How could one possibly fix International Law to make it relevant to monsters who are willing at any time to do ANYTHING in order to win ?
Even if all the atrocious actions listed in the article were addressed,what would be the remedy?
Let's be honest.If the monsters want to play this game out,the end result will be monstous as the only effective solution will be to 'fight fire with fire'until the stronger side prevails.This was the primary reason why 'rules of war',and articles of conduct were ever codified in the first place.Everyone came to see that all that would result from 'monstrous' behaviour by everyone would be victory by the stronger party anyway,and therefore there was no purpose in behaving monstrously.You can call it ethics but in reality it is sheer practicality.

The problem is that the civilized world is still having illusions about the rule of law in a totally lawless environment.
Exactly.

Time and time again the Bush administration has proved it is not interested in developing international law. A cleverer strategy would be to fight the war on terror AND be more enthusiastic about developing international law. But it simply is not interested. In the longer term that is not smart at all.

International law is not something that can be imposed, it must be agreed to. Can anyone explain to me how it is possible to get West and those who believe only in Sharia, let alone China etc. to agree on even the assumptions to guide meaningful international law?

We don't share enough values, or a language if you will, to commence meaningful discussions that ANY side would feel bound by. Can you imagine Pakistan/Saudi Arabia/China feeling truly bound by something owing a debt to our Constitution? Can you imagine the United States feeling truly bound by international law that made serious concessions to Sharia?

The notion is absurd on the face of it. It's one of the many reasons the UN is so inept and ineffective. The world as it now stands can only agree to watered down, inconsequential "law."

International law is based around this idea that the main actors internationally are states, which can enforce codes of conduct on their citizens. When that breaks down, either due to failed states or non-state actors, the law is badly out of date.

Of course, this is an argument for updating the law, by means of power politics if necessary, not for chucking out a body of work which has prevented a world war for over fifty years.

spc67: Can anyone explain to me how it is possible to get West and those who believe only in Sharia, let alone China etc. to agree on even the assumptions to guide meaningful international law?

I was thinking more along the lines of the West coming up with a code of behavior for itself because we don't currently have an agreed-upon code that is effective. The Islamists obviously won't play along.

While you’re at it, why not get the UN to treat Iran like the terrorist supporting theocracy it is. Is there any reason the UN has not declared a worldwide embargo against it?

Freaken fix the UN and international law or disband it. And don’t give me this crap about how it’s Bush’s fault… if you support these things, you need to be actually trying to reform them rather than just bashing others for not. Put up or shutup.

International law is based around this idea that the main actors internationally are states, which can enforce codes of conduct on their citizens. When that breaks down, either due to failed states or non-state actors, the law is badly out of date

Another way of getting round international law is to refuse to recognise the existance of a state in the first place, thereby denying it all the international "protection" it recieves.

I can't figure out why those who operate outside international law by virtue of abusing the "state agenda" in whatever way, are themselves protected by it.

Isn't there something in International Law against invading and occupying other people's countries without valid reasons?

Or something about equality before the law? Or about not colonizing and stealing other people's lands? Not to speak of expelling those same people out of their own territory?

Or about LYING?

I suppose not...

"International Law", today, is a set of treaties signed between sovereign nation-states. A violation of such "law" is therefore a violation of some treaty or another, like the Geneva Conventions (treaties). The last of which the USA did not sign; as it has not signed the anti-US Kyoto (treaty) or the International Criminal Court (treaty).

The theory of law requires "jurisdiction" -- does this law apply to both sides? If not, it's not appropriate. The is no law that applies to the terrorists. Because the terrorists have NOT signed; nor attempted to qualify for inclusion (lack of uniforms, among other things).

When Iraq gets a democratic government, and starts putting the screws, figuratively AND literally, to the Sunnis who are suspected of supporting the terrorists, the Int'l Law issues will be very interesting.

The unilateral need for a "code of conduct" of moral imposers of morality through war is clear. I've suggested a NATO based Human Rights Enforcement Group.

The short term need is for the democracies of the world, exclusively (?), to decide when they think force IS moral to use in regime change. And then, to see if there is a coalition of willing to use the force. China is deserving of change -- there is no willing coalition. This type of imperfection must be accepted up front, as well.

While this all may be unrealistic, discussion of it should make acceptance of whatever is implemented a little easier.

On Bush's invasion, did Saddam's Iraq qualify as other people's countries ?? I'm serious. If it was not a free election democracy, it's not really its own people's country -- the majority Shi'a are now looking forward to becoming majoritarian "owners"; and the Sunni minority is very afraid. (And making it worse, sigh.)

And there are lots of other governments that are not "of the people, by the people, and for the people" -- so if any such gov'ts are changed by pro-democracy forces, I'll claim moral superiority. Even if it does violate the UN Charter (to protect dictators.)

I think this misses the point.

In my mind, there are two reasons for accountability, following the rule of law, or whatever you'd like to call it. This first is because you are following the standards and ethics of your own culture. For example, we don't want to be a culture that tortures, as it offends our concept of the sanctity of one's body, and as a culture we cherish individual liberty.

The second is strategic. Using torture as an example again, we don't torture because we could be torturing innocents, torture tends to enrage the population, or terrify it, and using torture practically guarantees that torture will be used against the forces that used it in the first place.

In the case of an insurgency like we see in Iraq, if the insurgents are not guided by ethics, then all they are left with is strategy. Making certain assumptions about the goals of the insurgents, (preventing elections, driving out the US, and regaining control of Iraq), then their greatest possible chance of victory is to turn the bulk of the populace against the American occupying force. This would give the insurgents the greatest possible support, and the greatest number of new recruits.

To my mind, the best way to make the population turn agains the US would be to do exactly what they're doing - disrupt the economic infrastructure, terrorize the population and US military personnel, and make sure that the US military has to respond to their tactics (roadside bombes, remote mortar and rocket attack, suicide bombings, diruption of electricty and water supply, etc) in a manner that is sure to cause a maximum number of civilian casualties, or the greatest amount of outrage in the general population.

This is standard insurgent tactic. Make sure that the greater military power has to destroy the village in order to save it, and then the occupying power is the bad guy to both the victims, and to all observers.

So being outraged by a fairly predictable insurgency strategy reminds my of the British officer in the Boer war, commenting as his forces were bing mowed bown by Boer snipers, "My God, the cowardardly bastards are firing from cover!"

It may not be very sportsmanlike, and it certainly doesn't follow the rules of war, but it's effective, which is why it's being used.

The trick is how to respond to those tactics without doing what the insurgency wants. They want Iraqi women to be searched by troops. They want US troops shelling mosques. They're probably overjoyed with abuses in places like Abu Ghraib. It gives them exactly what they need - more support.

Tom Grey: On Bush's invasion, did Saddam's Iraq qualify as other people's countries ?? I'm serious. If it was not a free election democracy, it's not really its own people's country -- the majority Shi'a are now looking forward to becoming majoritarian "owners"; and the Sunni minority is very afraid.

Are you saying that sovereignity is based on the type of government that one has? Does this mean that Singapore is up for grabs?

I'm no fan of dictatorships, and a big fan of democracy, but I think the concept of sovereignity is a bit more complex than that.

In Iraq, it's Shia/Kurd vs. Sunni. After the election, the entire balance of power in the middle east will be changed. The Sunnis are terrified of a democratic Iraq. Not just Iraqi Sunnis, but all arab Sunnis. A SHIA CONTROLLED IRAQ CHANGES EVERYTHING!

So that every bit of "wisdom" written about Iraq before the election becomes double plus stupid after the election."

That's what scares the Euro appeasers and the Sunni barbarians. They see their clout slipping away.

The trick is how to respond to those tactics without doing what the insurgency wants

The most effective way to respond to those tactics would be to confront the states that are financing and directing this insurgency.

Another tactic that has been proven effective is for the government to use resistance tactics (asymmetrical attacks, no uniforms) against the insurgent combatants.

Apparently, according to the Geneva convention, there is no reason to take prisoners when fighting ‘unlawful combatants’. Since the information we get from them is unreliable at best, and since their imprisonment is a public relations/military disaster, a ‘take no prisoners’ attitude seems to be required.

Non-government resistance groups, like the Thulfiqar Army could be effective.

Non-violent, press friendly methods can also be used. If groups like the UN had any interest in fighting insurgency groups, they could target the extremist, oppressive Shariah laws that fuel this insurgency and the states that inspire them.

They could also offer political prisoner status to all women living under the apartheid of a Shariah state.

We are fighting an enemy whose goals and beliefs are basically the legitimization of crimes against humanity. It’s true, we should be marketing this better.

" international law does not address killers shooting from hospitals, mosques and ambulances, while being protected by their Government or society."

Sure it does. Those actions are quite clearly illegal under international law. Rumsfeld and Kissinger are arguably war criminals, but there is absolutely no question that Bin Laden and Zarqawi are war criminals. So are the people committing genocide in the Darfur. I'm quite serious, I've taken international law, and these are not hard questions.

What we haven't figured out is how to enforce international law against those murderers. Criminal prosecution would be great, but we have to catch them first. In the mean time, "We'll violate the torture convention and the Geneva accords whenever we feel like it too" are not real great solutions.

There are some changes we definitely should make, like allowing the unilateral use of force to stop an imminent or ongoing genocide. There may be some changes we need to make in the rules of engagement to adjust for our opponents violations of the laws of war. But there are also a lot of lines we should not cross. The first real code of military justice was instituted by the Union during the Civil War--the South did not reciprocate, but the Union stuck to it anyway.

The most effective way to respond to those tactics would be to confront the states that are financing and directing this insurgency.

Okay. Which ones, and how?

Another tactic that has been proven effective is for the government to use resistance tactics (asymmetrical attacks, no uniforms) against the insurgent combatants.

If the insurgents were identifiable, then this tactic wouldn't be needed, you just kill them or arrest them. Insurgents are, by nature, unidentifiable.

Non-government resistance groups, like the Thulfiqar Army could be effective.

Hasn't using and supporting groups like that caused problems in the past? Like, for example, the Taliban? Or, for another example, Saddam Hussein? And don't you think that encouraging "resistance groups" (a.k.a. "terrorists") of our own might contribute to either a chaotic political environment and/or civil war?

Non-violent, press friendly methods can also be used. If groups like the UN had any interest in fighting insurgency groups, they could target the extremist, oppressive Shariah laws that fuel this insurgency and the states that inspire them.

As the insurgents seem to be mostly secularist Sunni ex-Baathists, and the group that seems to be trying the hardest to hold elections are the fundamentalist Shiites, I'd say that Sharia has zero influence on this insurgency.

Mary, I think your suggestions are all answering a different problem, not the the one of the insurgency.

There are some changes we definitely should make, like allowing the unilateral use of force to stop an imminent or ongoing genocide.

That one's a bit tricky. One of the real issues that tends to hobble the UN in dealing with these kinds of situations is that one side of a regional conflict may manipulate events to cause an intervention.

For example, given a hypothetical rebellion in a third world nation, the rebel side may try to provoke a massacre, or a genocide, in order to pull in an intervening third military force to support them. Unless there are some policies in place that call for proper investigation, you are actually encouraging genocide rather than preventing it. This is a very real problem that various parties in the UN are trying to deal with.

Harun al Rashid,

You said: Isn't there something in International Law against invading and occupying other people's countries without valid reasons?

Yes, that is just one more reason why the Coalition was justified in invading Iraq under the principles of international law. In case you have forgotten your history, Saddam's regime invaded Kuwait without a valid reason. This violated international norms and caused the international community to wage a war on Saddam's forces in 1990. In order for a law to mean anything, there has to be consequences. As a result, Saddam's forces were defeated on the battlefield. Saddam signed a TEMPORARY cease fire which was conditioned upon Saddam's regime destruction of certain types of weapons SO THAT SUCH DESTRUCTION COULD BE VERIFIED. Saddam's regime failed to verifiably destroy such weapons. Under the agreement, it was Saddam's duty to prove that he did not have such weapons. Therefore, pursuant to the agreement, the temporary cease fire was lifted and hostilities resumed to their natural conclusion.

dpu - al Sadr's group was composed of Baathists? The Talibanesque Islamists in Fallujah were secular?

