International Chaos and War or International Law? – Americans Decide on November 4

[Time for change]

Of the many vast differences between Barack Obama and John McCain, perhaps the most important is their respect – or lack thereof – for international law. Over the past 8 years, the United States under George W. Bush has embarked into an abyss of international lawlessness that threatens to destroy world civilization as we know it.

In the preface to the book, “International Justice and Impunity – The Case of the United States”, Nils Andersson and the other editors of the book describe how the United States currently poses a serious obstacle to international cooperation and peace:

Confronted with the US policies, its “war on terrorism” and its disastrous impact on global efforts to deepen and entrench the rule of law, the Association for the Defense of International Humanitarian Law, in cooperation with … assembled leading human rights intellectuals, historians, lawyers and NGO representatives… to spearhead international civil society’s response to this threat, for the well-being and positive development of humankind…

International justice cannot be credible if, on the one hand, persons responsible for crimes committed in African countries… are rightly prosecuted, while at the same time powerful countries benefit from a quasi total impunity. Since it is the world’s foremost economic and military power… the United States should provide the world with the best example of the observance and practice of human rights. It is instead responsible for some of the worst war crimes of these last decades, torture, inhuman treatment, intense bombardments causing grave civilian losses…

The Unites States record in relation to the very international law that it supposedly helped to establish is terrible. It did not ratify some of the most important treaties of humanitarian law… Nor does it respect other treaties it ratified, such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions… nor does it respect the Charter of the United Nations which prohibits wars of aggression.

George W. Bush on international law

No U.S. President has consistently exhibited as much contempt for international law as George W. Bush. Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General under Lyndon Johnson and Assistant Attorney General in the Kennedy administration, has some words to say about that in a second preface to “International Justice and Impunity”:

George Bush, by his every act, makes it clear that he thinks he is, and ought to be, above the law… He wants the United States to be exempt from the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty… He crushes Iraq on the false statement that they are preparing to develop a nuclear weapon. Even if they were, you can’t attack them. But they weren’t. And they had been bled down to where they could barely stand… While destroying this country… Bush was pushing for, and got Congressional approval for three new generations of nuclear weapons – a clear violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and a clear and present danger to life on earth…

Perhaps the most obvious and blatant activity by the United States, or perhaps any other country in history, to show its intention never to be accountable – has to do with the history of the International Criminal Court (ICC) … I have always believed that you have to have an international court if you want peace. It has to have authority and power and jurisdiction to hold all leadership accountable for international crimes…The US fought that in every way…

Philippe Sands, a lawyer specializing in international law, provides a great primer on international law and how the Bush administration (and Tony Blair) undermined international law, especially including the ICC, in his book “Lawless World – The Whistle-Blowing Account of How Bush and Blair Are Taking the Law into Their Own Hands”.

Though the Bush administration provides many excuses for its hostility to the ICC, the underlying issue appears to be that it cannot tolerate the possibility that an American could ever be tried before the Court. For example, Bush claims that the Court’s jurisdiction cannot extend to Americans because that will undermine “the independence and flexibility that America needs to defend our national interests around the world”. Sands poses the following pertinent rhetorical question to that excuse:

The flexibility to do what? The flexibility to commit war crimes? The flexibility to provide assistance to others in perpetrating crimes against humanity? The flexibility to turn a blind eye when your allies commit genocide?

Consequently, though President Clinton signed the Statute, George Bush announced in 2002 that he was unsigning the statute. And he has gone well beyond non-participation, to active sabotage. For example, the American Service members’ Protection Act authorizes the American President to “use all means necessary and appropriate” to release any American national who is “being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the ICC”; it prohibits all American cooperation with the ICC; and it does much more to undermine the ICC.


COMPARISON OF OBAMA V. MCCAIN ON RESPECT FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW

From almost everything we know about Obama and McCain, it is evident that McCain would largely continue the Bush/Cheney policies of contempt for international law, whereas Obama would radically change that pattern, to bring our country back into the community of law abiding nations. Consider the following areas of international law:


The rights of prisoners

There is perhaps nothing more basic to our system of justice than habeas corpus, which grants the right of prisoners to challenge the right of government to hold them in detention. According to Article I, Section 9 of our Constitution, a person’s right to habeas corpus cannot be suspended “unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it”.

