On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:54:17 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote:
> Hi Samuel! > 13 Jan 2003, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Eg. he says that he has proof of Iraq having atomic weapons again. >>> But he refuses to a) show the proofs to his allies >>> b) refuses to give them to the UN insepctors. > SH> For a European mind which understands anything about the need to > SH> safeguard "protected information sources" (euphemism for "spies") > SH> there is another possibility. > NO > see below why. > SH> The possibility that is most likely correct is that Bush has the > SH> proof, but in order to present the proof to the public as credible, he > SH> would have to cite his secret sources. > I haven't said that he should present it to the public. > But to the UN WEAPONS INSPECTORS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Dammed, this is a big difference !! > It is their job to find the weapons, and destroy them. > Bush says that he knows where they are, but he doesn't say, because he wants to > attack the Iraq and take the oil. The UN weapons inspectors have the need to know, but do they have the clearance? Both the need to know AND the clearance is required. Even if the inspectors had the clearance they might not get provided with the information they need because of fear of possible compromise which could result from theft of documents or kidnapping and torture, etc. > SH> If the US were wanting to go to war just to rob some country of its > SH> oil it would attack Venezuela, or Norway, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran. > SH> Any one of the above named nations have much more oil than Iraq. > no ... much more is simply wrong. > But US still doesn't dare to rob without a "reason". > And Iraq and Saddam are in the eyes of Bush good reasons. There cannot be a "reason" by which the US could justify outright robbing. >>> Especially point 2 "American Servicemembers' Protection Act" is a >>> *HUGE* problem. It says that americans and american allies can kill >>> anybody, and that International court can't react. > SH> It doesn't say that. All members of the US Armed Forces are subject > SH> to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). > But what do we do if the US doesn't follow them. > THIS is the question. > As long as they are following it, nobody will be dragged to court. The US law will not allow a US servicemember to get dragged into an international court. The US law protects them from that. It is for American courts to determine whether US servicemembers are following the UCMJ. International courts do not have the authority to make rulings on such matters. Even if they were to be so high-handed as to assert such authority, their rulings would not count because they could not enforce them. > SH> Just because someone is in the military and has been issued a weapon > SH> does not mean that he has been given the right to kill anybody he > SH> wants. > Sure not ... > but what do we do if those person kills Fidel Castro with this weapon. > This is a murder, and has to be punished. There is a current executive order prohibiting the assassination of political leaders. Anyone violating this order will be punished accordingly. > And what do we do if the Country which gave him the weapon told him (breaking > law and UCMJ) to kill the person ?? It is an unlawful order. The person receiving the order has the duty to disobey it. If he obeys an unlawful order he will be subject to prosecution and punishment under the UCMJ. > SH> You know that. If a servicemeber while on duty were to be > SH> accused of llegally killing someone, then he would be prosecuted under > SH> the UCMJ, and not by some international court. Wouldn't you rather > SH> see Austrian soldiers tried under their own military justice system > SH> rather than by an international court? > SURE ... > this is clear. > And this will be the case. > Principle of subsidiarity. > But what if Bush illegally starts war ?? > Will he than be punished by american lawy ?? Yes. >>> Why would any civilized country want to commit crimes ... >>> and it is clear that AMERICA WANTS TO COMMIT CRIMES ... >>> than otherwise it wouldn't need that act ... > SH> The US needs that act in order to insure that the accused are given a > SH> fair trial in accordance with the standards prescribed in the UCMJ. > This is the *PUREST* NONSENS I have ever heared. Well, you have said yourself that Austrian soldiers should be tried in their own military courts for alleged violations of their military laws, and I agree with that. What is wrong with my thinking that US soldiers should be tried in their military courts for alleged violations of their military laws? > It is exactly the other way round. > We need international law to be fair, because America has shown often that it > is incapable of being fair. Has Austria always been fair? > SH> The