« Kerry, Kennedy and a slow bus to treason | Main | some run on thoughts about nothing while I work off some negativity »

The arrogance of the left

Counterpunch, the magazine for everything moonbat, offers this today:
The military cordon that has formed around Fallujah is the new face of the American invasion; the Jenin phase. The city is surrounded with razor wire, the curtains are drawn and the punishment has begun. All the reports indicate heavy fighting and, perhaps, as many as 200 Iraqis have been killed so far. (Many of them children) This is what is meant by Iraqi Liberation. Let's be clear about what is going on in. The world's only superpower has invaded a sovereign nation without cause and is waging war against a civilian population. At present, that war is being won by mere force of arms, absent any moral justification. At the same time, fighting has spread throughout the country in response to Muqtada al Sadr's open defiance of the occupation
Go ahead, read rest. I'll wait. So this Mike Whitney thinks that Iraq is the new Jenin. Too bad the whole Jenin incident was proven to be a fallacy. As for the children, not even Reuters or AP, those bastions of credibility, are reporting anything about the mass killings of Iraq children. Mr. Whitney also thinks that al-Sadr's organized war against the coalition troops is just defiance. Defiant is a two year old kicking his mother when he doesn't get his way. This is not defiance. So Whitney is sitting in his computer chair, clacking away and making all kinds of assumptions about what is going on in Iraq. Here's an idea - let's see what an Iraqi thinks! bq. Of course, Sadr has set up offices in almost every city, town, and village in the south. And I have mentioned earlier that they had assumed full control over my small village where I work in the Basrah governorate weeks ago, terrorizing IP officers, civil servants, and doctors but nobody was listening. I don't think I will be heading back there any soon now. What surprises me is the almost professional coordination of the uprisings in all of these areas. I'm assuming, of course, that the money and equipment supplied by our dear Mullahs in Iran is being put to use good enough, not to mention the hundreds of Pasderan and Iranian intelligence officers.. sorry I mean Iranian Shia pilgrims that have been pouring into Iraq for months now. But what does he know? I mean, he's only in the middle of it. Read the rest of Zeyad's post. Go back and read Whitney's. Compare and contrast. Notice espcially Zeyad's last words: No one knows where it is all heading. If this uprising is not crushed immediately and those militia not captured then there is no hope at all. If you even consider negotiations or appeasement, then we are all doomed. My money is on Zeyad's version.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The arrogance of the left:

» Plunging the depths from Nickspace Blog
Michele over at A Small Victory has a couple of great posts today. Both of them are worth your time to read. I don't really have anything I can add to them. What I am finding interesting is that several... [Read More]

» Treason from Inoperable Terran
al Sadr is taking aid and comfort directly from John Effin' Kerry and Ted "180 Proof" Kennedy. Meanwhile, we have two versions of what's going on in Iraq: some press leftie's wet dream, and Zeyad's, who lives in Iraq and... [Read More]

Comments

Must be nice to have a crystal ball like Whitney. I wonder if he does palm readings too.

The problem is, it doesn't really matter that Jenin was a hoax. The people who read Counterpunch have already accepted it as fact, and reality be damned. That and that Rachel Corrie was a "peace activist", Saddam was a creampuff, and Robert Byrd would have been a great leader during the civil war. The political devide is too great - we have seperate realities now.

I'm sorry, why did you link to this? It's tripe, and I want the precious 18 seconds I wasted skimming through it back.

How can someone truly wake up in the morning and believe that crap?

(my appologies to those who find tripe a delicious food. It may not appeal to my tastes, but I'm sure it has actual nutrional value, unlike this article)

Iraqis better start crushing it.

I doubt "Iraqis" are going to do much of anything. They're going to wait and see who emerges as the stronger power.

What the Iraqi children reference is to some gruesome pictures posted on AlJazeera.

WARNING: These are very graphic

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8CB7C17E-F69E-48A2-8034-DEA425192815.htm

If those children were killed in the mosque in Fallujah today, then al Sadr's people are to blame.

They herded women and children into the mosque and then fired on American soldiers.

The terrorists see their own people - even children - as expendable in the name of propaganda. That is digsusting and vile.

Not so much in the name of propaganda, but certainly in the name of jihad. Jihad justifies anything, apparently.

So true. The human shield thing seems to be the favorite tactic. I just wish there was a way around it without killing the people who are forced to act as shields. Instead, we are stuck, unable to attack. :(

JonB: I think we should attack anyway. The jihadis will not respect us for being humane. They WILL respect us for being ruthless.

What part of the word "terrorist" do these leftists not understand?

Or to elaborate, what part of the phrase "the terrorists want to kill all Americans, domestically and overseas" do they not understand?

I tried to say something similar in a post yesterday, but you did it much better.

Another point on how things are going overall in Iraq, despite the setbacks toward a civilized and democratic country: over 1 million Iraqis that fled their country during Saddam's rule have returned to Iraq in the past year. I guess they didn't believe Hans Blix's comments the other day about things being worse now than under Saddam.

According to RaedintheMiddle's blog, "AsSadr is NOT a small follower of the Iranian Government; he has very bad relations with the official government of Iran, unlike Sistani and Hakim."

