_______________________________________________________________
 |
 |  http://ldsvswar.lege.net/humanlaw/fordummies/
 |
 |
 |  Human Law vs. War "for Dummies"
 |
 |
 |  The below thoughts was originally formulated as a recipe on
 |  how to make a subject (that is you, gentle reader :-)) aware
 |  of his or her own misconceptions regarding the legality of
 |  recent U.S. actions in Iraq and elsewhere, that has had the
 |  support of the American people -- at least as it has been
 |  presented to the people.
 |
 |  Reading the below, you'll get a crash course in Human Law
 |  relating to War.
 |
 |
 |  You are also recommended to study the documents at
 |  http://legal.lege.net/  for more thorough analysis of human
 |  law and justice in this regard.
 |
 |
 |
 |  The below thoughts were originally formulated by
 |  Ulf Erlingsson in a September 13, 2003 post to the
 |  propaganda@lege.net mailinglist:
 |
 |
 |  Ulf Erlingsson
 |  September 19, 2003
 |  Some thoughts on with people who have bought into the media
 |  myth, and who have not learned to think independently.
 |
 |
 |  Perhaps an early question could be a surprised:
 |
 |  -Don't you think we ought to follow the American
 |  constitution???
 |
 |
 |  Of course they have to answer yes. Then you can ask:
 |
 |  -Do you think USA should respect United Nations' "Universal
 |  Declaration of Human Rights", and other multilateral
 |  treaties that USA has ratified?
 |
 |
 |  If they say "No", then point out that not following them
 |  would be equivalent to violating the constitution of the
 |  United States.
 |
 |  If they say "Yes", then you can point out the ways in which
 |  this presidency is violating the Human Rights, the most
 |  basic document. How? Look at the document on-line on
 |  http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html and give it some
 |  thought... These are some of my thoughts:
 |
 |   *  In US operated prisons abroad, Article 5 may well be
 |  violated
 |
 |   *  In Guantanamo, Article 6 has obviously been violated,
 |  and perhaps 7 too
 |
 |   *  Article 9 is contradictory to the Patriot Act and
 |  Ashcroft's stated policy of exiling US citizens
 |
 |   *  The court set up for Guantanamo apparently violates
 |  Article 10
 |
 |   *  The same probably goes for Article 11. Actually,
 |  paragraphs 6 through 11 describe basic legal fundamentals
 |  that were codified already by Hammurapi of Babylonia,
 |  present Iraq, about 3760 years ago. Every civilized nation
 |  since then has followed them (including the Vikings, it
 |  appears). USA is now breaking with that tradition.
 |
 |   *  One could also argue that Article 12 is being violated.
 |
 |  One may also note that the right to join trade unions is
 |  protected in Article 23(4). If an employer tries to prevent
 |  it, the workers could invoke Article 8 for getting legal
 |  remedy.
 |
 |
 |  Of course, according to the US constitution, ratified
 |  treaties are the supreme law of the land, on par with the
 |  constitution itself. In case somebody claims that USA does
 |  not have to obey them, go on by trying to find out if your
 |  subject thinks that the law is something that one must
 |  follow, or that it is only a recommendation for those who
 |  wish to follow it. You can ask like this:
 |
 |  -Do you yourself follow the law?
 |
 |
 |  If answer YES, then -Why do you follow the law?
 |
 |  A. Because otherwise the police may take me and I'll get
 |  executed / jailed / have to pay fines; or,
 |
 |  B. I obey it because I want to, not because I am forced to.
 |  (Reason: 'The law is a voluntary agreement that makes it
 |  possible for us to move around unarmed and without
 |  bodyguards.')
 |
 |
 |  If the answer is (A), then point out that the subject either
 |  thinks he is living in a police state, or he is a criminal.
 |
 |  If the answer is (B), then you can go on to ask:
 |
 |  -Should USA follow International Law?
 |
 |
 |  If the answer to this question is "Yes", then you can start
 |  debating how USA is acting on the international arena (but
 |  you shouldn't have gotten here with a subject who answers
 |  yes!)
