T1B

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:00 pm**

Apparently our UN Ambassador designee doesn't think so...

"It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so—because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrain the United States."

- John Bolton

Bolton's Broken World
ROSA BROOKS
Rosa Brooks, an associate professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, will be writing a regular column for The Times.

June 13, 2005

Despite his well-earned reputation as a bully and a blowhard, John Bolton, the guy who says "it is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law," seems poised to become the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Anyone who doesn't see why Bolton's attitude is disastrously mistaken should picture his first days as ambassador in a world where no one grants any validity to international law.

First, Ambassador Bolton is surely going to want whip all those foreign diplomats into shape. Particularly the French, with their foie gras and snooty "Je-told-you-so" attitude about Iraq. So maybe he will start by sending a letter summoning the French ambassador back to New York from the Riviera. But, oops! Bolton would have a hard time sending his letter, because in a world where no one grants the validity of international law, why would the French abide by the Constitution of the Universal Postal Union and related protocols? That's the treaty that pledges nations to deliver mail with foreign stamps. Without it, foreign postal officials would toss U.S. letters into the trash.

So, no letter to the French ambassador. Fine! Bolton can focus instead on the Germans, who are also a real pain in the butt, what with their insistence on taking the human rights high road to make up for their Nazi past. Bolton could pay a visit to Germany, spreading the good news about U.S. dominance — I mean, uh, leadership — and reminding the Germans about the Marshall Plan.

Except that it would be hard for him to get anywhere if no one respected the Convention on International Civil Aviation of 1944. That's the treaty that permits overflights of sovereign airspace. Without it, sovereign states would be free to shoot down any foreign planes appearing overhead. So maybe Bolton's plane would be forced down over, say, Croatia. Now, it's fair to say the Croatians probably wouldn't be amused at a violation of their airspace, especially given that little misunderstanding they had with the U.S. a few years ago. Bolton might not recall it — after all, there were so many little misunderstandings, with so many little countries. But the Croatians still remember how, under Bolton's leadership, the U.S. suspended foreign aid to Croatia (and other allies) just because Croatia wouldn't promise not to turn U.S. war crimes suspects over to the International Criminal Court. So perhaps the Croatians would arrest Bolton.

Of course, as an ambassador, Bolton could try to claim diplomatic immunity. But in a world where no one accepts the validity of international law, Croatia would feel free to ignore the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Naturally, Bolton would demand that the U.S. consul be informed of his arrest, but because the Croatians would be using their copy of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations as toilet paper, he'd be out of luck there too.

Bolton would just have to wait for the Marines to rescue him. They could — after all, isn't the U.S. still the preeminent global military power? And even with all our recruiting woes (oops, that Iraq problem again) we ought to have a few guys left who could be spared for such a mission. Still, these things take time, so Bolton would have to cool his heels for a while. Maybe his jailers would let him watch CNN. But, uh-oh, no satellite communications without the U.N. Principles Governing the Use by States of Artificial Earth Satellites for International Direct Television Broadcasting!

OK. OK. You get the idea. Although many Americans associate "international law" with controversial issues such as disarmament treaties or the International Criminal Court, the overwhelming bulk of international law has to do with the mundane but essential ways in which nations cooperate to make life possible in our interconnected world. And if Bolton really believes that international law is a dangerous evil, he has no business serving as ambassador to the U.N. He should head back to law school for a little refresher course instead.

To be fair, Bolton is also famous for remarking that "there is no such thing as the United Nations." So maybe he's only interested in the ambassadorship because he sees it as the next best thing to retirement.

Of course, if what Bolton really wants is early retirement, the Senate could just give it to him.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:09 pm**

Despite his well-earned reputation as a bully and a blowhard,

"Well earned reputation?" You mean well-hyped Democratic characterization, right?? LMAO!

At least you had the guts to post his entire quote, though both of you failed to provide any context whatsoever...

And it is diffcult to argue with Bolton's sentiment that international law, as it's practiced, appears to mainly serve to constrain the United States.

This opinion pieve would be more reasonable had this hack even attempted to be fair.

Why did she refuse to provide the full quote and the context of the quote?

Only to further mischaracterize yet another Bush nominee.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:09 pm**

mvscal wrote:No, not really. No nation will ever voluntarily act against it's own perceived interests simply because a scrap of paper says they must.
A quick scan of history plainly reveals that basic truth.

