Francis Boyle: Iran Should Sue US in World Court to Stop Threats of Attack

"However, I think you're going to have consistent problems in convincing Americans that we should make concessions to the international community, especially when that community will unabashedly acknowledge their desire for America's weakening."

There are a finite amount of resources in the world. People in the West consume five to six times the amount of resources per capita as those in the developing world. Most of the resources are IN the developing world. If poverty is to be eliminated many things will have to happen, but fundamentally one of the things is evening out the consumption. You're right, the West cannot be reasoned with. No logic or moral argument works, we're capitalist, we have a capitalist mentality and we simply don't care about anything other than money and stuff we're told we have to buy. It's sickening, our economic system and the menality it rests on have made us fundamentally immoral people.

Americans aren't making concessions, they are getting in the way of people controlling their own resources for their own benefit, and they do this largely through the financial markets, keeping people in debt and not allowing independant development. Frankly, if the US or the West in general doesn't change, doesn't consume less and give a voice to the least powerful they WILL cause a violent reaction. Nothing gets through to the damn imperialist, immoral West but violence, the West lives by violence, so they should expect more in return if they don't decide upon more humane policies now. I don't say that like it's a good thing or it has to happen, it's a horrible thing and it can happen, but peaceful change is being made impossible, and has been for decades. What is left but violence and war? Nothing, no arguments, no calls to higher and humane morals works, so what is left?

Alright then, Grant. You're right, I was implying that without the bite, international bodies will never have the influence they seek. I wasn't implying that international law ceases to be law if ignored by the world's powers. Whether law is still law if it is unenforceable and only adopted by some is a another matter.

I'm certainly not against input from smaller nations. However, I think you're going to have consistent problems in convincing Americans that we should make concessions to the international community, especially when that community will unabashedly acknowledge their desire for America's weakening. Despite increased globalization, nations undoubtedly continue to face distinct threats, and uniform laws will therefore continue to be difficult to sustain. For example, from what I know currently, I pray that Israel does not take action against Iran. However, I cannot blame them for acting unilaterally if they truly feel that Israeli security is at risk. Subjective international dissent is fine. But when that concept transforms into pseudo-objective international law, people rightfully get a little concerned.

"Grant, the logic isn't ridiculous, as indicated by you essentially restating my point."

You said that the ICC, UN or World Court "will never have spine without the US and our allies."

This is NOT what I was saying. You seemed to be implying (if you want to change your wording to make it clearer it might help) that in order for these bodies to have legitimacy you need the strong governments to basically have the ability to enforce rulings, which is entirely different than saying that there is no such thing as international law if the US and similar countries simply ignore the very concept.

I'll come back to your second remark later, I'm leaving right now and will comment tomorrow and it takes more time to explain.

I will say quickly that countries have been trying for years to make the international bodies like the UN or the IMF far more democratic than they are and have been stopped by the US and the rest of the more powerful countries. The formerly "third world" tried at Bandung in 1955 and there after to assert its agenda in opposition to the West (and represented the majority of the world), they worked collectively along in bodies like the NAM to lobby the more powerful countries non-violently and got nowhere. If the US and similar countries do not make sacrifices in the coming years, sacrifices that are basic, they will pay a price. Kennedy said that "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" and he was right. There has been a move leftward from Latin America (El freaking Salvador is set to elect a moderate leftist for Christ sake), to places as different as Egypt (where there have been massive civil disobedience and strikes) and Nepal. Sarkozy's biggest opposition in France now is a radical leftist, whose approval rating dwarfs Sarkozy's. Here there has been an obvious move leftward, as least with the public. In the EU Ireland, the French and the Dutch rejected the EU constitution and the UK would have done the same but the government had to scrap a national vote on the matter and decided to just decide for the country in the House of Commons.

The Pentagon and the British Defense Secretary have given talks in recent years about resource and population growth as well as global warming. They both have said that growing population and consumption patterns as well as global warming are going to put a strain on already depleted natural resources and the need for land, water and basic necessities would be the cause of violent conflict moving forward, claiming that ideology would be secondary (which I disagree with but that's beside the point). If the West doesn't start thinking about morals that shouldn't be negotiable and cutting back their violence and consumption habits, if they don't allow more participation by the less powerful countries and make these institutions more democratic they will begin to pay a higher price. We have a choice now, we won't in the future. Events will force themselves on us and it will not be pretty. It's better to stop being bullies and to listen to the warnings of people like the US lawyers at the Nuremburg trials than to go on with violence like we are.

I don't know what label to use sometimes, but the one thing I am sure of is that you must be ready to defend yourself. And you are right that sometimes the non-violent response is nothing more than suicide.

That said, if there is any other way, any other course but war I'd take it. Its the most destructive thing we do. A lot of people that have never experienced it take it lightly like our current CinC and assistant CinC. Frankly anyone that likes violence is usually a coward, a bully or not quite right in the head.

I believe international law is inevitable, but it won't be in our lifetimes. Nor our Grandchildren's more than likely. Look at the trade practices of countries over the past 12 years, it will tell you that National interests will guide all of us for many years. At least thats my opinion.

Pax

Grant, the logic isn't ridiculous, as indicated by you essentially restating my point. But the larger problem is that some countries like the US will likely always be threatened by others who refuse to abide by such rules. Thus, international bodies have to be even-handed, not biased against the very states that lend it credibility.

Grant and Thomas, please expound about what laws we could all agree on. I think this is an important topic for the sake of discussing these entities.

"Though I'd say Radical Leftists can be very violent. Have been."

I appreciate it Thomas, thought you'd want to know who is trying to attach themselves to you. There have been a number of radical leftists who have been violent, which is why SOME leftists are pacifist. They were horrified by the actions of some of the people who at least called themselves leftist and want to use democracy and peaceful means to resolve disputes. On the whole I agree, but there are exceptions, which means I'm not a pacifist, and neither are a good number of leftists who generally don't like violence. I believe in self defense, and sometimes the non-violent response is nothing more than suicide.

I can't get into his head, but my guess is that Ariel is defending what is and against what could and should be. I think he has an ideological objection to international law and thinks it is unrealistic. It isn't, but if the most powerful states think as he does (which they currently do) then it is unrealistic. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

"The "far left", whatever the hell that is, could never be considered pacifist or violent. It's made up of people who rarely agree on means and usually disagree on ends."

Great description. Almost perfect. Though I'd say Radical Leftists can be very violent. Have been.

"I'm talking about enforcing laws that moral people can agree upon, states are made up of people who can be, under the right circumstances, held accountable for their actions. That would apply to Saddam for bombing Israel as it would for Israel's actions in the Occupied Territories."

Seems a perfectly sensible statement to me.

Look guy's, isn't Grant just saying what ought to be? And I agree with him. And aren't ya'll just trying to say what is?

"Grant, the ironic thing is that the ICC, the UN, the World Court…
will never have spine without the US and our allies. Such organizations are only good for empty rhetoric."

What ridiculous logic. If the most powerful states abided by international law so too would the less powerful states. There can be easily drawn up plans so that if any state didn't abide by international law they could be collectively punished. If the most powerful states however do whatever they can, as long as the costs aren't too high for them economically, politically and militarily, then there is no international law. I can see why, as defenders of Israel, you two take this position, sorry to tell you that "nobody cares" for this defense and it will eventually bite you in the ass.

What was the purpose of the Nuremburg or Tokyo Trials (which were far from objective to begin with) or the Geneva Conventions? Why take all the time to create laws in response to the horrific Nazi atrocities, which have certainly been used by the defenders of Israel since, if it was nothing but "empty rhetoric"?

"You can't be a pacifist and get pissy when nobody cares what you proclaim. Yet another fallacy of the far-left movement."

Anyone with a brain realizes that the mythical "far left movement" is a bumper sticker simplification. Few in the "center", the "far left" or "far right" or anything in between agrees on means and ends enough to be simplified this much. The "far left", whatever the hell that is, could never be considered pacifist or violent. It's made up of people who rarely agree on means and usually disagree on ends. You'd know that if you participated in movements with those on the left and didn't just read about them in books from people who dislike the left & you already agree with. I myself am not pacifist, nothing I said would hint at that. I'm talking about enforcing laws that moral people can agree upon, states are made up of people who can be, under the right circumstances, held accountable for their actions. That would apply to Saddam for bombing Israel as it would for Israel's actions in the Occupied Territories. You have a ready made straw man though, so you might as well use it.

