Good Thing He Doesn’t Run the Show

Oskar Lafontaine, a German politician of the Left, has weighed in on the definition of “terrorism”: Herr Lafontaine asserts that “terrorism is the killing of innocent people to achieve political objectives”. By this definition, certainly, the men who turned jetliners into weapons on September 11 are terrorists. Herr Lafontaine concedes this. But, by the same token, he argues that “Americans are also terrorists when they bomb cities and villages in Afghanistan (and) Iraq and kill tens-of-thousands of innocents.”

There is, of course, a consistency here, something different from blind anti-Americanism. It is a consistency born of a simple moral absolutism: All killing is wrong. Of course, it isn’t quite that simple. It is modified in that only the killing of innocents is to be considered terrorism. This means that any time collateral damage occurs, the actor who caused such damage is to be regarded a terrorist, regardless of the lengths taken to avoid it.

The refreshing thing about this, of course, is that it’s not quite moral relativism: It is moral equivalence. The only way to avoid ever becoming a terrorist, then, is for a state actor never to act at all. This is, essentially, a strict liability view of the world: It matters not what your intentions were; if some innocent somewhere dies, and the proximate cause is your action, you are automatically a terrorist.

Yes, it’s easy to ride the moral high horse when you’re not in charge. The fact that Herr Lafontaine has no real power whatsoever is a testament to the limits of such a position among even the cynical German electorate.

(Hat-tip: Davids Medienkritik)

[Cross-posted at Between Worlds]

The Failure of the ICC

Some friends and I were exchanging notes, and we discused the possibility that Slobodan Milosevic’s death was part of a conspiracy. I don’t usually spring for conspiracy theories, but we did discuss that the International Criminal Court having a motive: Milosevic’s defense had made a mockery of the proceedings. My friend outlined some of the problems with the ICC:

  1. Jurisdiction/sovereignty: This is basically a question of who has power over the defendant. The Serbs insist that Milosevic was theirs to try, and even his bitterest opponents in that country are angry that he was removed to the Hague. The essence of the jurisdictional issue is that Under Yugoslav Federal law and Serbian law, which govern the person of Slobodan Milosevic, the man and the Head of State, there is no call whatsoever for the ICC to try him because the legal institutions exist inside the country to judge the former President, if and when a case is made against him, which to date has not been the case. Further, Serbia, at the time of his alleged crimes, did not recognize the ICC.

  2. Serbian Law: The ICC considers itself to be in the right, but under Serbian law, the decision to take Milosevic to the Hague for trial constitutes kidnapping, since it was not agreed upon by a majority of the Serbian cabinet ministers. Thus, even if the ICC has jurisdiction by Milosevic’s presence, it is only because he was forcibly brought before the court.

  3. Evidence: Simply put, there isn’t any. Of the over 2000 people initally slated to testify against Milosevic, all but 5 have refused, partially over the sovereignity dispute, and the testimony of those 5 is both weak and unreliable. There is no paper trail or any sort of documentation that links Milosevic to any of the alleged crimes. It’s literally Milosevic’s word against the prosecutors.

  4. Lack of a Jury: This is one of the United State’s major complaints, and Milosevic has hammered it. The ICC doesn’t have juries…it uses a three judge panel to reach decisions. This is inherently fraught with conflict of interest, because if the ICC “loses” such a high profile case it will be the laughingstock of the world, and will never approach legitimacy. But inherent in that conflict, no fair trial was really possible for Milosevic.

  5. Legality of the Court: This is a finer point of law, but was Milosevic’s main argument, which the court had no answer for. Milosevic claimed that the ICC had no legal basis to hear his (or any) international case. The judge interpreted that as a question of jurisdiction, but they are not the same thing. Jurisdiction concerns the power of the court over the defendant. I could set up the court of “plezercruz” in my back yard with Jon holding a gun as my bailiff, and, if you stumbled into my back yard, I could declare jurisdiction over you because I CAN force you to comply. But it certainly wouldn’t be “legal.” Jurisdiction is about power, not right.

    Legality concerns whether the court actually is an agent of law in the first place. Milosevic’s argument was, basically, that since the UN Security Council itself had no right or ability in law to sanction him personally, it was impossible for that same council to create a court to do that for them. Courts are agents of the sovereign, and the UN has no sovereignity by defintion. By his argument, the ICC had no more right to try him than I have of trying you in my backyard. This argument crippled the ICC. It had no answer for it.

    Milosevic asked the ICC to seek a ruling from the International Court of Justice (a non-criminal UN court which settles inter-sovereign disputes and is nonbinding) as to it’s own legality, but the ICC basically ignored his request, despite amicus briefs from all over the world urging them to do so, probably because the ICC likely has no legitimacy in law.

Overall, Slobodan Milosevich managed not only to derail his own prosecutors, but shook the basic foundation of the ICC itself. If not for Slobodan Milosevich’s glaring humiliation of the ICC, Saddam Hussein might have been sent to the ICC for judgment. Instead, the world has now seen that the ICC has deep internal legitimacy issues, and it is unlikely that any of Iraq’s ‘war criminals’ will be sent there.

From that perspective, indeed, there seems to have been a motivation to hasten Milosevic’s departure from the mortal realm.

(Hat-tip: plezercruz)

[Cross-posted at Between Worlds]

Who else is involved?

To stiffen the sinews and add purpose to my existence I have been re-reading John Buchan’s novels. (Actually, they often make one feel tired and inadequate, but let that pass.)

