Re: GOV: US Reputation (RE: Arab World Stunned by Baghdad's Fall)

From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Apr 16 2003 - 01:44:51 MDT

  • Next message: gts: "RE: evolution and diet (was: FITNESS: Diet and Exercise)"

    Keith Elis wrote:
      Some people don't buy
    > that a possible future threat is a threat now. Some people do.

    By definition a possible future threat is not a threat now
    although it is possible that a threat now is also a threat in
    the future.

    >And some
    > are in the middle.

    What middle?

    > Regardless of where you or I stand, this broadening
    > and narrowing of definitions for the sake of the outcome, or for a
    > political end, is a lawyer's game.

    No. It is a matter of clear thinking and reasonable
    international law and order. The meaning of words cannot be
    infinitely elastic if they are to be useful to clear thinking
    and decision making.

    > For some people to believe X is a
    > threat, there must be hard evidence, and theory is not enough. For some
    > people to believe that X may be a threat in the future, less evidence is
    > required, and a good theory may be enough.

    Well I can build a theory to make any country of your choice a
    possible future threat. Does that mean we can/should attack
    any/all of them? This is really a mug's game.

    > The doctrine of pre-emption
    > offers soothsaying as a way to bridge the gap between the available
    > evidence and the desired outcome.
    >
    > (Summing-up amidst charges of being academic...) It will eventually fall
    > to academics (which I am not) to review the theories propounded as
    > rationales for pre-emption.
    >

    A witch hunt by any other name...
    Should we apply the same reasoning to criminal law and lock up
    people we have a reasonable theory may commit a serious crime?

    - samantha



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 16 2003 - 01:45:05 MDT