Rule of Law or of the Ruthless: Why Law? International or Otherwise?
by Prof. Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii | February 14, 2013 12:26 am
'The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the
peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek
to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so
devastating that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because
it cannot survive their being repeated..* We must never forget that the
record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which
history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice
is to put it to our own lips as well. We must summon such detachment and
intellectual integrity to our task that this trial will commend itself to
posterity as fulfilling humanity'' (Opening address at the first Nuremberg
Trial by Justice Robert H. Jackson, Representative and Chief of Counsel for
the United States of America)*
'Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem
it necessary to repel an invasion' and you allow him to make war at
pleasure' If today he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade
Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You
may say to him,''I see no probability of the British invading us'; but he
will say to you, 'Be silent: I see it, if you don't.' '(Abraham Lincoln
Letter 1848, see Abraham Lincoln: a Documentary Portrait Through His
Speeches and Writings. Don E. Farenbacher, editor. 1996. Stanford
University Press, Stanford.)
'Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even
listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.'
(President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Presidential news conference, 11 August
1954)
v
WHY INTERNATIONAL'OR ANY'LAW?
In a sense, the answer to the question 'Why International Law' is partly
another question: 'Why any kind of law? The answer is both simple and not
so simple. Law has always existed of course as an instrument of class rule
[1]
.
It also exists to protect the whole from its parts as well as to protect
its parts from the whole and/or the more powerful elements of that whole.
Law exists to protect the individual from a collective majority that may be
wrong, tyrannical and even in violation even of its own supposed core
principles and interests.
Law also exists to protect the collective from narcissists and tyrannical
criminals intent on the destruction of the collective. This applies to
individual persons as well as individual social formations, nation-states
or organizations.
History shows, and this is the basis for the evolution of the content and
scopes of Law, that in the real world of competing and often ruthless,
predatory, covert and evil forces with no respect for any Law, that either
it is the rule of Law or the rule of the most Ruthless that will occur and
prevail; there is no in-between.
Any system, of any form, that is made up of contradictory, often hostile
and competitive parts or elements, with contradictory and competing
interests driving them, is potentially threatened by the forms and effects
of competition and contradictory interests prevailing among its parts,
processes and players.
And in the context of increasing globalization and interdependence, the
same applies with respect to competing and antagonistic national social
formations potentially threatening the global community and other
interdependent national social formations that make it up.
Wars, genocide and various kinds of 'WMDs' (Weapons of Mass Destruction,
Distraction, Deception) by their nature, and by virtue of their increasing
lethality and sophistication, threaten nations not even directly part of
any conflicts between nation-states with spillover effects that ripple and
amplify throughout the global community and its parts. The wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, of the kind Nazis were hanged for at Nuremberg, illustrate
that point[2] .
And as the WMDs get more sophisticated, lethal, versatile, mobile, adaptive
(while not nearly as 'precise' and 'accurate' as asserted by those who use
them) their spillover effects become more not less pervasive and
threatening to the whole global collective.
The rule of Law only works when the majority of a group voluntarily obey
it; seeing it in their interest to obey the very Law they invoke for their
own personal security, without threats of sanctions and costly monitoring
for compliance and impositions of sanctions.
This occurs only when'and because'the majority subject to Law see that they
gain far more from obeying the rule of Law than trying to circumvent it or
game the Law, with word and other games. This leaves critical and scarce
resources of law enforcement free to focus on the few who consciously and
calculatingly break the Law; often the same Law they hold others to and
selectively invoke for their own protection.
But the majority typically obeys Law only when there is transparency and
accountability in all phases of Law so they can come to believe that it
applies to all without fear or favor. That is why a core requirement of any
body of Law to be accepted and obeyed by the majority are some kinds of
constitutional clauses for 'equal protection, application of and
accountability under Law that are actually enforced and are perceived to be
being enforced without fear of or favor to anyone.
In the U.S. Constitution for example, are balancing tests between federal
and state powers and authorities. Various forms of competition and
antagonistic interests between the states, or perhaps between entities
within states, may produce corrosive spillover effects that threaten the
whole federal union as well as other individual states in particular'as has
happened many times in U.S. history.
