Wizlah wrote:On the one hand you attempt to dictate international policy, and on the other you say 'screw you, we do what we want'. You're not always particularly successful at the first, and you're frequently very good at the second. I've already cited the Non Proliferation Treaty and the mess surrounding Pakistan, which has now lead to greater proliferation of nuclear devices in the middle and far east. Thanks a bunch. Now you're happy with being entirely arbitrary about matters concerning civil and human rights within your own sovereign territory (camp x-ray is american territory, as I recall). That's a fine example to set everyone else. It diminishes any negiotiating power you may have, and means you end up resorting to the rule of force every time. This is not a sensible course of action. Brilliant. But it's okay, because the American government are the only people who get to try american perpatrators of crimes. When they bother. Or, like dajafi, you just shrug and say that's the way it goes. Neither is a really sensible long term solution.

Wiz, I can't really argue with any of this, other than "now you're happy with being entirely arbitrary..." We're not happy. Millions of us (certainly including myself and, I'm pretty confident, TV and doc smooth) are pretty upset about it. We know that both in terms of national honor and real-world consequences, we're going to pay for this.

But other than trying to do better next time--not voting in, certainly not re-electing, war criminals--I'm not sure what the answer is. That's both internally and with the rest of the world.

Has the UN imposed economic sanctions on us? Have any EU member states withdrawn their ambassadors? No. In a realm of moral absolutes, you could argue that they should take these steps, and not relent until we send Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld to The Hague to answer for their crimes. But they too must have concluded that the practical consequences outweigh the principle.

dajafi wrote:

Wizlah wrote:On the one hand you attempt to dictate international policy, and on the other you say 'screw you, we do what we want'. You're not always particularly successful at the first, and you're frequently very good at the second. I've already cited the Non Proliferation Treaty and the mess surrounding Pakistan, which has now lead to greater proliferation of nuclear devices in the middle and far east. Thanks a bunch. Now you're happy with being entirely arbitrary about matters concerning civil and human rights within your own sovereign territory (camp x-ray is american territory, as I recall). That's a fine example to set everyone else. It diminishes any negiotiating power you may have, and means you end up resorting to the rule of force every time. This is not a sensible course of action. Brilliant. But it's okay, because the American government are the only people who get to try american perpatrators of crimes. When they bother. Or, like dajafi, you just shrug and say that's the way it goes. Neither is a really sensible long term solution.

Wiz, I can't really argue with any of this, other than "now you're happy with being entirely arbitrary..." We're not happy. Millions of us (certainly including myself and, I'm pretty confident, TV and doc smooth) are pretty upset about it. We know that both in terms of national honor and real-world consequences, we're going to pay for this.

But other than trying to do better next time--not voting in, certainly not re-electing, war criminals--I'm not sure what the answer is. That's both internally and with the rest of the world.

Has the UN imposed economic sanctions on us? Have any EU member states withdrawn their ambassadors? No. In a realm of moral absolutes, you could argue that they should take these steps, and not relent until we send Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld to The Hague to answer for their crimes. But they too must have concluded that the practical consequences outweigh the principle.

Which makes it all a sham. Old white men in suits who make it up as the go and change the rules or ignore them when they need to. We can do better.

I withdraw from this thread on the grounds that I refuse to be lectured to.

dajafi wrote:

Wizlah wrote:On the one hand you attempt to dictate international policy, and on the other you say 'screw you, we do what we want'. You're not always particularly successful at the first, and you're frequently very good at the second. I've already cited the Non Proliferation Treaty and the mess surrounding Pakistan, which has now lead to greater proliferation of nuclear devices in the middle and far east. Thanks a bunch. Now you're happy with being entirely arbitrary about matters concerning civil and human rights within your own sovereign territory (camp x-ray is american territory, as I recall). That's a fine example to set everyone else. It diminishes any negiotiating power you may have, and means you end up resorting to the rule of force every time. This is not a sensible course of action. Brilliant. But it's okay, because the American government are the only people who get to try american perpatrators of crimes. When they bother. Or, like dajafi, you just shrug and say that's the way it goes. Neither is a really sensible long term solution.

Wiz, I can't really argue with any of this, other than "now you're happy with being entirely arbitrary..." We're not happy. Millions of us (certainly including myself and, I'm pretty confident, TV and doc smooth) are pretty upset about it. We know that both in terms of national honor and real-world consequences, we're going to pay for this.

