Collective punishment sends the wrong message

[DuctapeFatwa]

"U.S. tactics now look like Israel's." I read the story. I read it again. I still don't quite believe my eyes..."wrapping entire villages in barbed wire...imprisoning the relatives of guerilla suspects in hopes of pressuring the insurgents..."demolishing buildings thought to be used by Iraqi attackers."..— in short, war crimes.

"U.S. soldiers driving bulldozers, with jazz blaring from loudspeakers, have uprooted ancient groves of date palms as well as orange and lemon trees in central Iraq as part of a new policy of collective punishment of farmers..What message are we sending to the fledgling Iraqi government about the rule of law? ..They know these tactics. They were the ones Saddam Hussein practiced...

Any schoolchild will tell you that getting punished for something you didn't do breeds anger and resentment. Anger and resentment don't bring peace; they spawn violence.

These new tactics are illegal, morally wrong and ineffective. They are opposed to all principles of humanity and justice and should cease immediately.

http://news.mysanantonio.com/story.cfm?xla=saen&xlb=1090&xlc=1101819&xld=1090

[Saudade]

1. Tactics

For any rational government, Israel would serve as an example of how NOT to conduct oneself on the international stage.

The only lesson Israel has to teach the world is that only justice creates the possibility of peace and oppression only spawns injustice, hence violence.

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. Exactly. And in neither case is peace desired

I posted the article because I am encouraged to see anyone, especially writing for an American paper, object to crimes against humanity.

Peace is the opposite of money.

And unlike human rights, money IS a fundamental American value.

[sistersofmercy]

3. Yes, bush* co have borrowed their playbook that is for sure

In fact I was reading an AI report in Israel and they passed an enemy combatant law in 00 but they call it administrative detention or something like that. Same thing really allows the state to hold a suspect without due process indefinitely.

[Mairead]

4. And they're very clearly war crimes

I don't know whether President Kucinich would see to it that the chief perps stand trial for their crimes. I'd like to think so, certainly, and going on his record I don't think it's implausible.

Is there any other candidate who's more likely to?

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. You have very concisely stated one reason I don't support any of

the candidates.

To date, a grand total of zero have pledged to stop the atrocities, much less bring the perpetrators to justice.

About the best any of them can come up with is to persuade people from other countries to go kill Iraqis, too, using the remarkable, and remarkably popular reasoning that if people with a variety of nationalities are doing it, it won't seem so bad.

I do not think the argument will be as popular with the victims and their families.

[rucky]

6. What are your criticisms of Kucinich's mideast policy?

seems like he's unwilling to enable Israel.

[DuctapeFatwa]

9. I think he has trod a very fine line. While he has not, like Dean,

made a personal visit to sharon to pledge himself liege man of life and limb, and more money than even bush gives him, he has not done anything to propel himself into Cynthia McKinney land, either.

And for his pains, he has not enjoyed the fundraising success of Dean, and in Politics, Inc., "electablity" is just a synomym for "money," nor has he received the credit he should have for refusing to line up for Rapture Pie with whipped AIPAC money on top.

In some cases, he has, like Syria, abstained on certain votes, he in Congress, Syria in the UN.

That abstention is now seen as the ultimate defiance is yet another indication that the situation is more critical than Kucinich, or any politician, can do anything about.

[Mairead]

7. "none have pledged to stop the atrocities"

I don't think that's quite true, unless you mean it in a literal sense ('I pledge to stop the atrocities') which I presume you don't.

Kucinich has pledged to see an end to the colonialist occupation of Palestine. Why wouldn't that end the atrocities there?

He has also pledged to replace our occupying force in Iraq with an international, transitional peacekeeping force dedicated to getting Iraq back together as an independent nation. Unless the new force also took on the role of occupation, oppression, and exploitation, it seems to me that swapping out in that way would end the atrocities being committed in Iraq. No?

[DuctapeFatwa]

8. No reflection on Kucinich, but I don't think that he can do that

As long as the petroleum and weapons companies reign supreme, any soldiers of any country sent into Iraq will be sent there to do their bidding, which is to do whatever is needed in order to generate additional revenues for those industries. (seize the oil)

Unless he is prepared, and able to disarm the US (including its fat little pitbull Israel) and turn the energy companies into co-ops, and put the entire defense industry into the plowshares business, the best he can hope to do is put a "multinational face" on the continuation of crimes against humanity.

In short, the crisis has been allowed to escalate to the point where a political solution is no longer realistic.

[Mairead]

10. The problem is very bad, I quite agree, but there is one thing

about DK that encourages me: he seems to be fearless, direct, and not to have any strings attached. Notice that his policies are nearly all straightforward and common-sense-ical. Make healthcare non-profit. Cut the war budget. End the drugs war. I hardly ever get the sense that he's trying to hide anything, such as making the elites more wealthy under cover of doing something for us.

So I suppose it's possible that he could turn it all over to the UN and then the UN would sell out instead, but are we guaranteed that will happen? More to the point: is there any earthly way to prevent such sellouts happening, regardless of the context? Apart, I mean, from something Ludlumesque such as a secret society dedicated to keeping the greedheads in line by occasionally knocking one off pour encourager les autres?

[DuctapeFatwa]

11. The UN essentially *IS* the US. This is not Kucinich's fault, it is

just a fact of life. The UN refused to exercise its option to stop the invasion, and rubber-stamped the occupation.

The fact that neither the US nor Israel has been voted out of the UN is telling enough, but in case its not, consider that the UN obeyed the US when ordered not to pass a resolution condemning the MURDER OF UN EMPLOYEES.

Kucinich appears not to be a criminal, war or otherwise, and has said publicly that lives are more important than money. I don't know how in the world he ever got to Congress.

I am surprised that he has not yet been sent to Guantanamo, and when he is, I will be pleased if he is assigned a cage near mine.

[Mairead]

12. Doesn't that overstate the case?

If the US were the UN, wouldn't everyone had fallen into line obediently, giving Psychopaths Inc. the cover they needed? I'd certainly agree that the UN isn't powerful and might very well --I hope not!-- be too venal to ever do the right thing, but I can't see in what way they're a sock-puppet.

[DuctapeFatwa]

13. No. It is plainly stating the case, but not an exaggeration

Start with the fact that it's in New York. :) The most recent example of US is UN is the invasion and occupation of Iraq. There were a few stirring speeches, mostly for show and domestic press in a few countries, but at the end of the day, fall in line obediently is exactly what they do.

The invasion of Iraq was plain and simple, one country arbitrarily decidng to invade another and steal its resources. That is precisely the kind of thing the UN was established (ostensibly) to prevent.

There is even an authorization of force provision whose purpose is precisely that: to protect a weak nation from an aggressive bully.

The UN chose not to exercise that option, and then went on to obey US orders to rubber-stamp the occupation.

UN tolerance of aggression, bullying, even blatant crimes against humanity allows it where the US wants it, and raises a stink where the US wants a stink.

That is not to say that every single EMPLOYEE of the UN is a US puppet. On the contrary, there are many people who sincerely believe in the UN charter and the principles it represents who work for the UN because they want to make a positive difference and do what they can to improve the quality of life for earth residents.

However, I believe you will see more and more of these individuals choose different venues for working to achieve their goals.

As I pointed out in a previous post, the UN even obeys the US when ordered not to pass a resolution condemning the murder of UN employees.