Europe's old laggards will never balance US power

Xhen

Originally posted by Corega
In fairness though, most European societies and infrastructures have been established for hundreds of years, American politics had only been established two hundred years, so is it not right that we should have more adaquate means to facilitate other countries, is it not right that Europe, as a whole, should be able to govern and dictate the ways other countries develop?

It depends on what you mean by societies and infrastructures. Only the UK has legal and governmental institutions that can match the strength and longevity of those in the US. Most of Europe has gone through a variety of monarchs, dictatorships, occupations, and constitutions during the same period that the US has operated under the same Constitution. The governments and institutions on Continental Europe are all very young by comparison. Most don't pre-date WWII.

Éomer of Rohan

It depends on what you mean by societies and infrastructures. Only the UK has legal and governmental institutions that can match the strength and longevity of those in the US.

Depends on how you define strength. I attribute the longevity of US institutions to their willingness to use the army to break mass strikes for a start - killing innocents along the way and to the mass conservatism of US society; the respect for the 'fouding fathers' (who were Brits with a funny accent truth be told) and the ideas of 'patriotism' which are drilled into them since birth; of all the americans of voting age that I know, only one has bothered to question Bush - with the others I am not allowed to talk politics since they get angry when they hear criticisms of 'the president who led our country through 9/11' and can't defend him in any case.

Most of Europe has gone through a variety of monarchs, dictatorships, occupations, and constitutions during the same period that the US has operated under the same Constitution. The governments and institutions on Continental Europe are all very young by comparison. Most don't pre-date WWII

And a lot of this is a good thing; what you call stability, I call stagnation - which is what, to my mind politics in the US have done - hence we have the Republicrats. And the institutions of the German republic really date back to the unification of Germany - most of the parliamentarian institutions that were used by the Kaiser's were used by the Wiemar Republic and are presently used by the Bundesrepublik. France is the same - they may be on their fourth (fifth?) republic but it is still the same form of government, not much edited from that of it's immediate predecessors. I have no idea as to Switzerland - maybe JC could tell us about that one. The breakup of the Austro-Hungarian empire and then the Soviet Union pretty much covers that BUT the people of these regions have been living there since mass migrations stopped at the end of the Dark Ages - Americans practically exterminated the indigenous population; so while forms of administration may change, ultimately the cultural driving forces behind how many of the institutions actually operate below the surface have not (eg the old boy network in the UK).

Chaos-Engine

Originally posted by Xhen
It depends on what you mean by societies and infrastructures. Only the UK has legal and governmental institutions that can match the strength and longevity of those in the US. Most of Europe has gone through a variety of monarchs, dictatorships, occupations, and constitutions during the same period that the US has operated under the same Constitution. The governments and institutions on Continental Europe are all very young by comparison. Most don't pre-date WWII.

On that note i'd say its high time we re-wrtie ours.
Gone our the days of dancing at the cross roads!:ninja:

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I have no idea as to Switzerland - maybe JC could tell us about that one.

Current system has been in place since 1848, which is a little bit before WW2.

That system was a fairly radical change from what came before it, but having said that, Switzerland did still operate as a "conglomeration of cantons" before that date for quite some time.

jc

Sparks

*sigh*
Y'know, if only the swiss national language was english, I'd have moved allready... after all, there's a damn fine robotics research centre there.

bizmark

Why does everyone keep on refering to Russia as a sort of competitor/outside Europe,

well im 19 so it has been drilled into me through history and my parents what russia WAS

russia still is a pritty scary country to have on your boader,s even though in the truth of the subject they arent a threat because of both diplomatic changes and economy problums. Still it is hard to give over that "race" sterotype in history books and because of the cold war storys sorry i didnt really mean that russia was going to attack or anything like that just useing russia as a explamy of why we dont need a big ground army:)

not allowed to talk politics since they get angry when they hear criticisms of 'the president who led our country through 9/11' and can't defend him in any case.

You are so right their they either cant talk about it because of a so called love of their bully nation or just dont have,nt a clue of what really is happening and how people truely dislike even hate them as a country.

