Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 17 Apr 1992 13:20:32 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      International Law

Now, I don't know about the rest of you but I read
the rambling by Jay on this subject and did not
understand a bit.  Jay is usually clear in his posts.
He CLEARLY is wrong and CLEARLY is obnoxious and once
in a while he is simply clear.  So when he said this
was his thesis subject, I was sure it would be one of
his most clear posts.

Well read on some of the excerpts from Jay's post.

From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>

> International law is like the bible - look hard enough and you can justify
> anything.

> Generally, under international law (and the constitution makes international
> law the law of the land) the US does not have the authority to use force to
> enter Libya and take possession of the terrorists.

> Most countries believe that a state can use force against another state to
> protect their own citizens from an emminet threat.  This is the rationale for
> Entebbe, Ossarik, and our bombing of Libya.  A 'punative' action is not
> allowed, but an action to destroy a base being used to train terrorists might
> be.

As far as I remember, the administration and the press here
characterized the bombing of Libya as punitive and not preventive.
Which US citizens who were under eminent threat did we protect
when we bombed Libya?

> You should also know that there are few absolutes in international law.  With
> the advent of the developing world, the standards are changing drastically.

Translation: it depends which side of the issue the big powers are on.

> The US is not the great violator of international law many think.  Neither are
> they pure.  Usually, the US 'breaks' international law in response to another
> country doing so.  This assumes that one can 'break' a law with poor
> definition, no enforcement outside voluntary cooperation, and no real judge.

It seems here that Jay has discovered the answer to the centuries old
question of which was first: chicken or egg?  Jay thinks the cycle
of violence and terrorism has been started by "them" and not by "us."

> The world court is not the world judge that many think.  They were quite
> correct that they had no authority to intercede in the UN action agsint
> Libya.

In other words it is a court without a judge...   :-)

> In regard to Panama, the US had a number of legal bases for this action, none
> of which was the plan to 'get' a drug pusher.  Our decision to arrest Noriega
> and bring him to the US was done in the context of being a nation who had
> been asked to interviene physically.  Basically, we didn't go there to get
> him, but while we were there, we took him.

Asked by whom?

Before we went to war with Iraq, Bush kept saying that our
feud is not with the people of Iraq but rather with one man:
Saddam Hussein.  Ironically we went in there, killed thousands
of the Iraqi "people" (the ones that we were not feuding with)
ruined the country's infrastructure so that the "people" would live
in pure hell in the foreseeable future and let Hussein (the guy
whom we were against) intact.  We even let him use his
helicopters to slaughter those "people" who rose against
him.

On the other hand, according to Jay, we did not go to Panama to
apprehend an (ex)CIA operative and a drug dealer. But "while
we were there, we took him."

I am speechless!

> Further, even if taking Noriega was wholly in violation of international law
> (invading was legal, taking him to the US is shakey, finding him guilty of
> the crimes I don't know about), I think we should have done it.  His presence
> was athreat to US citizens, the canal, the international community, and the
> freedom of the seas.

So was Bush's presence a threat to Panamanian citizens, their "official"
policy of drug dealing, and to their leader.  According to you then
Panamanian army had a right to invade US.

> International law is not like national law.  Countries are soverigns, even
> under international law.  One might better think of Int law a "rules" in a
> "game" that are followed most of the time, but violated sometimes, and the
> punishment for violating them depend on the rule, who violated it, and why.

What you are explaining here is not law; it is lawlessness.

> So:  We can legally impose the sanctions that the UN has done.  We can
> unilaterally seperate ourselves as far from them as we want (we still buy
> their oil right now).  We can work in the UN to obtain Un sanctioned force to
> go in and take the terrorists.

I thought a few lines ago you said that we CANNOT go into Libya to
apprehend those two terrorists.

> But, all this misses the issue, IMHO.  State sponsored terrorism is the real
> issue and punishing Libya should be the real goal.

When you look at the bigger picture, I don't see
a big difference of quality here, rather a difference
of quantity.  If you terrorize with small weapons you are a
terrorist.  If you terrorize with mid-day bombing raids,
UN resolutions, Security Council veto powers, covert mining
of harbors, nuclear weapons, then you are called a superpower.

> Finally, you should know that there is a growing move in international law to
> assign responsibility at the individual level (see Filigarita v
> Penn-something, a famous SC case)in human rights.  Traditionally,
> international law is only between states and does not involve citizens.,

Then how come Hussein is more secure than anytime while the
children of Iraq are living is misery.

> I would like to recommend a short book, "Judging the World Court" by Tom
> Frank.

I would like to recommend another Master Thesis for you.  And
this time write on a subject that you know about some, say, math.  :-)

> Jay Steven Sultan

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU