In any case, though, the basic point is a good one: the issue is not so much whether the US would be willing to submit to UN resolutions — I suspect that the US has a far better record on that than most any other member state, by the way — but whether we’d sign up to some of the silly resolutions that have been passed. (Consider, eg, the “Zionism is racism” resolutions.)

Similarly, the conventions on torture: I don’t have any problem with the US agreeing to not break prisoner’s bones or beat them to death — but then, contrary to what’s become accepted thought, the US is pretty much the least culpable. What should the UN’s position under the convention on torture be to Castro’s prisons and Saddam’s torture chambers? If this means that the UN can maintain some sense of proportion between the continued beatings McCain went through, as opposed to lap dances and wearing women’s panties in abu Ghraib, I’m happy.

Or the Geneva Conventions: I’ve got no problem with the actual Geneva Conventions to which the US subscribes: detention until the end of hostilities, and execution following summary court martial for combatants captured hiding in a civilian population, or not wearing a distinguishing uniform to separate them from the civilian population, along with the loss of Geneva Convention protections to the forces of an enemy that doesn’t also subscribe to, and obey, the various provisions.

I think you’d find that this would be a very difficult position to maintain about an opponent that blows up civilian wedding parties in noncombatant third countries.

So, yeah, I don’t see a lot to worry about there.

But then, a lot of what you’re sugesting isn’t a UN Treaty obligation as much as it’s an internationalist fantasy.

UN military command actually isn’t that much of a problem, we dealt with that in Korea, and we’re acting under the UN’s aegis in Iraq right now under resolutions from 687 to 1441 — and with the continuing approval of the elected government of Iraq.

I doubt very much whether there is any real issue about Gitmo (see above: detention until the end of hostilities.) The problem is that what’s being demanded is putting Gitmo under US criminal law instead, which is a category error; they’re not criminals, they’re combatants, and they’re maintained under guard to prevent them from rejoining the hostiities. We’re cutting them slack: we could, under the conventions to which the US subscribes, simply have shot them.

The anti-torture conventions? Name another country that has tried and convicted members of its own military for abusing prisoners recently.

So I don’t think there’s anything to be concerned with on those points — but I suspect you wouldn’t be happy with the actual results.

In any case, though, the basic point is a good one: the issue is not so much whether the US would be willing to submit to UN resolutions — I suspect that the US has a far better record on that than most any other member state, by the way — but whether we’d sign up to some of the silly resolutions that have been passed. (Consider, eg, the “Zionism is racism” resolutions.)

Similarly, the conventions on torture: I don’t have any problem with the US agreeing to not break prisoner’s bones or beat them to death — but then, contrary to what’s become accepted thought, the US is pretty much the least culpable. What should the UN’s position under the convention on torture be to Castro’s prisons and Saddam’s torture chambers? If this means that the UN can maintain some sense of proportion between the continued beatings McCain went through, as opposed to lap dances and wearing women’s panties in abu Ghraib, I’m happy.

Or the Geneva Conventions: I’ve got no problem with the actual Geneva Conventions to which the US subscribes: detention until the end of hostilities, and execution following summary court martial for combatants captured hiding in a civilian population, or not wearing a distinguishing uniform to separate them from the civilian population, along with the loss of Geneva Convention protections to the forces of an enemy that doesn’t also subscribe to, and obey, the various provisions.

I think you’d find that this would be a very difficult position to maintain about an opponent that blows up civilian wedding parties in noncombatant third countries.

So, yeah, I don’t see a lot to worry about there.

But then, a lot of what you’re sugesting isn’t a UN Treaty obligation as much as it’s an internationalist fantasy.

UN military command actually isn’t that much of a problem, we dealt with that in Korea, and we’re acting under the UN’s aegis in Iraq right now under resolutions from 687 to 1441 — and with the continuing approval of the elected government of Iraq.

I doubt very much whether there is any real issue about Gitmo (see above: detention until the end of hostilities.) The problem is that what’s being demanded is putting Gitmo under US criminal law instead, which is a category error; they’re not criminals, they’re combatants, and they’re maintained under guard to prevent them from rejoining the hostiities. We’re cutting them slack: we could, under the conventions to which the US subscribes, simply have shot them.

The anti-torture conventions? Name another country that has tried and convicted members of its own military for abusing prisoners recently.

So I don’t think there’s anything to be concerned with on those points — but I suspect you wouldn’t be happy with the actual results.

I’ll take Allende and anti-corruption and the rule of Law in Chile over Pinochet thank you very much.

You present a false choice. It wasn’t Pinochet who shredded the Chilean Constitution. It was Allende. And by doing so, Allende paved the way for Pinochet. It was Allende who destroyed the Rule of Law in Chile, not Pinochet. Pinochet just exploited the opening Allende gave him.

Without Allende, there never would have been a Pinochet. And without Allende, those kids would not have been tossed out of Helicoptors. Allende his backers, and groupies deserve a share of the guilt.