Basically, under most federal systems, there is a hierarchy of authority
and powers: federal law trumps state or provincial law; state or provincial
law trumps county law; county law trumps municipal law. And for the same
reasons and logic, international law, when accepted and codified in
treaties, trumps national law and even the constitutions of nations
ratifying treaties under supremacy clauses mandated by the Canons of Treaty
Construction and Constitutions.
Why is this so? Why are there 'supremacy clauses' in all valid treaties and
constitutions?
Because otherwise nations could sign and ratify treaties, and gain
consideration from others for having signed and being held to all the terms
of them, while only selectively adhering to the parts of the treaties they
favor and gain from while refusing to recognize and adhere to the parts
they do not like; typically under the banners or covers of 'conflicts' with
'national sovereignty', 'nation-state law' (then do not sign the treaty if
parts of it are seen as problematic).
A perfect example is the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This treaty came out of the Nuremberg
trials at which the U.S. was a prime mover and force (even as some 380 U.S.
corporations continued to trade with the Nazis and Japanese and Italian
fascists throughout Word War II).
The likes of the Prescott Bush, George Herbert Walker, Henry Ford and other
leading American financiers and industrialists were principal financiers of
Hitler and the Nazis from 1924
onward[3];
and even part owners, in the case of the Bushes along with Fritz Thyssen,
of a plant at Auschwitz using slave labor.
Yet the U.S. did not sign and 'ratify' the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide
until 1988, 40 years later; and even today, the U.S. is not considered a
signatory to it by its major allies due to the Helms, Lugar and Hatch
'Sovereignty Amendment' that says that anything in the UN Convention that
contradicts the U.S. Constitution or any laws of the U.S., as interpreted
only by the U.S. is thus null and
void[4]
.
This of course directly contradicts Article VI Section 2, the 'Supremacy
Clause' of the U.S. Constitution itself:
*'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made
in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under
the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.'*
Law is about principles and their evolution and application to the conduct,
behavior, interactions and agreements of entities covered by Law whether
individuals, organizations, corporations or nation-states. Law is not only
about rights and core values; it is also about responsibilities, limits,
accountability, redress in the event of breaches of Law and more.
The real content, scopes, depths, angles and degrees of equality of
application and protection of Law say a lot about the true nature,
character and intentions not only of Law, but of the types and natures of
the societies, systems and rulers who develop and administer Law.
Because Law is supposed to be about principles not personalities,
connections, status or power, Law does not recognize or formally allow for
any inequalities between individuals, organizations or nation-states as
relevant to the application of or accountability to it.
Under the Doctrine of 'Rule of Law' there are no derivative or supporting
'doctrines' of 'Exclusivism', 'Exceptionalism', 'Preordination' [e.g.
Calvinism for wealth, to rule, or for special 'exception'] or 'Superpower
Triumphalism' that are consistent with and that do not undermine, the 'Rule
of Law'.
A quick scan of human history shows that those empires that self-asserted
and imposed their own 'doctrines' of 'Exceptionalism', 'Pre-emption', etc.,
often to the very same Law to which they purported to hold others, not only
eventually resorted to claims of protection under the very same
international law they had serially and unapologetically breached and even
helped to evolve through customary usage; those empires also all went the
way of all hegemonic empires imploding under the weight of their internal
contradictions, hubris and very costly (in blood, treasure and credibility)
imperial overreach.
In International Law, which applies to conduct and interactions of nations
and nation-states, not to individuals or groups of individuals within
nation states (except in some cases of genocide and 'R2P', as in the case
of evolving domestic and international Law of multi-nation nation-states),
there is no recognition of or for differences between superpowers versus
small nation-states in terms of coverage and application of Law.
In International Law there is a presumption of equality of nation states in
terms of applicability and accountability of Law. This is for the same
reasons that domestic Law does not recognize, formally at least, exemptions
from coverage of Law due to celebrity, wealth, connections or the like as
that would nakedly undermine the general application of and obedience to
Law.