How also did you deduce that "nobody cares"? Who is this "nobody"? Is it world opinion, the opinion of the people that matter in your eyes or just you two?

"The reason why international law doesn't work is because the most powerful states simply ignore international law. To say that people who believe in law (the majority of the world) that would hold back the ability of the state to kill innocent people, of the more powerful states to attack the weaker states & democracies without any legal protection, to threaten other countries, are "utter fools" says more about Ariel than it does about the people who wished that the most powerful states and individuals had morals that could be defended. Ariel, who is nothing more than a keyboard commando loudmouth, doesn't have to pick up a gun himself, he talks tough online to people he'll never meet and calls for more state violence because it won't directly affect him and he is a reactionary Kahanist racist."

Nicely said Grant.

A set of basic principles would seem agreeable to many, I think. But what would they include? Blanket prohibitions on torture? Some body or entity will still have to interpret these principles, and there you have the possibility for problems. But I think that is an interesting topic of discussion, so what are a handful of basic principles that would seem appropriate to you?

Grant, and we could say the same thing to Sudan right back! Or for that matter any third world kleptocracy that criticizes us on these issues. I'm not just being cynical here, this is reality, and there's no reason we should continue to pump money and attention into organizations and conventions that are regularly ignored. Why not form ad-hoc coalitions when necessary? Why not deal bilaterally? Why not ENFORCE multilateral treaties, or simply not have them at all? By pretending we have solved a problem under these worthless international institutions we only make it worse. I agree with a set of basic principles nations should abide by, but little more.

Grant, the ironic thing is that the ICC, the UN, the World Court...will never have spine without the US and our allies. Such organizations are only good for empty rhetoric. You can't be a pacifist and get pissy when nobody cares what you proclaim. Yet another fallacy of the far-left movement.

I'm probably going to get creamed for dipping a foot in this, but reading you both. To me it seems you are both right.

"The reason why international law doesn't work is because the most powerful states simply ignore international law."

I agree with that myself. And it seems to me that you are just saying it would make for a better world if we could have International laws to oversee our countries laws and we become one world. I can't see anything wrong with that. Seems a noble aspiration to me. Not foolish.

At the same time "Those of you who put any stock in "international law" or the "world court" are utter fools." (wish you hadn't used the word fools) is correct in essense. The world court has no means to enforce its decisions, therefore it is de facto, powerless. Just like the UN. Without troops from member nations it can't do anything. And like in Rawanda if they are on a short leash, they still don't mean anything.

So it seems to me that you are both right in essense. My half cent worth.

Hey Ariel, lets talk about Sudan's response to the US condemnation of their actions. What have they said? They've said that since the US themselves don't recognize international law neither will they. There was an interview given by a Sudanese representative where he says just this, but yeah, only FOOLS care about laws me must all abide by...except the US and Sudan. Great company to be in:

MOHAMAD: No. I don't care about them. As far as we are concerned, we are not members. We have been told these days repeatedly that the ICC is an independent body. And so, OK, if it's an independent body, I am not a U.N. organ. We have full right to be part of it or not. And we choose not to be part of it, like the United States.

"Those of you who put any stock in "international law" or the "world court" are utter fools."

The reason why international law doesn't work is because the most powerful states simply ignore international law. To say that people who believe in law (the majority of the world) that would hold back the ability of the state to kill innocent people, of the more powerful states to attack the weaker states & democracies without any legal protection, to threaten other countries, are "utter fools" says more about Ariel than it does about the people who wished that the most powerful states and individuals had morals that could be defended. Ariel, who is nothing more than a keyboard commando loudmouth, doesn't have to pick up a gun himself, he talks tough online to people he'll never meet and calls for more state violence because it won't directly affect him and he is a reactionary Kahanist racist.

Hey Thomas, just letting you know who you are keeping company with. The person who uses a terrorist killer as a screen name has a history here of making anti-black & anti-Arab comments, has justified imperialism, attacked the left, lumped the left in with the Islamists (some of the worse groups supported by Israel themselves in the past), amongst other things.

Uhhh, because the US and Israel are evil and nobody else is? Duh. It isn't nearly as cool to hate a country that isn't yours.

Its good to see you here Thomas.

