noam chomsky and the law.pdf

8/14/2019 Noam Chomsky and the Law.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/noam-chomsky-and-the-lawpdf 1/20

1

Noam Chomsky and the Law

Robert Barsky

Many of those people vaguely familiar with Noam Chomsky's political stance, notably his anarchy, would find

difficult to imagine what relationship might exist between Noam Chomsky and The Law .[1] The reasons for t

reflect misconceptions about anarchy, which lead people to associate it quite specifically with lawlessness; chao

violence, destruction, and challenges to authority (including the police and other representatives of state ordeOther people may have heard Chomsky's political lectures, which often contain references, generally positive,

international law, rule of law, domestic law, and specific legal remedies that rely upon documents such as the Bill

Rights, the US Constitution, the Declaration of Rights and Freedoms, as well as a range of United Nations resolutio

and international laws. Despite the problems inherent in the status quo, it does have these mechanisms which,

followed would cut down on some of the misery of the world. "Choice of policy is determined by the goals that a

sought. [For example,] if the goal had been to secure Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait, settle regional issues, and mo

towards a more decent world, then Washington would have followed the peaceful means prescribed by internatio

law: sanctions and diplomacy. If the goal is to firm up the mercenary-enforcer role and establish the rule of forc

then the Administration policy of narrowing the options to capitulation or war has a certain chilling logic.[2] Finalthere are the personal anecdotes about Chomsky, including those that emanate from widely-reproduced articles su

as "Noam is an Island", by Jay Parini (Mother Jones October 1988), in which Parini expresses his surprise at the ca

that Chomsky takes in crossing the street, and his respect for traffic laws generally. I would suggest that Chomsky

wholly consistent in his views of law, and that a critical source for understanding his approach is, yet again, found

the writings of Rudolf Rocker, notably in the 1933 book Nationalism and Culture, if only because it indicates how

link between Cartesian thinking of the type that Chomsky has long upheld and the anarchist society to which

aspires could be made.[3] I will therefore begin with references to Rocker and the law as a means of unearth

them basic values that underwrite Chomsky's anarchist approach to law, discuss current debates relating there

notably discussions concerning the rule of law, and then turn to some specific examples in Chomsky's writings

illuminate the uses he makes of this work.

Generally speaking, the easiest way to understand Chomsky's approach is to understand first his sense of t

functioning of the elitist status quo, which is reinforced by education, and then through reference to a distinct

that is everywhere present in his writings, a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate laws, on the one han

and legitimate and illegitimate applications of those laws on the other. As to the former, we have his discuss

about law school, with Michael Albert, the point of which reflects his sense of education overall:

NC: Let me tell you a story I once heard from a black civil rights activist who came up to Harvard Law School and wthere for a while. This must have been twenty years ago. He once gave a talk and said that kids were coming in

Harvard Law School with long hair and backpacks and social ideals and they were all going to go into public servic

law and change the world. That's the first year. He said around April the recruiters come for the summer jobs, t

http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/1999----02.htm#fn0














2

Wall Street firms. Get a cushy summer job and make a ton of money. So the students figure, What the heck? I can p

on a tie and jacket and shave for one day, because I need that money and why shouldn't I have it? So they put on a

and a jacket for that one day and they get the job for the summer. Then they go off for the summer and when th

come back in the fall, it's ties and jackets and obedience and a shift of ideology...Sometimes it takes two yea

that's overdrawing the point. But those factors are very influential. I've fought it all my life. It's extremely easy tosucked into the dominant culture. It's very appealing. And the people don't look like bad people. You don't want to

there and insult them. You try to be friends, and you are. You begin to conform, to adapt, to smooth off the harsh

edges. Education at a place like Harvard is in fact largely geared to that, to a remarkable extent .[4]

As to distinction between legitimate an illegitimate laws, we have once again recourse to Rudolf Rocker, who i

central reference for this distinction, and much else, in Chomsky's own writings. In the course of a discussion t

subject of free speech, for example, Chomsky reminds us that:

[F]reedom of speech is by no means a deeply entrenched tradition even in the United States, which by comparatistandards is quite advanced in this regard. The same is true of other rights. Half a century ago, the anarchist wri

Rudolf Rocker observed that "Political rights do not originate in parliaments; they are rather forced upon them fr

without. And even their enactment into law has for a long time been no guarantee of their security. They do n

exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingro

habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populac

History provides ample warrant for this conclusion. As is well known, even the right to vote was achieved in t

United States only through constant struggle. Women were disenfranchised for 130 years, and those whom t

American Constitution designated as only three-fifths human were largely denied this right until the popu

movements of the past generation changed the cultural and political climate. While the franchise has slowly beextended through popular struggle, voting continues to decline and to become a concomitant of privilege, largely

a reflection of the general depoliticization of the society and the disintegration of an independent cultu

challenging business dominance, along with popular groupings to sustain it. What formal participation remains

often hardly more than a gesture of ratification with only limited content, particularly at the higher levels

political power. The same is true of freedom of speech. Though these rights appear to be granted in the Fi

Amendment, as interpreted in practice the grant was limited. At its libertarian extreme, the legal doctrine remain

that of Blackstone, reiterated in 1931 by Chief Justice Hughes in a decision regarded as a landmark victory f

freedom of expression: "Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the publ

to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press; but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous or illegal, must take the consequence of his own temerity." Prior restraint is barred, but not punishment for unacceptab

thoughts.[5]

So part of the job of an anarchist, surprisingly enough perhaps, is to support legitimate laws, those which incline

the direction of the oppressed against their oppressors. Much of Chomsky's discussion in this regard makes referen











3

to the US's abuses of international law, however he also makes frequent reference to US allies, and their ability

break similar laws and conventions if it is deemed to be in the US interest.[6] Anarchism as described by Roc

relies very strongly upon another distinction, also present in Chomsky's work but less overtly, between natural a

positive law, the former being those which are in line with the fundamental needs of a given society,

demonstrated over a prolonged period of time, and the latter more clearly linked to class and power interestssociety. The rhetoric suggests that we are strong upholders of natural law, and the rule of law; but the actions

the US indicate the opposite, something that Chomsky constantly emphasizes in order to draw attention to t

hypocrisy of the US system. For example, Chomsky recalls in a discussion of a ruling of the World Court that had go

against the US on the subject of Nicaragua that "the [US] media had dismissed the World Court as a "hostile foru

whose decisions are irrelevant, while liberal advocates of world order explained that the U.S. must disregard t

