Good news (for a change)

June 13, 2008 in I doubt, I think
Tags: , , , , ,

The Kassandra Project

The world is changing very rapidly. There’s plenty of reason to be positive and optimistic. For me, the main bit of good news came with the International Crisis Group’s latest report, containing an article about the fledgling International Criminal Court.

The current leader of America, along with his closest advisors, will eventually be prosecuted by ICC and of that there is no longer any doubt.

For those who don’t know anything about the ICC’s current status, here are the facts. June 2008 marks just five years since the ICC became fully operational. As pointed out by Nick Grono in an “openDemocracy” article, “The prosecutor now has formal investigations underway in Darfur, the DR Congo’s Ituri district, northern Uganda and the CAR – targeting some of the world’s worst atrocities in recent years.” Arrest warrants have been issued in each of these cases, and the prosecutor (currently Luis Moreno-Ocampo) has “targeted the gamut of atrocities, ranging from sexual slavery to recruitment of child soldiers, and from torture to mass murder.”

In another article this week, Donald Steinberg calls for also making forced marriage a crime against humanity.

The recent arrests are good news, “real achievements for what is still a fledgling organisation that lacks its own police force and generally must rely on the assistance – willing or coerced – of the governments in whose countries it is operating. It is also dependent on international support if it is to succeed.”

When I put these welcome developments up against Bush’s current European tour and the lukewarm reception he is receiving there (European citizens are almost 100% lined up against him and his regime), I can see how once he is out of office, America will do anything to distance itself from him and his cronies. Co-operating with the ICC in his arrest will take America a long way towards reconciling with the rest of the world.

So in conclusion, it seems that a future prosecution of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and others by the ICC is pretty much inevitable.

That’s enough to put a smile back on my face.

Another reason for me to smile, is that I discovered the massive movement in the U.S. towards media reform. Fox News is being reduced to a source of ridicule. As we all know, credibility can vanish in an instant – it doesn’t take long. The internet has become such a powerful tool that the corporate mass media is fading fast. The large media companies are no longer dominant with the thinking, intelligent public.

Of course, there are people who are still asleep, or else too busy surviving to be bothered with media. They might turn on their evening dose of useless pap (i.e. the television news) just to fill in some time, make noise in the background. But by now, nobody who has a brain in their head is paying that stuff the slightest bit of attention, except to watch in fascination as corporate media spirals quickly down into the realm of complete uselessness.

The rapid transformation of media in our world is a really fun thing to watch. I could swear that I saw television anchors squirming in discomfort this week – here in Vancouver, they were not permitted to report on the U.S. military air strikes in Pakistan. This made them visibly uncomfortable. They can see their influence disappearing before their very eyes. When the most important events in the world go unreported, due to editorial interference by company owners, how much longer will anybody be bothered with them?

The changes are happening swiftly, and decisively. Fat corporate media is falling in upon itself, imploding before our very eyes. People know bullshit when they hear it, especially when it’s lined up beside the real stuff – like Amy Goodman on Democracy Now, Media Watch, and scores of other organizations which are gaining ground quickly.

My prediction is that by 2015, Bush/Cheney et. al will all be rotting in jail. You can take that to the bank. They’ve got suffering and international humiliation to look forward to. Even if the Repuglicans manage to steal another election, the new regime will be quite anxious to distance itself from the past 8 years in the eyes of the world. Oh, they’ll co-operate all right. They have no other choice. The outcome of the next American election really won’t make any difference, as far as Bush/Cheney are concerned – they are going DOWN.

And I don’t mean on their wives, girlfriends, or boyfriends.

, , , , , ,

15 Replies

  1. metalthunder

    June 13, 2008 at 9:58 pm

    You are a complete idiot if you thing the US will ever bow to a ‘foreign court’ that tries to arrest a US citizen out of the US. Wars have started for less. Pull you head out of your ass before it’s too late.

    Reply
  2. therealchella

    June 13, 2008 at 10:25 pm

    Well metalthunder, it is only a matter of time before Bush is arrested while traveling in a foreign country. Or will he hide in the U.S. forever? More than a few international lawmakers with considerable prosecutorial experience have predicted his arrest. Given the recent desertions from his camp – Scott McClelland comes to mind – it’s obvious that his support at home is dwindling fast. And besides, as for inside the U.S., we now have Vincent Bugliosi pledging to go after him for the domestic crime of pre-meditated murder, in the deaths of over 4,000 soldiers in Iraq. Since the war was started under weak pretense, he has broken your domestic criminal law on very good evidence. I’m afraid you’re the one with your head up your ass, buddy.

    Reply
  3. therealchella

    June 13, 2008 at 10:27 pm

    correction: I referred to “your domestic criminal law”, however I believe that you are writing from overseas, aren’t you metalthunder. I meant American domestic criminal law.

    And hey – thanks for reading!!

