Yohannon (yohannon) wrote,

  • Mood:
  • Music:

"What's All This Talk About Peaching Bushes?!"

After returning from the dinner at Mid-mountain at North Start a week ago Saturday (damn, doesn't that sound absolutely preppie?), Roni and I were hanging out at the condo (you don't get rooms at a lot of these resorts... they're actually privately owned condominiums that the resort rents out while you're not there. How this is different from a timeshare I'm completely unclear on... but I digress), when we caught a PBS showing of "The American Experience: Trial at Nuremberg".

Do you know what a "war against peace" is? Besides sounding horribly oxymoronic, it was one of the leading charges against the surviving members of Hitler's government. It's the idea that you can't just decide to invade another country for shits and giggles (or "shiggles", as lunar_phoenix would say) -- there has to be some egregious trigger. Even WW I started because of a complex assortment of grievances and the now legendary trigger, the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand, a man who would have been a minor footnote save his role in giving everyone an excuse to start fighting. Even the Japanese had a long history of grievances against the US before Pearl Harbor.

Germany had no reason whatsoever to invade Poland... or, for that matter, anyone. Thus, this act of unilateral aggression became a "War against Peace" -- a war crime.

The timing of this particular showing was interesting, considering a lot of the latest rumblings in DC. Then I ran into this fascinating take on the possible impeachment of George W. Bush:

    You're about to gasp, but I'm still hoping the Republican party
    will stonewall possible impeachment.

    And here's why.

    Pursuant to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,
    if an individual or individuals cannot be brought to justice
    within national boundaries, or to be more precise that justice is
    thwarted, a member State of the ICC can request an investigation
    into alleged crimes. Such crimes include (under Article 5 of the
    Statute) "crimes against humanity," "war crimes," and "The crime
    of aggression" and (under Article 7) "Imprisonment or other
    severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of
    fundamental rules of international law" (i.e., the Geneva
    Conventions), "torture," "Enforced disappearance of persons," and
    "inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great
    suffering, or serious injury or to mental or physical health."

He then contemplates the possible source of such a charge among the some odd 100 signatories of ICC*, and a VERY interesting name comes up. Some guy named Chavez -- apparently he's the president of some south american country... Venezuela. You know, the guy who already calls Bush a terrorist.

It doesn't matter that the US isn't a signatory, by the way... talk about the instant karma involved with Bush being unable to travel to 100 of this planets countries. No wonder he was so interested in sending man to Mars. Bush's Elba?**

Hey, a boy can dream, can't he?

* Interesting that Bush was so eager to avoid signing that particular document... perhaps now we know why. You wouldn't want to create a law you COULDN'T issue one of those little pieces of paper saying you could ignore at will... like W has done over 500 times.

** Points if you get the reference without clicking the link!
Tags: politics, rant
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment