Hi Steve!
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.
S> My point is that if we followed our own Constitution,
S> there wouldn't be any violation of international law;
*IF*
S> therefore I need not concern myself with international law
S> because we would never break it.
but what if US did not follow its own constitution (trying to kill Fidel
Castro, supporting Saddam Hussein, Taliban, Al qaida, ...)
Or what id us follows its constitution, but STILL breaks international law ?
>> 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.
S> Right. Just as Hitler "was allowed" to kill Jews under
S> German law because German law was enacted to allow it.
So Hitler did not break any laws, because He changed his constitution ??
Strange ... IMHO he *DID* break law.
And if America attacks (without UN mandate, or without being actively
attacked) it will as well.
S> If the German people had risen up against such an outrage,
S> there would never have been a need for international tribunals.
To be honest I don't see any American outrage against Bush ...
it's the exact opposit ... this idiot has never been that popular !
>> 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.
S> That won't happen.
Says who ??
I bet that we will see *VERY* soon !!
S> In order for us to violate international law, we must first violate our
S> own Constitution. My point was that the US Constitution is already far
S> more restrictive than International Law.
US Constitution doesn't even contain the MOST *BASIC* human rights ...
as in the UN human rights charta ...
But anyways ... we will see very soon, and I very much hope that you are right.
S> For instance, if we'd adhered to the Constitution, we would never have
S> gone to fight in Korea.
First you say that this will never happen, than you give an example when it
happened ?????????
How does this go together ??
S> My point is that international law, as it pertains to who
S> can attack whom, is far too lenient, convenient, and subjective.
no problem with that.
If american law does not allow it, do not do it.
If international law does not allow it, do not do it.
Nobody will ever get problems by *NOT* starting a war.
The problem is that Bush does shi*s on international law.
>> For any sane person international law wins.
>> If not, than this means that american law is applicable everywhere.
S> No, it means that if we followed our own Constitution,
S> there would never be any reason to invoke international law.
As your example above shows this is not the case, so international law is VERY
important.
S> When international law wins, we go fight in Kuwait when
S> we were not attacked
Here you have to differentiate:
1) international law ... Kuweit has been attacked.
It is OK to help a country which has beent attacked.
2) us law
But the US wanted the war soooooo much, because if there were no war, Saddam
would have controoled 15% (?? have read the numbers, but have forgotten the
exact one) of the oil in the world.
And America needs oil to make $$$
S> If we followed our own Constitution, Desert Storm would never have
S> happened.
Another example of not following your own const. ... above you said that this
will never happen !
S> If we followed our own Constitution, we would not give Israel $15bn in
S> weapons each year, thereby invoking the wrath of Islam.
Exactly what I mean ...
This is what I mean that there are other ways in the "war" against terror.
(war is a very bad word here ... it is a fight against international terrorism)
S> If we followed our own Constitution... well, I could go on for years on
S> that subject... but I do understand your point.
S> I just think that as an American, I should try to focus on keeping
S> American politicians' feet to the fire.
No problems with that.
But still we have to deal with situations where america illegally attacks
another backyard.
We will see what happens ... maybe everything will go right ...
S> If everyone worked on creating sanity in his own government, there'd be
S> no need for international law.
And if nobody would steal, we wouldn't need fences.
But this is simply not the case.
S> Steve Ackman
CU, Ricsi
--
|~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP)
|~\|(__\| -=> The world's a stage, but most of us are stage hands <=-