    Reply
  4. jonolan

    June 28, 2008 at 11:08 am

    LOL – metalthunder is correct; the US will never surrender its sovereignty to anyone. Right or wrong – each of us much develop our own opinion on it – this ICC is powerless against anything but 3rd-World nations – and it’ll stay that way.

    Oh we won’t start a war over it, but we’ll curtail our aid and support to organizations that supported such a foolish hypothetical move by this ICC. With the US supplying both 40% of the world’s relief efforts and the bulk of the arms and personnel used by the UN and its child organization, we could neutralize the ICC on a whim.

    Please wake up and realize that 1.5 billion people on this planet survive each single day solely on US sufferance. Have you thought of what would happen if the US decided that it was sick and tired of spending its money to support people who provide the US no direct benefit and harrass us every chance they get?

    Reply
  5. Kassandra

    June 28, 2008 at 2:59 pm

    Oh… please wake up and realize that 5.2 billion people on this planet DON’T want to be colonized by US “democracy”, spied by US “Big Brother” and overall don’t want to see their own country destroyed by US bombs because USA thinks it’s a good thing to do for its own concept of democracy and freedom…

    US supported all of the political atrocity in the past (bolivia, argentina, brazil, south africa) or economical (china, russia, poland), in the present (iraq) and in the future maybe (iran?), just for its own madness.

    In the name of “free-market” of Milton Friedman and his Chicago school, the USA reduced in poverty billion people.

    I think I’d like to live in a world where the USA will stay in its own borders, in its own country…

    The world can live without the USA but the USA well knows that it cannot live without the world…

    Reply
  6. jonolan

    June 28, 2008 at 4:56 pm

    We’re talking of two different things, Kassandra. You’re ranting about the US’ political involvement in the world, and I’m stating that the US will never be willing to bow before a foreign court and has the power to make the decision stick. These are two disparate points.

    I’d love to see the US stay within its borders as well. Of course then the world would whine about the loss of 40% of its humanitarian aide, and most all hope of intervention in cases of regimes that oppress their own people. Remember, if the US stays within its borders, aid to world’s poor from the US must end as well – you, I, and everyone must take the good with the bad.

    The US can live alone – though it won’t be living near as well when it comes to stuff, but a large swath of the human race literally cannot live without US largess.

    Reply
  7. therealchella

    June 28, 2008 at 5:33 pm

    Jonolan … you sum it all up so beautifully. The world would miss your humanitarian aid, and it will also miss the chance to have the U.S. intervene in human rights abuses. Sounds like a parent chastising a dependent child, which is exactly how the U.S. sees the rest of us. The U.S. came up with chemical mono-culture mass farming and exported that (at a profit) to the world, inventing the current food crisis. The World Bank run by the top neo-cons keeps the 3rd world languishing in poverty, while your “aid” policies foster ongoing dependence rather than self-reliant development. Meanwhile, countries like Zimbabwe enduring horrific human rights abuses can’t hope for anything remotely resembling assistance from the ICC – because the U.S. has helped the world to develop such a distaste for “intervention” with its criminal military foreign policy. Nice mess you’ve left the world in … and now, you begrudge the world (through the ICC) the opportunity to set anything right by calling to task those who’ve blatantly broken the law. Your attitude Jolan, is typical of the self-loving blindness of many in your country. Luckily, there are many who actually think, use reason, and admit when they are wrong – so there’s hope for us all yet.

    Reply
  8. jonolan

    June 28, 2008 at 9:30 pm

    therealchella,

    I speak to what is, not what people wish was so. I also chose in my comments to not pass moral judgments upon those facts.

    Show me anyone’s aid policies that DON’T foster dependence. From what I can see all humanitarian aid is based on incidence control instead of problem resolution, and that fosters dependence. Of course the US is the most guilty of that; we provide an order of magnitude more aid than any other nation.

    As for intervention, you’re quite wrong on the cause of the world-at-large’s distaste for it. The 1st World – read that as the West – developed a distaste for intervening in other nations problems during WWI, when adherence to treaties plunged the world into a total meat grinder of of a war.

    I find it strange how so many foreigners complain about the US’ involvement in Iraq while at the same time complaining that we haven’t gone into the Sudan or Myanmar.

    Reply
  9. therealchella

    June 28, 2008 at 9:47 pm

    The essential difference between Iraq, Sudan and Myanmar, is that in the case of Iraq, the “crimes” for which you intervened were entirely imaginary, perceived as likely to happen in the future, based on “facts” which turned out to be untrue. In Sudan and Myanmar, the crimes are blatant, ongoing, well documented, and evident for anybody who would care to look. Foreigners note that while you breached international law by going into Iraq, you have followed this up by sitting around talking about your hands being tied by “sovereignty” while horrific human rights abuses continue. The criticism is that your foreign policies are obviously designed to suit American interests, not the interests of the citizens in whose countries you have intervened. As for passing moral judgment, your government makes this very easy for anybody to do, with such a shameful pattern of past interference in the internal political affairs of so many countries – followed up by a refusal to submit your own leaders to international criminal law. Basically – you all suck and blow at the same time, and this pisses everybody else off.

