On May 12, 7:19=A0am, "aw" <aw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> No Laws for Bush America
>
> The =A0US border with Mexico is 2000 miles long and is heavily guarded,
at=
a
> cost to the US taxpayer of $7.8 billion last year. (In 2006 Bush
declared
> that "Unfortunately, the United States has not been in complete control
of=
> its borders for decades . . . ") =A0Now consider what would happen if
Mexi=
can
> security forces were pursuing a criminal who had fled into the US and
they=
> opened fire across the border, then crossed it, killing a US border
guard.=
>
> If a US citizen was killed by foreign soldiers within the United States
> there would be reaction verging on the hysterical. =A0There would be
cries=
for
> retribution and demands for punishment of those responsible. Quite
right,
> you will say, if only because international law, in the shape of the
Chart=
er
> of the United Nations, specifies that all signatories shall "refrain
from
> the threat or the use of force against the territorial integrity =A0. .
. =
of
> any member or state, or in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of
th=
e
> United Nations." All perfectly clear: a country that uses force against
> another without justification that is approved by its international
peers =
is
> acting illegally.
>
> So reflect on a recent incident on the border between Afghanistan and
> Pakistan.
>
> On =A0April 23 US troops were involved in a fire-fight in eastern
Afghanis=
tan.
> They alleged that their enemy crossed over the border into Pakistan.
They
> then used artillery to shell Pakistan's territory. =A0Not only that but
th=
ey
> crossed the border and killed a Pakistani para-military trooper. =A0The
ne=
ws
> agency AFP recorded that the incident occurred when soldiers from the
> 'coalition' (read 'US', because there were no other foreign troops in
that=
> area) and 'the Afghan army' (entirely under US control):
>
> =A0 "clashed with Taliban militants on the ****ous frontier between the
two=
> countries on Wednesday. Afghan and ['coalition'] troops then pounded the
> Pakistani side with shells and also made an incursion into the Bajaur
> region, during which one soldier was killed and another injured, the
> [Pakistan foreign] ministry said. "We have lodged a strong protest with
th=
e
> Afghan and [coalition] side and told them in clear terms that such
inciden=
ts
> must not be repeated," spokesman Mohammad Sadiq told re****ters. "We also
> protested the death of one of our security personnel as a result of
firing=
> from the other side."
>
> So a Pakistani border guard in his own country was killed by foreigners
wh=
o
> consider it acceptable - no, not just acceptable: a responsibility, =A0a
d=
uty,
> a God-given right - to invade the territory of a foreign country and
kill
> its citizens if these citizens are unfortunate enough to be in the way
of =
US
> bullets, shells or missiles.
>
> There is no law governing Bush America's barbarity overseas. All the
strik=
es
> by the US within Pakistan have been blatantly illegal by any reckoning.
> (There have been at least four US drone-launched missile attacks,
killing
> dozens of civilians.) =A0But there is no possibility that Bush America
wil=
l be
> condemned by anyone. =A0Even the directly injured party, in this case
> Pakistan, with its new democratic government, wouldn't lodge a complaint
> under international law because Bush America would simply ignore it.
=A0No=
t
> that Wa****ngton would ignore the complainant itself of course, because
any=
> weak country unwise enough to try to claim that international law
applies =
to
> America would be doomed to economic and political retribution. =A0 Put
> bluntly: the United States of America, =A0just like Israel, its only
real
> ally, can and will conduct military operations against any country in
the
> world - providing that country is not strong enough to retaliate in
milita=
ry
> or economic terms - and kill anyone it likes without fear of retribution
o=
f
> any sort. =A0Israel's overflight of Lebanon by 12 combat aircraft on
April=
28
> was yet another example of such cowardly arrogance. =A0There could be no
> attempt by Lebanon's government to counter this brazen violation of
> sovereignty, and the contempt felt by Israel for the world at large was
> summed up in a re****t by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that "The Israel
> Defense Forces when asked about the alleged flyover said 'it is our
policy=
> not to comment on our operations'." =A0In other words: Get Lost.
>
> Even if Lebanon complained to the United Nations about Israel's illegal
> overflights there would be no action because, as always, Wa****ngton
would
> veto any attempted condemnation of its fifty-first state. After all, the
U=
S
> Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, declared on
Ma=
y
> 4 that the US has "has been at Israel's side for all of 60 years, it
will =
be
> for the next 60 years, 100 years and 1,000 years. With all its success,
I =
am
> a tremendous admirer and have great respect for Israel," he said,
expressi=
ng
> particular admiration for a state "representing democracy and freedom."
> Yes, that's the freedom to steal the lands of the original inhabitants
and=
> freedom to treat the descendants of the original inhabitants like
> Untermenschen. (And you can imagine the effect of this dolt's statement
in=
> the Arab and Muslim world: he has reinforced the belief that the US
totall=
y
> favours Israel against them. =A0Bright boy, Mullen ; with people like
him,=
al
> Qaeda doesn't need any recruiting sergeants. =A0And what right has
Mullen =
to
> commit his country to a foreign policy for a thousand years?)
>
> It must require enormous courage, moral and physical, =A0to take
military
> action against countries who can't retaliate. =A0Moral courage like
Pontiu=
s
> Pilate's and physical courage like that of a mentally diseased coyote.
=A0=
One
> can only guess at the mindset of the people who order strikes like the
one=
> in Pakistan and authorize the insolent menacing of Lebanon. They are
almos=
t
> on equal terms with the intellectually inadequate but hideously
malevolent=
> ninnies who imprisoned the journalist Sami al-Haj for six years in the
> Guantanamo Gulag. =A0He has now been released without charge, because
even=
> after 200 interrogations and countless investigations there was not a
shre=
d
> of evidence that he was guilty of any crime. =A0His mistake had been to
tr=
y to
> get into Afghanistan to re****t on the US invasion. =A0 Wa****ngton had
him
> dragged, bound, drugged, blindfolded and shackled, into the most
shameful
> prison constructed thus far this century - if we exclude the CIA's
secret
> black holes in Afghanistan, the Indian Ocean, eastern Europe and East
> Africa. (It is unlikely he bought a gift from the Guantanamo souvenir
> em****ium, surely the sickest retail outlet in the world.)
>
> Sami al-Haj was detained in Pakistan by order of the US, whose dreamland
> dopes thought that he had interviewed Osama bin Laden. =A0He hadn't been
> anywhere near bin Laden, but this didn't matter to the deranged fanatics
o=
f
> US Intelligence. After six years of disgusting treatment he was released
> without charge, but of course is now sick and mentally fragile. Well
done
> the filth of the universe who, in a final brutal insult to cap his six
yea=
rs
> of torture, flew him home in a US aircraft in chains.
>
> Bush and his poisonous bunch of malignant chickenhawk barbarians have
show=
n
> the world that they respect no laws, care nothing for human beings
unless
> they are Israelis, and trample on human rights with all the vicious
contem=
pt
> of a demented elephant. The next administration will have to cleanse the
> stables of the filth, but it's going to be a difficult job.
>
> Brian Cloughley lives in France.
The absence of any responses to any of the direct
health care arguments indicates that we have again
managed to stretch your cranial ganglion to its limit.
So give it a rest for a while, eh?
Don't forget your assignment ;-)
|
