From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: What is United States of America like?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:37:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.163530.15699@mtek.com> bud@mtek.com writes:
>zitsky+@CS.CMU.EDU (Mark Ryan Miller) writes:

>[ re-edited below, since this poster has evidently not yet encoun-
>  tered the notion of terminating lines with the mysterious "return"
>  key. ]

>> The invasion of Panama was "to protect the canal treaty".  If so,
>> why was that not the focus of Noriega's trial or the media coverage?

>This old chestnut seems to get hauled out again and again by people
>who cannot distinguish the difference between the provisions of a
>treaty (the right to intervene) and the provisions of a law (the
>right to arrest, prosecute, and jail wrongdoers of a specifically
>defined sort).

>A treaty must be ratified by the governments of both countries. Which
>did occur -- prior to the coup by Noriega. Our rights are not abriged
>by the change of "government" in Panama any more than are our rights
>in the sole use of Guantanamo after the change of government in Cuba. 

>But any country can pass into law whatever it damn well pleases with-
>out permission of any other country (with obvious exceptions).

But not in regards to what happens in that country.  A country can't
make it illegal for someone to do something in another country.

>So the answer to your question is:

>Because the treaty provision giving the U.S. the right to protect its
>interests in the Canal -- by military force, if necessary -- did not
>contemplate or provide for threats launched against it by a dictator
>who had seized -- by military force, where necessary -- control of
>the Panamanian government *itself*, with whom the treaty was signed.
>Noriega was not tried on the basis of a treaty violation, since none
>had occurred.

Then why did we invade Panama at all?

>That Noriega had engaged in drug trafficking, though de facto "head
>of state" (but only by de jure contravention of recent elections),
>was cause for prosecution by the USG. And a charge subsequently con-
>firmed in court to the satisfaction of most disinterested observers).

When, exactly, did US courts get jurisdiction over Panama?  

I'm sort of wondering exactly where the federal government got the
authority to make drug sales illegal in Panama?  Maybe you could
enlighten me?

How does this differ from the Ayatollah sending forces to Colorado to
kidnap Mr. Coors for selling alcohol?  Or, for that matter, from the
Ayatollah sending forces to England to kill Salmon Rushdie?

>Though it may seem a bit far-fetched, in this instance the press got
>it right. Proving, I suppose, that even a pig has *some* good days.

So, again, the press got it wrong.  (1) They failed to report that this
"drug trafficking" was known of and tolerated by Bush for a long time.
(2) They failed to report that the U.S. can't make it illegal to sell
drugs in Panama.  (3) They failed to report that in this prosecution of
Noriega, they gave away so much amnesty in exchange for testimony that
they lost on the deal.  (4) They failed to report that there is more
"drug trafficking" now than there was before we destroyed the Panamanian
government.  (5) They failed to report that we still haven't paid Panama
back for the destruction we caused when we sent troops into Panama City.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc