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