I think this is an important point because I would like to think that next time, people won’t be seduced by the next Allende. But given the current near rock-star status in some quarters of an even more transparent thug like Hugo Chavez, I’m not hopeful.

this one makes sense to me, even from my own personal experience of the KGB, which I will detail in my book if I ever finish it. (inundated at the moment as you might guess)

My curiousity has been officially aroused. I have to say that I am anticipating your KGB experiences more eagerly than then the next incarnation of the Pajamas Media. Perhaps your talents and energy are misdirected?

I just don’t get the Pajamas Media value proposition yet, and I haven’t felt any compelling reason to visit the site. The whole thing feels like a business built around a catch phrase insteading of finding and satisfying some previously unmet need. I wish I had some great ideas to offer on it because I wish you and Charles and everybody else involved to be successful. But I don’t.

Good grief; and this guy’s a full-fledged editor, helping to captain the fledgling ship – 90 degrees to port with posts like this. This is representative of what can be so boorishly trite, to be kind, about the Left. So often they’re incapable of making a singularly focused comment about something like this resolution and leave it at that. If Bush/Blair found a cure for heart disease, aids, arthritis and the common cold, M. Cooper and other scrupulously partisan commentators would hold their applause and contemplate what the best tactical response should be.

So, if I inform Marc that I use gasoline in my vehicle, Marc’s response will be something like:

“Yes, that’s all well and good, but be careful for what you wish. Now that you’re using gas in your vehicle and it’s working splendidly, are you willing to douse your home with it, lock your family in and then ignite it? Same with your neighbors home? Are you willing to allow petroleum companies and moguls to enfranchise themselves in and usurp the executive and judicial branches of govt., abolish elections and instead appoint friends and cronies to represent the people?”

Why yes Marc, since I use gasoline to power my vehicle – for its intended purpose – that’s precisely what I had in mind. That, and to have you remonstrate with officious, finger-wagging, moralistic one-upmanship.

Further still (and this too is reflective of where the Left leads the debate), it doesn’t even take into account that this resolution, against Hizbullah, in point of fact is the absolute, bare minimum we should be expecting from the U.N., not some high standard which they normally meet. UN Force Again Does Nothing.

Certainly agree with you about Pinochet, Jim. But you must admit it was discouraging to read about Allende’s alliance with the KGB which has on many occasions acted even more hideously than Pinochet (from Comrade Drezhinsky and the Cheka onwards). Of course, I was one of the ones who used to chant “Allende, Allende, el pueblo te defende.” So it goes.

UN Military command? That’s a non-starter (US military under say, the control of genocidaires in Sudan or our friends the Saudis). It’s just dumb.

Nor is it likely (or a good idea) to submit to the “International Law” giving terrorists Geneva Convention protections. Domestically giving Osama the Geneva Convention protections is political suicide, the NYT in 1984 PRAISED Ronald Reagan for refusing to sign that addendum to the Geneva Convention.

Some sort of domestic agreement on what is allowed and what is forbidden is likely; please note that the EU allows (as a result of a late seventies court case brought by IRA prisoners held by the Brits) is much broader than current US rules: sleep deprivation, noise/music, “stress positions” while shackled etc. This is independent of the broader UN.

WHAT is the UN good for? Talking on issues that offer the probability of peaceful resolution, such as technical co-ordination in health issues/crisis (absent political concerns such as the PRC and suppression of SARS knowledge). The UN is not able to fulfill the founding vision of “preventing wars” because it’s too large and faction-ridden, likely to remain so. The UN’s condemnation of Hizbollah won’t save a single life, or stop terror attacks, but it does show some political maturity on the part of the organization and constituent members.

The UN as it has mostly existed, concerning itself overwhelmingly with condemning Israel’s existence in arenas that make no sense (UNICEF for example) is a net drain and talk-shop for terrorist apologists and reactionary anti-Modernists (their anti-Americanism and anti-Israel sentiments show their hands), see Durban conference on Racism. To the degree that Bolton forces more political maturity the UN can do some good on international co-operation in technical areas. Things like Tsunami relief however will ALWAYS be beyond their grasp because the UN is just a bunch of bureaucrats. Good for promoting childhood immunization, bad as Brownie when you need immediate and forceful response to a disaster.

The UN was conceived as an answer to the failure of the League of Nations and WWII. The real lesson IMHO of history is that a strong Atlantic Alliance needs to take action pre-emptively. Far from a model of Fascist aggression, the Atlantic Democracies are so fundamentally pacifist for obvious reasons that the risk is all on the other side (not acting when you can to stop growing threats. Alliances such as the US-UK will always be more effective given human nature. No League or UN can stop Ethiopia or Darfur atrocities from happening.

HA — Pinochet tossed HS kids out of helicopters into the sea, or set them on fire, for protesting. His Secret Police blew up Ronni Moffet, a US citizen, and Orlando Letelier (Allende’s foreign minister) in Washington DC. I’ll take Allende and anti-corruption and the rule of Law in Chile over Pinochet thank you very much.

An international court should concern itself with justice in the Gap and leave the Core alone. Members of the Core have their own justice systems and they work, thank you very much.