Where on earth are you getting your information?

Before I waste significant amounts of time reiterating facts that are already well-established, could you please tell me if you believe that we should be fighting this insurgency, and if so, how?

dpu - al Sadr's group was composed of Baathists?

That was not so much an insurgency as an identifiable militia. And as al-Sadr is now part of the political process, and seems quite happy about the upcoming elections I think it's hard to argue that he or his militia were insurgents. Or they'd be behind bars. Either that or things are more fucked up than I thought.

The Talibanesque Islamists in Fallujah were secular?

Quite right, but they've been dealt with, right? Now what about the Sunni insurgency?

Before I waste significant amounts of time reiterating facts that are already well-established, could you please tell me if you believe that we should be fighting this insurgency, and if so, how?

I realize that the Sharia issue is an important issue with you, but as I see it, the political forces that are most likely to be able to implement Sharia are also the ones that are most likely to win an election in January. What possible reason would they have for disrupting those elections?

And no, I'm not a supporter of the insurgency. Duh. And I don't have any answers about how it can be effectively fought on a military basis. The surest way to defeat an insurgency is to remove their popular support, but I don't know how that can be done while the insurgency is controlling the agenda. One of the reasons that I have a gloomy outlook on Iraq.

Thank you for this excerpt. The first line you posted gained my attention quickly:

"The civilized world believes in democracy, the rule of law. . ."

That explains so much about the mainstream news media, and its lack of civility, its contempt for law.

You have absolutely no ideas about how the insurgency can be fought, and you spend a great amount of effort shooting all suggestions down using fact-free retorts. I wasn't implying that you support the insurgents, I was implying that you were wasting time.

You also have no link to the 'evidence' that the insurgency is now completely composed of 'secular' Baathists. Are all Baathists secular? I didn't know that.

Shariah civil law is responsible for the laws that create an apartheid system for women, but if a state declares that it's Islamic, and if it enforces criminal 'hudud' laws, then it becomes equivalent to supporters of terror like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Canada allows women to be judged by Shariah civil laws, but the criminal hudud laws are not a part of Canadian law. There are varying degrees of shariah oppression. It's not clear what path Iraq will take.

I was thinking more along the lines of the West coming up with a code of behavior for itself because we don't currently have an agreed-upon code that is effective. The Islamists obviously won't play along.

OK, fair enough. But now a construction that only constrains the West has to answer the following question. Would the West prefer to lose a war/see our interests damaged/watch our culture be subordinated with/by those who do not follow such a code, or is it acceptable to violate such a code if it is necessary to win and maintain our interests/sovereignty etc? If the former is to be the case, in some ways you are intentionally weakening the power of the West without tangible benefits of a meaningful scope. If the latter, then all one is saying is we'll play by the rules as long as we can, then do whatever it takes. How meaningful is that?

If one believes that the West can be more unified and thus made more powerful by such an agreement, I suppose that is possible. But what happens when our interests diverge (Iraq)? I would not accept the imposition of policy on the US by someone for whom I could not vote to remove from office at regular intervals.

ooops - above response to dpu

Would the West prefer to lose a war/see our interests damaged/watch our culture be subordinated with/by those who do not follow such a code, or is it acceptable to violate such a code if it is necessary to win and maintain our interests/sovereignty etc?---spc67

Well that is an easy one (well maybe not for DPU)

VICTORY IS EVERYTHING

If in doubt about that simple construct --- Ask Carthage when you get a spare moment.

You have absolutely no ideas about how the insurgency can be fought, and you spend a great amount of effort shooting all suggestions down using fact-free retorts.

I see. Well, I'll stop then.

Canada allows women to be judged by Shariah civil laws,...

That is an extremely misleading statement, I hope not intentionally so.

Canada allows women to be judged by Shariah civil laws,...

That is an extremely misleading statement--DPU

It is a misleading statement,but not an 'extremely'misleading one.
It is not really Canada that allows Sharia to be used in 'civil'cases.It is at this point Ontario,one of the provinces that allows this.However,the main point is well taken.Many of the usual leftist suspects in Canada find themselves 'hoist on their own petard'on this issue as they are caught between their natural inclination towards 'multiculturalism'and 'moral equivalence',and their 'feminist'non-negotiable demands.
The opposition to this retrograde civil code being considered acceptable comes from,among others,the militant women's groups who might otherwise find themselves in the front ranks of the 'defenders of diversity'.It is clear to most everyone that Muslim women will suffer under this code as they do in virtually every other area of the world,and due to the 'insular'nature of some of the Muslim community in Canada,they will have no recourse but to endure their relegation to second class citizens in silence.Of course they can appeal to the 'normal' courts,but the social price they will pay in their communities will tend toward making that process a mere theoretical right.Sharia has no place in Western cultures.None.

dougf: VICTORY IS EVERYTHING

'...You will understand that I must start by asking you certain questions. In general terms, what are you prepared to do?'

'Anything that we are capable of,' said Winston.

... 'You are prepared to give your lives?'

'Yes.'

'You are prepared to commit murder?'

'Yes.'

'To commit acts of sabotage which may cause the death of hundreds of innocent people?'

'Yes.'

'To betray your country to foreign powers?'

'Yes.'

'You are prepared to cheat, to forge, to blackmail, to corrupt the minds of children, to distribute habit-forming drugs, to encourage prostitution, to disseminate venereal diseases -- to do anything which is likely to cause demoralization and weaken the power of the Party?'

'Yes.'

'If, for example, it would somehow serve our interests to throw sulphuric acid in a child's face -- are you prepared to do that?'

'Yes.'

dougf - it was extremely misleading, because it implied that there was judgement (there isn't, there's arbitration), it implied that ALL Canadian women are subjected to it, it implied that it only applied to women, and it implies that only Sharia is treated in this fashion. And without clarification, many people who read statements as brief as Mary's above get the impression that Sharia would take precedence over Canadian civil law, which it does not.

Out of curiosity, what is your position on the similar religious arbitration procedings that use Catholisism or Jewish law as their basis?

