From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Wed Mar 26 2003 - 23:59:09 MST
Hi Extropes,
Whilst I may continue to debate with some other list
members the relevance and importance of international law
it is worth pointing out that international law exists. (It is the
bases of the Geneva conventions too). That it does exist,
and that it is important remains common ground to all the
heads of state of member nations of the UN, but perhaps,
especially to the heads of permanent security council
members. Presidents Bush and Chirac do NOT dispute
the existence of international law, or that their countries are
signatures to the UN Charter. Rather they DO dispute what
the law is. And that dispute is crucial both to the nature of this
war and to the prospects of making any international peace.
I realize that international law is probably outside the comfort
zones and normal areas of immediate interest for many people
including some of the bright capable people who frequent this
list. But right now is not a good time for smart folks to be
allowing international law to become a new form of scripture
and to assume that it can only be interpreted to commonfolk
by priesthoods of various political persuasions. It has been
said that democracies get the governments that they deserve.
And Sagan has written a book that is part of the recommended
reading list called the Demon Haunted World. I would
encourage all extropes to look beyond the temptation to
merely stick with the easy emotional biases that come to all of
us and to 'take a good look through the telescope' rather than
just guess at the truth. If extropic goals are to be realised in
our lifetimes we cannot afford to be too introspective with
respect to the affairs and politics of the world. Now is not
the time, international law is not an issue, in which it is
sensible for people with extropic aspirations to take the
view that they can afford to be tourists, passengers, or
uncritical believers. If we do, we become part of the
problem, part of the inertia against change that we are
trying to work against. We cede more power to politicians
and demand of them less accountability each time we fail to
engage. Death and conservatism are the defaults.
I commend to those extropes who wish to engage with
the substantial challenges of our times with their own minds
directly the following legal opinions for their own personal
consideration. They are not an easy read necessarily but if
you accept as I do that the rule of law and the honouring of
agreements is not irrelevant to extropic aspirations them I
urge you to recognize that they are an important read.
Here is a link (one page only and a repost) to the
Australian and UK Attorney General's argument in support
of the view that the war would be lawful.
http://open.gov.uk/NewsRoom/NRArticle/0,1169,223412~801b22~fs~en,00.html
Now here is a link to one of two opinions provided to the
Australian Federal Opposition Leader Simon Crean
arguing, after having had the opportunity to consider the
above, that the war is illegal.
http://www.gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/Crean%20Iraq%20Advice.doc
The other supporting opinion, provided to the Opposition
leader, and which I have sourced from its author, I can also
make available to any one that is interested.
Regards,
Brett Paatsch
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[Note to newbies]: The views above are only the views of this poster.
For a statement of Extropian Principles see:
http://www.extropy.org/ideas/principles.html
Other documents worth a look:
The Constitution of the United States of America.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
The Charter of The United Nations.
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 26 2003 - 23:45:28 MST