Home | Community | Message Board


Cannabis Seeds - Original Sensible Seeds
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Amazon Scales

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 13 years, 7 months
international law
    #4924625 - 11/12/05 02:02 AM (15 years, 16 days ago)

http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2005/11/a_grotian_momen.html#more

this blog makes a good point about how the US has contempt for international law in some ways, yet still tries saddam under it.

the idea that some absolute moral law makes real law legitimate is absurd. morality changes with the moralist.

this makes me think about the difference between international law and national law. nations have states which monopolize the use of force. yet there is no such international state.

every day some new viewpoint bitches and moans about the numerous violations of international law. but such violations will always occur until a non-national international entity monopolizes the use of force.

and how many countries do you know are going to give up their militaries so they can submit to an international state?

at the international level, there is no state, and thus no true international law, but only anarchy and confederation.


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: international law [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4925328 - 11/12/05 11:39 AM (15 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

this blog makes a good point about how the US has contempt for international law in some ways, yet still tries saddam under it.




It is not the US trying Hussein, it is Iraq.





Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 13 years, 7 months
Re: international law [Re: Phred]
    #4925342 - 11/12/05 11:53 AM (15 years, 16 days ago)

you're misreading. plainly if the US tries saddam under international law, it's not US law that saddam is being tried under.

this statement merely makes note of the obvious and hypocritical role the US has played in all this.


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,174
Last seen: 4 years, 3 months
Re: international law [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4925374 - 11/12/05 12:18 PM (15 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

plainly if the US tries saddam under international law, it's not US law that saddam is being tried under.




So what? It doesn't really matter what law he is being tried under as long as he is being tried.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: international law [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4925472 - 11/12/05 01:10 PM (15 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

you're misreading. plainly if the US tries saddam under international law, it's not US law that saddam is being tried under.




I'm not misreading anything. It is not the government of the United States of America trying Saddam Hussein, it is the government of Iraq trying Saddam Hussein.

Why do you think Saddam's trial was delayed as long as it was? It was delayed till now to allow the formation of an elected government of Iraq and the ratification by the people of Iraq of a constitution developed by that elected government. In other words, to give legitimacy to the trial. It is not the US or some puppet body of the US who will be trying Hussein. It is the legitimate government of Iraq.

This is an easy concept to understand.




Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 13 years, 7 months
Re: international law [Re: Phred]
    #4927932 - 11/13/05 03:44 AM (15 years, 15 days ago)

Quote:

It is not the government of the United States of America trying Saddam Hussein, it is the government of Iraq trying Saddam Hussein.



phred:i said the US is trying saddam under international law. how could the US try saddam under US law? this is misreading because the statement has more than one possible meaning; only one meaning considering the context; yet you've excised a meaning that is directly out of place considering the context.

after all, i'm merely pointing out the active role the US plays in trying saddam. for starers, the prosecuting lawyers have a far larger budget, of $128 million, thanks to the US government. more importantly, it is the US that formed the iraqi special tribunal that is trying saddam and it selected the judges of the IST. incidentally, numerous reports of travesties of justice and due process are on-going. of no mean importance is the fact that the US waging a military campaign throughout iraq while this is happening. and no doubt, saddam could not be tried under iraqi law had the US military not captured saddam, and allowed him to be tried. i think all these factors together more than demonstrate the active role of the US in the trial.

do you have a substantial objection to my argument's conclusions or are you just quibbling with how i worded my post at 1 in the morning?

Quote:

Why do you think Saddam's trial was delayed as long as it was? It was delayed till now to allow the formation of an elected government of Iraq and the ratification by the people of Iraq of a constitution developed by that elected government. In other words, to give legitimacy to the trial. It is not the US or some puppet body of the US who will be trying Hussein. It is the legitimate government of Iraq.




for some reason when i read that i think you are trying to disagree with my post. what i'm arguing is that the US attitude toward international law is contradictory, i.e., legitimate in some ways and illegitimate in others. arguing that the US has acted in accordance with international law in some respects merely supports my argument.

the issue here is the united states' hypocritical actions (hypocritical in terms of international law). on the one hand, the US invades a nation in direct violation of international law; on the other hand the result of this is that saddam gets ostensibly tried according to international law. IOW the US "obeys international law" when doing so is opportune.

Quote:

So what? It doesn't really matter what law he is being tried under as long as he is being tried.



redstorm: the issue as i see it here is US relation to international law. if the US invaded iraq, and tried saddam under US law, that would be a consistent violation of international law, since it would be the US holding it's own law above international law. but to invade iraq (in violation), then try saddam according to international law, (ostensibly invoking the moral argument of trying saddam in accordance with international law), is kind of contradictory, in terms of international law.

which in turn points to the phantasmic quality of international law, that could only be dispelled through the existence of an international state.


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: international law [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4928369 - 11/13/05 10:56 AM (15 years, 15 days ago)

Quote:

what i'm arguing is that the US attitude toward international law is contradictory, i.e., legitimate in some ways and illegitimate in others.




