Things We Can Learn From Bush
First of all, for those of you reaching this through search engines, I'm not talking about that kind of bush. Sorry.
I think many countries have sat around pondering what they should and should not do in certain situations. Many people have sat around wondering what they should and should not do when countries decide to do or not do something else.
Today, we will follow the lead of the Americans. Based solely on their own actions or inactions, here are things you are allowed to do and still remain a just society. To be fair to the current administration, we will only use recent examples. Sorry folks, Honduras was just too long ago, so secretly supporting death squads to further corporate profits is a no-no.
But here's what's acceptable.
Apparently, it is perfectly okay to try to assassinate a nation's leader. there are only two requirements. First, you have to dislike they guy or girl. Second, you have to declare war on that person's country within a couple of hours of the assassination attempt. It probably doesn't really matter whether it's an hour or two before or an hour or two after. Now, I am in no way suggesting that anyone should do this. And I should clarify that you should be a leader of a nation yourself. Yet, your leadership does not require 100% legitimacy, fair and transparent electoral process or even reasonable and well-articulated public policy. So, remember that sovereign statehood and benevolent dictatorship are only a declaration of independence away!
Apparently, it is okay to propose war on another nation, justifying it on one set of criteria, then waging it on an entirely different set of criteria. All you need to do is say that the leader of the nation in question is a nasty, nasty man or woman. Of course, it helps if you've been limiting the sovereignty of, and indeed bombing on a regular basis, the nation in question. Since if there's not much difference between "peace" and "war", the reasons for war become a little irrelevant.
Apparently, it is okay to hold people indefinitely, without charge, based on secret evidence, and only questionable by people with the appropriate level of security clearance (ie, not a lawyer or civil or human rights monitor). BUT, you can only do this in the name of Freedom, and to spread a beacon of hope through the rule of law to the rest of the world. It's also helpful if you happen to control a small piece of land in a country you despise and are morally opposed to but that conveniently also allows you to claim that your country's constitution doesn't apply to your country's actions if they don't actually quite take place in your country. This carries the side benefit of making it difficult for lawyers or human rights workers to reach said detainees as your country doesn't allow travel to other country that you own a tiny piece of. It can also be helpful to build a secret detention facility/military complex somewhere in your won borders that people don't know about except by rumour and that people can't ask about because really nobody has the security clearance needed to hear the answer. if you don't know how to create such a facility, you could perhaps build, at exorbitant cost, an unnecessary airport in an awkward, rather windy location that is neither convenient for travelers and that doesn't actually work as well as the airport it replaces, but happens to have seven levels of basement beneath it that serve no apparent purpose for commercial air travel. And you could place this entirely fictional facility in, say, Denver, which is conveniently close to NORAD headquarters and major defence contractors and has some good ski hills as well.
Apparently, it is okay to use chemical weapons against another country, provided you don't like them, and are waging war against them presumably because they had chemical weapons that they might use against somebody. However, it is best to argue that just because a conventional weapon has been packed with chemicals to burn things, that doesn't necessarily make it a chemical weapon, because chemical weapons are bad.
Apparently, it is okay to allow the lawyer for a defendant in a war crimes trial to be killed as long as you protect the prosecutor and the judge - provided, of course, that you don't like the defendant in question, and that your overall aim is to cultivate the rule of law so that it may flourish and prosper.
Further to the last point, it is apparently okay to allow court clerks to physically assault said defendant - as long as it is for the reasons outlined above. You should also ensure that the "security" for aforementioned court proceedings are the responsibility of a puppet government as that one degree of separation buys you so much latitude in this kind of thing.
Apparently, it is okay to start a war and take over a country if you honestly believe (or can at least claim that you honestly believe) that that country might develop nuclear weapons and further might give a nuclear weapon to somebody that doesn't like you, who then might try to use it, and might be succesful in using it even if they are far from having the means to actually deliver such a weapon. But for this, you should ensure that you are the only country to have actually used atomic weapons against civilians. this gives you the frame of reference in which to make such moral calculations.
Apparently it is okay to want to cancel or just ignore multi-national anti-armament treaties and develop smaller, gentler nuclear weapons. To justify this, you need to have an obscene stockpile of nuclear warheads, but acknowledge that you can't use in anything even remotely approaching good faith, and therefore you need some small-scale "Plutonium-Lite" munitions that you might get away with using without having the rest of the civilized world turn on you and dump you on your keester. After all, that could hurt your trade forecasts.
So, should you find yourself at the helm of a fledgling nation and need to get a leg-up on your competitors, you now have a better idea of what you can and can't do, all without risking your seat in the United Nations. And with just a few more tweaks and modifications, we'll all be goose-stepping down that golden road to a better world of freedom and entrepreneurship.