Also, he says: "AsSadr is NOT reflecting a minority of Iraqis, this is a stupid big lie.
Whether we liked him or not, he is the political and religious leader for MILLIONS of Iraqis in the southern region. There are 15 million Iraqis living in the south, and another 5 million in Baghdad, I can say that 5 to 7 millions of them can be considered as AsSadr followers."

Also read Baghdad Burning, if it's still on the approved list. I think there's a third way: not sympathetic to either nutballs like al-Sadr nor happy with the provisional government or U.S. civilian leaders.

Not everything is binary; in fact, there was very little nexus between the Whitney and Zeyad posts.

What part of the word "terrorist" do these leftists not understand?

I know it's kind of a cheap shot, pulling out the dictionary, but there are several parts of the word "terrorist" I don't understand.

ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm) n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Do I need to spell out all the ways that definition applies to the U.S.-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, or can you spot those contradictions for yourself?
And let me be clear what I'm not saying here; I'm not saying I don't see a difference between al Qaeda and the U.S. military. What I'm saying is that the difference between "terrorists" and "soldiers" is not as cut and dried as you're saying it is; that people who don't understand your use of the word "terrorist" are not necessarily idiots. They might just be intelligent people who own dictionaries, and ask questions.

I have, many times, had to slap my leftie compatriots down for calling everyone they oppose politically a "fascist". You, my interesting internet friend, are clearly headed in that direction with "terrorist"; indeed, it seems a common affliction of the right these days.

Joshua,
Here is a quick explination of "terrorist" a pesron who would hide among his own women and children then fire on armed troops in the hope that the women and children would be killed for propagana value.

I keep telling people but nobody seems to be listening. No matter how many recounts there are, no matter how many of Bush's military records are publicized, no matter how much evidence is brought to bear refuting this or that piece of nuttery, there are some people that will remain unfazed by facts. The turkey will always be plastic. Bush will always be selected not elected. Bush will always have been AWOL. The war will always be "illegal". Jenin will always be a massacre. The economy will always be on the skids. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Robin, that's it exactly.

Exactly, Robin. And, oh yeah, Halliburtin will always be run by vampires.

Again, I am sick of their suicidal idiocy.

Centaur - yes, "suicidal" is exactly it. That's what worries me most, that a significant portion of our culture is so suicidal, it might take the rest of us down with it.

Joshua, the key word that you've overlooked in your definition of terrorism is "unlawful." You are so conveniently dismissing the fact that all of our US military actions have been lawfully authorized by the US Congress and the President of the United States. Does any of this ring a bell - The War Powers Act, the Unified Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), or the 2002 vote by Congress authorizing the use of force in Iraq? Our soldiers fight in uniform against other combatants, under the guidance of the UCMJ and other laws, including the Geneva conventions. We recognize the value of innocent life, and do everything reasonably possible to reduce civilian casualties. We do not hide behind women and children. If you demanded that the terrorists we're fighting now comply with the Geneva conventions, they'd probably laugh themselves silly right after they shot you.

Yes, Joshua, we can spot your contradiction. It lies in your selective recognition of the very definition that you provide. And the difference between "terrorists" and "US soldiers" is far more than "cut and dried" - it's a monument carved in stone by the blood of heroes.

BNixon: I think that's a very dangerous game.

Robin Goodfellow: We could debate the legality of the war. I've done a some research on the subject, and I think my position is fairly solid. I think it unlikely that we would come to a consensus, but I would be willing to have the discussion with you.
I would be willing to have the discussion with you in spite of your tone, or your apparent belief that the fact you "keep telling people" something that they don't agree with you about means that they are "unfazed by the facts". 'Cause, see, that's really arrogant, and I know going in that a conversation with someone who sets up their position like that is going to be no fun.
But I'm willing to have that conversation with you anyway, because I learn things from my debates with people. Sometimes I change my mind as a result of those debates. Sometimes I don't. But I'm always curious to see what will come out in an argument.

Farmer Joe: I'm sure Robin appreciates your support.

Alan J: That was a nice wrap-up.

And I admit I misspoke on that point: in the current conflict, there is, in my opinion, a difference between American soldiers and terrorists. American soldiers are bound by the laws you cite and the supremacy clause of the constitution, and are acting accordingly. That their commitment to their country endanger their lives and the lives of others does, as you say, make them heroes. On that, we agree.

But you're mistaken if you think I overlooked the word "unlawful". I believe the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal. This is not a belief on the scale of a religious conviction; I am aware of several convincing arguments to the contrary. But after weighing the evidence on both sides of the debate, I come down on the side that the invasions constitute a violation of international law. I am more strongly convinced of this in the instance of Iraq than Afghanistan.

And, just as a point of order, the Geneva Conventions have been violated repeatedly at Guantanamo Bay. The Bush administration's rationale for placing the GB prisoners outside the purview of the Geneva Conventions are, at best, embarrassing. Here again, I don't believe U.S. soldiers are implicated in this. But I do believe the order to hold those men is illegal.

Norbizness,

Did you read Riverbend's latest post? She says ALL mosques are calling for a jihad and that the Americans have just bombed the only functioning hospital.

Do you really believe her as a credible witness in Iraq? Same for Raed. Wanna bet who's right by the end of the month?

If she's the "third way" I want nothing to do with this propagandist.

I come down on the side that the invasions constitute a violation of international law.

