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.

Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (9372)	5/21/1999 10:23:00 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

Ron, how naive you're! How does a lawyer handle such a situation, Chris? Answer: a lawyer handles such a situation at approx. $250/day... Ooops! That's the average consulting fee for a domestic lawyer... Hmmm... let me see... Here you're: for an international lawyer, daily consulting fees start at $500/day (seminars not included).

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (9372)	5/21/1999 10:29:00 AM
From: Enigma	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17770

<<And how will you apply those steps to the broader overlay of international law, where there is no declared enforcement agency, but only individually armed "private citizens (nations)>> We're back into the realm of selectivity, and intervention on high moral or humanitarian grounds - killing innocent people for a (our) greater moral purpose. We're going to have to pay for this damage. If I killed the man beating his wife would I not be taking the law into my own hands and be guilty of murder (of some degree)? You keep trying to turn this intervention over international borders into a debate about intervention within a state to which one belongs.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (9372)	5/21/1999 11:29:00 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

If you go back and look at my past posts you will find all your questions answered. Briefly: a) of course the police are entitled --even obligated -- to act. They are lawfully appointed to do that. Are they entitled to use deadly force? Depends on the circumstances. Yes if it is necessary to save life. No if not. A number of well publicized incidents help show that there IS a line beyond which the police may not step: Rodney King, Ruby Ridge, etc. b) should you intervene? There is clear law on that point, too. You are entitled (but not obligated) to intervene, but you may only use the minimum necessary force (for example, you can't use deadly force if you have a reasonable alternative, and you can't start shooting innocent members of the family to try to bring pressure on the neighbor to persuade them to stop). And you can be held legally responsible for your actions; you can be sued by the children for the loss of their father if you use excessive force and kill him, and you can be criminally charged and convicted of assault if you use unreasonable force. We have a court and jury system to decide whether you used reasonable or unreasonable force if the issue arises. c) I can't speak for other lawyers, but I handle such situations by helping the victims as much as I can WITHIN the context of what it is legal for me to do. I do NOT target that man's neighbors, children, doctors, etc. and start killing them to try to persuade him to put his weapon down. d) In the international context, there IS a declared enforcement agency. It is the UN. We as a nation signed the UN charter, which quite specifically states that no country may use force against another country without the approval of the UN. The UN may use the military forces of other countries (as our local police will use the forces of the FBI if necessary to help solve a local problem which is too big for them to handle), but when we signed that Charter we undertook a legal obligation NOT to do what we are now doing. Of course, Clinton's adherence to the rule of law, or more accurately his dismissal of the any concern for the rule of law if he thinks he can get away with it, is well known. But responsible citizens are not so cavalier. They understand that the law is all that protects us from anarchy. They understand that if I am going to expect the law to be there to defend me when I look to it for help, I have to obey that law even when it is personally inconvenient. This is not a new idea; in fact, it is thousands of years old. Read Plato's Crito. The same temptations arose then as now to look to the law for help when it helps us, but to feel free to violate it when it doesn't. It was a wrong philosophy then, and it is a wrong philosophy now.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (9372)	5/21/1999 11:45:00 AM
From: EightyEight	Respond to of 17770

went to Stenkovic refugee camp today. the semi-obligatory first place to go in skopje. it's getting hot here now. it's stifling in those tents. in july and august it's going to be unbearable. the people seem ok, attitude wise, but wait till it gets hot. Spent the rest of the morning at the Mother Tereza Organization warehouse. they have a rota set up so a different group come everyday for a weeks worth of food and they can pick over the clothes piles. Our host is the president of the tereza org. and the owner of the only ethnic albanian tv station in macedonia. the station makes no profit but it's the "voice of the Kosovars' over here. writing this upstairs at the station. later i'll ask eddie, a kosovar refugee to write some stuff here. he's nearly fluent in english. keep the faith, everyone and stop the bombs. Dusty P.S. ther was a bombing here in skopje two days ago, two kosovar kids hurt on the stree here in town. the older kid lost a leg. this is the only bad incident since the demos when the NATO bombing started.