Pick and Choose the laws we like

[tw]

In the continuing battle of moderate Collin Powel vs the extremists, George Jr decides to ignore any international treaty he does not like:

Several international legal scholars were outraged at what they saw as a picking and choosing of which parts of the [Geneva Convention] to apply.

Although the Bush administration came into office expressing deep skepticism about a number of international agreements, arguing that decades-old treaties restricted the pursuit of American interests in a rapidly changing world, few anticipated that President Bush would actually reject the Geneva Conventions.

Behind-the-Scenes Clash Led Bush to...

[jaguar]

International law never has had any weight, and never will - there is noone to enfore it, just a whole lot of niceities when it suits us. If either economic or strategic security are at risk, niceities like International humanatarianism and alw always go out the window.

[Griff]

To me, the shocking part was that the Bush administration didn't understand the link between how we treat foreign soldiers and how our soldiers would ideally be treated. I'm no great fan of international agreements, however, when it come to simple human(e) courtesies, its common sense. Love your neighbor as yourself... Do unto others as you would have them do unto you... Bush would do well to look into this Christianity thing before wrapping himself in the cloak of religion.

[tw]

Originally posted by jaguar
International law never has had any weight, and never will - there is noone to enfore it, just a whole lot of niceities when it suits us.

If true, then Slobodan Milosevic is not on trial in The Hague for crimes against humanity. International law does carry weight and is important to increase world peace. Those who openly disregard international law when it is convenient are doomed to suffer consequences later. Even the arch conservative Sec of Defense Rumsfeld was forced to concede the point, contrary to his own personal biases, by those who require international law - America's military men.

That was the fundamentals of another clash between Powell and most of Geroge Jr's administration. George Jr openly disregards anything he 'feels' is inconvenient. Again, this has caused distress among America's closest allies. See Tony Blair's seriously degrading position in Europe because of his support of George Jr. But then, George Jr from his very first month in office has seriously strained America's relations with virtually every ally. No wonder George Jr. finds so much in common with Ariel Sharon - another who disregards international laws and agreements with so much vigor that we all here almost ended up as nuclear Shis Kebab.

In events such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, an appreciation by both sides that the other subscribed to international conventions made possible a settlement without war. Any leader who disregards international law when it is convenient makes it impossible for anyone to trust that leader; therefore makes international disagreement more likely to create international war. International law carries tremendous weight. It is why the US and USSSR were able to avoid nuclear holocast. That respect for international law on both sides was just enough for each side to have some trust in each other - and therefore avoid war.

One man who disregarded international law when it was convenient is now on trial in The Hague - because international law is important - and becoming even moreso.

[jaguar]

Slobodan Milosevic is am example of the victory putting the loser to trial, the fact it’s a matter for an international court is a side effect. America, Australia, France, Brittan, pretty much every major power either refuses to sign some major treaties or flouts.
Australia has a terrible record with treatment of aborigines and asylum seekers - often in breach of multiple treaties, the US refuses to sign an anti-landmine pact, France produces torture weapons, the list goes on and on and on.

But it runs deeper than that, we will tolerate other countries breaking such agreements if it suits us, the US has favored trading partner with China, a flagrant abuser of human rights, for 25 years, until economics didn't matter, we tolerated the capture of East Timor by Indonesia, I think I’ve made my point

As for Geneva convention in relation to camp X-Ray types - its in Americans national interest to obey that for the future - it comes under strategic national interest, my model stays. Cuban missile I honestly don't know enough about to comment but there are enough lines of communication between such superpowers that I’d say it wasn’t international treaties that saved the day.

1 Economic Security

2 Strategic Security

3 International Humanitarianism

This is the National Interest model of a post-S11 world.

*sighs* i should stop repeating bits of International Studies lectures here.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar
Cuban missile I honestly don't know enough about to comment but there are enough lines of communication between such superpowers that I?d say it wasn?t international treaties that saved the day.

There are such lines *now*, but the Cuban Missile Crisis is what led to the establishment of the Hotline. The *original* Hotline, a permanent teletype circuit between the Soviet and US National Command Authorities. Previous to that, it was very slow diplomatic channels, and reading subtexts of each others public speeches....a lot of posturing and mindreading. Not that that doesn't happen today too... [/b][/quote]
[