From: Ad 

Phil Payne wrote:
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/defa875e-77ff-11db-be09-0000779e2340.html
>
> Take care whose side you take - memories are long.
>

Oh course it's flawed. It's flawed by the oldest trick in the book i.e.
"Who can judge the king". i.e. if one assumes total power &
"etat c'est moi" then the actions of the king/dictator are
intrinsically legal.


Cromwell & his regicides had this problem & see:

http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/320/

For Saint-Just & his arguments wrt trying the French monarch during the
Revolution.

& he used Cromwell in his justification:

"It would seem that we are searching for a law that would allow us to
punish the King. . . .

The social contract is between citizens, not between citizens and
government. A contract is useless against those who are not bound by it.
Consequently, Louis, who was a party to it, cannot be judged by Civil Law.
The contract was so oppressive that it bound the People, but not the King.
Such a contract was necessarily void since nothing is legitimate that is
not sanctioned by ethics and nature.

These reasons lead you all not to judge Louis as a citizen, but as a rebel.
But besides these reasons, by what right does he demand to be judged by
Civil Law, which is our obligation toward him, when it is clear that he
himself betrayed the only obligation that he had undertaken towards us,
that of our protection ? Is this not the last act of a tyrant, to demand to
be judged by the laws that he destroyed? And Citizens, if we were to grant
him a civil trial, in conformance with the laws and as a citizen, it would
be him who would be trying us. He would be trying the People themselves.

For myself, I can see no middle ground. This man must reign or die. He will
prove to you that all he has done, he has done to uphold his office with
which he had been entrusted. By discussing this with him, you cannot make
him incriminate himself for his hidden malice. He will lead you in a
vicious circle created by your very accusations. . . .

I will say more: a constitution accepted by a King did not bind the
citizens. They had, even before his crime, the right to banish him and send
him into exile. To judge a King as a citizen . . . that would astound a
dispassionate posterity. To judge is to apply the law. A law is linked to
justice, and common to mankind and kings? What does Louis have in common
with the French people that they should treat him well after he betrayed
them? . . .

It is impossible to reign in innocence. The folly of that is all too
evident. All Kings are rebels and usurpers. Do Kings themselves treat
otherwise those who seek to usurp their authority? Was not Cromwell's
memory brought to trial? And certainly Cromwell was no more usurper than
Charles I. For when a people is so weak as to yield to the tyrant's yoke,
domination is the right of the first comer, and it is no more sacred or
legitimate for one than for another. These are the considerations that a
generous and republican people must not forget when judging a King."

Shows how little has changed. Substitute Saddam for Louis or Charles.....

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5