Inequality in the application, coverage, rights, responsibilities. duties
and penalties of Law undermines all of Law even for those who personally
and selectively benefit from disparate treatment and coverage of Law as a
long list of revolutions in the past can attest: hubris and power of the
rich individuals and nation have their limits as well as dates with history
awaiting them.
All the nation-states that have evolved International Law from the times of
the 'Peace of Westphalia' recognized that no nation-states, even the most
bellicose and unapologetic for their brutality and hubris went to war
openly without pretexts, masks or cover stories for their aggression; they
all had some kind of narrative and justifications for the most barbarous of
their wars and aggressive intentions.
THE EVOLUTON OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
International law has evolved from the time of the first emergent Spanish
and Portuguese nation-states in the 14th and 15th centuries, basically to
ratify and legitimate their conquests and property acquisitions.
This was the period of 'primitive accumulation' of capital with the rise of
capitalism. Property acquired, and whole nation-states formed through
theft, conquest, fraud, genocide, terrorism, slavery, colonialism, as in
the case of the United States, needs to be 'legitimated' with evolving
'property tights' otherwise that acquired through plunder may be taken away
by others through the same methods it was originally acquired with as much
legitimacy as in the case of the original primitive accumulations.
Thus, under capitalism, property has to be titled in some way as not to
legitimate others taking and holding the property through the same methods
it was originally acquired. That is why the French anarchist Proudhon
claimed that 'All property is theft.'
The same applies to international law governing nations and changes in
nations, their boundaries and governments. Nation-states, colonies and
empires that developed out of conquest, colonialism, imperialism, war and
the like risk themselves being changed, overthrown or eliminated through
the same means by which they were formed or extended.
International law, along with the legal constructs of nations and
nation-states were developed further during the period of the so-called
'Peace of Westphalia' after a long period of new nation-states savaging
each other in protracted and brutal wars that sabotaged their rise and
prosperity.
Groups of people are recognized or not recognized as de-facto nations and
nation-states on the basis of facts on the ground and applicable law; not
by recognition or non-recognition by any powers,
superpowers[5].
Were it not so, small nations or any nations could be isolated and
extinguished, and many have suffered this fate in history, with simple
non-recognition of them as nations or nation states.
Thus the fundamental right of nations and nation-states not to be
exterminated by foreign aggression and intrigue, along with the necessary
derivative rights of self-determination, independence, non-interference in
internal affairs and sovereignty necessary to prevent their fundamental
right against extermination as nations and nation-states is simply denied
by fiat.
There was the recognition even before the so-called period of the Peace of
Westphalia in the early 1600s, that in the case of any nation or
nation-state holding others to the same Law that it routinely violates
itself, that rule of the Ruthless, instead of Law, will likely prevail and
will, threaten the whole global community in general as well as various
nations and nation-states in the particular'including those serially
violating the same Law they hold others to.
International Law evolved with the recognition that no nation-state openly
and nakedly conspires to launch and wage wars of aggression, crimes against
the peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity, regime change and
destabilization campaigns except under pretexts. Not even the Nazis in
Europe and elsewhere or the Japanese fascists in China and elsewhere
launched aggressive wars without pretexts, lies, cherry picked intelligence
and the lot.
This was partly the basis for Nazis charged with Conspiracy at Nuremberg as
the creation of pretexts, lies, cherry picked intelligence and other
fabrications to try to justify war shows mens rea and intent, as well as
consciousness of guilt as there is no need for lies and pretexts to justify
an inherently defensive, proportional, last-resort, no-alternative and thus
'Just War'.
The same applies to the U.S. wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and
in the many brush and proxy wars of the U.S. since 1945. The so-called
'Pentagon Papers' leaked by Daniel Ellsberg who had helped to write them
and thus knew what was in them were so dangerous as they showed clearly
that the U.S. Government not only consciously and carefully lied to the
American People (The Vietnamese knew the truth they suffered it every day)
but they never believed their own lies.
