Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

Apologies in advance Mason.

I'm sure you're banging your head against you Monitor or something as I seem to recall you stating at some point you're doing a PHD in international Relations or something, but I'm just trying to put the stuff I've been over in my International Relations module to some form of practical use in some form to see if I've actually grasped any of it properly, which i aint sure I have at the moment.

At 1/8/08 05:44 PM, TheMason wrote: No, that is not the basics of what law is,

Then what is the basics of a law?

Laws to my knowledge deal with what is and is not allowed. There may be variations on this, and the odd laws like tax laws which you might be able to put forward an argument as to not being classed as that but as a rule that is what a law does, allows or prohibits certain actions or items or whatever.

and Morgenthau in particular would disagree.

It may not have been Morganthau, I've read too many books over the past months to remember what bits of info come from where.

What you describe is an international dictatorship in which by that definition would be impossible for the US to violate international law because we would be the ones dictating what that international law is.

Which they do as I see it.

The US is the worlds only superpower, and as such holds an amount of power that no other nation has. As they are at the top of the table, they call the shots. They may not do it in the dictatorial style of ' Do it, or else' but the US has such a significant amount of political and economic clout that they don't often need to do the whole dictatorial style.

Morgenthau would simply claim that the US would just redefine international law to fit its interest.

How is redefining what International law different from creating it? It would still achieve the same ends, and would still only be achievable by the strongest state.

This is why there is no such thing as international law; there is no suprantional body that is capable of enforcing international agreements by punishing defection.

You don't necessarily have to have a level beyond that of the national state to have international law. If you have any form of grouping, an hierarchy will naturally form with the most powerful member at the top. The top of the hierarchy then dictates the rules to everyone else.

If that hierarchy is there in the international system, and I see no reason to think that it isn't there as to say that Burundi holds as much power as the US is a clear fallacy, then the top dog sets out the agenda, and therefore what they say goes to an extent, and they can create rules or laws that apply to the international society.

What we have is a network of treaties, conventions and regimes that is enforced only by the ability of the respective signatories to punish defections and violations of these treaties.

Most of these treaties and conventions work in favour of the US though. Treaties with which the US is involved in within some format very rarely would have a negative affect for the US. And even if they do the US could easily lessen that affect by saying ' No thank you' and then getting concessions made to appease it so they will sign.

Having the ability to do such a thing means that they to a very large degree they are in control of what is an is not allowable, which as I see it, is the basis of law.

The international arena (especially as described by Morganthau) exists in a state of structured anarchy rather than a state of law.

The proposition that the international system is in a state of Anarchy makes no sense to me. At all times there will be someone at the top of the ladder, those people naturally are able to control those below them in a number of ways. They have the ability to set rules which others must obey or face consequences. They might be military, or economic in nature but there are consequences.

US hegemony is simply a nice term for US imperial control...not an international legal system.

It doesn't have to be an international legal system. It just has to ve the US or whoever is at the top saying ' it shall be so', and as they have the power, that's what tends to happen. There will be examples where the 'law' doesn't quite work out, but since when did all laws achieve their desired affect?

I still fail to see the difference between ' re-defining' international law as you stated earlier, and creating international law. Both allow the state at the top of the hierarchy to affect how other states behave. The power to re-define what international law is, is equal to that of creating it in the first place. Doing the one is as good as doing the other as I see it.

---

No problem T-N-T...I actually enjoy discussions like this.

Oh yeah...my NG New Year's resolution is to rely upon my arguments; not my credentials.

First of all, you are correct that a basic characteristic of a law is to formalize a rule and delineate the consequences. The instruments that make up what is commonly referred to as "international law" do that. In this way they resemble a law.

Another characteristic of a law is that it can be applied to those members of a community who do not vote or agree with the law. For example; there were people who voted against allowing the federal government to levy taxes. These people still have to pay taxes. However, the US has not signed the Geneva convention that outlaws land mines. Even though a majority of countries has signed that regime; the US is not constrained by that treaty and may deploy land mines along the DMZ in Korea. In this way, what is commonly referred to as "international law" does not resemble a law.

Yet another criteria for a law is to have some organization to enforce the law. There is no supranational body that has this capability; and it would have to be a supranational body. Overall in the US the law is enforced uniformly between rich and poor, powerful and powerless. (Yes...I understand there are abuses...) In the international arena, the enforcement of "the law" is entirely dependant upon the individual nation's capability (according to Morganthau) to enforce their will and/or provisions of "the law". In this way, what is commonly referred to as "international law" does not resemble a law.

Therefore, "international law" fails to meet two out of three criteria to truly be a legal system that allows for "international law".

Now on to anarchy...

Three definitions according to the American Heritage Dictionary:
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

1) As stated earlier, there is no supranational political authority. Yes...there is the UN but they lack the means of enforcement and their resolutions do not apply to those who are not members of the UN.

