NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/activism/19772

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 2.6 KB

Xref: sparky alt.activism:19772 alt.politics.usa.misc:699 talk.politics.misc:65123
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!psgrain!m2xenix!mtek!bud
From: [e-mail] (Bud Hovell)
Subject: Re: What is United States of America like?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: MTEK International, Inc.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 16:35:30 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 45

[e-mail] (Mark Ryan Miller) writes:

[ re-edited below, since this poster has evidently not yet encoun-
  tered the notion of terminating lines with the mysterious "return"
  key. ]

> The invasion of Panama was "to protect the canal treaty".  If so,
> why was that not the focus of Noriega's trial or the media coverage?

This old chestnut seems to get hauled out again and again by people
who cannot distinguish the difference between the provisions of a
treaty (the right to intervene) and the provisions of a law (the
right to arrest, prosecute, and jail wrongdoers of a specifically
defined sort).

A treaty must be ratified by the governments of both countries. Which
did occur -- prior to the coup by Noriega. Our rights are not abriged
by the change of "government" in Panama any more than are our rights
in the sole use of Guantanamo after the change of government in Cuba.

But any country can pass into law whatever it damn well pleases with-
out permission of any other country (with obvious exceptions).

So the answer to your question is:

Because the treaty provision giving the U.S. the right to protect its
interests in the Canal -- by military force, if necessary -- did not
contemplate or provide for threats launched against it by a dictator
who had seized -- by military force, where necessary -- control of
the Panamanian government *itself*, with whom the treaty was signed.
Noriega was not tried on the basis of a treaty violation, since none
had occurred.

That Noriega had engaged in drug trafficking, though de facto "head
of state" (but only by de jure contravention of recent elections),
was cause for prosecution by the USG. And a charge subsequently con-
firmed in court to the satisfaction of most disinterested observers).

Though it may seem a bit far-fetched, in this instance the press got
it right. Proving, I suppose, that even a pig has *some* good days.
--
________________________________________________________________
[e-mail] ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... [e-mail]
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Walk the talk.