Should United States Policy be influenced by the laws of the
International community? Explain your reason. Must be atleast 20
sentences.

---

Request for Question Clarification by scriptor-ga on 29 Nov 2005 16:58 PST

Google Answers discourages and may remove questions that are homework
or exam assignments.

Regards,
Scriptor

---

Clarification of Question by governmenthelp-ga on 29 Nov 2005 17:26 PST

This is not for homework or an exam. If someone cannot answer this in
atleast 20 sentences then something is wrong

So if it isn't some kind of school assignment, why care that the
answer be at least 20 sentences?
I believe the question could be answered more briefly, including adequate reasons.
G-A can help with research, but doesn't have to.
Myoarin

because i want a better answer then.. yes i do believe we should or no
i believe that we shouldnt. if you think you can answer it in a
shorter asnwer then try..

Oh, it's probably not a homework assignment: 

- The username of the asker is "governmenthelp-ga". 

It is the U.S. government requiring our help! They want to know if
their policy should be influenced by the laws of the international
community. Since the government also never lies, especially the U.S.
government, we should believe them on the question not being homework.
So -

Dear George/Condy, 

Yes it should. The U.S. government should adhere to the laws of the
international community, if there is one. For example, if the
community (in this case, an international cyber community, Google
Answers), has a law against helping cheaters, we shouldn't help them
even if we want to. On the other hand, if the international community
has stupid rules (for example: never drink water after you've eaten
fruit. My nan used to warn me about that, but she was wrong on that
one), the U.S. government should do all in its power to stop this
horseplay of wasting GARs time. I hope this would help you shape the
rules for your future dealings in the international arena. I hope that
the Nobel Peace Prize is awaiting for me.

Give your best to Laura and the Gals, 

Politicalguru.

I don't much favour doing homework
- but I do not disapprove of getting people to think

'International Law' is a new invention
Sure, there have been earlier 'Conventions' 

- like the Geneva one, without which most Western soldiers would not
have fought, yet was broken by everyone

- we have had maritime 'laws' where people rub into each other, and
having some rules is handy

Later we had Nueremberg, which was a sick joke.

Recently, we have some strange institutions who claim to be
'International' bodies and claim priority over domestic laws.

I put 'Human Rights' in the same category as 'Rodent Rights'
- a bunch of people inventing a meta-constitution and attempting to
impose its rules over, and above, established constitutions.

Personally I would go for an International Convention on 'Totally
Disgusting Behaviour' - where any person or state can be deemed a
paraiah and can be treated as a pestilence

... but the problem is, these jerks are asserting 'positive rights',
and by so doing they are upsetting the constitutions of countries
stupid enough to sign up.

The USA is very sensible in staying well away from all this rubbish,
it has a clear Constitution and does not want or need to have it
superceded by a load of ill thought out garbage invented by
'international lawyers'.

I am from the UK, not a lawyer, although I understand more than most
of what the law is about, and consider that the USA is well advised
not even paying lip service to this rubbish.

Grafting a new legal system onto a long established legal system is
introducing uncertainty
- which undermines the primary purpose of a 'legal system'.

There was once a dickhead who wrote 'Taking Rights Seriously'
- he was seriously parochial

A current approach would be 'Taking Law Seriously'
- if you don't get it, then your teacher's teacher might

Meta-Law is bottom up - get the footings right and the building might survive