Those of you who put any stock in "international law" or the "world court" are utter fools. No one pays any attention to any of this, we are just more honest about it. Look at the reaction in the arab and muslim world over the indictment of the president of Sudan. How is that any different from the USA??

nateW July 30th, 2008 1:05 am

Nate, I never thought you didn't. Read my post to Grant. Keep criticizing. We are far from perfect and I certainly agree last statement.

ladybug July 30th, 2008 11:48 am

Darn, I can argue with part of it. Arrogance is in the eye of the beholder sometimes. But I'd certainly agree we have some arrogant north boung ends as our government right now, I don't think for a minute that they represent Americans.

We've never had an empire and we don't have one now, but we easily could have, right after WW2 we could have ruled the world if we had wanted to. But no empire for us.

Faulty human beings at that, same as everyone else, but different because of our multiracial society I think. Any Japanese could become an American for example, but an American could never become a Japanese.

Historically, if you are fair, we have done better overall than anyone else put in our position. Thats my opinion at least.

With power and ability come a little bit of arrogance I'd certainly agree. We are working on it.

Pax

2 points.

First, as discussed above, I see little understanding of the true power of law and legal institutions. In real life, it's easy to prove that it has had significant and important effects on matters like this. Roger Fisher has written about this in his book, Improving Compliance with International Law. For a shorter version summarizing his main points see chapter 15 in Fisher et al's "Coping with International Conflict," or a similar chapter in his earlier book, International Conflict for Beginners. Note that these latter references are to single chapters (ie. 1 of 17) in larger books on international influence, while the first one is a whole book. Fisher answers the main arguments against using legal approaches, as we've seen above.

Second, I don't see the following very obvious point mentioned very often these days. Saddam Hussein got duped. He trusted the U.S. and the UN Security Council way too much. He got disarmed, and THEN attacked. He let inspectors in and THEN they were used as spies for Operation Desert Fox, etc.

So then we label Iran as one of the Axis of Evil, meaning, surely, that they're on our list to be destroyed like Iraq. And now we're asking Iran to disarm. "Trust us, it doesn't mean we're waiting for you to disarm so we can more easily attack afterwards." And they're supposed to think that's in their interest.

By the way, in Beyond Machiavelli, Fisher has a nice chart (p. 55) of the "Currently Perceived Choice" of Saddam Hussein in early February 1991. "Given the choice he was facing," Fisher et al argued, "... it is not hard to understanding why he was saying no."

hahahaha, constant threats to Israel!

And you are not the best thing that the world has ever seen. Pleeeease! you and your fellow citizens are just as human as everybody else in the world, see what I mean about the arrogance? You are just as any other empire that has come and gone

thomas more,
if you so strongly believe you are better than portrayed, then why all the actions of your government say the opposite? It's not that Americans are bad as a people, what you are is arrogant, and that is not a very good thing. Now I don't think you can argue that

great idea....until the USA blows up the World Court.

great idea....until the USA blows up the World Court.

So can israel sue iran in the "world court" for the constant threats it has had to endure?

staying_sane_in_an_insane_world July 29th, 2008 6:47 pm:

"Better hurry and get as many article as possible written about the war on Iran that's always imminent but never happens.

Plenty of suckers are willing to read article after article after article after article after article about the bombing of Iran that hasn't happened.

I've had enough, and I'm switching off!"

Well, your username does imply that you have a tendency to tune out reality for the sake of your own mental health.

If people on this site want any hope of changing things, you're going to have to fund an alternative media to take on the right.

CD merely publishes what the established media broadcasts and writes - what good is that?

And CD is just negative, negative, negative. Any sane person would end up in the loony bin reading so much negative, depressing news with no promise of change.

History is just going to repeat itself ad infinitum is the right's media dominance isn't challenged.

So, keep posting, keep speculating, keep wasting your time and money!

I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF COMMON DREAMS AND ITS EMOTIONAL ARTICLES.

WILL IRAN BE BOMBED? LET'S SPEND THE NEXT 70 YEARS OF OUR LIVES TALKING ABOUT THIS POSSIBILITY.

TAKE AMERICA TO THE WORLD COURT! LOL!

AMERICA WAS TAKEN TO THE WORLD COURT IN THE 1980S BY NICARAGUA AND NICARAGUA WON, AND IT MEANT NOTHING. AMERICA JUST IGNORED THE RULING!

