No pre-emptive strike without Manila’s consent

We are happy with the announcement that the United States has assured President Macapagal Arroyo that there will be no pre-emptive military strikes against international or local terrorists without the consent of the Philippine government.

We believe in pre-emptive strikes when based on reliable intelligence reports where there are terrorists who are ready to launch an attack, but definitely the country where these terrorists are active must give its consent. First, they must be given proof of the existence and the plans of the terrorists. Otherwise, any country can simply attack another and justify said attack by declaring that it was a pre-emptive move against a terrorist group, local or foreign.

The Americans, for instance, have received information that Iraq has armed itself with weapons to wage a terroristic attack. The US made representations with the United Nations for permission to see if Iraq indeed has such weapons.

Undoubtedly, many international terrorist groups are operating in many countries without their consent. It is different in cases where some countries willingly harbor terrorists and support their activities. That makes them not only sympathizers but accomplices of the terrorist groups. As such, they can be made liable for their acts.

But it will be sad if the day comes when a country can attack another country on the excuse that it is a pre-emptive act when actually no terrorists exist.

The United States has twice been the victim of unprovoked attacks. First was Pearl Harbor; second, the Sept. 11 bombing of the World Trade Center. We are positive that it is more than aware of the present terrorist problems, but it is to its credit it has informed our government that any steps it takes against terrorists in our country will be done with the knowledge and consent of the administration.

Look at what happened recently. Two embassies closed simply because an irresponsible police intelligence official leaked "unvalidated" information to two embassies on a possible terrorist attack. With "peace officers" like that, who needs terrorists?

Our problem is to stop terrorism and not to use terrorism as an excuse for more terrorism.