We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

A long way from Nuremburg

You’ve just got to laugh really. Certainly that was my reaction when I happened upon this development, courtesy of Bill Herbert:

A coalition of lawyers and human rights groups yesterday unveiled a bid to use the UN’s new International Criminal Court as a tool to restrain American military power.

In a move Washington said vindicated U.S. claims that the court would be used for political purposes, the rights activists are working to compile war crimes cases against the United States and its chief ally in Iraq, Britain.

What, no mention of any intended actions against Saddam Hussein? Some mistake surely? I mean, if Great Satan and Little Satan are in the dock then surely it cannot be so hard to cobble together a half-way decent case against the Ba’athist regime as well?

Of course, we all know the reasons why that is never going to happen; the same reason that truly does vindicate the American determination to have nothing whatsoever to do with the International Criminal Court. But, for once, it is worth examining this in just a little more depth.

So, I followed the link in Bill Herbert’s post to this article in the National Post which provides a bit more background:

They said five eminent international lawyers will outline a case against the United States and Britain next month for submission first to an international “alternative” court called the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal in Rome, then the prosecutor’s office of the ICC in The Hague.

The ‘Permanent People’s Tribunal’? What’s that all about? I’m ‘people’ and yet I have never heard of them nor do I recall appointing them to sit in judgement on my behalf. I find myself falling back on my long-established axiom that any organisation which includes the word ‘people’ in its name is invariably dedicated to anything but people. For confirmation, I did a bit of ‘googling’ and, sure enough, I found a website for this ‘tribunal’ who, it seems, style themselves under the even more nauseatingly self-righteous title of ‘The Lelio Basso International Foundation for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples’.

I have no idea who ‘Lelio Basso’ is but this, erm…august body appears to be a squadron of tranzi busybodies who have claimed jurisdiction over the entire planet. According to them, however:

The Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal is permanent and is characterized by the ideological pluralism of the members of the jury, selected on the basis of their moral, academic and literary qualities.

The claim of ‘pluralism’ is a tad encouraging but, a cursory examination of their ‘Vice-Presidents’ does not appear to bear this claim out.

Ruth First (now deceased) is described in her biography as a ‘lifelong communist’. There is also somebody called Susy Castor who was Haiti’s delegate to the Socialist International Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean but, best of all, is a chap called Amar Bentoumi who has quite a few disgruntled bones to pick with America:

“What gives the right to the US troops stationed in South Korea to use the UN flag?” he said, denouncing the illegality of this 55 year long military occupation, defying the sovereignty of the Korean nation.

Yes, but I don’t really believe that the sovereignty or integrity of South Korea is at the forefront of Mr.Bentoumi’s mind. I do suspect he has other overriding concerns:

M. Bentoumi also questioned the accuracy of information denigrating systematically the D.P.R.K. and its policies, and cited examples proving that often it was a question of “unwarranted allegations” and unsubstantiated accusations.

Oh the humanity!! We must profoundly repent for the evil capitalist opprobrium that has been unjustly heaped on that lunatic Stalinist prison-state.

Anyway, I think we get the picture. ‘Pluralist’? Well, yes, only if ‘pluralist’ means a mixture of Marxist, Leninist and Trotskyite and I strongly suspect that ‘the Bench’ will waste no time whatsoever on their deliberations before finding both the USA and Britain guilty as charged.

Not that that matters, mind. They maye have ‘literary qualities’ but we have the the 3rd Infantry Division and the Royal Irish Rangers so I reckon that means that the Defendants win by default. (Though I imagine those boys would just love an opportunity to settle matters out of Court).

I’ll wager that this whole pantheon of ‘international tribunals’ is another example of commies doing what commies love doing best i.e. inventing organisations with preposterously sanctimonious names, attaching themselves to a widely-recognised principle such as ‘war crimes’ and paddling hell for leather to get somewhere on the global stage.

The real issue is the sullying of the ‘war crimes’ principle because, make no mistake, it will be damaged and compromised goods from now on in.

Modern lefties are like car thieves. They roam the streets looking for vehicles they can break into and, when they find one, they jump in, rev up the engine and drive around town making lots of noise. Assuming the vehicle is recovered at all it will most likely be burned-out, wrecked and fit only for the scrapyard.

Well, we must have left the ‘war crimes’ vehicle unlocked and now the damage is done. Military action aside, a legal or political principle for dealing with democidal and genocidal regimes would be very useful but we’re going to have to look for a new one and, when we find it, we better make sure it is fitted with an immobiliser and a very loud alarm.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on RedditShare on Google+Share on VKEmail this to someone

15 comments to A long way from Nuremburg

  • this really justy serves to de-legitimize much of the Tranzi movement. I say lets have some more publicity for these idjits..!! 😉

  • The article that Herbert links to says this:
    “There is a way that the United States can be accused … of aiding and abetting war crimes,” said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

    Ratner teaches law at Columbia, and he also tried to get the U.N. to step in and stop the Iraq war. At this post I quoted from the article “Could U.N. use military force on U.S.?”:

    Some anti-war groups are urging the world body to invoke a little-known convention that allows the General Assembly to step in when the Security Council is at an impasse in the face of a “threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression.”

