Posted July 9, 2002

Above the Law

The U.S. is seeking to be exempt from prosecution which has nearly crippled the Bosnia mission. The US argument is based on the notion that American soldiers may be prosecuted by foreign governments and sent before the newly created International Criminal Court. The key is what kind of message is the US sending.

The US threatens nations like Yugoslavia with no international recognition and no financial aide if they do not cooperate with the International Criminal Court for Yugoslavia. Yet the US along with the permanent members of the UN Security Council seek to be exempt or have veto power over the ICC. They seek selective justice.

We hear the argument here in the US that people in power and wealth are above the law or operate under a different set of rules than the average citizen. Guess what, the same now holds true on the global stage among nations. The US and other powerful nations with wealth are to be above the law and operate under a different set of rules than the rest of the world. Power and wealth buys you selective justice, a get out of jail free card if you will, an exemption from the ICC.

What does the US have to fear? If she does no wrong than why the worry?

Maybe incidents like the torching of villages in Vietnam, bombing passenger trains and buses as well as TV stations during Kosovo to wedding parties in Afghanistan is more than enough for the US to fear the ICC. Maybe it is the truth the US fears from getting out!

~ Pete P., Wisconsin

Emollient Unction

As a sometime leftist, I am surprised by the number of rightists and conservatives contributing to your site. Some of the material is intriguing and useful.

However, even more intriguing is the fact that the editors of this site think stories about Mexican immigrants flooding US borders is something to do with anti-imperialism. (26th June, 2002). I am aware of the right's long-standing hostility to the movement of people across borders, (in this regard, even the libertarian right support the most authoritarian legislation), but this hardly constitutes an antiwar news item. I am unaware that any Mexican immigrant to date has authorised a US invasion of another country. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

To add to that, there is the continual (and bewildering) appearance of stories hostile to the FARC rebel movement in Colombia. (26th June; 27th June; 28th June etc. etc.). Perhaps one could construe this as relating to a potential US war on Colombia, but if that is the case it begs the question why there have been no stories posted regarding the continuing, and murderous, campaign of terror by rightist paramilitaries in Colombia -- groups which, by any account, are far worse in their brutality and bloody history than FARC. (Of course, they slaughter mainly trade unionists and lefties, so perhaps they don't count).

If this is an antiwar site, the wonder is that there is so much on it that serves as an emollient unction for the warmongers. Nothing could be more pleasing to the armchair generals than to have their racist views about people from other countries confirmed. Even more importantly, nothing could act as a better salve for anyone planning a bombing campaign on Colombia than the continual stories about FARC, denuded of context (and a great deal of content). Antiwar.com has as its premise the notion that the Left and Right should unite to oppose war. I must say this uncomfortable alliance is probably a necessity in the US at the moment, but it ought to be unity only on the basis of those anti-imperialist principles shared by both left and right, without the infringement of other agendas designed to serve the ideological interests of one side only.

~ Richard S., England

Sending in the Marines

Seems to me, having perused the assortment of items on your site today, that the war on terror is just a ratcheted-up version of the war on drugs. Everybody knows both are patently unwinnable and are a terrible waste of money, time and attention -- and that solutions other than "sending in the Marines" would almost certainly have better results. Nevertheless in both cases the opposition is prevented from effectively arguing its position because it's at least unpatriotic and at most illegal.

In both cases the "war" has not nearly so much to do with stated-and-hyped objectives as with the accumulation and maintenance of greater levels of power, using the genuine good intentions of the public to achieve those ends - i.e. images of victims of 9-11, terrorist/drug-related scare stories and advertisements.

Whatever happened to the War on Poverty? That's one I could really get behind, and yet it disappeared, too, in the gloom of the War Against Communism and the heart of darkness in Southeast Asia.

~ John McGill, East Glacier, Montana

Interesting Timing

I have recently started to read Antiwar.com. Very refreshing, independent thought, thank you very much.

I have especially enjoyed Justin R. articles. Though am not very interested in the Balkan articles, mainly because I am unable to pronounce names with an insufficient number of vowels.

I have however really enjoyed his articles on Israel. One thing I do not remember reading in his articles is a discussion of US funding of Israel and it's rather interesting timing. That is the idea that the US is 'funding' Israel out of concern of it's self-defense.

Interestingly, if you look at US monies sent to Israel, probably 99% of it came after the Six-Day War. If the US was so concerned for Israel why was it not being supported before this? Did Israel finally prove it could be our 'local cop on the beat' as Kissinger phrased it?

~ Jim V.

We

I am perplexed by Justin Raimondo's statement in his July 5 column, "...But at a time when we are trying to enlist the aid of our Arab allies in a war against Al-Qaeda and allied organizations, Schwartz's firing is hardly surprising..."

...Who does he mean by "we"?

...The official US government may want to sign up Arab allies to fight this phony war, but please leave me out of it.

After devoting numerous columns to the danger of perpetual war for perpetual peace Raimondo in one sentence appears to provide the endorsement for just that which he and his organization have been so valiantly fighting against. As he has so often pointed out, what good does it do to wage war to hunt down Al-Qaeda when all you accomplish is to kill thousands of civilians, thereby producing more enemies every bit as deadly as Al-Qaeda ?

The United States government may propagandize that it is effectively hunting down those responsible for 9/11. In reality, the U.S. government's motive is always to enhance its own power. It will continue to use 9/11 as a justification for more war, and more subsequent power for itself. It will string along the hunt for Al-Qaeda as long as the people swallow it, and then it will produce another bogeyman organization from its past interventions in an attempt to continue the ruse. Only when the people see Washington D.C. and its rotten core for what it is will this perpetual war machine be stopped.

~ DW

Visit Doha

In a very recent article in the NY Times on Pentagon planning with regard to a three-pronged attack on Iraq, a quoted
senior official at the Pentagon referred to plans being in the "brainstorming and conceptual" phase.

If one or two reporters from the Times would like to do some basic journalistic checking on facts, all they need do is visit Doha and hang around for a few days to find out things are well beyond the conceptual stage.

There are four thousand marines at a secret base in the desert in addition to the almost frenetic activity going on at the local American airbase. Troops are pouring into Qatar and local residents report F 16 activity not seen since the Persian Gulf War.

~ Dr. Paul Kindlon, Moscow, Russia

Liberty or Security

Here is my little Independence Day address:

Today we can think about the fact that we were born free. Then we can also think about the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution. And also the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, which is quite an interesting document in itself. ...

Even though individual and community freedom have been losing ground, and the centralization of power both in the US and Europe (with the "EU" and "euro") has been increasing, plenty of people still believe in personal and community freedom. Thus, we keep what we have, and work to get our other freedoms and rights back.

We should remember, at the time of the American revolution, Patrick Henry did not say, "Give me liberty, or give me security!"

~ Robert W., Texas