Iraq and legality again Re: [extropy-chat] Professor Being Sued Over Anti-Aging Comments

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:

> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >
> >"facts" that 'tell' a different story are propaganda. A law abiding
> >person is a law abiding person until the day they break the law. 
> >
> >Whether that person was a high muckity muck or just a street thug
> and
> >undercover informant of the Chief of Police is immaterial to the
> fact
> >that the law was broken. Saying the Chief was corrupt because of his
> >prior association with the UI is immaterial to the case and not
> >justification for saying the UI's arrest for hacking an election and
> >killing a cop was unjust. Whether the Chief overlooked prior
> violations
> >of pickpocketing and selling pot is immaterial to whether or not in
> the
> >final instance, the UI killed a cop, hacked an election, and went
> over
> >the line of official tolerance. This is the sort of situation
> Noriega
> >put himself in.
> >
> >Anything else said is tantamount to the excuse making one hears from
> >mob lawyers.
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> If Noriega broke Panamanian law it was up to the people of Panama to 
> deal with it.
> Not the US.
> If Noriega broke US law - from Panama - it was up to the people of 
> Panama to deal with it at the request of the US
> End of story.

You don't get it: treaties that are ratified by the US Senate are US
law. The Charter of the Organization of American States is thus US law.
The US was also bound by bi-lateral treaties with Panama, particularly
the 1977 Panama Canal Treaty, which abrogated all prior bi-lateral
treaties including the 1903 Panama Canal Treaty. They also signed a
second treaty, the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and
Operation of the Panama Canal, or simply the Neutrality Treaty, which
was a much shorter document. Because it had no fixed termination date,
this treaty was the major source of controversy. Under its provisions,
the United States and Panama agreed to guarantee the canal's neutrality
"in order that both in time of peace and in time of war it shall remain
secure and open to peaceful transit by the vessels of all nations on
terms of entire equality." In times of war, however, United States and
Panamanian warships were entitled to "expeditious" transit of the canal
under the provisions of Article VI. A protocol was attached to the
Neutrality Treaty, and all nations of the world were invited to
subscribe to its provisions. 

At the same ceremony in Washington, representatives of the United
States and Panama signed a series of fourteen executive agreements
associated with the treaties. These included two Agreements in
Implementation of Articles III and IV of the Panama Canal Treaty that
detailed provisions concerning operation, management, protection, and
defense, outlined in the main treaty. Most importantly, these two
agreements defined the areas to be held by the United States until 2000
to operate and defend the canal. These areas were distinguished from
military areas to be used jointly by the United States and Panama until
that time, military areas to be held initially by the United States but
turned over to Panama before 2000, and areas that were turned over to
Panama on October 1, 1979. 

Major problems with these treaties involved the fact that they were
signed by Torrijos, who was a dictator who let the 1969 coup against
the democratic government of Panama, although to his credit he
redemocratized the country after the Panama treaties were signed and
returned merely to the control of the National Guard, while Aristedes
Royo was the elected President. Torrijos' death in a plane accident
that many credit to a plot by Noriega led to Noriega's ascension to
head of the National Guard, and eventual coup when he refused to
recognise Endara's election victory in 1989.

In addition to drug trafficking, Noriega declared war on the United
States on December 15, 1989. His forces shot and killed a U.S. Marine
stationed in Panama City. It was also alleged that his forces were
engaging in widespread harassment of other US troops, including at
least one case of sexual abuse. This IMHO fully justifies the US
invasion. This is something the peaceniks always seem to ignore: it
doesn't really matter if the US Congress declared war if the enemy
already did so.



Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com