letterman pwns o'reilly...

[Canis]

I disagree 100%. The legal aspects of a law deals with whether or not there is authority to enforce them. If I commit a murder its illegal because there is enforcement that will capture me and punish me according to law. If there was no enforcement, I'd be free to go as nothing can bind me to the law. Legality is proportional to enforceability.

By your claim any group can form a set of rules and if other folks dont abide by them then those folks are breaking the "law". Sure, the "written rule" has been broken, but there is no authority to enforce that rule and thereby make that rule a law. "Law" in this sense isnt a "Law" such as gravity. Legal laws have to have enforcement behind them otherwise they have no weight and there is nothing to bind anyone to them.

[Canis]

i believe you'll be hard pressed to find anyone here or anywhere else who will agree with you.

Its a frustrating thing to realize, but the logic is undeniable, and sadly it is the truth.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

the logic is undeniable

uh no

[Canis]

How is it not?

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

whether a law is enforced vigorously or not doesn't effect how legal the law is. the geneva coventions are international law and have been enforced

bombing food crops is illegal. the US is a signatory to that convention.

[Canis]

What gives a rule/morality/act/legislation legal binding?

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

usually it's ratification or passage in a legislative body (in a democracy)

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

I'm Just a Bill
(from Schoolhouse Rock)


Boy: Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to this Capitol Building here in Washington. But I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?
I'm just a bill.
Yes, I'm only a bill.
And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.
Well, it's a long, long journey
To the capital city.
It's a long, long wait
While I'm sitting in committee,
But I know I'll be a law some day
At least I hope and pray that I will
But today I am still just a bill.
Boy: Gee, Bill, you certainly have a lot of patience and courage.
BILL: Well, I got this far. When I started I wasn't even a bill, I was just an idea. Some folks back home decided they wanted a law passed, so they called their local Congressman, and he said, "You're right, there oughta be a law." Then he sat down and wrote me out and introduced me to Congress. And I became a bill, and I'll remain a bill until they decide to make me a law.
I'm just a bill
Yes I'm only a bill,
And I got as far as Capitol Hill.
Well, now I'm stuck in committee
And I'll sit here and wait
While a few key Congressmen discuss and debate
Whether they should let me be a law.
How I hope and pray that they will,
But today I am still just a bill.
Boy: Listen to those Congressmen arguing! Is all that discussion and debate about you.
BILL: Yeah, I'm one of the lucky ones. Most bills never even get this far. I hope they decide toreport on me favorably, otherwise I may die.
Boy: Die?
BILL: Yeah, die in committee. Ooh, but it looks like I'm gonna live! NOW I go to the House of Representatives, and they vote on me.
Boy: if they vote yes, what happens?
BILL: Then I go to the Senate and the whole thing starts all over again.
Boy: Oh no!
BILL: Oh yes!
I'm just a bill
Yes, I'm only a bill
And if they vote for me on Capitol Hill
Well, then I'm off to the White House
Where I'll wait in a line
With a lot of other bills
For the president to sign
And if he signs me, then I'll be a law.
HOW I hope and pray that he will,
But today I am still just a bill.
Boy: You mean even if the whole Congress says you should be a law, the president can still say no?
BILL: Yes, that's called a veto. If the president vetoes me, I have to go back to Congress and they vote on me again, and by that time you're so old ...
Boy: By that time it's very unlikely that you'll become a law. It's not easy to become a law, is it?
BILL: No!
But how I hope and pray that I will, But today I am still just a bill.
MAN: He signed you, Bill Now you're a law!
BILL: Oh yes!!!

[Hannibal]

I disagree 100%. The legal aspects of a law deals with whether or not there is authority to enforce them. If I commit a murder its illegal because there is enforcement that will capture me and punish me according to law.

This is viciously circular.

[Canis]

usually it's ratification or passage in a legislative body (in a democracy)

What's anybody going to do about it is the more accurate question. Great, everyone's accepted it and made it a rule. Still, anybody can still do whatever they want regardless of what the rule says, and just out of respect for those who've claimed its a rule most folks abide by it. However, those who do not dont see any difference in their lives, so it may as well be that the rule didnt exist.

[Canis]

I disagree 100%. The legal aspects of a law deals with whether or not there is authority to enforce them. If I commit a murder its illegal because there is enforcement that will capture me and punish me according to law.

This is viciously circular.

How so? Its quite linear to me: without enforcement, a "law" has no binding effect.

[Hannibal]

I disagree 100%. The legal aspects of a law deals with whether or not there is authority to enforce them. If I commit a murder its illegal because there is enforcement that will capture me and punish me according to law.

This is viciously circular.

How so? Its quite linear to me: without enforcement, a "law" has no binding effect.

"according to law"....someone is captured or punished BECAUSE of it, the law. The 'law' is conceptually prior. I'm not really sure what you mean by 'binding'.

I think what you are trying to say is something like the following: laws that cannot be practically enforced are bad, irrelevant, or even harmful. Depending on what law you are talking about it in a given case, I could probably find some way to agree with you.

[Canis]

All I'm saying is that for "law" to have effect there has to be enforcement. Otherwise "breaking the law" and the notion of illegality is all conceptual as there is no action being taken, and there might as well be no law. My argument is there is no point to law without enforcement.

The recognition of something being illegal is just the moral recognitions being taken into consideration. The enforcement of it is what gives validitity to the law.

The point is, folks are using this idea of "law" as something to hold someone else accountable agains: the US in vietnam, the US in Iraq, etc. In order to go after (granted not morally, but literally) someone on the basis of legality in this sense, one must have an enforcement procedure to keep that law valid and take down the person who broke it.

By definition (Mariam-Webster Dictionary: http://www.m-w.com):

1 a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : COMMON LAW b (1) : the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law (2) : the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs; also : LITIGATION (3) : the agency of or an agent of established law c : a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe d : something compatible with or enforceable by established law e :

There are a shitload of other entries, but this is the first and foremost definition. Law requires enforcement to be valid, otherwise its something else: moral, thought, who knows...

[R00k]

That doesn't say that at all.

[Canis]

How can you make such a statement? Yes it sure does say that: "A rule (or whole body of rules) recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority" is exactly what I'm talking about. It requires a controlling agency that has established authority over those who the law is meant for, hence an agency that can administer control over and enforce such laws. Its a body that's active in upholding the laws.

Common law as they describe is the same thing, only specifically the active enforcement of the laws, but still requires the controlling unit.

In the case of the UN, their lack of control and their lack of authority gives them little credibility in establishing "international law"

[Hannibal]

Le stuff.

I don't have any real problem with the PRACTICAL point you are making ("no point to law without enforcement"), but that's really all it is...a practical matter. All the webster definition is providing is that the CONCEPT of enforcement is internal to that of law (generally speaking). Meaning that, we have expectations of enforcement for whatever rule we are seeking to establish as a law. We are saying "We care about X so much that we will make a law about X so that we can publically encourage Xing and discourage not-Xing/anti-Xing."

But you seem to keep switching between a conceptual argument and a practical one, witness:

CONCEPTUAL

The recognition of something being illegal is just the moral recognitions being taken into consideration. The enforcement of it is what gives validitity to the law.

Law requires enforcement to be valid, otherwise its something else: moral, thought, who knows...

Wrong. Recognizing something as illegal only requires that you know what the relevant statute says and that you can identify the legal actors involved...moral concerns are either irrelevant or very secondary. Validity (at least in any sense recognized by a court) is established procedurally (i.e. who wrote the motherfucker and the process of its ratification). Whether any actual enforcement takes place doesn't change the legal status of a law one iota (though over time lack of enforcement may lead to its repeal).

PRACTICAL

All I'm saying is that for "law" to have effect there has to be enforcement...there is no point to law without enforcement.

Setting aside certain exceptions, this seems perfectly sensible.

So to sum up. The concept of enforcement is (for the most part) internal to the legal concept of a law; most laws are designed and believed to be enforceable in principle though not necessarily in practice; whether or not enforcement actually occurs is irrelevant to the question of a law's 'status' or 'validity' (which are determined procedurally).

Obviously, moving this discussion from US law to international law complicates the fuck out of everything. I would argue that, conceptually, nothing has changed much (at least with regard to expectations). On the practical side, it is a very deep swamp indeed. Wiki overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law

[menkent]

btw, o'reilly's response is on foxnews.com

he basically gives it an intro then shows a rather self-agrandizing highlight clip (basically they edited out most of what letterman said) of the interview that makes it look like he didn't get laughed off the stage.

