News & Analysis
Bush Used as Trojan Horse for Global Justice
Canada required to arrest George W. Bush ... Criminals must be arrested, even U.S. Presidents, even if Americans condone human rights abuses: World's largest human rights group Amnesty International weighs in with heaviest stand yet ... London-based Amnesty International (AI) has called on Canada to do what the United States has failed to do, arrest George W. Bush. AI says Canada is required to arrest Bush when he attends an economic summit in Surrey, British Columbia on October 20 due to a series of his human rights criminal actions including those related to the U.S. Military torturing people, crimes under international law ."Bush has legal responsibility for a series of human rights violations in a memorandum submitted last month to Canada's attorney general but only now released to the media," reported Agence France-Presse. – The Examiner
Dominant Social Theme: George Bush is a war criminal and he needs to be brought to international justice.
Free-Market Analysis: The Examiner, an online newspaper, has provided us with a pretty good summary of the surprisingly strong call by London-based Amnesty International (see excerpt above) to arrest George Bush over international war crimes. Bush inspires intense feelings (mostly dislike in our view) and the AI statement cleverly utilizes his polarizing influence to buttress the meretricious meme of global justice.
In fact, there is no such thing as "global justice." There is no such things as a "human rights violation." But this dominant social theme is being pounded home by the elites who seek a one-world future and need global justice to accompany it.
Human rights violations are an especially egregious meme. It is part of the magic trick performed by the elites in which important personal issues are to be embraced by impersonal concepts such as "countries" and "corporations," etc. The idea is always to make the specific generic and then to provide a globalist solution applied by internationalist structures controlled by this same elite.
Global justice is just an elaboration of this weary formula. What the world needs in our humble view is "decentralized justice." We've called for a return to tribal and clan justice (not that it matters what we "call for," but we might as well try) since private justice is the only the kind of judicial system that can really be depended on to drain the inevitable inequities.
In private justice, people avenge their own via duels, feuds and the like. Justice-seeking can be extended "unto the seventh generation" and people are likely going to be more polite and careful when any individual can avenge an "insult to honor" or other offense on his own. In a private justice paradigm, people control their own justice and are apt not to act rashly because the consequences can be deadly.
State justice – the current public paradigm – is unfortunately inequitable in every way. The state makes the rules, passes the laws, pays for the policing to enforce the laws, the lawyers who prosecute them, the courtroom that houses the judicial process and the penitentiaries that house the unfortunate victims of this monopoly of force.
So successful has this meme been that people cannot even recall in many instances the private judicial formulas that were in use, likely, for tens of thousands of years before eruption of public justice in the past several centuries.
One need only look at the careful crafting of private justice, with its vendettas, blood payments and other forms of vigilantism to know this is a superior approach to settling disputes. In private justice, it is up to the individual to settle disputes, often with agreed-upon third parties.
Private justice tends to remove the inequities of modern public justice in which the state itself metes out capital punishment – often unjustly – and in the case of America keeps four million at a time locked away for such heinous offenses as smoking a marijuana cigarette. Today, in America, the trend is toward using prisoners to supplement the failing municipal system, turning inmates into 21st century slaves. Here's some more from the article:
"Canada is required by its international obligations to arrest and prosecute former president Bush given his responsibility for crimes under international law including torture," Amnesty's Susan Lee said in a statement. "As the U.S. Authorities have, so far, failed to bring former president Bush to justice, the international community must step in." A spokesman for the Canadian government was not immediately available for comment.
Bush cancelled a visit to Switzerland in February, after facing similar public calls for his arrest. "Bringing to justice the people responsible for torture is central to that goal. It is the law... And no one, including the man who served as president of the world's most powerful nation for eight years can be allowed to stand above that law." AI said if Bush is not arrested when in Canada, that country will violate the UN convention and condone human rights violation.
Why now? Why Canada? It's a clever ploy. The idea is getting big play in Canada because of the distaste that many Canadians feel toward George W. Bush and the warmongering that ensnared Canada in the decade-old Afghan struggle. As Bush will simply cancel any appearances where he is in danger of being arrested, the danger of arrest is fairly minimal.
AI has urged Canada to do the deed, and we can only assume this stance is in response to the deterioration of support for international justice in general. The most recent iteration of "global justice" is the formation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its selective prosecutions and heavy-handed pseudo-morality has drained support even among developing countries.
There is a movement in Africa, for instance, to remove all support for the ICC. It is being led by Kenya, which has been pressured by the Anglosphere elite to cooperate so as to form the necessary "precedents" to further entrench the meme of "global justice."
The idea of "global justice" in the modern day and age got its start with the Nuremberg Trials, which were promptly undercut by the (secret) embrace by the United States of any Nazi with a scientific background and a military career. (See Operation Paperclip.)
