Right wing Poison
watchbird | 05.10.2002 19:03
The hypocrisy and sheer criminal psychopathology of some of these self-proclaimed "patriots" and "law and order" types is breathtaking.
There has been rationalization ad nauseum of late among right-wingers that the President's war on Iraq is a "defensive" action justified by International Law and Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In an opinion piece for the National Review titled "Leviathan to the Rescue" ( 
http://www.nationalreview.com/14oct02/johnon101402.asp ) author Paul Johnson speciously argues that the US is "lawfully empowered to take action against Iraq by Article 51 of the UN Charter."
Mr. Johnson asserts in his article that:
******
" ... Article 51 states plainly that nothing in the charter 'shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense . . . until the Security Council has taken [the] measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.' It is the last two words which are crucial. A year ago, the U.S. was subjected to an unprovoked attack of an unprecedented kind, which not only killed 3,000 people and destroyed much of the country's main financial district but was designed also to destroy America's legislative body and/or its executive, and its main defense headquarters. The scale of the attack, and the presumption that it would be followed by others, gave the U.S. the right, under Article 51, to punish the aggressors and to take all necessary steps to ensure its future security by destroying the source of their power, present and future."
******
He goes on to argue:
******
"the need to eliminate regimes which, in one way or another, make international terrorism on a large scale possible and threaten to produce mass-destructive terrorism. Such states include not only all 'the usual suspects' - Iran, Libya, Syria, Cuba, and North Korea (as well as Iraq) - but Saudi Arabia too, whose authoritarian monarchy pays protection money to terrorists and spreads the religious fundamentalism which lies at the root of the problem."
******
Mr. Johnson is arguing that the US is justified in pursuing whatever action it wants - against whomever it wants - because the UN failed to prevent the September 11 attacks by "tak(ing) the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." In short, Mr. Johnson is saying "Something bad happened to us and the United Nations failed to prevent it; we therefore declare the United Nations to be irrelevant, and intend to pursue a campaign of murder and conquest to avenge ourselves and insure our future security."
The hypocrisy and sheer criminal psychopathology of some of these self-proclaimed "patriots" and "law and order" types is breathtaking. If someone invades my home, common law recognizes my right to use reasonable force if necessary to protect myself or my family, but only if lives are threatened, and then only until there is no longer an immediate threat. This is true even in the unthinkable event that a member of my family has been murdered. If, in my anger or grief, I arm myself, travel to an area I believe is frequented by the intruder, and cold-bloodedly start shooting people **I think** may be the intruder's friends (or of a racial or socioeconomic profile **I believe** likely to commit home intrusions), I am guilty of multiple counts of first degree murder, and no question about it. No amount of rationalizing the ineffectiveness or irrelevance of the police department (no matter how true that might be) will change that fact or mitigate the jury's finding.
In promoting this brand of poison, the Bush administration and people like Mr. Johnson represent the greatest threat not only to world peace but ultimately to our own security. Even if one accepts the transparent lie that the United States is motivated only by security concerns - and not by oil, empire and world supremacy - the doctrine espoused by these reactionaries violates all the principles of the Nuremburg Tribunals and stands on its head the body of laws and ideals the US claims to hold so dear.
On a secondary (but no less-important) level, the actions rationalized by the US as "justified" teach indelible lessons that promote a lawless society, a retro-vigilante culture where lynch mob justice and gangster mentality are seen as virtues.
There were good reasons for exiling Napolean, executing the Nazi war criminals, and imprisoning Al Capone. They were all of a kind with those who now threaten world peace by ignoring the rule of law and pursuing a policy that promises to set back civilization to the time of the vandals and visigoths.
http://www.nationalreview.com/14oct02/johnon101402.asp ) author Paul Johnson speciously argues that the US is "lawfully empowered to take action against Iraq by Article 51 of the UN Charter." Mr. Johnson asserts in his article that:
******
" ... Article 51 states plainly that nothing in the charter 'shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense . . . until the Security Council has taken [the] measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.' It is the last two words which are crucial. A year ago, the U.S. was subjected to an unprovoked attack of an unprecedented kind, which not only killed 3,000 people and destroyed much of the country's main financial district but was designed also to destroy America's legislative body and/or its executive, and its main defense headquarters. The scale of the attack, and the presumption that it would be followed by others, gave the U.S. the right, under Article 51, to punish the aggressors and to take all necessary steps to ensure its future security by destroying the source of their power, present and future."
******
He goes on to argue:
******
"the need to eliminate regimes which, in one way or another, make international terrorism on a large scale possible and threaten to produce mass-destructive terrorism. Such states include not only all 'the usual suspects' - Iran, Libya, Syria, Cuba, and North Korea (as well as Iraq) - but Saudi Arabia too, whose authoritarian monarchy pays protection money to terrorists and spreads the religious fundamentalism which lies at the root of the problem."