UCMJ is approved by the US Congress and signed into law by the > SH> President. > I DO NOT CARE. > Really, believe me I couldn't care less. > International law is signed into law by the whole world (nearly). Those who have not ratified it have no moral or ethical obligation to follow it. Member nations of the UN have the right to pick and choose which international understandings they want to support. If I go to a billiard parlor and find a group of players who don't want to play by my rules, then I can play with the folks at another table who agree to play by my rules. The UN is like a billiard parlor where all the players can pick and choose which set of rules they want to abide by. They will agree to play only with fellow players who subscribe to the same rules. If some players want to play with each other but they don't agree on rules, then they will simply negotiate some new rules to be observed by their group only. As long as none of the players tries to force his rules on anybody else, then everybody at the billiard parlor will get along. > So you think that US Congress will protect Iraqi people from america illegally > hitting them ?? DREAM ON !!!!!!!!! Hitting an illegal target is prohibited by US law. > SH> Also, if someone is threatening you by pointing a gun at you, it is > SH> legal for you to shoot at him *before* he shoots at you > But this is not the case. > The case is as following: > Iraq may has mass destruction weapons. > UN sent inspectors to find and destroy them. > US says they know where they are. > Hans Blix (boss of the insepctors) said that this information would > tremendously help. > US does *NOT* say where they are, because they *WANT* to shoot. No, the US, for security-related reasons (see above), just wants Hans Blix to find them himself. > Somebody points a gun at you, police comes and wants to take away the gun from > tha attacker, but you don't tell the police where the gun is, because you want > to shoot the attacker, and take his pointing the gun at you as an alibi. Not "alibi". "Excuse" or "justifiction" is the word you should use here. > THIS is the current situation. This is not the current situation. The current situation has evolved from a very long history of warmongering behaviors on the part of the perpetrator. >>> SH> If the US waits for Sadam to attack first >>> If the US attacks without UN mandat than the US acts absolutely >>> ILLEGAL. > SH> The US does not need to have a UN mandate to attack a country, even if > SH> some world court thinks it is illegal. The participants in the attack > SH> will not have to face the world court. > EXACTLY THIS IS THE PROBLEM. > THE SHOUTING IS ABSOLUTELY INTENTIONAL BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER EVER READ SUCH A > BIG PILE OF SHIT IN MY WHOLE LIVE!!! > You are right the US does not need the mandate to start a war. > It does only need it to start the war legally. > If US doesn't have the mandate than it is an agressor, like Germany was to > Poland in WW2. There was no UN in WW2, but there were ethical notions which most of the world expected civilized nations to abide by. >>> There are no arguments for starting a war ... > SH> A war to prevent a war from getting started is a good argument. > A war can't prevent the starting of a war. > Because in order to prevent the war you have to START one. > QED. Who starts a war is just a matter of opinion in many cases. Most cases aren't so simple and cut-and-dried. > PS: the ones who can prevent the war are the UN weapon inspectors. >>> American court has NOTHING to do with it !! > SH> American courts have EVERYTHING to do with it. > nothing > Hitler lets kill millions of jews. > German court says OK ... so for you this is OK ??? > Or what ? No. This is not OK. The US and its allies put the Nazi leaders on trial, found most all of them guilty, and hanged them. > SH> When international laws conflict with American values, american > SH> values will take precedence as far as Americans are concerned. > as long as an american kills an american, yes > but otherwise NO !!!!!!!!!!! > SH> Americans will not tolerate any domination by World Government. > It is the other way round. > THE WORLD WILL NOT TOLERATE US DOMINATION. > If America kills austrians, than American law is to be applied ?? > WHY ?? No. Austrian law will be applied if the crime is committed in Austria and if it appears to be an ordinary case of manslaughter or murder. If the suspect is caught in the US he will be extradited to Austria to face charges there in one of their courts. >>> Anybody breaking such a law HAS TO BE PUNISHED. > SH> By whom? > by the world. > SH> by some international court, or by a military court-martial > SH> proceeding as prescribed in the UCMJ? > depending. > If it is inter american, than by some american court, ucmj whatever. > otherwise by the international comunity. >>> SH> Americans want to do their own thing. >>> I don't care ... >>> america