Nonetheless, this particular power-elite meme has gathered force over the past 50 years. It has been pushed deliberately through the modern concept of "precedent" in which every judicial decision, no matter how absurd, becomes part of the larger legal canon and influences the next generation of bought-and-paid for justices.
Conclusion: There is no doubt the elites are pushing for global justice just as they are pushing for a global currency, a global political infrastructure, etc. Bush is a handy target to reinforce the mindless rush toward global justice. Of course, what Bush did during his terms as US president was obscenely reprehensible and in a system of private justice might well have gotten him into significant trouble. Probably not so today.
l 
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by byrresheim on 10/15/11 07:08 PM
Thank you, Bell. All together now: only the Germans invaded Poland in '39 ...
|
Posted by KyfhoMyoba on 10/14/11 07:21 PM
Feuds are a very inefficient (high cost and low benefit) method of dispute resolution. Anglo-American "law" is arguably (I'll do it if I must ;)) the best/fairest method discovered so far.
The feud began in antiquity, and evolved into the dominant form of government in western Europe (why do you think it's called "feudalism"?) Due to an interesting quirk in what is now the UK, the monarchy there had very little power/money and so left what it thought of as its property - its people alone to settle their disputes by themselves.
It's called "common law" for two reasons; it's for the commoners, and it refers to the law that is common to all parties. Common law evolved over more than a thousand years and incorporates stuff from all over the world throughout history, from the Code of Hammurabi for municiapal law to the Jewish Shetar for contract/commercial law.
It was self enforcing, that is, the plaintiff was responsible for prosecuting his own case; there was no govt police to apprehend and no prosecutor to prosecute (King couldn't care less, and was to broke to bother). The common law, which is largely procedural in nature, avoids, to the extent possible, prejudicing either party - can't really say that about feuds. The feudal system is what created the abomination we call government. It's not fair, it favors the wealthy, it's costly, risky, unnecessarily violent, it doesn't seek truth, and did I mention, that it's not fair?
Frankly, DB, I'm amazed that someone I agree with so whole-heartedly on so many other issues would propose such, well, nonsense!
Reply from The Daily Bell
1. There is Common Law and common law. We favor the latter, not the former, which includes the literally genocidal implementation of "precedent." It is precedent that will actually put the entire world in jail, as it is the logical conclusion of endlessly brutal advances.
2. We usually use the word vendetta rather than feud, but it amounts somewhat to the same thing. The idea of private justice is preferable too the public justice you espouse, AND the "upper case" Common Law, which evolved into what we have today. (Not feudalism, you have it reversed.)
3. Any modern lawyer will tell you that this horrid system (which actually may in some sense be Naval or Marine law) evolved from Common Law; none will mention feudalism.
4. In lowercase common law - which has been around for thousands of years and which we often call "tribal" or "kin"-based (or private as opposed to public) justice might be avenged by the aggrieved or a wise elder (or itinerant, traveling "judge") might be hired by both parties to adjudicate.
5. Just because you make up definitions doesn't make them so. The idea that "feudalism" comes from "feud" is like saying that the word "advance" includes an advertising implication because it contains "ad." Or that the word "pow" is an antecedent of the world "powerful." You want to peddle this nonsense, go ahead, but why do you have to come here to do it?
6. Here is a Yahoo answer on antecedents: "Feudal or feudalism comes from the Latin word "feudalis", which means "referring to a feudal estate" - such an estate in medieval Latin being "feudum". The word is also linked with the Middle English word "feodary", meaning "someone who has the use of an overlord's lands in return for service". "Feud" meaning a quarrel or vendetta is from a totally different word, namely "fede"."
7. Here is a perfectly acceptable definition of feudal from Wikipedia. It makes no references to "feuds" nor should it ...
Classic feudalism
See also Feudalism in England and Examples of feudalism
The classic François-Louis Ganshof version of feudalism[2][3] describes a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals and fiefs. A lord was in broad terms a noble who held land, a vassal was a person who was granted possession of the land by the lord, and the land was known as a fief. In exchange for the use of the fief and the protection of the lord, the vassal would provide some sort of service to the lord. There were many varieties of feudal land tenure, consisting of military and non-military service. The obligations and corresponding rights between lord and vassal concerning the fief form the basis of the feudal relationship.[2]
Vassalage
Before a lord could grant land (a fief) to someone, he had to make that person a vassal. This was done at a formal and symbolic ceremony called a commendation ceremony composed of the two-part act of homage and oath of fealty. During homage, the lord and vassal entered a contract in which the vassal promised to fight for the lord at his command, whilst the lord agreed to protect the vassal from external forces. Fealty comes from the Latin fidelitas and denotes the fidelity owed by a vassal to his feudal lord. "Fealty" also refers to an oath that more explicitly reinforces the commitments of the vassal made during homage. Such an oath follows homage.[11]
Once the commendation ceremony was complete, the lord and vassal were now in a feudal relationship with agreed-upon mutual obligations to one another. The vassal's principal obligation to the lord was to "aid", or military service. Using whatever equipment the vassal could obtain by virtue of the revenues from the fief, the vassal was responsible to answer to calls to military service on behalf of the lord. This security of military help was the primary reason the lord entered into the feudal relationship. In addition, the vassal could have other obligations to his lord, such as attendance at his court, whether manorial, baronial, both termed court baron, or at the king's court itself.[12]
 |
Posted by TimurTheLame on 10/14/11 06:53 PM
@ DB
Hillary is pshycopath enough to probably think that she would be the exception to the rule. However, as most of her ilk she is also highly intelligent. Her decision will be made whether she thinks she is electable or not.
