Comments on: It’s Not What You Think

By: Bryan

Bryan — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:47:25 +0000

The thing about international law is that nations have the option at the time a new treaty comes into existence of accepting or rejecting it. If you run afoul of international law as a nation, you are showing your “word” is no good.

As an individual you don’t get to decide which laws you will abide by, and which you will reject, but nations do when they sign treaties. If you don’t like the laws, don’t sign the treaties.

Signing the treaty and then violating it, makes you doubly criminal. Of course, some people enjoy being criminals, while paradoxically calling for the rule of law. Such people have the odd habit of considering themselves conservatives.

By: Steve Bates

Steve Bates — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:32:26 +0000

“… any nation that allows itself to be bound by it deserves everything it will eventually get.” – David Duff

Ah, yes. Among those willing to be bound by it are America’s founders who authored Article VI of our Constitution, as are all those who have taken oaths to protect and defend that Constitution. Here’s a paragraph from Article VI:

…

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

…

Emphasis mine. Treaties… which are important components of international law… are part of the “supreme Law of the Land.” Go ahead, Mr. Duff; claim that you’re smarter than James Madison… claim that if you wish to appear even more ridiculous than usual.
.-= ´s last blog ..In Honor Of Marcy Wheeler =-.

By: Kryten42

Kryten42 — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:39:09 +0000

To work you need very intelligent people with good language and people skills who can blend in. Then you teach them how to kill.

Yup!

They organized Special Ops people who all look and act military and stand out wherever they go. FAIL!!!

Oh hell yeah!! Jeez… I saw that in my time! In one case in particular, one guy was SO obvious, I felt like going up to him and slapping him silly just because he made everyone look bad! 😉 😀 FYI, it’s NOT just the USA who are bad at it.

Thankfully, even the Israeli’s and other Nations that were very good at assassination and assorted skulduggery and dirty deeds are also ‘fast tracking’ and taking shortcuts. That means they are becoming less effective, a good thing. 🙂

By: Bryan

Bryan — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:11:44 +0000

That’s just Cheney trying to emulate the Israelis, and not especially new. It was done in Southeast Asia, and was just as useless. We don’t have the skills to pull that type of thing off, because it takes too long, and is too expensive to create an effective program.

The basic problem that the Hedgemony had is that they couldn’t figure out that killing people is really easy and the least of the skills needed, but the one they emphasized.

To work you need very intelligent people with good language and people skills who can blend in. Then you teach them how to kill.

They organized Special Ops people who all look and act military and stand out wherever they go. FAIL!!!

An embarrassment to the US, and not a serious threat to the really bad people in the world.

I would assume that the State Department under Hillary Clinton is putting a definite stop to that stupidity.

It is a recurring virus that has to be eliminated every other decade.

By: cookie jill

cookie jill — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 05:31:55 +0000

Cheney’s assassination squads that were sent out for “others” than Al Q me thinks.

http://www.minnpost.com/ericblackblog/2009/03/11/7310/investigative_reporter_seymour_hersh_describes_executive_assassination_ring
.-= ´s last blog ..Honey Do’s =-.

By: Kryten42

Kryten42 — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 02:47:02 +0000

Couldn’t agree more Bryan. What a World.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 02:37:25 +0000

In reply to Kryten42.

The Hedgemony was so openly arrogant I can’t imagine them even bothering to cover up, much less hiding from Congress. They were too successful at painting anyone to objected to anything as “unpatriotic” that they wouldn’t expend any effort to hide what they believed was a fabulous, macho idea. They work under the assumption that fear is the equivalent of respect, and assume that everyone will go along with any stupid idea that they put forward.

There was such a total lack of oversight that you could conceal most of the world’s national budgets in either the “black budget” or defense appropriation bills.

Whatever Cheney was up to, it had to be obviously illegal on its face. It had to be something that there was no way of covering up how criminal it was, and no way of stopping prosecution.

Everyone does a lot of really dodgy crap, but you don’t do it at home. The diplomats can cover up a lot of things, and usually can bribe enough people to make it go away overseas, but at home it is very difficult to do.

Clinton had a hit out on bin Laden, but everyone stalled in taking care of it.

Cheney had an overinflated opinion of his own abilities, and often pushed absurd schemes that could never work, even if everything worked as he thought, because of the pieces he left out in his planning. There is nothing worse than amateurs attempting world domination.

By: Kryten42

Kryten42 — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 02:03:52 +0000

Agree. As for the CIA hit squads, I know they are not always *operational* assets. As someone who’s seen their handiwork here and there… It seems more likely to me they are used when a Republican is President, though I wouldn’t discount a Democrat President using them if he thought he could get away with it, or it was seriously necessary and he could could come up with an *acceptable* reason for doing so. You and I both know Bryan that there is a huge ‘Black Ops’ budget, and even a covert infrastructure for handling things the laws won’t easily sanction. And it’s the same here, just not as big a scale. 🙂

The primary difference, it seems to me, between Republicans and Democrats is that republicans couldn’t care less about any laws and will do what they want when they want (and I am not just talking about Bush/Cheney, not by a long line of Presidents), whereas a Democrat will break the law when he is reasonably certain he won’t get caught at it. 🙂 Certainly, a Republican will try not to be obvious about it and cover it up, but they will work hard to find a way to break any law they see fit. A Democrat won’t if he thinks there is a reasonable chance of getting caught. Of course, there are some exceptions, as with everything. But that seems to me to be generally true. 🙂 If I had to use a single word to describe a Republican, I’d say ‘narcissist’. They care only for themselves. You can see how fast they will throw one of their own under a bus the instant that one breaks ranks even slightly. 🙂 Democrats are a little harder to pin to a single word… The only all encompassing one that readily springs to mind is ‘foolish’. *shrug* 🙂