Rack that!

sin

Hitler and Stalin

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:12 pm**

mvscal wrote:No, not really. No nation will ever voluntarily act against it's own perceived interests simply because a scrap of paper says they must. A quick scan of history plainly reveals that basic truth.

I'm sorry that you're so upset that mean Mr. Bolton is disabusing you of some of your most cherished delusions.

We all saw the United Nations criticizing the French for unilaterally invading the Ivory Coast, right? I mean, unlike the US, the French didn't even go the resolution route, let alone actually considering requesting UN approval to inavde.

We also all see the UN and its member states blasting China for blatant copyright violations and pirating, right?

Of course, not, rather what we see is a UN that constantly and consistently criticizes the US and Israel. What else do we ever see happening there?

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:13 pm**

BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:No, not really. No nation will ever voluntarily act against it's own perceived interests simply because a scrap of paper says they must.
A quick scan of history plainly reveals that basic truth.
Rack that!

sin

Hitler and Stalin

It is surprising how the left continues trying to paint Hitler and Stalin as the equivalent of contemporary American conservatives. Ironic given the fact that bother purused political and economic policies strikingly similar to contemporary American liberal policies...

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:23 pm**

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:No, not really. No nation will ever voluntarily act against it's own perceived interests simply because a scrap of paper says they must.
A quick scan of history plainly reveals that basic truth.
Rack that!

sin

Hitler and Stalin
Naturally, this is an argument you have already lost.

I'm sorry. Does it bother you that your opinion of international law is shared by mass murdering dictators?

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:29 pm**

BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote: Rack that!

sin

Hitler and Stalin
Naturally, this is an argument you have already lost.
I'm sorry. Does it bother you that your opinion of international law is shared by mass murdering dictators?

So those that pursue national interests are now the equivalent of mass murdering dictators??

Of course not, but don't let that stop you from posting your Deaniac musings.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:29 pm**

Who really gives a crap about the UN anyway? They are an ineffective international body that is all smoke and no fire, with a little corruption tossed in for good measure.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:32 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:Who really gives a crap about the UN anyway? They are an ineffective international body that is all smoke and no fire, with a little corruption tossed in for good measure.
Sin,

Mass murdering dictators.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:40 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:Who really gives a crap about the UN anyway? They are an ineffective international body that is all smoke and no fire, with a little corruption tossed in for good measure.
Sin,

Mass murdering dictators.

Your point?

Oh I get it. You think since Bushice is not a complete babbling fucktard like yourself, that I agree with him 100% of the time.

Yet another logical fallacy.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:03 pm**

Um, what in my post gave you the impression that I thought you agreed with him??

I was mocking you, fool.

Need I explain it?

Earlier you responded to Mvscal's point re: the ineffectiveness of international law by equating his view with mass murderers.

Well, Bushice also noted the impotence of international law, hence...

Get it?

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:08 pm**

And what Bushice said has also been used by war criminals to justify their barbarity. No shit. So your point is what???

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:15 pm**

BSmack wrote:And what Bushice said has also been used by war criminals to justify their barbarity. No shit. So your point is what???

My point was mocking you, idiot. Get it, yet?

The argument has been used for positive reform by good people and been used (perversely) by evil people.

Now, do you think Bolton is an evil person, or Mvscal, and that their point re: the impotence of the UN and international law is simply a guise to cover/justify mass murder?

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:17 pm**

mvscal wrote:All nations protect their own interests, dickhead.

But the Left doesn't believe that the United States should protect or otherwise further its interests.

That's why we have this hand-wringing on the Left when we take down dictators these days.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:18 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:The argument has been used for positive reform by good people

When?

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:55 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:
mvscal wrote:All nations protect their own interests, dickhead.
But the Left doesn't believe that the United States should protect or otherwise further its interests.

That's why we have this desire for accountability when we invade a sovereign nation just because we can these days.

FTFY

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:01 pm**

BSmack wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:The argument has been used for positive reform by good people
When?

Oil-for-Food scandal, for a recent example.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:02 pm**

Mister Bushice wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:
mvscal wrote:All nations protect their own interests, dickhead.
But the Left doesn't believe that the United States should protect or otherwise further its interests.

That's why we have this desire for accountability when we invade a sovereign nation just because we can these days.
FTFY

Make sense, much?

He was held accountable on Nove. 2, 2004. He won, you lost. MoveOn from these whiney demands for accountability.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:04 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:
DrDetroit wrote: But the Left doesn't believe that the United States should protect or otherwise further its interests.

