From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Date: Fri Mar 28 2003 - 12:26:23 MST
> > 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.
>
> I don't understand John. Do you doubt that the UN Charter exists
> and has been signed (and ratified) by the United States and other
> member nations? Or are you saying, as I think you are, that it does
> exist but that it is not international law?
> According to the UN Charter, the USA actually holds the signed
> documents. The papers that are the ratified original documents.
Papers aren't laws. The constitution of the USSR guaranteed
free speech on paper, but what do you think the law really was?
Speak out, go to jail. The law is /by definition/ that which is
backed with the threat of force. It's illegal for me to steal,
not because somebody happened to write down a law against it, but
because if I do, there is a realistic chance that I will be
physically seized, tried, and imprisoned. It is written on paper
that California residents can grow and use Marijuana for medical
purposes. But the /law/ is that those who do risk arrest and
prison on federal charges.
It is a nice feature of civilized society that what's written on
paper and the law actually enforced should be as close as possible.
That's called the "rule of law", and it is a noble goal. But I
don't know any society that has actually achieved it. So-called
"international law" doesn't even come close.
-- 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 : Fri Mar 28 2003 - 12:35:16 MST