IF COMMON DREAMS CAN'T BE MORE INTELLIGENT THAN THIS, CAN'T BE MORE RESPONSIBLE THAN JUST TO WORK PEOPLE UP EMOTIONALLY, THEN IT MIGHT AS WELL FORGET IT.

Thomas Moore

In case you're wondering, I appreciate -even love- plenty of things about my country. Also,I have no illusions about the brutal and corrupt features of Russia and China.

My criticiziing the U.S.A.'s bad features and my hoping the world calls down our hypocricies and arrogance before we fall off the cliff doesn't come from hate. It comes first from my sense of justice for the other peoples we screw, and second from a real wish for us Americans to see our flaws - some of which are pretty damn horriffic - and change ourselves. Just like with people who are arrogant bullies, sometimes they wake up and go good after a few lickins.
Bullies who don't better themselves just as often end up in jail or dead.
I don't want to see the equivalent of that happen to my country. I'd wager that 99% of us CD'rs don't want it to happen either.

Grant July 29th, 2008 8:07 pm
What I'm saying isn't "anti-American"

Wouldn't think it was. Its very American to critisize ourselves. Heck, if Abraham Lincoln read the Gettysburg address on the steps of the Washington monument on the 4th of July there would probably be somebody there to protest some part of it.

That is what makes our country strong.

Many tghings you point out are true, many are only pasrtially true, some have offsetting criteria, some are not true, some are not harsh enough on what we did.

I simply say that when you shake it all down, we simply aren't as bad as many make out. I'd also point out that I believe many countries would miss us desperately. I'm sure most won't agree, but the world needs us, crappy as some claim we are, for now anyway. Just my opinion.

For example...the UN, now theres the most corrupt organization around except for GWB and the boys.

I take your point and partially agree with many things, but we are still the best the world hass produced so far in my opinion. That ought to scare you!

why not war crimes?

We can't follow US law, why would we follow international law? Most Americans don't think international law even exists.

I am so tired of people who try to discourage others' efforts to hold the Bush administration to account. It's so easy to criticize-- but I wonder why you would do that instead of either supporting the efforts or just keeping quiet? I work for impeachment night and day, and if it doesn't happen I'll switch over to supporting Frances Boyle and Vincent Bugliogi's campaigns to prosecute Bush and Cheney and to sue the U.S. and Israel to prevent an attack on Iran. There's absolutely no harm in supporting these efforts. Are you naysayers doing anything about the dangerous situation we're in or are you just spouting off? Why on earth would anyone try to discourage these efforts??

"If that were true, who would stop us? Wouldn't we simply brush everyone aside and do as we please."

Which is what we do. We only stop ourselves, we don't recognize anything other than force. EVERY single time that we interfere in another country's affairs, when we fund opposition groups to undermine democracies, when we militarily (or economically like with Cuba, in opposition to world opinion and international law) attack countries we are in opposition not only to international law, but the damn Peace of Westphalia from the 17th century. What we, for instance, funded through the NED and USAID the overthrow of Venezuela's democracy, supporting a military dictatorship which dissolved all branches of government, we were operating in opposition to international law. When we did in Vietnam, Cambodia & Laos was in opposition to international law. Same with Nicaragua, things like the CIA supported operation Gladio (which was not unique to us), etc. When we do the same in Bolivia, Haiti, and others now it is the same.

When we openly threaten countries, which we do like you and I breath, we are in opposition to international law and the UN Charter. Every time a governmental official has talked about attacking Iran, realize that they are stuffing their noses and international law, how would you feel if a country much more powerful than ours, that has invaded two neighboring countries and wants a resource that our country depends on is being threatened with death and destruction?

When we decide what to do for other country's debt (like we did with Iraq's debt to Saudi Arabia) we are operating in opposition to international law, and morals. When we decided for Iraq what economic policies they would implement with the CPA (after the invasion and long before they even had a puppet democracy in place) then claimed the "Orders" by Bremer were binding to all future "democratic" governments there, we were in opposition to international law, and morals.

