Alec said:
The whole debate between war and due
> > >process seems beside the point, or rather not
> > nearly
> > >flexible enough.
> > >
> >
> >
I replied: So you got something better?
>
>If only. But due process presumes a stable,
>overarching, in this case supranational (in terms of
>empire--the UN) juridical set of interpretations and
>practices/interventions. Since this war, by these
>standards, is illegal, or legal in a way that clearly
>massages any kind of rigor of interpretation since the
>US has bypassed the UN, where's the credibility in due
>process? This is in no way an endorsement of war, nor
>is this the first "war" to argue for the difference:
>it's just the coordinates have changed. Due process
>is a souvenir in this conflict.
>
>Alec
>
I don't understand your point. Mine was pretty simple: a crime calls for a criminal investigation, not a war. Due process tends to be a casualty of war. Maybe that is your point too. In that case we don't disgree.
Btw, wrt what Doug's interlocutor said about the legality of the war in view of the UN's actions, I haven't got a strong opinion. I have no expertise in international law. My friend John Quigley of my old law school, Ohio State, is a real expert in international law, and he thinks it's illegal. I'd tend to defer to him. But even if he's wrong, I think that war was the wrong response.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp