From: John K Clark (jonkc@att.net)
Date: Thu Mar 27 2003 - 22:20:10 MST
"Brett Paatsch" <paatschb@ocean.com.au>
>Would it be fair to characterise your position as being scornful not just
>of international law them but of law generally?
No not at all, I obey most laws even laws I don't like because I'm afraid of
the consequences if I don't.
>But perhaps with some extra contempt for international law
I don't have contempt for international law and who knows someday it might
actually exist but it doesn't now. I don't have contempt for the
international suggestions that do actually exist either, in fact some of
them are quite wise but laws they are not.
Me:
>> And you may recall that between April and July of 1994 more
>> than 800,000 people were murdered in the genocide in
>> Rwanda, the UN refused to do anything about it
>I don't think that it was a case of the UN refusing though
>was it? Did anyone try and take the case to the UN do you know?
It was the UN's baby, there were already UN peacekeepers in the Rwanda. On
Jan 11 1994, 3 months before the slaughter began the head of the UN
peacekeepers sent a cable to Secretary-General Kofi Annan warning of
impending genocide, Annan gave orders not to interfere. A few years later
the new Rwandan government demanded a apology from the UN. The UN set up a
commission headed by a former Swedish Prime Minister to investigate itself
and concluded the UN had ignored evidence genocide was being planned and
once started had done nothing to stop it. International law in action.
>I repeat the UN was not set up to protect individual US
>citizens from attack.
Then we need something else to do that, like a well aimed cruse missile.
>I am not disputing for a moment that the citizens of the US have
>been attacked by terrorists [.] My criticism of Bush is more
>that he is a leader that takes on too much collateral damage.
Maybe, maybe not. It is clear the world would be better off if Saddam and
his 2 creepy sons lost power but it's not clear how high a price we must pay
to do that, but we will find out quite soon now.
>My point is that President Bush more than any other leader had the
>opportunity to put real force into the UN
But if France has the veto why would he want to do that? No international
law is better than bad international law.
>I don't know if we'd agree that it was a mistake for him to take the course
>that he did. Because so far I don't think you have stated a position on it.
I haven't because I don't know if this war is a smart thing to do or not,
but we're going to find out that's for sure.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 27 2003 - 22:32:29 MST