Im really looking forword to the day i see on rte "americans surrfer massive lose,s" i know its not a nice thing to say but this teenage bully phase has to end one way or the other or we will have a country with no match over 9000 nuke weapions and 700,000 + millitry bleaveing they can do what they want and who wants that ?

Wook

euhm if you are refering to US army, it think it's closer to 32.000 nukes and 30.000 tons of Chemical weapons.
Yes yes The UN would have a field day in the good oll'd States.

bizmark

well i did say over 9000

Xhen

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
of all the americans of voting age that I know, only one has bothered to question Bush - with the others I am not allowed to talk politics since they get angry when they hear criticisms of 'the president who led our country through 9/11' and can't defend him in any case.

That's a nice little anecdote but I think you'll find that close-mindedness about Bush is far more prevalant among the left and Bush-haters than Bush supporters. They've created a caricature of him in their minds - he's dumb, he's a cowboy, he's an empty shell controlled by neo-cons or Jews or oilmen or some other cabal - and its almost impossible to get them to look at evidence to the contrary. They simply cannot or will not consider anything that doesn't conform to their shallow little image of the man.

...so while forms of administration may change, ultimately the cultural driving forces behind how many of the institutions actually operate below the surface have not (eg the old boy network in the UK).

Maybe, but cultural forces in the US are every bit as deeply engrained as they are in Europe, which is part of the reason for the growing rift. The belief in the principles established by the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights runs so deep that international institutions like the UN and the ICC simply cannot compete. In fact, the American government doesn't even have the power to enter into treaties which supercede the authority of the US Constitution. That's a fundamental principle that is poorly understood in Europe and leads to a lot of frustration in trying to understand why the ICC must be rejected if it comes into conflict with the Bill of Rights.

Americans believe that our own founding documents and institutions have proven themselves for over 200 years and have little faith in newly established international organizations that have proven nothing.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Wook
euhm if you are refering to US army, it think it's closer to 32.000 nukes and 30.000 tons of Chemical weapons.
Yes yes The UN would have a field day in the good oll'd States.

*coff*

OOoooh im a stickler for, what shall we call it.. 'truth enhancer' maybe?

The US has a stockpile of 12,000 nuclear weapons, 6,750 of which are deployable.

The US has a combined stockpile of 31,496 tons of various chemical agents stockpiled, ranging from blister agents to nerve agents. 60% of this stockpile is in bulk storage, not ready for deployment. The remaining 40% are stored in munitions, many of which are now obsolete. All stockpiles are stored between 8 sites inside the US, with no chemical agents forward deployed.

The US has no biological weapons stockpile. All US biological weapons were destroyed between May 1971 and February 1973. All offensive biological research was ceased and USAMRIID was established to take over the defensive biological research program. USAMRIID is an open research institution; no research is classified.

Further reading here, here and here.

Sparks

That's a nice little anecdote but I think you'll find that close-mindedness about Bush is far more prevalant among the left and Bush-haters than Bush supporters. They've created a caricature of him in their minds - he's dumb, he's a cowboy, he's an empty shell controlled by neo-cons or Jews or oilmen or some other cabal - and its almost impossible to get them to look at evidence to the contrary. They simply cannot or will not consider anything that doesn't conform to their shallow little image of the man.

Then tell us of his positive contributions to society. Just don't expect to have your word taken for it - but then, if you're right, you ought to be able to prove it, right?

Hell, why don't you start by disproving the charge that he went AWOL for over a year from the Air Force National Guard during the Vietnam war?

Americans believe that our own founding documents and institutions have proven themselves for over 200 years and have little faith in newly established international organizations that have proven nothing.

See, here's the problem.
Bill of Rights, Decleration of Independence, US Constitution - 200 years old. Damn fine documents then and now. But age is not proof of infalliability. Plus there are older documents that the US has happily overridden in the past few months and years.
The Geneva Conventions, for example, represent over 200 years of work. So do the Hague conventions. And some documents, like the treaty on chemical and biological warfare, couldn't have been written 200+ years ago - so why would they be less valued than the US constitution?

That's a fundamental principle that is poorly understood in Europe and leads to a lot of frustration in trying to understand why the ICC must be rejected if it comes into conflict with the Bill of Rights.