Experts will tell her that she shot her bolt and there would be little drama in Obama vs Hillary 11.
I am no expert and take little interest in American politics since the whole show became a carney barkers dream but I feel that the Democrats, for all the difference it (they) make will have to stick with the big 'O".
Incumbency has its own logical strength and the monkeys that run the campaigns use statistics, polls, policy gestures and all kind of gutter tricks to get their candidate elected.
The incumbent also has all the power of being 'at the wheel' so to speak so he can play the gamut ranging from porking up weak areas right up to declaring a war to get elected.
Personally, and you read it here first, I think that the PTB know they have to discard Obama. He served his purpose , the times are moving too fast and there is too much dung on his oxfords to scrape off in time.
Look for Romney, with a compromise VP and a campaign theme along the lines of " lets go back to when America was great". They know the people fall for slogans so it would be an antidote for the 'hope and change'.
Sigh... I won't even get paid for this.
|
Posted by TimurTheLame on 10/14/11 05:53 PM
AI, which to my knowledge can be selective in its mandate calls for "Pretzel Boy' to be arrested in Canada based on a concept of law. Interesting.
I am not an expert in International Law, but I believe that accessories before and after the fact can also be indicted.
Why then are they not asking for the indictment of our esteemed Prime Minister (Helmethead) Harper? He ruined Canada's endeared reputation as a peacemaking nation in the world's eyes by marching lock-step with the ogres in Washington to send military forces to Afghanistan (and every other endeavour since) by using convincing arguments such as... gas chambers? well no, mass graves?, well no, why it is so that Afghan women can vote!
Every day we have to put up with a supposed national grievance of some poor grunt who was probably going to relieve himself and stepped on a mine and subsequently became a 'hero'. It is sickening.
Look at what the dictionary refers to as a hero. Consider what it took to get a Victoria Cross, Congressional Medal of Honour or an Iron Cross first class. Real heros those.
No disrespect to the poor fellow or his family but Canada has no logical or treaty obligation there. His life was wasted and instead of national mourning there should be national anger and perhaps a request to AI that they also suggest we arrest our own PM. This would shine the light on their real game.
Just the same there is something funny here. I personally think that Dubya probably thought he could slink into retirement quietly but the PTB figured that he was so perfect a stooge that they couldn't resist going back to the well one last time.
Reply from The Daily Bell
We thought of that too! So many who decide on employment with the PE seem to be double-crossed. Hung out to dry, so to speak. No wonder Hillary is of two minds about running ...
 |
Posted by rossbcan on 10/14/11 02:15 PM
The state has not always existed. This is the anarchy that tit for tat conflict, for all of history taught us a lesson: live and let live, consent of the governed (if people choose to tolerate government), property rights, free enterprise and western civilization.
Or, do you believe that "someone" out of sheer altruism decreed "civilization" and everyone just went along?
The converse is true: civilization is being arbitrarily decreed away. The people are preparing to decree otherwise.
 |
Posted by Joe on 10/14/11 01:59 PM
"Justice-seeking can be extended "unto the seventh generation" and people are likely going to be more polite and careful when any individual can avenge an "insult to honor" or other offense on his own. In a private justice paradigm, people control their own justice and are apt not to act rashly because the consequences can be deadly."
I kind of agree, but there could easily be problems, one would also have to spend allot of time training to kill people with guns and swords to become good so you could prey on less trained people.
Reply from The Daily Bell
OK, but what we have now is .... better?
|
Posted by Achim Palm on 10/14/11 01:27 PM
Dear Mr. America,
here you go again... ..
Imagine for one second, the Serbs would have used AGENT ORANGE in Srebenica, the former Yugoslavia. Yes, I am talking about the same AGENT ORANGE your nation has so generously sprayed all over Vietnam. Even today Vietnamese babies are being born deformed, disabled mentally and physically.
Of course, you would accuse the Serbs of additional war crimes such as using chemical weapons other than the massacre where they killed countless men and boys. But you the Americans, the almighty American people can do whatever you feel like including murder on a grand scale and get away with murder!!
But other nations cannot do it... .Lord, oh, no! They will be put in front of a war crime tribunal and punished according to the law.
