Worldwide Nightmare Theatre, Empire of Chaos Enhanced and Expanded

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by kladner

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51147.htm
Here we go again.

My take on this was posted a few days ago, here.

I don't consider Maduro's re-election "legitimate," but I agree 100% with the proposition that it is not the US's place to dictate the remedy. Il Duce may be Commander-in-Chief of the US armed forces, but I seriously doubt he will order a military operation in Venezuela.

And he certainly does not have the authority to order Venezuela's generals around. IMO, presuming to do so is about the stupidest thing he could have done -- if the point of the exercise were either (a) to replace Maduro's regime by one the Admin can order around like a poodle considers more amenable to US interests, or (b) to relieve the suffering of the Venezuelan people.

However, if Il Duce wants to insure that he can witness the prolonged suffering of large numbers of people who are powerless to improve their lot, he could hardly have adopted a better course.

[Dr Sardonicus]

1 woman killed, a dozen injured in Venezuela

My "Theater of the Absurd" version:

Nicolas Maduro: "I am determined to show the Yanqui Imperialismo has no monopoly on stupidity. Never mind how bad it looks. My soldiers will gun down civilians!"

Il Duce: "Wait a minute! Maduro has his military gunning women down? And I just thought I could grab 'em by the ! And this was to secure the border? That's a great idea! Nothing says "national emergency" like tanks on the roads, and soldiers opening up with automatic weapons. Maybe he's a guy I can do business with after all!"

I can hardly wait to see how the "battle of the bands" plays out...

[ewmayer]

o In establishment-propaganda news, I see last Sunday's 60 Minutes had an interview with former acting FBI director and self-admitted coup plotter Andrew McCabe, currently on a nationwide self-promotional book tour.

o Base Culture | n+1 Magazine

I now conceptualize the society I came from and the war to which I went as part of the same grotesque amusement park ride. If I have discovered anything since my homecoming, it is not that I never came home. It is not that my soul resides in Afghanistan. It is that my home has lost its peaceful veneer, stripped bare, like Twentynine Palms. An American who leaves for war never leaves America. The war that is America, rather, comes to the American. The war is the society and the society is the war, and one who sees that war sees America.

o Venezuelan Military Reject Trump’s Incitement to Rebel: ‘Over Our Dead Bodies’ | Venezuelanalysis.com -- Note the complicity of the usual U.S. poodles:

Following his formal recognition by around 25 percent of the world’s governments, Guaido’s team has proceeded to name “diplomatic representatives” to a number of European countries Tuesday, including the UK (Paolo Romero), Belgium (Mary Ponte), the Netherlands (Gloria Notario), Germany (Otto Gebauer), France (Isadora de Zubillaga), Portugal (Jose Rafael Cotte), Spain (Antonio Ecarri), Sweden (Leon Poblete) and Austria (Williams Davila). He also named representatives to Australia, Luxembourg, Romania, Andorra, the Dominican Republic, Malta and Denmark. In late January, Guaido named representatives to a number of Latin and North American nations.

More aid pledged

A number of European countries also pledged to support Washington’s efforts to deliver humanitarian aid across the Venezuelan border this upcoming February 23, donating a total of US $18 million between them.

In a press conference held in Caracas, the ambassadors of France, Spain, the UK, Italy and Germany all reaffirmed their support for attempts to bring in humanitarian aid, which have been shunned by the United Nations, War Child, Oxfam and the Red Cross as being “politicised.” President Maduro has refused to allow the “aid” to enter, claiming that it is a spark for US intervention.
...
Rival concerts planned

To support efforts in bringing aid across the border into the country, Venezuela’s opposition is organising a large international concert in the Colombian city of Cucuta on Saturday, only eight kilometres from the Venezuelan border. The concert, which is being financed by British media mogul and Virgin CEO Richard Branson, is being branded as "Live Aid for Venezuela." Latin singers Alejandro Sanz, Nacho, Luis Fonsi and Maluma have all confirmed that they will be performing.

Guaido had previously vowed that aid would enter on February 23 “no matter what,” but speaking to press on Monday he said that “if it’s not on [February] 23, it will be on the 24.”

Branson’s initiative has also drawn criticism, with Pink Floyd legend Roger Waters stating that it “has nothing to do with humanitarian aid at all.”

