IF... the US followed their own Constitution... You made it very clear the US don't follow their Constitution and consequently don't follow international law either.
Should this assure the rest of the planet? Bastiaan On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:23:53 -0500 (EST), Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Richard Menedetter wrote: >> 13 Jan 2003, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> S> The US Constitution allows the US to go to war under 3 >> S> conditions only: >> You don't get my point. >> I *don't* care about american constitution. >> American constitution is irrelevant for non american issues. > My point is that if we followed our own Constitution, > there wouldn't be any violation of international law; > therefore I need not concern myself with international law > because we would never break it. >> Example: >> Kuweit hasn't attacked Iraq. >> Iraqi congress and constitution say attacking Kuweit is OK. >> Iraq attacks Kuweit. >> Has the iraq handeled correctly ... >> according to Sam H.s argueing SURE ... iraqi congress allowed him. > Right. Just as Hitler "was allowed" to kill Jews under > German law because German law was enacted to allow it. > If the German people had risen up against such an outrage, > there would never have been a need for international > tribunals. >> S> This American believes we should adhere to our own >> S> Constitution, and never send troops anywhere unless one of >> S> the above conditions exist. >> No problem with that. >> The problem arises if amercan conditions say OK, but international law says NO. > That won't happen. In order for us to violate > international law, we must first violate our own > Constitution. My point was that the US Constitution is > already far more restrictive than International Law. > For instance, if we'd adhered to the Constitution, we would > never have gone to fight in Korea. There was no lawful > justification for us to do so. It was only through the > loophole of "doing what the UN wanted" that enabled us to > fight where 1) we had not been attacked, 2) we had no > treaty, and 3) there was no declaration of war. > My point is that international law, as it pertains to who > can attack whom, is far too lenient, convenient, and > subjective. >> For any sane person international law wins. >> If not, than this means that american law is applicable everywhere. > No, it means that if we followed our own Constitution, > there would never be any reason to invoke international law. > When international law wins, we go fight in Kuwait when > we were not attacked, had no declaration of war, and had no > treaty. If we followed our own Constitution, Desert Storm > would never have happened. If we followed our own > Constitution, we would not give Israel $15bn in weapons each > year, thereby invoking the wrath of Islam. If we followed > our own Constitution... well, I could go on for years on > that subject... but I do understand your point. I just > think that as an American, I should try to focus on keeping > American politicians' feet to the fire. I think my efforts > should be focused on my own backyard, and let Kuwait > concentrate on its own backyard, and let Israel deal with > its own backyard. If everyone worked on creating sanity in > his own government, there'd be no need for international > law. > It is axiomatic that each individual's efforts have the > most effect the closer to home he exerts those efforts. > -- > Steve Ackman > http://twoloonscoffee.com (Need green beans?) > http://twovoyagers.com (glass, linux & other stuff)
