[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

[COLOR="Blue"]The basis of law is to engage a polity in a cooperative endeavor and to deter those who will not cooperate. International Law, I presume, therefore, is to engage nations to cooperate and to deter those who will not. When nations are not in agreement, International law has no basis. When rogues defy International Law and nations do not cooperate to deter them, International Law has no force.

You seem to be assuming that nations are never in agreement. This is often not the case.

Perhaps, you consider the U.S. a rogue or uncooperative nation in its treatment of terrorist detainees. But, at least, the previous administration put up a legal unlawful combatant defence, which I find very credible.

You're mixing issues here. There is an argument to be made for the Bush policy toward treatment of unlawful combatants, but that doesn't supersede existing US law prohibiting torture.

The terrorists, on the other hand, I consider absolute rogues totally unconcerned with the legal niceties of International Law, quite content to receive its unmerited protection while planning to destroy the whole caboodle. A law that protects the agent who will destroy it is an ass. It should prosecute, not protect, that agent.

So there's no line in the sand? Perhaps we should have used donkeys to rape detainees because it would have been funny?

If we are to have standards of behavior established as law, they can't have exceptions after the fact. Bush could have gone to Congress to ask for torture laws to be revised, but he did not.

When there is a clear and present danger to the prime principle of existence, a "convenient exception" may trump the high dudgeon of beliefs.

This is the attitude Bin Laden is banking on.

Frankly I believe we shouldn't let a terrorist define what be believe to be our prime principals. I seem to remember a thread a few months ago where we were taught that Conservatives were different than Liberals in that their "principals" were unshakable.

Rush is a covenient straw man. Knocking him down has nothing to do with this discussioin. To what "plenty of tools" are you referring?

He's audience represents a large block of Americans, many of whom share his attitudes.

Tools, plenty of tools for legal interrogation which when performed by professionals is quite effective.

As for the Soviet Union, apparently not enough power and too much self interest. The US in Vietnam, had we stayed, we would probably now have an ally in South Vietnam comparable to South Korea. In Iraq there was not enough power initially, which the surge corrected. Also, we finally convinced, and/or, the Iraquis finally saw we were on their side and the insurgents were not. Hence, a democratic ally there instead of a nemesis. Of course, if we relinquish our POWER relaltionship with Irag too soon, and we abandon that country as we did South Vietnam, the "insurgents" backed by a superior POWER of money and arms can destroy the good our POWER helped to create.

The Surge wouldn't have likely been successful had Sunni's not came to the realization that if they continued to fight US Troops that Shiites would gain complete control.

While I'm sure there have been gains in Iraq due to the use of hard power and influence, a good much of it has either been short lived or counter productive.

I'd also note that Iraq is nearly asking us to leave now.

Yes, without the "hard power" of US military might as a deterrence to the USSR paper tiger might, and US economic POWER, the Soviets could still be cranking.

I think you're forgetting "populist" power.

I agree--Power may ENABLE us to apply your idealistic methods

Not idealistic at all, just pragmatic. I'm all for hard power to be applied when appropriate, but we can't loose sight of the long-term strategy.

"Perceived" needs are subjective to the eyes of the beholder. Those who perceive us as hubristic, in my opinion, do so out of various agendas and personal animosities. I am not aware of a "neocon school".

I think some are personally upset that hubris has tarnished our image which hurts our long-term objectives. This sounds like a reasonable "agenda."

I don't think we are requiring others to "do as I say", rather we are asking them not to threaten our existence and we will be happy to engage you with commerce and friendly relations.

The neocon "school" would argue that our existence is threatened if we are not the de facto leader of the world.

-spence