[detbuch]

[QUOTE=spence;707991]There's a big difference between civil and criminal law, and I'd wager that that the majority of criminal law is as applicable today as it was when it was founded.

I am not talking about the MAJORITY of laws.

The laws we're generally talking about have to do with issues like human rights and torture. These I think have been pretty consistent this century...

This century is only a bit more than 8 years old. Perhaps you mean the 20th. There were significant changes and additions then. For instance, U.N. laws on torture changed significantly from applying only to SIGNATORIES to the U. N. conventions to, uselessly, stupidly, self-destructively (in my opinion) to INCLUDE JUST ABOUT ANYBODY IN THE WORLD, signer or not, specifically to "outlaw" what you consider illegal CIA interrogations. By stupidly signing on to such a broad inclusion, you abdicate legal sovereignty to a fickle "World Court" that has no particular interest in the existence of the USA.

We establish laws that say torture is wrong, that establish rules of conduct based on ethics.

Our laws should apply only to those who are in the purview of our social contract. Torture of US citizens would be ethically wrong by those rules so long as those citizens are not engaged in some form of overthrow of our government.

The limits are based on our morals, not theirs, as we are in control.

Our morals are of no interest to "them." They have different morals and laugh at us as puny fools to offer them sanctity in morals they would destroy. And we deserve their scorn when we do so.

This conflicts with two simple observations:

1) We are in a long-term struggle
2) If our policy undermines the basic premise (see above), it is by nature self defeating

So far, I am not seeing in the history of the world, that ethics, rather than power, wins struggles. It has been reputed that RELIGIOUS fervor has, in times and places, changed the course of history. But in this "long-term struggle" it is our opponent who has that fervor, and we have all but abandoned it. Which policy, which basic premise?

How so? Admitting a course correction might be necessary could very well be a sign of strength to those we need to influence.

It could very well be a sign of weakness and a chink in what they hope is the eventual crumbling. Anyway (perhaps I have an autistic trait similar to yours)--in referring to those now running our country wishing to "change that", the "that" is the U.S. being an object of jealousy and the "change" would be us becoming just one of the guys in the fraternity of nations--no better, perhaps a little worse and required to apologize for our oppressions and transgressions.

I'd note that the policy shifts towards North Korea look like they could possibly bear some fruit, and Obama's trip to the Mid East this spring might have very well influenced the power shift in Lebanon and the Green Revolution in Iran.-spence[QUOTE]

How many policy shifts toward North Korea have born fruit? I must admit, I have forgotten what our latest policy is. I remember, in the past, our policies have eventually given NK fruit rather than bearing it. Power shift in Lebanon? From whom to whom? And, again, I'm not familiar with the Green Revolution in Iran.