The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    jollyroger's picture

    Fuck Congress; Armed force v. G. ?, Security Council says OK. De facto step towards World Government?

    By jollyroger on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 7:26pm |

    Without benefit of congressional cover, Obama contributes our share of coercive might in service of the collectively declared "responsibility to protect" .

    He is praised as the anti-Bush, for being less bellicose than a Frenchman, and more successful in corraling a viable Security Council Resolution.( Number 1973)  than a brit.

     

    And while we may or may not applaud the goal (if not the outcome, that is yet unknown...) of standing between a predatory state and its citizen prey, what of the  insitutional fallout from a general concession that a US President may legally commit US Armed Forces without any congressional input provided the indicia of legitimacy set forth in the UN Charter are present?

    Certainly this represents some migration of sovereignty upward.

    Well, thank you Jesus--I, for one, sincerely welcome the wise and prudent rule of our World Government Overlords.

    BTW, once the world government is explicitely in place, those pesky funding issues raised by Destor  will disappear.

     

    Comments

    So I take it you;re with all those who want to walk away from our membership in the UN.

    Actually, I'm not quite sure what your point is exactly.  You may be a roger who is jolly, but sometimes it would help just saying it straight.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 8:26pm

    I believe the world has world sized problems and needs a world sized government.  I applaud the drift of events that has forced Prez to adopt a philosophical posture favoring Security Council as the seat of legitimacy to deflect the (fully legitimate) criticism that his actions are ultra vires.

    Actually,speaking as his attorney, I'd point to our treaty obligations under the UN Charter, and finesse any armed intervention as legitimate UN obligations . (which they are, btw.)


    by jollyroger on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 8:43pm

    I kind of sort of thought that.  But given that the first two words of your title resonante on a base level, it is kind of hard to tell whether this is snark take on those damn idiots who are giving up our sovereignty (which with WTO etc is seen quite abit on the left). 


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:04pm

    As a general proposition, historically, those who had a wider vision as we claw our way up from tribalism, represent the future."Patriotism is tribalism and tribalism sucks"


    by jollyroger on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:11pm

    just saying it straight

    Alas, the pernicious result of earning oneself a jackt for irony--I said, I sincerely welcome our world government overlords.  That was suppsed to be a hidden message that my remark was, "sincere".


    by jollyroger on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 8:46pm

    not to beat it to death, but I also am moved to direct your attention to the exhultative mood: "Well, thank you Jesus"!, more or less universally deconstructed to indicate  a report of a   concatenation of inner phenomena ego syntonic with the stated observation by the reporter.


    by jollyroger on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 8:50pm

    If you want people to take your use of "Jesus" in any remotely sincere way, I would advocate a change in avatar image.  But that is just my opinion.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 8:59pm

    And that's without the bottom half, praise Jesus!


    by jollyroger on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:05pm

    can i get an Amen brother?


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:12pm

    Here, boy, have a snake...


    by jollyroger on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:20pm

    In the interest of both fair play and ignorance, and as I was advancing the idea that perhaps the War Powers Act might have covered the legality...a) some said that the French having recongnized the provisional Libyan govt. (never can rember its title), and b) I did run across this as I was searching for arguments and law to counteract my apparently false assumptions (even though I didn't care for them...

    http://ddgraphicart.com/USERIMAGES/IMG_3055(1).JPG

    In the meantime, do see Helena Cobban's piece Seaton posted; it's a bit on the nauseating side if she's right, and I have read similar takes since I read this:

    http://justworldnews.org/archives/004181.html


    by we are stardust on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:20pm

    I'm off to read them, just caught up  with Kucinich and the Impeachers.  I actually believe this is the way sovereignty will migrate upward--pragmatically.


    by jollyroger on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:22pm

    OK, looking at Helena's column I think she is creating problems where they don't exist, because she doesn't posit an infinite number of points of equilibrium at which an intertervention, by redefining the square footage where a given government enjoyed the monopoly on legitimate use of force that is necessary but not sufficient to produce a viable state, may have placed beyond the risk of harm that population the protection of which ws the goal of the intervention.  That is, G. stays home.


    by jollyroger on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:26pm

    She always argues that way when military force is involved. Because she's a believing Quaker (http://justworldnews.org/archives/cat_quaker_stuff.html)

    where force is always wrong even in the face of weapons. Her offered solution is Quaker, at the end of the article:

    Before the tripartite assault, Turkish PM Rejep Tayyip Erdogan was working hard to try to mediate a political resolution to the contest between Qadhdhafi and the rebels-- one that would have involved Qadhdhafi stepping aside and a peaceful resolution of all outstanding differences.