++UG: "...And without clarification, many people who read statements as brief as Mary's above get the impression that Sharia would take precedence over Canadian civil law, which it does not."

Just you wait and see.

Eric, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. This is the nation that is legalizing gay marriage and pot. Sharia or some other religious fundamentalist law has more chance of being implemented in the US than it does in Canada. And vaguely ominous "wait and see" statements are pretty silly, wouldn't you say?

And if you've read 1984, you know what Winston Smith loses by agreeing to set aside morals and ethics in order to achieve victory.--DPU

Carthage !!!!

If the choice is :
A.Morals
B.Extinction by a contemptable enemy.
I choose survival.Let me be totally blunt,so there can be no doubt where I stand.
In the 'theoretical'case where my only choices are to;
1.Be defeated by an enemy who is intent on the extermination of my society.
2.Destroy that enemy to the last man,woman,child.
I will always be forced to choose option 2.
Always.
And since you want to refer to 1984,how about the choice to destroy the 1984 regime and it's supporters BEFORE they became entrenched(no matter what the moral price),as opposed to staying your hand because you might have to do 'immoral'things? Which is the 'ethical'action?

I think what Harun al Rashid is dancing around with is neither Iraq nor Kuwait, but the Palestinians. Just a guess.

"Those who care about international law must do two things. First, fix international law and make it actually relevent to 21st century problems. Second, remember that some people don't care a whit for international law because it gets in the way of fighting this war - so they won't do the job for you."

Absolutely spot-on. And until the first is accomplished, count me among the supporters of the second. "Died of an idea" is about as stupid an epitaph as there is.

What drives western nations in Europe and elsewhere to appease the murderer jihadis? The fate of Fortuyn and Van Gogh will soon be the fate of anyone who stands up against the imperialist islamist fiends.

Canada's appeasement policy toward jihadist Sharia enforcement does not reassure me that women's rights in Canada will last. First Ontario, then the rest of Canada.

Survival at any cost, dougf? No matter that innocents be killed as part of the cost of your survival? Or that your culture and society become as contemptable as the one threateneing it?

Isn't that kind of chickenshit?

Canada's appeasement policy toward jihadist Sharia enforcement does not reassure me that women's rights in Canada will last. First Ontario, then the rest of Canada.

Maybe you guys should allow an occasional woman's nipple on network television without a national uproar before getting all preachy about our slide into fundamentalism.

Dougf: And since you want to refer to 1984,how about the choice to destroy the 1984 regime and it's supporters BEFORE they became entrenched(no matter what the moral price),as opposed to staying your hand because you might have to do 'immoral'things? Which is the 'ethical'action?

You haven't read it, have you? 'Cause if you had, you would know that abandoning morals and ethics in order to acheive victory is what created the Party in the first place. What Orwell was saying was that the only way that IngSoc could have been defeated before it began was to not give into doing immoral things in order to survive. By agreeing to do acts without regard to whether they were right or not in order to acheive victory over IngSoc, Smith lost the battle right there, as he found out later when imprisoned in The Ministry of Love. Even if IngSoc had been overthrown by a revolutionary force of the type he thought he was joining, it was guaranteed to be every bit as evil as what it was replacing.

Of course, if one is merely paying attention to which side one is on, and whether that side is winning or not, then I guess it's a different story.

Survival at any cost, dougf? No matter that innocents be killed as part of the cost of your survival? Or that your culture and society become as contemptable as the one threateneing it?

Isn't that kind of chickenshit?--DPU

No.It is not.And when you have laid aside your existence for the sake of 'something'rather than doing what needs to be done,because it is distasteful,please try to remember that I will be writting the histories,and you won't even get the high-moral credit from 'objective'reality you appear to be enamoured with.
Ethical structures are not intended to be a 'suicide pact',and any argument based upon that premise is not going to appeal to very many.One can indeed choose to perish as a matter of individual responsibility rather than make objectionable moral decisions,but one cannot try to pretend that extinction is in any way a viable option for social decisions.
Well unless one is Jim Jones,and we all saw how well that turned out.

Are you saying that sovereignity is based on the type of government that one has? Does this mean that Singapore is up for grabs?

I'm no fan of dictatorships, and a big fan of democracy, but I think the concept of sovereignity is a bit more complex than that.

All of the problems surrounding the elimination (or at least suppression) of large-scale barbarism are complex. In a sense, anything that can be described as barbaric is an active embrace of chaos and destruction. Chaos and destruction are by their natures disorderly.

I've been to Singapore. Authoritarian as all get out (not that I noticed) and everyone seemed relaxed and energetic as all get out (which I noticed in the extreme). Not a state failing its people, in other words. Would I live there? Probably not. Would I cut the government some slack. You bet.

But instead, you equate a state like Singapore with a state like Burma, or Nigeria, or the Sudan, because you decide to look at only one dimension of the problem. Because looking at twenty is hard, and singling out a particular dimension makes it easy to absolve yourself of the responsibility to confront the barbarians.

When you see a Gordian Knot, remembering Alexander's solution isn't a bad thing. That is, of course, assuming you want to effect change rather than just kvetch.

Here's a proposition: since we're always so intent on cutting the barbarians some slack and working to understand their motivations, let's do the same for those fighting against them.

No.It is not.And when you have laid aside your existence for the sake of 'something'rather than doing what needs to be done,because it is distasteful,please try to remember that I will be writting the histories,and you won't even get the high-moral credit from 'objective'reality you appear to be enamoured with.

It may be worth noting that many who thought that in the past, and did those distasteful things because they thought they needed doing, ended up not being the suvivors and not writing any history at all.

Sometimes taking the high road has the additional benefit of not pissing off the rest of the human race.

Mark: But instead, you equate a state like Singapore with a state like Burma, or Nigeria, or the Sudan, because you decide to look at only one dimension of the problem.

God I hate it when people put words in my mouth that I came nowhere near saying. Of course, it makes debate a bit easier, but it's generally frowned on as a debating tactic.

But let me see if I can put aside my righteous outrage and clarify what I meant, and bend what you said a bit to fit my original post.

Tom said that the invasion was justified (or not illegal) because the Iraqi people had not chosen Hussein as their leader.

