Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (37460)	8/13/2002 3:04:37 AM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I pretty much agree Nadine, with how it will be. Most of my meaning in the term 'extralegal' refers to my conviction that it's a time to honor Constitutional law, asking Congress for a declaration of war, even if the vote results are kept secret till the first shots are fired. The expedience of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was due to a situation that seemed to require haste. In this event, we are trying to make a case to Iraq and other Middle East countries hostile to us that democracy, freedom and justice are empowering and beneficial to the citizenry. It's much harder to convince anyone if we extend beyond Constitutional law and decide autocratically to follow a group of mostly appointed men (who've spent the last year making a corpse of habeus) into a war that has good odds of punishing an already beleagured citizenry while Saddaam & Co gain asylum elsewhere, or disappear into the hinterlands of N. Pakistan. I'm still kinda proud of our Constution & Bill of Rights and think it oughta be given a walk in the park now and then, so its legs don't wither.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (37460)	8/13/2002 3:22:56 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; Another great argument by Steven den Beste. I agree completely that International law is a farce. While International Law pretty much doesn't exist, however, international opinion does. When the US has gone against international opinion (in supporting South Africa or intervening in Vietnam), the result has not been success. -- Carl

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (37460)	8/13/2002 4:37:00 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

Here is an update from the NYT on the CIA's tie in to the Palestine security force. August 13, 2002 C.I.A. Chief Skeptical About a New Palestinian Security Force By TODD S. PURDUM WASHINGTON, Aug. 12, Despite pressure from the Bush administration for the rapid organization of a new Palestinian security force, George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, remains skeptical about the prospects, administration officials said today. A three-day visit by top Palestinian officials ended Saturday with a 90-minute meeting between Mr. Tenet, whom the president has charged with pushing for a new force, a crucial step toward restoring peace negotiations with Israel, and the new Palestinian interior minister, Abdel Razak Yehiyeh. Mr. Yehiyeh told Mr. Tenet that Israel's months of military raids have left the Palestinian security forces in chaos and disarray. The C.I.A. chief, who has long experience as a broker between Israeli and Palestinian security officials, has been assessing how best to create and train a new security force that could help stop terrorism against Israel. President Bush and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell are said to be eager to announce details of the new effort as a sign of good faith in resuming peace efforts. But with Israel and the Palestinians still unable to reach agreement on the basic outlines of a proposed Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian areas, Mr. Tenet has concluded that there is a limit to what he and his agency can do, officials said. As a result, he has announced no immediate plans to travel to the region. "Tenet feels perhaps he's been around the block on this a few times," an administration official said. "He's been in this movie before and had to walk out in the middle of it. He doesn't want to repeat history." Israel has proposed a tentative withdrawal first from Gaza, but Palestinians are pressing for a parallel withdrawal from a West Bank area, preferably Ramallah, the seat of the Palestinian Authority and home of Yasir Arafat's battered headquarters. "Tenet is unwilling at the moment," an official said. "He really wants to lean heavily on the Egyptians and Jordanians for a lot of the legwork of this retraining and a lot of the details. They are surprisingly on board for this." But with Israeli forces still confiscating weapons of Palestinian policemen, and barring free movement by the police or anyone else around West Bank towns and cities, Mr. Yehiyeh and other members of his delegation complained last week that it was hard for them to make concrete progress, though he said they were committed to doing so. "The most important thing is to begin," Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator and the delegation's leader, said in a telephone interview from the region. "We've talked so much with the Israelis, the Americans. We need to turn this talk into some real steps, maybe humble steps, but real steps." He added: "I believe our talks in Washington constituted a good beginning. I'm not saying there were breakthroughs, but we understand exactly what the Americans want to do, and they understand what we want to do, and the limitations in the face of what the Israelis are doing." Even as the Palestinian delegation ? the highest to meet with American officials since Mr. Bush demanded Mr. Arafat's ouster ? was here, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel made a televised speech denouncing the Palestinian Authority as "a gang of corrupt terrorists and assassins." Palestinian officials reported that Mr. Tenet had assured Mr. Yehiyeh that he intended to have C.I.A. officials resume discussions in the region soon, and to follow up on the work of assessment teams that have already been there. Mr. Erekat said his delegation considered all their meetings to have been positive. They also saw Secretary Powell, the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, and other senior State Department officials. Still, an administration official said, American diplomatic efforts are "at the same point: a lot of discussions, but it's still not soup yet." nytimes.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (37460)	8/13/2002 8:11:41 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>US hires Danish ships for possible use against Iraq Brussels, Aug 13, IRNA -- The US defense ministry, Pentagon, is going to pay the Danish company A. P. Moellers, subsidiary company of Maersk Line Limited, almost 1,7 billion Kr. for the use of eight ships. (1 USD = 7.59 Denmark Kroner) The ships are to sail to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, the former base of American B52 bombers during the Iraq-Kuwait war 12 years ago, the Danish DRN-I online news reported Monday. The cargo bay on the ships are to be filled with ammunition, tanks, trucks and ambulances for the American army, it said. The Maersk Company has to run the ships and their maintenance, but this task could be conflicting with official Danish foreign policy, said the website. So far the Danish government has not made any comments on a possible attack on Iraq. Villy Soevndal of the Socialist Peoples Party says the issue is a big problem and former Foreign Minister Niels Helveg Petersen would like the current Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller to explain the matter, noted DRN-I. << irna.com Maersk is one of the biggest shippers in the world. They do a lot of business with the US. BTW, re: international law. As I mentioned, I have an LL.M. (Master of Law) in admiralty law, which is international law, as far as I am aware the oldest international law. It derives from agreements made by seafarers in order that international commerce should be regular and predictable. No nation can create international law. It derives from treaties. If a nation is not a signatory to a treaty, then it is not bound. As members of the UN, we are bound by our agreements, but I am not aware of any requirement that the UN approve the use of force in order for it to be justified.