In the absence of rebellion or invasion, George W. Bush indefinitely suspended the right of his “War on Terror” prisoners to habeas corpus or any other rights when he declared in a signed order on February 7, 2002, that “none of the provisions of Geneva apply” with regard to his “War on Terror”. That was a remarkably irresponsible action, overturning more than half a century of international law designed to introduce some civility and decency into the way that wars are prosecuted. And that assertion by George Bush set the framework for all subsequent legal advice and rulings by White House, Justice Department, and Pentagon lawyers. Not counting when President Lincoln temporarily suspended habeas corpus in response to the rebellion of our Southern states during our Civil War of 1861-65, this was the first indefinite suspension of habeas corpus in our ancestral history since it was first enacted in 1215.

McCain’s position on the rights of prisoners
John McCain made his views on this matter perfectly clear when he commented on a U.S. Supreme Court decision that presumably restored the right to habeas corpus in our country:

The presumptive GOP nominee said the decision, a 5-4 ruling Thursday that determined Guantanamo detainees have the right to seek release in civilian courts, would lead to a wave of frivolous challenges.

"We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called ... habeas corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material. And we are going to be bollixed up in a way that is terribly unfortunate…

In other words, forget nearly eight centuries of basic legal rights in western civilization. Forget more than a half century of international law. And forget our Constitution.

Obama’s position on the rights of prisoners
In response to the same court decision, Obama expressed the opposite view:

“The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo – yet another failed policy supported by John McCain," he said. "This is an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus….

Obama has commented on why, out of a sense of basic fairness, it is so important to maintain the protections of international law and our Constitution in the treatment of our prisoners:

Instead of detainees arriving at Guantanamo and facing a Combatant Status Review Tribunal that allows them no real chance to prove their innocence with evidence or a lawyer, we could have developed a real military system of justice that would sort out the suspected terrorists from the accidentally accused…

And in a separate statement, Obama left no doubt as to what actions he would take to get our nation back on track:

While we're at it, we're going to close Guantanamo. And we're going to restore habeas corpus.... We're going to lead by example, by not just word but by deed. That's our vision for the future.

Torture

McCain’s position on torture
Though McCain has achieved a reputation for challenging George Bush’s torture program, and he has in fact said that torture “should never be condoned”, for which he deserves credit, when push comes to shove, he almost always votes with Bush on supporting his torture plans.

Obama’s position on torture
Obama has been universally and strongly against torture. This is what Obama had to say about George Bush’s Military Commissions Act (which McCain voted for) and his torture programs:

The five years that the President's system of military tribunals has existed, not one terrorist has been tried. Not one has been convicted. And in the end, the Supreme Court of the United found the whole thing unconstitutional, which is why we're here today. We could have fixed all of this in a way that allows us to detain and interrogate and try suspected terrorists while still protecting the accidentally accused from spending their lives locked away in Guantanamo Bay…

Instead of allowing this President – or any President – to decide what does and does not constitute torture, we could have left the definition up to our own laws and to the Geneva Conventions…

But politics won today. Politics won. The Administration got its vote, and now it will have its victory lap, and now they will be able to go out on the campaign trail and tell the American people that they were the ones who were tough on terrorism

Nuclear non-proliferation

McCain on nuclear non-proliferation
John McCain’s idea of controlling nuclear proliferation is to put aside international law, to use our military might to prevent our “enemies” from developing nuclear weapons, without stopping to consider that maybe we should be subject to international law as well. He had this to say at the second presidential debate:

Let -- let -- let me say that we obviously would not wait for the United Nations Security Council. I think the realities are that both Russia and China would probably pose significant obstacles. And our challenge right now is the Iranians continue on the path to acquiring nuclear weapons, and it's a great threat.

Obama’s position on nuclear non-proliferation
Obama has made clear that he recognizes the futility of trying to prevent nuclear proliferation of other countries while holding ourselves above international law:

That's why it's so important for us to rebuild the nuclear proliferation – nonproliferation treaty that has fallen apart under this administration. We have not made a commitment to work with the Russians to reduce our own nuclear stockpiles. That has weakened our capacity to pressure other countries to give up nuclear technology.

And he has made clear what he would do to reverse the Bush/Cheney policies on this issue:

As president, I will work with other nations to secure, destroy, and stop the spread of these weapons in order to dramatically reduce the nuclear dangers for our nation and the world. America must lead a global effort to secure all nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites within four years – the most effective way to prevent terrorists form acquiring a bomb.

America must not rush to produce a new generation of nuclear warheads. And we should take advantage of recent technological advances to build bipartisan consensus behind ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. All of this can be done while maintaining a strong nuclear deterrent. These steps will ultimately strengthen, not weaken, our security.