But other than trying to do better next time--not voting in, certainly not re-electing, war criminals--I'm not sure what the answer is. That's both internally and with the rest of the world.

I just want to be clear on this--I would not object, in fact I'd probably strongly support, US indictments for any misdeeds occurring in this or any other administration.

On the other hand, I find some of the hysteria of PTK and Crashburn Alley borderline delusional. Hague trials simply are not part of any even close to realistic scenario here. You totally lose me when you bring this stuff up and then tie it into a criticism of American individualism and consumer culture. It amounts to little more than "America Stinks, and Americans are fat, stupid, lazy dupes."

dajafi wrote:

pacino wrote:I withdraw from this thread on the grounds that I refuse to be lectured to.

Who's lecturing? I'm arguing with TV about his insistence that these things can only be prosecuted on american soil. I'll admit it, the line about dajafi shrugging his shoulders was a mean sideswipe. I read a ton of these all at once first thing this morning, and got really, really angry.

I would respectfully suggest that this is not about some kind of 'international hysteria, TV. America has signed up to two seperate agreements in the past which in light of recent developments (as I understand it, the big one was Pinochet) mean that people can have charges pressed against them by other countries.

I'm guessing here, but if you take the case of Moazzem Begg (UK citizen interred in guantanamo), if he could argue successfully that he received treatment which fell under the guidelines of the memo that rumsfield signed off on, and the Director of Public Prosecutions took up that case, then the next time one of the lawyers who okayed this kind of treatment set foot outside the states, the UK would apply for an extradition warrant to charge the lawyers. And to be honest, I'd prefer to see that than a situation like rumsfeld or bush being brought up on charges. They're politicians, and most politicians squeak out of this every time.

Whatever. I'll just butt out and stay schtum.

Dajafi is at the middle of the BSG political spectrum, Paul is to the right of center. I'm basically to the right of Jesse Helms despite being a pro-gay marriage atheist.

Wizlah wrote:

dajafi wrote:

pacino wrote:I withdraw from this thread on the grounds that I refuse to be lectured to.

Who's lecturing? I'm arguing with TV about his insistence that these things can only be prosecuted on american soil. I'll admit it, the line about dajafi shrugging his shoulders was a mean sideswipe. I read a ton of these all at once first thing this morning, and got really, really angry.

I would respectfully suggest that this is not about some kind of 'international hysteria, TV. America has signed up to two seperate agreements in the past which in light of recent developments (as I understand it, the big one was Pinochet) mean that people can have charges pressed against them by other countries.

I'm guessing here, but if you take the case of Moazzem Begg (UK citizen interred in guantanamo), if he could argue successfully that he received treatment which fell under the guidelines of the memo that rumsfield signed off on, and the Director of Public Prosecutions took up that case, then the next time one of the lawyers who okayed this kind of treatment set foot outside the states, the UK would apply for an extradition warrant to charge the lawyers. And to be honest, I'd prefer to see that than a situation like rumsfeld or bush being brought up on charges. They're politicians, and most politicians squeak out of this every time.

Whatever. I'll just butt out and stay schtum.

Speaking for myself, I didn't see you as lecturing--unlike others who raise airy points better suited for lethargic/pro forma rallies as scripted as Politburo convenings, you brought up specifics. Hence I responded to you.

(And I wasn't offended by the sideswipe--I just wanted to make it clear that "shrugging my shoulders" doesn't imply the sort of moral acceptance that American right-wingers have for these abuses. It is honestly painful to me--a source of deep shame--that my country has done these things.)

As I wrote in that earlier response, I think you're absolutely right on the merits. And of course I'd like to see the criminals held accountable for their crimes. I'm just not sure what the practical course of action should be, and I'm very dubious that American politics could ever encompass a scenario where that happens.

Wizlah wrote:

dajafi wrote:

pacino wrote:I withdraw from this thread on the grounds that I refuse to be lectured to.

Who's lecturing? I'm arguing with TV about his insistence that these things can only be prosecuted on american soil. I'll admit it, the line about dajafi shrugging his shoulders was a mean sideswipe. I read a ton of these all at once first thing this morning, and got really, really angry.

I would respectfully suggest that this is not about some kind of 'international hysteria, TV. America has signed up to two seperate agreements in the past which in light of recent developments (as I understand it, the big one was Pinochet) mean that people can have charges pressed against them by other countries.