Court decision. With this reaction, U.S. elites clearly articulate their self-image: the United States is a lawle

terrorist state, which stands above the law and is entitled to undertake violence, as it chooses, in support of

objectives. The reaction to the "indispensable element" of the Central America accords merely reiterated th

conviction.[7] In his view, these laws are legitimately ingrained within the classical liberal conception of law as pforth by the likes of Rousseau, Humboldt, and then upheld in later periods by those who have combated the rise

arbitrary, discretionary, administrative and totalitarian law. It is interesting that prevailing opinions about anarc

exclude the possibility that it could have a legalistic side, just as prevailing opinions suggest that an anarch

society would be necessarily technologically retrograde. Both of these ideas are specifically refuted by Chomsky, a

by critical precursors or fellow-travelers such as Seymour Melman, Murray Bookchin, Zellig Harris, Anton Panneko

and Rudolf Rocker, to no avail; if such ideas were accepted, then anarchism would be examined as the serio

challenge that it is, something that's best avoided by ruling class ideologues across the spectrum. It is not, as t

accepted wisdom goes, simply violence, chaos or utopianism: The overall viewpoint is that change can occur, a

that there's ample evidence that it's desired by the population, which has only to recognize through examination t

constant hypocrisy of their own government and media:

If we take the trouble to distinguish doctrine from reality, we find that the political and economic principles th

have prevailed are remote from those that are proclaimed. One may also be skeptical about the prediction that th

are ´´the wave of the future,'' bringing history to a happy end. The same ´´end of history'' has confidently be

proclaimed many times in the past, always wrongly. And with all the sordid continuities, an optimistic soul c

discern slow progress, realistically I think. In the advanced industrial countries, and often elsewhere, popu

struggles today can start from a higher plane and with greater expectations than those of the past. And internation

solidarity can take new and more constructive forms as the great majority of the people of the world come

understand that their interests are pretty much the same and can be advanced by working together. There is

more reason now than there has ever been to believe that we are constrained by mysterious and unknown soc

laws, not simply decisions made within institutions that are subject to human will - human institutions, which ha

to face the test of legitimacy, and if they do not meet it, can be replaced by others that are more free and mo











4

ust, as often in the past.[8]

Is this naïve? Is this utopian? There are concrete examples that suggest that significant moves forward can be mad

and that the capacity for populations of being `defooled' is great: "Skeptics who dismiss such thoughts as utopian a

naive have only to cast their eyes on what has happened right here in the last few years, an inspiring tribute to whthe human spirit can achieve, and its limitless prospects - lessons that the world desperately needs to learn, and th

should guide the next steps in the continuing struggle for justice and freedom here too, as the people of Sou

Africa, fresh from one great victory, turn to the still more difficult tasks that lie ahead .[9]

Classical Liberalism and the Rule of Law

Rudolf Rocker insists in his writings about anarchy upon the importance of individual responsibility, which

discusses in the sections of his work that recall the importance of "natural law" for an anarchist society. Rocker lin

the idea of responsibility to issues of human creativity and potentiality, and thus it is not surprising that

discussions of law and responsibility, he makes frequent reference to the domain of cultural activity. He devot

considerable attention to the cultural forces in society because, in his words, they "involuntarily rebel against t

coercion of institutions of political power on whose sharp corners they bark their shins. Consciously or unconsciou

they try to break the rigid forms which obstruct their natural development, constantly erecting new bars before

The possessors of power, however, must always be on the watch, lest the intellectual culture of the times stray in

forbidden paths, and so perhaps disturb or even totally inhibit their political activities. From this continued strug

of two antagonistic aims, the one always representing the caste interests of the privileged minority, the other t

interests of the community, a certain legal relationship gradually arises, on the basis of which the limits of influen

between state and society, politics and economics - in short, between power and culture - are periodically readjus

and confirmed by constitutions." (86) In other words, in a move that seems surprising to those who consider th

anarchy is necessarily against organised state institutions, he herein suggests that the judicial system, li

government itself, is legitimate to the degree that it promotes freedom, and idea that Chomsky has adopted in

own writings, notably the recent book Power and Prospects. In Rocker's work this idea leads to a fundamental le

distinction: "In law it is primarily necessary to distinguish two forms: `natural law' and so-called `positive law'.

natural law exists where society has not yet been politically organised - before the state with its caste and cla

system has made its appearance. In this instance, law is the result of mutual agreements between men confront

one another as free and equal, motivated by the same interests and enjoying equal dignity as human beings. Posit

law first develops within the political framework of the state and concerns men who are separated from one anothby reason of different economic interests and who, on the basis of social inequality, belong to various castes a

classes". This "positive law" hands power over to the state which, in Rocker's view, "has its roots in brute forc

conquest and enslavement of the conquered" (86). In other words, it is quite possible to promote legal resolutions

conflict, and indeed to found communities upon legal grounds, even from an anarchistic standpoint. There a

statements here that, in a postmodern setting, may be considered by some as unsettling or dubious. The idea th











5

"mutual agreements" could exist between "free and equal" individuals, necessarily constituted as stable subjects w

consistent and knowable needs and desires, and upheld by international organs such as the United Nations, has be

everywhere upset by postmodern and poststructuralist thought. This is not an area into which I'll venture at a

length, but instead would suggest that the reader refer to a current debate between those who uphold the writin

of Carl Schmitt as appropriate to our present-day world (notably Chantal Moufffe and Jean Leclau), and those wconsider such a heavily discretion-based system as a menace to fundamental rights and freedoms, and thus consid

that it was no accident that Schmitt became the advocate and architect of Nazi law (notably William Scheuerma

Franz Neumann and Otto Kirchheimer .[10]

What's interesting about Chomsky's adaptation of Rocker's approach is that he suggests that the USA practic

positive law, imposing its will virtually wherever it pleases on account of its massive military might and internatio

authority, while it both claims adherence to the rule of law and imposes it upon others when this suits

government or corporate purposes. Here the examples abound, first in terms of the US impeding the work, in t

case considered positive, of the UN: "For the past 20 or 25 years the U.S. and Britain have been in a virtual wagainst international law at the United Nations. If you take a look at the record of the United Nations, that is ve

clear. In the Security Council since 1970, fully 80 per cent of the vetoes are by the U.S. and Britain, with the U.S.

