US to World: "Why, Yes, The Ends DO Justify the Means"

Submitted by Uncle Mikey on 5 December, 2005 - 14:53.

We interrupt our calm review of the electoral situation in various other nations to take a look at something more specific and a bit less calm.

Today, the US Administration made perfectly, brazenly clear what its principles are in persuing Mr Bush's War, and they can be summarised more or less thusly:

  • We don't torture. No, really. Honest. Although it may depend on how you define 'torture'.
  • But we do abduct people we've decided are 'enemy combattants' and take them places we're not going to tell you about.
  • What we're doing is legal by US law, and that's the only law we actually care about.
  • These people have information. No, we don't know what information they have—if we knew that, we wouldn't need to...um...talk to them
  • This is the kicker The information we've pried...er...extract...er...obtained from these people has helped save European as well as American lives, and therefore the Europeans should shut the fuck up.

That, in a nutshell, is the message that Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice is carrying on her trip to Europe. The very last part in particular. Not, "Hrm, OK, I see you have some concerns here. You're all democratic nations and your demos are pretty pissed, so maybe we should talk about this." But, "Shut the fuck up, and tell your people to shut the fuck up. We're the Global Police and we're keeping you safe."

Now, I'm not known for being much of an internationalist. I don't believe there's any such thing as international law, I don't believe the UN is much more than a corrupt money sink that hosts an occasionally useful debating club, and I don't believe that all uses of force are inherently bad or wrong.

But how in hell can we claim to want to spread democracy when we're doing everything we can to suppress it, manipulate it, or discredit it?!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

law v. treaty

#15 On 5 December, 2005 17:15 Sisuile (not verified) said,

International law is a fuzzy thing. I'm not talking about the U.N. I'm talking about all the treaties and accords we've signed, ratified, and generally agreed to have the force of law. The Bush Administration has pretty much decided things like Geneva don't apply anymore...which scares the living daylights out of me. If they don't apply to us, then they also no longer apply for us. And where does that put us the next time we go to war and soldiers are captured?

Treaties

#18 On 5 December, 2005 19:56 Uncle Mikey said,

IMO, a treaty is not international law. It's a written agreement to implement national laws in synchrony. The law, however, is still national.

This is also why I'm OK with our refusal to have anything to do with the International Court of Justice. Such a court has no legitimacy, because courts are a function of government, and there is no such thing as an international government.

We signed the Geneva Conventions, and they're a part of our law. If we're violating them, that's a violation of our law.

"...and therefore the Europeans should shut the fuck up."

#16 On 5 December, 2005 19:33 Michelle the Cynical (not verified) said,

Well. We've been pretty much saying that since WE won World War II, though.

You're not entirely wrong :-)

#17 On 5 December, 2005 19:53 Uncle Mikey said,

We've been calling a lot of the shots in Europe for quite some time, it's true. But we've been making some effort to make them feel included on decisions that involved their own soil. In this case, we're basically telling them to pay no attention to the man behind their own curtains.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.