--------------86E37E9097DC1E2126A8B465
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Brad Stroud wrote:
> Just joined. Might as well dive in. Wasn't Doug's point that those
> with economic and military power are immune to having their violations
> of human rights punished? Isn't the main point that some states are
> truly sovereign in the sense that they can act almost with impunity
> toward other ostensibly sovereign states without fear of repercussion
> (save for perhaps a hand slapping by the U.N.)? Wasn't his intent to
> point out that to make the war in Yugoslavia predominantly an issue of
> violations of human rights is to elide the WHO is being punished for
> such violations and WHO is doing the punishing?
>
> ----------------------
>
> Regardless of the intention, his own argument says that since we can
> only ask one question at a time
> and not every situation can be addressed at once, then no situations
> can be addressed at all. Since
> every country is culpable no country at all can take action. Since
> Spain historically has an
> egregious human rights record under Franco, they have no legitimate
> basis to prosecute Pinochet for
> his human rights record in Chile.
>
> Absurd. How can anyone think this argument holds any water at all?
> It's just too bad
> that someone as insightful as Chomsky argued for this kind of
> absurdity.
>
> ---
Christopher W. Chase
-----------------------------------------------
ECA 377 Department of Religious Studies
Arizona State University Tempe, AZ
(480) 965-7145
christopher.chase@xxxxxxx
http://www.public.asu.edu/~heresy
-----------------------------------------------
--------------86E37E9097DC1E2126A8B465
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Brad Stroud wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><style></style>
<font color="#000000"><font size=-1>Just
joined. Might as well dive in. Wasn't Doug's point that those with economic
and military power are immune to having their violations of human rights
punished? Isn't the main point that some states are truly sovereign in
the sense that they can act almost with impunity toward other ostensibly
sovereign states without fear of repercussion (save for perhaps a hand
slapping by the U.N.)? Wasn't his intent to point out that to make the
war in Yugoslavia predominantly an issue of violations of human rights
is to elide the WHO is being punished for such violations and WHO is doing
the punishing?</font></font>
<p>----------------------
<p>Regardless of the intention, his own argument says that since we can
only ask one question at a time
<br>and not every situation can be addressed at once, then no situations
can be addressed at all. Since
<br>every country is culpable no country at all can take action. Since
Spain historically has an
<br>egregious human rights record under Franco, they have no legitimate
basis to prosecute Pinochet for
<br>his human rights record in Chile.
<p>Absurd. How can anyone think this argument holds any water at all? It's
just too bad
<br>that someone as insightful as Chomsky argued for this kind of absurdity.
<p>---</blockquote>
Christopher W. Chase
<p>-----------------------------------------------
<br>ECA 377 Department of Religious Studies
<br>Arizona State University Tempe, AZ
<p>(480) 965-7145
<br>christopher.chase@xxxxxxx
<br><A HREF="http://www.public.asu.edu/~heresy";>http://www.public.asu.edu/~heresy</A>
<br>-----------------------------------------------
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------86E37E9097DC1E2126A8B465--