the lead. In third place is France, and in fourth place, far behind, is the Soviet Union. It has fewer than one-third

many vetoes as England and about one-seventh as many vetoes as the U.S. That is not too surprising. After all, the

are the two imperial states, and they are therefore naturally opposed to international law. International law i

very weak barrier against the depredations of the powerful, and naturally the powerful are against it. You have

be willfully blind not to see these things" .[11] In the second case, the US uses the UN to satisfy its imperialist w

"Not all U.N. resolutions are ignored. The day before the unreported 1987 General Assembly resolution again call

on the United States to comply with international law, the Times ran a substantial story headlined "U.N. Urges Sovto Pull Forces from Afghanistan," reporting that the General Assembly voted "overwhelmingly today for t

immediate withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan, brushing aside Moscow's first concerted attempt to defle

such criticism from the United Nations" in this "annual resolution." A Times review of the General Assembly sessi

on December 26 is headlined "General Assembly delivers setbacks to U.S. and Soviet," subheaded "Washington Los

on Budget, Moscow on Afghanistan and Cambodia issues." The report mentioned nothing about the 94-to-2 vote

the World Court decision, in which the majority included U.S. allies Australia, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, t

Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, and Spain, as well as major Latin American countries (Argentina, Braz

Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela), along with Sweden, Finland, and others" .[12]

Similar to Rocker's view, the classical liberal approach emphasises the need for stable, consistent and founded la

which would be applied in a formal fashion across time and space:

The administrative state is an immense and tutelary power, in which the will of man is not shattered, but softene

bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a pow















6

does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannise, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, a

stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals,

which government is the shepherd. (cited in Boesche, The Strange Liberalism of Alexis de Tocqueville, 251)

In line with this view, Scheuerman suggests that the tendency in most Western states is to move away fromclassical liberal notion of `rule of law,' with its insistence upon consistent and universal legal norms, and towards

form of law that "takes an increasingly amorphous and indeterminate structure as vague legal standards like ̀ in go

faith' or `in the public interest,' proliferate" (1). Scheuerman claims that Franz Neumann and Otto Kirchheimer, w

were both associated with the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research in the late thirties and forties, saw in th

trend a danger which they saw confirmed in the reliance of the Nazi state upon the work of conservative schola

such as Carl Schmitt and Friedrich Hayek for the elaboration of a legal system appropriate for Nazi German

Scheuerman's book has implications beyond either a social history of Germany or a more adequate appraisal of t

Frankfurt School, because he discusses the inherent dangers of a system that relies upon situation-speci

administrative decrees, or upon interpretations of claims that depend upon notions such as custom, indwelling rigmorality, fairness, or discretion. The danger of "extensive state intervention in an unprecedented variety of sphe

of social and economic activity" is that the division between state and society is undermined, reducing the degree

which government action can be deemed predictable or, to use Rocker's conception, legitimate. The link to Choms

as we'll see, is found in Scheuerman's concern that state action is directed towards solidifying its power a

expanding its influence, and that the classical liberal conception of law is one of the only consistent and reliab

counter-weights to this move, which suggests that the state's desire to dismantle formal mechanisms of law is not

the interest of fairness but, logically and obviously, in the interests of consolidating illegitimate (from a natural l

perspective) authority, which tends to be linked with force. One example that frequently recurs in this area is Isra

in particular in terms of its actions in the occupied territories:

David Barsamian: I remember talking to Mona Rishmawi of Al Haq in Ramalla. She told me that when she would go

court, she wouldn't know whether the Israeli prosecutor would prosecute her clients under British manda

emergency law, Jordanian law, Israeli law, or Ottoman law.

Noam Chomsky: Or their own laws. There are administrative regulations, some of which are never published. T

whole idea is a joke, as any Palestinian lawyer will tell you. There is no law in the occupied territories. There's ju

pure authority. Even within Israel itself, the legal system is a joke when it comes to Arabs. It has to be covered

here. Arab defendants who come to the Supreme Court come after having been convicted. The convictions are in thigh ninetieth percentile based on confessions. When people confess, everybody knows what that means. Final

after about sixteen years, when one of the people who confessed and was tried turned out to be a Druse arm

veteran who was proven to have been innocent, it became a scandal. There was an investigation, and the Suprem

Court stated that for sixteen years the secret services had been lying to them, had been torturing people and telli

them that they hadn't. There was a big fuss in Israel about the fact that they had been lying to the Supreme Cou



7

How could you have a democracy when they lie to the Supreme Court? Not the torture. Everyone knew it

along.[13]

The example here is rather dramatic, but not all commentators would consider that resorting to discretion-ridd

administrative law is always negative; Hayek, for instance, proposes that the demise of formal law allows a space fthe development of an "egalitarian legal alternative" that would be based upon some form of "indwelling right"

custom. But the real advocate of a turn away from rule of law was Carl Schmitt, a right-wing authoritarian politi

thinker under the Weimar regime who went on to theorise numerous elements of fascist law. He has been revitalis

of late by the left (especially Paul Piccone and G.L. Ulman in Telos), the right (William Buckley and Paul Gottfried

the National Review), by various `postmodern' historians and writers such as Chantal Mouffe, and by mainstrea

writers including Joseph Bendersky and George Schwab. Chomsky has not entered this debate directly, however

we'll see he has a strong interest in what would be considered formal law through his support for the classical libe

rule of law. Neumann and Kirchheimer supported this idea of the "rule of law" and opposed the Schmitt viewpo

because they upheld a belief that "state action must be based on cogent general rules." In their view, which supported by Scheuerman, "only clear general norms restrain and bind the activities of the state apparatus, provid

minimum of legal security, and counteract the dangers of a `creeping authoritarianism'" (2). Rather than relyi

upon legislators or bureaucrats to right the wrongs of modern society, they supported a law which would regula

them because "a genuinely democratic society requires a high degree of legal regularity and predictability to achie

autonomous and uncoerced political deliberation and action" (3). This predictability is for Neumann especia

strongly linked to the idea of a legal norm that overrides all other decisions. He defines this norm as "a rule wh

does not mention particular cases or individual persons but which is issued in advance to apply to all cases and

persons in the abstract; and... as specific as possible in its general formulation" .[14] Scheuerman is very sympathe

to this approach, although wary of some of its implications for the present welfare state when he writes that:

Neumann concedes that this model can have only limited applicability in a setting necessitating extensi

governmental action, and that cogent formal law today is necessarily replaced by vague legal standards and vario

forms of equity law and bargaining seemingly essential to the contemporary welfare state and its reliance

unprecedented forms of state intervention. Complex state activity requires equally complex (nonformal) modes

law. (207)

So even if it could be put into play, the rule of law, according to Scheuerman "can never be rendered perfect, a

legal gaps, exceptions, and irregularities are unavoidable side-effects of a social setting having particularistic powconcentrations necessarily regulated by clandestine individual measure and administrative commands" (207-8). Wh

Scheuerman does consider a realisable goal is that irregular law be exercises in a rational fashion. This of course

another problem both for the advocates of a postmodern approach to law, and to those who question Chomsky's ow

appeals to Enlightenment thinking, and to some vague notion of `freedom'.