That's why we have this desire for accountability when we invade a sovereign nation just because we can these days.
FTFY
Make sense, much?

He was held accountable on Nove. 2, 2004. He won, we lost.

FTFY. Not that Kerry would have been better.

MoveOn from these whiney demands for accountability.

Never. A leader who is not held accountable for what he does is called a dictator.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:07 pm**

We lost?

The economy is doing great. No terror attacks. The waves of democracy are washing across the Middle East.

WTF are you talking about?

A leader who is not held accountable for what he does is called a dictator

Dumbass, Bush was reelected. He was held accountable. The American people spoke and you lost.

Who else is going to hold him accountable??

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:22 pm**

Held accountable = they want to see him embarassed the way that Clinton was embarassed. That's why they've gone with the whole "where's the outrage??" line for so many years of the Bush Administration. They won't be happy until they've "gotten even," whether they can admit it to themselves or not.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:48 pm**

I don't agree with the war mentality as it has been implemented. The economy is sluggish, has been for most of his term. There have been spikes up and down for sure, but no one but Dr D says things are all that. I don't agree with his religious right moral agenda being shoved at us. I don't like Bushs shitty international diplomatic record or practices. I don't like the fact he NEVER accepts responsibility or blame for anything.
Plus, he comes across as a buffoon at times, a clueless puppet at others.
He's just not a leader I find all that charismatic or worth believing in.
We're just stuck with him, but I don't have to like it.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:04 pm**

The economy is sluggish, has been for most of his term.

Sluggish? According to what data?

GNP? GDP? Interest rates? Inflation? Employment? Wages?

To listen to you jerkoffs the economy is in the shitter. Yet, amazingly, consumer confidence is up. Interesting analysis, Bushice. :roll:

There have been spikes up and down for sure, but no one but Dr D says things are all that.

And there you go again.

How many times in a recent thread did I note that the economy was not in fantastic shape??

Yet, there you go again...lying. As is usual with someone who has no reasonable argument.

I don't agree with his religious right moral agenda being shoved at us.

Who is shoving it at us? To be true we'd be seeing a slew of new laws being proposed. But we don't. We'd also be seeing existing laws being repealed or significantly changed. But we don't.

Why do lie like this?

I don't like Bushs shitty international diplomatic record or practices.

What diplomatic record and practices are you talking about?

You don't like his foreign policy, period. So it's not a point of records or practices, but of policy.

And yet, you have no alternatives. None at all.

I don't like the fact he NEVER accepts responsibility or blame for anything.

Dickhead, he ran on his record in 2004. That's accepting responsibility and being held accountable.

Deal with it, loser. He won and you lost.

Plus, he comes across as a buffoon at times, a clueless puppet at others.

Yet you dearly wanted Gore and Kerry to be President.

It's hilarious how you guys keep slandering his intelligence but you cannot beat him.

He's just not a leader I find all that charismatic or worth believing in.

No one cares. You lost.

We're just stuck with him, but I don't have to like it.

But you keep coming with the same absurd argument and speculation about his motivations.

You constantly whine about him not taking responsibility, yet the guy put his record on the table (unlike Kerry who neither had a record nor put anything on the table) for the people to hold him accountable.

And guess, he was held accountable. The problem is that you whiney bitches lost. And rather than contributing to the effort all you do now is attempt to trash the US in Europe and elsewhere.

You'd more quickly sell out the country than give props to Bush.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:05 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:The economy is sluggish, has been for most of his term. There have been spikes up and down for sure, but no one but Dr D says things are all that.
Not only do we have the largest economy in the world by far, we also have the fastest growing economy in the industrialized world by far.

Not spin. Just a fact.

No that doesn't matter, Mvscal. The data didn;t meet the "expectations" of those analysts who nearly universally wrong every time.

It's all about the "expectations."

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:16 pm**

mvscal wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:It's all about the "expectations."
Or rather unrealistic expectations fueled by ignorance.

Or fueled by partisan jackassery Krugman style.

Posted: **Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:15 am**

DrDetroit wrote:The waves of democracy are washing across the Middle East.

:roll:

The waves of democracy?
LOL
You must use the same speechwriter that W uses.

Posted: **Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:08 am**

That ain't no 'Wave Of Democracy', that's a bunker-buster going off.

T1B

Does international law have any validity?

Does international law have any validity?