    Reply
  10. jonolan

    June 28, 2008 at 10:08 pm

    We had believable – though mostly erroneous evidence – that Saddam was a threat to the US through his support of various terrorist organization. His support of said organization was finally proven, but his means of support (WMD) was proven FALSE. That I admit freely and want someone hung out to dry over – but I’m not sure who to blame, Intel or the Admin?

    No, we’re not going to subjugate ourselves to foreign powers. No nation will do so willingly and the US is strong enough not be coerced into doing so. Is that “right?” I think so, but I think any other nation is “right” to do the same.

    Of course US foreign policy is based on what’s best for America! ALL nations’ policies are based on what is best for those nations. Each nation’s government is responsible for – and responsible to in democracies – their own people and their welfare.

    Reply
  11. therealchella

    June 28, 2008 at 11:41 pm

    No – you are wrong. There are people and nations who do what is right, for the sake of the people whom they are helping. It is not true that ALL nations do only what’s best for them at all times. That is an over-simplification. Nobody is talking about “coercing” the U.S., however if there is ever to be a true international criminal justice system (which there needs to be) then you will be required to submit to it to the same degree as all other participating nations. I notice you didn’t comment on your history of undue political interference in the domestic affairs of other nations. So, we are in agreement on that. The original point of my article was that Bush/Cheney will likely become very convenient scapegoats because the majority of the world’s thinking population wants somebody to blame for the current mess the Middle East is in, and so they are likely to be offered up at some point to the ICC – by you.

    Reply
  12. jonolan

    June 29, 2008 at 12:57 am

    We will have to agree to disagree on whether or not any nations exhibit altruism in their foreign policy, which is what I was talking about. If you’re speaking of something other than government foreign policy then we may or may not be in agreement.

    We actually talking about “coercing” the US, but the US will not subjugate itself to foreign powers, nor will any other nation without coercion or incentive. It just won’t happen because the world can’t force the US to abrogate their own sovereignty and the US won’t voluntarily give it up. I refer you to the US’ involvement in the UN as an example.

    I didn’t comment on the US’ involvement in foreign politics because that is long standing fact. We agree that it happened. We do not agree on the “undue” adjective – or at least we’d have to address each case individually to determine if we’d agreed on that.

    The majority of the world’s NON-thinking population wants someone to blame. The thinking portion – a tiny minority – wants to find away to not have that sort of mess happen again.

    Reply
  13. Kassandra

    June 29, 2008 at 9:14 am

    People under political or human would ask for foreign help…

    Iraq didn’t ask US help.

    Afghanistan asked help during the war against Russia but not 15 years after, when US destroyed the country to find a ghost who wasn’t there…

    Argentina didn’t ask US help but it was destroyed economically by FMI and US intervents, and the same I can write for people who live in poverty after US help as Bolivia, Poland, Brazil, and overall Chile.

    US supports human rights??? When?? Where???
    US helped Afghanistan against talibans just for its own interest in gas…or Kuwait just for oil… Where is this great country who help the world against the “bads”?

    Oh, of course US gives its dummy help to billion people… but at the same time its gains from deliberately destroyed countries as Iraq or Afghanistan are 10 or 100 times greater than what it spends for “the wealth of the whole world”…

    Iran will be te next victim of this cruel game.

    Reply
  14. jonolan

    June 29, 2008 at 1:20 pm

    Kassandra,

    The US didn’t go into Iraq for oil. That is a common “mistake” that the American Leftist media has spread to the world. We went into Iraq solely to remove a threat to the US. If we’d really wanted Iraqi oil, we’d have just dropped the sanctions preventing Saddam from selling it on the free market.

    Afghanistan was similar. They supported Al-Qaeda; therefor they were removed from power.

    Kuwait – if you’d care to remember – part of a UN sanctioned action to protect it from Saddam. My guess would be the the whole of the 1st World’s nations wanted to keep Kuwait’s oil and money flowing.

    So, you’re right the above endeavors had very little to do with human rights. They were actions based on protecting the US – and other countries in some cases – from threats originating or operating in these nations and under their current regimes.

    You may be shocked to find out that I was always against removing Saddam. I – rightfully as it sadly turned out – believed that the US would win the war, but lose the peace. We’re not very good at rebuilding a nation out of multivalent political-military chaos. :(

    As for long past actions, you have point. The US and the USSR were for decades engaged in a dirty proxy war fought in 3rd World nations across the globe. A lot of people were wronged and sacrificed in the Cold War between Democracy-Capitalism and Communism-Socialism.

    Reply
  15. Kassandra

    June 29, 2008 at 3:46 pm

    You’re right my friend… US would win the war, but lose the peace…

    Reply

« “Big Brother” Presidential Directive: “Biometrics for Identification and Screening to Enhance National Security”
Obama’s Chicago Boys »

Leave a Comment


trackback address