My intention when replying was to point out that if only democracies could be considered sovereign, then Singapore was in trouble. I purposely picked Singapore because I realize that they have an authoritarian system of government, and yet it's a fairly benevolent system that I'm sure Tom wouldn't want to see invaded and overthrown

While you missed the point, possibly because I was being provocative rather than clear, it seems that you would also like to consider sovereignity as being based on the treatment of the citizens of that country rather than simply the mode of government.

Did I get that right?

DPU, the discussion was about when it would be "lawful" to overthrow a sovereign government. And you did bring up Singapore as an example of how "complicated" the problem is.

Hell, I quoted your entire comment. You left out the thrust of mine, which is that it's a hell of a lot easier to kvetch than to propose a solution.

Hell, I quoted your entire comment. You left out the thrust of mine, which is that it's a hell of a lot easier to kvetch than to propose a solution.

Well, hopefully my second posting covers that, although I'm still uncertain where I equated Singapore to Nigeria and Burma.

I don't want to just kvetch, and I too very much believe that soveignity should also be based on human rights within a nation. There is a Canadian proposal to modify the UN's charter to recognize that sovereignity is voided if a nation abuses its citizens, and I think it has merit.

Now we can argue about where to draw the lines as to what is and is not abuse. Capital punishement, anyone?

Sometimes taking the high road has the additional benefit of not pissing off the rest of the human race --DPU

You can run but you cannot hide.So in DPU world,if the only way to have brought the 3rd Reich down was to have fire-bombed Dresden,you would have taken the 'high moral road',and not done so?
And on the 'rest of the human race'front,since when did that really matter in the SLIGHTEST when push came to shove? Did the fact that it 'pissed off the rest of the human race'do anything whatsoever to prevent the Hutus from butchering 600,000 Tutsis in Ruanda.I think not.
Existence is NOT theory.It might,at times, suck because there are not any 'good'answers,but it is not an intellectual construct.Sometimes one must choose a 'bad'course of action simply because the alternatives are MUCH MUCH worse.Avoidance of that choice by exiting stage left is,as I said,a valid although questionable personal decision,but it is one denied to social systems.

dougf - but Dresden wasn't necessary to win the war. As far as hypotheticals go, would you have personally tortured a family member to death if it meant the end of the Third Reich? Don't bother, it's a silly question.

WWII could have been won without Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. IMO, those were immoral acts during an immoral time, made by people whose decision-making process was influenced by a great deal of horror all around them, and I believe it weighed heavily on some of them. But the allies primarily took the moral high road in those wars, and the world stood by them, and would not stand by the axis because they were fundamentally evil. And by evil, I mean tha they did not care about morals or ethics as we use the term, and were soley concerned with the end goal of their actions.

As far as the 800,000 (not 600,000) massacred Tutsis, I'm not sure how it relates to your argument. The RPF largely remained ethical and disciplined in their struggle with the Hutus, and there were comparitively few retalitory massaces. The fact that they did so was not only to their credit, it certainly influenced world sympathy for the plight of the Tutsi. And they survived as a people, and formed the new government.

This is why the idea that the UN can be entrusted as a guardian of human rights is worse than a joke. And those who pretend otherwise are fools.

If all the world's nations respected human rights we would not need the UN.

The truth is, the entire concept of the rule of law, and hence international law, rests upon the foundation of the rights of the INDIVIDUAL. A nation-state which does not respect individual rights will not respect international law.

It is no accident that the US, and more broadly, the English-speaking nations ( The Anglosphere ) are always the ones at the barricades holding back the barbarians, because the very CONCEPT of the rule of law and individual rights were refined and first put into practice here, and this is the Anglosphere's great gift to the human race.

There is only ONE standard of human rights for ALL humans, and it is to be found in the Magna Carta, and the US Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Until the rest of the world abides by these inalienable rights, "international law" will be something that only the civilized world understands, and the security of the planet will depend ENTIRELY upon the military arsenals and the heroic soldiers of the Anglosphere.

The Magna Carta? You realize that was written in latin by French-speaking aristocrats, right? Additionally, the main thrust of Magna Carta was that a group of twenty-five barons could overule the king and seize his property if necessary (there was a lot of other stuff in there too about what happened to a man's estate if he died and owed money to Jews, and some other stuff that reduced the size of the King's hunting grounds). Not exactly defining the liberty of the individual here, freeguy.

An important document for its time, as it limited the power of the monarchy in some ways, and certainly was the basis of other important documents, but maybe you're thinking one of those other documents.

or is it acceptable to violate such a code if it is necessary to win and maintain our interests/sovereignty etc?

There's a world of difference between maintaining our interests and maintaining our sovereignity. There's no question that actions which would be wildly inappropriate for maintaining a peripheral interest (e.g. threatening to use a nuclear weapon on a populated area) are entirely appropriate for maintaining our sovereignity (cf: MAD).

Where the Right continues to be absolutely insane is in the insistence that just because organizations such as Al Qaeda have the desire to destroy us, they have the power to do so. They do not, and when we begin to treat them as entities which only have power if we screw up badly, we will do a lot better very quickly.

There's a world of difference between maintaining our interests and maintaining our sovereignity.

Not true. Giving up our interests repeatedly over time is sure to threaten our sovereignty. That's what ultimately makes them interests. Things that if we give up make us poorer, weaker, less competitive etc. All are finally threats of increasing magnitude to our sovereignty. Example. The destruction of all the oild fields in the ME would threaten our sovereignty because now Russia and China have a HUGE hammer to hold over our economy and hence our body politic.

There's no question that actions which would be wildly inappropriate for maintaining a peripheral interest (e.g. threatening to use a nuclear weapon on a populated area) are entirely appropriate for maintaining our sovereignity (cf: MAD).

For peripheral interests perhaps, what seperates peripheral from essential interests?

Where the Right continues to be absolutely insane is in the insistence that just because organizations such as Al Qaeda have the desire to destroy us, they have the power to do so.

Not the point at all. It is that Al Qaeda has the desire and may be able to obtain the means to damage us greatly. It is the desire that is the key. England's nukes don't trouble me in the least. They lack the desire to damage us. AQ did a billion dollars danage and killed the equivalent of a small town with boxcutters. In THIS world, those who have money and/or share an ideology with nuclear powers should be very frightening indeed.