Aggressive war

McCain’s position on aggressive war
John McCain’s position on aggressive war – which is a war crime – can be summed up in a single sentence of his: I agree with the (Bush) doctrine (of preemptive use of force)..." The reason that preventive war is a war crime is very simple. It’s just too easy for any country that wants to invade another country for some nefarious purpose to claim that they’re doing it in order to preemptively prevent an attack at some unspecified date in the future. So, to allow preemptive war is tantamount to allowing almost all war.

McCain’s stance on preventive war in general is mirrored by his stance on the Iraq War, for which he was a major supporter from the beginning. He co-sponsored the Iraq War Resolution that facilitated Bush’s plans for war. His saber rattling was as aggressive as anything we heard from Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld:

I believe Iraq is a threat of the first order, and only a change of regime will make Iraq a state that does not threaten us and others, and where liberated people assume the rights and responsibilities of freedom.

And his claims (though he later claimed otherwise) of how easy the war would be were also similar to those made by the Bush administration:

I know that as successful as I believe we will be, and I believe that the success will be fairly easy, we will still lose some American young men or women.

In summary, McCain supported Bush every step of the way on the Iraq War. In fact, he announced a few months ago on Mike Gallagher’s right wing radio show that “No one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have.” Indeed, that’s one statement of his that is absolutely true. And he has said that we should stay in Iraq for 100 years.

Nor is McCain’s hawkishness limited to Iraq, by any means. He is much more inclined than Obama to favor war to diplomacy, giving every indication of extending our war to Iran if elected President. That is evident when he makes jokes by singing about bombing Iran, and when he tries to set the stage for a war against Iran by lying about Iran harboring al Qaeda, despite being corrected about that lie several times.

Matthew Iglesias in an article titled “The Militarist – When it Comes to Foreign Policy, John McCain is More Bush than Bush”, sums up McCain’s enthusiasm for preventive war:

The strategic concepts he outlined back in 1999 came to be at the core of what we today term the Bush doctrine. Most significant is the emphasis on preventive war as a tool of policy. As outlined in McCain's disquisition on North Korea, the fact that some state does not, in fact, pose an imminent threat to the United States is no reason to refrain from attacking it. On the contrary, the fact that a state is non-threatening is a reason to attack it as soon as possible, lest it become more powerful over time. In Bush's hands, this concept has led not only to the fiasco in Iraq… McCain has pushed this doctrine longer, harder, and more consistently than has Bush.

Obama’s position on aggressive war
Obama, in stark contrast, does not believe in preventive war, and he was against the Iraq War from the very beginning. Here is a sample of Barack Obama’s judgment prior to the Iraq War:

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics... Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man…

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF U.S. CONTEMPT FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW

No human community, large or small, can function under a law based system when the most powerful members of the community refuse to abide under the rule of law, unless the other members of the community have enough will, organization and power to force them to do so. Thus, the consistent contempt for international law shown by the leaders of the most powerful country in the world puts in serious jeopardy the law based international system built up so carefully during the 20th Century. It tends to create what Philippe Sands calls a “Lawless World”.

Within nations, persons who refuse to abide by the laws of the land, and whose actions are generally restrained by law abiding citizens, are known as criminals. When similar types of people cannot be restrained by law abiding citizens they are known as tyrants. It is a terrible tragedy that the leaders of the United States today have placed themselves in that position within the international context: If they can be restrained by the rest of the world they are international criminals; if not, they are international tyrants.

As long as the Bush administration or people like them, such as John McCain or Sarah Palin, retain power in the United States, they will either wreak death and destruction on the rest of the world in their attempt to get what they want, or else the law abiding nations of the world will succeed in restraining them from doing so, probably relegating them to second class power status in the process. The former has been an unmitigated catastrophe, which would expand greatly over time in the absence of restraining influences.

If John McCain becomes our next President, that’s what we have to look forward to over the next 4-8 years.

[Karenina]

1. The world is watching.

[Ghost Dog]

2. Very much so.

An excellent, well-documented essay, thank you again, Time for change.

[Time for change]

12. They are

Like when he gave his great speech in Berlin:

Tonight, I speak to you as… a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world… There is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one… No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone…

While the 20th century taught us that we share a common destiny, the 21st has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history… The burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity… Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

[pnorman]

3. Thanks for all your work in compiling this!

I just Google-bookmarked this thread, for later and more careful study.

pnorman

[hobbit709]

4. The law either applies to everyone or no one at all

That is the part that the neocons have forgotten.
If you flout international law then there is no protection for you either anywhere in the world once your power fades.

