Jim Devine wrote: > > Treaties are enforced only when the signatory countries agree to > obeying them. There's no "third party" (world government) to enforce > them. The US violates international law a lot -- while using the > breaking of international law as an excuse to invade other countries, > etc. > --
Even traffic laws operate more by force on consciusness than by police enforcment. It is incorrect to think laws, national or international, are important only as they are "enforced." The weakness of the present anti-war movement has multiple causes, but if it is to grow more people in it need to "feel comfortable" in opposing their own government. That that comfort was not there is evidenced, for example, by the popularity of the slogan introduced by MoveOn, "Support the Troops Bring them Home." It's a stupid slogan and does not _persuade_ anyone -- but it does provide comfort for those just dipping their toes into oppositional conflict. Clear demonstration that a _Democratic_ president is glaringly violating the law of the land (and international law as Bill Lear has just pointed out could be highly effective in enhancing "morale" or "confidence" or " "militancy" of people new to the movement. Obama _is_ a criminal; he is a criminal by treaties signed by the U.S., which makes him a criminal by u.s. law. Empty most of the time: but its potential implications still give reality to it that focusing on mere absence of enforcement misses. Carrol _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
