|
mojo: what you dont seem to understand if that i do not care about the notion of the nation-state. i understand nationalism as a form of collective mental disorder. the nation-state is an outmoded relic of a particular period of capitalist development. it is already effectively obsolete in significant areas of economic organization, for example.
the bush administration itself is proof that some kind of international law is required. insofar as this law is at the moment being debated across the question of how crimes against humanity should be prosecuted, it is a tactically disadvantageous position for the right--so of course they would prefer to reframe the question as one of national sovereignty---because otherwise you would find yourself arguing against the idea of war crimes, or against the idea that americans should be prosecuted for war crimes, that somehow or another there was some "essence" to being-american that made the commission of war crimes impossible.
which is pretty funny, given the close relation between the american nation-state and genocide (remember the native americans?)
or is the matter really that a genocide that you approve of is not a genocide? a war crime that you approve of on political grounds is not a war crime?
or are you saying that what really matters is how the people who carry out a genocide--or other war crimes---understand their actions?
only in cases where you politically approve of the action, of course.
if you did not approve politically, i expect you would be appalled at the same action.
as for the patriot act: i saw it as a logical consequence of the particular, cynical response on the part of the bush administration to 9/11.
whatever positions i have argued here about it are logically and politically unrelated to this question.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|