Worldwide Nightmare Theatre, Empire of Chaos Enhanced and Expanded

[Dr Sardonicus]

In my book, there is no excuse for the way Rep. Omar treated Mr. Abrams.

If one grants the premise that Elliot Abrams is not a credible witness, it begs the question of why he was called to testify in the first place.

In June 1987, Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn) deemed Abrams unacceptable as an Administration witness, precisely because he lacked credibility, due to his having misled Congress.

Conclusion: Calling him now was nothing but a political show designed to denigrate, excoriate, and humiliate the man, rather than to elicit information about the current situation in Venezuela.

This being the case, it was a calculated waste of Congressional time. And while my opinion of Congress critters is not so high as to fail to see some merit in this, I would rather they treat the situation in Venezuela more seriously.

[kladner]

Clearly, she does not need your excusing. More broadly, no excuse is needed. Abrams' record of perjury under oath before Congress lays him open to censure from a Congress Person to whom he is actively lying.

With your great erudition, you must be aware that there are other reasons for calling Congressional witnesses. In this case, it is clearly to highlight the similarity between the current Venezuela situation and previous "activities" in which "Deathsquad Abrams" was involved.

It is entirely relevant to recall the history of illegal US Regime Changes when a war criminal has been appointed to commit more war crimes.

[Dr Sardonicus]

I don't see why Congress needs to call witnesses to establish similarities between Il Duce's program vis a vis Venezuela and Ronnie Ray-Gun's for Nicaragua, since it has already been so eruditely illustrated here.

"Deathsquad Abrams?" "War criminal?" Have a care, Sir. Unlike Rep. Omar, you do not have Congressional immunity from being sued for your defamatory statements. Besides, as ewmeyer has already alluded to WRT John Bolton, Elliot Abrams is Jewish.

By what standard is Abrams a war criminal? Did he participate in any massacres? Did he have command authority over death squads? Or are you merely alleging that US policy at the time (somehow) contributed to the formation of death squads?

By that sort of standard, Vladimir Putin should have been executed many times over for crimes against humanity. But, of course, when it comes to anything he might have done, you would insist on a standard of proof above and beyond what would gain a conviction in any court of law. You bring to mind the following:

William Roper: "So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!"

Sir Thomas More: "Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?"

William Roper: "Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!"

Sir Thomas More: "Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"

-- Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons

[kladner]

"Deathsquad Abrams?" "War criminal?" Have a care, Sir. Unlike Rep. Omar, you do not have Congressional immunity from being sued for your defamatory statements. Besides, as ewmeyer has already alluded to WRT John Bolton, Elliot Abrams is Jewish.

By what standard is Abrams a war criminal? Did he participate in any massacres? Did he have command authority over death squads? Or are you merely alleging that US policy at the time (somehow) contributed to the formation of death squads?

If you are going to plead that sort of ignorance, then there is no point in trying to enlighten you. Your tirades have become quite tiresome.

[kladner]

https://www.21cir.com/2019/02/red-cr...-to-venezuela/
The involvement of USAID is telling. It has a long history of working hand-in-hand with the CIA.

The International Red Cross has declined to participate in Washington’s controversial humanitarian aid plan to Venezuela, it was announced this weekend.

“We will not be participating in what is, for us, not humanitarian aid,” stated Colombia’s International Red Cross (ICRC) spokesperson, Christoph Harnisch.

The assistance, which is being coordinated by Venezuela’s self-proclaimed president, Juan Guaido, and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), is reportedly comprised of US $20 million worth of medical, food, and personal hygiene supplies which are currently being warehoused in the Colombian border city of Cucuta.

The Venezuelan government has denied USAID personnel entry into the country, claiming that the aid is being used as a cover for a foreign intervention to install Guaido in Miraflores presidential palace.

Harnisch also raised concerns about the aid being instrumentalized for political ends, calling on parties to have “respect for the term ‘humanitarian.’” Last week, ICRC Director of Global Operations Domink Stillhart had likewise told reporters that he considered the aid to have a “political tone”.

The Red Cross currently provides medical assistance to a number of Venezuelan hospitals under pre-existing and recently expanded international agreements with Maduro’s government.

For even more fun, check out
https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by kladner

If you are going to plead that sort of ignorance, then there is no point in trying to enlighten you. Your tirades have become quite tiresome.

So, it's a "tirade" to ask what you're actually accusing a man of having done to earn him the title of "war criminal?" Here's what

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949 says (my emphasis).

Art. 146. The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.

Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case.

Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches defined in the following Article.

In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial and defence, which shall not be less favourable than those provided by Article 105 and those following of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949.

Art. 147. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

You can't even be bothered coming up with any actual charges. (I didn't bother asking about the qualifier "in Time of War." My bad.) No matter, the man is Guilty. If someone has to ask "of what?" there's no point in telling them.

Oh, wait. I know this story! The Trial by Franz Kafka.

[kladner]

Bullshit, plain and simple. Look up Abrams before you prattle on any further.
Here. I'll help you along.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/02...in-three-acts/
https://theintercept.com/2019/01/30/...enezuela-coup/
https://consortiumnews.com/2012/01/2...alas-genocide/
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...ssacre/582889/
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/111303.html
https://www.thenation.com/article/an...king-diplomat/

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by kladner

Bullshit, plain and simple. Look up Abrams before you prattle on any further.
Here. I'll help you along.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/02...in-three-acts/
https://theintercept.com/2019/01/30/...enezuela-coup/
https://consortiumnews.com/2012/01/2...alas-genocide/
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...ssacre/582889/
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/111303.html
https://www.thenation.com/article/an...king-diplomat/

Hmm. Eric Alterman says in that article in The Nation,

I don’t know about you, but intentionally helping the US government to aid and abet the commission of genocide, while attacking the character and reputation of those trying to expose it, strikes me as securely within the definition of "war criminal."

Alas, that's not what the law (Geneva Convention) says. I do not recognize Eric Alterman's (or anyone else's) authority to simply make up his (or her) own definition. You certainly can't prosecute anyone as a "war criminal" based on it.

What I do see is, plenty of declarations that US policy promoted or enabled war crimes or crimes against humanity by repressive regimes, as in the above. Just like I said a few posts back. That contention, I have absolutely no problem with. Alas, I don't see myself as having the authority, let alone the power, to wave a magic wand and transform policies I disagree with, no matter how much I detest them -- into crimes.

Not too long ago, someone in the Mersenne Forum mentioned a legal principle, Nullum poena sine lege, "no punishment without law." Closely related, and practically interchangeable, is nullum crimen sine lege, "no crime without law." Calling someone a "war criminal" without being able to come up with even one actual war crime to accuse him of -- or worse, basing the appellation on some made-up definition of "war criminal" with no basis in law -- that is prattling.

[kladner]

Thank you for your participation. Your opinions have been duly noted.

[Dr Sardonicus]

There's a report from the "Global Public Policy Institute" entitled Nowhere to Hide The Logic of Chemical Weapons Use in Syria

Our research found that there have been at least 336 chemical weapons attacks over the course of the Syrian civil war – significantly more than has commonly been known. Around 98 percent of these attacks can be attributed to the Assad regime, with the Islamic State group responsible for the rest. Approximately 90 percent of all confirmed attacks occurred after the infamous “red line” incident of August 2013.

I can hear kladner and ewmeyer firing up their flamethrowers already...
;-)

[kladner]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

There's a report from the "Global Public Policy Institute" entitled Nowhere to Hide The Logic of Chemical Weapons Use in SyriaI can hear kladner and ewmeyer firing up their flamethrowers already...
;-)

Bellingcat