I'm guessing here, but if you take the case of Moazzem Begg (UK citizen interred in guantanamo), if he could argue successfully that he received treatment which fell under the guidelines of the memo that rumsfield signed off on, and the Director of Public Prosecutions took up that case, then the next time one of the lawyers who okayed this kind of treatment set foot outside the states, the UK would apply for an extradition warrant to charge the lawyers. And to be honest, I'd prefer to see that than a situation like rumsfeld or bush being brought up on charges. They're politicians, and most politicians squeak out of this every time.

Whatever. I'll just butt out and stay schtum.

As I said, I'm out of my depth on the legal issues here, and I think our debate is largely one of the status of international law. I'm saying from a practical standpoint, there is simply no precedent for what you are describing. You say Pinochet sort of fits, but again, in the end, he's tried in Chile. The international issues become operable because Pinochet left Chile. No one ever suggested that Chile should be invaded so that Pinochet could be tried in the Hague.

I really think the more apt comparison is between Bush and Heath. It seems to me that the actions of Britain during the Troubles were comparable to US actions under Bush. Now, given the 1998 date, there may be important legal distinctions, but I was arguing the case from a political perspective.

TenuredVulture wrote:
I really think the more apt comparison is between Bush and Heath. It seems to me that the actions of Britain during the Troubles were comparable to US actions under Bush.

No, I don't think so, unfortunately. Bloody Sunday et al, the one judge/no jury dip loc courts, the suspension of the Ulster assmbley - that was state behaviour within it's own borders which there was legislation for. I'm not clear on the progress of the second inquiry into Bloody Sunday and to where it's got. I think there may have been some civil suit threated by some of the families, but I'm not sure.

As I said, I'm out of my depth on the legal issues here, and I think our debate is largely one of the status of international law. I'm saying from a practical standpoint, there is simply no precedent for what you are describing. You say Pinochet sort of fits, but again, in the end, he's tried in Chile. The international issues become operable because Pinochet left Chile. No one ever suggested that Chile should be invaded so that Pinochet could be tried in the Hague.

Nor has there been that suggestion made. the pinochet case applies because it's a question of what happens when the person steps outside the borders of their own country.

Wizlah wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:
I really think the more apt comparison is between Bush and Heath. It seems to me that the actions of Britain during the Troubles were comparable to US actions under Bush.

No, I don't think so, unfortunately. Bloody Sunday et al, the one judge/no jury dip loc courts, the suspension of the Ulster assmbley - that was state behaviour within it's own borders which there was legislation for. I'm not clear on the progress of the second inquiry into Bloody Sunday and to where it's got. I think there may have been some civil suit threated by some of the families, but I'm not sure.

There were allegations of torture during the internment, which is what I was referring to. Again, I'm not arguing the legal elements--acts within a nation's borders, and so forth. Indeed, national borders were at issue.

As I said, I'm out of my depth on the legal issues here, and I think our debate is largely one of the status of international law. I'm saying from a practical standpoint, there is simply no precedent for what you are describing. You say Pinochet sort of fits, but again, in the end, he's tried in Chile. The international issues become operable because Pinochet left Chile. No one ever suggested that Chile should be invaded so that Pinochet could be tried in the Hague.

Nor has there been that suggestion made. the pinochet case applies because it's a question of what happens when the person steps outside the borders of their own country.

That suggestion was not made by you, but it seems to me PTK and CBA have made that suggestion.

I think my argument, based as it is on the integrity of national sovereignty, would largely be consistent with a nation state arresting a foreign national on its soil.

pacino wrote:I withdraw from this thread on the grounds that I refuse to be lectured to.

Hey punk - you'll take it and like it!!


Like PtK says, we can do better.

The good news is, over the past 8 yrs+ we've dug a trench & laid the bar in it.

The reason I try to avoid 'realistic' solutions discussion, is because at this stage of my life, i feel they are drops in the bucket. Of course, i'd prefer whatever steps can be achieved that can make life better for a few people. But when we talk about system of govt and ways of life, it's hard for me to engage that with veracity when there is a power structure, and those with power can change or ignore the rules readily -- and do. Add in the layer of what is said or indicated via mainstream media outlets and it's at a minimum, influnetial in shaping perception ( i refer to it as propoganda largely) and it's hard to sit still and listen to formal conversation and speech making of senior govt officials when I know they are disingenuous.

Getting in to the minutiae of a treaty and whether it applies to case A or country B, is less important to me. Again, the rules are often "make it up as you go" and there is little consistency or consensus of interpretation.

