Originally posted by no1marauderfuture generations will say, "wow, how did those israelis get so smart?"
The Isreali attack on the Iraqi unfinished nuclear facility was a violation of international law. It was condemned by a UN Security Council resolution. Even the right wing government of Reagan condemned the attack.
Originally posted by zeeblebotYou're truly dense. The point was that the US S of S was stating what international law WAS, not making it. This same IL was reaffirmed over 100 years later at Nuremberg. It has remained good law for centuries.
scrolling down an interminably long page of legal history, we come to the bottom and find that the US response to this invasion of its sovereignty was to pass a law against it.
From UN Security Council resolution 487:
1. Strongly condemns the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct;
2. Calls upon Israel to refrain in the future from any such acts or threats thereof;
3. Further considers that the said attack constitutes a serious threat to the entire IAEA safeguards regime which is the foundation of the non-proliferation Treaty;
4. Fully recognises the inalienable sovereign right of Iraq, and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes in accordance with their present and future needs and consistent with the internationally accepted objectives of preventing nuclear-weapons proliferation;
5. Calls upon Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards;
6. Considers that Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered, responsibility for which has been acknowledged by Israel;
7. Requests the Secretary-General to keep the Security Council regularly informed of the implementation of this resolution.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un487.htm
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat! You don't mean that the US doesn't make International Law?
You're truly dense. The point was that the US S of S was stating what international law WAS, not making it. This same IL was reaffirmed over 100 years later at Nuremberg. It has remained good law for centuries.
How can that be remotely fair?
Originally posted by zeeblebotYou should put that fantasy away with the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. That "study" you presented is a laughingstock to any serious researcher.
someone who'd rather have 16000 dead americans a year than a few thousand executed inmates has got a lot more in common with a nazi than i have.
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://aei-brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=1131
You should put that fantasy away with the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. That "study" you presented is a laughingstock to any serious researcher.
the introduction (not copied here) is illuminating.
Cass R. Sunstein, Adrian Vermeule
Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life-Life Tradeoffs
Working Paper 05-06 (March 2005)
http://aei-brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=1131
"Abstract: Recent evidence suggests that capital punishment may have a significant deterrent effect, preventing as many as eighteen or more murders for each execution. This evidence greatly unsettles moral objections to the death penalty, because it suggests that a refusal to impose that penalty condemns numerous innocent people to death. Capital punishment thus presents a life-life tradeoff, and a serious commitment to the sanctity of human life may well compel, rather than forbid, that form of punishment. Moral objections to the death penalty frequently depend on a distinction between acts and omissions, but that distinction is misleading in this context, because government is a special kind of moral agent. The familiar problems with capital punishment – potential error, irreversibility, arbitrariness, and racial skew – do not argue in favor of abolition, because the world of homicide suffers from those same problems in even more acute form. The widespread failure to appreciate the life-life tradeoffs involved in capital punishment may depend on cognitive processes that fail to treat “statistical lives” with the seriousness that they deserve. "
Originally posted by zeeblebotThis nonsense was demolished in this forum last year; do you have Alzheimer's or something?
http://aei-brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=1131
the introduction (not copied here) is illuminating.
Cass R. Sunstein, Adrian Vermeule
Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life-Life Tradeoffs
Working Paper 05-06 (March 2005)
http://aei-brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=1131
"Abstract: Recent evidence ...[text shortened]... ive processes that fail to treat “statistical lives” with the seriousness that they deserve. "
Originally posted by no1marauderyou'd probably like to dwell fondly on that, but it ain't so ... you walked off the argument ... when i asked why your quoted studies that showed no deterrence effect excluded the countries that use the DP the most by far, you said something to the effect of 'why should we want to be like those barbaristic countries?' ... hardly an argument for non-deterrence ... i suppose you consider those "outliers" ...
This nonsense was demolished in this forum last year; do you have Alzheimer's or something?
http://csmonitor.com/2005/1214/p09s01-coop.html
"from the December 14, 2005 edition
Why not all executions deter murder
By Joanna Shepherd
...
Recent empirical evidence initially seemed to confirm the deterrence theory. In the past decade, 12 empirical studies by economists, published in peer-reviewed journals, have found evidence consistent with a strong deterrent effect. Most of these studies, including three by me, use large data sets that combine information from all 50 states or all US counties over many years to show that, on average, an additional execution deters many murders.
...
I find that the impact of executions differs among states with the death penalty. Although executions appear to deter crime in approximately one-fifth of these states, in the remaining 80 percent, executions show no deterrent effect. Indeed, in some of these states, executions produce the opposite effect: Murders increase after executions.
...
One important factor is that, on average and with exceptions, the states where capital punishment deters murder tend to execute many more people than do the states where capital punishment incites crime or has no effect.
..."