Paul@sri-unix (07/30/82)
REASON magazine had a very interesting August issue. I've already
mentioned one article in arms-d; there is another one pertinent to this
digest.
Keith Henson (a founder a first president of L5) and Arel Lucas start
their article on "Star Laws" with the following piece:
With tears in his eyes, the commander of the US moon base spoke to
the woman begging for asylum.
"Sonya, my personal sympathies are with you. But I have my authorities
above me. I have to do what is required. You will have to return to
your base."
"Please!" pleaded Sonya. "They will kill me. I will not go back."
The commander reluctantly left his office and admitted the Russians.
Dr. Gale Roberts, one of the civilian scientists at the base, later
recounted the incident to the press.
"We could hear the woman's cries for help. She was on her knees, praying
and crying, 'Oh God help me.' The Russians came in. Sometimes I
couldn't see her, but I could hear her screaming. Then she ran to the
upper deck. Her face was all bloody.
"She hid for a while, but three more Russians were let in. They found
her, beat her unconcious. Then they tied her in a blanket and carried
her out the airlock.
"We're not even sure they put a suit on her in the airlock," said Dr.
Roberts. "Nobody was permitted to look."
Change "Sonya" to "Simas", and "moon base" to "Coast Guard Cutter Vigilant"
and you have an incident that occured in November 1970. (See Dec. 14 TIME.)
A Lithuanian radio operator defected to the Vigilant, but the captain was
ordered to return him. He was beaten, suffering kidney damage, and was
sent to Siberia.
But the US has signed a treaty REQUIRING us the return defectors. Article
VIII of the 1967 Space Treaty states "A State ... shall retain jurisidiction
and control over such object [spacecraft] and over any personnel thereof";
Article IV of the Rescue Agreement, which enjoins signers to return
personnel, willing or not; Article XII of the Moon Treaty says that "States...
shall retain jurisdiction and control over their personnel."
The article continues by explaining how the treaties would eliminate (in space)
the rights of privacy and private property. It ends by urging the President
to formally reject the Moon treaty as he has rejected the Law of the Sea
treaty.
-------JPM@MIT-AI@sri-unix (08/01/82)
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI> <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE> Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL> But the US has signed a treaty REQUIRING us the return defectors. Article VIII of the 1967 Space Treaty states "A State ... shall retain jurisidiction and control over such object [spacecraft] and over any personnel thereof"; Article IV of the Rescue Agreement, which enjoins signers to return personnel, willing or not; Article XII of the Moon Treaty says that "States... shall retain jurisdiction and control over their personnel." There is NOTHING wrong with these provisions - indeed, they should be DESIRED by us (and are). Under them American citizens must be under the jurisdiction and control of Americans. Otherwise the Soviets could enforce THEIR laws against our personal and control their actions if in Soviet territory. Of course this means we cannot meddle in Soviet affairs (something THEY wanted), but it protects OUR people - which is the first priority. I have no problems about these provisions - our citizens will have a reasonable degree of self government. It is not good for the Soviet citizens, but what can you do? The ultimate answer is to allow individuals in space to form their own independent governments - but that is not possible in the short term. Jim -------
VLSI@DEC-MARLBORO@sri-unix (08/02/82)
From: John Redford <VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO> As I understand it, the US rejected the Law of the Sea treaty because of the provisions about sharing the income from seabed mining operations with the Third World. This was thought to be both unfair and a disincentive to the mining companies. However, the proponents of the treaty argued that it was even more unfair for any one nation to benefit exclusively from resources which they had no prior claim to. And mining companies might be even more reluctant to undertake major programs in a complete legal vacuum. The technology for dredging up manganese nodules from the deep sea floor is not cheap. Suppose that while you are working in the North Atlantic England suddenly extends her territorial waters to cover your area, sends in its own harvesters, and politely evicts you. What do you do? Call in the Marines? The same argument applies to space resources. Say that both the US and Japan find a precious lode of ice on the Moon. Who gets it? The ones who can hole the others spacesuits? A businessman would be mad to invest in an operation without a legal framework for orderly development. Such a framework must be agreed upon internationally, and that means that we must pay attention to other countries' interests. If their demands are unreasonable, well then let's negotiate that. It's not as if there's any rush about the issues. But doing without a treaty would surely kill civilian development of space. --------
DIETZ@USC-ECL@sri-unix (08/02/82)
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL> There is EVERYTHING wrong with the space treaties. They are based on the awful idea that citizens of a country are the property of that country's government. Essentially, you are saying that if the US government does not claim possession of its citizens then the USSR can collect them like wild animals. A far better solution would be for US citizens in space to be allowed to defend themselves against coercion. It is neither necessary nor desirable for the US government to fulfill this function. The government won't allow this, of course, because the people in space could defend themselves against US government coercion too. And why is forming governments in space the ultimate answer? I thought governments are the whole problem. -------