When Johnson and prior-presidents were declaring steady progress on the
ground in Vietnam, their own internal reports showed steady losses and a
war that could not be won. The Pentagon Papers also showed they were well
aware they were in violation of the same international law that was invoked
to hang Nazis at Nuremberg and Japanese war criminals in Tokyo.
IMPERIAL HUBRIS, TERRORISM AND EXCEPTIONALISM
Today the U.S. stands as not only a superpower or even hyper-power, but as
the main example of self-declared and self-asserted constructs such as
'Exceptionalism'. The Government of the U.S. openly and brazenly declares
itself exempt from its own stated founding and Constitutional principles.
American citizens can now be summarily declared 'enemy combatants' and
summarily executed from the air by drone strikes along with any other
family members near them; with no indictment, no trial, no formal charges,
no due process and for no other reason than drone strikes are less costly
in blood and treasure, involve less imperial overreach, are less costly and
protracted counter-insurgency campaigns that result in body bags of
American troops coming home and undermining mass support and 'manufactured
consent' for the wars (only in the short-run not when long-run 'Blowback'
effects are considered.
Due process becomes not a right for all Americans and those living in
America, or a basic human right, but a 'luxury' contingent on and only when
it is not being costly to formally respect. The Drone strikes also are done
not only covertly but as clandestine operations (covert means secret but
not deniable if discovered; clandestine means secret and 'plausibly
deniable') and thus no accountability for or record of the real costs,
casualties, 'collateral damage' etc. of these drone strikes.
The same applies to the existence, development and testing of nuclear and
other weapons. Under international law, which develops out of customary
usage and applications becoming precedents, any nation-state that is
allowed to hold and develop nuclear or any kind of weapons with impunity,
gives sanction, precedent and authority for the same for all other
nation-states.
There is no notion of supposed 'virtuous' nation-states over 'non-virtuous'
nation-states in terms of supposed 'democratic' or 'virtuous' nation-states
like the U.S., Britain, Israel, Apartheid South Africa, Pakistan, India,
being 'allowed' to hold, develop and test WMDS while supposed
'non-virtuous' nation-states like China, the DPRK, former USSR now Russia
or other former republics of the USSR not having the same sovereign rights
and reasons for their own WMDs.
If WMDs threaten all of humanity collectively due to their lethality and
destructive forces, then it does not matter who holds them as they
constitute a 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over all of humanity. The notion
of Israel not only developing and holding nuclear weapons, but with a
stated policy of 'The Samson
Option'[6],
while threatening Iran and the U.S. threatening the DPRK is hypocrisy and
superpower hubris of the first order.
The same principles and logic apply with respect to all forms [what they
call 'Doctrines'] of Preemption, Unilateralism and Exceptionalism in the
conduct of war, breaches of resolutions and sanctions, or any military
actions allowed for any nation; they give license'and licence'along with
authority and precedent, for other nation-states to undertake the same
kinds of actions using the same rationales and pretexts when and if they
also acquire the power and status to do so.
International law is supposed to apply to all nation-states without fear or
favor; and when it does not, and then we have a recipe for world wars,
proxy wars, regional wars, insurgencies and counter-insurgencies, social
systems engineering campaigns, genocide and other ills that have threatened
humanity collectively since even before the legal construct or recognition
of the nation-state.
Strict and consistent adherence to international law is also in the
interest of all nation-states in the long-run. Those nations engaging in
naked hypocrisy and selective obedience to and invocations of international
law, they admit, in doing so, their own weakness and impotence.
Just as insurgent groups admit weakness and impotence when they move from
protracted insurgencies to desperate and alienating (of the hearts and
minds of the people they seek to recruit) forms of terrorism, so it is the
same with counter-insurgency (COIN) campaigns that lapse into
high-tech-intensive forms of counter-terrorism such as drone strikes,
carpet bombings, special-operations raids and extraordinary renditions.
Just as terrorism winds up recruiting more hearts and minds against those
engaging in it, so it is that high-tech 'counter-terrorism' (CT) campaigns
do the same with their inexorable, callous and rationalized 'collateral
damage'. The same applies with respect to other forms of serial violations
of international law such as launching and waging wars of aggression and
war crimes under pretexts of COIN or CT.
KARMA TIME FOR IMPERIAL BULLYING AND HYPOCRISY
Literature from many diverse cultures deal with the theme of the ultimate
Karma of the bully; whether an individual, a government or a whole system
such as imperialism. The bully is a predator but picks his fights carefully
never to lose because a bully relies on fear to rule and a notion of
omnipotence. Deep down, however, the bully does not have the confidence he
projects and that is partly why he is a bully who rules or influences
through bullying rather than reason or even cooptation.
But the bully inevitably makes more enemies than friends. Even his toadies
and sycophants who fear him and stay near him for illusory protection,
secretly hate him for exposing their own cowardice, lack of independence
and self-respect, and even and their own impotence embodied in their
sycophancy. And the bully will eventually meet his match; like some 6 foot
6 inch 270 lb thug running into Jet Li.
Typically when the bully loses, he tries to regain some face by infantile
yet destructive and deadly acts of 'payback' to try to regain what has been
lost and can never be regained'respect coming out of a created fear that he
could never be beaten by picking his fights never to lose.
His attempts to give or restore the illusions of omniscience, omnipotence
and omnipresence become increasingly futile, inviting more new opposition
forces, sources and forms that then trigger even more impotent, infantile
and revealing tit-for-tat 'positive-feedback' loops.
The examples in history are notorious. Think of the U.S. Government in
Lebanon after the losses of 241 Marines to a bombing of their barracks in
1983.
They had been sent there with no mission, no objectives, no exit strategy
and no support; and the response to the bombing and losses of lives was the
immediate withdrawal of remaining U.S. military forces, the shelling of
villages from offshore and departing U.S. Navy ships, followed by a
pretext-supported invasion of tiny Grenada (also a mess as it unfolded)
that itself also revealed more about the impotence rather than any
omnipotence, omniscience or omnipresence of U.S. Imperialism.
All of these tit-for-tat machinations were and are then justified under
summarily asserted 'Doctrines' [they love that word it dresses up naked
arrogance and summary assertions as some kind of 'grand and self-evident
'Principle'] of 'Clear and Present Danger' [that needs to be seen and
defined only by them], 'Exceptionalism', 'Leadership Role' or 'Exigent
Circumstances'.
But the bully is caught in a trap. The more he bullies, the more he
increases the odds of running into a Jet Li. And the more likely he runs
into and from a Jet Li, the more he increases the odds of running into even
more Jet Li types and thus the more his empty posturing and macho bravado
is exposed for the impotence and insecurities it really reflects.
Just like the tales of the 'Old West' in American culture of the 'fastest
gun in the West' having an appointment with destiny: to run into an even
faster gun and/or townspeople that finally get fed up with the bullying.
PSYCHOPATHS AND SOCIOPATHS: AS INDIVIDUALS, GOVERNMENTS AND WHOLE SYSTEMS
Psychopaths and sociopaths have the same basic proclivities and differ only
in that psychopaths have no allegiance to any transcendent values whereas
sociopaths may have some allegiance to the value systems of a small cult or
gang of criminals but not to those of society in general or held by most
people in society.
In a certain sense, systems such as imperialism and capitalism are often
run by psychopaths and sociopaths and the values they push and promote, and
utilize are typical of psychopathy and sociopathy: malignant narcissism;
predation; ultra-individualism; Exceptionalism; grandiosity; situational
ethics; megalomania; serial and calculated deception; shallow affect; lack
of compassion and empathy; masked ruthlessness.
These types do not ask questions like 'Is this the right thing to do?' 'Is
this moral or legal?' They do not even ask if a given action or policy is
'efficient' or 'inefficient' given their own definitions. They only ask
'What do I want and what does it take to get it with minimum costs and
risks?' 'What is in my way and what does it take to get it out of my way?'
