>>> "Nathan Newman" <nathan.newman at yale.edu> 05/11/99 05:13PM >>>
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Brown <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us>
To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Aren't you in law school ? What about the fact that the U.S. and NATO are
>violating international law ? Doesn't that impact your reasoning as to what
>is legitimate or illegitimate use of deadly force ?
By that logic, I should respect US corporate law, the laws underpinning the IMF and GATT, and US labor law? I'm in law school to learn how the system works and oppresses workers and communities in order to fight corporate power, not justify its application in our world as some form of justice.
Charles: You have to be able to differentiate between laws that represent the fruit of struggles by the working class, People and liberation movements and those (most) that represent the rule of the ruling class. For example, the Bill of Rights, the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th and other Amendments to the Constitution have a lot of value for progressive struggle. They are the opposite of those laws you list above. An important thing a leftist in law school should do is draw this line.
As I said, the UN centered law is very progressive relative to the U.S. law. The international law pertinent to the war on Yugoslavia is progressive in this context. Another example is the UN Convention for Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. It is more progressive than U.S. law.
(((((((((((((((((((((((
There is a real oddness in leftists who argue the government can be trusted to control our whole health care system and tax people at will, then turn around and assume that no such government could ever do a single act militarily that might be to a good, then turn around and argue that international law should be completely respected, even though most of that international law (especially the parts that are enforced) are oppressive trade and intellectual property laws.
Charles: You don't argue that the government can be trusted. You argue that freedom is a constant struggle, and the government will not do right unless the People are vigilante and ultimately are self-governing and take it over from the bourgeoisie. In 1999 , the U.S. government is very unlikely to do something militarily correct, because it is the major imperialist power. In WWII, the complexities had the U.S. government coming out on the correct side of the war, but then there were several imperialist powers in much greater rivalry and a new socialist country. International law that is the fruit of international working class and Peoples' struggle should be upheld. In general , your reasoning above is not concrete enough and specific.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((
In fact, enforcement of international law in the form of intellectual property laws concerning medicine kills far more people each year (probably each day) than this whole NATO campaign ever will. If you want the true source of murder and oppression based in Europe, don't look at NATO, look at the World Information Property Organization (WIPO).
Charles: There is some good law in this area in the New World Information Order . I'll have to look at the UN Conventions. The National Lawyers Guild has a standing committee in this area.
International law is an arena of struggle. It happens that the Left has won good law related to the war for now. It should be defended.
(((((((((((((((((((
International law is, at least in its present form where it is shaped completely without any global democratic parliament, just a tool of corporate and government self-interest.
Charles: This is an inaccurate generalization. See above. There are good and bad laws internationally, as domestrically.
(((((((((((((((((((((((
Yes, there are a few nice words about human rights, but the fine print all makes it unenforceable. (Which is why the Kosovars were shit out of luck without NATO intervention in the first place.)
God, when did leftists become law-and-order types arguing "the law says so" is an adequate response to a moral challenge to the law.
Charles: Goddamn, does it not occur to you that the Left has always been struggling to institute laws ? How do you think the victory of the Civil War was preserved but especially in Constitutional Amendments ? Don't you realize that the working class victories of the Thirties were codified in the New Deal laws ? If you, a left law student , don't realize that, how are we going to defend what we have won ? Don't you realize that socialism first arises with a state and LAWS ? The idea of lawless and orderless socialism is an anarchist inspired caricature of the Left, used by the bourgeoisie to discredit the Left.
(((((((((((((((((((((((
If you learn anything in the law, it's that justice and the law have little or nothing to do with each other. The Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes was once told on the way to court, "I hope you are off to do justice." Holmes answered, "That's not my job."
Pretty much sums up the legal system, don't you think?
Charles: The bourgeois legal system, and more and more. We aim to institute a socialist legal system, don't you know ? The socialist state doesn't whither away until there is no more capitalism in the whole world.
Charles Brown