line and the NIMBY / WYSDWYS resistance get too large a voter base, IMHO.

Has obama been excoriated by the main stream media for doing what he has done? Where is the out-rage by the libs on this blog?

Nope, and nowhere.

Hypocrites.

Well said.

I totally agree. I don’t really care who commits the abuse of power. It’s still abuse of power. The sorry fact is, anyone can be secretly declared an “enemy of the people”, if you will, and either incarcerated without benefit of Habeas Corpus, or executed. And these abuses of power are always done in the name of the people, to “protect us”. That’s how police states work. Welcome to the United Police State of America.

The federal gas tax is (in theory) distributed to the individual states based on a formula. Within Virginia (and most states, as far as I know) the state’s gas tax is not distributed to local governments not based on where each vehicle drives but rather is distributed by a formula.

The current State-to-State gas tax is based on what State you buy the gas in, not where you drive. I can assure you that I seldom pay gas tax in WV, but drive there quite often. So, I think the objection you raise is not unique to a mileage tax.

Maybe the national mileage tax could be collected and distributed by such a formula — if the conformation of mileage issue is resolved.

The “who get the money” v. “who maintains the roads” under a State-to-State mileage tax might not be significantly different than the State-to-State gas tax.

IMO, our time for effecting a rewind is past. All we can do is pray for restraint, whistle-blowers and the power of the free press. Sad, ain’t it.

As I am neither a Liberal nor a Conservative, I don’t have a dog in this drone fight — as to which POTUSs did what.

That said, a curse on both their house for any Judge, Jury, and Executioner scheme — sans well documented combatant status requirements, immediate danger, etc, IMHO.

The “tool” is of less concern to me than is the preemptive non-battlefield nature sans judicial oversight.

I know that the traditional battlefield has changed. But….

See: http://tinyurl.com/ay3sv2x

Ideally, the fees collected would be indexed based on the relative impact of the vehicle…i.e. larger/heavier vehicles have a higher per-mile fee than a compact car, simply due to the physical wear larger vehicles create. Some of that is captured with the fuels tax, since larger/heavier vehicles almost always use more fuel, but it still doesn’t appropriately collect on the commercial vehicles that generate by far the most physical damage and wear on the infrastructure.

Additionally, it would be best if fees were largely collected/allocated based on where the driving was done…i.e. if a driver uses primarily interstates for driving, the fees should fund interstate systems…and if someone is driving mostly secondary and minor primary highways in a rural area…likewise. The tricky part is how to accomplish that. The only way wuld be some form of GPS tracking device in every vehicle, and I oppose that. Without it though, how would out-of-state travel be taxed? For states like Virginia with a lot of tourist travel and through-freight traffic, that’s a huge chunk of change that we currently collect on with fuel sales (part of why I oppose the plans being debated in the GA).

The other issue with a miles-travel tax is, if we simplify the matter and tax based on odometer readings at annual inspection time, and send all revenues to the state to then allocate based on the various competing needs (essentially how we do it now with existing revenue sources), how does the collection for those taxes get handled? Is that information collected and sent to Richmond, where annual assessments are mailed out? Would they be paid as a part of other state taxes, or have a separate timeframe? Could people set up calculated monthly payroll withholdings to cover estimated mileage, then submit actual numbers with their 760 to cover overage or reimbursements? Does the owner pay the fee at the time of the inspection, with the station remitting the fee to the state (major fraud/non-payment potential there)? With buying/selling vehicles, how would such a system ensure that all miles driven were actually accounted for? New beauracracy?

I think in terms of what I’ve seen, it’s probably the most fair way to apply user fees for transportation infrastructure…but it’s also the most complicated to implement.