“It has to do with Richard Branson … having bought the US saying, ‘We have decided to take over Venezuela, for whatever our reasons may be’ … Do we really want Venezuela to turn in to another Iraq or Syria or Libya? I don’t and neither do the Venezuelan people,’” Waters said in a message on social media.

o Ilhan Omar, Elliott Abrams, and the El Mozote Massacre - The Atlantic

In a testy exchange with Elliott Abrams on Wednesday, Representative Ilhan Omar resurrected the memory of El Salvador’s El Mozote massacre, one of the worst mass killings in modern Latin American history. Omar, a Democrat from Minnesota, was all of two months old when the December 1981 massacre took place. Abrams, President Donald Trump’s new special envoy for Venezuela, was a senior State Department official in the Reagan administration, which was sending military and economic aid into El Salvador to defeat a leftist insurgency and stop what it saw as a wave of communism approaching the United States.

What happened in 1981? And what did Abrams have to do with it?

More than 900 peasants were murdered in and around several villages in the eastern province of Morazán. Most were old men, women, and children. At the Roman Catholic church in El Mozote, soldiers separated men from their families, took them away, and shot them. They herded mothers and children into the convent. Putting their American-supplied M-16 rifles on automatic, the soldiers opened fire. Then they burned the convent. Some 140 children were killed, including toddlers. Average age: 6.

Omar’s questioning of Abrams was not artful, and Abrams wasn’t unreasonable in viewing it as a personal attack. But she was right to suggest that he had sought to diminish or even cover up the massacre by calling it communist propaganda. Nor was she wrong to question whether Abrams was ethically qualified to assume a high government position, with the mission to oust the Venezuelan dictatorship and promote democracy.

In El Salvador, the Reagan administration, with Abrams as point man, routinely defended the Salvadoran government in the face of evidence that its regular army, and allied right-wing death squads, were operating with impunity, killing peasants, students, union leaders, and anyone considered anti-government or pro-guerrilla. Abrams went so far as to defend one of the death squads’ most notorious leaders, Roberto D’Aubuisson, who was responsible for the murder of Archbishop Óscar Romero while he was saying Mass, in March 1980.

It was Romero’s assassination that touched off a civil war in El Salvador—an alliance of the military and the oligarchs, which had ruled for decades with support from the United States, against a Marxist-inspired insurgency. Most of the support for the revolution came from El Salvador’s peasants, who had little to lose in seeking to overthrow a government that had resorted to brutal repression to keep them in miserable poverty.

To drain the peasant sea in which guerrillas swam, to borrow from Mao, the Atlacatl Battalion, whose officers had recently completed counterinsurgency training in the United States, launched a “scorched earth” operation in Morazon, a mountainous region where semiliterate peasants labored on their small plots of sisal and corn.

Being part of - and chief cheerleader for - an administration program to provide arms, money, training and logistical support to known genocidal right-wing death squads ... sure sounds like a war crime to me. Of course under the W. Bush administration Congress actually passed a law, the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, attempting to immunize USians from prosecution by the International Criminal Court:

The American Service-Members’ Protection Act (ASPA, Title 2 of Pub.L. 107–206, H.R. 4775, 116 Stat. 820, enacted August 2, 2002) is a United States federal law that aims “to protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party.” Introduced by U.S. Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) and U.S. Representative Tom DeLay (R-TX) it was an amendment to the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States (H.R. 4775). The bill was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on August 2, 2002.

ASPA authorizes the U.S. president to use “all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.” This authorization has led the act to be nicknamed the “Hague Invasion Act”, because the freeing of U.S. citizens by force might be possible only through an invasion of The Hague, Netherlands, the seat of several international criminal courts and of the Dutch government.

I'd say it's wee past time for the ICC and Europe to grow a pair and put the above US "law" to the test. The problem is that far too many of our European allies enjoy participting in our imperial adventures - UK everywhere, France in Africa, Netherlands Denmakr and Sweden saber-rattling against russia, etc - to give me hope of expecting such boldness on behalf of international law any time soon.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

<snip>
Being part of - and chief cheerleader for - an administration program to provide arms, money, training and logistical support to known genocidal right-wing death squads ... sure sounds like a war crime to me.
<snip>

Yeah, well, if you can find an actual law that says any of that is a war crime -- say, one that could be prosecuted in the ICC, let us know. Because as far as I can tell, there isn't one. Be it the Geneva Convention or the Rome Statute, you either have to be actually doing the crime (say, a massacre), or ordering it to be done.

Now, if a US soldier, military contractor, etc were caught, say, actually committing or ordering a massacre in a country recognizing the ICC's jurisdiction, that would be a dandy test of the "The American Service-Members’ Protection Act." My guess is, the Act would not pass legal muster.

The good ol' USA has company in not recognizing the ICC's jurisdiction. Israel doesn't like transferring population into occupied territory being defined as a war crime. Can't imagine why. Russia, though a signatory, does not want to be a states party to the ICC. Can't imagine why. China is not a signatory. Can't imagine why.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Being part of - and chief cheerleader for - an administration program to provide arms, money, training and logistical support to known genocidal right-wing death squads ... sure sounds like a war crime to me.

I don't know whether you are as ignorant of international law as your posts indicate, or are just being willfully obtuse. The Rome Statute and ICC simply do not deal with actions by States (nations). Their concern is acts by individuals ("natural persons"). And, as I indicated before, the actions of individuals like Elliott Abrams are simply not covered by the laws defining "war crimes." Similarly, provisions defining "aiding and abetting" war crimes only pertain to acts by individual persons. So, unless you are claiming that Mr. Abrams did something like actually carry a suitcase full of money to El Jefe and then told him to use it to fund his "death squads," I'd say there's no war crime to charge him with.

Your main problem is, you're trying to apply a law that simply doesn't apply. Since you're apparently concerned with matters of actions by the United States as a nation rather than of individuals, the relevant statute would seem to be

Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts

(or, assuming the acts you're referring to were earlier than 2001, its legal predecessor at the time in question).

Such matters are typically brought before the International Court of Justice, AKA the "World Court."

The statute and Court essentially deal with monetary damages, not criminal penalties. A well-known case that came before the Court is United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran):

The case was brought before the Court by Application by the United States following the occupation of its Embassy in Tehran by Iranian militants on 4 November 1979, and the capture and holding as hostages of its diplomatic and consular staff. On a request by the United States for the indication of provisional measures, the Court held that there was no more fundamental prerequisite for relations between States than the inviolability of diplomatic envoys and embassies, and it indicated provisional measures for ensuring the immediate restoration to the United States of the Embassy premises and the release of the hostages. In its decision on the merits of the case, at a time when the situation complained of still persisted, the Court, in its Judgment of 24 May 1980, found that Iran had violated and was still violating obligations owed by it to the United States under conventions in force between the two countries and rules of general international law, that the violation of these obligations engaged its responsibility, and that the Iranian Government was bound to secure the immediate release of the hostages, to restore the Embassy premises, and to make reparation for the injury caused to the United States Government.

In this case, the US was principally interested in a legal determination that Iran was in fact violating international law, subsequently negotiated a deal with Iran securing the release of the hostages, and asked the Court to drop the case:

The Court was not called upon to deliver a further judgment on the reparation for the injury caused to the United States Government since, by Order of 12 May 1981, the case was removed from the List following discontinuance.

There would seem to be a catch in bringing an action against the United States as a nation for, say, appropriating money that went to fund "death squads." Namely, which State would bring the action? The good ol' USA, on the grounds that money it appropriated was misspent? Or by the government(s) responsible for committing the crimes? That's quite a catch!

Alas, I see no chance for any other party to bring a case, due to lack of "standing."

[kladner]

Perhaps "Crimes against humanity" could be used. Unless that has an absolute legal definition, as well.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by kladner

Perhaps "Crimes against humanity" could be used. Unless that has an absolute legal definition, as well.

The sheer stupidity of this comment boggles the mind. If you're trying to reprise the old radio program It Pays to be Ignorant, you are doing a stellar job.


On the off chance you not simply trying to yank my chain, "Crimes against humanity" is a legal term. It is legally defined in a number of international statutes, including the 1949 Geneva Convention I referenced earlier, and the Rome Statute, the legal basis for the ICC.

And, again on the off chance it didn't occur to you that terms with the word "crime" or "crimes" in them might actually have legal definitions, the question presents itself: what kind of recourse were you contemplating -- if any? I mean -- the circumstance of you howling that "X is a war criminal!" without being concerned with its even being a legal term, would seem to suggest only two possible things:

(1) You want X to be the guest of honor at an old-fashioned necktie party, or

(2) You have no actual desire for any form of legally mandated retribution or other recourse; but, rather, you are merely exhibiting behavior analogous to that of some dogs, namely, those that simply like to hear themselves bark.