The basic constructs and features of psychopathy and sociopathy may apply
also to whole Governments of whole
Systems[7].
What is Obama's argument for drones and the like?
It is not an argument of legality as he has asked for 'legal architecture'
to be developed to justify drone strikes, extraordinary renditions,
assassinations of American citizens without trial or formal charges, and
many other patently illegal acts in American law that are going on and have
gone on without this mythical 'legal architecture' having been developed
yet.
His argument is that the U.S. Government cannot reach alleged terrorists
with the present law so his answer is not to develop new methods and
approaches for extraditing and taking to trial accused terrorists within
the present laws, but to eliminate any barriers or inconveniences at
present by simply and summarily going around them and then cooking up some
kind of legal rationale to try to justify it all.
That is what the psychopath and sociopath argues: 'What is in my way needs
to get out of my way; law, morality, or even my own stated principles be
damned when in the way of my getting my way.'
But then again, what one superpower arrogates for itself will be used by
the next superpower and rising empire as law, precedent and principle for
itself. And the former superpower, destined to decline and decay as are all
imperial empires and hegemons, is laying the foundations for its own fall
and plunder by other superpowers and hegemons on the horizon with the same
systems, impulses and imperial hubris as the present ones.
Prof. Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii is one of the frequent contributors
for The 4th Media.
FOOTNOTES:
1. There is an old saying that “The problem is not that the rich break the
laws; rather that they write the laws so they do not need to break and/or
cannot be found guilty of breaking, the very laws they hold others to.”
2. Craven, James “‘Just War’ and the Interrelated Predicates and Principles
of Nuremberg” The 4th Media (Beijing)
http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/11/02/%e2%80%9cjust-war%e2%80%9d-and-the-interrelated-predicates-and-precedents-of-nuremberg/[1]
3. Higham, Charles Trading with the Enemy: The Expose of the Nazi-American
Money Plot 1933-49 Dell Publishers, NY 1984; Loftus John and Aarons, Mark The
Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish
People, St. Martin’s, N.Y. 1994
4. Churchill, Ward Indians ‘R’ Us: Culture and Genocide in Native North
America, Between the Lines Pub. N.Y. 1993 and A Little Matter of Genocide:
Holocaust and Denial in the Americas 1492 to the Present City Lights, San
Francisco, CA, 2001
5. The People’s Republic of China was not “recognized” as a de-facto
nation-state and sole legitimate representative of the People of China by
the U.S. and many other allies of it until October 25, 1971 while a client
regime in Taiwan, an historical and integral part of China, was given the
UN seat as the supposed “sole-representative” for all of China from October
24, 1945 to 1971 and until 1991 the Taiwan regimes actively claimed to the
sole legitimate representative of China. The same applies to the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea now recognized as a separate and de-facto
nation-state by the U.S. from the “Republic of Korea” or “South Korea” also
considered a separate and de-facto nation-state. But their objective
existence and de-facto statuses did not logically depend upon recognition
or non-recognition of other nation-states. The same applies to Indigenous
nations that still qualify as nations within broader nation-states that
were and are summarily declared in the U.S. Supreme Court “Marshall
Cherokee Decisions” to be “Dependent and Captive” nations or “quasi”
nations. Under the old “Constitutive Theory” recognition of a nation-state
is a function of recognition by other nation-states but under the
“Declarative Theory” recognition is a function of declaration and meeting
uniform standards and criteria of a nation-state with a right to be
recognized and treated as such once objectively established to be such.
6. Hersh, Seymour The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American
Foreign Policy, Random House, N.Y. 1991; The Samson Option refers to a
policy of lighting off all an estimated 200 some nuclear weapons in a
massive nuclear strike; as Wikipedia puts it: “ The “Samson
Option<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option>”
of the book’s title refers to the nuclear
strategy<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_strategy>whereby Israel
would launch a massive
nuclear retaliatory
strike<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_retaliation>if the state
itself was being overrun, just as the Biblical figure
Samson <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson> is said to have pushed apart
the pillars of a Philistine
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines>temple, bringing down the
roof and killing himself and thousands of
Philistines who had gathered to see him humiliated.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Samson_Option:_Israel’s_Nuclear_Arsenal_and_American_Foreign_Policy[2]
Thse nuclear weapons were developed with French, British and American help
and were developed in partnership with Apartheid South Africa (eliminated
by the new Government of South Africa under Nelson Mandela) that included
individuals who had been interned by the British as members of the South
African Nazi Party and as Nazi agents. So much for sensitivity to the Nazi
Holocaust.
7. Craven, James “Review of Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths go to Work”
by Paul Babiak and Robert Hare
http://jimcraven10.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/review-of-snakes-in-suits-when-psychopaths-go-to-work-by-paul-babiak-and-robert-hare/[3];
“Tricks of the Psychopath’s, Sociopath’s and Politician’s Trade”, 4
th Media (Beijing)
http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/11/18/tricks-of-the-psychopath%E2%80%99s-sociopath%E2%80%99s-and-politician%E2%80%99s-trade/[4];
“Ayn Rand and Ayn Randists: Psychopaths and Sociopath’s Incarnate”
http://jimcraven10.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/ayn-rand-and-ayn-randists-psychopaths-and-sociopaths-incarnate/[5];
“I Want it All and I Want it Now: The Real National Anthem of America
and
Capitalism”
http://jimcraven10.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/i-want-it-all-and-i-want-it-now-the-real-national-anthem-of-america-and-capitalism/[6]
------------------------------
[1] <file:///D:/Downloads/Rule%20of%20Law%20amended.docx> There is an old
saying that “The problem is not that the rich break the laws; rather that
they write the laws so they do not need to break an/or cannot be found
guilty of breaking, the very laws they hold others to.”
[2] <file:///D:/Downloads/Rule%20of%20Law%20amended.docx> Craven, James “
‘Just War’ and the Interrelated Predicates and Principles of Nuremberg” The
4th Media (Beijing)
http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/11/02/%e2%80%9cjust-war%e2%80%9d-and-the-interrelated-predicates-and-precedents-of-nuremberg/[1]
[3] <file:///D:/Downloads/Rule%20of%20Law%20amended.docx> Higham,
Charles Trading
with the Enemy: The Expose of the Nazi-American Money Plot 1933-49 Dell
Publishers, NY 1984; Loftus John and Aarons, Mark The Secret War Against
the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People, St. Martin’s,
N.Y. 1994
[4] <file:///D:/Downloads/Rule%20of%20Law%20amended.docx> Churchill,
Ward Indians
‘R’ Us: Culture and Genocide in Native North America, Between the Lines
Pub. N.Y. 1993 and A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the
Americas 1492 to the Present City Lights, San Francisco, CA, 2001
[5] <file:///D:/Downloads/Rule%20of%20Law%20amended.docx> The People’s
Republic of China was not “recognized” as a de-facto nation-state and sole
legitimate representative of the People of China by the U.S. and many other
allies of it until October 25, 1971 while a client regime in Taiwan, an
historical and integral part of China, was given the UN seat as the
supposed “sole-representative” for all of China from October 24, 1945 to
1971 and until 1991 the Taiwan regimes actively claimed to the sole
legitimate representative of China. The same applies to the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea now recognized as a separate and de-facto
nation-state by the U.S. from the “Republic of Korea” or “South Korea” also
considered a separate and de-facto nation-state. But their objective
existence and de-facto statuses did not logically depend upon recognition
or non-recognition of other nation-states. The same applies to Indigenous
nations that still qualify as nations within broader nation-states that
were and are summarily declared in the U.S. Supreme Court “Marshall
Cherokee Decisions” to be “Dependent and Captive” nations or “quasi”
nations. Under the old “Constitutive Theory” recognition of a nation-state
is a function of recognition by other nation-states but under the
“Declarative Theory” recognition is a function of declaration and meeting
uniform standards and criteria of a nation-state with a right to be
recognized and treated as such once objectively established to be such.
