|
but wouldn't the trial be less suspect on jurisidiction grounds if it happened in a forum that would pre-empt the argument a priori?
am i right in assuming that suspicion of the world court or the international war crimes tribunal sits on a notion of national sovereignty that is already irrelevant in terms of economic activity, decision-making etc. in many parts of the world?
is this opposition more than a defense of the basis for nationalist-oriented domestic politics?
a serious question--i would really like someone to lay out the basis.
and how did people get to be ok with show trials? i remember that ciritics of the soviet union would exercize themselves at some length about the bukharin trial or is it that show trials are only a problem if they happen in contexts that you dont approve of?
i understand that there is an argument about killing off the deposed monarch as a symbolic act, and that the legitimacy of the subsequent regime starts on a different basis after that act--but within this logic, why bother with the illusion of due process?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|