[mjrpes]

The recognition of something being illegal is just the moral recognitions being taken into consideration. The enforcement of it is what gives validitity to the law.

Where does morality come into this at all? An action is illegal if it goes against the rules agreed upon by whatever parties are involved. That's all there is to it, nothing else. In fact, we create laws to keep morality, relativism, and questions of right and wrong out of the equation.

The point is, folks are using this idea of "law" as something to hold someone else accountable agains: the US in vietnam, the US in Iraq, etc. In order to go after (granted not morally, but literally) someone on the basis of legality in this sense, one must have an enforcement procedure to keep that law valid and take down the person who broke it.

What are you arguing here? Yes, folks are using the word "law" exactly as it is intended to be used. Again, an action is illegal if it goes against the rules agreed upon by whatever parties are involved. Illegal = not legal = not following the law = not following the contract that two or parties agreed upon. An unenforceable law in no way lessons or voids the illegality of the act, so long as contract is still held by all parties involved. If the contract is absolved, we'll start having to replace the word 'illegal' with 'wrong'.

[mjrpes]

Thank you hannibal for taking something I've been trying to make sense of for half an hour and clarifying it in a couple of sentences.

[Canis]

Well, from the viewpoint of conceptual/practical, my point is the conceptual aspects of this issue are not relevant. We can claim authority to establish law conceptually, but that's all it remains, a concept. In both definition and practice, the conceptualization of a law requires a controlling authority, not one that has no power (no control). Hence the common uses of the word "lawlessness" to describe a chaotic situation where legal enforcement authority has broken down. Anarchy is a synonym, and in the well-established "anarchic" nature of the international system, there is not much legal binding to any written rule. The authorities (UN, etc) that have presented themselves do not have the control to uphold the laws.

The conceptual aspect of law is an idealistic view of it, where somehow any agreed-upon and ratified piece of legislature has binding attributes to it. The problem is, it doesnt, and because of this I've been arguing against the conceptual notion of law. It is just not applicable at all. As such, the conceptual and practical aspects of this issue are not related at all, and the conceptual greatness of law is diminished by not being able to enforce it.

For there to be any relevant legal process (relevant statutes, recognized relevant legal actors, etc) there must be enforcement, otherwise the legallity has no relevance to the situation at hand, and just becomes a condemnation. The established "legality" of it does not matter one bit without enforcement.

I disagree with your summary, and see it as the reverse. The concept of law resides within the bounds of the ability to enforce it. Otherwise you end up with the UN situation, which is a bunch of righteous people who have no command, no enforcement, and no control over the morals they write down and agree upon. As such, they're left helplessly scratching their heads when the US goes in and invades iraq.

[Hannibal]

Thank you hannibal for taking something I've been trying to make sense of for half an hour and clarifying it in a couple of sentences.

NP, mjrpes. Your heartfelt thankyou marks you as a man of impeccable grooming and true panache.

Edit @Canis: I can see you and I have made no progress then. I bid you a fond goodnight.

[Canis]

I dont think progress can be made beyond clarification of our stances. I see where you are coming from and recognize the logic in it, but I do not agree with the practical (and therefore to me the relevant) sense of the scenario you described. To me the relevant situation is the one I have beeen describing. Still, overall it seems to be a of the chicken or the egg. In as few words as I can get it, the difference is:

"Conceptualized law calls for enforcement" vs "Enforcement ability enables(validates/makes practical) the conceptualization of law."

[Geebs]

Forest destruction

The amount of herbicides dumped on the forests and paddy fields of South Vietnam was stupendous. One study by Australian government scientists claims, “The figures for Agent Orange alone indicate that the amount of 2,4,5-T sprayed over Vietnam during the period 1962-1971 is far in excess of the amount of 2,4,5-T which has been used in Australia since the herbicide's introduction into Australia over 30 years ago” and points out that the chemical has been used over a much wider surface area in Australia.

An estimated 72.4 million litres or 100,000 tons of herbicides were sprayed on South Vietnam, affecting 43% of the cultivated area and 44% of the total area. Seventy per cent of the south's coconut groves and 60% of its rubber plantations were destroyed, together with 110,00 hectares of forest and 150,000 hectares of mangroves, along with enough crops to feed 2 million people. It has also been claimed that 43% of the south's plantations and orchards were destroyed, and 44% of the forest wealth.