2) This is where one may have a point that the system is not anarchical in that there is a heirarchy in that the US is the world's lone Superpower; and during the Cold War there was order by the bi-polar ordering natural to two dominat Superpowers. However, this is not a constant or stable system. China, NGOs and a whole host of rogue nations and groups makes for a chaotic ordering of the international community.

3) Again the only common principle in the international community is self-interest. While there are organizations such as the WTO that pass judgments in international disputes; the states involved only submit because the consequences of defection will be more detrimental to their self-interest than the judgement.

Think of the international system of anarchy as a game of "king of the hill" (albeit a VERY high stakes game). The US is currently in the position of King, France, Germany, China and to a lesser extent Russia are looking to take our place at the top of the hill. Our position is based upon our ability to stay at the top...our capability. There is no Constitution, treaty or regime that formalizes or stabilizes this position. It is Rousseu's pre-social contract state of nature (anarchy), the hierarchy is based upon "might makes right".

---

At 1/8/08 06:16 PM, TheMason wrote: No that is not enough of a reason.

Of course it is.

For me Clinton's impeachment was in the interest of justice.

The case is much stronger for Bush. Bush has done irreparable damage to our country.

A Bush/Cheney impeachment would only deepen this divide at a time when we need healing.

It's worth it, Bush needs to face punishment for his crimes.

And Bush presented evidence that he KNEW to be questionable and faulty.

This was not all about Nukes. Biological and Chemical weapons are far more scary in a post-Cold War world than nukes. It is a fact that Saddam used VX gas against the Kurds (the ONLY person known to use this horrid nerve agent). It is also a fact that he had built (with French help) biological research centers far above the necessary biohazard levels required to conduct peaceful, civilian research. Then there are the massive amounts of biological precursors he's KNOWN to have purchased that is used in the weaponiziation of Anthrax...that has yet to be accounted for. I can't really get into the rest at this point. But if there was an impeachment trial, it would not all be in the public eye and Bush would be found innocent.

Also Bill Clinton's intel advisors agreed he had WMDs.

So did the British.

So did the Israelis.

You're missing the point, Bush presented evidence that he knew to be extremely questionable and in some cases outright false. He LIED to congress and to the UN, and not on accident, HE KNEW THE EVIDENCE WAS FALSE. And furthermore, he completely ignored crucial information that put a large amount of doubt on if Saddam had WMDs or not.

Here's something else; NO intelligence is completely foolproof. ALL intelligence is faulty because it is NOT a science but an art. The art of knowing what someone else is actively attempting to keep you from knowing.

Once again missing the point, Bush KNEW the evidence was faulty. That's the keyword: "KNEW".

You may say there is a World Court; however this again has the problem of not having the capability to enforce its judgements.

Just because they aren't enforceable doesn't mean there aren't laws, someday there will be multiple world superpowers again, and then the UN will be able to enforce its regulations.

1) The CIA destroyed the evidence regarding GitMo...something altogether different from Iraq.

It's where they hold their important prisoners from Iraq and other places in the world.

2) What you don't see is the gun camera footage. Our shooters by and large do not fire unless they have authorization by higher authority who take into consideration factors such as:
* treaty constraints
* cultural sensitivity (ie: is a Mosque nearby)
* collateral damage
These factors are then compared and contrasted to the military necessity before a shot is fired.

Only 40-50,000 Iraqis have died due to US military action for the entirity of the war and civilian/soldier alike. This is an unparalleled, if you look at previous wars, low enemy casualty count...and it is because the US military does not go in and indiscriminately kill like the VAST amount of occupiers down through history.

Militarily it was probably handled very well. Diplomatically it was handled very poorly, we failed miserably at winning the confidence and support of the Iraqi people, and this has indirectly caused the loss of a much larger number of Iraqis.

That has NOTHING to do with Brown or Bush. Neither person could LEGALLY respond until the request came from local and state officials. That they did not and COULD not is proof that we have YET to live in a military/police state.

Yes legally they were in the clear, but that's it. It doesn't change the fact Brown wasn't qualified to run FEMA, and the fact that he was incompetent led to the deaths of the citizens of New Orleans. Not that I think this would be presented as evidence to condemn Bush, but it certainly another example of his incompetence.

---

At 1/7/08 09:01 PM, TheMason wrote:

The Clinton impeachment deeply divided this country,

Yes and no. He wasn't impeached for actually getting the BJ but committing perjury and lying about it under oath.

You're quite right. If he had just said "Yeah, she blew me. It was awesome!" then we wouldn't see Hillary running in 2008.

---

At 1/9/08 12:16 AM, Musician wrote:

At 1/8/08 06:16 PM, TheMason wrote:

The case is much stronger for Bush. Bush has done irreparable damage to our country.