 |
 |  Supposedly the answer you will get is "No". May I suggest
 |  that you point out the judicial principle of quid pro quo,
 |  or in plain English tit for tat. An example:
 |
 |  Bush says "USA has the right to preemptively bomb any
 |  country that has weapons of mass destruction." Then
 |  according to the tit for tat rule, you can replace "USA"
 |  with the name of any other sovereign state in the world,
 |  such as... let's see... why not North Korea? Okay, here we
 |  go: "North Korea has the right to preemptively bomb any
 |  country that has weapons of mass destruction." The same goes
 |  for Pakistan, Russia, China, Libya, Cuba, you name it. Of
 |  course, one of the countries that actually has weapons of
 |  mass destruction is USA. Nobody has more than USA. If
 |  anybody should be selected as a first target by one of those
 |  countries, according to the principles formulated by George
 |  W. Bush (were they to become part of International Common
 |  Law), it would be USA. Is that the new world order that the
 |  subject wants, a world in which any terrorist state has a
 |  legal right to bomb the United States at any time they
 |  choose??? That is in effect the inevitable, logical result
 |  of the Bush policy.
 |
 |
 |   *  Of course, it is not for the United States to determine
 |  if it should follow international law or not. Since
 |  international law is comparable to a gentleman's agreement,
 |  the effect if USA does not follow it, is that USA becomes an
 |  outlaw. And so does all its citizens who follow orders from
 |  the regime. We all know what went down in Nuremburg. This is
 |  no different. If that is the future the subject wants, then
 |  he must be prepared to live as an outlaw for the rest of his
 |  life, everywhere but in USA itself. If he doesn't understand
 |  what I mean, probably the US soldiers in Iraq do. They are
 |  the outlaws, those who are not protected by the law. "But",
 |  maybe he objects, "foreign governments do not dare disobey
 |  USA". That may be true, with some exceptions, but foreign
 |  people are less well behaved. And that, Mr Subject, is what
 |  terrorists are made of -- dissenting people. Bush's policy
 |  creates terrorists.
 |
 |
 |  Then the subject may say that you defend terrorism.
 |  Challenge them! Ask the subject:
 |
 |  -Can you be so good and explain to me exactly how I just
 |  'defended terrorism', when I pointed out that Bush's
 |  criminal politics gave rise to terrorism?
 |
 |
 |  (What probably happened is that the subject bought into the
 |  fascist propaganda that confuses attempts to explain casual
 |  relationships, with finding excuses. Casual relationships
 |  are studied by any thinking politician in order to deal with
 |  the 'real' problem, rather than with the symptoms. Fascists
 |  and Bill O'Reilly want us to believe that the reason
 |  liberals are analyzing causal relationships is in order to
 |  find an excuse for the terrorists / criminals / gays /
 |  lesbians / anything else he doesn't like that evening. You
 |  know, "it's not his fault that he flew into the WTC, he dad
 |  beat his mom" kind of thing.)
 |
 |
 |  Of course, all of the above is not realistic, because most
 |  probably you'll never get any other reply to your questions
 |  than "your head is so full of shit, man!"
 |
 |  Anyway, peace.
 |
 |  Ulf
 |
 |
 |  Copyright © Ulf Erlingsson 2003.  The above may be
 |  reproduced in full -- even commercially -- free of charge,
 |  as long as this copyright message is also cited in full.
 |  However, please drop Ulf a line at ulf@erlingsson.com when
 |  you use his text, citing the way it's being used.  Thanks!
 |
 |
 |  Additional reading:
 |
 |  Legality of War
 |  http://legal.lege.net/
 |
 |  LDS vs. War Resources
 |  http://ldsvswar.lege.net/resources/
 |
 |  Legal Resources
 |  http://legal.lege.net/resources/
 |
 |  Propaganda Resources
 |  http://propaganda.lege.net/resources/
 |______________________________________________________________