    I don't think I'm pointing out anything that she would mind I think she's proud of it.  I've seen more than one or two instances where her Mideast analyst friends, like Juan Cole, will point it out, too, when they disagree with her, i.e. "well, my friend Helena is giving the Quaker p.o.v., I disagree, I don't think that can work."

    Speaking of Juan Cole, interesting that he's been very supportive so far:

    Top Ten Ways that Libya 2011 is Not Iraq 2003, March 22

    How the No Fly Zone Can Succeed, March 21

    As to your p.o.v., I've always been a fan of the idea of "one world government" myself in the abstract. I don't see this as a sign that the "black helicopters" (or Star Trek's Federation) are coming soon, though. But I am always interested and excited a bit when the U.N. can manage to do anything. It's just that I've been disppointed by them a lot lately.

    The whole rejiggering of the world set up, the mulilateral potential that we are seeing, the Mideast/African world shakeups. I think it's just a part of a continuum that started back with the fall of the wall in 1989, of course- you had Saddam testing the waters of change by trying to take Kuwait and the international community saying no, you had the Tianamen protestors testing their "wall," you have the Kosovo action was one of the first signs the rise of frustration with the UN, and it was no surprise that Russia didn't like it, you had Osama Bin Laden have a vision of a new world order and use his money and contacts to develop it, and there are many more than just those examples. But it all got totally stopped in its tracks and delayed by the Bush Shrub years. Just one of those cycles of history where when things are changing too fast, democracies in particular get scared and go conservative for a while.  It's exciting to have it back, to have the change thing back, on that I agree.

    I think Gorbachev is still a woefully underappreciated important figure of history. Not a brilliant man, but a very very important one.


    by artappraiser on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 6:44pm

    "part of a continuum"

     

    I think at least in the early stages of the surrender of national sovereignty, with all the angst that implies, the transactions will be more implicit than explicit...thus, if Obama justifies his slight of congress by referencing the security council's authority, it will be a matter of convenience for him, but it will have real world precedent impact as well.

    Certainly the whole R2P doctrine is at its base a truncating of national sovereignty, in this case explicit.


    by jollyroger on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 9:06pm

    Yeah, well, think about the US (and likely a huge majority of voters) getting apoplectic about the possibility of our becoming part of the International Criminal Court. 

    OT, but I'm doing some looking into solitary confinement numbers and practices in the US< and it turns out that 1) it was a Quaker-sponsored idea, so that prisoners could use silence to commune with their makers, and 2) now Quakers still lead some of the prison reform.

    File inder: "Wow; how ironic!"


    by we are stardust on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 10:26pm

    International Criminal Court.

    It will no doubt have to wait until we just absolutely, positvely, have to send someone there for our own purposes, under conditions (can't really come up with specifics at present, but it's out there...) where to get our way we will need to ratify.


    by jollyroger on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 12:47am

    The main thing Cobban brought up that interested me was that the negotiating teams were blocked from going to Gadaffi.  Yes, it was late, but the rebel forces had turned down Chavez's offers, saying they wanted Gadaffi gone, not making reform promises.  Though who those spokespeople were was often a mystery.


    by we are stardust on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 10:29pm

    Moon's statement today demands cease fire from "all parties." So maybe we will be seeing Chavez' mug there soon, you never know. (Disclosure:I am no fan, I would be rooting for a UN resolution for him to stay 3,000 miles away from Libya, I think chances are high he would royally screw it up if not cause hostilities to escalate to WW levels.) More seriously, a lot of things I am coming across suggest Turkey is auditioning for such a role.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 12:58am

    You know Jolly, if you would quite frickin around with the 'f' word you would get on the front page more often. hahahahaha

    On the other hand, you get me readin!!! hahahahahah


    by Richard Day on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 5:47pm

    Somehow, there is no other verb with quite the range of de and con notations.  And certainly not the same vigor.  So I will remain hidden in the attic, the foul mouthed uncle who cannot be trusted to eat at the grownups' table.  Oh well...


    by jollyroger on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 9:09pm

    Ok so you stirred my curiosity. I did a google blog search to see what teh kidz in NWO Illunimati Fear & Loathing Kookooland were saying now that something real actually happened that they could talk about. And guess what, they seem a little slow on the uptake, I found some but not much yet.

    The best one, mho, has not just Israel, but Japan in on it:

    http://theintelhub.com/2011/03/24/truth-frequency-libya-false-flag-part-...

    Enjoy! Tongue out


    by artappraiser on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 10:44pm

    I'm still trying to understand the article without benefit of reading part 1, 2, and 3 as recommended...but I'm lovin the ads for colloidal remedies and getting out of debt...


    by jollyroger on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 11:05pm

    Also, "truth frequency radio"?  I can't banish Dan Rather and "what's thr frequency Kenneth?..."


    by jollyroger on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 11:07pm

    Teh black helicopters!

    The U.N. peacekeeping force in Ivory Coast, supported by the French military, had targeted Gbagbo's heavy weapons capabilities on Monday with attack helicopters after civilians were killed in shelling.

    Attacks centered on military bases in the city, but also on rocket launchers "very close" to Gbagbo's Cocody district residence, U.N. peacekeeping chief Alain LeRoy said on Monday.

    Not to mention acting as world prosecutor willing to entertain plea bargain games and protection from lynch mobs before surrender:

    Gbagbo said he was willing to surrender and has asked for United Nations protection, according to a U.N. official. But embattled strongman then went on French television to claim he had won November's election. 

    The U.N. official, whom Reuters did not name, said Tuesday that Gbagbo was not physically in United Nations' custody but was still negotiating and had expressed a willingness to surrender.

    From MSNBC's U.N. diplomat: Ivory Coast's Gbagbo ready to quit.
    Embattled leader was in bunker trying to negotiate departure

    Edit to add: On who does and who doesn't welcome their new world government "overlords" posted here.


    by artappraiser on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 3:49pm

    Teh black helicopters!

     

    We are such fools!  Of COURSE the "(basic)black" copters would have French speaking pilots, cynically puffing on Gauloise Filtre (3 packs a day, but that was all I could fit in...).

    It's the Chanel Corps.


    by jollyroger on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 7:26pm

    O/T, has anyone ever been caught describing the interaction of a Frenchman and his cigarette without reference to cynicism?


    by jollyroger on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 7:34pm

    It's down to Jean Paul Belmondo, I think.


    by jollyroger on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 7:35pm


    1981
    Joss Beaumont (Jean-Paul Belmondo) is a French spy given the assignment of killing an African dictator, and when he arrives in Africa to do so, he is captured and put in prison. The political winds had changed - the dictator is now an ally - and the best way to handle the agent is to keep him in jail. Naturally at odds now with his former bosses and with an ax to grind for his own incarceration, the agent escapes after two years in prison and heads back to Paris where he announces that he is going to finish his assassination job during the coming diplomatic visit of the African leader. Once aware of his intent, the French government sets up one trap after another, but to no avail - the agent remains free and there is no doubt that he has the full capacity to do exactly what he says. ~ Eleanor Mannikka, Rovi

     Read More


    by artappraiser on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 8:16pm

    ax to grind for his own incarceration

    Well. that'll sure make you cynical


    by jollyroger on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 10:05pm

    It's the Chanel Corps.

    lol 'cause I wrote the comment on the other thread about Paris fashion shows before I read this.

    But please quit talking about cigarettes, because my stash is running low and I was trying not to think about it.


    by artappraiser on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 8:06pm

    Folks are growin' a few mile south of you (Bklyn)


    by jollyroger on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 10:03pm

    Yeah I read it. The spouse would get upset if I used tomato square feet for tobacco and then there's all the leaves hanging in the garage, but it's still an option. I can't say I like the idea of spending hours rolling. Today there was the inspiration to become a bootlegger to pay for the runs out of state. How did it happen that doing something most grownups once did become the life of a junkie? Wink


    by artappraiser on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 2:45am

    because at a certain price point, it partakes of the same paradigm.  The behaviours that we deplore in junkies are largely artifacts (including some serious psychological interalized self esteem issues) of being on the receiving end of society's considered decision to spend 80 billion dollars making the junkies life miserabe by making the thing he needs expensive and riskiy.

     

    With tobacco they have to make untaxed tobacco expensive, largely through the same enforcement mechanisms (checkpoints, anti smuggling, snitches what hve you.)(

     


    by jollyroger on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 5:34am

    Congress has the Constitutional enumerated war powers, not the President. However, many Congresses ago, they found it convenient to allow the sitting President to wage conflicts without getting their approval first ... something about deniability with their constituents of their involvement. In fact, if the sitting president was of the same Party holding the majority, no one gave a rat's ass ... it's only when the sitting President is from the other Party will congress critters get their fur tied up in knots over his audacity in overstepping his authority and robbing congress of their constitutional right to declare war.

    So if you want to point fingers make sure you point them at Congress not the White House ... Obama only does it because they let him.


    by Beetlejuice on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 7:43pm

    Actually, after I wrote this the 60 days of war powers resolution window came around, and then the ninety days came around, and Obama discovered that the action in Libya wasn't in fact hostilities.  If he can make death from above into non-hostilities, he can do any fuckin thing he wants.

    And yes, as I said, with the cooperation of 34 senators (no conviction on the impeachment) he is home free.


    by jollyroger on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 9:04pm