sorry, I meant the UNSC, which in effective runs the UN. Sorry again: my point was opaque.[*] As far as I can tell, there really is no international law -- which requires the existence of a global state to enforce it. If so, immoral acts (invading Iraq, etc.) aren't really "criminal." Crime requires laws to break. On the other hand, it's likely that the Bushwackers did break _US_ law, since when the US signs treaties they are supposed to become part of US law.
[*] I guess I've become accustomed to people who know what my opinions are better than I do, allowing them to accuse me of dishonesty (believing one thing and saying another). On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Bill Lear <[email protected]> wrote: > On Friday, December 12, 2008 at 09:55:35 (-0800) Jim Devine writes: >>>>As far Afghanistan, there is UNSC Resolution providing mandate to US /NATO >>>>troops. (eg See UNSC Resolution 1833 of 22 September 2008). Russia, China >>>>and Vietnam have voted for it. >> >>> Whoop-die-do. Still utterly criminal. >> >>if UN resolutions aren't enough, what is your standard of criminality, Bill? > > "UN" resolution? This was the security council, not the General > Assembly. As if the Security Council voting for something makes it > morally acceptible. > > Invading a country with just about zero evidence that they were behind > the attacks on our country is criminal. > > > Bill > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