They do not,

Yet you mean.

and when we begin to treat them as entities which only have power if we screw up badly,

Huh? It's our screwup if Russians sell AQ a nuke? It's our screwup if Iran or NK does so? Stop the insanity indeed.

we will do a lot better very quickly.

Er, a lot better at what?

Huh? It's our screwup if Russians sell AQ a nuke? It's our screwup if Iran or NK does so? Stop the insanity indeed.

Yes, of course it is our screwup -- our idiocy in not recognizing the danger and taking the actions necessary either to reprocess Russian nukes or to make politically possible for Iran to avoid going nuclear. And I notice that you didn't include Pakistan in that list, another example of Bush coddling a proliferating, unstable state.

And better, as in getting fewer Americans killed and spending less money. Though I'm starting to come to the conclusion that the Right doesn't consider a President or policy successful if it doesn't get American servicemen and women killed.

Kimmitt,

I'll agree with you on the Russian dimension but you have GOT to be kidding about the US compelling the Iranian mullahs to get the bomb. If the US hadn't invaded Iraq, would Iran have a nuclear program? If the US minimized its presence in the Middle East over the past 25 years, would Iran have a nuclear program?

Iran has been (mostly) the largest support of terrorists for 25 years and have had a clandestine nuclear program for a good chunk of that time as well. Placing the onus of the mullahs' drive to get the bomb on the US is one of the most soft-headed opinions I've read this year - and I've read a lot of increadibly soft-headed ideas in 2004...

Most of us agree that it's a matter of time before Iran turns into something vaguely resembling a rational secular authoritarian state, because it's a basically successful state with pretensions of modernity, and the only way for states of that type to continue to prosper is to follow either the West's or China's model, both of which are incompatible with this continuing revolution stuff. So the point of nonproliferation with regard to Iran is to, with a combination of carrots and sticks, keep them from getting nukes until they stop sponsoring terrorists (since doing so will eventually be outside their interests). The Iraq war interefered with that, because any Iranian citizen who has even the vaguest form of nationalism is aware of the fact that the US is ready and willing to invade Middle Eastern countries (especially oil-rich ones) on the flimsiest of pretexts and without any support from the international community. The ruling elite of Iran would be failing in their most basic of duties -- to protect the territorial integrity of the country -- if they did not bring about a nuclear deterrent to US aggression. It's hard to come up with good carrots and sticks to slow things down when their (entirely rational) response is, "We need to get this done before you get tired of Iraq and lumber over here."

Kimmitt,

Iraq is North Korea with oil wealth. We can probably agree that US actions during the Cold War helped set the conditions for the establishment of a theocracy 25 years ago. But given the nature of this government, irrespective of its genesis, I don't see what combination of carrots and sticks will prevent the mullahs from acquiring the bomb. The theocrats hold on power remains strong; while the youth of Iran are the most pro-American population in that part of the world, they have had no success in loosening the chains of the theocracy - just ask them (I have).

The mullahs have consistently and strategically support terrorism for 25 years. They created a sophisticated, sustained nuclear weapons program that will bear fruit soon; the US move against Iraq in 2003 may have caused the theocrats to step on the accelerator but they were well down the WMD road before GWB ever came to the Oval Office.

Again, what carrots and sticks (in any scenario - even assuming the Saddam was still in power) would prevent Iran from getting the bomb?

Carrots: doesn't the 1994 agreement with North Korea show that regimes determined to acquire nukes cannot be bought off? NK, a country without the wealth of Iran, gets bribed to temporarily suspend their plutonium program while they go full speed ahead with their cladestine uranium program. When their secret is revealed, it's full speed ahead on plutonium as well. Incentives didn't work in NK - why would they work in Iran?

Sticks: what arrangement of sanctions and/or limited military actions would deter the mullahs? And if there is such an arrangement, how does Operatoin Iraqi Freedom (OIF) prevent that strategy from being pursued?

No, the mullahs have wanted the bomb for a long time and they are close to getting it. The Gulf War, US presence in Afghanistan (OEF), and OIF did not create this desire. Geopolitical realities that compelled India and Pakistan to acquire nukes are no less real for Iran. The mullahs have spent decades and billions to get where they are today. The past 20 months are not the reason why the US, Israel, and eventually Europe will have to soon deal with a nuclear Iran.

A domestically brutal, international terror-supporting, oil-rich regime will soon have the bomb. Stating that OIF is the reason for the current state of affairs is (IMHO) wrong, and doesn't address the real question: what should the US do to prevent Iran from going nuclear?

Carrots: doesn't the 1994 agreement with North Korea show that regimes determined to acquire nukes cannot be bought off?

Not particularly; we seem to have bought ten years of delay at the cost of many bags of wheat. Seems like we could probably do the same thing again if we worked at it. Proliferation is inevitable. Proliferation while a given regime endures is not.

There is nothing we can offer Iran to stop its nuclear program; before 2002, Iran could conceivably view a nuclear program as a luxury, rather than a necessity. That time has passed. Iran needs nukes to maintain its territorial integrity (from us). The Iraq war hosed us very badly on that one.

The USA and Iraq in 2004 were in a state of CEASE FIRE, not at peace.

Therefore, as long as the USA says that Iraq broke that CEASE FIRE, war would of course be legal.

People forget that USA was enforcing no fly zones, and Iraqis were firing back.

"Not particularly; we seem to have bought ten years of delay at the cost of many bags of wheat. Seems like we could probably do the same thing again if we worked at it."

NK had (and has) strong needs for food, fuel oil, and the promise of light water reactors - Iran does not. That bundle of carrots won't work on the mullahs since they have cheap, plentiful fuel - enough to buy as much food as they want to go along with their support of multiple terror networks.

"There is nothing we can offer Iran to stop its nuclear program; before 2002, Iran could conceivably view a nuclear program as a luxury, rather than a necessity."