[kladner]

Perhaps you are just too stupidly obsessed with narrow legalistic definitions. Violations of standards of behavior exist outside of governmental pronouncements.

I suggest that whatever your disagreement might be, you refrain from such personal assaults, even if it is perfectly legal to do so.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by kladner

Perhaps you are just too stupidly obsessed with narrow legalistic definitions. Violations of standards of behavior exist outside of governmental pronouncements.

I suggest that whatever your disagreement might be, you refrain from such personal assaults, even if it is perfectly legal to do so.

Dude! If you insist on using legal terms, you had better use them properly.

My disagreement is not with you personally (and you would be hard-pressed to back up your claim of "personal assault"), but with your use of language. And it is not just me being a pedantic grammarian or anything like that. You are imputing the most infamous of crimes to somebody.

"War crimes" and "crimes against humanity" are actual things. The ICC is an actual institution devoted to prosecuting them. There are actual war criminals who have been incarcerated for committing them. Calling someone a "war criminal" or accusing them of committing "crimes against humanity" definitely qualifies as a "personal assault" -- one that leaves you open to a defamation suit.

And while I would generally dismiss the idea of a defamation suit based on your posts to this Forum out of hand with the rejoinder "For what harm?," in this case another "narrow legalistic definition" comes into play (my emphasis):

Actionable Per Se

Legally sufficient to support a lawsuit in itself.

Words are actionable per se if they are obviously insulting and injurious to one's reputation. In lawsuits for libel or slander, words that impute the commission of a crime, a loathsome disease, or unchastity, or remarks that affect the plaintiff's business, trade, profession, calling, or office may be actionable per se. No special proof of actual harm done by the words is necessary to win monetary damages when words are actionable per se.

So, as I said earlier: Have a care, Sir!

[kladner]

So, as I said earlier: Have a care, Sir!

Bugger off, 'Sir'.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

I don't know whether you are as ignorant of international law as your posts indicate, or are just being willfully obtuse. The Rome Statute and ICC simply do not deal with actions by States (nations). Their concern is acts by individuals ("natural persons").

And states are run by ... what? Alien lizard beings in human skin suits? Here, let's review for purposes of comparison, a case of an individual who *was* indicted for genocide and hauled off to prison at the Hague:

Slobodan Milosevic

In the midst of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, Milošević was charged by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) with war crimes in connection to the wars in Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo.[1] Milošević resigned from the Yugoslav presidency amid demonstrations, following the disputed presidential election of 24 September 2000. He was arrested by Yugoslav federal authorities on 31 March 2001 on suspicion of corruption, abuse of power, and embezzlement.[2][3] The initial investigation into Milošević faltered for lack of evidence, prompting the Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Đinđić to extradite him to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to stand trial for charges of war crimes instead.[4] At the outset of the trial, Milošević denounced the Tribunal as illegal because it had not been established with the consent of the United Nations General Assembly; therefore he refused to appoint counsel for his defence.[5] Milošević conducted his own defence in the five-year-long trial, which ended without a verdict when he died in his prison cell in The Hague on 11 March 2006.[6] Milošević, who suffered from heart ailments and hypertension, died of a heart attack.[7][8] The Tribunal denied any responsibility for Milošević's death and stated that he had refused to take prescribed medicines and medicated himself instead.[9]

After Milošević's death, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concluded separately in the Bosnian Genocide Case that there was no evidence linking him to genocide committed by Bosnian Serb forces during the Bosnian War. However, the Court did find that Milošević and others in Serbia had committed a breach of the Genocide Convention by failing to prevent the genocide from occurring and for not cooperating with the ICTY in punishing the perpetrators of the genocide, in particular General Ratko Mladić, and for violating its obligation to comply with the provisional measures ordered by the Court.[10][11] Milošević's rule has been described by observers as authoritarian or autocratic.[12]

Note especially the underlined part - there was never any issue of whether Milošević *directly* was involved in the atrocities in question in a manner along the narrow lines you represent as being required for such prosections. Rather, the ICJ was concerned with linkages, precisely the kind of political-administration aiding and abetting I described w.r.to Abrams et al. Beyond actively aiding such, the ICJ clearly even defines "failing to prevent" crimes against humanity as a crime in this context. Nixon and Kissinger didn't *personally* drop any bombs or napalm in Vietnam or across the border in Cambodia, either, dude. Nor did they personally convey the monies needed to fund such operations. Talk about willfully obtuse!