Aficionados will recall that most of the novels (and my own favourites are the Hannay and Leithen series) have somewhere near the beginning a discussion of a random set of events that somehow fit together into a sinister pattern. Almost always behind those events there is a person or a group of people manipulating those who think they are acting on their own.

The reason these plots do not become stupid and tiresome conspiracy theories is because Buchan, a man who knew politics from personal experience, always understood that there were many other unforeseeable events happening as well and even the smartest conspirators could not count on everything to develop as planned.

I am not for one moment suggesting that there is a world-wide conspiracy behind the War of the Danish Cartoons. But clearly there are different forces at work.

Demonstrations of this kind, whether it is a march with prepared placards from the Regent’s Park mosque to the Danish Embassy (a long way, incidentally, in London) or crowds bused from all parts of Beirut and outside it to burn the embassies, have to be planned, financed and organized. Spontaneous demonstrations always fizzle out.

So, let’s go through some of the groups and people who might be doing some organizing. No question but Iran is dabbling in it somewhere, though interestingly, the mullahs opted not to have demonstrations in the country itself until today when they went for the Austrian embassy. Now that is very interesting, as few people know even inside the EU, let alone outside it, that Austria holds the rotating presidency. Then the Danish embassy was attacked.

Baby Assad got his lot together, first in Damascus then in Beirut (yes, I know the Syrians have formally left Lebanon but their agents go marching on). Could it be yet another effort on his part to delay his coming demise (political or otherwise)? Another civil war in Lebanon would be enormously useful to him.

Riots in Gaza where the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade is anxious not to be seen as wimps, while Hamas is ready to turn attention away from the still uncleared rubbish in the localities where they won elections some time ago. Apart from that, demonstrations in some countries like Pakistan and Indonesia but not very big ones. A peaceful demonstration in Cairo and, more recently riots, almost certainly stirred up by the Taliban, in Afghanistan.

Saudi Arabia might be promoting the boycott but there are no riots in the country itself. Nor in various other Arab countries, despite the growing need to turn attention away from such enormous events as the annual stampede during the Hajj to Mecca, which always seems to result in several hundred dead and the more recent ferry disaster in the Red Sea. Over 1,000 people seem to have died while the captain and officers managed to escape.

Outside the Middle East, in one place only: London, which is interesting as Britain has not been in the vanguard of defiance or support for free speech. Are we now seen as a soft touch by all those groups of Islamicists? Is the name Londonistan better deserved than we realized? I ask merely because I want to know.

There is, however, another aspect to the London demonstrations that has not, so far as I know, been noted by anyone. The placards, presumably handed out at the Mosque on Friday and carried down to Sloane Street, all seem to have been written by one hand.

That would not be a problem by itself. But I suggest close attention to what is said on them. These are not placards written by people whose second language is English, who are not educated or unable to put sentences together and can only rage impotently.

The words, the slogans, the sentences are all carefully written by someone who is English or has lived here all his life (I doubt it was a woman) and someone well educated. Words like “annihilate”, “behead”, “holocaust”, “massacre” are not easy to spell.

Slogans like “Europe is the cancer, Islam is the answer” do not come from the Koran or the teachings of the average imam. Or what of this: “Europe you will pay, Fantastic 4 are on their way”?

One of the interesting aspects of the big demo organized by the Coalition Against the War was the complete uniformity of the placards and notices carried and stuck on lamp-posts. Furthermore, they were exactly like the placards and notices of the Socialist Workers’ Party. It took some journalists a little time to find the various connections but eventually they did. However, one look at those posters would have given them the clue.

I am not suggesting that there is a Black Stone or a Powerhouse behind all this, much less a brilliant German agent of the kind who gives Hannay a bad time in two out of the five novels.

But I would strongly suggest that some English organization (or just an individual, though that is unlikely) has become involved in the London protests, seeing in them a possibility for mayhem.

There is, of course, another explanation and that would fit in with Buchan’s plots. There may be a maverick somewhere in the various intelligence and security services, who, tired of official inaction in the face of great danger, has decided to provoke public opinion, leaving the politicians and guardians of the law (stop laughing at the back) with no choice but to act. (We wish.)

That may be a daydream but it is a very pleasant one. Sadly, I think the first explanation may be nearer the truth. But I am guessing.

Cross-posted (mostly) from EUReferendum

State of the Union Address

Just to give a little bit of perspective, here is an extract from Richard Nixon’s 1974 State of the Union address:

Just as 1970 was the year in which we began a full-scale effort to protect the environment, 1974 must be the year in which we organize a full-scale effort to provide for our energy needs, not only in this decade but through the 21st century.

As we move toward the celebration 2 years from now of the 200th anniversary of this Nation’s independence, let us press vigorously on toward the goal I announced last November for Project Independence. Let this be our national goal: At the end of this decade, in the year 1980, the United States will not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need to provide our jobs, to heat our homes, and to keep our transportation moving.

To indicate the size of the Government commitment, to spur energy research and development, we plan to spend $10 billion in Federal funds over the next 5 years. That is an enormous amount. But during the same 5 years, private enterprise will be investing as much as $200 billion–and in 10 years, $500 billion–to develop the new resources, the new technology, the new capacity America will require for its energy needs in the 1980’s. That is just a measure of the magnitude of the project we are undertaking.

But America performs best when called to its biggest tasks. It can truly be said that only in America could a task so tremendous be achieved so quickly, and achieved not by regimentation, but through the effort and ingenuity of a free people, working in a free system.

LINK

I suspect my personal jetpack will be delayed as well.