[VaBthang4]

"But some international-law scholars suggest that President Bush's plan for military tribunals itself violates international law."

I understand that the author is a professor of ahem..."international" law but why is this perspective even considered.

I dont care if it blatently and willfully violates every major pillar of international law and spits in the face of it's founder....whoever that is.

We do what we do...if the international community doesnt like it then all the better.

[Cicero]

why is this perspective even considered.

Because it's good debating practice to mention your opponent's view before demolishing it. For the New York Times, this is a surprisingly good editorial.

[DSH]

I understand that the author is a professor of ahem..."international" law but why is this perspective even considered.

I dont care if it blatently and willfully violates every major pillar of international law and spits in the face of it's founder....whoever that is.

We do what we do...if the international community doesnt like it then all the better.

Fair enough. Then maybe the hypocritical Americans can then stop insisting that the rest of the world adhere to "international law." Were the Bush Administration to withdraw American support for the U.N.'s so-called International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, that would be a damned fine start.