I think our PR, our advertising, actually is far better than the facts, and that is helped by the willful ignorance of Americans who are too sensitive to look at the facts and to be honest with themselves. Look at former State Department official William Blum's book "Killing Hope", where he lists the countries we've attacked (and he just covers the last 60 years or so), look at the rhetoric justifying it. Without exception we were, while we were attacking countries, playing the defense. We were always defending "freedom" and "democracy", even when we were standing in the way of elections and supporting violent and reactionary regimes that had no support what so ever in their own countries. If you want examples I have plenty of them.

What I'm saying isn't "anti-American", it is factually true. It also isn't unique to us, or the West, we are just by far the worse offenders and since we are also the most powerful we can't expect anyone else in the world to anything other than to pay lip service to international law.

The US doesn't at this point control the world, if any group does it is the international investor class, but it wants to, has and is trying to and was much closer to in decades past, especially shortly after WWII.

NATE W - I think you are right. That's what eventually happens to all bullies who think they are invincible. The other kids gang up and put the bully in his place. Russia is already ready to point missiles in our direction from Cuba in retaliation for us pointing missiles in theirs. Frighteningly, I don't think this will stay a COLD war for long this time. Our arrogance is going to bring us down. It's inevitable.

I think some of you are missing the point. Boyle isn't naive. He's been in the front lines for years, for example, in taking on crimes against Palestinians. But he's a professor of international law, so he uses what he has, what he's good at. I think the idea is actually an excellent one, despite the fact that the Bush admin doesn't give a damn about law. This is about communicating with the rest of the world...and believe me, as someone who lives in that part of the world outside the US, the law is not irrelevant to most of us.

Grant July 29th, 2008 6:21 pm

If that were true, who would stop us? Wouldn't we simply brush everyone aside and do as we please.

Wouldn't we in effect rule the world?

We are better than advertised. At least in my opinion.

If Iran indeed took the U.S. to the World Court and won most Americans would probably never know about it. The corporate media would never report it.

The corporate media NEVER reports that Iran has the right to enrich uranium for the purpose of producing power under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The corporate media NEVER reports that there's ZERO evidence that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapons program.

The corporate media NEVER reports that there's ZERO evidence that violence directed towards American soldiers in Iraq is sponsored by the Iranian government.

Lastly, the corporate media never reported that Iran tried to negotiate with the U.S. in 2002 but the U.S. didn't reply.

The war with Iran will go on as planned because whoever controls the media controls the country. Period.

Even if other nations and the world court can't stop Bu$h the inferior it is vital to be on the record against aggression, war crimes and torture. Eventually, the US will be stopped by bankruptcy, moral outrage, war or passive resistance. All of the non-violent methods to stop the US require joint information, common goals, and common facts. Injustice always goes on too long, but especially long if it can be hidden from most of the people.

"There's a week left to the ultimatum that the Bush Administration and its European friends gave to Iran to respond to the 'freeze for freeze' proposal..."

Better hurry and get as many article as possible written about the war on Iran that's always imminent but never happens.

Plenty of suckers are willing to read article after article after article after article after article about the bombing of Iran that hasn't happened.

I've had enough, and I'm switching off!

"If the United States government is not prepared to engage in reasonable direct unconditional good faith negotiations with Iran ---,"

That's a certainty! "Good faith"? What a joke! Why waste time discussing it.

"then my advice is the Iranian government go forward with these lawsuits."

I don't think the Iranians need any advice from us. They must expect and prepare for an attack - and to deliver massive retaliation - it's their only option.

And if America and Israel think that things are bad now - just wait and see what happens after we make the dumb move of attacking them.

Our only hope is that the American military will not allow it to happen.

Laws, international or otherwise, don't mean squat. Ruling classes impose them and ignore them when they are inconvenient. Forget courts and laws; resist ruling classes.

"You shouldn't judge we Americans so harshly Nate. We are usually better than reported."

I think it is just the opposite. We usually have very lofty sounding rhetoric (Obama is the latest example, we'll see if he's elected how much a connection the rhetoric has with actual policy), and the rhetoric usually drowns out actual facts. Whoever pays attention to the facts is vilified and attacked. Elites elsewhere, usually paid off by us directly or indirectly, use this rhetoric for their own purposes. We meanwhile have, and have usually had, a government of goons and out of touch elites who have done one immoral and in-defensible policy after another in front of the world. There are many Americans who object, many more who are ignored and don't take part in the system, but there is a sizeable portion of America who could care less (or will not take the time to research what their country is doing if they are in good enough financial position) as long as the system delivers the goods. We only call for change when our policies affect ourselves like they affect others and I've seen no evidence that we learn lessons from history.