[6] <file:///D:/Downloads/Rule%20of%20Law%20amended.docx> Hersh, Seymour
The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy,
Random House, N.Y. 1991; The Samson Option refers to a policy of lighting
off all an estimated 200 some nuclear weapons in a massive nuclear strike;
as Wikipedia puts it: “ The “Samson
Option<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option>”
of the book’s title refers to the nuclear
strategy<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_strategy>whereby Israel
would launch a massive
nuclear retaliatory
strike<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_retaliation>if the state
itself was being overrun, just as the Biblical figure
Samson <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson> is said to have pushed apart
the pillars of a Philistine
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines>temple, bringing down the
roof and killing himself and thousands of
Philistines who had gathered to see him humiliated.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Samson_Option:_Israel’s_Nuclear_Arsenal_and_American_Foreign_Policy[2]
Thse nuclear weapons were developed with French, British and American help
and were developed in partnership with Apartheid South Africa (eliminated
by the new Government of South Africa under Nelson Mandela) that included
individuals who had been interned by the British as members of the South
African Nazi Party and as Nazi agents. So much for sensitivity to the Nazi
Holocaust.
[7] <file:///D:/Downloads/Rule%20of%20Law%20amended.docx> Craven, James
“Review of Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths go to Work” by Paul Barbkiak
and Robert Hare
http://jimcraven10.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/review-of-snakes-in-suits-when-psychopaths-go-to-work-by-paul-babiak-and-robert-hare/[3];
“Tricks of the Psychopath’s, Sociopath’s and Politician’s Trade”, 4
th Media (Beijing)
http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/11/18/tricks-of-the-psychopath%E2%80%99s-sociopath%E2%80%99s-and-politician%E2%80%99s-trade/[4];
“Ayn Rand and Ayn Randists: Psychopaths and Sociopath’s Incarnate”
http://jimcraven10.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/ayn-rand-and-ayn-randists-psychopaths-and-sociopaths-incarnate/[5];
“I Want it All and I Want it Now: The Real National Anthem of America
and
Capitalism”
http://jimcraven10.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/i-want-it-all-and-i-want-it-now-the-real-national-anthem-of-america-and-capitalism/[6]
*Endnotes:*
1.
http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/11/02/%e2%80%9cjust-war%e2%80%9d-and-the-interrelated-predicates-and-precedents-of-nuremberg/:
http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/11/02/%e2%80%9cjust-war%e2%80%9d-and-the-interrelated-predicates-and-precedents-of-nuremberg/
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Samson_Option:_Israel’s_Nuclear_Arsenal_and_American_Foreign_Policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Samson_Option:_Israel
3.
http://jimcraven10.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/review-of-snakes-in-suits-when-psychopaths-go-to-work-by-paul-babiak-and-robert-hare/:
http://jimcraven10.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/review-of-snakes-in-suits-when-psychopaths-go-to-work-by-paul-babiak-and-robert-hare/
4.
http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/11/18/tricks-of-the-psychopath%E2%80%99s-sociopath%E2%80%99s-and-politician%E2%80%99s-trade/:
http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/11/18/tricks-of-the-psychopath%E2%80%99s-sociopath%E2%80%99s-and-politician%E2%80%99s-trade/
5.
http://jimcraven10.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/ayn-rand-and-ayn-randists-psychopaths-and-sociopaths-incarnate/:
http://jimcraven10.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/ayn-rand-and-ayn-randists-psychopaths-and-sociopaths-incarnate/
6.
http://jimcraven10.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/i-want-it-all-and-i-want-it-now-the-real-national-anthem-of-america-and-capitalism/:
http://jimcraven10.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/i-want-it-all-and-i-want-it-now-the-real-national-anthem-of-america-and-capitalism/
*Source URL:*
http://www.4thmedia.org/2013/02/14/rule-of-law%e2%80%94or-of-the-ruthless-why-law%e2%80%94international-or-otherwise/
------------------------------
Copyright ©2013 *The 4th Media* unless otherwise noted.
Received on Fri Feb 15 2013 - 10:41:45 EST