I think many countries have sat around pondering what they should and should not do in certain situations. Many people have sat around wondering what they should and should not do when countries decide to do or not do something else.
Today, we will follow the lead of the Americans. Based solely on their own actions or inactions, here are things you are allowed to do and still remain a just society. To be fair to the current administration, we will only use recent examples. Sorry folks, Honduras was just too long ago, so secretly supporting death squads to further corporate profits is a no-no.
But here's what's acceptable.
Apparently, it is perfectly okay to try to assassinate a nation's leader. there are only two requirements. First, you have to dislike they guy or girl. Second, you have to declare war on that person's country within a couple of hours of the assassination attempt. It probably doesn't really matter whether it's an hour or two before or an hour or two after. Now, I am in no way suggesting that anyone should do this. And I should clarify that you should be a leader of a nation yourself. Yet, your leadership does not require 100% legitimacy, fair and transparent electoral process or even reasonable and well-articulated public policy. So, remember that sovereign statehood and benevolent dictatorship are only a declaration of independence away!
Apparently, it is okay to propose war on another nation, justifying it on one set of criteria, then waging it on an entirely different set of criteria. All you need to do is say that the leader of the nation in question is a nasty, nasty man or woman. Of course, it helps if you've been limiting the sovereignty of, and indeed bombing on a regular basis, the nation in question. Since if there's not much difference between "peace" and "war", the reasons for war become a little irrelevant.
Apparently, it is okay to hold people indefinitely, without charge, based on secret evidence, and only questionable by people with the appropriate level of security clearance (ie, not a lawyer or civil or human rights monitor). BUT, you can only do this in the name of Freedom, and to spread a beacon of hope through the rule of law to the rest of the world. It's also helpful if you happen to control a small piece of land in a country you despise and are morally opposed to but that conveniently also allows you to claim that your country's constitution doesn't apply to your country's actions if they don't actually quite take place in your country. This carries the side benefit of making it difficult for lawyers or human rights workers to reach said detainees as your country doesn't allow travel to other country that you own a tiny piece of. It can also be helpful to build a secret detention facility/military complex somewhere in your won borders that people don't know about except by rumour and that people can't ask about because really nobody has the security clearance needed to hear the answer. if you don't know how to create such a facility, you could perhaps build, at exorbitant cost, an unnecessary airport in an awkward, rather windy location that is neither convenient for travelers and that doesn't actually work as well as the airport it replaces, but happens to have seven levels of basement beneath it that serve no apparent purpose for commercial air travel. And you could place this entirely fictional facility in, say, Denver, which is conveniently close to NORAD headquarters and major defence contractors and has some good ski hills as well.
Apparently, it is okay to use chemical weapons against another country, provided you don't like them, and are waging war against them presumably because they had chemical weapons that they might use against somebody. However, it is best to argue that just because a conventional weapon has been packed with chemicals to burn things, that doesn't necessarily make it a chemical weapon, because chemical weapons are bad.
Apparently, it is okay to allow the lawyer for a defendant in a war crimes trial to be killed as long as you protect the prosecutor and the judge - provided, of course, that you don't like the defendant in question, and that your overall aim is to cultivate the rule of law so that it may flourish and prosper.
Further to the last point, it is apparently okay to allow court clerks to physically assault said defendant - as long as it is for the reasons outlined above. You should also ensure that the "security" for aforementioned court proceedings are the responsibility of a puppet government as that one degree of separation buys you so much latitude in this kind of thing.
Apparently, it is okay to start a war and take over a country if you honestly believe (or can at least claim that you honestly believe) that that country might develop nuclear weapons and further might give a nuclear weapon to somebody that doesn't like you, who then might try to use it, and might be succesful in using it even if they are far from having the means to actually deliver such a weapon. But for this, you should ensure that you are the only country to have actually used atomic weapons against civilians. this gives you the frame of reference in which to make such moral calculations.
Apparently it is okay to want to cancel or just ignore multi-national anti-armament treaties and develop smaller, gentler nuclear weapons. To justify this, you need to have an obscene stockpile of nuclear warheads, but acknowledge that you can't use in anything even remotely approaching good faith, and therefore you need some small-scale "Plutonium-Lite" munitions that you might get away with using without having the rest of the civilized world turn on you and dump you on your keester. After all, that could hurt your trade forecasts.
So, should you find yourself at the helm of a fledgling nation and need to get a leg-up on your competitors, you now have a better idea of what you can and can't do, all without risking your seat in the United Nations. And with just a few more tweaks and modifications, we'll all be goose-stepping down that golden road to a better world of freedom and entrepreneurship.
posted by MyMaidMary | 11:45 p.m.
|
2 comments