******
Mr. Johnson is arguing that the US is justified in pursuing whatever action it wants - against whomever it wants - because the UN failed to prevent the September 11 attacks by "tak(ing) the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." In short, Mr. Johnson is saying "Something bad happened to us and the United Nations failed to prevent it; we therefore declare the United Nations to be irrelevant, and intend to pursue a campaign of murder and conquest to avenge ourselves and insure our future security."
The hypocrisy and sheer criminal psychopathology of some of these self-proclaimed "patriots" and "law and order" types is breathtaking. If someone invades my home, common law recognizes my right to use reasonable force if necessary to protect myself or my family, but only if lives are threatened, and then only until there is no longer an immediate threat. This is true even in the unthinkable event that a member of my family has been murdered. If, in my anger or grief, I arm myself, travel to an area I believe is frequented by the intruder, and cold-bloodedly start shooting people **I think** may be the intruder's friends (or of a racial or socioeconomic profile **I believe** likely to commit home intrusions), I am guilty of multiple counts of first degree murder, and no question about it. No amount of rationalizing the ineffectiveness or irrelevance of the police department (no matter how true that might be) will change that fact or mitigate the jury's finding.
In promoting this brand of poison, the Bush administration and people like Mr. Johnson represent the greatest threat not only to world peace but ultimately to our own security. Even if one accepts the transparent lie that the United States is motivated only by security concerns - and not by oil, empire and world supremacy - the doctrine espoused by these reactionaries violates all the principles of the Nuremburg Tribunals and stands on its head the body of laws and ideals the US claims to hold so dear.
On a secondary (but no less-important) level, the actions rationalized by the US as "justified" teach indelible lessons that promote a lawless society, a retro-vigilante culture where lynch mob justice and gangster mentality are seen as virtues.
There were good reasons for exiling Napolean, executing the Nazi war criminals, and imprisoning Al Capone. They were all of a kind with those who now threaten world peace by ignoring the rule of law and pursuing a policy that promises to set back civilization to the time of the vandals and visigoths.
watchbird
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
Link is broken
05.10.2002 20:58
.
Extinction or Revolution?
05.10.2002 21:48
They invent genetically modified crops, creatures and diseases to upset the delicate planetary balance. They spray toxic chemicals into our sky, every day, from which there is no escape or relief. They harbour doomsday viruses which could cull the bulk of humanity. In short, those who control global affairs, hate our world. They want war, destruction, chaos, pain, suffering, death, hunger and mayhem.
We entrust our lives, hopes and dreams for planet Earth, to madmen. Mass murderers, serial killers, rapists and paedophiles are ordaining our future, but the really sad thing is, we gave them that power, the power to bring extinction to the human race. It doesn’t have to be this way, we can reclaim our world, before it is too late.
What other choice is there?
Sodom and Gomorra
not just watch, write and speak !
06.10.2002 09:04
This is really an instructive peace of writing.
But, I will come to another issue about the conservative powers after a few lines.
Mr. johnson's view implies also that a superior power must control all life.
This "leviathan" notion for one culture may be desirable, but for all others it may be not. But the leviathan principle implies that it should rule above them all. I perceive it as kind of babylonian tower. If the souvereignty of countries is reduced to the right of one country only, it is not forseeable, how mankind will react in the long term. So look at those, who are so optimistic in this. What is their goal? Not mine. Yours?
Is this progress ? an idea of seventeenth century ? what do these people want sell to us ? there was not one human power in history, that wasn't later on overtaken by the "evil", before eventually it broke down. so how much bloodshed will all that greatness cost us ?
The idea of re-unification of south-asia is an outcome of this principle and a continuation of US kissinger style third world politics. There is already a military cooperation between american and indian troups that is, btw, partly directed to controlling the strait of malacca, which is the aorta of south-east asian economy. And - guess, who is on the way to re-program their own financial systems to achieve a greater independence from the dollar currency and IMF? Exactly, south-east asia, and there are talks with china and japan to cooperate on this issue. This defines an ememy, doesn't it?
India has an advantage to contribute in disturbing this process:
its upcoming of religious fascist groups, and a high level of corruption. As brute and reckless these forces are, and with the type of support the mojaheddin and taliban received, maybe they can "unite" india. But maybe not. India is way too complex and huge for such an undertaking.
- Is life better when a whole planet is tied down to leviathan regime order (or pax americana), while its defenders still have to pay life toll in their eternal fight of justice, or could we live in relative freedom and accept that there is imperfection, dissent, crime, and human errors, as well as earthquakes and taifuns ?
the conservatives are convinced that they have a lot to say about this issue. but I'm afraid, they don't exactly know who they are themselves.
there are consercative people, who want to protect life, lawful order, nature, social life, and they want to live up to their belief in God.
and then, there are these, who want to protect wealth and power first, and tell us, this is to protect _us_. what a pity, there is an enemy that has to be destroyed to acheve this. why is he an enemy? because of his evilness. what is evil ? anything that endangers or limits wealth and power of our protectors.
whatever the truth is, the result is destruction. how conservative !
THE MESSENGERS OF THE RIGHT
so I am coming to the real point of my comment:
adjacent to the political and judicial faces of the conservative forces, there is the authoritative, disciplinary one, say this educational public work, the power of the _word_. only with consent of the masses, the Bush clique could go so far.
I would like to present to you a main portal of conservative opinions, that is produced for the "common man". here you can find all the big and small trick and tweaks, how to explain to average minds, that there is only GOOD and EVIL, no GREY, and who _is_ in fact GOOD, and what they have to fight for.
there are many others, but this one is hailed by the united press, and has a remarkable quality, besides its silent mission to keep higher notions of education out of view.
anyone who has ever heard of Wittgenstein, Sir Karl Popper, Heinz von Foerster, (to mention only a few philosophers, and not too un-conservative ones; this is about the theory of science and perception) should know, that in real world there can not be such a thing or person, that is hundred percent good or hundred percent evil. in any moment of life you have to decide from new, which is the better way to go. experience and education help, but do not guarantee anything.
so why do these media pundits preach such a stupid world view? it is not worth for an intelligent being, it leads to destruction, and it keeps minds low.
finally, take a look into two articles, and then try the whole portal (there are christian, and jewish authors). many ideas and critical remarks are totally true and could help NGOs, left groups, environmentalists, and many politicians and managers, to discover their mistakes and do it better.
but, on the other hand, there is always a detrimental conclusion at the bottom line, that is trying to destroy solidarity among the not-so-wealthy, recommending an eye for an eye fight, bashing Islam, or homosexuals, or feminists, and - be meticulous in your reading to find this out - there is very often a bias towards a certain corporation (e.g. pharma branch, or weapons industry), or an attempt to compromise a certain democratic, green, or left politician, placed between the lines. watch how this is done rhetorically.
(also, find out their point about public schools. only public schools have a solid mission in yielding a non-biased view. the reason is not only public responsibility, but the attendants themselves. no one obeying law can be kept out. everyone can complain about biased lessons. private schools ? take it or leave it...)
and find out what they think about Europe: a bunch of cowardish, leftist, anti-semitic crackheads we are. we see the world grey in grey, as we are sitting in our coffee houses, full with tobacco or pot smoke...
we must speak out against these false constructions of journalism. we must find out the right answers to deconstruct such stuff, that poisons the hearts and minds of whole populations. we must be in place, whenever they trumpet out a new argument of good and evil against their enemies, and correct it. tell them they are wrong. speak, and write mails and letters.
we must not let them rule, or war will rule.
and beware your stomachs, when you read all this:
(but there are also some good articles, search for them)
"...he obvious fact that America could do a far better job of governing the world single-handedly than in collaboration with the world. So as Bush finishes his father's work in Iraq, moves to undo Carter's handiwork in Iran, digs out from under Clinton's work everywhere and continues Reagan's work everywhere, he proves that getting one's hands dirty pursuing what is right is far less evil than keeping one's hands clean enabling the spread of what is wrong. "
this one is righteously against anti-semitism. but how hopelessly pessimistic, how polarizing...
(see the archives also.)
read here silverberg, krauthammer, chavez, malkin, limbaugh, chafets, then all the paper mags anywhere.
learn, how they do it. do it the better.
opinion constructs facts. facts build opinion. complex ? never give in!
devil's advocate
to devil's advocate
06.10.2002 22:01
What do you define evil? For the majority of the people in the world evil may be rapprented as amrica and israel, and vice versa.
Evil, whatever difinition someone may put on it, should be visible in what governments are doing.
Lies are mere a disconfort (if none at all, just look at Bush) for countries who pursue criminal activities in the name of any crap gods, ideologies. and economic factors. Evil is the simple justification for rogue states do to what they want against countries and people who do not adhere to their accepted doctrine.
Irael and USA are EVIL countries, because they do not give a damn about any logic or justifications to do what they do. Israel is invented a new history that suit them, without even looking to facts that may contradict them and in this false history palestinians do not exist.
America is in the same mood, inventing every day history to justify crimes against humanity.
Palestinians do not have any army to resist the mighty military power like israel, isn't that a cowardice country? Is the demented Sharon going to war or are the manipulated and indoctrinated soldiers doing for him?
Is Bush going to war? There is justification he is a truly coward man.
mackno