The fact is, and this is the link to Rudolph Rocker and his conception of the anarchist society, freedom also crea











8

the responsibilities that come naturally in train with liberation: "Only in freedom does there arise in man t

consciousness of responsibility for his acts and regard for the rights of others; only in freedom can there unfold in

full strength that most precious social instinct: man's sympathy for the joys and sorrows of his fellow men and t

resultant impulse toward mutual aid in which are rooted all social ethics, all ideas of social justice. Thus Godwi

work became at the same time the epilogue of that great intellectual movement which had inscribed on its bannthe greatest possible limitation of the power of the state, and the starting point for the development of the ideas

libertarian socialism" (148). Reason and responsibility become the bases for individual decisionmaking, not author

and power. And for this conception of law Rocker draws upon various sources, including Richard Hooker, w

"maintained that it is unworthy of a man to submit blindly, like a beast, to the compulsion of any kind of author

without consulting his own reason" (140);[15] John Locke, who maintained "that common and binding relationsh

existed between primitive men, emanating from their social disposition and from considerations of reason" (142); a

to others who "aimed to set limits to hereditary power and to widen the individual's sphere of independenc

including Lord Shaftesbury, Bernard de Mandeville, William Temple, Montesquieu, John Bolingbroke, Voltai

Buffon, David Hume, Mably, Henry Linguet, A. Ferguson, Adam Smith. Most of them, writes Rocker, "inspired biological and related science, had abandoned the concept of an original social contract" and " recognised the state

the political instrument of privileged minorities in society for the rulership of the great masses". (142) Classi

liberalism upholds individual rights against the privileged, partly on account of the world from which it comes, sa

Chomsky:

One may argue, as some historians do, that these principles lost their force as the national territory was conquer

and settled, the native population driven out or exterminated. Whatever one's assessment of those years, by the la

19th century the founding doctrines took on a new and much more oppressive form. When Madison spoke of ´´righ

of persons,'' he meant humans. But the growth of the industrial economy, and the rise of corporate forms economic enterprise, led to a completely new meaning of the term. In a current official document, ´´´Person

broadly defined to include any individual, branch, partnership, associated group, association, estate, tru

corporation or other organization (whether or not organized under the laws of any State), or any governme

entity,''[16] a concept that doubtless would have shocked Madison and others with intellectual roots in t

Enlightenment and classical liberalism - pre-capitalist, and anti-capitalist in spirit. These radical changes in t

conception of human rights and democracy were not introduced primarily by legislation, but by judicial decisions a

intellectual commentary. Corporations, which previously had been considered artificial entities with no rights, we

accorded all the rights of persons, and far more, since they are ´´immortal persons,'' and ´´persons' of extraordin

wealth and power. Furthermore, they were no longer bound to the specific purposes designated by State charter, b

could act as they chose, with few constraints. The intellectual backgrounds for granting such extraordinary rights

´´collectivist legal entities'' lie in neo-Hegelian doctrines that also underlie Bolshevism and fascism: the idea th

organic entities have rights over and above those of persons. Conservative legal scholars bitterly opposed the

innovations, recognizing that they undermine the traditional idea that rights inhere in individuals, and undermi

market principles as well.[17] But the new forms of authoritarian rule were institutionalized, and along with the







9

the legitimation of wage labor, which was considered hardly better than slavery in mainstream American thoug

through much of the 19 th century, not only by the rising labor movement but also by such figures as Abraham Linco

the Republican Party, and the establishment media.[16]

What is interesting here in the Rocker-Chomsky relationship is the emphasis placed upon individuality and creativiboth of which will flourish in the anti-authoritarian societies described. But so too will a higher conception

responsibility and ethics for, as Rocker writes, "all schemes having their roots in natural rights are based on t

desire to free man from bondage to social institutions of compulsion in order that he may attain to consciousness

his humanity and no longer bow before any authority which would deprive him of the right to his own thoughts a

actions" (143). So, like Chomsky, Rocker is animated by a sense that great popular movements should look

overthrow institutions of power and authority in favour of free associations in which the seeds of freedom, a

everything that grows along with them, will germinate vigorously; this is not simply a political objective but

personal one as well, for, as Rocker (like Godwin, Warren, Proudhon and Bakunin) recognised, "one cannot be fr

either politically or personally so long as one is in the economic servitude of another and cannot escape from thcondition" (167).

One final point; the anarchist conception does not accept compulsion to act, even if around desirable ends,

acceptable; compulsion no matter what the ends is a power relation which will ultimately separate peop

Compulsion, says Rocker, "lacks the inner drive of all social unions -- the understanding which recognises the fac

and the sympathy which comprehends the feeling of the fellow man because it feels itself related to him.

subjecting men to a common compulsion one does not bring them closer to one another, rather one crea

estrangements between them and breeds impulses of selfishness and separation. Social ties have permanence a

completely fulfil their purpose only when they are based on good will and spring from the needs of men. Only undsuch conditions is a relationship possible where social union and the freedom of the individual are so close

intergrown that they can no longer be recognised as separate entities" (246). So what we have here is the anarch

conception, the freedom to act, create and to enter into relationships of love, compassion and responsibility bas

upon shared and common concerns.

Illegitimate law:

Hypocrisy: international law, deemed acceptable by Chomsky, being violated in the name of the "rule of law"

the Americans.