The 25-year history of the Iranian theocracy shows that your statement is just plain wrong. The start of OIF in March 2003 is a blip on the radar; the mullahs are driving to dominate the region and spread their religious revolution. OIF didn't tip any scales that weren't already decisively weighted; their actions have not changed appreciably in the past 21 months. Your attempt to link the current crisis to events that began less than two years (or even 3 years ago if you track to OEF) just doesn't add up.

I suggest we either agree to disagree or we post links that support our positions. I will be ready to collect and post the information on how the stated, explicit objectives of the Iranian mullahs has been building towards regional domination and WMD for over two decades. The Iranian government has not been shy about broadcasting its intent. I would very much like to read information that shows how Iran's position has been miscontrued or warped in any way - let alone see a convincing case that we wouldn't be facing this crisis if OIF had never started.

the mullahs are driving to dominate the region and spread their religious revolution.

I do completely agree with you here, but surely you agree that "pursuing foreign policy goals" is a lesser motivation than "deterring military conquest"?

I mean, if we're talking about what Iran wants, we could hardly have done better than to take out Afghanistan, then destabilize Iraq. This is a high-risk high-reward time for Iran.

I agree that US actions since 9/11 could hardly be more threatening - aside from open confrontation. The mullahs (if they're smart) should feel threatened with US forces moving to envelope them. But again, it hasn't driven them down a different path than what they had already chosen. With help from Pakistan and NK, they were already working hard to acquire both nukes and missile technology.

[As an aside: Libya entered negoiations with the US and UK about the same time as OIF kicked off - and Khadafi (sp?) formally gave up his WMD development about the same time he saw another despot dragged out of a spider hole. The Libyan WMD rock was lifted, shining the light on Pakistan's complicity in selling nuclear information. In addition to US actions slowly enveloping Iran, OIF was also effectively in cuttting out key support that Iran had been using to acquire nukes. Again, the mullahs had linked up with Khan well before OIF - another indication of the path Iran has been traveling down for a long time now.]

My question is what set of US actions could have either taken Iran off the path they are on or caused them to be slowed considerably? I can understand how someone who didn't want OIF to happen could be frustrated that the US is justifying any belief Iran has that the US presents a clear and present danger to them - but that doesn't change the fact that Iran was and is a clear and present danger to that part of the world and, eventually, will be a direct threat to the US.

But again, it hasn't driven them down a different path than what they had already chosen.

Again, I completely agree. The question isn't the path, the question is what they're willing to give up to travel down the path quickly. Back when the path was to regional dominance, we could threaten to cost them power in the region (through sanctions, soft power, airstrikes, etc.) When the path is to territorial integrity, we can't threaten them with anything.

Libya entered negoiations with the US and UK about the same time as OIF kicked off - and Khadafi (sp?) formally gave up his WMD development about the same time he saw another despot dragged out of a spider hole.

Fair enough, though it must be noted that this move was of a piece with other Libyan attempts to reintegrate with the West which date back to Clinton.

that doesn't change the fact that Iran was and is a clear and present danger to that part of the world and, eventually, will be a direct threat to the US.

Why not try to put that day off as long as possible, in the hopes that by the time Iran has the power to present a danger to us, they no longer have the motivation? Yes, Iran is a regional power. Yes, Iran sponsors terrorist groups. The two do not need to be linked.

I'd say the obligations of international law look pretty clear about things like the US occupation of iraq.

The rule is, if you occupy a foreign nation it's your responsibility to maintain order. It isn't the responsibility of random foreign nationals not to be disruptive. It's your responsibility to maintain order and protect civilians from each other.

If you have reason to think you can't do that, then don't occupy that foreign nation.

The early estimates that it would take 350,000 to 500,000 troops to maitain order in iraq were a reasonable warning. We didn't have the troops, and we couldn't expect to get them even with all the allies we trusted. (China could provide a few hundred thousand easily if we provided the transportation, or if, say, afghanistan and iran gave safe passage. But we don't want chinese troops helping us occupy iraq.)

The international law position is, "You break it, you own it." It's your job to make the occupied nation a safe place for its citizens, against whatever criminals happen to arise. It isn't your place to do airstrikes against cities that are temporarily controlled by criminal groups. It isn't your place to do counterbattery artillery fire. It isn't your place to torture civilians who might have information about the criminals. Rape is right out. If you can't run a humane occupation then you're wrong to run an inhumane one.

It isn't that you're supposed to make an agreement with the criminals. It isn't that it's OK for you to do atrocities if they do. If you want to destroy a regime, and you don't have the resources to actually get a replacement, then don't do it.

Of course Saddam had done atrocities against "his own people". Saddam doing it that doesn't justify us doing it. Terrorists doing it doesn't justify us doing it. If we aren't strong enough to beat the iraqis without doing war crimes ourselves, then we have made a mistake.

See, it isn't just squeamishness. If we can't win without war crimes then it's real unlikely that we'll get a result that's worth the cost. "The end justifies the means" doesn't work if the means are so bad the end doesn't justify them -- and the worse we have to act to get to those ends the less likely we'll get to them anyway.

This particular time there was no moral dilemma. It was an elective war. We didn't have to do it at all, Bush chose to because he thought it was a good thing to do. There wasn't much hurry, we could easily have afforded to wait a year and get the intelligence right, and get the troops better prepared, etc. (Unless we had to head off an israeli pre-emptive strike or something. Hmm. Was the israeli army big enough to strike through jordan and take iraq? Yes. Did they have the technology? Yes, they had ours. Did they have enough bombs? Probably. Say they took jordan and kurdistan and tried to guard the northern oil....

Aw hell. Better them than us. If they wanted to we should have let them, and cut off the aid, and imposed some general solution. I'm not sure they even had plans to do it, much less the resolve to carry them out. Barring such fantasies we could have waited. We attacked iraq when we did because we wanted to, we didn't want to find out about WMDs, we didn't want to get afghanistan stabilised, it was 100% elective.

It turns out we weren't prepared. We didn't know what we were doing. Now we have no clue how to run the occupation. We have no idea how to maitain order, to the point that we're telling the occupied iraqis they have to maintain order themselves.

Our violations of international law here are entirely our choice. We didn't have to invade and occupy when we weren't ready to do the job right. Now we're stuck with it and we don't know how to do it, and our atrocities aren't even getting us the results we need.