Regarding this article: Nicaragua took the US to the World Court during the Contra funded attacks by the US, the Court said we were committing international terrorism and it didn't stop us. The Contras, who had little to no support from within the Nicaragua and who were violent killers, were called "freedom fighters" by Reagan. International Law only works if the dominant parties, who don't have anyone to stop them, voluntarily abide by decisions. We have a "might makes right" mentality, the only thing that will stop the US' and the West's violence is opposing armies.

nateW July 29th, 2008 5:44 pm

You shouldn't judge we Americans so harshly Nate. We are usually better than reported.

Somewhere somehow someday in the not too distant future, as major powers like Russia and China gain economic strength against the dollar, more nations will begin joining together to challenge the U.S.A.'s arrogance.
Any dress rehearsals in the meantime ought to be welcomed.

While I believe that Professor Boyle has his heart in the right place, I believe that it would prove to me nothing more than an exercise in futility.

The Bush/Cheney administration firmly believes that it is above it all; it has shown total disregard for the U. S. Constitution as well as the American people.

Why would anyone think they could be influenced by this World Court?

But, I'm not being totally fair in making this judgment.I'm not taking into consideration the entertainment value. Perhaps if a lawsuit were initiated, it could be televised. Then, those who don't care for soap operas could tune in daily as they did during that farce of a trial that acquitted O. J. Simpson.

While I believe that Professor Boyle has his heart in the right place, I believe that it would prove to me nothing more than an exercise in futility.

The Bush/Cheney administration firmly believes that it is above it all; it has shown total disregard for the U. S. Constitution as well as the American people.

Why would anyone think they could be influenced by this World Court?

But, I'm not being totally fair in making this judgment.I'm not taking into consideration the entertainment value. Perhaps if a lawsuit were initiated, it could be televised. Then, those who don't care for soap operas could tune in daily as they did during that farce of a trial that acquitted O. J. Simpson.

Hell, they should sue the US in Iranian courts, the attempt is laughably futile either way. I'm sure one of the extremist posters here would gladly find the US guilty, and the legitimacy of the judgment would be the same.

Korea's a whole other kettle of fish, as they weren't in Isreal's cross hairs.

As far as Bush respecting the world court, i echo the other posters here as a laugh.

As far as the week left in the ultimatum?

This looks scary. If you start seeing press conferences from the executive office prepping the public by demonizing Iran, grab your ankles.

Lest we ignore and underestimate the power of perception, moral validation, and confluence of will.

Certainly power is a much broader concept than that which is simply obtainable through military or economic might. But then being blind to the existence and true nature of such higher power may well explain why we have such an inequitable world, with so much ignorance, begetting so much fear and negativity, pointlessness and helplessness.

The World Court has no power, so whats the point?

I, for one, think Dr. Boyle has an excellent idea here and it should be attempted. Anything we can do to urge the necessary parties to take said action?

The World Court ruled against the so called Israel security wall. If the World Court is just the USA would lose. Maybe Iran should give the USA two weeks notice.

Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the evil war profiteers seem to believe everyone is going to fall for the same old lie again. Attacking Iraq was a huge war crime/crimes against humanity, yet they're beating the same, tired old drum for another illegal attack next door on Iran. Whoo hoo, the sociopaths are on a roll....who's going to stop them??

Just because a country has the world's largest stock of nukes and the strongest military and weapons does not give it the right to go around attacking and occupying a country for war profits and to steal a country's resources. Is that the only criteria now to attack a country? That a country be the strongest in the world?

And what in the world does "insurgent" mean? These are people who are defending their country against an immoral foreign attack. Would we be called "insurgents" if a country attacked us and we tried to defend ourselves? I think not.

I'd respond...but I'm laughing too hard

What drivel!

and when iran's done with 'em, we ALL should be suing the bastards.

there is no glory in dying for the greed and corruption of the american government.

our servicemembers should be protecting our country and it's citizens from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

which means bush, cheney and all the rest of the neocons.

Right. When have Bush and Cheney shown any consideration for international opinion or institutions? Who on earth truly believes that they will be influenced by the judgments of an international court whose membership they have not controlled?

jj