It's worth it, Bush needs to face punishment for his crimes.

I know how you feel, but with only a year left in his Presidency you will only be dividing the country and doing more harm than good. Also look at the debate generated on this topic. There is much room for discussion and there simply is not the unified public opinion behind an impeachment needed for it not to be horribly damaging to the country.

You're missing the point, Bush presented evidence that he knew to be extremely questionable and in some cases outright false. He LIED to congress and to the UN, and not on accident, HE KNEW THE EVIDENCE WAS FALSE. And furthermore, he completely ignored crucial information that put a large amount of doubt on if Saddam had WMDs or not.

Knew it was "false" or knew it was "faulty"? They are two different things as I discuss below.

Here's something else; NO intelligence is completely foolproof. ALL intelligence is faulty because it is NOT a science but an art. The art of knowing what someone else is actively attempting to keep you from knowing.

Once again missing the point, Bush KNEW the evidence was faulty. That's the keyword: "KNEW".

No the keyword is not "knew"...because if you make the standard that LOW for intelligence you are hamstringing the national security infrastructure. You see ALL intel is faulty; and EVERY decision based upon intel is KNOWN to be faulty. With every decision a president (ANY president) makes based upon intel they have some doubt and debate on whether or not what is being presented is right or wrong.

I hate to break it to you; but the fact that Clinton's and our allies' intel organizations all agreed that Saddam had WMDs deflates the entire "Bush lied" argument. Ppl like McGovern and Sheehan are simply trying to manipulate ppl who do not fully understand what exactly intelligence is.

You may say there is a World Court; however this again has the problem of not having the capability to enforce its judgements.

Just because they aren't enforceable doesn't mean there aren't laws, someday there will be multiple world superpowers again, and then the UN will be able to enforce its regulations.

What passes as "international law" bears only one similarity to a legal system and that is they formalize rules and norms of behavior. They lack enforcibility and universal applicability. Without these characteristics, "international laws" do not resemble law enough to be considered law.

Again, there is a consensus among political scientists who study the international arena that there is not such thing as "international law" because international relations takes place in a system of anarchy.

And uni-, bi- or multi-polarity does not make the system any more or less legal or anarchical.

It's where they hold their important prisoners from Iraq and other places in the world.

I know, I have a friend from my unit stationed there right now.

Militarily it was probably handled very well. Diplomatically it was handled very poorly, we failed miserably at winning the confidence and support of the Iraqi people, and this has indirectly caused the loss of a much larger number of Iraqis.

I agree...up until Gen Patreaus took over. Now things on both fronts (political and military) is starting to turn around.

Yes legally they were in the clear, but that's it. It doesn't change the fact Brown wasn't qualified to run FEMA, and the fact that he was incompetent led to the deaths of the citizens of New Orleans. Not that I think this would be presented as evidence to condemn Bush, but it certainly another example of his incompetence.

Hey FEMA fucked up. This was most likely the perfect storm of an incompetent FEMA head and an agency that had systemic problems that pre-dates Bush.

But the blame for taking more than 3 days to respond to the hurricane (your original justification) is not the fed's fault...that is criminal negligence on the part of local and state officials.

---

At 1/9/08 06:59 PM, TheMason wrote: I know how you feel, but with only a year left in his Presidency you will only be dividing the country and doing more harm than good.

George Bush has to face punishment sometime, if not during his presidency, then afterwards. Especially if the democrats take the executive branch.

Also look at the debate generated on this topic. There is much room for discussion and there simply is not the unified public opinion behind an impeachment needed for it not to be horribly damaging to the country.

And Bush's presidency hasn't been horribly damaging to this country? Am I the only one here that has a problem that he has been quoted in saying that the constitution is a "god damned piece of paper"?

I'm personally not surprised, Bush has done nothing but completely butcher that "god damned piece of paper" since hes entered office.

Knew it was "false" or knew it was "faulty"? They are two different things as I discuss below.

Both

All of his intel was faulty because he chose to stovepipe crucial information to the white house by cutting the CIA out of the loop, which right from the start made all of his evidence very questionable. There were some cases like the aluminum tubes that Bush chose to present evidence despite experts calling that evidence incredibly unlikely to be true. And then there are some cases where Bush flat out lied, like with the supposed yellow cake uranium deals in Africa.

No the keyword is not "knew"...because if you make the standard that LOW for intelligence you are hamstringing the national security infrastructure. You see ALL intel is faulty; and EVERY decision based upon intel is KNOWN to be faulty. With every decision a president (ANY president) makes based upon intel they have some doubt and debate on whether or not what is being presented is right or wrong.

Some evidence is more faulty than others.

