In it, he reminds us that the US was indicted by the International Court of Justice (on 11 counts) of violating international law in its support for the Contras. The US ignored this judgement and has even passed a bill declaring its intention to "liberate" US citizens taken under custody by the ICJ. The US has also vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling on member states to respect international law, notes Chomsky. He says the US added insult to injury by appointing the infamous John Negroponte, who personally directed Contra terrorism, as US representative to the UNSC. He underlines that this defiant US attitude is supported by broad sections of the public and the media, and that continuing US pressure has contributed to a large measure to the defeat of Ortega in two successive elections in favor of Washington's candidate.
Chomsky reminds us that S11 is the first attack against the US homeland since 1814, while the US has waged war and supported terrorist regimes all over the world [I can personally attest to that, having lived under several], causing millions of deaths and untold destruction. He adds that colonialist European powers have done likewise without een once suffering an outside attack.
So in light of all this, I'd like to respond to your point that due process should have been followed and the plaintiff should not dispense justice with this: The US is a rogue and terrorist state by any standard and far from dispensing justice, should be severely sanctioned (by extraterrestials, most likely). In fact, this whole discussion about due process is totally surreal. Let me quote from Sean Healy's "The Empire Wants War, not Justice" (posted by Mark Pavlick): ------------------------- Among all the words the Bush administration has used to describe the September 11 terrorist attacks -- "atrocity", "outrage", "act of evil" -- one phrase has been conspicuously missing: "crime against humanity". It's an odd absence. International law defines a crime against humanity as an act committed as part of a "widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack". (...) If someone has committed a crime, evidence is collected and presented -- but much of the "evidence" against Osama Bin Laden hasn't been made public and what has been seems highly circumstantial. If someone has committed a crime, they're arrested -- the cities and countries that they live in aren't (usually) bombed and Special Forces assassinations squad aren't sent out after them. If someone has committed a crime, they're brought to trial -- they're not declared "Wanted: Dead or Alive'', as Bush has declared Bin Laden, with a heavy and obvious lean towards "dead'' being the preferred option.
But if they're acts of war, then the normal rules and procedures don't apply and far wider agendas than "bringing the perpetrators to justice" can be pursued -- which is exactly what the US war machine is doing right now in the Middle East. But perhaps the US administration's motivation for not calling the terrorist outrages "crimes against humanity" extends beyond simply wanting broader operational parameters for this present war. Because the United States has sought to frustrate and sabotage international efforts to create the very machinery which could prosecute and try such crimes. (...) Now the reason why bin Laden is not going to be brought before an international court for "crimes against humanity" becomes somewhat clearer. The Empire wants to reserve the right to commit such crimes of its own in the future (against Afghanistan certainly, but even conceivably against the Netherlands) and won't brook interference -------------------------
The planetary supercriminal is also the law, the judge, the jury, and, of course, the constabulary. Due process is: Whatever the hell the empire feels like at a particular moment, it does, the only limitation being the constantly expanding limits of US public credulity as to the legimity of such wanton acts. I think that's a more realistic depiction of the post-S11 world order than what is being discussed on this thread.
Hakki Alacakaptan
|| -----Original Message-----
|| From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
|| [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Kendall Clark
(...)
||
|| Which is precisely what I took Chomsky's point to be when he
|| invoked, in his
|| talk at MIT after 9-11, the case of Nicaragua and the US
|| aggression there in
|| the 80s. I.e., we could have chosen to pursue ordinary methods
|| of recourse,
|| for which there are existing institutions, laws, international
|| agreements,
|| and the like.
(...)
|| there is a
|| not inconsiderable psychological point to be made: maybe pissed, angry,
|| hurt, emotionally damaged people (or even their coldly cynical political
|| representatives) should *not* lead the charge to justice.
||
||
|| Best,
|| Kendall Clark