It is to the shame of this country that if you believe in law and justice you are doomed to frustration. On the one hand the prison industry lobbies mightily to ensure that drugs stay illegal to boost prison populations. People for benign infractions such as smoking marijuana end up in jail while those who destroy entire countries enjoy book deals, speaking engagements, and meters of column space in prominent newspapers (just what the hell is Henry Kissinger, architect of the Chilean debacle inter alia, still doing on the Washington Post’s op ed?).
A war of aggression is illegal according to the Nuremburg Principles, because from that all other crimes stem. Yes, Bush, Cheney, and many others, including Rove, Addington, Feith, Yoo, and a host of such creatures (and I would include several propagandists in the press – remember Goebbels would not have been immune from prosecution but for his suicide) should be on trial for enabling what happened. There should be a truth commission.
But the maudlin sentimentality of the ruling elite and a sheepish public will prohibit it. (“Oh goodness me, we can’t put the country through that”, and nevermind what we put Iraq through). In ancient Athens one of their most honored men, Miltiades, the victorious general at Marathon, was later in his career brought into court when he was ill on a stretcher to answer charges of peculation. Cimon, Aristeides the Just – their greatest men were famously as subject to justice as any other member of the polis. Now that is democracy; that is accountability. But on a very real level, that we ourselves do not bring Bush & Co. to book does not matter, since Nuremburg stipulates that a country’s internal law is irrelevant.
You can quibble about whether principle Via was violated, but there is no doubt that principle VIb, which specifically prohibits ill treatment of the civilian population and prisoners in custody of the parties of war, as well as prohibiting the wanton destruction of cities, villages, and property private and public. (Remember the destruction of Iraq’s archaeological patrimony in favor of the defense of the oil ministry? Remember the destruction of Fallujah? Remember women refugees who had to flee to Syria and live through prostitution?)
But let’s be honest – if we applied Nuremburg to American presidents, who, from Harry Truman on down, would escape the docket? In a just world, in a true democracy with accountability, this is as it should be. Nixon should have gone to the Hague for Cambodia (and while we’re at it, why not for Chile and Laos too); Reagan for – well, a half dozen or so countries he gobbled up before lunch (El Slavador and Nicaragua for starts); Bush I for the specious invasion of Panama and the enormous civilian casualties (relatively speaking) in its course; Clinton for his little Sudan adventure; Obama for his arrogation of dictatorial powers that allow him sans trial to execute American citizens (okay, maybe just impeachment for that one) and his trigger-happy use of drones in general. This is not about partisanship; this is about men who disturb the peace of the world on dubious pretexts. And in the process they drain resources away from teaching our children, cleaning our air, curing cancer, maintaining our roads, and a host of other things that would make for a better world and shovel them into the insatiable maw of their greedy friends in the energy, finance, and war industries.
In 1967 Martin Luther King called the U.S. the greatest purveyor of violence in the world, and warned that if there were not a movement to end it then and there, the U.S. would maintain its position as such. He was tragically prophetic.
From a wider historical perspective there are some difficulties in this article. It is a bit too anecdotal (esp. the excessive reliance on “Republicans are saying”), and even if we accept the basic argument that Republicans are running scared from their Tea Party base, there should be more attention to the fact they created this Frankenstein. But even this should elicit a big yawn – the Tea Party base has, after all, been a substantial part of the GOP for decades. They’re afraid of racism now? A quarter of a century post Lee Atwater and Willy Horton? Really? Remember the meme about Vince Foster’s suicide being a murder orchestrated by the Clintons? And suddenly, nearly twenty years out, they are “conspiracy theorists”?
As for Tea Partiers qua grassroots, ahem: it’s a pretty open secret at this late date that they are backed by the Koch Kartel. The crazies have NOT joined the GOP, the GOP has been crazy since at least the 1980s, a downward slide that arguably was already in evidence with Goldwater (remember “Extremism in the Defense of Liberty is no Vice”?). The modern prophet and musical genius Frank Zappa saw this coming in the early 80s for Christ’s sake. (Go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ISil7IHzxc).
What the Republicans are afraid of is that the Tea Party is lifting up a rock and showing the creepy crawly creatures that are the modern GOP and the muck and slime that is their platform (compare this to their relatively socially progressive 1956 platform that not even the Dems would probably pass today). They are terrified that the Tea Party will actually make public a platform that they will write and hope that no one reads. Don’t get me wrong, I think both parties are these days beneath contempt. However I think you would have done better to expose how deeply entrenched the attitudes of the Tea Party have actually been within the GOP for a very long time; and they have had dire consequences for our political discourse which has moved further and further to the right (in no small part due to the generous and copious funding of right wing think tanks), with attendant loss of a diversity of views. Example: when was the last time Josh Marshall (to cite but one so-called “left-leaning” blogger) covered the Green Party and its candidate as opposed to the latest Republican scandal or insane inanity of the day?
They have sown the wind, but it is you and I who will reap the whirlwind.
Pure whistling past the graveyard. Climate change doubtless will increase violent competition for resources. It is only a matter of time before one of those goes nuclear. Then the biosphere can deal with nuclear fallout as well.
Climate science does not take into consideration what we humanists do, i.e. the depths of darkness that is human history and nature. These two elements are on a collision course with growing scarcity and environmental degradation. I don't see any other path this leads to but extinction. I've wondered why social historians have not been more vocal or forthcoming about the possible outcomes for our species on this urgent matter.
I hope I'm wrong, and of course, things can play out and come up that are utterly unforeseen - say a new pathogen that likes the warmer climes against which we are helpless. As a young man I never thought I'd see the day where I felt that the survival in several centuries of a mere 20% of our population level was optimistic, but I never envisioned that we would revert back to a Stone Age ethos either. Boy, have the past thirty-some odd years proved me wrong on that one!
It is to the shame of this country that if you believe in law and justice you are doomed to frustration. On the one hand the prison industry lobbies mightily to ensure that drugs stay illegal to boost prison populations. People for benign infractions such as smoking marijuana end up in jail while those who destroy entire countries enjoy book deals, speaking engagements, and meters of column space in prominent newspapers (just what the hell is Henry Kissinger, architect of the Chilean debacle inter alia, still doing on the Washington Post’s op ed?).
A war of aggression is illegal according to the Nuremburg Principles, because from that all other crimes stem. Yes, Bush, Cheney, and many others, including Rove, Addington, Feith, Yoo, and a host of such creatures (and I would include several propagandists in the press – remember Goebbels would not have been immune from prosecution but for his suicide) should be on trial for enabling what happened. There should be a truth commission.
But the maudlin sentimentality of the ruling elite and a sheepish public will prohibit it. (“Oh goodness me, we can’t put the country through that”, and nevermind what we put Iraq through). In ancient Athens one of their most honored men, Miltiades, the victorious general at Marathon, was later in his career brought into court when he was ill on a stretcher to answer charges of peculation. Cimon, Aristeides the Just – their greatest men were famously as subject to justice as any other member of the polis. Now that is democracy; that is accountability. But on a very real level, that we ourselves do not bring Bush & Co. to book does not matter, since Nuremburg stipulates that a country’s internal law is irrelevant.
You can quibble about whether principle Via was violated, but there is no doubt that principle VIb, which specifically prohibits ill treatment of the civilian population and prisoners in custody of the parties of war, as well as prohibiting the wanton destruction of cities, villages, and property private and public. (Remember the destruction of Iraq’s archaeological patrimony in favor of the defense of the oil ministry? Remember the destruction of Fallujah? Remember women refugees who had to flee to Syria and live through prostitution?)
But let’s be honest – if we applied Nuremburg to American presidents, who, from Harry Truman on down, would escape the docket? In a just world, in a true democracy with accountability, this is as it should be. Nixon should have gone to the Hague for Cambodia (and while we’re at it, why not for Chile and Laos too); Reagan for – well, a half dozen or so countries he gobbled up before lunch (El Slavador and Nicaragua for starts); Bush I for the specious invasion of Panama and the enormous civilian casualties (relatively speaking) in its course; Clinton for his little Sudan adventure; Obama for his arrogation of dictatorial powers that allow him sans trial to execute American citizens (okay, maybe just impeachment for that one) and his trigger-happy use of drones in general. This is not about partisanship; this is about men who disturb the peace of the world on dubious pretexts. And in the process they drain resources away from teaching our children, cleaning our air, curing cancer, maintaining our roads, and a host of other things that would make for a better world and shovel them into the insatiable maw of their greedy friends in the energy, finance, and war industries.
In 1967 Martin Luther King called the U.S. the greatest purveyor of violence in the world, and warned that if there were not a movement to end it then and there, the U.S. would maintain its position as such. He was tragically prophetic.
From a wider historical perspective there are some difficulties in this article. It is a bit too anecdotal (esp. the excessive reliance on “Republicans are saying”), and even if we accept the basic argument that Republicans are running scared from their Tea Party base, there should be more attention to the fact they created this Frankenstein. But even this should elicit a big yawn – the Tea Party base has, after all, been a substantial part of the GOP for decades. They’re afraid of racism now? A quarter of a century post Lee Atwater and Willy Horton? Really? Remember the meme about Vince Foster’s suicide being a murder orchestrated by the Clintons? And suddenly, nearly twenty years out, they are “conspiracy theorists”?
As for Tea Partiers qua grassroots, ahem: it’s a pretty open secret at this late date that they are backed by the Koch Kartel. The crazies have NOT joined the GOP, the GOP has been crazy since at least the 1980s, a downward slide that arguably was already in evidence with Goldwater (remember “Extremism in the Defense of Liberty is no Vice”?). The modern prophet and musical genius Frank Zappa saw this coming in the early 80s for Christ’s sake. (Go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ISil7IHzxc).
What the Republicans are afraid of is that the Tea Party is lifting up a rock and showing the creepy crawly creatures that are the modern GOP and the muck and slime that is their platform (compare this to their relatively socially progressive 1956 platform that not even the Dems would probably pass today). They are terrified that the Tea Party will actually make public a platform that they will write and hope that no one reads. Don’t get me wrong, I think both parties are these days beneath contempt. However I think you would have done better to expose how deeply entrenched the attitudes of the Tea Party have actually been within the GOP for a very long time; and they have had dire consequences for our political discourse which has moved further and further to the right (in no small part due to the generous and copious funding of right wing think tanks), with attendant loss of a diversity of views. Example: when was the last time Josh Marshall (to cite but one so-called “left-leaning” blogger) covered the Green Party and its candidate as opposed to the latest Republican scandal or insane inanity of the day?
They have sown the wind, but it is you and I who will reap the whirlwind.
Pure whistling past the graveyard. Climate change doubtless will increase violent competition for resources. It is only a matter of time before one of those goes nuclear. Then the biosphere can deal with nuclear fallout as well.
Climate science does not take into consideration what we humanists do, i.e. the depths of darkness that is human history and nature. These two elements are on a collision course with growing scarcity and environmental degradation. I don't see any other path this leads to but extinction. I've wondered why social historians have not been more vocal or forthcoming about the possible outcomes for our species on this urgent matter.
I hope I'm wrong, and of course, things can play out and come up that are utterly unforeseen - say a new pathogen that likes the warmer climes against which we are helpless. As a young man I never thought I'd see the day where I felt that the survival in several centuries of a mere 20% of our population level was optimistic, but I never envisioned that we would revert back to a Stone Age ethos either. Boy, have the past thirty-some odd years proved me wrong on that one!