His two Letter are after the jump – here is my Letter discussing his “points”:
Leo Sandy may be “amused by writers who chide me for violating bad laws” but I’m reduced to guffaws at his latest letters attempts to not only re-write history but also declare what are enforceable laws and facts. For an Education Professor, he proves his need for his own remedial tutoring.
While he does not care for the fact that the U.S. is yet still a sovereign nation, this remains a non-negotiable fact. I remind him that although we participate in the UN and some UN treaties, we have not as of yet ceded that sovereignty (a fact that must raise his one-world angst often). Thus, the U.S. does not need permission from the UN in advancing its own interests (which stray far, thankfully, from Dr. Leo’s).
He wishes to ignore that the US House and Senate approved US Public law No: 107-243, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, which was all that was sufficient for – and by definition – legally authorizing US actions and force against Iraq. I dryly note that Prof. Sandy’s simplistic and outlook phrase of “do not follow the rules for the common good” is insufficient to declare an illegal act (although that must pain him so).
His trope of “troops and tanks amassed at one’s border”? That would imply only Mexico and Canada – and remaining deliberately clueless to all other advanced forms of offensive weaponry that require no “massing” and totally ignores that the politico-religious war with jihadic Islam recognizes no formal borders
With respect to the International Criminal Court,
…I believe that the real answer lies in the fact that the United States has never formally recognized that entity. Thus, any ruling by that entity is moot by definition – again, not a case of “might makes right” as Dr. Leo maintains. It would be the same as if the Conservative Letter to the Laconia Daily Sun Writers Guild made a ruling that for every verifiable non-fact he used, he’d have to make a donation to their favorite charity – he’d be ‘scoffing’ at a “local law”, yes?
Just as he seemingly scoffs at the rules at Plymouth State. His last Letter stated that if someone continually brought a gun to his class that he’d “have no choice but to turn the class into an on-line class”. Well, I could and he can’t – I called Plymouth State and verified that your grandiose statement aside, you do not have the legal authority to do that. Leo, just because you say something is true doesn’t make it so.
His two Letter that “made me” wish to respond – first, the one on
To the editor,
I am amused by writers who chide me for violating bad laws like the one that would allow students to carry guns in class but have no problem with the U.S. government violating good laws like the ones against preemptive and preventive wars.
It is a fact that the war against Iraq was illegal, and the illegality of it is not debatable. The U.N., did not, I repeat, did not authorize military action against Iraq. All the excuses in the world won’t erase that fact. In fact, one of the reasons that the U.N. is not as effective as it could be is that many powerful countries do whatever they please and do not follow rules intended for the common good. That war was as illegal as the attack on 9-11 and the 9-11 attackers believed strongly in preemptive war. The rare exception for allowing a preemptive strike is that there be clear and undisputable evidence that an attack is imminent such as troops and tanks amassed at one’s border.
Several decades ago, the U.S. was fined 2-million dollars by the International Criminal Court for interfering in the internal affairs of Nicaragua. The U.S. response was that it would not pay the fine and that no one could make it pay. This is another case of might makes right and scoffing at international law.
I am certain that these same writers believe that African Americans should have followed the Jim Crow laws and then waited around for some white guy to change the law out of the goodness of his heart. The only ways that bad laws are changed is when people start breaking them in large numbers. Unjust laws are trumped by conscience, period. I recommend that the writers read about the Nuremberg Trials.
One writer says that he does not care about anyone but “us, our people, our soldiers”. The problem is that many people feel that way about their own countries and that’s the problem. Everyone can’t be right. This kind of mentality will get us all killed. This same writer uses examples of what others have done to Americans to justify inhumane treatment of them. The Golden Rule is something I believe in and it doesn’t say, do unto others as they do to you.
Leo R. Sandy
New Hampton
And the one concerning his classroom:
To the editor,
I am fairly confident that sanity will prevail and the ban on guns in college classrooms will prevail. If it does not, I will not allow any student in any of my classes to carry a gun. Of course, if I can’t see it, there’s nothing much I can do about it. The issue at hand is that I am solely responsible for the emotional and physical safety of my students while they are in my class and my judgment reigns supreme. Guns in the classroom will undermine personal security and safety. No one tells me what to do in my classroom. As long as I follow the course catalog description in my courses, I can teach the class any way I want to. I also have to follow some basic university rules such as not using attendance as the sole basis of assigning a course grade.
Bad laws are required to be broken by people of conscience and my conscience is the highest authority. If a person with a gun refuses to leave my class, then I will announce that the class is over and I will leave. If the student in question insists on carrying a gun to future classes, then I will have no choice but to turn the class into an on-line class so that I can ensure the safety of my students. People who make these foolish rules are out of touch with reality and any rules they make must be trumped by morality and reason.
Professor Leo R. Sandy
Plymouth State University
