Re: Intel neuters Montvale, Itanic screams in alarm

From: Bill Todd (billtodd_at_metrocast.net)
Date: 06/20/05 

Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 03:18:26 -0400

Dr. Dweeb wrote:

...

> Bill Todd wrote:
   The reason people like me (and I suspect JF)
>>believe it's important to try to work with and improve the U.N. rather
>>than attempt to marginalize it is because, decidedly imperfect though
>>it may be, it's all we've got and there's no obviously better
>>candidate around.
>
>
> It might be that *sticking it* to the UN every now and then will provoke
> some attempt to remedy the imperfections. One could argue (quite
> reasonably I think) that *if* trying to *fix* some of the UN's more obvious
> failings were a motive, then reinforcing the UN's position through blind
> subservience to it, is a counter productive exercise.

Leaving aside the question of whether 'sticking it to the U.N. every now
and then' might produce a beneficial result, I'll suggest strongly that
choosing to start a war on that basis would *never* be appropriate.
It's comparable to suggesting that murdering someone would be a good way
to induce desirable changes in the criminal justice system.

>
>
>>The U.N. embodies the ideal of the rule of law on
>>the international scale, and if one has any respect for that ideal
>>(which is an entirely different matter from having uncritical respect
>>for individual laws or the people who make them) on any scale from
>>local to national, then it's difficult to argue against its worth
>>world-wide.
>>Laws define the boundaries of acceptable behavior in a far more
>>concrete manner than internal value systems may, especially in
>> moments of stress. Laws allow people (and countries, when they abide
>>by them) with (often only temporarily) differing opinions to coexist
>>productively and non-destructively. Laws are the alternative to
>>'might makes right'.
>
>
> You use the correct word there - ideal - and it is hard to disagree with you
> (and I don't).
>
> However, law is in fact an embodiment of might = right. The ability to
> implement and enforce law is about power, in principal, and partially, the
> people's willingness to accept any given law as reasonable. Law is
> enforced, the language says it all.

No, it does not. Because the 'might' is no longer an *individual* might
but a collectively agreed-upon might exercised over those who have (at
least in some significant degree) agreed to it.

   The reason "international law" is so
> wishy washy and so widely abused is largely because its existence is not
> based on any real ability to enforce it, but rather on a set of ideals (good
> ones I think) to which the subjects of those laws have willingly agreed to
> abide.

In much the same sense that individuals willingly agree to abide by, or
at least bear responsibility for failing to have abided by, their local
or national laws. The main difference is that the U.N. is a much
smaller body of individuals (nations) than the body which (indirectly,
via their elected officials) agrees to local and national laws, and that
the gross differences in power among that small number of participants
allow a great deal of arm-twisting to be applied.

Then again, the U.N. Security Council is an order of magnitude smaller
yet, not set up nearly as democratically, and wields most of the actual
power. So even when a permanent member flagrantly violates a law that
it itself has agreed to, there's no way to take action against it
because of its veto power.

   As soon as they decide not to abide by the "laws", then they are not
> worth the paper upon which they are written. No amount of bleating over
> this observation of reality will alter it.

There are a few wayward countries against which the U.N. *has*
sanctioned military action which would likely take significant exception
to that 'observation of reality', and quite a few more which have
suffered under economic sanctions. Only the strongest countries can
afford to thumb their noses at the U.N., and most of them are not really
in a good position to do so any longer.

Unfortunately, the U.S. still appears to be in such a position. Almost
makes one yearn for a return to the conditions of the cold war when we
didn't think we could afford to either.

...

> I will go read it again, I wrote it some ungodly hour, but I do not recall
> it being nearly so pointless as you contend, and since you have not
> commented on a specific piece of "crap" then I cannot rebut.

Oh, dear: it's difficult to maintain my high dudgeon in the face of
such a reasonable response, so I'll at least outline what I found most
objectionable (without particularly wishing to go down each individual
rat-hole):

"Dictatorships do not like democracies." Yeah, right: the surrounding
countries don't like Israel because it's a democracy, and that's why
we're such an uncritical supporter of Israel.

"France's active diplomatic efforts trying to derail the US initiatives
seem to be sufficient cause for the US to be somewhat aggrieved." If
that's any kind of reference to France's admirable attempts to keep us
from invading Iraq (and from succeeding in co-opting the U.N. Security
Council's approval when it clearly was in no way inclined to offer it),
it's pre-school-level logic: "Of course we dislike France, because it
wouldn't agree to what we wanted to do, however unreasonable our desires
might have been."