I've recounted this Chomsky line before -- ".... there are facts, assertions and interpretations..." And the problem for me in many of our discussions, is that many of us don't even agree on the facts. And me included, we make a lot of assertions. Many of you say, "yeah yeah, nice rhetoric Kid, but who are you?" and yet, I feel the same in reverse. Then, we all have different interpretations. I also don't have the time to try to reference and cross-reference a lifetime of sources, lectures, books, articles and my own thinking to "prove" things to everyone's satisfaction...

I feel like things are really critical in the world. So I'm a tad amp'd. And perhaps that makes me come across hyper-bolic and or extreme at times. But I'm more interested in moving the entire frame of discussion to a different place, rather than tweaks within the system. The politicians that have excited me over the years, were the ones who were interested at least somewhat in exposing the emporer and his no-clothes. Who were willing to look at the system and the hypocrisies themselves. King in the 60's -- Jesse in the 80's had some of this, Nader more recently, even Kucinich and this year for a time Edwards had a more populist message. But my contention is, that that conversation is off the table, and the power of corporate media will keep it such.

I find as I age, less interest in identifying as an American, and more as a citizen of planet earth. That's me. It's too hard to unpack it all. I am American, my language my cultural references. But I can see that with just some popular outrage and some unified activism, we could at least make some improvements. WHen Nader talks about at least being a proactive citizen and giving a darn about some basics to keep Democracy half-way in-tact, is that really so left-wing and extreme? Too ridiculous to discuss? 1996 Bill Clinton based on policies like GATT and NAFTA some other stuff, might have looked pretty Republican by 1972 measures. The entire frame has shifted to the right. I don't think I'm extreme at all, and find left and right terms limiting anyway. I'm trying to get out of that stuff.

I'm not trying to preach to anyone. I'm sorry if it's been coming off that way. I just have my own ideas of what I think the facts are, about how things work and what is true ore more likely to be true. It's harder of course to suggest solutions but I don't want to be a fatalist or cynic. I find angst and cynisism a young man's game and I'm more hopeful in some ways now. But I am outraged at the things that go on, and how there is little backlash seemingly from the general public about things that are so clear and transparent to me. To see the pundits discuss a Bush speech when the entire time I'm nodding my head in disbelief getting agitated knowing it's an entire mythology and posturing and filled with lies and distortions. Has anyone ever seen Bush try to speak about any issue without a teleprompter or pre-prepared notes? He's stumblin and fumblin and borderline illiterate. Surely we can do better can't we?

I'm willing to discuss the merits of politician A's health plan over politician B, but I know that the insurance industry and backroom dealings and lobbyists are going to have more to do with the what options are put forth than any true discussion with good intentions. I realize of course, to be a Senator or a President, you have to already accept the system as it is, and can only hope to nudge it this way or that. Slip a nice piece of legiislation in once in a while. But politics is a game. And not everyone gets to participate. I would have preferred Gore and Kerry if for no other reason than we might not have Alito and Roberts. Does anyone here really want to try to justify Clarence Thomas as qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice?

One final point about the Pinochet example. Mostly, Pinochet was a military oppressor who was propped up by the USA/CIA etc... to overthrow Allende. He was given the wink-wink to do w hatever within his own borders. (this is not unique to Pinochet and CHile as been US policy going back 100 years) Most of the crimes he committed were internal to Chile. Bush has done things that impact foreign territory and peoples. Chile didn't have an embargo on Peru as we do on Cuba, causing suffering to the Cuban people. I would challenege anyone here, to tell me why Bush's military initiatives in Iraq are not an invasion and occupying force, and rather just a righteous "war" and self defense?? I find it interesting as well, that in many conversations be they AM radio, or a sports chat forum -- that people will become very very intense about something like Terry Schiavo, or a death penalty case, or affirmative action -- sort of singular cases -- but not see how the corporate welfare, the govt crimes and hypocrisies, the conspiracies (yes, they do exist), and totally unfair playing field and coopting of what's good for majorities of people to the benefit of corporations -- why does someone like me, get branded "oh, he's some extremist anti-corporations are the devil guy...?" No problem executing a retarded black man who was beaten by an alcoholic dad, but outrage at the mere suggestion that our leaders have committed high crimes against peoples of the world or our own people. No problem getting up in arms about affirmative action, but no problem giving oli, lumber, aerospace, private security firms and banking all kinds of free tax breaks, cash, land or whatever -- that's not welfare I guess?