[Time for change]

28. Their goal is an imperial United States

As far as they're concerned there is no law that applies to them.

[conscious evolution]

5. One of Obamas first acts needs to be

Resignining the Rome Statute and repealing the ASmPA.

Consequently, though President Clinton signed the Statute, George Bush announced in 2002 that he was unsigning the statute. And he has gone well beyond non-participation, to active sabotage. For example, the American Service members’ Protection Act authorizes the American President to “use all means necessary and appropriate” to release any American national who is “being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the ICC”; it prohibits all American cooperation with the ICC; and it does much more to undermine the ICC.

[Dystopian]

6. Excellent piece. KandR and late for work. eom. oh, thank you!

[Romulox]

7. The US won't be able to join the ICC under Obama; it's unconstitutional. nt

[Time for change]

10. Oh come on

What part of the Constitution do you think prohibits our country from joining the ICC?

And do you also think that it prohibits us from joining the UN or participating in other international treaties?

[Romulox]

14. The ICC allows for Double Jeopardy, for one...

"What part of the Constitution do you think prohibits our country from joining the ICC?"

That's a violation of the Fifth Amendment. It also does not provide for trial by jury, which is a violation of the Sixth Amendment. Moreover, any treaty that allows review and overruling of an act/ruling of the US Supreme Court is likely violative of the entire structure of the Constitution.

The drafters of the ICC treaty knew damn well that it violated the US Constitution. :hi:

"And do you also think that it prohibits us from joining the UN"

The US is a founding member of the UN. :wtf:

"...or participating in other international treaties?"

We can (and do) participate in a myriad of international treaties.

[Time for change]

16. Human Rights Watch on the constitutionality of the ICC

MYTH: The Court will violate U.S. Constitutional protections of due process

FACT: The court is designed to be a fair, independent judicial body that respects the highest standards of justice. Indeed, the ICC has one of the most extensive lists of due process guarantees ever written, many secured through the efforts of U.S. negotiators.

The Rome Statute contains a comprehensive list of rights enjoyed by any accused person, including: presumption of innocence; right to counsel; right to present evidence and to confront witnesses; right to remain silent; right to be present at trial; right to have charges proved beyond a reasonable doubt; and protection against double jeopardy.

Former U.S. State Department Legal Advisor Monroe Leigh has said: "The list of due process rights guaranteed by the Rome Statute are, if anything, more detailed and comprehensive than those in the American Bill of Rights. . . . I can think of no right guaranteed to military personnel by the U.S. Constitution that is not also guaranteed in the Treaty of Rome."

Human Rights Watch would not support the treaty if it did not contain such due process protections.

Only the right to trial by jury is missing from the Rome Treaty because of the impracticality of impaneling a jury to hear a case against someone like Pol Pot or Slobodan Milosevic. But the United States has long accepted that its citizens (including U.S. service members) will not get jury trials when accused of crimes in countries like France or Japan, where juries are not used. The United States has signed extradition treaties with many countries that explicitly permit Americans to be tried without a jury.

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/facts.htm

[Romulox]

18. Rule 150 of the ICC Rules of Procedure allow prosecutors to APPEAL AN ACQUITTAL

That is "Double Jeopardy" under the US Constitution, and HRW is simply wrong.

Section II
Appeals against convictions, acquittals, sentences and reparation orders

Rule 150

Appeal

1. Subject to sub-rule 2, an appeal against a decision of conviction or acquittal under article 74, a sentence under article 76 or a reparation order under article 75 may be filed not later than 30 days from the date on which the party filing the appeal is notified of the decision, the sentence or the reparation order.

ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Chapter 8, Section II, Rule 150 (available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/about/officialjournal/Rules_of_Proc_and_Evid_070704-EN.pdf

"Only (sic) the right to trial by jury is missing from the Rome Treaty..."

Being a "little unconstitutional" is a lot like being a "little pregnant". :hi:

[Time for change]

21. Are your large letters meant to impress anyone?

You may be a lawyer, but that doesn't negate the fact that your views on this matter are in the minority among constitutional lawyers.

Notwithstanding the large letters that you use to make your condescending point, you bring up two minor rules in the ICC to make the claim that the US couldn't join it because of its unconstitutionality. Even if those two points were valid, that certainly wouldn't prevent us from joining, while stipulating exemptions against the so-called unconstitutional rules.

