roachboy

i do not see how the horizontal or modular type organizations that the americans are dealing with in the context of the "war on terror" should mean that basic human rights can be simply blown off by the americans. it seems like a variant on mojo's position. i dont buy it.

you had the same argument from robert macnamara in "the fog of war" when he addressed the question of whether dropping agent orange was a war crime--his claim was that it was not specifically banned in the protocols so maybe it was maybe it wasnt (macnamara was pretty forthcoming in claiming the firebombing of tokyo was a war crime--but there was someone else more directly responsible for it than himself, so it was easy)...i dont buy that either.

i dont see how the americans can make the slightest claim to anything like a high ground in this "war on terror" if they are so willing to use that "war" as a pretext to use extra-legal means to their ends--this is not even to start talking about the problems that still circle around the legitimacy of the arguments for war themselves, which failed to meet any rational criteria for self-defense and so is itself being waged in violation of the un charter.

but then again, the american right thinks the un any number of bizarre things, so i am sure that does not matter either.

but you would think that the american state acting in ways that blur the line as to what is a "terrorist" organization would be a problem.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite