Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Bounties for War Criminals: We Should Not 'Move On' from Mass Murder
Chilcot and the courts won't do it, so it is up to us to show that we won't let an illegal act of mass murder go unpunished
The only question that counts is the one that the Chilcot inquiry
won't address: was the war with Iraq illegal? If the answer is yes,
everything changes. The war is no longer a political matter, but a
criminal one, and those who commissioned it should be committed for
trial for what the Nuremberg tribunal called "the supreme international
crime": the crime of aggression.
But there's a problem with official inquiries in the United Kingdom: the government appoints their members and sets their terms of reference. It's the equivalent of a criminal suspect being allowed to choose what the charges should be, who should judge his case and who should sit on the jury. As a senior judge told the Guardian in November: "Looking into the legality of the war is the last thing the government wants. And actually, it's the last thing the opposition wants either because they voted for the war. There simply is not the political pressure to explore the question of legality - they have not asked because they don't want the answer."
Others have explored it, however. Two weeks ago a Dutch inquiry, led by a former supreme court judge, found that the invasion had "no sound mandate in international law". Last month Lord Steyn, a former law lord, said that "in the absence of a second UN resolution authorising invasion, it was illegal". In November Lord Bingham, the former lord chief justice, stated that, without the blessing of the UN, the Iraq war was "a serious violation of international law and the rule of law".
Under the United Nations charter, two conditions must be met before a war can legally be waged. The parties to a dispute must first "seek a solution by negotiation" (article 33). They can take up arms without an explicit mandate from the UN security council only "if an armed attack occurs against [them]" (article 51). Neither of these conditions applied. The US and UK governments rejected Iraq's attempts to negotiate. At one point the US state department even announced that it would "go into thwart mode" to prevent the Iraqis from resuming talks on weapons inspection (all references are on my website). Iraq had launched no armed attack against either nation.
We also know that the UK government was aware that the war it intended to launch was illegal. In March 2002, the Cabinet Office explained that "a legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to law officers' advice, none currently exists." In July 2002, Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, told the prime minister that there were only "three possible legal bases" for launching a war - "self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC [security council] authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case." Bush and Blair later failed to obtain security council authorisation.
As the resignation letter on the eve of the war from Elizabeth Wilmshurst, then deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Office, revealed, her office had "consistently" advised that an invasion would be unlawful without a new UN resolution. She explained that "an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression". Both Wilmshurst and her former boss, Sir Michael Wood, will testify before the Chilcot inquiry tomorrow. Expect fireworks.
Without legal justification, the war with Iraq was an act of mass murder: those who died were unlawfully killed by the people who commissioned it. Crimes of aggression (also known as crimes against peace) are defined by the Nuremberg principles as "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties". They have been recognised in international law since 1945. The Rome statute, which established the international criminal court (ICC) and which was ratified by Blair's government in 2001, provides for the court to "exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression", once it has decided how the crime should be defined and prosecuted.
There are two problems. The first is that neither the government nor the opposition has any interest in pursuing these crimes, for the obvious reason that in doing so they would expose themselves to prosecution. The second is that the required legal mechanisms don't yet exist. The governments that ratified the Rome statute have been filibustering furiously to delay the point at which the crime can be prosecuted by the ICC: after eight years of discussions, the necessary provision still has not been adopted.
Some countries, mostly in eastern Europe and central Asia, have incorporated the crime of aggression into their own laws, though it is not yet clear which of them would be willing to try a foreign national for acts committed abroad. In the UK, where it remains illegal to wear an offensive T-shirt, you cannot yet be prosecuted for mass murder commissioned overseas.
All those who believe in justice should campaign for their governments to stop messing about and allow the international criminal court to start prosecuting the crime of aggression. We should also press for its adoption into national law. But I believe that the people of this nation, who re-elected a government that had launched an illegal war, have a duty to do more than that. We must show that we have not, as Blair requested, "moved on" from Iraq, that we are not prepared to allow his crime to remain unpunished, or to allow future leaders to believe that they can safely repeat it.
But how? As I found when I tried to apprehend John Bolton, one of the architects of the war in George Bush's government, at the Hay festival in 2008, and as Peter Tatchell found when he tried to detain Robert Mugabe, nothing focuses attention on these issues more than an attempted citizen's arrest. In October I mooted the idea of a bounty to which the public could contribute, payable to anyone who tried to arrest Tony Blair if he became president of the European Union. He didn't of course, but I asked those who had pledged money whether we should go ahead anyway. The response was overwhelmingly positive.
So today I am launching a website - www.arrestblair.org - whose purpose is to raise money as a reward for people attempting a peaceful citizen's arrest of the former prime minister. I have put up the first £100, and I encourage you to match it. Anyone meeting the rules I've laid down will be entitled to one quarter of the total pot: the bounties will remain available until Blair faces a court of law. The higher the reward, the greater the number of people who are likely to try.
At this stage the arrests will be largely symbolic, though they are likely to have great political resonance. But I hope that as pressure builds up and the crime of aggression is adopted by the courts, these attempts will help to press governments to prosecute. There must be no hiding place for those who have committed crimes against peace. No civilised country can allow mass murderers to move on.
- Posted in
45 Comments so far
Show AllThis is a Conspiracy issue and should be handled as such. Life imprisonment, no chance of parole, chain ganged to do public service in only the areas that are funded the least.
What a great idea. The u.s. should follow suit, but would need more money as there are more war criminals running around. Lawyers would jump on board if fees were covered.
Personally, I'd donate the bounty money towards prosecution.
Best of luck, George.
OK, Mr. Monbiot, someone with the courage of their convections.
I pledge $50 for a similiar Cheney/Bush Bounty.
In lieu of the present fascist in chief enforcing the law of the land and world.
Ordinary people are taught from earliest age to respect and expect justice even for the slightest infraction (shoplifting a candy bar, cursing in the wrong venue, growing marijuana, etc.).
However, authoritarian regimes (school, church, government) teach us, implicitly and explicitly, that some Important People are above the law and not subject to this same exacting justice. It would be bad enough if VIP types did a bit of shoplifting and got away with it. But they transgress on a totally different playing field. Where our mass murderers have several to several dozen victims, the dead and displaced from all the wars, invasions, coups, and other military/secret ops/corporate interference in foreign countries have harmed more people than can be counted, certainly in the hundreds of thousands.
The massive death and destruction caused by Important People can only be sociopathic, abnormal in any human set of rules and beliefs. Whether criminal or insane, we stop serial killers, and we must stop the VIP serial killers, too.
The word you are looking for is "privilege" - privi lege: private law. According to their "private law", the power elite are not bound by the laws that bind common people.
Only the middle class believe in the rule of law and morality. As a psychologist whose books I used to read once said, the rich have no need of such fictions, and the poor? Well, the poor know better........
"Whether criminal or insane, we stop serial killers, and we must stop the VIP serial killers, too."
Exactly! They actually kill far more people than, say, Ted Bundy or Charles Manson. Bush and Congress killed 1.3 million innocent Iraqis, most of whom were children! And for what reason? They get away with it because they're .... what, charismatic? rich? shills for other murderers?
Francis Boyle of the University of Illinois recently submitted a complaint against Bush and gang. If Obama doesn't immediately stop "secret renditions," a complaint will be filed against him, too.
The massive death and destruction caused by Important People can only be sociopathic, abnormal in any human set of rules and beliefs. Whether criminal or insane, we stop serial killers, and we must stop the VIP serial killers, too.
-------------------------------------
Yes, it's a reflection of how pathologised they've made society that psychopaths in power routinely escape both diagnosis and imprisonment. It's considered normal, even by the psychiatric profession, for the wealthy to have no regard for the rights of others.
As long as they don't do something gross, like personally shoot us or chop us up for dogfood, the wealthy are immune. They can ruin our lives, start wars and send our kids off to kill and be killed for their profit, despoil the earth, whatever they want--they're beyond effective societal control.
Until we band together and change that, we'll never have a healthy world...and if we don't do it *soon*, we'll likely not have a world at all.
There is no question that the war was illegal. The UN Charter, the basis for international law regarding war, allows for war only on two conditions: Attack by an aggressor and UN Security Council vote. Neither happened in Iraq.
I will never expect the Obama administration to go after war criminals. He is just too weak and is already worried about losing the 2012 reelection. His 'Uncle Tom' cowtowing to pharma, big medicine, Wall Street, big banks, military industrial complex, religious right, AIPAC and the GOP proves it.
I have never been more dissappointed in a President in my life. I knew what we had with Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush. I expected a lot more from Obama. I voted for Nader, but I still expected more from Obama.
Though Carter is a far superior ex-President than President, I would take him over Obama today in a heart beat.
Thank you George, for stating the obvious. That has been done by many, for sometime now, across the planet.
Your approach is flawed however, for the impulse to "arrest" one single indidivual, a paid liar for hire in the interests of his masters, the criminal corporate "elite", will change nothing.
It is not Blair, Bush, Obama, or any other paid lackey that is the primary target of our collective revulsion per se; they are merely men of little character and even less insight who would murder anyone, anytime, anyplace, for a personal material profit, and such individuals can be found readily on any street corner anywhere across the planet.
It is their masters, the criminals who own the largest and most repulsive corporations across the planet who are the instigators, planners, and initiators of lawless aggression against the innocent population of the planet, and Blair, Bush, Cheney, Obama, Rumsfeld, Rice, and the others that you would care to name, are simply their henchmen who will now gradually be "thrown to the dogs" in order to maintain the positions of their masters behind the actions taken by their willing wage slaves.
It is a continuing farce and a continued cruel subterfuge against all precepts of human brotherhood.
There will be no "fair and impartial trial by their peers" of these wholly hideous and reprehensible individuals just as there will be no justice rendered to the innocent victims by any court across the planet for the members of same are part and parcel to the crimes commited and being conducted as we speak.
It is only through a mass effort simultaneously across the planet by the peoples of the planet that these barbarians attempting to keep the masses of humanity in utter darkness and subjugation that justice can be served. There are no impartial "courts" in existence.
Having said these things, be assured that I favour the immediate apprehension, incarceration, and conviction for their known crimes against HUMANITY of these benighted homo sapiens. It is merely that arresting and "trying" the errand boys of known psychopaths in bogus "courts" is not even a beginning of the change that we not only believe in, but will effect in, by, and of ourselves, the citizens of our planet.
So thanks for your efforts, and please try harder next time.
right, but you are speaking of the 'untouchables'...................
They are hardly untouchable.
They are readily accessible.
They are history.
Why else do you think the fastest growing "industries" in certain regions of the planet are private prisons and private "security" firms? Willing stooges to criminals are, as always, found on any streetcorner. Or in front of any media outlet for that matter.
The enemy of human brotherhood is well aware of the surge of popular revolt against a corrupted and dishonest system of repression posing as the represented will of the peoples of the planet and are taking steps as we speak to offset the coming storm. The peoples of the planet are becoming rapidly aware of the true nature of our existence and the true nature of so called representative democracy.
It is not that representative democracy in and of itself is a flawed concept; it is the fact that it does not take into account the historical fact that there are always humans of lesser character and flawed development who will stop at nothing in order to gain material gorge, at any expense to others.
Mr. Monbiot is correct (imho) when he speaks of removing criminals from office; he is incorrect however, when he presumes that only by offering something as ridiculous as tokens in payment for normal as opposed to disfunctional human behavior will humanity rise to the occasion and cast off the barbarian yoke of materialist oligarchy.
Honest men and women will gladly capture the criminals for nothing in terms of material reward and everything in terms of self sacrifice for the principles that make us all more than mere hairless apes, the rights of humanity, and all other lifeforms on our beautiful planet.
What other course can any honest human take?
i like your analysis B. all the time bush was president, i kept trying to figure out who was making all those plans. it just did not seem possible that he and cheney could design such intricate, such diabolical plots. of course i took it for granted that businessmen and the weapons and oil industries were responsible for a lot of it. But still.
however with the obomber experience now on display, it's too obvious that the corps and banks are just totally in control.
>>>0necaptjim wrote: what a joke we attack what's left of a nation after bombing the shit out of these poor people for 11 plus years, and have the audacity to call it a war
Yes - a point that was missed by everyone in the MSM, and therefore, most of the public. It's amazing how the Clinton administration is almost never mentioned in connection with Iraq. Fans of Al Gore still blame Ralph Nader for 2000, saying that the 'Iraq war' wouldn't have happened if Gore had won, forgetting that so much bombing was done and inhumane sanctions were maintained during the Clinton administration. It's precisely because the neocons knew there was no military threat there, they sent in the ground troops.
A good article Mr. Monbiot--best of luck to you and your cause.
Neither Britain nor America has enough honor to enforce the law. It's a pity.
The fact of the matter is that bush, the entire bush adminstration, and blair were and are above the law.
Prosecution will never happen and it's a waste of time to dream that it will. It is irrelevant whether the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were legal (of course they weren't). The outcome will remain the same - no case. Either you run into the "sealed documents" ploy, the "lost photos" scam, or the "national security" block. You will NEVER bring these men to justice. Feel free to try though.
It's better to save your money and focus on eliminating the current corruption.
TheLorax;
Talking up the status quo. How patriotic of you
George closes with: "There must be no hiding place for those who have committed crimes against peace. No civilised country can allow mass murderers to move on."
So all NATO countries are uncivilized by the above definition, which is to say they are Barbarian Nations. Saudi Arabia is Barbarian, as is Israel. Colombia is the only Barbarian country in South America. Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan in South Asia. And many more countries would be considered Barbarian based upon the treatment of their own citizens.
Suffice to say that most governments on the planet are Barbarian; that there is very little in the way of civilization. The biggest lie most humans tell themselves is that they are civilized. It's hard to be civilized in a Barbarian country as you must not support barbarians if you claim to be civilized. The USA is no superpower; rather, it is the #1 Barbarian Nation, whose leader will always be Public Enemy #1 until the Great Change occurs, which won't be happening with Obomba.
As others have already noted: the global power structures will not allow these criminals to be held accountable. The law is either ignored or changed to suit the interests of the Empire.
In historical irony, the USA was founded as a bourgeois rebellion against the British Empire. Now the USA leads the English-speaking Empire and the British are the Jr. partners (and more recently Israel).
Those that are protected by the Empire need not fear prosecution. Perhaps a few lower officials might be prosecuted in a white-wash operation, but not the kingpins.
If one just goes back a bit in history, we can see another war criminal, Henry Kissinger, who is not only a free man, but he is a hugely powerful member of the CFR. He is treated as a wise and honorable man by the MSM and the political Establishment, including many Ds. Kissinger, like his fellow war criminal Barack Obama, holds a Nobel Peace Prize.
So, just looking at precedent, we ought not expect justice to be done.
It's amazing how the people stood by while others hounded Clinton relentlessly.Paid for by the same tax dollars that he pulled this contry back together with.Now the same people stand by while the butcher of Iraq laments freely in this God fearing oasis of killers of women,children,and old men.Just a sign of the times,gotta love em.
**Bounties** for War Criminals?
I think they prefer **Mars bars**.
"All other powers reside with the People", including throwing out the whole damn thing, rewriting the Constitution, and putting the ne-er do wells in jail. Here's a tune that speaks to this, "It's a Shame, It's A Crime".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZw9JS-xEjo
People who conduct "citizen arrests" might be prosecuted, at least in my part of the U.S., for kidnapping or some such crime. They could then assert in defense that they had probable cause to arrest based on the evidence of crimes against humanity. It would be a novel approach. I'm surprised no one here in the U.S. has tried it against the various Bush factotums who conspired to violate the anti-torture laws.
The truth is, criminal laws are prosecuted not only because of criminal acts, but because the persons given legal authority to prosecute want, and are willing, for their own reasons, to prosecute. The reasons for not prosecuting clearly include that the criminal has such personal power that the would-be prosecutor would not succeed, or would suffer in some way for attempting prosecution. Prosecutors sense these things. This principle is as much a part of the criminal law as due process of law, criminal statutes, probable cause, the Miranda warning, or anything else we normally associate with criminal law.
Osama bin Laden has unjustifiably killed far fewer than, say, the people Monbiot speaks about. Bin Laden would certainly be prosecuted if arrested and taken out of the area where he's being protected. He wouldn't be prosecuted where he's being protected. Americans would be outraged if he began to make public appearances there. We won't see that because Americans aren't afraid to discard the law entirely and assassinate anyone they find anywhere in the world who they consider "evil" enough, and they have to power to do it. The next prominent person in that category, already being talked about, is unique for being an American: Anwar Awlaki. See, http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/200668.php, and many other articles on the Net.
I believe there was an attempt at citizens arrest of, maybe, Rumsfeld by, maybe, Code Pink
I think in this case the usual happened, the arresting citizen is preventing from carrying out their duty by bodyguards as the War Criminal is wisked away.
Where is Zorro when we need him? Super Man? God?
If God is really in control I'm not sure how I feel about him.
Am I supposed to find meaning in this? Is this a test? A joke?
Voltaire said God was a comedian playing to an audience who was afraid to laugh.
This is not funny.
Sioux Rose
Why doesn't Mr. Monbiot connect with the brave judge in Spain who was interested in prosecutions? And what happened to the work by the attorney Buliosi? It seems each one is trying to invent the wheel (of justice) by himself, whereas some have done the preliminary legal leg work. Marjorie Cohn is another voice of judicial reason in this matter.
And as much as I would LOVE to see justice done on this plane in the span of our lifetimes (or sooner), I'd like to remind the forum that nothing escapes the lords of karma. These people only SEEM to be getting away with murder. The record of the soul is retained as inviolate information, and in time it will produce the character of what each individual will come up against in future lifetimes.
Sioux Rose,
Much as I would like to believe in karma, I STILL want them all punished here, on this planet, now; worries about karma won't deter the next crop of sociopaths. A public execution just might. Until the 95% of the population that knows right from wrong works together to bring to justice those who combine pathology and power, we will never know peace.
I'd love to pledge $100 for the citizen's arrest of George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, Madelyn Albright and the rest of these scum. THEN, karma can have at them.
Public executions YOU have now sunk below their level just for thinking that
Sioux Rose
SIGNAL: Sometimes INSTANT karma happens. Sometimes enough people feel enough outrage as to spring those mysterious gears of justice into a speedier application. However, I would think the prayers of those suffering in Iraq, Afghanistan, and into Pakistan, added to those on the receiving end of unspeakable violence in Congo would have higher priority than any petitions from most citizens of the U.S. Although we are inside the belly of the beast, to much of the world our citizens are held partially responsible for what unchecked powerful elites, those that have worked our 4 systems (counting the press as the 4th estate) of government like an elaborate chess game, now do in their OWNernship of the board. Without the public's willful consent, or having purchased it through a massive campaign of deceit as witnessed by and through media ownership, one must give pause to this idea of collective responsibility. To the awakened, protests lose some of their past romantic appeal when protesters realize the species of arms that may well be used against them. This is why the universal belief in higher agencies than those that program our senses from early on, is so important. Deliverance happens. Sometimes. Otherwise, it takes the "fullness of time" for it to unfold.
Siouxrose January 26th, 2010 8:09 pm -- You have a way of coming up with religious ideas that provide solace. You did it with your ideas about the soul not being tied inescapably to the body of the unborn, which counters the idea that abortion deprives a soul of the opportunity at life. So here, the fact that the wrongdoers may not be held accountable "on this plane in the span of our lifetimes" is countered by the thought that the "record" survives and will affect future lifetimes.
All that is well and good, but the practical problem is that those with power to prosecute don't have the will to do so, for reasons I touched on in another post in this thread. That problem is best addressed in two ways: first, it needs to be made clear, even to lawyers and law officers who presumably ought to know the law, that there really is probable cause to believe that crimes have been committed by Bush era officials. Second, it needs to be explained to anyone with power to do so that if he/she takes the plunge, as New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison took the plunge in his case against Clay Shaw, he/she won't suffer ignominy or worse (look at what happened to Garrison when that project flopped). That's where people like us can make a difference. And I do think the case against Shaw was nowhere near as solid as the case against Bush, Cheney, et al.
Many people already are on the right side of the issue, but I'm not sure they see the problem in sharp enough focus.
Sioux
MANNING: Sorry, I was delayed returning to this thread; but should you head back... here is what I would offer. My reading of several Theosophical Society authors, added to the fruit that bears its own witness at the Findhorn Garden, suggests the following analogy: there is a divinity that shapes our ends. It has been stated (by the sources sited) that something elemental guides plant life to evolve; and it's based on diva or angelic kingdom/spirit equivalents that actually hold up to the plant, a blueprint of what it could become. There is an atmosphere (the human aura) that surrounds our bodies, and it can be recorded by Kirlian photography. It also exists around plants. This "spiritual cocoon" is where change or transformation is first planted, and then it can be slowly wrought in ways that dynamically alter the tangible way the plant continues to grow and evolve.
The analogy to our discussion is that a spiritual template presents to humanity the ways and means to a just society; but inasmuch as its agents of greed forge covenants that effectively thwart these incentives, we citizens should not presume that justice will never be done. Perhaps I have been clumsy in trying to relate that the ideal of justice is akin to what the devic kingdom holds up as model for successful plant-based evolution. It is important that our agents of intelligence and justice aim for the ideal. However, in those too many instances where the just ideal does not manifest, I suggest all is not lost; for there IS a higher justice. It is one that may take many lifetimes to balance "the cosmic math."
So please do not misunderstand. I am ALL for those human initiatives that would seek to hold persons to account for their misdeeds. However, I do not succumb to the self-defeating notion that when such mortal efforts fail, the creeps, murderers, thieves, and other trespassers have managed to, or shall get permanently away with their calamitous acts. NOT SO. It is natural to judge life and the world by what our senses/intellects tell us; but that is hardly the whole story. I feel it's my purpose to remind persons of this factor. We use a small portion of our brains, a percentage that mirrors how much of the ocean depths remain unrevealed beneath the surface. Life reflects similar mysteries. I believe it reflects hubris to presume we know all that is to be known; or that all things play out in a way that conforms to the witness of our short lifespans. I study the masters, adepts, mystics, and seers of previous times and various cultures to gain a wider perspective. It is not meant to negate justice on this plane; but rather to complement it.
