Freedom of speech

It is national Sending A Signal day! Why not get together with some friends and see what laws you can come up with to “send a signal”?

I’m for criminalising people who are wilfully ill, which would “send a signal” about our commitment to making this nation happier and healthier.

IIRC, it is already an act of treason in the UK to declare support for the enemy in a time of war, but this law is never enforced.
.

Earlier, at a stormy question time, he warned that to take out references to ‘glorification’ in the Terrorism Bill would send out a “massively counter-productive signal”.

Mr Blair said: “People outside will infer that we have decided to dilute our law at the very moment when we should be strengthening it and sending a united signal that we aren’t going to tolerate those who glorify terrorism in our country.”

Didn’t we send him a united signal to piss off at the last election?

Too late.

‘MPs today voted to create a new offence of “glorifying” terrorism, overturning opposition from both the House of Lords, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
It will come as a welcome relief for both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who had publicly backed the new offence this week.

Despite predictions of a Labour rebellion MPs voted 315 to 277, a government majority of 38, to resinstate the offence, which peers removed from the terror bill last year.’

I once stated that I would glorify terrorism publicly if this law was passed, but then the Lords kicked it out, and me and the other guy (also from Crooked Timber but forgot his name) decided the threat was passed. Looks like we were wrong.

I think it is incumbent on Crooked Timber to write a post praising terrorism so we Britishers can risk arrest by reading it (or is it still ok to ‘passively receive’ glorification of terrorism?)

Meanwhile the government are also trying to bring in what has been called the ‘abolition of parliament’ bill.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1709926,00.html

And the US announced what many of us have suspected: that the war on terror will last forever.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1710062,00.html

But obviously the real threat to civil liberties comes from a few peaceful Moslem demonstraters in a square in London.

The UK, and Europe generally, has much weaker protection of ‘free speech’ than we enjoy in the US.
I’m outraged on their behalf, if that helps. No, it doesn’t? OK well then the outrage is indeed similar to that over the cartoons — unhelpful. There you go.

Boring nonsense as usual from the civil liberties obsessionists. If this law is used to do something other than restrict the glorification of terrorism today, there will be an outcry and it will be stopped. The UK has a vicious press and it’s a democracy.

For God’s sake stop pretending it’s going to be used so the evil government can oppress it’s well-meaning citizens.

#12. There is a let out clause for certain designated historical events. But who decides what gets on that list?

Precisely. That’s where something like April 24th will cause problems: it’s a nasty edge case for this law.

L’esprit de l’escalier commands me to revisit last week’s controversy about whether Cindy Sheehan’s T-shirt at SOTU constituted grounds to deny her free speech rights:
Jet– You got it exactly backwards. Her public demand for a redressing of grievances trumps your private grievance demanding she re-dress.

Never mind a pint for the Easter rising, they’ll have to arrest most of West Belfast. For starters.

Because acts like rioting and killing people and burning buildings and threatening suicide bombings tend to attract a lot of attention. Really, does anyone think a rhetorical question like this- which is intended to imply a hypocritical double standard but is in fact a disingenuous comparison of apples and oranges- contributes anything to reasoned debate?

What about the French resistance? They certainly blew up a few things. Is there really any difference apart from the fact that most of us think they were on the side of right and good?

It’s seems to be a little-known fact these days, but as it happens, the tactics used by the french resistance were not based on blowing up random french civilians to persuade the nazis to meet their demands in return for ending the slaughter.

On the contrary, it was the Nazis that were slaughtering civilians, in an attempt (often successful) to get the resistance to cease their activities. Had a resistance group attenpted to use terrorism against the nazis, the result would have been puzzlement: ‘well, I guess that saves us the trouble of mounting a reprisal operation’.

Terrorism is best understood as the attempt of a small clandestine group to emulate the effectiveness of state terror. It’s relation to true terror is that of a cargo cult to an airplane.

I’m not sure what glorifying terrorism would involve, precisely, but I am pretty sure it is a bad idea. The only question it is whether it is a worse idea than making up new spurious crimes of which are enemies are supposedly guilty, instead of simply remembering that they are our enemies.

soru

…the tactics used by the french resistance were not based on blowing up random french civilians to persuade the nazis to meet their demands in return for ending the slaughter.

I’m not sure who the french resistance is contrased against here, but here’s what Fred Kaplan wrote in Slate a couple of days ago about Iraq:

New data reveal, surprisingly, that the vast majority of the Iraqi insurgents’ attacks are still aimed not at Iraqi security forces or at civilians, but rather at U.S. and coalition troops. In other words, as much as was the case a year or two ago, the Iraqi insurgency is primarily an anti-occupation insurgency.

The statistics—compiled by the multinational military command in Iraq and reproduced in a report released Wednesday by the Government Accountability Office—raise anew a basic question in the debate over the future of U.S. policy toward Iraq: Is the presence of American troops doing more harm or more good?
…
The graph’s overwhelming theme, which the Times story leaves unmentioned, is that, consistently, most of the attacks—about three-quarters, never fewer than two-thirds—have been aimed at the Western occupiers.

Read the whole thing.

Not sure how this compares with the french resistance, but probably not too far off.

I suppose “Guy Fawkes Day” doesn’t really celebrate terrorism, what with the effigy burning and all. But it does seem to be named after a conspiritor. Perhaps they’ll have to strike that day from the calender.

” Is there really any difference apart from the fact that most of us think they were on the side of right and good?”

No, it’s not the fact that most of us think they were on the side of right and good. It’s the fact that they *were* on the side of right and good.

A, a large fraction — by some accounts a majority — of the french resistance were communists, at that time and place on the side of the USSR.

But you affirm that they were on the side of the right and good.

It looks like you’ve fallen for the ancient fallacy that says if you fight known bad guys you must be a good guy. But of course, bad guys sometimes fight each other.

In the immortal words of Henry Kissenger, “Too bad they can’t both lose.”.

Except they can both lose….

Burritoboy, I agree with most of what you say. A minor pont — a lot of french people have claimed that the resistance was united in name only. The communists and the anticommunists didn’t much trust each other and did limited cooperation.

Not even all the communists were stalinists, but most of them appeared to favor the USSR over germany.

And of course, if we’re looking at the fallacy of “anybody who fights a bad guy is a good guy”, Stalin is a prime counterexample. His temporary nonaggression pact with Hitler was as valid as his temporary alliance with the USA etc.

When A says that not only did we *think* somebody was on the side of Right and Good but that they actually *were* on the side of Right and Good, I think he’s seeing with a clarity that Reality does not provide.

Sebastian: so Stalin was on the side of right and good? I don’t think there was ever any contention that fighting the Nazi’s wasn’t the right thing to do. In simplistic terms, as noted elsewhere, fighting a bad guy doesn’t make you a good guy.

Burritoboy: I’m doubtful you could make a meaningful definition of `legitimate regime’ in this context, or a definition of `terrorism’ that held up to scrutiny but allowed your statement. I do think that it would be easy to find agreement that there is something quite different in targeting civilians and targeting police or military. I’m quite convinced that no such easy deliniation between `terrorist’ and `insurgent’ or `legitimate’ and ‘illegitimate’ regime is likely to be found. I’m also most of the way convinced that `terrorist’ has been rendered useless as terminology by recent abuse.

Seconding Burritoboy, I would like to provide a few facts about french Résistance. They most certainly did carry acts of violence against civilians, and in a large scale to boost. Notables and journalists collaborating with Vichy and/or the occupying forces were a prime target. Though French aren’t particularly keen to hear about it, some groups did not care too much if the bomb they used to kill their target also killed a handful of bystanders.

Nazi propaganda were keen to paint some of the most heroic résistants, la M.O.I for the connoisseurs, as ruthless foreigners trying to plunge France into barbarism (they were indeed from Armeny, Spain, Poland, Romania, Russia…).

So I don’t see how this new law could distinguish between the insurgency in Iraq and (some important elements of) french Résistance. Unless of course one resorts to the old distinction between their terror and ours.

One more thing, the government of Vichy was as legitimate as one can be in a state under occupation from a foreign power: it was instituted with an overwhelming majority of the elected parliament.

Right: here’s the nub of the matter. Are we all agreed that ‘fighting the Nazis was right and good’? Good.

OK. Next question: why? And don’t start going on about the Holocaust etc: we started fighting the Nazis long before the Holocaust started (well most of us anyway).

So: why did we fight the Nazis?

Here’s a clue here and here and here.

It wasn’t because of Nazi anti-semitism. It wasn’t because of the Holocaust. It wasn’t because the regime was racist or because it sought an Empire (it could hardly be with Stalin and the British Empire on the ‘good guys’ side). It wasn’t because Germany was a totalitarian state (again, cf the USSR).

It was purely and solely and only because……

Germany started it.

As Nuremberg put it: waging aggressive war is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

Moreover: ‘No political or economic situation can justify” the crime of aggression. And ‘no’ here really does mean ‘no’. Nothing no how, no way, not anything ever justifies invading another country (unless you have reasonable grounds for suspicion that that other country posed a threat to you).

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson also said: “If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.’

In other words, if the US invades another country, it is on the same moral level as Nazi Germany. No ‘ifs’ ‘ands’ or ‘buts’. No get outs. End of story.

Now: what is a war of aggression?

‘ “Aggression is the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this definition,” according to General Assembly Resolution 3314.The only two situations where the UN Charter permits the use of armed force against another state is in self-defense, or when authorized (i.e. explicitly) by the Security Council.’

In WW2, we did everything we could to avoid war, but Germany and Japan and Italy chose to spit in our faces when we tried to attain peace. Because we had tried everything it was very clear that Germany and Japan and Italy were the ones who were morally in the wrong. They started it. They were the ‘active’ ones, we were the ‘passive’ ones. We, to spell it out, were acting in self-defence. They were the aggressors.

And ever since, sane people have not been concerned with who was ‘totalitarian’ or not, or who committed ‘human rights violations’ (who casts the first stone here?). The question is (and it is the only question), who started it? Who invaded whom, and on what pretext?

If there was no pretext (that is if the invaded country posed no threat to the invader) then the invader is always morally wrong, and the invaded country always morally right (at least in the matter of the war).

This is not moral relativism, or cultural relativism, or appeasement (on the contrary, in all three cases). It is simply to look reality in the face. The invader, be it Genghis Khan, the Roman Empire, the British Empire, Nazi Germany, the USSR, China in Tibet or…let us say…more recent examples is ALWAYS morally in the wrong (unless, to repeat, they had a reasonable reason for invasion).

There is no debate, no discussion. This is what all sane, good people believe. Ergo, those who disagree with it are either not sane or evil. There is no third alternative.

There is no debate, no discussion. This is what all sane, good people believe. Ergo, those who disagree with it are either not sane or evil. There is no third alternative.

So, if a document came to light proving that, as it happens, a Polish cavalry unit did, as German propaganda claimed, for some reason carry out a raid across the border, then that would change your opinion about which was the right side to have fought on in WWII?

soru

With the combination of the various assaults on civil liberties promulgated by this government and the upcoming ‘abolition of parliament act’ it’s pretty hard not to read sinister motives into what they are doing. Even for relative non-paranoids like myself…

‘So, if a document came to light proving that, as it happens, a Polish cavalry unit did, as German propaganda claimed, for some reason carry out a raid across the border, then that would change your opinion about which was the right side to have fought on in WWII?’

Well that’s an interesting point. People forget why Hitler invaded Poland: or, be more specific, why he claimed he ‘had’ to invade Poland. In the case of both Poland and the USSR, Hitler claimed he was acting defensively: in other words, he claimed THEY started it.

Reading through Hitler’s declaration of war, one is struck with a sense of deja vu. Hitler argues that Poland was a dictatorship: ‘Poland was never a democracy. One very thin anemic upper class here ruled not only foreign nationalities but also its so-called own people. It was a State built on force and governed by the truncheons of the police and the military…’ and that it was guilty of grave human rights violations. ‘the misery of those who, numbering not thousands but millions, were forced to leave their home country on (merely because they) were Germans….Tens of thousands (of Germans) were dragged off, mistreated, and murdered in the vilest fashion. Sadistic beasts gave vent to their perverse instincts….’

Those who failed to stand up to the Polish menace were accused of being appeasers: ‘this pious democratic world watched without blinking an eye’ (i.e. at the ‘mass murder’ of Germans carried out by the Poles). Hitler argued that he had tried to be a ‘moderate’ and was doing his utmost to avoid war ‘ I attempted to find a solution – a tolerable solution – even for this problem. I submitted this attempt to the Polish rulers in the form of verbal proposals. You know these proposals. They were more than moderate…. ‘

So far and so predictable. All colonialists always use ‘human rights’ as a causus belli, they always claim that they are trying to ‘avoid war’, they always claim that they are ‘men of peace’, they usually point out the undemocratic nature of the state they are invading, they accuse those who will not join them in ‘defending themselves’ as being appeasers, they claim to be invading to safeguard the rights of minorities (Hitler actually uses this phrase), they claim that their opponents are in breach of ‘international law’ (‘Mr. Roosevelt went even farther. In contradiction to all the tenets of international law, he declared that he would not recognize certain Governments which did not suit him, would not accept readjustments, would maintain Legations of States dissolved long before or actually set them up as legal Governments.’).

Now no one believes this gibberish by invaders (except the wicked or stupid) nor should they.

In what way, therefore, did the US go beyond Hitler? In what way were Bush and Blair more extreme than Hitler?

In this way: Hitler claimed that his moves for peace were met with ‘renewed acts of terror, and finally attacks against Reich territory.‘.

Now this was a lie of course, but an important lie. It shows that Hitler accepted the basics of international law: that one cannot attack a state unless one is attacked first. He felt he had to lie to (as it were) protect that principle (and I won’t go into the details of the speech, but he made the same claim vis a vis the USSR and the US).

What is terrifying about Bush and Blair is that they reject not just the realities of the principle but the principle itself. Not even Hitler or Stalin went this far. In justifying the invasion of Iraq, Britain and the US uphold a new principle that they can attack and invade any country they wish, anywhere, at any time for no reason at all. Moreover, they can then move their troops in (more or less permanently) and then (in breach of the Geneva Conventions) do what the hell they want there.

This is the nature of the threat, and it is serious and real. The real lessons of World War 2 were learnt by the world and they are threefold.

1: Aggressive war is always and in all circumstances wrong, by any state.

2: Aggressive war always and invariably ends in barbarism. To be in favour of aggressive war and then to distance yourself from the torture and murder and rape that always and in all cases follows is a meaingless position. If you are in favour of aggressive war, you are in favour of rape and murder and torture. Trying to pretend you ‘didn’t know that would happen’ is simply a lie. You knew it would happen, and by your actions and words you helped it to happen. There is no middle way.

3: Appeasement doesn’t work. Once the aggressor conquers one state it will then inevitably want more.

In what way, therefore, did the US go beyond Hitler? In what way were Bush and Blair more extreme than Hitler?

While your logic is impeccable, I fear the conclusion you draw does rather serve to cast doubt on the premise you started from.

soru

It’s only a silly game when their side are the ones playing it, #30.

It is impossible to understand the full idiocy of the “glorification of terrorism” offence without looking at the definition of “terrorism” as used in the present Bill. It is,

the use or threat of action where–

(a) the action […]

(i) involves serious violence against a person,

(ii) involves serious damage to property,

(ii) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,

(iii) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

(iv) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system,

(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public [or…] involves the use of firearms or explosives, and

(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

(References to “government” include foreign governments and references to “the public” include citizens of foreign countries.)

So, recent examples of terrorism under this definition include the recent wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, and the NATO bombing campaign in Kosovo. Older wars (e.g. the recapture of the Falklands) may be excluded by a twenty-year time limit (events before which may be glorified without risk).

The only thing that would protect (say) Tony Blair from prosecution for “glorification” in his statements about British and US actions in Iraq is the fact that each prosecution will have to be approved by the Attorney-General, whom he appoints; presumably it would “send” the wrong “message” to start prosecuting members of the government for advocating government policy.

“so Stalin was on the side of right and good?”

Yes. When Stalin was fighting the Nazis he was fighting on the side of right and good.

From your tone I think you expected me to answer “no”. The thing about moral judgments is that you have to actually bother with the judgment part. Wringing your hands and complaining that it is oh so difficult to judge and that of course we have to take everyone’s point of view into account because they believe they are right doesn’t let you off the hook. The fact that the Nazis thought they were on the side of right and good doesn’t complicate our analysis at all. The fact that Islamist terrorists think they are doing Allah’s work doesn’t complicate our analysis at all.

The fact that most fanatics can justify themselves to themselves isn’t nearly as interesting or insightful as so many people seem to think. You seem to recognize it in Bush supporters and have absolutely no problem identifying it as wrong. Too bad you can’t do that with Islamist terrorists.

When Vietnam invaded Cambodia, that was usually considered a good thing and no one would confuse the Vietnamese government as a “good” one. Makes Stalin’s ability to fight on the side of good a little clearer, I think.

Sebastian, once again you have shown an absolute moral bankruptcy.

It would be just about as easy to say that Hitler was fighting on the side of right and good because he was fighting Stalin — he just happened to start fighting Stalin about 5 or 6 years earlier than we did.

It isn’t enough to argue against moral relativism. If you want to take a moral stand, it’s important to actually pick a good side.

Which you have failed to do.

Arguing that anybody who fights against an evil side is fighting for good, would imply that arab terrorists are on the side of good because they’re against Bush. It’s utterly silly.

Evil can fight evil, and the outcome may be good, bad, or random.

HTH, though I don’t have a lot of hope for you.

Sebastion: You are inferring far more than you have any logical basis to from my question (you have also made a rather large leap about bush supporters and `islamist terrorists’ which certainly has nothing to do with my comment and I don’t believe could be supported by anything I have said here, which is strange. Or are you confusing me with someone else?).

In any casea, I actually wanted you to clarify. Now that you have, we have established that if the act itself (fighting the Nazis) was on the side of `right and good’, that has no implication that the actors (i.e. the allies) were `right and good’. From this it would follow far more strongly than your later hedgeing about `not all the allied soldiers’ that using this seperation of ideas it is entirely possible that there were no `good guys’ (not thinking at the level of individuals here) at all, correct? I am not saying that was the case, just that your way of using the terms implies this. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that we seperate moral judgement of actions completely from moral judgement of actors? So to reach some sort of moral judgement of the actors themseelve in the topical context, we would tot up the good, neutral, and evil acts done by each nation in the course of the war, and arrive at a sort of averaged stance?

When Vietnam invaded Cambodia, that was usually considered a good thing

Usually considered by people who don’t know all that much about Cambodia and Vietnam. This is the “liberal left”[tm]’s favourite example of a humanitarian intervention that was a good idea and it wasn’t. You wouldn’t have thought it was possible to invade Pol Pot’s Cambodia and make things worse but the Vietnamese managed it; something like a million extra people needlessly died.

Sebastian: not sure how you intended your `no and no’ to line up, but you appear to be agreeing with my characterzation of your position, so glad we cleared that up.

You wouldn’t have thought it was possible to invade Pol Pot’s Cambodia and make things worse but the Vietnamese managed it; something like a million extra people needlessly died.

If I recall correctly, Shawcross claimed that the stories of mass post-invasion starvation were exaggerated by the Vietnamese in order to encourage foreign aid, and that once they were freed of the Khmer Rouge’s starvation-inducing policies and allowed to forage for food as best they could, Cambodians in rural areas were generally able to find enough to eat.

Statesman’s basic morality is concern and respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of other states..

Morality is about the treatment of human beings. What you are describing is either a rule of thumb, which is fair enough, subject to discussion and debate, or dogma, which isn’t.

soru

Morality is about the treatment of human beings.

States are not human beings, they are legal entities. The equivalent of morality among the states is respect for sovereignty of other states. That’s the most you can demand from the states and you’re lucky if you get that much.

I’m having trouble sleeping. I’ll pay for it in the morning.

Soru, to my way of thinking, ethics is about the treatment of human beings by other human beings. Morality is about attempting to persuade third parties that you are good and the other guy is bad.

When a government leader makes a choice about government, it affects thousands or millions of human beings in unknown ways. He has to guess about that, based on the abstractions he has available. Usually he won’t get much data about the results.

So for example, sometime after D-Day three american soldiers broke into a french farmhouse. They tied up the man and raped his wife and daughters in front of him. This was not directly the fault of the US Army or the US government. The Army would have gladly hanged those soldiers if it could catch them, but it couldn’t. So they gave the wife and daughters free treatment at a US Army medical clinic, and apologised, and that was that.

It was inevitable that there would be a few thousand (or a few tens of thousands of) cases like that. Draft a bunch of young men, give them weapons and put them among unarmed foreign civilians…. It wasn’t the intention of anyone in the government that it happen. We had to figure it was worth it, that getting enough stability that the crops could come in and people generally could get enough to eat was worth a whole lot.