is bound to international law, just like any other country. >>> America is not better or worse like any other country !!!! > SH> There is nothing in the US Constitution which binds the US to > SH> international law. > And exactly this is the problem. This is not a problem. No state or nation should be bound to comply with any code of laws it does not choose to subscribe to. This is the principle of the "consent of the governed". > There is also nothing there that binds them to human rights. > THER SHOULD BE. Why? The UN concept of human rights differs in some areas to the US philosophy on that subject. > SH> There are some military field manuals which say that international law > SH> shall be respected. > Another problem. > It has to be respected. > SH> The military field manuals reflect standard training and official > SH> military doctrine and policies. They must be observed and followed. > SH> Failure to adhere to the book is prosecutable as an offense under the > SH> UCMJ, but not under the International Court. > The international law describes also policies, not following them will lead to > prosecution of the international comunity. Unless a nation gives its permission to be prosecuted by the international community, there will be no such prosecutions except against those nations that lose wars. I know that is not fair, but that is the reality. >>> But if america starts wars, than this is not americas thing ... but >>> a WORLD ISSUE ... > SH> America doesn't go to war without reasons that are justifiable to > SH> the great majority of Americans. > I DON NOT CARE ANYTHING ABOUT THE GREAT MAJORITY OF AMERICANS. > Hitler asked "Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg". And Germans said YES > Do you want the total war. > Germans said yes. > So the majority of germans agreed, so it was OK to start WW2. No it was not OK. They did wrong and they lost. Even if they hadn't lost they would eventually have suffered the same downfall of all other dictatorships. >>> Than the US has commited a crime, and only because a US court says >>> it is OK, doesn't mean it is OK. > SH> You are sooo paranoid. No US court would say this is OK. > As long as this is so, there is no to fight International law. > But America does ... >>> And especially AMERICA CANNOT HANDLE IN THE NAME OF IRAQI PEOPLE ... >>> only iraqi people can do so. > SH> Sure. For that reason the US would attempt to install in power > SH> an Iraqi leader who, unlike Sadam, is popular with his own people. > America has no right to install anything outside america !!!!!! The US has been setting up governments in trouble spots all over the world for well over a century. When the situation stabilizes the people will choose their own leaders and without any US influence or intervention over the election. In the case of a US colony or an overseas possession the US will give the people independence if that is what the people want. >>> Sorry Sam ... >>> What you wrote is: >>> If I don't like Bush, and I think that he is bad for the american >>> people, I can invade America, assasinate Bush, and that would be a >>> legal thing ?? > SH> No, YOU cannot legally do that. > exactly. > Same applies to America. > SH> However, it would be a perfectly legal thing for a hypothetical enemy > SH> soldier to do if he were able to sneak in undetected while wearing the > SH> enemy uniform and while bearing arms openly. > No it were as illegal. > Why should it be legal ? > (if they were in war, than sure it were legal, but they aren't) See above. I described the case as a "hypothetical" scenario involving nations at war. >>> Basically what you say is that AMERICAN LAW can be applied to the >>> whole world. And this is ENORMOUSLY wrong. American law is for >>> america. > SH> I did not say that. > You did, and you did it again. I said, and as you have quoted me below, US policy is to respect the local culture and their laws and religious taboos. > If america attacks X, than american law is to be applied. > This means nevermind what/where america does crimes, America is the one to > judge. If the US invades and occupies a country which prohibits consumption of alcoholic beverages the US will not set up bars to sell beer and liquor to our soldiers during their off-duty hours. Nor will the US allow servicemembers to proselitize for their religion in a country which prohibits it. Also the US will not allow their servicemen to be seen holding hands with their girlfriends in a country which prohibits public display of even the mildest forms of physical affection. All of these things are legal in the US, but US policy for behavior in other countries is to respect the local laws and religious taboos. > SH> US policy is to respect the local culture and their laws and religious > SH> taboos, etc. > Again I couldn't care less about american policy. > American policy has nothing to do with it. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