That's fine and dandy. Just don't use Saddam's trial as part of your argument, since Saddam is not being tried by the US under US or international law, but by the democratically-elected Iraqi government operating under the constraints of the democratically-ratified Iraqi constitution.

If you want to provide different examples of the US selectively ignoring "international law", be my guest.





Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 13 years, 7 months
Re: international law [Re: Phred]
    #4928529 - 11/13/05 12:39 PM (15 years, 15 days ago)

Quote:

If you want to provide different examples of the US selectively ignoring "international law", be my guest




as i said, this is an example the US selectively following international law. the example of the US selectively ignoring international law, in my argument, is the invasion of iraq.

anyway, this is just nitpicking of examples on your part, since the examples only have significance in relation to the argument as a whole. do you really mean to suggest that the US has either always followed international law, or always ignored it?

Quote:

That's fine and dandy. Just don't use Saddam's trial as part of your argument, since Saddam is not being tried by the US under US or international law, but by the democratically-elected Iraqi government operating under the constraints of the democratically-ratified Iraqi constitution.




i have already demonstrated how the "US is trying saddam" with ample evidence that shows that the US has an active role in his trial, despite the fact that the government is ostensibly iraqi. yet you have merely restated your position in response, with no support whatsoever. thus, i feel no need to restate my position on this. to see my position and my argument, just look at my previous post.

as for the idea that saddam's trial doesn't demonstrate US respect for international law-

you seem to think that if the court is iraqi, that saddam isn't tried under international law. yet the IST heavily borrows from international law to try him under it.

every law is implicitly based on a moral code. because the IST heavily borrows from international law to try saddam, it implicitly tries saddam under the international moral code, and in that sense under international law.

do you really mean to suggest that international law and the US government play no role in saddam's trial, simply because the iraqi government plays a role?


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,174
Last seen: 4 years, 3 months
Re: international law [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4928710 - 11/13/05 02:16 PM (15 years, 15 days ago)

Quote:


you seem to think that if the court is iraqi, that saddam isn't tried under international law.




That's because it isn't international law. It is Iraqi law. You never said international law influenced Iraqi law, you said Saddam is being tried under it.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 13 years, 7 months
Re: international law [Re: Redstorm]
    #4930763 - 11/14/05 12:58 AM (15 years, 14 days ago)

in the context of the argument, all i need to show to use saddam's trial as support for my conclusions is the connection between the US and lip-service to legitimacy under international law.

i think this qualifies as a trial under international law, since it was founded on the precepts of international law, and since the tribunal was approved by the UN as a court for international law.

yet a big problem with the concept of international law, that i already pointed out in my post, and that you implicitly bring up with yours, is the absence of an international state to try international crimes. the fact that an iraqi tribunal approved by the UN was set up to try saddam merely points to the absence of an international state, not the absence (in this case) of US lip-service to international law, as i have shown.


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,174
Last seen: 4 years, 3 months
Re: international law [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4930807 - 11/14/05 01:08 AM (15 years, 14 days ago)

We don't need an International Court. When international crime occur, it should be up to the various sovereign states to form a court, which they can enforce.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 13 years, 7 months
Re: international law [Re: Redstorm]
    #4930840 - 11/14/05 01:17 AM (15 years, 14 days ago)

you may be right. i'm not sure how i feel on this issue. let me ask you a question: do you think we need courts for issues on the national level (crimes against the state's laws)? or maybe you are an anarchist, and believe that we should abolish the state?

and if you're not an anarchist, i have another question for you (and anyone else reading this thread)- if we need courts for national issues, why wouldn't an international state, with international courts for international issues, be a good idea?

the reason i ask is because right now i think that the international arena basically operates as a kind of anarchy, since there is no entity with a virtual monopoly on the use of a force (an international state). yet i don't know whether i think this is a good a thing or not.

edit: you bring up the possibility that sovreign states could get together and decide crimes. but that brings up the same problem that would occur if this happened if americans lived in anarchy: the biggest, most powerful nations would decide what's right and wrong for all the other nations. i've seen decent arguments of why this might be okay- but my question is, why would one be okay on the international level, but not the national level?


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger


Edited by crunchytoast (11/14/05 01:27 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,174
Last seen: 4 years, 3 months
Re: international law [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4930896 - 11/14/05 01:33 AM (15 years, 14 days ago)

I'm not an anarchist. I do not believe in the legitimacy in most international governments, not only b/c I feel the state should not hand over its sovereignty, but because it doesn't seem like many of them do a good job.

I believe that states should get together to form temporary international courts in times of extreme crisis, such as after WWII. Though this process will be dominated by the more powerful countries, I feel that this is unavoidable and inevitable.

Overall, I'm not a fan of international organizations.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 13 years, 7 months
Re: international law [Re: Redstorm]
    #4930936 - 11/14/05 01:47 AM (15 years, 14 days ago)

i agree that the UN is big joke.

but i'm wondering if a viable alternative is possible.

i mean, the reason i think the UN does such a poor job is because it's powerless, founded on words and ideals not force.

that's why i'm wondering if an international state is the answer.

you're a fan of national organizations. why is this better than anarchy? certainly a federal government in america deprives individual states of sovreignty they might otherwise have. yet at the same time having a national government prevents total domination by the strong of the weak.

why couldn't this be applicable at the international level?

i mean, for the life of me, the only difference i see between a theoretical international state, and individual national states, is a difference of scale.


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleLos_Pepes
Stranger

Registered: 06/26/05
Posts: 731
Re: international law [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4933264 - 11/14/05 06:43 PM (15 years, 13 days ago)

Quote:

crunchytoast said:
http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2005/11/a_grotian_momen.html#more

this blog makes a good point about how the US has contempt for international law in some ways, yet still tries saddam under it.

the idea that some absolute moral law makes real law legitimate is absurd. morality changes with the moralist.

this makes me think about the difference between international law and national law. nations have states which monopolize the use of force. yet there is no such international state.

every day some new viewpoint bitches and moans about the numerous violations of international law. but such violations will always occur until a non-national international entity monopolizes the use of force.

and how many countries do you know are going to give up their militaries so they can submit to an international state?

at the international level, there is no state, and thus no true international law, but only anarchy and confederation.




You support Saddam Hussein? You must be a Sunni Muslim looking for martyrdom. What happened was entirely legal as was posted in this forum numerous times. Look at UN resolution 1441, for example, if your attention span isn't too short. You suck at politics. Get out of this forum.


Edited by Los_Pepes (11/14/05 06:45 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,174
Last seen: 4 years, 3 months
Re: international law [Re: Los_Pepes]
    #4933277 - 11/14/05 06:48 PM (15 years, 13 days ago)

Here, I'll help you out since you're having a hard time comprehending his posts.

He never said anything about supporting Saddam. I'm not entirely sure where you get that from.

Also, I expect you will get a warning from your latest streak of diatribes against the members of this forum.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: international law [Re: Los_Pepes]
    #4933880 - 11/14/05 08:57 PM (15 years, 13 days ago)

Los Pepes, that's a flame. This is your official warning. Next violation is a ban.



Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
Re: international law [Re: Phred]
    #4934187 - 11/14/05 10:02 PM (15 years, 13 days ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Los Pepes, that's a flame. This is your official warning. Next violation is a ban.



Phred




This is the cue for someone to start baiting  :grin:


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 13 years, 7 months
Re: international law [Re: Los_Pepes]
    #4936195 - 11/15/05 09:18 AM (15 years, 13 days ago)

Quote:

You support Saddam Hussein?



nope.  redstorm is right; you've misunderstood my point.

Quote:

You must be a Sunni Muslim looking for martyrdom.



irrelevant, and, nope.

Quote:

What happened was entirely legal as was posted in this forum numerous times. Look at UN resolution 1441, for example,



that resolution is merely the UN resolving to inspect iraq in 2002.  did you even read that resolution?  it explicitly supports the sovreignty of saddam's iraq.  which the american invasion clearly violated.  furthermore the resolution never resolves for american invasion and occupation of iraq.  furthermore the american war on iraq constitutes a war of aggression, since it was not taken in self-defence, and not authorized by the UN.

here is a useful discussion on the topic: http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2005/11/is_bush_a_war_c.html#more
this looks at the question of whether bush himself is a war criminal, and ultimately concludes that the question is not a practical one.  this is pretty close to my personal opinion on international law.  even though this blog entry talks about bush explicitly, you can find good arguments for american violation of international law. 

roughly, the american violations of international law that have pragmatics as their only objection, or exclude bush but not the US, include:
*the iraq war is a war of aggression
*the US used excessive force
*torture in iraq
*torture/detention elsewhere
*complicity in saddam hussein's crimes (i would argue the blog's reasoning is flawed on this one, and ultimately the only substantial objection it has is the practical one that it's not feasible to try state leaders/nations for crimes like these)

Quote:

if your attention span isn't too short. You suck at politics.



:frown:

Quote:

Get out of this forum.



nope. :kiss:


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Amazon Scales

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Britain to pass Indirect Terrorism Law Swami 1,276 4 08/17/05 08:48 PM
by Los_Pepes
* Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 biblical law in america mabus 1,247 13 03/15/04 09:25 PM
by Phred
* Why is the military killing international journalists? RadioActiveSlug 559 1 04/09/03 07:37 AM
by PsiloKitten
* old law turns protesters into threats against the Pres DigitalDuality 429 0 09/23/04 03:27 AM
by DigitalDuality
* The First Amendment - Void Where Prohibited by Law Evolving 3,289 17 02/10/04 03:28 PM
by silversoul7
* International Drug Laws Tao 674 6 03/05/04 04:16 AM
by azurescens
* Council scraps Saddam's housing laws wingnutx 319 0 10/07/03 12:28 AM
by wingnutx
* Idiotic Gun Laws
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
The14thWarrior 6,535 94 10/13/05 04:12 PM
by Mushmonkey

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
1,202 topic views. 6 members, 2 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
Avalon Magic Plants
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2020 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.074 seconds spending 0.012 seconds on 16 queries.