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: The Philosopher who wrote (9388)	5/21/1999 12:14:00 PM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

I again issue an open invitation to anyone here to give me citations to any law or recognized legal authority which would justify the legality of our action in Yugoslavia. Anybody? Is this the Q&A in your Yougoslav Intl. Law Seminar? Could you please remind the audience how much do you charge for it? (inclusive of tax) Thanks!

To: The Philosopher who wrote (9388)	5/21/1999 12:15:00 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 17770

Already did it, but I will look it up for you...

To: The Philosopher who wrote (9388)	5/21/1999 12:47:00 PM
From: lin huan chen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17770

Christopher: Law is made by human. It changes constantly. In a perfect world it may work if everybody follows it. But it is not. We as a "responsible citizen" try to obey the law but more importantly follow our conscience. If my action is illegal. So be it. Law is not the absolutely truth, let alone sacred as you claimed. People decide the law, right? International law ? What is that? Who is fooling who? Who is following it? The whole debate about Kosovo all comes down to who you really are? BTW, not all the soldiers doing the jobs for us have the same idea as our intention is. They might foul up due to stupidity or any other reasons. regards Lin

To: The Philosopher who wrote (9388)	5/21/1999 1:22:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

So far, nobody has taken me up on my invitation. They basically pretend that there is no such thing as international law (clearly an indefensible position -- virtually every law school in the country teaches courses on international law, and many law firm specialize in it), or they claim that international law does not apply to this situation (but fail to provide anything other then their unsupported argument for this, in the face of a legally binding Charter we have signed which says exactly the opposite.) go2net.com The Security Council has effectively sanctioned this action. Does that mean that you now consider it to be right? All of the signatories to the NATO treaty have at least acquiesced in this action, therefore it can hardly be in violation of the treaty, which is, after all, no more than an agreement by the signatories. Besides, the codicils that permit a more "liberal" interpretation of the NATO mandate were agreed to in the last few years, I believe. The breach of sovereignty is a serious matter only if we suppose that there can be no humanitarian justification for intervention. For the most part, we do not attempt more than diplomatic intervention, but the prospect of a refugee crisis, affecting Serbia's neighbors, coupled with humanitarian concerns, is compelling. Having said all of that, I think that this matter was botched, and that we waited until the last minute and trusted too much to punitive bombing, with inadequate thought for the possible consequences should the Serbs not readily fold...(April 8) go2net.com The Security Council did vote on a resolution condemning the action, which was defeated... go2net.com As a lawyer, yet! So the UN has condemned the action? Nope, although the issue was brought to the table. Therefore, it has acquiesced. What part of this do you not understand? go2net.com James--- a.Nobody gave NATO a "mandate". Whatever a consensus of the signatory nations says is within NATO's purview is, ipso facto, part of its mandate. b.The refugee flows occasioned by earlier troubles in the region were largely absorbed by Austria and Germany, and were directly related to the rise in neo- Nazi activity. The refugee flows from Kosovo were likely to be absorbed by Albania and Macedonia, as has happened, with potentially destabilizing effects on those countries. Two long- standing NATO countries, Greece and Turkey, who are hostile anyway, could easily be drawn into a wider Balkan war. c.There are numerous hotspots where adjustments through "ethnic cleansing" might be found attractive, and the Western powers wanted to take a stand against this crime against humanity in their own back- yard. d.The Muslim "street" frequently perceives the West to be anti- Muslim, and thus it is useful to demonstrate a willingness to take sides on behalf of Muslims when the situation warrants. e.If we concede that Serbia is within the Russian "sphere of influence", it will be that much harder to face them down when they make bids for hegemony elsewhere in the former Eastern bloc. f.Muslim terrorists would be happy to use the Balkans to gain a foothold in Europe, and it prudent to deny them the opportunity. g.The issues that were temporarily resolved in the former Yugoslavia might easily reignite if Serbia is permitted resurgence, and broaden further as traditional sympathies are stoked. These are reasons for intervention, whether or not you think that they "rise to the level" of direct military involvement....