Joshua,

"International law" is a convienient fiction, and little else. It exists only in as much as nations agree to enforce it, and not a bit more. There is no body with authority to enforce it, no set group of laws that are agreed upon by all. There are no laws among nations except those that they choose to honor.

In any case, in what way was the Iraq war illegal? The terms of the Gulf War cease-fire were clear, and Saddam Hussein violated them for twelve years. Need I remind you that Hussein violated well over a dozen UN resolutions demanding he disarm, demanding FULL cooperation with inspectors, demanding that he cease oppressing his people?

Bush went to the UN and got Resolution 1441 passed unanimously. He actually did more than he needed to do (since the terms of the cease-fire were clear), but he made efforts to cooperate with international bodies like the UN. 1441 was enough to justify the war on any legal grounds you might care to quote.

Michele, in large part we're talking to people like Skippy, who're convinced Rachel Corrie was shot by the IDF, rather than run over by a caterpillar because of her own hubris and stupidity, in spite of the niggling minor bulldozer detail being covered by everyone from IndyMedia to Al-Jazeera.

I don't think they're listening.

Even if they do read Zeyad, he gets sneered at for not being a "real Iraqi", whatever that is. I've seen it at the DU and Lefty blogs.

Joshua Norton,

howdy again. What international law are you referring to?

And because we've dialogued before, could I suggest you make clear up front whether your argument/discussion is a point of rhetoric or personal belief? I tend to chase the rabbit with you sometimes, i.e. you float an idea by for discussion, but I find after some dialogue it isn't a point of conviction for you, just an interesting exchange or exercise in semantics.

For example, I'm interested in "degrees of illegal" with respect to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Sorry, Michele. I had to stop at "This is what is meant by Iraqi Liberation". Not going to bother after that point.

Heya Otto. waves We do seem to keep bumping inta each other, don't we? ;]

Joshua, if International Law isn't a polite fiction, how come the only nation state that's expected to observe it or be censured is the US, Britian, and Israel?

Wasn't France violating International Law on the Ivory Coast, Chad, and other portions of Africa? Weren't Cuba's useage of mercenaries to train and aid ANC revolutions in Rhodesia a violation of International Law? Or the Medellin's funding and support of FARC operations in Brazil in 1981 and '82 etc? Rwanda, perhaps? Where was international law in Rwanda or Cambodia or Uganda? Where is it now for the Montagnard in the Vietnamese Highlands?

This may be a bit unsettling, but there is no rule of law if there isn't effective enforcement and penalty, applied to all. The World Court is a toothless body with no real powers or authority. The UN is basically a squabbling center that exists to legitimate the corruption of the UNSC members.

Wether you like it or not, for the past several hundred years, we've been living in a world where, as they say in Mehico, "Political change comes out of the barrel of a gun".

Adhering to a polite fiction that it's governed by "International Law" won't quiet the dead in Rwanda or Cambodia.

Sorry, I was going to comment on this and forgot to quote it.

And, just as a point of order, the Geneva Conventions have been violated repeatedly at Guantanamo Bay. The Bush administration's rationale for placing the GB prisoners outside the purview of the Geneva Conventions are, at best, embarrassing. Here again, I don't believe U.S. soldiers are implicated in this. But I do believe the order to hold those men is illegal.

Actually, no. The administration is in compliance with the GC on this. The Convention states that unlawful combatants are NOT subject to the protections granted. Here's a link:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/2f681b08868538c2c12563cd0051aa8d?OpenDocument

The AQ and Taliban thugs violated several of the terms, and thus are not able to claim protection the Convention. Here's the rules they must follow:

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, incuding those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

© that of carrying arms openly;

(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Since they violated several of those rules, they were NOT subject to the protections of the GC. US forces could even summarily execute them (though that would doubtlessly violate the UCMJ, it would NOT violate the GC).

In any case, as an evil conservative I'm really not all that concerned with the Gitmo prisoners. they aren't being tortured, they aren't being executed, and many of them are being treated better than they were back in Afghanistan. These are Bad Dudes™, Joshua. Let them rot.

Heya Otto. waves We do seem to keep bumping inta each other, don't we? ;]

Are you stalking me?!?!? QUIT STALKING ME!!!

Seriously, Bear, good point about International Law (I always feel I should put "and House of Pancakes" after I write it). It's meaningless. I mean, how many times did IRAQ violate "international law" and the world did nothing?

Otto:

"International law" is a convenient fiction, and little else.

I disagree. There is a body of precedent for international law going back to, I believe, the 18th century, particularly as regards wars of aggression. I can write more fully on that from home (I don't have my research materials with me at work).

More than that, the notion that "international law" is a fiction tends to undermine any assertion of "terrorism", since part of the definition of terrorism is unlawful use of threat or force.

There is no body with authority to enforce it

That is, to some extent, true; though it is true largely due to the explicit resistance of the United States Government to attempts to empower such a body. In any event, there remains a body of precedent for convening international tribunals. I consider this fact significant, but I can understand why others don't.

There are no laws among nations except those that they choose to honor

That's true of all laws, to one degree or another, isn't it?

Bush went to the UN and got Resolution 1441 passed unanimously

I don't think UN Res 1441 empowered the U.S. to invade Iraq. I've read the text of the resolution, and that's the conclusion I've come to. As far as an elaboration on that opinion, I mostly agree with this discussion of 1441:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php

Joshua, we aren't concerned with terrorists violating international law. That they violate the laws of the United States is fully sufficient for me.

Your interpretation of 1441 could use some explaining.

Joshua N.,
I see your 1441 and raise you one Cease-Fire and 678!

Okay enough kidding.

My question to you is what do you think UN authorization would have meant on the ground in Iraq? Granted, I'm asking for you to gaze into the crystal ball but do you think it would have made a difference to what we are facing now?

Seriously, I don't see a UN blessing as some kind of salve. Even now as I read Dennis Kucinich's plan for withdrawing from Iraq, I am stupified by the ignorance of the UN's history and capability and indeed credibility(let's just say Rwanda has a bigger impact then local isolationist railings) in these matters.

These are Bad Dudes™, Joshua. Let them rot.

I don't have an informed opinion of their character. But if they're not soldiers (which I agree they're not), then they're civilians. And the GC does outlaw the transport of civilians.

Even if one chooses to grant a special "neither bird nor mammal" status to the combatants held at Gitmo, there are also noncombatants there.

Dave in Texas:

What international law are you referring to?

Generally, I'm referring to the precedent within international law prescribing wars of aggression. For the sake of argument, I'll narrow it down to the U.N. Charter.

For example, I'm interested in "degrees of illegal" with respect to Afghanistan and Iraq.

I'll clarify this point: I believe Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and that Afghanistan was harboring him. I believe that would, to some degree, justify an invasion of Afghanistan along the lines of national self-defense.

However, I don't think the United States was sufficiently forthcoming with evidence to support this position. Again: this is not to say I don't believe it. But the U.S. position was basically, "We've got the proof, we're not going to argue about it. Turn him over or we're invading."

And I think, from a legal as well as a political stand point, that was a little dodgy.

In the case of Iraq, I don't see any such strong justifications. See above re 1441 and such.

Ryan:

My question to you is what do you think UN authorization would have meant on the ground in Iraq?

That's a good question, and I appreciate your stipulation that it involves some crystal ball work. Because at the end of the day, my focus on the failure to get the U.N. behind us on this invasion really does come down to my opinion of what could have been gained. It's just speculation, and most people here probably won't agree with it.

But, for what it's worth, the main difference I imagine in the alternate universe where we had a better president, is that the United States could have used the images of 9/11 to assemble a much broader coalition for both invasions. This would be important, essentially for public relations reasons; as it stands, people in Iraq have no trouble imagining that the U.S. is invading their country. And the ones who suffer as a result of this invasion are going to be hate the U.S. for it. If the coalition forces had been composed of a much broader mix of troops and commanded by the U.N. with the specific goal of affecting regime change in Iraq because of human rights violations, I think the hatred in Iraq would be much less likely to solidify into a lasting movement.

Lots of people don't think it would have made a difference. I allow that's possible, but it's not my position.

Some people don't think it was possible; that Bush did as good a job as anyone could have, at getting a coalition together and getting the support of the U.N. I disagree. I think it could have been done.

I talk about this more at:

http://www.noematic.org/mine/archives/011226.html#011226

and

http://www.noematic.org/mine/archives/011267.html#011267

Dave in Texas:

That they violate the laws of the United States is fully sufficient for me.

U.S. jurisdiction ends at the U.S. borders. What's more, if those are the laws we're talking about, the person has to be extradited and tried. Invasion in pursuit of extradition would, among other things, constitute a violation of the laws of the country we're invading (making us terrorists). But it might also constitute a violation of U.S. law, if we have a standing extradition treaty with the country we're invading.

Etc, etc. U.S. law has extremely limited application to this kind of situation.

Your interpretation of 1441 could use some explaining.

Did you not follow the link, or did you just not agree with it?

I was speaking to the Pentagon and the World Trade Center being within our borders. I consider it a declaration of war.

The Taliban didn't say "we don't have him", they said "you can't have him".

I didn't follow the link - will later this evening when I have more time.

On "larger coalition", it really doesn't matter to me that the coalition is larger or smaller. I hear you arguing it could have been larger and we still invade (if we had a better President), and that we wouldn't be as hated. I don't buy that (the bombing of UN HQ in Baghdad suggests not). And I don't get how it becomes more legitimate if we have the cooperation of France, Germany, Russia, China, et al. (who had their reasons for declining). Isn't Britain, Spain, Italy, Japan, Australia and others enough?

Nor am I interested in pursuing an "arrest and extradition" policy, i.e. treating the enemy like criminals. As I said, to me it's a war.

We've discussed our disagreements with the UN before...don't know that we need to do that again.

I went to your site joshua and read the thing you had about the invasion of Cambodia. The one where Vietnamese soldiers invaded a village.

You know why Vietnam invaded Cambodia, don't you? Cambodia was well into a genocide that killed 30% of thier population. The Vietnamese were the only country to disrupt it.

And the bribery for the UN oil for food program is well established. Even the NYT is writing articles about it. The UN has admitted that this needs to be investigated. Some people on the list have admitted that the bribes did exist. Others not.

I read that article you wrote and it is full of fluffy data and ad-hom attacks. It wouldn't convince anyone who was not already in the "Bush Lied, People Died" camp. You need real facts man.

I then read your linked article for Mary Ellen O'Connell's intepretation of 1441. She's written articles against the intervention in the balkans, against the first gulf war. She written extensively that the UN should not intervene in military conflicts. I then went and read her other articles. Come on, she's one of your fellow travellers. She is blinded by her idealogical position.

I was listening to your point, but after I read your links... Yikes, you don't have a point.

Dave in Texas, don't waste your time. There is nothing there. It is a total waste of time

Nor am I interested in pursuing an "arrest and extradition" policy, i.e. treating the enemy like criminals. As I said, to me it's a war.

So... I'm sorry, let me just make sure I'm getting this:

If, say, an English guy commits mass murder in the states and goes back to the UK and the UK doesn't immediately hand him over to the U.S., extradition treaty or no extradition treaty, it's an act of war in your eyes?

What's the cutoff on a thing like that? Mass murder only? And are we talking "more than five", or "more than five hundred"? Or what about rape? Or, I don't know-- speeding?

I disagree. There is a body of precedent for international law going back to, I believe, the 18th century, particularly as regards wars of aggression. I can write more fully on that from home (I don't have my research materials with me at work).

Well, firstly, there's no one actually enforcing international law, which makes it a mere suggestion. The precedents you speak of consist of agreements between nations, nothing more. Such do not make real law. Remember, I used the term "convienient fiction." The international laws you speak of benefit the parties involved, but when they do not benefit the parties they are not worth the paper they are printed on. An international law in that regard is much like a treaty.

Second, wars of agression have and do take place all the time, mostly unchecked except when other countries choose to intervene. This is an important point, in my opinion. To be any kind of real law, there must be consistent enforcement by a higher authority. No such authority exists. For example, take Kuwait. If the US and her allies had chosen not to intervene, Hussein would still be there. No higher body forced Iraq out; it was the equivelent of saying "get the hell out of my friend's house or I'll MAKE you leave." A bunch of countries got together and forced the issue. The UN issued resolutions, but they only had the weight of force due to the voluntary participation of nations.

More than that, the notion that "international law" is a fiction tends to undermine any assertion of "terrorism", since part of the definition of terrorism is unlawful use of threat or force.

That is PART of the definition of terrorism, but not the whole thing. After all, terrorism can be domestic as well as international. In any case, the fight against terrorism is more a case of self-interest, which is the only real international law.

There is no body with authority to enforce it That is, to some extent, true; though it is true largely due to the explicit resistance of the United States Government to attempts to empower such a body. In any event, there remains a body of precedent for convening international tribunals. I consider this fact significant, but I can understand why others don't.

And those tribunals only exist as agreed to by nations. If a nation chooses to ignore them, there is no punishment except that which can be forced upon it by other nations. The fact is, most of the time, there are few penalties. There are countries all over the globe that spit in the face of international law and world opinion and the world does nothing.

There are no laws among nations except those that they choose to honor. That's true of all laws, to one degree or another, isn't it?

Not really. If I, as an individual, decide that the law doesn't apply to me and go hack off my neighbor's head with a rust chainsaw, the police will not care that I don't agree to the law. The courts will convict me regardless of my opinions. The point is, there is higher enforcement. My opinions don't weigh into it.

I don't think UN Res 1441 empowered the U.S. to invade Iraq. I've read the text of the resolution, and that's the conclusion I've come to. As far as an elaboration on that opinion, I mostly agree with this discussion of 1441.

The resolution stated "that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations"

Look at that again, Joshua: serious consequences. Iraq was already under horrific sanctions. It had repeatedly ignored UN resolutions. It had repeatedly, blatantly violated the Gulf War cease-fire (and when a cease-fire is violated by one country, any obligation for the other to, well, cease firing is voided). In other words, even under "international law," (such as it is) the US was STILL authorized to go into Iraq.

Sorry, that came off more glib than I meant it.

I don't have an informed opinion of their character. But if they're not soldiers (which I agree they're not), then they're civilians. And the GC does outlaw the transport of civilians.

Read the GC section again. It clearly specifies that there are more than just two categories of combatants/non-combatants. In order to be classified as soldiers, they have to meet certain qualifications (which we both agree they don't). In order to qualify as civilians, they have to meet other qualifications. Chief among them is not attempting to kill you. They definitely fall into the category of "other," and the GC rules do not apply to them.

Even if one chooses to grant a special "neither bird nor mammal" status to the combatants held at Gitmo, there are also noncombatants there.

How many? Who? And please define "noncombatant." For example, does a person who organizes and funds a terrorist group but never picks up a rifle himself qualify?

Joshua, neither you nor I know who is being held there, aside from a few famous cases. You may be right that there are a few noncombatants there. I'm sorry, but all I can do is shrug. Remember, they are not being tortured, they are not being executed, and their conditions are in many ways better than those they had in Afghanistan. And we have let people go from Gitmo, so it's not as if we're keeping the ones that are clearly NCs. Remember, it costs quite a bit of money to ship these guys halfway around the world, and there's not an infinite space; there may be a couple of sheep in amongst the wolves, but I'm betting that there are damned few.

(the "sorry" above was aimed at Dave in Texas)

Otto: I don't agree that "serious consequences" automatically equals "invasion without further authorization of the UNSC". I can see why you think that, but we part ways on this one.

Not really. If I, as an individual, decide that the law doesn't apply to me and go hack off my neighbor's head with a rust chainsaw, the police will not care that I don't agree to the law. The courts will convict me regardless of my opinions. The point is, there is higher enforcement. My opinions don't weigh into it.

If you don't agree to the law and choose to act outside the law, the police are just people with guns, trying to force you to act in a certain way. This is, essentially, true of all laws. The cops, the courts, the jail and the executioner are all just people, wielding power. That's a profoundly antisocial view of things, but it is essentially valid.

What you said about international law, "there is no punishment except that which can be forced upon it by other nations," is fundamentally true of all laws.

The United States, being too powerful to have laws "forced upon it by other nations" has consistently resisted efforts to establish an international governing body beyond its absolute control.

To some extent, that makes efforts on the part of the rest of the world to establish, for example, a world court, academic; no nation is guaranteed lawful treatment by a world court because the most powerful nation refuses to recognize the authority of that court.

I think it's a mistake to assume that the long-term problems caused by a U.S. refusal to legitemize an international governing body can be managed indefinitely. I think the current administration's foreign policy is taking us closer to a time when international consensus turns against us in a meaningful way. Terrorism is just one of the expressions such a turn might take.

"Your leaders can't protect you-- but they can get you killed," as the saying goes.

I would really prefer it not come to that.

What's the cutoff on a thing like that? Mass murder only? And are we talking "more than five", or "more than five hundred"? Or what about rape? Or, I don't know-- speeding?

C'mon, that's a strawman if there ever was one. First, we have AGREEMENTS with England about such things. No such agreements existed between the US and Afghanistan. If one wants to be technical, there wasn't even a legitimate government in Afghanistan. Second, hijacking planes and using them to kill thousands and do billions upon billions of dollars in both property damage and overall economic damage to a country is pretty clearly an act of war. If you don't believe so, there's really little more to discuss, because we're not on the same planet.

And note, this wasn't ONE MAN. We didn't invade Afghanistan to get bin Laden; we invaded to shut down the terrorist organization that operated out of that nation, with its blessing. In many ways, AQ was the power that fed the Taliban.

Look, Joshua, I enjoy these discussions, but you can do better than that.

Joshua,
As an American, I recognize no law above the law agreed upon by the American people and their representatives and held in the Constitution. I recognize no dictate from a foreign court, people or institution without the proper authentication from my representatives and fellow Americans.

The American people are sovergn entities, we do not answer to unelected thugs (See UN). I'm scared that this sentiment is lost among younger Americans. It is the very idea that keeps this nation free. You want to see tyrany, let foreign nations dictate our course, using THEIR interpetation of "International Law".

Otto: I don't agree that "serious consequences" automatically equals "invasion without further authorization of the UNSC". I can see why you think that, but we part ways on this one.

It didn't "automatically" equal invasion. Do you or do you not remember the inspections after 1441? the wrangling in the UN? the attempts to get Hussein to comply? It took months before there was an invasion, and the process could have been stopped at any time had Hussein simply complied fully, as he was required to do.

There comes a time when you have to say, "enough." One more resolution wasn't going to make a difference. A couple more months wouldn't have made a difference. Getting the approval of France and Russia and Germany wouldn't have made a difference. For TWELVE YEARS Hussein had defied the very "international law" which you tout, and when the US deals with him, you think WE'RE in the wrong.

If you don't agree to the law and choose to act outside the law, the police are just people with guns, trying to force you to act in a certain way. This is, essentially, true of all laws. The cops, the courts, the jail and the executioner are all just people, wielding power. That's a profoundly antisocial view of things, but it is essentially valid.

In a way, you just made my point for me. That's EXACTLY the situation between nations. You are correct in your point about the guy with the gun, but it still doesn't address the fact that no police, no real courts exist which act to enforce international laws. It is as if, after my killing spree, a bunch of guys get together and say "let's get him." If no one decides to get me, I'm scot free.

Take China, for example. No one has done anything significant to free Tibet from China's clutches. No one can, not even the US (y'know, that whole nuke thing). Tibet will be free when China decides it is in her best interest to free Tibet, whether it be because the leaders have had a miraculous change of heart, or because the cost become too great vs. the benefits. THAT is the truth among nations.

What you said about international law, "there is no punishment except that which can be forced upon it by other nations," is fundamentally true of all laws.

If one wants to look at it that way, true. However, as I said, if this is the case, then international law is not worth the paper that it is printed on, since NO ONE enforces it except when it is in their interest.

The United States, being too powerful to have laws "forced upon it by other nations" has consistently resisted efforts to establish an international governing body beyond its absolute control.

Obviously. Has any nation in similar circumstances EVER allowed itself to be hobbled? Did Rome? Britain? The Soviet Union? China?

NO powerful nation willingly would accept control by a larger group. Personally, I would fight with my last breath to oppose any such measures being placed upon the US, because it's often merely an attempt to stifle power.

To some extent, that makes efforts on the part of the rest of the world to establish, for example, a world court, academic; no nation is guaranteed lawful treatment by a world court because the most powerful nation refuses to recognize the authority of that court.

And who, exactly, in a similar circumstance would agree to that? No one.

I think it's a mistake to assume that the long-term problems caused by a U.S. refusal to legitemize an international governing body can be managed indefinitely.

Nothing lasts forever. However, the mere fact that a world court exists, a United Nations exists, or any other body exists does not mean that it is necessarily a "better" organization and worthy of support. Quite frankly, the whole idea of a world governing body scares the bejeezus out of me, because what checks are there on its power? If that body turns despotic (please don't tell me it couldn't happen), who would be able to stop it?

I think the current administration's foreign policy is taking us closer to a time when international consensus turns against us in a meaningful way. Terrorism is just one of the expressions such a turn might take.

Please. First, we have allies, many of them. Second, there IS no "international consensus." There are only nations, some of which like us and some of which don't. That is nothing new. Alliances and friendships shift and change; that's the way of things. It doesn't mean that the entire world is going to decide that we're a great threat.

Do I need to remind you that even when "international consensus" should have been united, it wasn't! The entire world should have united against Nazi Germany, for example, but it didn't. Ditto the Soviet Union, Japan, any other powerful nation with a bad human-rights track record and an alarming tendency to invade its neighbors with no notice. Not a peep from "international consensus." In fact, many nations would side with the aggressors for various reasons.

Are you trying to make me believe that the Iraq invasion was the worst thing any nation has done, EVER? Because if the world wouldn't unite against those that truly threatened it, there's not a snowball's chance in mid-July Orlando that it's going to do so now. The US isn't blitzkrieging tanks into the entire Middle east demanding blood and treasure or death. We (and our allies, remember them?) invaded a nation that had been spitting in the eye of that all of those august and revered international bodies for twelve years. And what are we doing with that nation? We're trying to turn it into a democracy.

Yet, somehow, we're the bad guys.

"Your leaders can't protect you-- but they can get you killed," as the saying goes. I would really prefer it not come to that.

It won't. It never has, so why should we think it ever will? Hell, if we're as evil as you seem to think we can just bribe and threaten our way out of danger.

It's worked in so many other cases.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've GOT to get something to eat. I didn't realize how late it was.

"Are you stalking me?!?!? QUIT STALKING ME!!!" - Otto

I thought you were stalking me. Maybe we're both stalking Lenore? Eeewww... ;]

"The United States, being too powerful to have laws "forced upon it by other nations" has consistently resisted efforts to establish an international governing body beyond its absolute control." - Joshua Norton

Au contraire: we've consistently resisted efforts to set an international governing body capable of making decisions affecting us above our Constitution. Minor sticking point there on a number of international agreements that have been presented.

"In many ways, AQ was the power that fed the Taliban." - Otto

Minor addition: the Saudi's have been also, but you and I are probably agreed that we need to hold the Saudi's accountable in this in addition to the Taliban.

"To some extent, that makes efforts on the part of the rest of the world to establish, for example, a world court, academic; no nation is guaranteed lawful treatment by a world court because the most powerful nation refuses to recognize the authority of that court." - Joshua

It sounds like you're saying this is a Bad Thing, but I'm not seeing a major problem with it. ;]

I'll ask straight out this time, Joshua: What benefits are there to a World Governing Body as opposed to agreements bewteen Soverien Nations who have common interests [or between nations without common interests where they can be arrived at]? Because that's what you're discussing: a theoretical world governing body that has the force and authority to impose International Law upon us and other nations regardless of our own laws and constitutions.

Sell me on it, because after having studied the possibilities for 20+ years, I range from skeptical to innately hostile to the concept. If you can't sell me on it, then I'll fight unto death to attempt to keep my governments from being signatory to it. Pretty simple.

"I think the current administration's foreign policy is taking us closer to a time when international consensus turns against us in a meaningful way." - Johua

I would say "nice sidestep" on the earlier questions I asked, but I think that it isn't a sidestep: what's coming across in your posts is that the most worrisome thing to you is that the US won't knuckle down to a gentleman's fiction of "International Law", not that the non-compliance of other nations makes it the polite fiction that it is.

"I think it's a mistake to assume that the long-term problems caused by a U.S. refusal to legitemize an international governing body can be managed indefinitely." - Joshua

Bluntly put, we chose to not let France, Germany, Russia, and Belgium - because when it comes down to it those were the primary blockers on the UN - dictate our forien policy just as they would refuse to allow us to dictate theirs in similar circumstances, so you're afraid that it may lead us into a backlash led by those nations on the UNSC unless we kneel and agree to let them have veto over us.

My response to that is that of a T'salagi and a man: Sa'ang-Fori. Better to die without chains than to live on our knees.

I'd be a hell of a lot happier if that were Bush's answer to the UN also, starting with kicking them the fuck out of New York. Yanno what? So would a hell of a lot of New Yorkers I know.

I think that if you can not or will not address some of those questions straight up without dancing around them, I'm going to bow out of this non-argument... because my response so far to "the Legitimacy of International Law and the US is an Outlaw" sthick is getting perilously close to "Piss off", and I choose to not take this into a flame war on Michele's bandwidth.

You're up for it, you can wander over and we can rock and roll at my site.

"NO powerful nation willingly would accept control by a larger group. Personally, I would fight with my last breath to oppose any such measures being placed upon the US, because it's often merely an attempt to stifle power."

Looks like Otto and I are in agreement on that. I'm not surprised. ;]

I don't know why I'm bothering, but I'm going to try to reason with the pinhead. Blame the wine I'm drinking:

Joshua Norton: there is no such thing as "international law." See, laws are made by legislative bodies ("legislator" root: Latin legis, from lex -- "law" + lator -- "bearer," "proposer"). That is, by governments. So, you are asking, why does that mean there is no "international law"?