In addition to high explosives and spraying, this destruction was achieved by the use of napalm and “Rome ploughs”. These latter were large bulldozers equipped with sharpened three-metre wide blades. They would smash line abreast through the forests, linked together with huge chains, uprooting everything in their paths. Elizabeth Kemf wrote that the Rome ploughs completely removed the trees and significantly disturbed the topsoil of 325,000 hectares, or 3% of southern Vietnam's forests (New Scientist, June 23, 1988).

It appears that deliberate attempts to set fire to the forests were foiled by extremely wet conditions. Significant local fires were, however, caused by napalm and phosphorous bombs.

The scale of the chemical assault was quite without precedent. Although the British had experimented on a small scale with herbicides during the so-called “Malayan emergency” in the 1950s, it was only in Vietnam (and to some degree in Cambodia in 1969) that the full military potential of “defoliants” was realised.

The program was known as “Operation Ranchhand” after the earlier, more sinister name “Operation Hades” was discounted. Of the 91 million kilograms used, 55 million kg were made up of “active ingredients”, mainly phenoxy chemicals, usually mixtures of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, known to the pilots as Agents Orange, Blue and White. Agents Orange and White kill plants by interference with their metabolisms, Agent Blue by desiccation. The two former mixtures were used on forests, the latter on crop lands.

Westing estimates that about 10% of southern Vietnam was sprayed, mostly in Military Region III around Saigon, where about 30% of the area was sprayed. Thirty-four per cent of the total target areas were sprayed more than once.


Erosion

After two to three weeks, forests treated with the herbicides would lose leaves, flowers and fruits, especially in the upper canopy. Climax rainforests, with multiple layers of trees, would need a second or third dose to reveal the soil (and guerillas) below.

About 10% of trees, depending on the strength of the dose and the species involved, would be killed outright; the survivors would show various stages of damage, including dieback and sterility.

It is not possible to remove forest cover on such a scale, particularly in a tropical country, without causing massive long-term damage to both human and natural ecosystems.

Clearing exposes thin soils to the violence of the tropical elements. A consequence of defoliation and bombing has been accelerated soil erosion and nutrient leaching. This is particularly the case on steep slopes with rapid run-off, but soils on level ground are also subject to leaching and compaction, or hardening. This results in a hard crust of laterite, useless for both forests and agriculture.

Neither can it be assumed that “nature will take its course” and eventually re-establish the forest. The evidence shows that “pioneer vegetation” often consists of hardy grasses, such as Imperata cylindrica (dubbed “American grass” by the Vietnamese) and bamboo, particularly

in the areas sprayed more than once. These densely rooted plants are almost impossible to eradicate, even by fire, and prevent the spontaneous regrowth of the original broadleaf forest.

The forest also serves as a regulator for the rate of surface run-off. The dry and wet monsoons are sharply differentiated in southern Vietnam, and forest destruction has led to summer flooding and winter droughts.

Vietnam has over half a million acres of coastal swampland, much of it concentrated in the south of the Mekong delta and Cape of Camau regions. Much of this swampland was formerly thickly covered with mangroves, which formed a natural hide-out for the NLF guerillas, and which was subjected to intense chemical attack by the Americans.

The main type of mangrove, Rhizophora spiculata, was especially sensitive to defoliants, one spraying being enough to kill the plants outright. Erosion of the exposed soil has been rapid.

There was also a massive decrease in bird life, and “50% of the productive woodlands and fisheries” of the Cape of Camau mangroves were destroyed, according to Kemf. Even today much of the area resembles a moonscape, and species extinction is a real possibility.

[Canis]

eh? what are you getting at?

[seremtan]

I disagree 100%. The legal aspects of a law deals with whether or not there is authority to enforce them. If I commit a murder its illegal because there is enforcement that will capture me and punish me according to law. If there was no enforcement, I'd be free to go as nothing can bind me to the law. Legality is proportional to enforceability.

sorry, but no

the whole notion of legality was created to replace the idea of might (authority, enforcement) is right. a war crime is a war crime whether there's someone with the power to arrest the perpetrators or not