Things Noticeable this week

[charliels531]

Originally Posted by Dr Pepper

Still waiting for a simple answer-not pontificating.... The question I specifically addressed to you-in response to your lecturing- was 'What IS a diplomatic and reasonable response to the situation?' We await your statesman like erudition.....

We know what Israel would do under the same circumstances-return the favour at least ten fold-but Britain is a lot more moderate...

Having spent a quarter in law school delving into international law, there is a clear and simple answer. International law is based on reciprocity. Whatever one nation does to another is permission for the offended nation to return without legal consequence.

What reports are there regarding the health of Russian agents in Russia?

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by charliels531

Having spent a quarter in law school delving into international law, there is a clear and simple answer. International law is based on reciprocity. Whatever one nation does to another is permission for the offended nation to return without legal consequence.

That's a little puzzling. International law is a matter of treaty obligations in a matrix of anarchy and self help. There's no carte blanche for retaliation-- Malaysia's not free to shootdown a Russian airliner . . .

"Tit for tat" and retaliation are practices seen in the more anarchic sectors, but that's not "international law" -- its how you do business in the absence of international law.

So when the Israelis take out Iranian missiles being shipped through Syria-- that's not "legal", nor would a retaliation be "legal" either.

You might consider Pan Am 103 -- the Lockerbie Bombing-- which is generally thought to be Iranian retaliation for the Vincennes shootdown of the Iranian Airbus. Nothing about the Airbus shootdown was a hunting permit for the Iranians to go after US commercial aviation.

That there isn't necessarily "legal consequence" is due more to the limited powers of the International Criminal Court in The Hague (best known for prosecuting war criminals)

. . . segues into the remarkable news that the Trump Administration is attacking the ICC, an institution that grows out of the efforts of US war crimes prosecutors after WW II.

Its a shocking development.

Originally Posted by John Bolton threatens war crimes court with sanctions in virulent attack

John Bolton, the hawkish US national security adviser, has threatened the international criminal court (ICC) with sanctions and made an excoriating attack on the institution in a speech in Washington.

Bolton pushed for sanctions over an ICC investigation into alleged American war crimes in Afghanistan. He also announced on Monday the closure of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) office in Washington because of its calls for an ICC inquiry into Israel.

“The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court,” Bolton said.

An extraordinary statement, showing just how radical the Trump crew is. Trump may not know anything about the international order, but Bolton does, and he's a bomb thrower. Its a very strange thing for a status quo power to say "burn it all down" -- but that's about where the Trumpies are.

[Dr Pepper]

Originally Posted by bloke57

That has nothing to do with the point I was making. I think you are conflating my defence of Western culture with some foregoing opinions.

Sorry bloke57-I was being sarcastic-it was aimed at the preceding post to yours-but in the context of your point-not at your point. I've not got my head around the mechanics of multiquoting from separate posts-assuming that that is possible...

[Brecht]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

An extraordinary statement, showing just how radical the Trump crew is. Trump may not know anything about the international order, but Bolton does, and he's a bomb thrower. Its a very strange thing for a status quo power to say "burn it all down" -- but that's about where the Trumpies are.

I'm the last guy to come in Trump's defense but Bolton isn't quite part of the Trump crew. Hell, Trump doesn't even have a crew, at least not anymore. John Bolton is someone he had to bring on board to please the neocons in Washington. I don't remember Trump calling for a war against Syria, Libya, Iran or North Korea. As soon as he moved into the White House he must have had his rude awakening. His current policy (not sure he had one before) is dictated by the attacks from both the neocon and liberal camps. John Bolton belongs to the McCain crew. In 2005 when Bolton was made US ambassador to the UN by George W. Bush, John McCain was one of his powerful supporters.

[scoundrel]

It's no secret that the Middle East "peace process" has been completely defunct for a decade, certainly since the PLO rejected the peace offer of the Ohlmert government in 2008 and really before then, when Mahmud Abbas insisted on a Palestinian "right of return" to Israel's territory which no sensible country could possibly concede after the suicide bombings which made the wall necessary.

