Virtuous Leaders or War Criminals?

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:28:25 GMT  <== Politics ==> 

Chris Leithner at Québécois Libre - why the neocons, including especially Bush and his cabinet, should be tried for war crimes, and hanged. [root]

Justice Jackson's words thus prompt one to wonder: how would he assess the legal basis of the Three Amigos' decision to wage war? Neoconservatives would do well to remember his injunction: "Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling these grievances or for altering these conditions." And those who cannot visualise American, Australian and British defendants in a war crimes trial should also ponder Justice Jackson's words: "Let me make clear that while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn, aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment ... This trial represents mankind's desperate effort to apply the discipline of the law to statesmen who have used their powers of state to attack the foundations of the world's peace and to commit aggression against the rights of their neighbours."

Sixty years later, it is clear that this desperate effort has failed. Ignore their babble: the Three Amigos are above any law and accountable to nobody. How on earth can this be? How can it be otherwise? The "leaders" of welfare-warfare states are nothing more than, and have never been anything more than, the heads of criminal gangs (see Murray Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, New York University Press, 1998). They are not protectors: they are predators. Further, major political parties (Liberal-National coalition versus Labor in Australia, Labour v. Conservative in Britain, etc.) are not separate entities that offer distinct policies; instead, they are simply wings of a single welfare-warfare party. They are, to use Butler Schaffer's apt analogy, wings of the same bird of prey. Those who have yet to encounter -- much less absorb -- this self-evident truth cling ferociously to the fairy tale of the benevolent state. Accordingly, confronted with the logic and evidence that some of their "statesmen" are better described as war criminals, they reply either with denial or vitriol.

Add comment Edit post Add post