Can you actually point to a specific conflict between the Bill of Rights and the ICC? Or are you saying that Clinton signed the ICC for kicks, without having it legally analysed?

Sparks

All offensive biological research was ceased and USAMRIID was established to take over the defensive biological research program.

I'm curious - how does a new grenade for dispersing chemical and biological agents count as "defensive research"?

bizmark

'm curious - how does a new grenade for dispersing chemical and biological agents count as "defensive research"?

HEY sure they managed to get britan and a few other countrys to bleave attacking iraq was "defensive" sure what,s a few chemical/bio weapions between freinds

Sparks

HEY sure they managed to get britan and a few other countrys to bleave attacking iraq was "defensive" sure what,s a few chemical/bio weapions between freinds

In this case, a documented breach of the international treaty on biological and chemical warfare.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Sparks
I'm curious - how does a new grenade for dispersing chemical and biological agents count as "defensive research"?

Im curious as to your source. The US signed chemical & biological weapon ban treatys with the proviso that riot-control weapons and defoliant could still be used. This 'grenade' you mention could very well be a different delivery method for CS gas for riot control, or any other number of things.

Xhen

Then tell us of his positive contributions to society. Just don't expect to have your word taken for it - but then, if you're right, you ought to be able to prove it, right?

Sure. He's eliminated the Taliban and Saddam Hussein - two brutal, fascist regimes. Or are those bad things in your little world?

He pushed a $15 billion AIDS bill through Congress which caused Bob Geldof to say: "Clinton talked the talk and did diddly squat, whereas Bush doesn't talk but does deliver. You'll think I'm off my trolley when I say this, but the Bush administration is the most radical, in a positive sense, in the approach to Africa since Kennedy."

He's about to authorize a humanitarian mission to Liberia against the wishes of many in his own party.

Unlike 99% of politicians, when Bush says something he means it. Saddam Hussein found that out the hard way. Charles Taylor got the message and has already agreed to accept exile in Nigeria rather than test Bush's word that he had to go. Compare that to the UN/French fiasco in the Congo or the European debating societies that produce a lot of talk and paperwork and little action or results.

Hell, why don't you start by disproving the charge that he went AWOL for over a year from the Air Force National Guard during the Vietnam war?

Boy, you just love these unsubstantiated accusations, don't you? There is almost no evidence that Bush went AWOL other than some incomplete paperwork (something that's hardly rare in the military) and the hazy recollections of a Colonel who didn't remember him but had no real reason to remember him since neither Bush nor his father were well known in the early '70's.

Why don't you start actually proving something for a change instead of insisting that everyone else disprove every half-assed allegation you can throw against the wall?

Bill of Rights, Decleration of Independence, US Constitution - 200 years old. Damn fine documents then and now. But age is not proof of infalliability. Plus there are older documents that the US has happily overridden in the past few months and years.

Okay, now its your turn - prove that the US has overidden the Geneva Conventions or the Hague Conventions.

And some documents, like the treaty on chemical and biological warfare, couldn't have been written 200+ years ago - so why would they be less valued than the US constitution?

That sentence makes no sense. Please re-construct it into some kind of logical point.

Can you actually point to a specific conflict between the Bill of Rights and the ICC? Or are you saying that Clinton signed the ICC for kicks, without having it legally analysed?

Clinton signed it knowing it didn't have a chance in hell of ratification by the Senate. It was a dishonest way of deflecting the criticism for not agreeing to the ICC onto someone else.

There are plenty of conflicts with the Bill of Rights. For one thing much of its language would be struck down as unconstitutionally vague by the US Supreme court. Too much is left open to interpretation by the prosecutor which would make it fairly easy to use the law for political ends, rather than to administer justice. That, by the way, is the common belief in the US - that the ICC will be hijacked and used for political purposes against the US and Israel. The politically-motivated war crimes charges filed against Tommy Franks in Belgium is an example of what most Americans believe the ICC will deteriorate into and want no part of it. That's not just a George W. Bush belief - it's held by the leaders of both parties and many Americans.

Here is a good analysis by Steven den Beste of the many flaws in the ICC statutes and why the court was rejected by the US.

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/07/MoreontheICC.shtml

Sparks

Sure. He's eliminated the Taliban and Saddam Hussein - two brutal, fascist regimes. Or are those bad things in your little world?