    The willingness by the U.S. and Britain to go to war with Iraq without Security Council authorization is the kind of threat the U.N. had in mind when it passed Resolution 377 in 1950, said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a human-rights group in New York City.

  • Hep Cat

    Great God Almighty! Assholes have finally gone and started a union.

  • Byron

    any organisation which includes the word ‘people’ in its name is invariably dedicated to anything but people.

    Second that. You’d think these fools would realize the world has wised up to their manipulative symantics. Perhaps it’s best that they don’t.

    The real issue is the sullying of the ‘war crimes’ principle because, make no mistake, it will be damaged and compromised goods from now on in.

    It may be damaged goods in Europe, but not necessarily in the US. Most of the American public sees through that bs, and will support the US administration if they bring the Baa’thists here for trial and justice. The UN has very little legitimacy in the US general public’s eyes. The Lelio Basso Foundation isn’t even a joke yet.

    As Kipling said, “If you can keep your head when all those about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you…” Hopefully Bush keeps that in mind when deciding how to do deal with the yelping curs across the pond.

  • Byron

    Could the U.N. use military force to prevent the United States and Britain from waging war on Iraq

    Hah. That’s a good one. I’d like to see the UN try it. Though, with what military?

    The moon in silence goes its way and heeds no yelping cur.

  • Jeffersonian

    This “People’s Tribunal” gives lynch mobs and kangaroo courts a bad name. At least the former never had the chutzpah to gussy themselves up in the shabby trappings of legitimacy.

    Has anyone else noticed the inverse relationship between the lunatic delusions of power in the tranzi camp and the amount of power it actually wields? Back in the 1970s, when the USSR was pushing Jimmy Carter’s face into the mud and China was completing its Cultural Revolution, western fellow-travelers were content to join groups like the Weathermen, Baader-Meinhof and the Red Brigades. There they engaged in the usual gangsterism: kidnappings, murders, robberies…but that was about the extent of it.

    Now that their ideological and financial mentors have collapsed and/or turned on the Old Religion, western tranzis imagine themselves to be the moral, political and legal auditors of the entire world, going to far as to convene masturbatory panels who will try precisely no one on their trumped-up charges. Is anyone else waiting for one of them to declare himself Napoleon?

  • Jeffersonian

    Oops…that first paragraph should read “latter”

  • fred

    Is it the People’s Permanent Tribunal or the Permanent Peopel’s Tribunal, or is the PTP (who are a bunch of splitters)?

  • Mystick

    Alright, they are charging the US with a crime in a court (of what law, I don’t know). I guess they will have to charge the US with contempt as well, once they realize that this court has no jurisdiction whatsoever, and is refused recognition.

  • Hep Cat

    These are the most dangerous enemies of freedom on the planet right now. We should handle them with a forked stick.

  • Johan

    Once again, I’m convinced that the right to have guns is important, if you know what I mean.

    Another step to a world government I suppose. It starts with getting a court together, and add “People” to the name so you get sympathy from “people”, after that, a world government is just around the corner…

    I need a gun…

  • David,

    Brilliant post. It pegs the modus operandi of modern leftists. BTW, since we are in the post Soviet era, and they are just repeating themselves, instead of calling them leftists, shouldn’t we just call them “Left-overs”?

    The stuff you say about the “international law” leftovers is just as true with the anti-war leftovers. The good folks at ANSWER – Act Now to Stop the War and End Racism (always gotta get racism in there…) are merely leftover Stalinists – and they have the exact same MO. Hop into a deserted old car (60s wannabes, the “peace” movement) and use it to carry “the cause” as far as the car will take it. For f***’s sake, the Worker’s World Party formed ANSWER on 9/12, not knowing what the U.S. would do about Al Qaida, but presumptively certain that whatever the U.S. reaction, it would comprise a combination of war and racism.

    The more I think about it, the more I’m sure that the no-nukes movement is just more of the same. Come to think of it, I don’t remember any protests about Chernyobl…. so it wasn’t nuke power plants or even meltdowns they dislike.

    The funny thing about these wankers is that we’ve seen their type before, and we’ve called them out at least a couple times in our lifetime. Our parents – they may have called them commies or pinkos, but the 60’s radicals were a novelty; they hadn’t been seen before. Well, they’ve been seen now, and we know exactly who they are and what they are up to. The only people who take them seriously are equally committed invidious leftovers, or the sappy liberal dupes who must take their representations at face value.

    The only question that remains is why someone would commit themself to being a bastard, to advocating the most brutal, dehumanizing economic and political system ever devised by man. That’s one I don’t have an answer to, yet.

  • T. Hartin

    Johan – I hope you meant to say “I need ANOTHER gun.”

  • Matt W.

    Bill, I think the reason why tranzis and assorted far leftists support inhuman governments and failed economic systems is simple, they hope by creating chaos and overthrowing the current system, they can grab power for themselves in the vacuum. I’ve felt that for a long time, I think the hard-line democrats here in America truly don’t give a shit about the poor and downtrodden, they’re nothing but a tool, something to rally sympathy and give them power. I cynically think the the higher ups in the Democratic party secretly desire the worst kind of world, a uniformly poor and mediocre place with themselves as autocrats. All you have to do is look which programs they push to see this goal; attempt to remove personal defense, increasing the welfare state, and sublimation of US interests.

  • How many divisions has the “permanent people’s tribunal”?