Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Pat Robertson gets taken to the woodshed by the daughter of a president

Patti Davis labels Pat Robertson's call for the assasination of Hugo Chavez "blasphemy" and gives a good argument for her assertion at: The Sin of Blasphemy ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9053644/site/newsweek/ )

Robertson himself showed how Bush's war on terror has become like Hitler's war to protect Germany from future threats by countries who might someday harbor people who might threaten the Deutsch Reich (or at least that was the argument of many of the men at Nuremburg. Justice Jackson dispatched with those arguments as he would the arguments of Robertson for preemptive assassination and the arguments of George --I'm not a failure. I'm not, I'm Not I'M NOT!!!!-- W. Bush for preemptive war).

(The following is adapted from the opening and closing statements of Robert H. Jackson, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and Chief US Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials. In effect, "aggressive war" as used by Jackson is the same as "preemptive invasions" as used by the Bush Administration.)

the greatest menace of our times [is] aggressive war.

some of the defendants argue that the war was not aggressive and was only intended to protect the nation against some eventual danger from [an assumed] menace[, but] [even for] legitimate objectives if they [a]re to be attained without resort to aggressive warfare… [it] is …illegal to wage aggressive war….

Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is illegal means for settling those grievances or for altering those conditions. It may be that a nation face[s] desperate problems, problems that would have warranted the boldest measures short of war. All other methods persuasion, propaganda, economic competition, diplomacy [a]re open to an aggrieved country, but aggressive warfare [is] outlawed. Th[ose who]make aggressive war, a war in violation of treaties. Th[ose who] attack and invade [other countries] in order to effectuate a foreign policy which they kn[o]w [can] not be accomplished by measures short of war [are guilty of aggressive war].

It is not necessary among the ruins of [a] city with untold members of its civilian habitants still buried in its rubble, to argue the proposition that to start or wage an aggressive war has the moral qualities of the worst of crimes.

We charge unlawful aggression but we are not trying the motives, hopes, or frustrations, which may have led [a nation] to resort to aggressive war as an instrument of policy. International law, unlike politics, does not concern itself with the good or evil in the status quo, nor with the merits of the grievances against it. It merely requires that the status quo be not attacked by violent means and that policies be not advanced by war. We may admit that overlapping ethnological and cultural groups, economic barriers, and conflicting national ambitions … will continue to create, grave problems for [a some nation or another]. We may admit too that the world [may fail] to provide political or legal remedies, which would be honorable and acceptable alternatives to war. We do not underwrite either the ethics or the wisdom of any country, including my own, in the face of these problems. But we do say that it is now, as it was for sometime illegal and criminal for … any nation to redress grievances or seek expansion by resort to aggressive war.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

Links to this post:

Create a Link