Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Americans must choose

American Sovereignty: Which forum will impose discipline:

  • A. the rule of law in the court; or

  • B. the force of combat on the battlefield?

    * * *

    Sovereignty depends on assenting to the rule of law at home. America has shown it will violate the law, and pretend the problem is happening somewhere else.

    America's problem is simple: It is a party to the original conduct. The laws are clear -- the responsibility, however far removed from America, falls on America.

    If America does not wish to assent to the rule of law, Americans lose the power to self-govern.

    Time to choose: Do you want your constitution, or your tyrant?

    If you fail to reign in this tyrant, Americans are going to lose sovereignty and invite lawful retribution from abroad.

    * * *

    Americans use the threat of, and actually do commit, acts of violence in order to remain above the law.

    That is state-sponsored terrorism.

    * * *

    There's been some discussion about the "linkage" between the G8, EU, and the US in re war crimes and rendition.

    In short, the argument goes like this: States that help the US conduct terror/torture are just as guilty as the United States:

    ''A State which aids or assists another State in the commission of an internationally wrongful act by the latter is internationally responsible for doing so if:

    a) That State does so with knowledge of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act; and

    b) The act would be internationally wrongful if committed by that State.'' Ref

    It's clear America has satisfied both tests:

  • Rice confirms American knows about the Convention Against Torture;

  • Americans continue to kidnap citizens around the globe;

  • Those citizens are abused, as intended by the Americans;

  • American knows about the abuse; and

  • America has created new detention centers because it knows about the statutes that prohibit the abuse.

    * * *

    The issue isn't simply "what the EU liability might be" in re US rendition, but also the other way around:

    If the US knows about and supports unlawful abuse, or torture in other countries, and has assisted these countries in committing the abuse through rendition, then the US is also liable for that act of abuse.

    But the liability does not stop with the State.

    It falls upon the individuals.

    No contract or agreement to "provide immunity" is enforceable -- that agreement services only one objective -- to advance an unlawful purpose.

    Your immunity claims are absurd.

    Your employment contracts are no defense.

    Your claim that you are a "contractor" is meaningless.

    You are a party. And these are war crimes.

    Did you know that the lawful penalty for war crimes includes death?

    Remember what happened at Nuremberg: Civilians were found liable for war crimes.

    It could happen in America.

    * * *

    The entire US "Rendition Legal Defense" is premised on something that is indefensible.

    The US cannot say, "Someone else is doing the crime," -- the US because it is instrumental in providing the detainee for the torture is also part of the original criminal enterprise.

    * * *

    It's one thing to argue that the EU states are or are not liable in re their assistance over the US secret detention policies.

    Yet, the reverse argument is important: If there are crimes committed in Iraq or other nations, and the US has contributed to that conduct, that makes the US just as guilty.

    State-level guilt then rolls down to individual actors: The President, National Security Advisor, director of the CIA, and other people who knew, or should know, that unlawful acts are being committed in other countries.

    One cannot ask the world to celebrate the "great leadership" all the while pretending that "leadership" is irresponsible for "bad things."

    A leader is responsible for the good and the bad.

    Not just the convenient.

    * * *

    Here's the "big lesson" which the White House seems to have missed: One cannot simply assert that "certain people" or "certain geographic locations" are beyond US laws.

    The issue is whether the US, despite its involvement, will self-regulate or require external intervention.

    At this juncture, the US appears to be unresponsive to legal arguments. Curious, this "pattern of unresponsive conduct" was the basis for Bush to "justify" the invasion of Iraq.

    Now we know that these claims about Iraq were fiction, yet the invaders came.

    * * *

    American civilian leaders must understand: If you fail to exercise self-restraint, you are not simply turning a blind eye to crimes. You're subjecting your civilian population to lawful retaliation.

    If American leadership in the Congress fails to exercise restraint over the criminals in the White House, it is only a matter of time before the world's nations simply gang up on a bully.

    If American citizens and the Congress refuse to subject this tyrant to the rule of law, other nations will see their own safety is at threat.

    America has threatened pre-emptive attacks against those who stand up to America.

    That may have worked in the past. A bully can do alot of damage.

    But when the world sees that a bully moves without regard the laws -- standards imposed on other nations and people -- the bully has shown it must be defeated.

    Either in the court.

    Or on the battlefield.

    But America chooses to put itself above the law. Beyond the court.

    And continue the bullying.

    The world notices.

    * * *

    The world’s leaders and citizens appear more inclined to take up arms and take this fight to the battlefield. Americans, despite their crocodile tears over the "fine American judicial system and democracy" appear to have crossed the line.

    The people of the world, when they realize their personal safety is at risk at the hands of an unresponsive bully, are less inclined to care whether the short term risk is the destruction of America.

    Their survival is at risk.

    * * *

    American citizens: Realize the tyranny at home is inviting lawful retribution from abroad.

    You are outnumbered. And you do not have an infinite supply of nuclear weapons.

    The world recognizes: American is more inclined to destroy the world than to assent to the rule of law.

    America is unfit to be called a responsible, sovereign nation.

    Americans must act at home in the courtroom, otherwise the only option the world has is battle.

    It’s been four years since 9-11. The American army is exhausted in Iraq.

    It cannot possibly defend its borders.

    Does America desire to be defeated at home as well?

    * * *

    America has few friends, and few nations willing to come to your defense.

    You cannot train your own people to do simple tasks. What prospect is there to successfully propel the world citizens who take up arms to defeat a tyrant which remains a threat to the entire globe?

    When there is a long struggle, the world may choose to assert their power against a tyrant, than to face the prospect of continued enslavement at the hand of a reckless tyrant, and an irresponsible nation.

    The law, if it is real, must be allowed to prevail. Otherwise, the world shall have no choice but to take up arms and defeat Americans on the streets of America.

    The preferred forum is the court and rule of law; but the only option remaining, apparently, is the battlefield.

    America claims it takes the battle to the Middle East “so that it will not have to fight the terrorists at home.”

    Well, the world argues the same: “We may have to take the battle to America’s heartland, because we cannot tolerate tyrants and people who ignore the rule of law to continue this non-sense.”

    America is outnumbered. But it remains an arrogant bully.

    * * *

    If Americans do not reign in this tyrant within the rule of law in the court of law; the world will have no alternative than to take the dispute to the UN General Assembly.

    If Americans interfere with that vote, or assert threats to dissuade action which might otherwise stop this non-sense, the world may choose to do exactly what the law allows: To wage war in response to America’s initial, unlawful invasion of Iraq.

    It is called the defense of others. Just as the world rallies to America’s aid in the wake of Pearl Harbor.

    So too will nations see they have no option but to take this dispute to the very forum America’s leaders want: The battlefield.

    That will become the pretext American leadership needs to destroy your constitution, continue the harassment, and engage in more intrusive searches.

    Your law enforcement will continue to lie to justify stops; your FBI agents will continue to act like buffoons, offering only excuses for their failures; and your CIA will continue to suffer from its inability to attract talent to analyze simple things.

    Imagine a world where you are no longer welcome.

    That day has arrived.

    * * *

    America must assert the rule of law at home.

    Otherwise, the world will assert the law of brute force.

    We are past the choice between the Constitution and Tyranny.

    The choice is now between your way of life, and open combat on America’s streets.

    You have wished for this.

    The rule of law will prevail, even if it requires America’s defeat.


    Hoc Voluerunt !