Foreign Combat Forces Remain Poised To Lawfully Remove GOP Leadership

Humanitarian interventions are lawful under the laws of war. American legal assertions in Yugoslavia, prior to the NATO bombing, may give some Republican strategists pause: The world leadership is prepared to impose the same demands and ultimatum on the United States leadership.

The world awaits the voter's decision; then they will move to protect what American citizens refuse to assert: Their way of life, and good order and society. The legal argument -- because the leadership voted for immunity on war crimes, they show they are not serious about complying with the Geneva conventions -- was behind the American bombing and invasion of Yugoslavia and Iraq; there's every reason to expect the same of the invasion of the United States.

* * *

The GOP may have second thoughts on the election results, just as they've had with the Iraq invasion. Whether the American leadership is lawfully defeated at the ballot box or lawfully removed from power through lawful combat is of little consequence.

America's standards and goals for Iraq were not intended to be met; America's requirement to meet its international obligations is an standard it has no option but to satisfy.

There's a long list of American defiance of the rule of law, closely matching the list of complaints America made about Yugoslavia and Iraq. Each American legal and political maneuver sends a clear message: America, like Yugoslavia and Iraq, is not willing to assent to external standards, or norms of civilized societies.

First it was the illegal military commissions act; then it was the Perle admission that they had no exhausted all military options; then the President declining to admit evidence of war crimes; now Cheney refuses to consider responding to a subpoena.

The common themes: American leadership is doing the same as Yugoslavia did:

- Retroactively (illegally) immunizing themselves against war crimes;

- Refusing to assent to the rule of law;

- Making excuses for war crimes; and

- Asserting they are not accountable to judicial review.

The pattern of conduct was rebuked during the Iran-Contra affair -- something Cheney said should be investigated. Now the target of the investigation, the Vice President, unlike the Iran-Contra affair, doesn't want investigations.

He's against investigations, while he was previously for them.

* * *

Some in the GOP believe they can pull a fast one on rural Americans, inducing them to vote for or against a specific candidate. This may win the election for them.

Regardless the election results, GOP defiance of the rule of law -- which GOP strategies bemoaned to justify the impeachment of Clinton -- face a larger audience on the world stage.

US troops stationed in Iraq have enough time to make propaganda signs, participate in politics, and target Members of Congress and US citizens for exercising their rights; yet, their commanders would have us believe that they're in an impossible situation. It's one thing to talk about the rule of law and American values; quite another to impose the worst version of American values on those who have other views.

American leaders hope to intimidate American voters to assent to illegal war, but foreign fighters are not bound to election results, especially when the law is on their side.

Just as Saddam's sentence has been received with open arms -- that justice has been done -- may the world see the same justice done against the United States leadership: That they may face a fair trial; and if they refuse to cooperate or respond to lawful sanctions, that the campaign to remove them from power, as was done in Yugoslavia and Iraq, is swift.

Whether the voters do or do not comprehend the international implications is of little concern. No foreign fighter, after being abused, has any reason to listen to the whines of Americans as fighters lawfully retaliate against a defiant GOP leadership, intent on continuing illegal war and abuse.