I hate to break it to you; but the fact that Clinton's and our allies' intel organizations all agreed that Saddam had WMDs deflates the entire "Bush lied" argument. Ppl like McGovern and Sheehan are simply trying to manipulate ppl who do not fully understand what exactly intelligence is.

First of all I think you're obligated to prove that all the foreign intelligence agencies agreed that Iraq was developing nukes. Secondly, the Bush Administration pressured our CIA to find facts that fit their pre-conceived theories. This way of gathering information was undoubtedly bound to make the facts appear the way they wanted them to.

What passes as "international law" bears only one similarity to a legal system and that is they formalize rules and norms of behavior. They lack enforcibility and universal applicability. Without these characteristics, "international laws" do not resemble law enough to be considered law.

Again, there is a consensus among political scientists who study the international arena that there is not such thing as "international law" because international relations takes place in a system of anarchy.

Well I don't agree with that, because agreeing with that would imply that the UN is useless and has no power (which simply isn't true). Maybe the UN can't enforce its laws on a superpower, but it certainly can on smaller countries.

And uni-, bi- or multi-polarity does not make the system any more or less legal or anarchical.

It makes it more enforceable, which is basically what you said disqualifies international policy from resembling a law.

I know, I have a friend from my unit stationed there right now.

Good, then we can agree that Gitmo is related to Iraq.

But maybe I shouldn't limit this to Iraq, the whole WAR ON TERROR has been pretty inhumane in general. On both sides.

I agree...up until Gen Patreaus took over. Now things on both fronts (political and military) is starting to turn around.

I think we're getting off topic here.

Hey FEMA fucked up. This was most likely the perfect storm of an incompetent FEMA head and an agency that had systemic problems that pre-dates Bush.

But the blame for taking more than 3 days to respond to the hurricane (your original justification) is not the fed's fault...that is criminal negligence on the part of local and state officials.

Yes legally they are in the clear, that doesn't change the fact that Bush decided to put his buddy in charge of an important organization instead of someone competent (wasn't the only time either).

---

At 1/9/08 08:01 PM, Musician wrote:

At 1/9/08 06:59 PM, TheMason wrote:

George Bush has to face punishment sometime, if not during his presidency, then afterwards. Especially if the democrats take the executive branch.

This is so a repeat of 1998. I'm not happy with Bush and I'll be glad when his administration comes to an end in 2009. However, I am so thankful that no one is seriously thinking about impeaching Bush and Cheney...

And Bush's presidency hasn't been horribly damaging to this country? Am I the only one here that has a problem that he has been quoted in saying that the constitution is a "god damned piece of paper"?

I'm pretty dubious about that source, just from reading it I am reminded of all the scandal rags about Clinton that said the same things that I gravitated to when I was about your age.

First of all I think you're obligated to prove that all the foreign intelligence agencies agreed that Iraq was developing nukes. Secondly, the Bush Administration pressured our CIA to find facts that fit their pre-conceived theories. This way of gathering information was undoubtedly bound to make the facts appear the way they wanted them to.

I cannot prove it to you, all I can say is from everything I've seen professionally...there is little that leads me to think Bush "lied"...

Again, there is a consensus among political scientists who study the international arena that there is not such thing as "international law" because international relations takes place in a system of anarchy.

Well I don't agree with that, because agreeing with that would imply that the UN is useless and has no power (which simply isn't true). Maybe the UN can't enforce its laws on a superpower, but it certainly can on smaller countries.

No, agreeing to that does NOT imply that the UN is "useless and has no power". Just because the system is one of anarchy AND there is no such thing as "international law" does not mean NGOs (Non-Government Organizations) such as the UN does not have power.

Furthermore, to invoke the UN and its "laws" (which are not called laws but rather resolutions...if they were law they'd be called statutes) is problematic to the idea that Bush violated "international law" because UN resolutions dating back through the 1990s authorizied the use of military force against Iraq.

And uni-, bi- or multi-polarity does not make the system any more or less legal or anarchical.

It makes it more enforceable, which is basically what you said disqualifies international policy from resembling a law.

Okay, IR 101; enforceability based upon the capability to assert one's will upon weaker states is not a characteristic of a law. This is the type of "might makes right" that exists in Rousseu's pre-civilized state of nature/anarchy. This is not law. In order to be a law, a resolution (et al) must be enforced by a supranational body that has the power/capability to apply the law uniformly.

"International law" is a misnomer...and there is agreement that it doesn't really exist.

---

This is the type of "might makes right" that exists in Rousseu's pre-civilized state of nature/anarchy. This is not law

On paper, no.
In practice, absolutely.

I think international law as we see it is more an institution of control the security board members (with the US pulling the main thrust) over other nations in the world. Especially when you start to factor in their permanence and veto traits.

But this is just the Classicist speaking; I saw the Rousseau comment and thought Melian Debate, and Athenian "allies".

The strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must......