Don't you realize that the world is not stupid and blind? We see your double moral, your lies and false moral.
The saddest thing is that you have such a wonderful country and plenty of good people in your nation.
However, your government continues to deteriorate fast... ..God help America!
|
Posted by rossbcan on 10/14/11 12:33 PM
"The Germans of course. They are the Only Warlike Race."
Nope, this time around, it will be the Amish and Libertarians (AKA - anarchists). By being for peace they prevent (creating and) dealing with enemies.
|
Posted by oldman67 on 10/14/11 12:33 PM
Bush should suffer the same fate as Saddam. Bush is responsible for over two million civilian Iraqi civilians dead as well as 500,000 children who died because of US scantaions against Iraq before the first Gulf war and 500,000 more children who were born deformed because of the use of depleated uranium.
|
Posted by esbuck on 10/14/11 11:56 AM
We tried and hanged Nazis who invaded Poland, a war crime. Who will be tried for invading Iraq?
Reply from The Daily Bell
The Germans of course. They are the Only Warlike Race.
|
Posted by Bluebird on 10/14/11 11:28 AM
Thanks. I had not heard some were calling for the arrest of Bush. Ha! So many things go through my mind while reading this. Arab Spring/OWS? Will they now arm the rebels to go after the war criminal? If so, why not the one in power now? Same/same? How about their cohorts? And their British counterparts? Will they demand the same for Blair? It gets stranger by the day. Can't wait for tomorrows episode of this soap drama.
|
Posted by rossbcan on 10/14/11 09:08 AM
IMHO, this does NOT change the fact, that Canadian judges and government, as our paid agents and employees, sworn to uphold the law and protect civilization, further subject to international agreements regarding war criminals SHOULD arrest Bush the lessor.
After all, these war crimes have negatively affected our personal and collective survival in terms of growing tyranny, inflation, lack of security, increased defensive costs (from west's victims), increased military expenses due to our "leaders" being coerced into participating into the war crimes of initiating aggression in the Middle east...
Need I go on? As a Canadian, these costs are an aggression against myself, family, friends, economic well being and society in general, and, if the law does not take a stand against tyranny, well, it is up to "we, the people", the final and only sure defense against tyranny.
Of course, Bush will come to Canada and, the protesters defending law and civilization WILL be aggressed against, and represented as anarchists and barbarians.
PO'd? - you bet
|
Posted by rossbcan on 10/14/11 08:46 AM
DB: "There is no doubt the elites are pushing for global justice just as they are pushing for a global currency, a global political infrastructure, etc."
Elites rely on the faux concept of "expertitus" (paid rationalizers for elite propaganda, hyped to be intelligent, but really idiots) and their arbitrary decrees and gross generalizations that "non experts" are idiots, requiring power (which resolves to our free choice, freedom and survival) which is alleged to be too dangerous to reside in our individual hands, to reside in theirs.
In general, elites and monopolists advocate proactive and preventative "solutions" or, in more precise terms, "pre-emptive justice", based on the FALSE assumption that "freedom to be a criminal" inevitably leads to "WILL be a criminal". This is exactly the same false rationalizations (frauds) that have killed millions in our wars of imperialism which never can, nor ever will kill freedom, just people and civilization.
Here's where DB seems to consistently misinterpret my position, making the assumption that when I prove there is such as thing as "objective justice", universally agreed to by the objective that this implies there MUST be a monopoly force to enforce it. Wrong! justice is a philosophical consensus among the intelligent and morally aware, the line in the sand between civilized and barbarian:
Justice Defined: We are all free to profit or suffer and learn (adapt to excellence) by facing the consequences of our OWN choices. Injustice is to be forced to suffer the consequences of choices of unaccountable (irresponsible) others..
"The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern. The law of liberty tends to abolish the reign of race over race, of faith over faith, of class over class." ~ Lord Acton
Justice, the "rule of law" and its consequence, our near extinct western civilization is mankind's greatest achievement, allowing the most dangerous predator on the planet to live in peace and harmony, cooperating for mutual self-interest and collective survival:
Click to view link
When you are personally aggressed against, the law is yours to personally, or by proxy wield, to achieve defense and proportional reparations at the expense of your predators, by virtue of your "right to choose life". Of course, subverted elite coerced judiciary WILL have issues with this and attempt to misrepresent your defense as offense, demonizing you with their propaganda instruments, to arbitrary decree you as a criminal (their definition: defiant slave).
By "unnatural selection" of ideas, suppression of truth, forceful coercion, subverted education and media and complete control of perceptual environment (prior to the internet, a wild card), elites have tried their best and failed hide their basic nature and goals:
Elites ARE PREDATORS and, those who do not THINK, nor defend are PREY:
Click to view link
Don't believe this "elephant in the room"? THINK about it:
Click to view link