Firstly, he hasn't eliminated the Taliban. Instead, he's entered into talks with them regarding devising "a political solution" regarding Afghanistan :
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/EF14Ag01.html

Secondly, the price for Hussein was the damage done to the UN, the disregarding of the Geneva and Hague Conventions, and 10,000 innocent civilian lives. And the creation of a large pool of potential terrorist martyrs.
If he hadn't gained control of Iraq's oil sales (as opposed to the oil itself, before you say you could have just bought it, which you couldn't have) and the currency it was sold for, as well as gained a military presence in the Middle East, I'd say he was swindled.

He pushed a $15 billion AIDS bill through Congress which caused Bob Geldof to say: "Clinton talked the talk and did diddly squat, whereas Bush doesn't talk but does deliver. You'll think I'm off my trolley when I say this, but the Bush administration is the most radical, in a positive sense, in the approach to Africa since Kennedy."

Firstly, he didn't do that. He extended an already-existing budget to $15 billion, which was good - but the bulk of the money is the responsibility of prior and future administrations. He also attached a lot of conditions to the money's usage, which has drawn criticism from those running the aid programs.
Credit where it's due - but I do have to wonder if he can afford it, since the US foreign debt is closing on $7 trillion, it's fiscal deficet is closing on $44 trillion and it's trade imbalance is $40 billion per month or thereabouts.

He's about to authorize a humanitarian mission to Liberia against the wishes of many in his own party.

Given that the US founded Liberia, exploited it from it's founding to the end of the cold war, and still has ties to Liberia, I find it hard to describe this intervention as anything but owed to the ordinary Liberians, whose lot would be better today had the trade with their country been less one-sided for the last century or so...

Unlike 99% of politicians, when Bush says something he means it.

Crap.
Remember "No Child Left Behind"?
From here:

in his 2003 budget, Bush proposed funding levels far below what the legislation called for, requesting only $22.1 billion of the $29.2 billion that Congress authorized. For the largest program, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which provides support to students in impoverished school districts, Bush asked for $11.35 billion out of the $18.5 billion authorized. His 2004 budget was more than $6 billion short of what Congress authorized. Furious, Kennedy called Bush's proposal a "tin cup budget" that "may provide the resources to test our children, but not enough to teach them."

That page talks about the "Clean Skies" bill as well.

And remember the promise not to abandon the Afghan people? Well, apart from considering readmitting the Taliban to government there despite their record, there's the budget "oversight":
From here:

The United States Congress has stepped in to find nearly $300m in humanitarian and reconstruction funds for Afghanistan after the Bush administration failed to request any money in its latest budget.

the European debating societies that produce a lot of talk and paperwork and little action or results.

What, the same ones that give out seven times the amount the US does in development aid? The ones that produce the world's first international court for trying war crimes? The ones that you owe your nation's existance to?

Boy, you just love these unsubstantiated accusations, don't you? There is almost no evidence that Bush went AWOL other than some incomplete paperwork (something that's hardly rare in the military) and the hazy recollections of a Colonel who didn't remember him but had no real reason to remember him since neither Bush nor his father were well known in the early '70's.

If the paperwork is what you want to see, it's here.
If you want me to believe that George Bush, Sr. wasn't well known at the time, you need to look at his bio:

Following an unsuccessful bid for a Senate seat in 1964, Mr. Bush was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1966 from Texas' 7th District. One of the few freshman members of Congress ever elected to serve on the Ways and Means Committee, he was reelected to the House two years later without opposition. Mr. Bush lost a second campaign for the Senate in 1970.
During the 1970's, Mr. Bush held a number of important leadership positions. In 1971, he was named U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. He served there until 1973, when he became Chairman of the Republican National Committee. In October 1974, Mr. Bush traveled to Peking, where he served as Chief of the U.S. Liaison Office during the critical period when the United States was renewing ties with the People's Republic of China. In 1976, Mr. Bush was appointed Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He is given credit for strengthening the intelligence community and helping to restore morale at the CIA while Director of the agency.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan selected George Bush to be his running mate.

Now do you want to tell me a Colonel didn't know Bush was the son of a US Ambassador?

