From: John K Clark (jonkc@att.net)
Date: Wed Aug 14 2002 - 22:52:42 MDT
"Samantha Atkins" <samantha@objectent.com> Wrote:
>The above means that any group that thinks you are responsible
>for their grievances can legitimately do the same to you.
I don't know what that means because I don't know what you mean by
"legitimately". Would I want to kill some people if I had the chance? Yes.
Would I want them to kill me if they had the chance? No. That's what I mean
by "legitimately".
>International law is incompetent when major players, like US, don't
>support it.
You are talking about a word not a law. For a law to be worthy of the name
it must be, if not universal at least have a clear jurisdiction, it must be
unambiguous and most important of all there must be mechanism of enforcement
that works for at least a substantial minority of the time; international
law has none of these properties and it not even close. Some things are too
important to just put on a show, when international law fails to stop
terrorists from operating in the open in some rouge nation, and it well, the
USA can not afford to just shrug its shoulders and say oh well we tried.
Don't misunderstand me, I think international law would be a wonderful thing
and I wish it existed, I wish I had a cold fusion reactor in my lawnmower
too but I don't expect to see either anytime soon.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:07 MST