[extropy-chat] Does international law exist andisitintheinterests of US citizens?

Brian Lee brian_a_lee at hotmail.com
Mon Aug 16 19:01:31 UTC 2004

>From: "Brett Paatsch" <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au>
>To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Does international law exist 
>andisitintheinterests of US citizens?
>Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 04:28:53 +1000
>Even in the US, the decision to invade vests in one person. The
>commander in chief. The president. George W Bush is the person
>responsible for the US invasion of Iraq.  It was his personal call.

I think US law allows the president 60-90 days to deploy troops without 
congressional approval, but it wasn't used in this case. I think both the 
Senate and House authorized troops in Iraq, so saying that it was a 
"personal" call by Bush is simplistic at the least. He wasn't acting as a 
rouge president and abusing his powers.

The UN charter does not make resolutions binding, so all 15 members could 
vote and pass a resolution to invade or whatever and unless members then 
execute it, it is meaningless. Thus the problem with the UN.

If you want real, international law (aside from trade agreements which are 
the only functioning international laws) then form a new authoratative 
power. Personally, I'm just waiting for the EU to expand all over the world.

I don't think any former president was willing to accede US sovereignty to 
the UN nor will any near-term future president. Kerry is against the ICC as 
far as I know.

For international law to grow, it needs to expand from WTO-like orgs where 
members must pass local legislation to enforce the princples of the 
treaties. As scary as it is, the recent DMCAish legislation in Australia is 
an example of functioning international law. So now the US and Australia 
have similar copyright laws that can be enforced and prosecuted in both 


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list