Good night.
Author Monbiot has the best of intentions, but he needs to brush up on the meaning of the phrase "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie." The empire, like the class that rules it, is above the law. Now and then low-ranking war criminals (such as Wm. Calley) will be arrested as a sop to world outrage; but looking to law for real relief under the aegis of empire is to promote the commonest of liberal illusions. (It reminds me of the military's talk of "safe" nuclear weapons.)
Damn that Blair for taking advantage of the naiveté and trust of George Bush to hector him into committing war crimes. Bush was just in kindergarden when this whole thing started.
Mr. Blair, how could you?
;-)
Things change and Americans are no longer the only ones writing the rules. Of course, now everyone knows why Klinton refused to join the ICC. He didn't want to face charges for murdering 500000 children.
Turn all these 'boys' AND girls (yes Madeline Albright I didn't forget you) into a deck of cards - call it "WANTED - DEAD OR ALIVE" each card with their face and their crimes printed on them. We may need two decks. Normal is only 52.
Two decks, not even close! We need at least 10 decks for Congress alone!
In October 1981, we entered Humanity's Next Cycle.
There will be peace on this earth, universal and perpetual, up to and including the last breath of the last person to be alive.
Are people unable to say "What a great idea"?
Thank you for thinking of it and more power to all those thinking of ways to deal with these criminals.
Goerge Monbiot: " No civilised country can allow mass murders to move on". Well I guess that makes Obomba uncivilised as he said exactly that when he said: " I want to look forward"! That is the problem: The American people have allowed their country to be mass murders, in their name, of millions of innocent men,women and children around the world.So I guess that makes most of the American people uncivilised, also. It is time for the civilised Americans to put an end to this evil and arrest Bush,Cheney,Rice and Obama for starters.
No one's going to arrest Blair any more than someone's going to arrest Bush; everyone sitting in the US & UK legislatures & judiciaries are well aware that if the arrests were to begin, almost all of them would have to hang. The ruling classes will not hang themselves: that task falls to others.
The alternative *Hope* Speech Obama should have made on his inauguration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BbFs6fQGow&feature=related
Why concern yourself with what the demorats, rethugs, the
leaders of your religious affiliation, believe, think or say?
They are unjust authority. These same agencies of our so-
ciety that teach us virtue are the largest purveyors of
selective punishment. Punish only the powerless and reward
anyone who praises the current system of social order.
Personally, I believe that we are simply as organic as
any other organism on this planet we share. No afterlife
to strive for, no benevolent supreme being to reward us
for our good deeds and justly punish those who would in-
timidate, assault, and kill all who refuse to submit to
the will of unjust authority. When we die, It is over.
Scum, from status conscious co-worker to the murderous gov-
ernment officials, know that belief in an afterlife is de-
lusional. But that does not prevent them from using reli-
gion to control the gullible masses.
Therefore, We as a people, have nothing to lose. Whoever
respects bush or any of his numerous acolytes, will be
punished by the people.
Unjust authority will be our bitches. They steal and
kill in gargantuan numbers because they know there is
no heaven or afterlife. Unjust authority will accept
every justifiable insult thrown at them if the same
was initiated by them to the people.
Then, their ass is ours. If a priest abuses power,
judge him right then and there. Maim or Kill. If a
cop abuses power, maim or kill him.
Obama is nothing but the house nigger for the
empire. Just like bush was honky house nazi
for this empire.
I know I am on the side of righteousness. Only
an exceptional sword swallower or one afflicted
with knee paditis would respect these piles of
bile. The old rules of respect for authority are
are applicable only when that authority is doing
the righteous thing. Otherwise, you have the duty
and right to attack verbally or physically by any
means necessary any unjust authority.
Sioux Rose
HONEY BEE: Your so-called realism is equal parts spiritual bankruptcy. I totally refute your post's presumption that there is no higher justice, nor Divine order. What hubris to count the entirety of Creation and the long unfolding plan of human evolution against the paltry witness of your handful of decades. You are to philosophy what the geneticist is to that technology that with unbearable hubris would take apart those chains of life that eons of trial and error (lovingly guided) put together. Argue FOR your limitations and they remain yours.
*** Comment deleted by site administrators for violating our Comment Policy. ***
see: http://www.commondreams.org/comment-policy