"Criminal" is here used in a nonmoral sense, refering [sic] merely to the breaking of some legal stricture in a purely descriptive fashion.
I realize this is part of an extended game of "Gotcha!" with C. Cox, but in this case I find Doss's rejoinder is literally true and supportive of Cox's position.
One difference between the Bush and Obama administrations is that the Bushites seem to realize that they *are* international criminals--one gets the impression they were giving up post-election holidays in Spain long before Inauguration Day--but the latest bunch of White House liberals again seem to think they carry some of kind of Good Intentions exemption. How long do they think they can keep this up? It is actually strange to me, as one thing they seem to understand is the importance of the (conservative) principle of the rule of law. They are relatively young, and if they can't imagine themselves one day in the docket at The Hague then their lack of historical imagination is stunning. All it takes is a continuation of the slide in US global power, which is no longer hegemonic, if it ever was (see: the very existence of numerous left-leaning govts in Latin America). It's really not that great a leap to imagine Obamaites having to sweat out a version of the Eichmann defense as they face a future in some 21st C. Spandau. Well, one can hope...
On 5/25/09, Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Criminal" is here used in a nonmoral sense, refering merely to the breaking of some legal stricture in a purely descriptive fashion.
>