I'd like people to think in larger terms. And there is so much research out there. I'm not Noam Chomsky or Michael Parenti or Normon Solomon or Seymour Hersch or Edward Said or Tim Wise or Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting or a host of deep thinking, academic, credible researchers, historians, political scientists, economists and others who have de-constructed, offered powerful insights and powerful data points and drawn lines to connect the dots. All I can tell you, is I'm very confident in my views -- that most of them are based on things that are more or less true, and that my interpretations are not that far off.

What is mankind capable of? What can we do in day-to-day living to make incremental changes? I'm not sure. I think our system of voting and winner-take-all is pretty bankrupt now. Politicians are owned and big business controls the discussion. Here in Calif, corporate developer interests somehow got a ballot in there for June to abolish rent control state-wide, something that has always been a local matter and very important to San Francisco which is already one of the most expensive cities in the world. It's very hard for the little guy or a series of little guys to fight that kind of power. So, my theme is to put govt back in the hands of the people, not elites who are bought and owned, and to declare a variety of goods and services as essential to moden life and make them nationalized, remove theprofit motives and get rid of giant transnationals, and keep companies more modest in size and scope. I have many ideas, that appeal to me on a common sense level. Are they realistic? I doubt it. THe snowball is zooming down the hill. And what I've asked rhetorically a few times, is why more people aren't up in arms? I'm hanging in there, doing ok -- but many people are not. And yet, they will vote against their own class interest. They will resent "liberals" and "leftists" and wrap themselves in religious fervor and patriotic abstraction -- all the while mis-directed and divided and conquered.

As for those who think everything should be privatized the govt can't run antyhing right and that we dont have the money to pay for stuff. Do you know how much has been spent on the military industrial complex in the last 30 years? The way the last 5? We could fund every single thing I've ever mentioned and then some. I don't buy it. It's a matter of will. We have resources in this land. We have expertise and technology. We have ideas. But we also have greed. And pollution and corruption.

Truth is, I was really pumped in 1980 when we beat the Russians in the Olympics. And I was super pumped in the 70's when the FLyers beat them. I took on that feeling -- but today? I don't care if the USA wins all the gold. I just want to see the best of th e best compete and congrats to whoever that is. I'm not anti-America, I just don't think it's important to make a big deal anymore of 'being American', and I can't puff my chest out to the world (and I have friends and colleagues all over the world) as though we own the moral high road -- when the high crimes and mis-deeds are so obvious to most of the world. I just want to think in larger terms and see the world come together in a more cooperative, egalitarian, culturally respectufl and just way. Call me crazy. Call me a preacher. Call me whatever...

What do I do about things?

I start as local as I can, with friends, family people whose lives I touch. I try to support local farming and the cooperative owned grocery. I try to participate in local community. I serve on the board of two non-profits. I vote. And I partake in conversations like these on the internet. If I can get one person to find some new insights and ideas -- then maybe I'm contributing. And I'm neither a martyr nor an escapist. I won't lead the revolution but I won't live in a tree-house and pretend nothing is going on out there. I'm trying my best to live a clean life. ANd if masses of people, decide to moilize despite the repression that will ensue, I will participate in the ways that I can to make a better world. And I continue to study while also trying to pursue some spiritual growth as well.

I luv sports, mainly because I grew up on it, and because it's a ncie diversion.

* epic *

phuturephillies wrote:* epic *

Sorry for the length, but I felt I owed some explanation to the list.

TenuredVulture wrote:
There were allegations of torture during the internment, which is what I was referring to. Again, I'm not arguing the legal elements--acts within a nation's borders, and so forth. Indeed, national borders were at issue.

Ah. I get you. You'd think I'd have been aware of that. All the hunger-striking must have clouded my vision.

That suggestion was not made by you, but it seems to me PTK and CBA have made that suggestion.

Right, so what we're really dealing with is the classic angry irish guy picking a fight with people who he *thinks* are saying really dumb things and disagreeing with him. I am calm now.

Like I said, the Sands book, Lawless World, worth a read. It certainly turned my head on the workings of international law.

It's too Friday to read PtK's post, but I can't wait to read it when I'm hungover tomorrow.

wow, I cant believe I read the whole thing. Most of it made sense altho he kinda jumped all over the place.

I give it a B-, because it lacked some the really crazy PTK colon cleansing type of stuff

Read it, loved it. There's no standing ovation emoticon, so I will just use this one: 8)

Wow, the delusional person liked the insane person's post. Soon you're gonna tell me that Charlie likes pinch running for Burrell.