Check out How to Gamble in America :: Poker Index :: Poker Room Review :: Sports Index :: Sports Book Review :: Casino Index :: Casino Review :: Craps :: Blackjack Strategies :: Roulette :: Let It Ride :: Three Card Poker :: Video Poker :: Gambling Quotes :: Online Gambling :: Online Poker :: Draw Poker :: Poker Hand Rankings :: Texas Hold’em :: Seven Card Stud :: Seven Card High/Low :: Omaha :: Omaha High/Low :: Guide To Sports Betting :: The Basics to Wagering on Sports :: Parlays :: Teasers :: Half Point :: Sports Betting Tips & Tricks :: Money Management :: Sports Betting Terminology :: Horse Racing Tips :: Free NFL Pick

Also check out The 100 Best Poker Rooms, Sports Books, and Casinos for all the best up to date online gambling sites.

Hi,your homepage looks really good and gives great information!
Thank you very much!
Greetings from me!!
kamery cyfrowe

asian dating singleasian dating single siteasian dating singlesadult friend finder altadult friend finder australiaadult friend finder cajaadult friend finder centeradult friend finder chatadult friend finder chat roomadult friend finder comadult friend finder couponadult friend finder crackadult friend finder datingdating free sex site webdating game sex simdating hot sexdating interracial sex sitedating line sexdating local sexdating mak sexdating malaysia sexdating married sexdating married sex womandating gay man olderdating gay man onlinedating gay man servicedating gay man servicesdating gay man sitedating girl man older youngdating guide for mandating guide mandating hispanic mandating indian manmexican dating servicesmichigan dating servicesmilitary dating servicesmillionaire dating servicemillionaire dating servicesminnesota dating servicesmontreal dating servicesmuslim dating servicesnew jersey dating servicenew jersey dating servicesnew york city dating servicesonline columbia dating siteonline dating siteonline dating site for fat peopleonline dating site in euonline dating site reviewsonline dating site ukonline dating web site ukonline free adult dating sitelesbian personals onlinelesbian personals photolesbian personals ravenlesbian personals teenlesbian personals uklesbian personals yahoolesbian photo personalslesbian teen personalspersonals lesbianteen lesbian personalsuk lesbian personalsdating las vegasdating las services vegasdating las service vegasdating las speed vegasdating las nv vegasdating in las online site vegasadult dating las vegasdating las transexual vegasdating filipinadating filipina womandating filipina lady onlinedating filipina onlinecolorado adult personalscompletely free adult personalsconnecticut adult personalsdallas adult personalsdating sex match personalsdenver adult personalsdiscreet adult personalsdominant personals womanerotic adult personalsexcite adult personalsexcite adult personals classifiedsfind adult personalsflorida adult personalsadult sex chatadult sex chat aaaadult sex chat networkadult sex chat roomadult sex chat roomsadult sex chat sitesadult single chatadult single chat roomadult singles chat roomsadult stream chatadult uk chatadult uk chat roomslesbian orgy movieslesbian porn movieslesbian pussy movieslesbian sample movieslesbian sex movies

klimatyzacja
projektowanie wnętrz
jiddu
3d
reklama
projektowanie stron
nieruchomości
forum ludzkie
poezja
swietlica
psycholog
agroturystyka
opony

online casino

Greetings From NY !

dolores oral sex @ dolores oralnie @ dolores oralny @ dolores orgia @ dolores osiemnastolatki @ dolores ostra jazda @ dolores pamela anderson @ dolores panienki @ dolores panienki dziewczyny @ dolores panienki nagie @ dolores panty hose @ dolores paparazzi @ dolores paulina @ dolores pejcze @ dolores perwersja @ dolores perwersyjne @ dolores pierdolenie studentek @ dolores pijane amatorki @ dolores pijane erotyka @ dolores pijane lolitki @ dolores pijane murzynki @ dolores pijane studentki @ dolores playboy modelki @ dolores podkapova @ dolores podniecajace @ dolores podryw @ dolores podrywacze @ dolores pole @ dolores polskie dziewczyny @ dolores polskie porno @ dolores poniczoszki @ dolores porno amatorki @ dolores porno avi @ dolores porno cipy @ dolores porno divx @ dolores porno dziewczyny @ dolores porno erotyka @ dolores porno nastolatki @ dolores pornografia @ dolores pornolia @ dolores pornos @ dolores pornostars @ dolores pornstars @ dolores posuwanie @ dolores pronosex @ dolores pronoshow @ dolores prywatne @ dolores puszyste @ dolores reality @ dolores rocco

Hi I have been given the task of getting links for our websites thathave good page rank on the links directories.In addition we have many categories so your site will be place on an appropriate page. If you would like to trade links please send me your website details.Best Regards,seopro@walla.com
http://www2w.bravehost.com vs the best casino http://casino.vmedical.us new online casino
casinos
casino
online poker
online gambling
online casinos
online casinos
online casinos
online poker
online casinos
online casino
casino
poker
casino
casino
casinos
online casino
online gambling
casino
poker
neteller casinos
online casino
online poker
online casino
internet poker
free online poker
texas holdem poker
poker
online slots
online roulette
online blackjack
poker
online casinos
online casino

asc
kraob
eves
akupunktura
freesz
puz
domy opieki

runescape money runescape gold runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape gold runescape money runescape accounts runescape gp dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold tabula rasa money lotro gold buy lotro gold Tabula Rasa Credit Tabula Rasa Credits Hellgate gold Hellgate London gold dofus kamas buy dofus kamas 血管瘤 肝血管瘤 音乐剧 北京富码电视 富码电视 富码电视台 7天酒店 7天连锁酒店 7天连锁 自清洗过滤器 过滤器 压力开关 压力传感器 流量开关 流量计 液位计 液位开关 温湿度记录仪 风速仪 可燃气体检测仪 wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft PowerLeveling Warcraft Power Leveling World of Warcraft PowerLeveling World of Warcraft Power Leveling runescape power leveling runescape powerleveling
runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling 棕榈树
eve isk
eve online isk
eve isk
eve online isk