Why don't you start actually proving something for a change instead of insisting that everyone else disprove every half-assed allegation you can throw against the wall?

I've backed up every assertion I've made. You're the one who has *ahem* forgotten *ahem* to include references...

Okay, now its your turn - prove that the US has overidden the Geneva Conventions or the Hague Conventions.

My turn? But you haven't had your turn yet! :rolleyes:
But, as you wish.
Where should we start? Well, the biggest single violation of the Geneva Convention I know of was Bush Sr's attack on the highway to Basra in '91. This site has the relevant timeline. The people responsible for that assertion include:
Michael Ratner, USA
Attorney, former director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, past president of the National Lawyers Guild.
Lord Tony Gifford, Britain
Human rights lawyer practicing in England and Jamaica. Investigated human rights abuses in British-occupied Ireland.
Deborah Jackson, USA
First vice president of the American Association of Jurists, former director of National Conference of Black Lawyers.
Opato Matarmah, Menominee Nation of North America
Involved in defense of human rights of indigenous peoples since 1981. Represented the International Indian Treaty Council at the Commission of Human Rights at the U.N.

As to other violations, under Bush Sr., this site covers some of them, collating references to mainstream media sources.

That sentence makes no sense. Please re-construct it into some kind of logical point.

You stated that the age of the US founding documents gave them some form of authority - but how can they have authority over some areas not thought of 200 years ago?
Case in point, the treaty on biological weapons - which the US recently violated by developing a new grenade for dispersal of chemical and biological agents.

There are plenty of conflicts with the Bill of Rights. For one thing much of its language would be struck down as unconstitutionally vague by the US Supreme court.

After their ruling on affermative action, that's rather funny, but do continue, give your specific examples...

Too much is left open to interpretation by the prosecutor which would make it fairly easy to use the law for political ends, rather than to administer justice. That, by the way, is the common belief in the US - that the ICC will be hijacked and used for political purposes against the US and Israel.

Just because many people believe it does not make it so...

The politically-motivated war crimes charges filed against Tommy Franks in Belgium is an example of what most Americans believe the ICC will deteriorate into and want no part of it. That's not just a George W. Bush belief - it's held by the leaders of both parties and many Americans.

Except that those charges had legal merit.
It was a recorded fact that US soldiers fired on a marked civilian ambulance, which is a violation of the Geneva Convention. It was a recorded fact that the US bombed at least one hospital during the war, deliberatly.
So why shouldn't the men responsible be asked to defend their case in an open and fair court?

http://www.stopusa.be/1Campagne/Proces-Franks/PROCES-Complaint_against_Franks%20-%20tot%201.4_fichiers/PROCES_Complaint_against_Tommy_Franks.htm
http://www.stopusa.be/1Campagne/zpage_documents-Franks.htm
http://belgium.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/63296.php
http://belgium.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/63106.php
http://belgium.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/63176.php
http://belgium.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/63003.php

Sparks

Here is a good analysis by Steven den Beste of the many flaws in the ICC statutes and why the court was rejected by the US.

Excellent, an actual reference! Dated...erm...stardate 20020704.1402 ...
Okay, well, let's actually read it, it might just be an affectation...

The gravity of the conduct was such that it was in violation of fundamental rules of international law. What in the hell does that mean? How is anyone supposed to know ahead of time just how much "gravity" is allowable?

Hmmm. Okay, so he doesn't know how to read the Geneva Conventions? Or the Hague conventions? Or the international treaty on biological warfare?

Israel is toast. As long as they impose martial law on the Palestinian territories so as to prevent bombing attacks against Israel itself, they'll be in violation of this one

Israel has received a lot of condemnation from the UN for violating the Geneva conventions. So, yes, if they do it again, they'd have to answer for it. So, what's the solution? That's right - don't do it! Or do you think that Northern Ireland is proof that the IDF's methods work?

It's virtually certain that the "Crime against humanity of persecution" will be very selectively applied.

Why? He mentions Sharia law, but then says it won't be prosecuted, presenting the clause which garuntees that existing legal systems will be respected as some kind of "escape clause"...

