On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 12:04:58 +0200 (CEST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote:
> Hi
> 14 Sep 2001, "Glenn McCorkle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> "God's own country" would not cry for revenge but for justice !
> GM> Justice ?
> GM> What IS justice ???
> Justice is that a civilized country does not *START* a war.
> The correct action to answer a crime (like murder) is to take it to a
> court !!!
> Why did the US not BOMB the home town of the Oklahoma bomber ?!?
> And speaking about war that has been declared to the US is pure nonsens.
> It was a terrible terror attack, carried out by a small group of
> terrorists.
> And I still don't know WHY bush needs authorisation to act without the
> supervision of congress.
He doesn't need the authorization to order a military action which
is to be conducted over a very brief period. There is a law that
provides for the president to order any kind of of action he wants
for a limited period. (As I recall the period is 90 days). If he
wants to continue the military operations beyond the stipulated
period he must appeal to congress for the funding. If the president
feels that time permits and if he is reasonably certain that he can
get the cooperation of congress, he would probably ask for funding
even before ordering the first military action. This would improve
his political posture so that he could claim that he is acting with
the full support of congress and the American people, etc.
> a philosophy professor from norway called bush a texanian catholic
> fundementalist ... and he does everything to fit into this classification.
> GM> Revenge ?
> GM> I know what revenge is !!!
> GM> I KNOW that we must NOT seek revenge.
> You know that ... but your president has the fix idea, to continue the
> middle age crusade !
> GM> My hope is that those in power will seek justice and not revenge.
> I see very little chance ... look at whitehouse.gov and READ what he said.
> GM> My fear is that revenge will be taken....
> GM> and that justice will fall by the wayside. :((
> sure ... everybody fears so
> I pray that US government comes to senses ...
> and that a democratic country does NEVER EVER start a war.
The US and its allies have a historical precedent for carrying out acts
of what you might call "revenge". They don't call it "revenge". They
call it "reprisal". International Law does not authorize acts of
"revenge", but it does authorize "reprisal". (It's the same thing, just
a different term, but the legalists will make a very fuzzy semantic
distinction.). Under International Law, acts of "reprisal" may be
carried out for the purpose of retaliating against a country that
commits atrocities. In WWII the firebombing of Dresden and Hamburg were
officially called acts of "reprisal" to retaliate against Germany's
bombing of London. Saturation bombing of a entire city is an atrocity.
Some interpretations of Internataional Law hold that an entire city
may not be legally targetted, except in the case of carrying out an act
of "reprisal". I am not in agreement with many aspects of International
Law. I am just telling you what the law is according to my
understanding. Reprisal is covered in the books and I have read these
sections and many others.
Sam Heywood