But the Trump administration's recent decision to expel the PLO embassy from Washington cites the fact that the PLO has taken a case against Israel to the ICC as some kind of an infraction, as though this is naughty in some way. I am not very concerned about the PLO, who in my view are the fathers of their own misfortunes; but I note Mr Bolton's argument that the ICC is an illegal court, and I do not see the basis on which America's failure to recognise the court makes the court illegal. I think rather that this failure makes America the fools here. Sadly, I doubt if there is anyone in the Trump administration who is capable of offering an analysis to explain this "illegality" to the rest of the world. The situation is an international equivalent of Cliven Bundy refusing to recognise the US Federal government and starting armed confrontation of Federal officers - dangerous, serious and pathetically flimsy and ridiculous all at once.

Very soon, Mr Trump and his administration will have diminished America's "soft power" as badly as Mr Putin and his poisonings have already diminished Russian "soft power". Soft power is based on friendship, and no one feels friendly towards the loud, foul-mouthed and crudely aggressive drunk spoiling the evening for everyone else at the neighbourhood bar and tavern.

"Make America great again"? I don't think so.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Brecht

I'm the last guy to come in Trump's defense but Bolton isn't quite part of the Trump crew. Hell, Trump doesn't even have a crew, at least not anymore. John Bolton is someone he had to bring on board to please the neocons in Washington.

That is true, but Bolton is more than neocon. He's actively destructive of international order -- that wasn't how the neocons did things. The international order was, after all, established largely by the United States, George Marshall and his sometime deputy Dwight Eisenhower had a lot to do with it. The neocons were supporters of the alliance and international governance, for the most part-- because they mostly favor American interests.

Bolton is far smarter than Trump, so he understands this -- but wants to burn it down anyway.

When I was a kid, there was a sign you'd see on some lawns-- it was a slogan popular with the John Birch society "UN out of US, US out of UN".

That's where we are -- and I'm just waiting for the Trumpies to propose booting the UN from New York.

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

But the Trump administration's recent decision to expel the PLO embassy from Washington cites the fact that the PLO has taken a case against Israel to the ICC as some kind of an infraction, as though this is naughty in some way. I am not very concerned about the PLO, who in my view are the fathers of their own misfortunes; but I note Mr Bolton's argument that the ICC is an illegal court, and I do not see the basis on which America's failure to recognise the court makes the court illegal. I think rather that this failure makes America the fools here. Sadly, I doubt if there is anyone in the Trump administration who is capable of offering an analysis to explain this "illegality" to the rest of the world. The situation is an international equivalent of Cliven Bundy refusing to recognise the US Federal government and starting armed confrontation of Federal officers - dangerous, serious and pathetically flimsy and ridiculous all at once.

Very soon, Mr Trump and his administration will have diminished America's "soft power" as badly as Mr Putin and his poisonings have already diminished Russian "soft power". Soft power is based on friendship, and no one feels friendly towards the loud, foul-mouthed and crudely aggressive drunk spoiling the evening for everyone else at the neighbourhood bar and tavern.

"Make America great again"? I don't think so.

I am no supporter of Mr. Trump (in fact I find way too many parallels between how Trump behaves and how Hitler behaved) but the American argument with the ICC is that it is attempting to put American citizens on trial when the United States did not ratify the treaty founding and controlling the ICC. As such we are not within their "jurisdiction". Many also don't like their attempts to put people on trial for events that occurred decades before the ICC was founded. In the US we don't allow retroactive application of laws.

As for Israel, I admit I don't know but I strongly suspect that they are also not signatories to the treaty in question.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzjWIxXBs_s

What? 10 minutes of nothing?

I know you don't agree. You only want to hear UK govt output. It's so honest, after all

Let's hear more British honesty. It only cost a few million lives, maimings, and refugees. Not much, is it? The clip is only 25 seconds, unlike your link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0vwmIyxMQ0

[palo5]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

The neocons were supporters of the alliance and international governance, for the most part-- because they mostly favor Israeli interests

Sori, had to fix that for you

[otokonomidori]