Argh. After reading the whole page, I'm fairly convinced that this guy has a serious persecution complex regarding the US and Israel. Not to mention that he's writing about imprecise language in a legal document and merrily ignoring his own highly imprecise language, he's cracking jokes at other nations to try to make a point, and his main argument isn't logic, but paranoia, as the last few lines show. He dismisses the idea that the people in the 9/11 attack had some form of motivation, and states that if you think they had to have some reason for their actions, that you're out to persecute the US and Israel.
Now if he was a lawyer specialising in International Law, that'd be one thing. But he's not - he's a college dropout who does contract embedded programming work and has no legal qualifications.

C'mon Xhen, is an article from the USS Clueless the best source you have?

Xhen

C'mon Xhen, is an article from the USS Clueless the best source you have?

Actually Steven den Beste is one of the best known bloggers on the internet and his work has appeared in, among other places, The Wall Street Journal. I can understand how someone who links to the laughable loonies at Indymedia as his main propaganda source wouldn't be familiar with den Beste or the WSJ, though.

Your Indymedia links give your game away, Sparks. Flat-earth Marxism and Chomsky boilerplate isn't going to earn you a place at the adult table in the US.

Xhen

Here's an article by the Cato Institute that also discusses the shortcomings of the ICC and its conflicts with the US Bill of Rights:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-311.html

Here is an excerpt:

Constitutional Barriers

In 1803 Thomas Jefferson defended the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution over treaties when he wrote, "Our particular security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution." [58] Jefferson's analysis tends to be supported by the case law, which says that the U.S. federal government cannot enter into treaties that are incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. [59] Doe v. Braden (1853), for example, asserts that U.S. courts have a legal "right to annul or disregard" the provisions of a treaty if "they violate the Constitution of the United States,"[60] and the Cherokee Tobacco (1871) decision declares that "a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument."[61] In Reid v. Covert (1957), the Court reaffirmed that it "has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty," and that

there is nothing in [the Constitution's] language which intimates that treaties do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. . . . It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights--let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition--to construe Article VI [re treaties] as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V [re the amendment process].[62]

More specifically, the Supreme Court has said that the federal government cannot enter into treaties that relinquish the constitutional rights of American citizens. In Geofroy v. Riggs (1890), for example, the Court found that the federal government's treaty power does not enable it "to authorize what the Constitution forbids."[63] Later cases, such as U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) [64] and Asakura v. City of Seattle (1924)[65] reiterated the point that constitutionally protected rights are sheltered from the domestic effect of treaties. More recently, in Boos v. Barry (1988), the Court stated, "Rules of international law and provisions of international agreements of the United States are subject to the Bill of Rights and other prohibitions, restrictions or requirements of the Constitution and cannot be given effect in violation of them."[66] Since the ICC draft statute would "give effect" to international laws and provisions contrary to the Bill of Rights--namely, forfeiting wholesale the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of Americans brought before it--any ICC judgment against an American is not likely to withstand a constitutional challenge.

bonkey

Originally posted by Xhen
Americans believe that our own founding documents and institutions have proven themselves for over 200 years and have little faith in newly established international organizations that have proven nothing.

I'm curious Xhen - at what point did Americans stop believing that their own founding documents and institutions were too young to be trustworthy, and rather old enough to be proven?

What age was the American nation when its people stopped thinking "we've got a completely unproven shaky system here" and start thinking "our system is great cause its been proven over time" ???

I'm just wondering if you could put a timeframe on it for me, because otherwise your entire argument about "we trust our stuff cause its old, but that new stuff is dodgy cause it aint old." sounds nothing more than selective elitism - belief in your own superiority and justiofication of same based on nothing more than convenience.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Moriarty
The US has no biological weapons stockpile. All US biological weapons were destroyed between May 1971 and February 1973. All offensive biological research was ceased and USAMRIID was established to take over the defensive biological research program. USAMRIID is an open research institution; no research is classified.

OK - but how does this gel with the concept that the anthrax used post 9/11 was considered to be US in origin, and they went tracing it to the lab in question.

Are the US saying that Anthrax isn't a biological weapon, or just that its ok to produce and store it as long as you say "but it isnt a weapon, its for research" or something?