1.The second question is rarely raised explicitly, except in the course of complaints about our faint-hearted a

money-grubbing allies, who lack the courage, integrity and sturdy national character of the Anglo-American duo. T

general question, however, suffers from no shortage of answers, including impressive phrases about the sanctity







10

international law and the U.N. Charter, and our historic mission to punish anyone who dares to violate these sacr

principles by resorting to force. President Bush declared that "America stands where it always has, agai

aggression, against those who would use force to replace the rule of law." While some questioned his tacti

udgment, there was widespread admiration for the President's honorable stand, and his forthright renewal of o

traditional dedication to nonviolence, the rule of law, and the duty of protecting the weak and oppresseScholarship weighed in, adding historical and cross-cultural depth. A noted Cambridge University Professor

Political Science wrote in the Times Literary Supplement (London) that "Our traditions, fortunately, prove to have

their core universal values, while theirs are sometimes hard to distinguish with the naked eye from rampant (a

heavily armed) nihilism. In the Persian Gulf today, President Bush could hardly put it more bluntly...." Others t

basked in self-adulation, though it was conceded that we had not always applied our traditional values w

complete consistency, failures that we are sure to rectify as soon as we have finished with the business at hand .[17

The presses collusion with US violations of international law.

4. The first, and one of the most revealing, is Nicaragua. Recall that just as the Wall fell, the White House a

Congress announced with great clarity that unless Nicaraguans voted as we told them, the terrorist war and t

embargo that was strangling the country would continue. Washington also voted (alone with Israel) against a

General Assembly resolution calling on it once again to observe international law and call off these illegal actio

unthinkable of course, so the press continued to observe its vow of silence. When Nicaraguans met their obligation

few months later, joy was unrestrained. At the dissident extreme, Anthony Lewis hailed Washington's "experiment

peace and democracy," which gives "fresh testimony to the power of Jefferson's idea: government with the consent

the governed.... To say so seems romantic, but then we live in a romantic age." Across the spectrum there w

rejoicing over the latest of the "happy series of democratic surprises," as Time magazine expressed the uniform viwhile outlining the methods used to achieve our Jeffersonian ideals: to "wreck the economy and prosecute a long a

deadly proxy war until the exhausted natives overthrow the unwanted government themselves," with a cost to

that is "minimal," leaving the victim "with wrecked bridges, sabotaged power stations, and ruined farms," a

providing Washington's candidate with "a winning issue," ending the "impoverishment of the people of Nicaragua." [1

US as a lawless state, again unreported by the press.

This central feature of the accords is redundant, since such actions are barred by a higher authority: by

international law and treaty, hence by the supreme law of the land under the U.S. Constitution, which we a

enjoined to celebrate this year. The fact was underscored by the World Court in June 1986 as it condemned t

United States for its "unlawful use of force" against Nicaragua and called upon it to desist from these crime

Congress responded by voting $100 million of aid and freeing the CIA to direct the attack and to use its own funds

an unknown scale. The U.S. vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe international l

and voted against a General Assembly resolution to the same effect, joined by Israel and El Salvador. On Nov. 1









11

1987, the General Assembly again called for "full and immediate compliance" with the World Court decision. Th

time only Israel joined with the U.S. in opposing adherence to international law, another blow to the Centr

American accords, unreported by the national press as usual.[19]

Violations of international law.

3. Undersecretary of State Elliott Abrams conducted a news conference by radio in the Central American capitals

Oct. 22, unreported in the national press, at which he announced that the United States will "never accept a Sov

satellite in Central America" -- meaning a country that is not a loyal U.S. satellite -- and that "We're going

continue the aid to the resistance," to be sure, in violation of the "indispensable element" for peace. The Reag

administration announced its intention to seek congressional backing for its war, and Congress obliged by providi

"humanitarian" aid -- meaning, any form of aid that the government chooses to send -- in direct violation of t

accords. Secretary of State George Shultz informed the OAS that the U.S. would persist in the unlawful use of for

by its "resistance fighters" until a "free Nicaragua" is established by Washington standards, thus consigning taccords to oblivion, along with international law. This announcement was noted in a 140-word item in the Tim

stressing Washington's intent to give the accords "every chance," while a headline in the liberal Boston Glo

reported approvingly that the U.S. is "easing stance." [20]

International law applies to everyone else except the US; no law, just authority (as in administrative area)

DB. The conditions of the US-Israel alliance have changed, but have there been any structural changes?

NC. International law transcends state law, but Israel says these resolutions are not applicable. How are they n

applicable? Just as international law isn't applicable to the United States, which has even been condemned by t

World Court. States do what they feel like -- though of course small states have to obey.

DB. I remember talking to Mona Rishmawi, a lawyer for the human rights organization Al Haq in Ramallah on t

West Bank. She told me that when she would go to court, she wouldn't know whether the Israeli prosecutor wou

prosecute her clients under British mandate emergency law, Jordanian law, Israeli law or Ottoman law.

NC. Or their own laws. There are administrative regulations, some of which are never published. As any Palestini

lawyer will tell you, the legal system in the territories is a joke. There's no law -- just pure authority.

The continued value of the Constitution, UN Charter, US law.

These are, again, truisms, with broad application. In the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments, one can find noth

that authorizes the grant of human rights (speech, freedom from search and seizure, the right to buy elections, et

to what legal historians call "collectivist legal entities," organic entities that have the rights of "immortal persons

rights far beyond those of real persons, when we take into account their power. One will search the U.N. Charter











12

vain to discover the basis for the authority claimed by Washington to use force and violence to achieve "the nation

interest," as defined by the immortal persons who cast over society the shadow called "politics," in John Dewe

evocative phrase. The U.S. Code defines "terrorism" with great clarity, and U.S. law provides severe penalties for t

crime. But one will find no wording that exempts "the architects of power" from punishment for their exercises

state terror, not to speak of their monstrous clients (as long as they enjoy Washington's good graces): SuharSaddam Hussein, Mobutu, Noriega, and others great and small. As the leading Human Rights organizations point o

year after year, virtually all U.S. foreign aid is illegal, from the leading recipient on down the list, because the l

bars aid to countries that engage in "systematic torture." That may be law, but is it the meaning of the law ? [21]

No restrictions are allowed on investment in countries with human rights violations: South Africa in the days

"constructive engagement," Burma today, etc. It is to be understood, of course, that the Don will not be hampered

such constraints. The powerful stand above treaties and laws. [22]

US can compel others to change their laws, but not vice versa. Inconsistent process, since only the outcome

over any interest (ie. anti formal law)

2. At the very same moment, Washington and the media were lauding the W.T.O. Telecommunications agreement

a ´´new tool of foreign policy'' that compels other countries to change their laws and practices in accord w

Washington's demands, incidentally handing over their communications systems to mainly U.S. megacorporations

yet another serious blow against democracy. But the W.T.O. has no authority to compel the U.S. to change its law

ust as the World Court has no authority to compel the U.S. to terminate its international terrorism and illeg

economic warfare. Free trade and international law are like democracy: fine ideas, but to be judged by outcome, n

process.[23]

UN as tool for US desires.

In its new-found zeal for international law and the United Nations, the New York Times repeatedly turned to o

heroic figure: Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He was brought forth as an expert witness on "the new spirit of unanimity

the United Nations," explaining that there were "some pretty egregious violations of international law in the pas

but now "the major powers have convergent interests and the mechanism of the U.N. is there waiting to be used." H

"firm espousal of international law" was lauded in a review of his

study The Law of Nations. The reviewer took note of his "sardonic, righteous anger," which recalls "the impassion

professor who suspects no one's listening" while he is "clearly fuming that an idea as morally impeccable

international law is routinely disregarded as disposable and naive." In a Times Magazine story, we learn further th

Moynihan is "taking particular delight" in being proven right in his long struggle to promote international law and t















13

United Nations system, "abstractions" that "matter dearly" to him. At last, everybody is "riding Moyniha

hobbyhorse" instead of ignoring the principles he has upheld with such conviction for so many years. No longer ne

Moynihan "revel in his martyrdom." Now "history has caught up with him." Omitted from these accolades was a revie

of Moynihan's record as U.N. Ambassador, when he had the opportunity to put his principles into practice. In

cablegram to Henry Kissinger on January 23, 1976, he reported the "considerable progress" that had been made by arm-twisting tactics at the U.N. "toward a basic foreign policy goal, that of breaking up the massive blocs of natio

mostly new nations, which for so long have been arrayed against us in international forums and in diploma

encounters generally." Moynihan cited two relevant cases: his success in undermining a U.N. reaction to t

Indonesian invasion of East Timor and to Moroccan aggression in the Sahara, both supported by the U.S., the form

with particular vigor. He had more to say about these matters in his memoir of his years at the United Nation

where he describes frankly his role as Indonesia invaded East Timor in December 1975:

The United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to

bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations

prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was

given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success.

He adds that within a few weeks some 60,000 people had been killed, "10 percent of the population, almost t

proportion of casualties experienced by the Soviet Union during the Second World War." [24]

The U.N. episode, briefly sampled here, gives no little insight into the intellectual culture. The U.N. is "functiontoday because it is (more or less) doing what Washington wants, a fact that has virtually nothing to do with the e

of the Cold War, the Russians, or Third World maladies. The "shrill, anti-Western rhetoric" of the Third World h

very often, been a call for observance of international law. For once, the U.S. and its allies happen to be opposed

acts of aggression, annexation, and human rights violations. Therefore the U.N. is able to act in its peacekeepi

role. These truths being unacceptable, they do not exist. They belong to the domain of "abuse of reality" (actu

history), not reality itself (what we prefer to believe).[25]

US vetoes of UN resolutions

The U.N. session just preceding the "wondrous sea change" (Winter 1989-90) can serve to illustrate. Three Secur

Council resolutions were vetoed: a condemnation of the U.S. attack on the Nicaraguan Embassy in Panama (U.S. ve

Britain abstained); of the U.S. invasion of Panama (U.S., U.K., France against); of Israeli abuses in the occupi

territories (U.S. veto). There were two General Assembly resolutions calling on all states to observe internation

law, one condemning the U.S. support for the contra army, the other the illegal embargo against Nicaragua. Ea











14

passed with two negative votes: the U.S. and Israel. A resolution opposing acquisition of territory by force passed

to 3 (U.S., Israel, Dominica). The resolution once again called for a diplomatic settlement of the Arab-Israeli conf

with recognized borders and security guarantees, incorporating the wording of U.N. resolution 242, and se

determination for both Israel and the Palestinians in a two-state settlement; the U.S. has been barring such

settlement, virtually alone as the most recent vote indicates, since its January 1976 veto of this proposal, advancby Syria, Jordan, and Egypt with the backing of the PLO. The U.S. has repeatedly vetoed Security Council resolutio

and blocked General Assembly resolutions and other U.N. initiatives on a whole range of issues, including aggressio

annexation, human rights abuses, disarmament, adherence to international law, terrorism, and others.[26]

What we're left with are some contradictory opinions about the value of democracy, and the possibilities for chan

in the status quo. DB: Christmas came early in 1992 for at least six former Reagan administration officials implicat

in the

Iran-Contra scandal. There was a presidential pardon on Christmas Eve. Bush said of the pardonees, "The commdenominator of their motivation, whether their actions were right or wrong, was patriotism." That doesn't sound l

the position of German defense lawyers at Nuremberg.

NC: No. They couldn't have gotten away with it, but it was quite accurate. Probably Himmler and Goering we

acting as patriotic Germans. I frankly didn't take the pardons all that seriously. It was a highly selective prosecuti

They didn't go after top people or the important issues. What they were being charged with is minor issues. Lying

Congress is bad, it's a serious violation of law which carries a five-year jail sentence. But as compared with carryi

out huge international terrorist operations, it's pretty small potatoes. Nobody was charged with conducting an illeg

war against Nicaragua. They were only charged with lying to Congress about it. It indicates the values that lie behi

the prosecution. In other words, kill and torture whoever you like, but be sure to tell us. We want to take part too

Administrative law, lack of formal law; law as authority

Rocker, cited by Chomsky

US above international law

After one such border incident in March 1988, the editors of the Toronto Globe and Mail observed that wh

Nicaraguan forces cross "the border in hot pursuit of the contras," "the United States responds only selectively to t

supposed outrage, the deciding factor apparently being whether a contra vote is imminent," as in this case, wh

"Mr. Reagan was revving up to ask Congress for renewed aid to the rebels." They add that the peace agreeme

signed by Honduras "forbids Honduras or any other country to give aid to foreign insurgents such as the contras," a







15

it is far from clear that Nicaragua is in violation of international law in "crossing the border in hot pursuit

contras," apparently penetrating a few kilometers into southern Honduras where the contras had established th

bases after expelling thousands of Honduran peasants. It is U.S. policy, not Nicaraguan defense of its territory, th

"exhausts outrage," or would, the editors continue, "if it were not for the extraordinary suffering U.S. policy caus

in the region." An insight foreign to the Free Press south of the Canadian border, which also cannot permit itself perceive that what is clearly in violation of international law is the U.S. support for the contra forces attack

Nicaragua from foreign bases. The reigning dogma holds that the United States stands above the law, free to u

violence as it pleases, and that this is just and right. Correspondingly, the media avoid repeated Nicaraguan offers

have the border monitored by international authorities, always dismissed by the U.S. for the obvious reasons; a

little notice can be given to the World Court's demand that the U.S. cease its aggression and observe its trea

obligations, or its endorsement of Nicaragua's call for reparations from the world's most pious advocate of the rule

law .[27]

Relying on international law/disregarding international law

The occupation is in violation of UN Security Council resolution 425 of March 1978,

calling on Israel to withdraw immediately and unconditionally from Lebanon. The

government of Lebanon has reiterated this demand, notably in February 1991 during the

Gulf conflict; apart from odd corners like this journal, the request was drowned out by the

self-congratulatory oratory about the wondrous new order of law and justice. Israel is free

to ignore such minor annoyances as the Security Council and international law thanks to

the stance of its superpower patron, which is powerful enough to reduce the UN to an

instrument of its foreign policy and to shape international law as it chooses, as was seen

once again in the ludicrous legal arguments put forth to justify Clinton's bombing of Iraq

in June.[28]

Democracy and its demise

Well, without proceeding in detail, if you look through these things, here's what you discover. Decision-making

major issues is now vested in international institutions which are so remote from public influence, that the pub











16

has no idea what's going on. I mean, in the case of NAFTA, incidentally the Labor Advisory Committee report w

never reported in the press, right, I'd be surprised if any of you know about it, here's a case where the governme

radically violated the law, demonstrated utter contempt for the democratic process, rammed through a secr

executive agreement of enormous influence, wouldn't even let the one popular group that is supposed to see it

law, the labor- based group, even look at it, they write the report, and then the press censors it. All right, here have the ultimate in the destruction of democracy, the ideal that everybody's been dreaming of. Not only is t

rabble excluded, they don't influence policy, but they don't know what's in policy, and finally they don't know th

they don't know. Virtually nobody knows that they don't know what is going on. Well, you know, now we've reach

the ultimate. That's the ultimate possibility in the destruction of democracy .[29]

Forgetting the importance of the past: May Day

The effectiveness of the state-corporate propaganda system is illustrated by the fate of May Day, a workers' holid

throughout the world that originated in response to the judicial murder of several anarchists after the Haymarkaffair of May 1886, in a campaign of international solidarity with U.S. workers struggling for an eight-hour day.

the United States, all has been forgotten. May Day has become "Law Day," a jingoist celebration of our "200-year-

partnership between law and liberty" as Ronald Reagan declared while designating May 1 as Law Day 1984, add

that without law there can be only "chaos and disorder." The day before, he had announced that the United Stat

would disregard the proceedings of the International Court of Justice that later condemned the U.S. government f

its "unlawful use of force" and violation of treaties in its attack against Nicaragua. "Law Day" also served as t

occasion for Reagan's declaration of May 1, 1985, announcing an embargo against Nicaragua "in response to t

emergency situation created by the Nicaraguan Government's aggressive activities in Central America," actua

declaring a "national emergency," since renewed annually, because "the policies and actions of the GovernmentNicaragua constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the Unit

States" -- all with the approbation of Congress, the media, and the intellectual community generally; or, in som

circles, embarrassed silence.[30]

"Felling Trees and Indians"

These tasks, and the rhetorical accompaniment, have been eminently reasonable by reigning standards of Politi

Correctness; the challenge to them in the past few years has, not surprisingly, elicited much outrage amo

guardians of doctrinal purity. Hugo Grotius, a leading 17th century humanist and the founder of mode

international law, determined that the "most just war is against savage beasts, the next against men who are li

beasts." George Washington wrote in 1783 that "the gradual extension of our settlements will as certainly cause t

savage, as the wolf, to retire; both being beasts of prey, tho' they differ in shape." What is called in official

rhetoric "a pragmatist," Washington regarded purchase of Indian lands (typically, by fraud and threat) as a more co

effective tactic than violence. Thomas Jefferson predicted to John Adams that the "backward" tribes at the bord

"will relapse into barbarism and misery, lose numbers by war and want, and we shall be obliged to drive them, w











17

the beasts of the forests into the Stony mountains"; the same would be true of Canada after the conquest

envisioned, while all blacks would be removed to Africa or the Caribbean, leaving the country without "blot

mixture." A year after the Monroe Doctrine, the President called for helping the Indians "to surmount all th

prejudices in favor of the soil of their nativity," so that "we become in reality their benefactors" by transferr

them West. When consent was not given, they were forcibly removed. Consciences were eased further by the legdoctrine devised by Chief Justice John Marshall: "discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian right

occupancy, either by purchase or by conquest"; "that law which regulates, and ought to regulate in general, t

relations between the conqueror and conquered was incapable of application to...the tribes of Indians, ...fier

savages whose occupation was war, and whose subsistence was drawn chiefly from the forest."

The colonists, to be sure, knew better. Their survival depended on the agricultural sophistication and generosity

the "fierce savages," and they were familiar with the prevailing norms of violence on all sides. Observing t

Narragansett-Pequot wars, Roger Williams remarked that their fighting was "farre less bloudy and devouring than t

cruell Warres of Europe," from which the colonists had learned their trade. John Underhill sneered at the "feebManner" of the Indian warriors, which "did hardly deserve the Name of fighting," and their laughable protests agai

the "furious" style of the English that "slays too many men" -- not to speak of women and children in undefend

villages, a European tactic that had to be taught to the backward natives. These were common features of the wo

conquest, as noted earlier .[31]

[1]

There are a range of articles by and about Chomsky that deal with law, but seldom directly or in a sustained fashi

See for example Chomsky, Noam. "The Intifada and the Peace Process", The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Summ

1990 14 n2 p345-353; "World Order and its Rules: Variations on Some Themes", Journal of Law and Society, Summ

1993 20 n2 p145-165; Wilson, James G. "Noam Chomsky and Judicial Review", Cleveland State Law Review, Fall 19

44 n4 p439-472.

[2] "The Gulf Crisis" January 1991, Z Magazine, February 1991.[3]

I think it crucial that we make reference to the historical precedents that inform Chomsky's work, as does Chom

himself. It helps guide our understanding of his relationship to earlier milieus, and also helps undermine argumen

of those who would use history to justify their oppression. Examples of Chomsky's efforts in this regard abound in h

writings; for example: "The effectiveness of the state-corporate propaganda system is illustrated by the fate of M

Day, a workers' holiday throughout the world that originated in response to the judicial murder of several anarchis

after the Haymarket affair of May 1886, in a campaign of international solidarity with U.S. workers struggling for

eight-hour day. In the United States, all has been forgotten. May Day has become "Law Day," a jingoist celebration




http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/1999----02.htm#fnB0













18

our "200-year-old partnership between law and liberty" as Ronald Reagan declared while designating May 1 as L

Day 1984, adding that without law there can be only "chaos and disorder." The day before, he had announced th

the United States would disregard the proceedings of the International Court of Justice that later condemned t

U.S. government for its "unlawful use of force" and violation of treaties in its attack against Nicaragua. "Law Da

also served as the occasion for Reagan's declaration of May 1, 1985, announcing an embargo against Nicaragua response to the emergency situation created by the Nicaraguan Government's aggressive activities in Cent

America," actually declaring a "national emergency," since renewed annually, because "the policies and actions of t

Government of Nicaragua constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign pol

of the United States" -- all with the approbation of Congress, the media, and the intellectual community general

or, in some circles, embarrassed silence". (Necessary Illusions Copyright © 1989, Chapter 2: Containing the Enemy )[

Michael Albert and Noam Chomsky, From ZNet. In January 1993 Michael Albert and Noam Chomsky recorded a ser

of conversations which were later distributed by Z Magazine. Here we present a transcription of some material fro

the 1993 tapes, essentially verbatim. Some of the topical material is now historical, of course, but the rest is timely as when first discussed.

[5] Necessary Illusions, 1989 by Noam Chomsky, Appendix V, The Continuing Struggle 177

[6] The principal offender here is Israel, mentioned frequently in this regard. For example, There is an intrigui

sidelight to the US-Israeli insistence that the political representatives of the Palestinians be excluded fro

negotiations. The official reason is that the PLO is a terrorist organization. Under Israeli law, anyone who has a

dealings with it is subject to criminal penalties under the Law for the Prevention of Terror. The prime targets a

Palestinians, but the law has also been used to punish Jews for contacts with the PLO, most recently, the courageo

Abie Nathan, jailed once again. The background for the law was reviewed by one of Israel's leading le

commentators, Moshe Negbi, discussing a recent academic study of Lehi (the "Stern gang"), published on its 50

anniversary. Negbi's article is entitled "The Law to Prevent Meetings with the Head of State." As he explains, the L

for the Prevention of Terror was instituted on the initiative of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion six days after t

assassination of UN Ambassador Folke Bernadotte. Ben-Gurion's goal was to break up Lehi, known at once to

responsible for the assassination. One of the three commanders of Lehi was Yitzhak Shamir. The law not only barr

any contact with Shamir, but was also applied against Menahem Begin's terrorist Irgun Zvai Leumi (Etsel), impell

Begin to dismantle his Jerusalem organization. It was also used to jail religious extremists, including Rab

Mordechai Eliyahu, currently chief Rabbi. It was bitterly denounced as a "Nazi law, dictatorial, immoral" and henillegal, by Menahem Begin and other civil libertarians. Despite efforts to have it modified under Labor governmen

it remained in force, formally directed against Shamir and his Lehi associates, until 1977, when Begin was elect

Prime Minister. Today the "Nazi law" still remains in force, but only to bar contacts with the PLO and to justify t

US-Israeli refusal to permit Palestinians to select their own representatives for negotiations. ("Middle E

Diplomacy: Continuities and Changes", November 5, 1991, Z Magazine, December 1991).












19

[7] "Is Peace at Hand?" November 1987, Z Magazine, January 1988.

[8] Market Democracy in a Neoliberal Order: Doctrines and Reality (Davie Lecture, University of Cape Town, M

1997).


1997).[10]

Cf. Between the Norm and the Exception: The Frankfurt School and the Rule of Law, MIT P 1994.[11]

"Noam Chomsky on An Unjust War" V. K. Ramachandran Frontline, March 2-15. The same applies to peacekeepin

U.N. peacekeeping efforts have regularly been frustrated by the United States. The first post-Cold War U.N. sess

(1989-90) was typical in this regard. Three Security Council resolutions were vetoed, all by the U.S. Two condemn

George Bush's murderous invasion of Panama, the third condemned Israeli human rights abuses; the U.S. vetoed

similar resolution the following May. Britain and France joined the U.S. in blocking one of the resolutions on Panam

the other, condemning U.S. violations of diplomatic rights, was voted 13-1, Britain abstaining. The General Assem

passed two resolutions calling on all states to observe international law. The U.S. voted against both, alone w

Israel. The first condemned the continuing U.S. support for the contras, the second, U.S. economic warfare agai

Nicaragua -- both declared "unlawful" by the World Court, but irrelevantly, by the standards of the U.S. and

allies. A resolution condemning the acquisition of territory by force passed 151-3 (U.S., Israel, Dominica); this w

yet another call for a political settlement of the Arab-Israel conflict, which the U.S. has blocked for 20 years" ("T

Gulf Crisis" January 1991, Z Magazine, February 1991).

[12] Necessary Illusions, "Adjuncts of Government".

[13] Keeping the Rabble in Line, 1994 by Noam Chomsky and David Barsamian, January 21, 199 3[14]

Neumann, "The Concept of Political Freedom," 165.[15]

. In his work, Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, published in 1593.


1997).

[17] "The Gulf Crisis" January 1991, Z Magazine, February 1991.

[18] "Democracy Enhancement" Z Magazine, May 1994.











































20



[21] "Domestic Constituencies".

[22] "Domestic Constituencies".


1997).

[24] Deterring Democracy, 1991, South End Press. Chapter 6: Nefarious Aggression

[25] Deterring Democracy, 1991, South End Press. Chapter 6: Nefarious Aggression

[26] Deterring Democracy, 1991, South End Press. Chapter 6: Nefarious Aggression [27]

Necessary Illusions Appendix III.[28]

"Limited War" in Lebanon Z Magazine, September 1993

[29] Old Wine, New Bottles: Free Trade, Global Markets and Military Adventures, University of Virginia, February

1993

[30] Necessary Illusions Copyright © 1989, Chapter 2: Containing the Enemy

[31] Year 501 Copyright © 1993 by Noam Chomsky. Published by South End Press. Chapter 1: The Great Work

Subjugation and Conquest.










































noam chomsky and the law.pdf

Documents