I think ethicly it’s important to take care of people when you can, and also it’s important to let them make their own choices. If they insist on making bad choices for themselves then it’s wrong to force them into good choices. And if they think they’re ready to die then it’s wrong to force them to live. But government is *all about* forcing people to change their behavior. In practice governments do a lot of things that involve voluntary cooperation, but those are all things that don’t absolutely have to be done by governments. Governments coerce, whether it’s generally with the consent of the governed or not. The existing governments have a sort of ‘gentleman’s agreement’ that they won’t invade each other, that they won’t encroach on each other’s spheres of coercion. When a particular government has no friendly governments then the others tend to agree that it’s OK to invade them. (This was true for Idi Amin’s uganda, for example, and turkmenistan is heading there.) When governments do make their young men fight, their spokesmen argue about who is justified and who is not. This is part of morality, they argue about who’s good and who’s bad hoping to impress third parties. These arguments are usually utterly ineffective — other governments intervene according to their own interests with no real concern for morality except that they need something to announce to their people.

People generally aren’t too picky about the excuses for war, unless they have personal reasons to disapprove. Like, we officially invaded panama because Noriega violated US drug laws. (We also had the excuse that panama had already declared war on us, that we recognised an ad hoc government which was too weak to compete with Noriega and which invited us to invade. Also we were “protecting american lives” and guarding the canal.)

In general the citizens of a given nation will accept any excuse for a war that looks like it will be easily won. And third-party foreign nations generally don’t intervene unless their interests are threatened. Why do we argue about morality at all? Mostly, because moralists enjoy talking about it.

So OK, here’s a new moral argument. I say that there’s a fundamental difference between using WMDs (particularly nukes) on your own land to repel a foreign army, versus using WMDs in a foreign country on foreign civilians.

I say people have more right to nuke their own country (and foreign invaders) than they do to nuke other countries.

When we threatened to nuke iraq if the iraqi army used poison gas, we were pretty far in the wrong.

But it was convenient for us. The war would not have been quite as quick and easy if we’d faced poison gas and we didn’t know that the iraqi army wasn’t ready to use the stuff.

So the reason that Germany was allowed to seize territory that didn’t belong to it (i.e. violate other state’s territorial integrity) was because statesmen of the time had too much concern for territorial integrity?

More precisely, too much of Brendan’s idiosyncratic obsession with not militarily violating territorial integrity. That’s why, when Nazi Germany used threats and internal subversion to subjugate its neighbors, the major powers on the continent were reluctant to respond with military force. Remember “peace in our time”?

I thought everybody knew this.

‘what constitutes a “reasonable reason for invasion”?’. Luckily, I dont have to answer that question as international law answers it for me. If you are attacked, or if you have reasonable grounds for thinking you are about to be attacked, or if the security council authorises it.

Precisely–Chamberlain would have been proud of you. Neither of these conditions would have applied in Europe in the 1930’s until the invasion of Poland–and possibly not even then, from the point of view of Britain and France.

The Treaty of Versailles (not to mention the Nuremberg trials) just passed you by didn’t they?

Well, if you consider a surrender document imposed on Germany by a bunch of still-colonial powers at the point of a gun in 1919 to be a valid legal pretext for invasion a quarter-century later, then surely the 1991 Security Council resolutions will do for the Iraq campaign in 2003–right?

What’s wrong? You aren’t one of those crazy liberal communists with an idiosyncratic obsession with not having your territorial integrity (and perhaps much else) violated, are you?

As an individual, I have no “territorial integrity”. I have a bunch of legal rights which fortunately the government of the country in which I live happens to respect. Unfortunately, the governments of most other countries don’t even respect the legal rights of their own citizens, let alone mine. The idea that putting all those governments’ representatives in a room and letting them make decisions about other countries’ behavior will lead to a reasonable notion of “international law”–or anything but unspeakable horror, for that matter–is just fantasy.

“Jet (55):

“When Vietnam invaded Cambodia, that was usually considered a good thing . . .”

with the exception, as I recall, of Noam Chomsky.”

Actually, with the exception of the US government, which repeatedly voted to keep the Khmer Rouge representative seated in the UN, assisted the anti-Vietnamese “coalition”, dominated by the Khmer Rouge, and so on.