After all - the last time I got into an argument about WMDs, many people were vociferously opposing the notion that the quantity was not important. Indeed, US law doesn't have any requirement on quantity - just that the material be classifiable as a biological agent.

jc

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bonkey
I'm curious Xhen - at what point did Americans stop believing that their own founding documents and institutions were too young to be trustworthy, and rather old enough to be proven?

"America - the only empire to go from barbarism to decadence without going through civilisation." - Gore Vidal.

Von

Check out the The New Europe Looks a Little Like `1984' article on the corporate funded but completely independent and credible Cato site. Digging up Orwell and trying to make out he'd be on your side is lame to the point of mental retardation, but still, what would he make of things like the patriot act, homeland security, TWAT and the general perversion of language by the US and British governments?

re US war crimes. One of the oddest incidents was the attack on the hotel that killed a Ukrainian journalist. It was said repeatedly that shots had come from the hotel lobby. But the tank fired at the 15th floor. How any hotels have their lobby on the 15th floor?

Xhen

Originally posted by bonkey
I'm curious Xhen - at what point did Americans stop believing that their own founding documents and institutions were too young to be trustworthy, and rather old enough to be proven?

It's been a long process and those documents are so engrained in American thought and philosophy that discarding them in favor of European constructs would be anathema to most Americans. We fought one war to win our independence from Europe so why would we throw that away to become a subject of the EU? We don't believe much in what you're doing, but believe in your right to do it. If you want to surrender your sovereignty and place all of your faith in bad treaties and impotent and corrupt organizations like the UN, we won't stop you. Just don't expect us to do the same.

The US is a sovereign nation and has a right to enter into treaties or refuse to enter into them as it sees fit. Few people trust the ICC and it would be unconstitutional anyway so the US has opted out. It's not a George W Bush thing...there's significant opposition to it in both parties. It wouldn't matter if Al Gore (or Ralph Nader for that matter) had been elected President because it's the Senate that ratifies treaties, not the President. That's part of our separation of powers. Things like the ICC and Kyoto are far too flawed for the US to agree to, but if EU countries want them, then knock yourselves out. That's your right, just as its our right to reject them.

Europe's strategy to regain what it believes is its proper place on the world stage seems to be to hector the rest of the world into submission. That's not going to work with the US, so I hope you have a Plan B.

bonkey

Originally posted by Xhen
It's been a long process and those documents are so engrained in American thought and philosophy that discarding them in favor of European constructs would be anathema to most Americans. We fought one war to win our independence from Europe so why would we throw that away to become a subject of the EU? We don't believe much in what you're doing, but believe in your right to do it. If you want to surrender your sovereignty and place all of your faith in bad treaties and impotent and corrupt organizations like the UN, we won't stop you. Just don't expect us to do the same.

Err - that has absolutely nothing to do with what I asked you.

Your basic indictment against much of the rule-systems in place in Europe seemed to be that they are from "fledgling nations" - that the system's haven't been around long enough to have faith in them, whereas the US one has.

I'm simply asking at what point did Americans using this type of evaluation criteria stop thinking of their own system as "too young to be proven", and instead as "established and worthwhile". Was it 50 years after the inception of the Union? 100? 200?

The US is a sovereign nation and has a right to enter into treaties or refuse to enter into them as it sees fit.

I never questioned that.

Again, you seem to be misunderstanding what I was discussing. I didn't suggest even once that the US does not have these rights of refusal, not that is right or wrong in its choice of decisions in this regard.

What I am questioning is your initial reasoning as to why the US made these decisions, which seemed to be "your systems are too young, and ours is better vause its older and more proven".

From an earlier point though :

In fact, the American government doesn't even have the power to enter into treaties which supercede the authority of the US Constitution. That's a fundamental principle that is poorly understood in Europe and leads to a lot of frustration in trying to understand why the ICC must be rejected if it comes into conflict with the Bill of Rights.

I'm curious - how does the US constitution regard the World Trade Organisation - membership of which requires acceptance that WTO decisions will be legally binding within the member nations.

By joining the WTO, the US government would appear to either have disregarded this limitation you say is imposed upon them, found a legitimate way around it, or has simply no intention of ever honouring the agreements it has signed at the point where a WTO decision infringes on the authority of the US constitution.

I'd like to know which of these three options is what has happened.

If it is one of the former two, perhaps you can explain why the same logic doesn't apply to the ICC. If it is the third option - well - its hard to defend the righteousness of a nation who's entering international agreements it has no intention of keeping.

Or, if its just my poor European understanding of US law and how one international treaty is different under your constitution to another, then maybe you could clarify why this would appear to be different?

jc

Xhen

Your basic indictment against much of the rule-systems in place in Europe seemed to be that they are from "fledgling nations" - that the system's haven't been around long enough to have faith in them, whereas the US one has.

My statement was an attempt at an explanation of the different political philosophies that Americans and Europeans have and how that shapes how international organizations and treaties are seen. European nations have constitutions that are relatively new and easily modified in order to align with international laws and treaties. The US does not have a constitution that can be easily put aside or modified and because of the strong belief in that constitution there is little political will to do so. In other words, Americans don't believe that we need to modify our constitution in order to reach international agreements, we believe those attempting to make international agreements with the US need to make sure that they are aligned with our constitution. The premise of the UN's International Law Commission that an American citizen's constitutionally protected rights are not absolute rights but tentative or conditional rights that can be put aside immediately placed the ICC in a position where its ultimate rejection by the US became likely.

I'm curious - how does the US constitution regard the World Trade Organisation - membership of which requires acceptance that WTO decisions will be legally binding within the member nations.

The US Constitution doesn't prohibit entering into treaties as long as they don't supercede rights granted within the Constitution or Bill of Rights. I'm not aware of any provisions in the WTO that do this. If that were the case then provisions of the WTO could be challenged in the US Supreme Court. Since this hasn't been done it's apparently not an issue.

It is an issue when a legal system is established that has the power to supercede the American legal system and remove protections guaranteed to American citizens under the Bill of Rights. That would almost certainly be challenged in the US Supreme Court if it was ever ratified. There's little chance that the ICC will ever be ratified by the Senate, however, in its current form. There's a strong belief in the US that the ICC would be used as a political tool rather than as a legitimate court of justice. Unless appropriate checks and balances are placed into the framework of the ICC to alleviate this concern and changes are made to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens, the ICC is a dead issue.

Lemming

Originally posted by Xhen

There's a strong belief in the US that the ICC would be used as a political tool rather than as a legitimate court of justice. Unless appropriate checks and balances are placed into the framework of the ICC to alleviate this concern and changes are made to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens, the ICC is a dead issue.

Used as a political tool like the US Government is using it right now against other countries?

Do as we say, not as we do ...

Moriarty

Originally posted by bonkey
OK - but how does this gel with the concept that the anthrax used post 9/11 was considered to be US in origin, and they went tracing it to the lab in question.

Are the US saying that Anthrax isn't a biological weapon, or just that its ok to produce and store it as long as you say "but it isnt a weapon, its for research" or something?

They never denied its a weapon. They have anthrax (and i presume many other bio weapons) at secure facilitys for defensive purposes. What defensive purposes, you might ask.. development of vaccines, knowledge of organisim growth, knowledge of how it reacts in different environments, the list goes on and on. All perfectly legal and allowed under the ban treatys. Many other western countrys have similar programs with similar agents in secure labs.

Originally posted by bonkey
After all - the last time I got into an argument about WMDs, many people were vociferously opposing the notion that the quantity was not important. Indeed, US law doesn't have any requirement on quantity - just that the material be classifiable as a biological agent.

I refer you back to the ban treatys. Defensive research is specifically allowed.

bonkey

Originally posted by Moriarty
They never denied its a weapon. T

No - but you did by implication. Allow me to refresh your memory :

All US biological weapons were destroyed between May 1971 and February 1973.

So what you're now saying is that this is not in fact strictly correct - they have biological weapons - they did not destroy them all - they just insist that they're only for defensive use.

I'm not picking a fight - just clarifying the point.

Of course, when you hear the US talking about how easy it would be for a foreign government or terrorist org to mass-produce a bio-weapon from a small sample, and how delivery systems are not that hard to come by once a certain technical level is achieved.....its nice to know that they (the US) keep their stocks nice and small. Fills me with comfort.

jc