Carl Remick:
> Anyone have a problem with that list?
In regard to points (1) and (2), I believe what's being proposed is a scenario for "bringing the perpetrators to justice", although those terms weren't explicitly used. The problem here would be the question of whether there is any justice to bring them to. Without it, any court would be a kangaroo court, a ceremonial exercise of mere power, regardless of how many states and politicos signed on to it.
So what is justice? I would think it would have to be a set of rules of conduct to which all were subject. That is, for instance, if a certain sort of action, like willfully killing harmless civilians for political ends, were against the rules, everyone would be subject to some penalty specified by the rules -- after a fair trial, and so on. If you want to "isolate the murderers from the general population" this is the sort of thing you probably have to do.
But then you have to apply the rules to _everybody_, including people like Clinton and Albright and the Bushes -- not just kidnapped losers like, say, Milosevic. Milosevic may deserve whatever he gets in The Hague, but it won't be _justice_, it will be the mere exercise of power by the capitalist imperium. Everyone knows that.
Now, you may say that this is politically impossible, and I'd agree, but that just means that _justice_ is politically impossible, and that the word in this context is meaningless. So what? Well, if the word is meaningless, it can be picked up by anyone with power, given a new meaning, and the new meaning can be imposed on the discourses that contain it. For instance, if peace demonstrators shout "Peace and justice" the rulers can smile and say, "But we _are_ doing justice. Bombing Afghanistan _is_ justice! In fact, it's _infinite_ justice! -- because we say so, and we're good." And you can imagine what they'll do to an even vaguer concept like "global economic justice".
The only way you can argue against that sort of thing, if you care to, is to hold fast to your _own_ definition of justice, the one that isn't merely the exercise of power. So I think that's going to cut out calling for such games as "cooperative police work between (the ruling classes of) nations to catch the perpetrators". And if you _don't_ want to oppose "justice" in the sense of the mere exercise of power, then it doesn't appear to me you have a substantial quarrel with the U.S. government's present way of doing business, except of course for its stupidity and inefficiency. Maybe those who feel this way should see if there are any jobs available for helping out.
Agreed, "peace and vengeance" or "peace and security through world domination" don't sound as nice as "peace and justice". I admit there's a problem there.
-- Gordon