Here's an opinion that disagrees with your points anyhow:

To begin with, the United States has often agreed to accept international judicial procedures that do not conform to its internal processes; for example, NAFTA and the WTO. Second, it is clear that the ICC does not in fact offend the American ideas of due process as various safeguards are entrenched in the Treaty, including, inter alia, the presumption of innocence,(147) the privilege against self-incrimination,(148) the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses(149) and the prosecutor’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.(150) Third, while it is true that trial by jury would not be available, the crimes within the ICC’s jurisdiction are generally those that would be administered by the American military’s courts martial system or through extradition of an American national to a foreign jurisdiction. In the case of a court martial, there is no right to a jury trial.(151) In non-military matters, the guarantee of a jury exists only in relation to the state or district where the offence occurred.(152) Thus, an American who commits a crime abroad risks extradition to the site of the offence and has no constitutional guarantee to a jury trial.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0211-e.htm

[Romulox]

22. Again, there is no such thing as "minor" Constitutional Amendments...

No one is condescending to you; I'm not sure why you're offended by my highlighting the relevant portions of the Rules, but there it is clear as day:

A prosecutor may appeal an acquittal under the ICC; this is blatantly unconstitutional.

[Time for change]

24. So are you saying that we couldn't join while being exempt from some minor provisions of the ICC?

I'm sorry I referred to you as condescending. I thought you were being that, but I shouldn't make assumptions like that.

But I do strongly disagree that every part of the Constitution is equally important. For example, the part in our original Constitution that counted slaves as 3/5 of a person. Nor do I feel that the double jeopardy clause is as important as habeas corpus, for example.

But if your point is that can't just pick and choose the parts of the Constitution that we will follow, then fine, I agree.

But that doesn't mean that we can't work around some of these things by exempting ourselves from some of the minor parts of the ICC, but still choosing to go along with the major parts of it -- Does it?

[Romulox]

19. Rule 74 of the ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence allows the court to COMPEL SELF-INCRIMINATION

That's a violation of the 5th Amendment. Again, HRW doesn't seem to know Constitutional law very well...

Rule 74
Self-incrimination by a witness

1. Unless a witness has been notified pursuant to rule 190, the Chamber shall notify a witness of the provisions of this rule before his or her testimony.

2. Where the Court determines that an assurance with respect to self-incrimination should be provided to a particular witness, it shall provide the assurances under sub-rule 3, paragraph (c), before the witness attends, directly or pursuant to a request under article 93, paragraph (1) (e).

3. (a) A witness may object to making any statement that might tend to incriminate him or her.

(b)Where the witness has attended after receiving an assurance under sub-rule 2, the Court may require the witness to answer the question or questions.

(c) In the case of other witnesses, the Chamber may require the witness to answer the question or questions, after assuring the witness that the evidence provided in response to the questions:

(i) Will be kept confidential and will not be disclosed to the public or any State; and

(ii) Will not be used either directly or indirectly against that person in any subsequent prosecution by the Court, except under articles 70 and 71.

http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/about/officialjournal/Rules_of_Proc_and_Evid_070704-EN.pdf

[malaise]

8. Superb post

Lawlessness is about to end.

[brer cat]

9. Excellent post.

I hope this is widely distributed.

Thanks for all your work on behalf of democracy.

Recommended.

[Time for change]

30. Thank you

Noting your avatar, I thought you might be interested in the last 2 paragraphs of the preface to "International Justice and Impunity":

We hope this book will contribute to a redoubled global effort to shed light on and curtail the criminal reality of impunity, which slanders and destroys any meaningful law of nations...

We hope it will be, in that way, a small complementary support to all those people in the United States who courageously struggle to change present US policies and to whom we express our deepest respect... as well as those eminent personalities who try to advance a different orientaton by US policies. We particularly thank in that respect President Carter, who has expressed courageous opinions in various domains and has suported our 2005 conference...

[PufPuf23]

11. Important Post that Should be Read by All

Thank you!!

[The2ndWheel]

13. There is no international governing body to implement international law

There are a few hundred regional governments all acting in their own interests.

[Time for change]

17. What is your point?

Are you implying that international institutions are worthless?

Do you not think that the ICC provides incentives for high level government officials to avoid committing war crimes?

Do you not think that the Kyoto protocol provides a means for reducing worldwide greenhouse gas emissions just because there is no international governing body with solid enforcement powers?

[Romulox]

20. I think the over-arching point is that it is difficult to discuss law with laypersons...nt

[The2ndWheel]

23. "Are you implying that international institutions are worthless?"

The way they're set up today, yeah. It also depends on which international institution you're talking about. The corporate institutions are working just fine, because they can play the few hundred individual governments against each other. The governing institutions are too diverse to keep the corporate institutions in check, so they're not working at all.

"Do you not think that the ICC provides incentives for high level government officials to avoid committing war crimes?"

Only if those officials have no power on any international stage. It all depends on where they are on the ladder, since there is no mass entity from which the laws are enforced.

"Do you not think that the Kyoto protocol provides a means for reducing worldwide greenhouse gas emissions just because there is no international governing body with solid enforcement powers?"

It may provide some type of means, but the only thing that really reduced any emissions were high prices.

Yes, there needs to be an international governing body with solid enforcement powers. You need an actual global military, not the US military. If borders mean nothing in commerce, then they can't exist for governing purposes. If we live in a global world, how can a few hundred million people choose who becomes the most powerful government official on the planet? How are environmental and labor laws to be fair across the globe if you have hundreds of individual governments acting in their own interest?

We have a global civilization. We have a global economy. We have global corporations. We have regional governments. Something in that equation doesn't add up.

[Time for change]

25. No question there are a lot of imperfections with our current UN system, and we have a long way

to go to make it a more effective institution for international law and order

But we need to work on that, if for no other reason than to fail to develop a more effective system will be catsatrophic for the good majority of inhabitants of our planet.

It's an extraordinarily complex issue, and I certainly don't have all the answers. But one thing that I feel confident in saying is that the Bush/Cheney/Neocon approach is a recipe for disaster.

We started out with 13 regional governments, and they recognized that it was in all of their interests to join together and work together. I have no doubt that it is possible (and necessary) to do that on a world wide scale, though I don't have the roadmap for doing it.

[The2ndWheel]

26. Those 13 did break away from an earlier global empire though

Some of the people did anyway, others were fine with British rule. They also had to displace a bunch of people to set up the 13 regional governments. Then they had their own fight as they grew larger than the original 13. Then they expanded even further west as a united entity, across an ocean. Then came the world wars, where other united entities tried to expand their centers of power. Like you said, a complex issue. You can go back thousands of years, with every little twist and turn.

"But one thing that I feel confident in saying is that the Bush/Cheney/Neocon approach is a recipe for disaster."

Sure, they were in it for their own power. A Pax-Americana. The thing is that there can't be an "America". There can't be a "China", "India", "Russia", "Brazil", "Britain", "Japan", "France", or "Germany" either. Until that happens, there won't be an effective institution for international law and order. The same way those 13 colonies weren't going to be as effective as individual entities. Can't let anyone break away and do their own thing though, that's sort of the whole point. There would have to be a penalty for that(like the 13 colonies with a war). Nobody gets to choose which taxes they pay, or if they pay taxes at all. A nation doesn't work if every individual citizen has that choice. Our healthcare system doesn't work because we all pay a handful of insurance companies, instead of everyone paying into the same system.

The world has to consolidate, it has to centralize. We're tied closer together economically than ever before. We're tied closer together culturally than ever before. Everything in life is merging together, except government. We still see those lines on maps. We're still living in the 20th century, at best, when it comes to government. That's why the Bush/Cheney/Neocon approach can do whatever it wants to do, when it wants to do it, and it will face no consequence.

[Time for change]

27. When I read your first post on this thread I thought you strongly disagreed with my beliefs

about this.

Now it seems to me that you agree with me.

My main point is not about the complexities of what it would take to make the UN more effective in building and maintaining a decent world (although that's obviously very important), but rather just about the first step in the process -- that the nations of the world, and most importantly the United States of America -- need to recognize the need to cooperate with each other in peace and goodwill rather than attempt to grab everything it can and rule the world.

I do agree with you that there needs to be a lot of consolidation of governments, though I don't know what form it needs to take. It seems to me that the EU has made a good start in that direction.

[pberq]

15. Excellent - bookmarked

"As long as the Bush administration or people like them, such as John McCain or Sarah Palin, retain power in the United States, they will either wreak death and destruction on the rest of the world in their attempt to get what they want, or else the law abiding nations of the world will succeed in restraining them from doing so, probably relegating them to second class power status in the process. The former has been an unmitigated catastrophe, which would expand greatly over time in the absence of restraining influences."

[Rocknrule]

29. We can't afford the GOP "give the world the finger" attitude anymore

[GetTheRightVote]

31. I hope that they see a new US tomorrow with Obama's election to President !!!

:kick::kick: