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: Maurice Winn who wrote (90441)	4/5/2003 8:37:20 PM
From: paul_philp	Respond to of 281500

OK, I will just agree to disagree. Paul

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (90441)	4/5/2003 9:36:55 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

When talking about human actions, and the results therefrom, as a lawyer I think that the chain of causation is largely determined by politics rather than the laws of physics. Under old English common law, if a train threw out a hot coal that set fire to the thatch of a cottage, the railway was liable but if the fire spread from cottage to cottage and burned down a village, the railway wasn't liable because the damage wasn't foreseeable. Which is bull, but clearly good for the railroads so politically expedient. Foreseeability is built into the common law, and Canada, New Zealand, and the US are all common law countries. Another example before I talk about Saddam. If you are involved in an automobile accident, and are treated in the hospital, and the doctor is negligent, in the US at least the negligence of the doctor does not cut off the chain of causation. The negligent car driver is liable for the injuries caused by the doctor because they are within the scope of foreseeability. You do have a separate cause of action against the doctor as well. US law favors lawyers. But if someone deliberately hurts you in the hospital that cuts off the chain of causation because it's not foreseeable. It's an intervening supervening force. I imagine the judges who thought all this up liked to play billiards, or maybe croquet. Paul's argument is that Saddam's various recalcitrances are what caused the war, which was foreseeable, and no intervening supervening force cut off the chain of causation. I agree with Paul. Your argument about malevolent actions is well taken. Malevolence by coalition forces is an intervening supervening force which cuts off the chain of causation. Malevolence by Saddam's forces is foreseeable, thus within the chain of causation. By the way, in case you never noticed, law is remarkably like physics except that we can change it when we want to.