"[The Arabs] could just stop viewing the infidels as unworthy to share
the earth, and lots of problems would go away." Abject ignorance about
crab attitudes here: what they mostly object to is *our* interference
with *their part* of the earth, and it has relatively little religious
aspect to it (though religion can be, and has been, used to stir it up a
bit more - no surprises there, since our own politicians do the same
thing right here in the good old U.S. of A.).

Though Iraq as a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty had
no legal right to pursue nuclear weapons development, it is also clear
that Israel had no legal right to take it upon itself to enforce
compliance with that treaty.

Whether Iran (another treaty signatory) has a *moral* right to pursue
nuclear weapons development today is complicated by the changes in world
affairs since the non-proliferation treaty was signed. Back then a
balance among the nuclear powers made it virtually inconceivable that a
country would need its own nuclear weapons to deter aggression by a
nuclear power, and alignments with nuclear powers ensured that
aggression by a non-nuclear power would be highly unlikely. Now the
situation is reversed: any nation which is not pursuing nuclear
weaponry is clearly at the mercy of the U.S. (or any powerful neighbor,
if none of the strongest countries in the world care much about the
situation), and while there are probably a great many nations which have
little to fear from us or others (no oil or other significant resources
which we might covet, plus no pesky anti-U.S. sentiments which we might
wish to squash), there are also many which would be fools not to be
developing some credible deterrent - treaty or no treaty. I mean, it's
not as if we paid much respect to our own treaty obligations
(specifically, to the U.N. charter) when we decided we wanted to invade
Iraq.

"all the crabs have to do is get used to the idea or Israel being there
and lots of problems will go away" More abject ignorance on your part.
  The Arabs got 'used to the idea of Israel being there' a long time
ago, and formally agreed to Israel's right to exist. What they have not
and will not become used to is Israel's continuing oppression of the
occupied territories and actual annexation of parts of them.

It is ridiculously naive to suggest that it is unreasonable for a
population to deplore the detrimental impacts upon their culture and
livelihood of unbridled capitalism allowed by an uncaring government
eager for U.S. goodies. In fact, it's a good way to help get people mad
enough to hijack airliners and fly them into buildings in your major
cities - so either get used to such acts, or give your attitude a major
realignment.

And responding to JF's example of reaction in Iran by suggesting that
revolution in Arab countries by populations disgusted with their
government's coziness with the U.S. might produce a democratic result
was down-right stupid.

Your dismissal of the major irregularities (up to and including active
interference by the U.S Supreme Court in a state-level issue that was
grossly contrary to the established legal records of those conservative
justices who supported it) in our 2000 presidential election is just
more evidence of a willingness to pontificate about subjects you clearly
know nothing about.

That at least covers the high points, I think.

...

> Q: Are there constintutional issues and have any cases been brought to the
> High Court?

There are Constitutional issues up the wazoo, and a few are at least
starting to be addressed (e.g., I think the Supreme Court weighed in
recently on the rights of at least one illegally-imprisoned alleged
terrorist). The problem is that this administration seems not to give a
hoot about anything except finding out exactly how much they can get
away with (i.e., instead of basing their actions on law, they act and
then see if they can squeeze by the law for at least some period of time
and, with luck, indefinitely).

- bill

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What Happens After the US Signs a UN Gun Ban Treaty?
    ... # # gun ban treaty since it seems that this is simply a matter of time. ... # Nothing "trumps" the Law of the Land... ... it still has the power of law at least ... law there were legitimate grounds to withdraw. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: What Happens After the US Signs a UN Gun Ban Treaty?
    ... # gun ban treaty since it seems that this is simply a matter of time. ... Under U.S. law, ... it still has the power of law at least ... law there were legitimate grounds to withdraw. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: What Happens After the US Signs a UN Gun Ban Treaty?
    ... # gun ban treaty since it seems that this is simply a matter of time. ... Under U.S. law, ... it still has the power of law at least ... law there were legitimate grounds to withdraw. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: What if 20 million illegals left?
    ... power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. ... The United States Constitution ... Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, ... in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. ...
    (rec.scuba)
  • Re: Baja clinic known for unorthodox care closed
    ... Anti-Constitutional Activities and Abuse of Police Power by the ... U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other Federal Agencies ... Background to FDA Police-State Activities ... of law have been flagrantly violated and trampled into the dirt by the FDA ...
    (misc.health.alternative)