BECAUSE THERE IS NO SINGLE GOVERNMENT THAT RUNS THE ENTIRE WORLD, ERGO, NO ONE "LAW" THAT THE ENTIRE WORLD ABIDES BY -- I.E., "INTERNATIONAL LAW." There are, instead, things such as "treaties" and other agreements that can be considered null and void when one of the parties violates the terms delineated therein. We don't consider the laws against murder null and void when someone commits murder; laws are not treaties.

Got it now? (Probably not. It is my experience that people who believe in pipe dreams like "international law" are less easily dislodged from their favorite castles in the sky than religious people of their belief in God.)

Andrea: Thanks so much for injecting the word "pinhead" into what has been, up to this point, a civil discussion between people who vehemently disagree with one another. I can't say I've never done it myself, but I'm impressed that you'd step into a discussion with wordcounts like this one and start your argument with "pinhead".
I'll blame that on the wine you're drinking, and hope for a more reasonable exchange at some point in the future.

Ironbear, Otto, Dave, jacitelli, capt joe, Mortgage Essentials and the rest:

Okeydokey. Taking on all of you at once is officially taking more time out of my day than I can afford to give it. This is not a dis. I'm not suggesting that your arguments aren't worth consideration; they are, and I appreciate your restraint in delivering them. I think part of the reason this is working out to be so time consuming is that most of you have backed up your points really well, and the debate has hinged much more on specific issues than on rhetoric— the sign of a good debate, in my opinion.

But I have to get some work done at work, and going it alone on all these fronts is stalling out my work day. I'm a fast writer, but this is getting silly.

So, rather than do a half-assed job of keeping it going, I concede the field. Not the points, mind you. I have no fear that we'll come back to those, and hopefully it will be during a week when I have fewer contracts due.

I would especially like to thank Ironbear, Otto and Dave for the debate. Sorry if this comes off like a retreat. Like I said, I'm sure we'll hit all this again at some point.

I think the're enough Iraqis, not to be taken by Al Sadr's double talk. The fact
that he is Nasrallah's (big Hezbollah honcho) reminds me of how this works in
practice. In Lebanon, the Iranians split
HB out of the fragments of the martyred
moderate Musa Sadr (thanks a bunch; Moammar)they prompted the revolt against
Irael's presence in Lebanon, supported by nominally secular & Baathist Syria; the same way that Baathist Iraq was the
incubator for much of HB. They used the
fact of the American intervention against the Druze, to rationalize the
terrorism against the allies (US & Fr.
Foreign Legion)when all is said and done
who runs majority Shia Lebanon now; why
the Alawite dominated Syrian army

hell. contracts. I didn't even get to answer "yes, if a British subject was behind a 767 being flown into the Pentagon, and Britain harbored him, and refused to hand him over, then yes, I would condone our taking preemptive action up to and including engaging their armed forces".

Otto made my point though - it wasn't to capture Bin Laden - it was to tear apart that snake pit and force them to deal with us there rather than fly more planes into buildings. I particularly embrace the part of the Bush doctrine that says "we will make no distinction between the terrorists and the nation-states that harbor them".

It is about Islamic-Fascism...and they have clearly declared war on the west, the US, Israel, and the rest of the damn world. Ignoring it has not worked.

contracts. pffft.

Joshua, thanks for being a whiny baby. "She called me a pinhead, waaah!"

You're welcome, and likewise.

Heya... just because I got torqued off and flamed Drublood doesn't mean I always choose blowtorch over reason. ;]

"I think part of the reason this is working out to be so time consuming is that most of you have backed up your points really well, and the debate has hinged much more on specific issues than on rhetoric? the sign of a good debate, in my opinion.

But I have to get some work done at work, and going it alone on all these fronts is stalling out my work day. I'm a fast writer, but this is getting silly.

So, rather than do a half-assed job of keeping it going, I concede the field. Not the points, mind you. I have no fear that we'll come back to those, and hopefully it will be during a week when I have fewer contracts due." - Joshua Norton

Fair enough, Joshua. And no problems on that... I know the drill: I have non-comment/blog work too deal with to as I go.

Tell you what: I have your site in my bookmarks, I even featured it in one of my links roundups... and mine's in my sig here if you ever want to visit. If you think the concept of wether International Law and World Government is justifiable and worth pursuing after you've thought through and explored some of our points and views, then tackle it in depth, at your leisure on your blog.

Man, I know you can write... you have an excellent round up of posts over there. And you're curious and you have an eclectic mind like mine, or you wouldn't have picked Emperorer Norton as a user nick - hell, I'd wager that 9 out of 10 people on the 'net don't even know who Emp. Norton is. ;) That bespeaks a curious mind.

If you decide to, drop us a link on our blogs [those of us who have them], and after reading through your explorations, we can think it through and write about it at our leisure and return the links.

That sound fair enough to you?

One note though: please check your research, if you're doing fact based, or note it as assertion if your argument is based on assertions. It'll save us a lot of potential flamewar bait that it doesn't sound like any of us are really interested in, ne?

Joshua, thats the differance between you and me. I don't think of this as a "game" dangerous or otherwise.

Fair enough Joshua. Believe me, I understand all too well. It's refreshing to actually debate with someone, since so many disagreements end with people (usually me) telling others how much they suck.