|
i do not see any rational basis for opposing american acceptance of the jurisdiction of with the international war crimes tribunal.
i also have found nothing like a rational argument against it in this thread. what i do see is a lot of recycling of neocon nonsense, which i assume exists because it would be difficult to market their opposition to international legal enforcement of war crimes directly. instead you get vague accusations regarding the un (not relevant) and buchananite isolationist arguments (shades of john birch again) but no actual arguments. the closest to a direct argument came from rumsfeld, who argued that the iwct would "prosecute americans arbitrarily" for war crimes, presumably because he thinks only those who lose wars are potentially guilty of war crimes, and in the fantasyland of neocon ideology, the americans never lose wars, so therefore.....
american opposition to international law regarding war crimes also puts the various fronts of bushwar in a funnny spot--it positions the americans as something of a rogue state which justifies its actions by accusing other states of being rogue states.
for the right, this irrationality is consistent enough with the other irrationalities that structure their politics as to cause no problems.
it woudl be nice to see arguments that address this matter directly: why should americans not be held accountable to international law on questions of crimes against humanity? what exactly positions the american state above international law? is there any argument to be made for this position, if you strip away residual john birch paranoia concerning the un?
or is this a delightful correlate of the appalling display of ideological self-justification on the part of the bush administration that followed its complete failure to persuade the un security council that its colonial adventure in iraq could be fobbed off as a legitimate war of self defense?
or is this some kind of opposition in principal to international law? does this extend to multilateral accords in general? this would at least be symmetrical with how bushworld in fact operates--the central critique in reality of clinton was that he was seen as being too much an advocate of multilateral agreements (thereby being insufficiently nationalist), while bushworld prefers bilateral agreements (all the better to impose exploitative conditions with, one can only assume).....
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|