Re: How America Massacred Many Innocent Civilians At Fallujah

From: A_Weisman (a_weisman_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 06/19/04 

Date: 19 Jun 2004 11:21:06 -0700

derdrittemann2003@yahoo.com (derdrittemann) wrote in message news:<f2af2263.0406162040.7eaedbf1@posting.google.com>...
> a_weisman@yahoo.com (A_Weisman) wrote in message news:<e55e6d97.0406151113.4c8ec9eb@posting.google.com>...
 
A couple more points.

To clarify. The guy who wrote or coauthored some of the relevant memos
advising the guy in the white house that the geneva conventions don't
apply to gitmo detainees, and that the president doesn't have to obey
the law including the conventions against torture that the US is a
signatory to and are adapted in US law, when I said that he made
reasonable points, for the record, I don't agree with those points. I
don't agree with his limited view of his role to give legal advice
only, especially one sided legal advice. I don't agree that a lawyer
should always tell a client what they want to hear. I don't think that
ends the obligations of a lawyer and frequently doesn't serve the
client well.

Read the memos. Then we can discuss them. And I can explain why I
reject the various arguments. If you're interested. There are many
problems with the views expressed. I don't agree with the
constitutional interpretations which give disproportionate power to
the executive under "war powers" and powers to "protect and defend" It
is a view of the constitution which ignores specific limits, checks
and balances designed to guard against such a large assertion of
executive power. It ignores the ways that congress has powers to limit
the "war power" of the president. It ignores the role of the courts in
reviewing certain actions of either branch.

Another thing. If for the sake of this argument, we accept the
argument that "the oil must flow" and even if we accept the
implications, that we are right or justified in making sure that it
does even if it means using military force and violating laws and
treaties and norms of behavior, even if we accept that the US as the
sole superpower bears the brunt of that obligation and if necessary
bears it alone, I don't agree with the implicit assumption you seem to
make that islamic ruled states won't sell their oil to us.

And though you haven't said that we have a "right" to act on our
"need" to "keep the oil flowing" (or our "obligation") the clear
implication of saying that is that we should or will act upon that
need (obligation). Despite the implications that it means others could
seize our natural resources for their own "needs" and despite the
complete absence of any reasonable argument in international law or
history that any nation has the right to seize the resources of
another. Despite the absence of any such economic necessity argument
as a justification in all of recorded history.

And at other times in history the "need" for the resources of others
has been seemingly as great from the perspective of that time.

Why wouldn't islamic nations keep the oil flowing? Iran has. Iraq has
(though not islamic ruled). Despite changes in power and control
internally I can't think of any oil producing nation that has cut off
the supply of oil as a result of a political change. Why would they
cut their noses off to spite their faces?

Even an islamic ruled nation needs to succeed economically. And wants
to do so.

The view that islam is inconsistent with the development of culture,
trade, industry and stable government is historically inaccurate.

I think you need to realize that radical islam is NOT the prevaling
view in islam. It gains ascendancy when nations with large islamic
populations are treated badly by their rulers or governments. And
moderate voices are shunted aside.

Sort of like happens here on sci med and in Lymeland.

Another point. I don't think you can so blithely dismiss the things
I'm saying as "idealistic" but unrealistic.

They are very realistic.

What is UNrealistic is the ideologically driven neo con beliefs and
resulting policies and actions.

If you conceive of compliance with international law as motivated by
self interest rather than idealism, you can see how it can be very
effective. If you conceive of positive engagement, tolerance, cultural
understanding along with understanding and appreciation for religious
and other traditions, as motivated by self interest, suddenly what you
might dismiss as "idealism" becomes very much pragmatism.

A peaceful world is one where everyone benefits. A world at war hurts
everyone. A world where we encourage development of other nations
rather than exploiting them benefits us. We complain about trade
imbalances and outsourcing of jobs.

But how do we expect other nations to buy our goods and services and
technologies otherwise?

Imbalance creates instability, resentment and leads to trouble
including terrorism. And that isn't good for business. It isn't good
for anyone.

That's all for now.

Interested in your response. Though we may disagree on some points, I
am enjoying the intelligent discussion conducted in a civil fashion. I
appreciate your views and how they're expressed. Even if I don't fully
agree. :-)

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What if 20 million illegals left?
    ... power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. ... The United States Constitution ... Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, ... in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. ...
    (rec.scuba)
  • Re: Baja clinic known for unorthodox care closed
    ... Anti-Constitutional Activities and Abuse of Police Power by the ... U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other Federal Agencies ... Background to FDA Police-State Activities ... of law have been flagrantly violated and trampled into the dirt by the FDA ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Solar powered lasers in space
    ... You approach the problems you have in your life as if they result from ... Forget all the collective power centers ... never defeated a rich nation. ... predicted that the US woud enter secondary oil production by 1970. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: How America Massacred Many Innocent Civilians At Fallujah
    ... ever thought I would hear an American AG even question ... And you can't do that because international law is ... > part of pragmatic politics". ... > Multilateralism, it turns out, helps focus power rather than weakening ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
  • Re: Alternative interpretation of the KT boundary and dionsaur die-off
    ... They are an effect in their lives because of this, ... This process can operate within the context of a religion, ... similar views to build their perception of power. ... This can be augmented if all nations agreed to the following; ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Quantcast