From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Date: Mon Jan 20 2003 - 15:08:49 MST
> (Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>):
>
> Do you believe there is anything like "international law" or
> that there should be? Do you believe that might makes right
> between nations or is there some set of standards, whether you
> call it "international law" or not, on which the actions of
> nations in regards to one another should be judged?
I think what John is expressing disdain for is the kind of
international law exemplified by the UN, in which the sovereignty
of dictators and tyrants is respected more than the human rights
of the people they abuse, and with that I wholly concur. The
standard of behavior among nations should be only this: that all
nations must respect human rights; no more, no less. Respecting
countries /as countries/ is irrelevant and counterproductive.
And the single most important human right of all, without which
no country can posibly claim any legitimacy, is freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech and of the press should be a minimum requirement
for any country to even be admitted at all into the international
community.
So I will not brook any argument against war that begins with
respect for Iraqi sovereignty. Arguments that such a war will
not serve the interests of American or Iraqi people, however,
are welcome.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST