>XJH: There isn't one. It was a different time when mass genocide wasn't quite as common an occurence. Perhaps more to the point, they didn't have the ability to do that even if they wanted to because we were so weak. In any case, I've just asked a simple question which you keep dodging: are you against any American military action outside our borders whether for moral, humanitarian, or any other reason?
Not so much genocide back then, heh? - like when the colonial British gave the Indians small pox infected blankets? As you say no need to review the history of the world here but there is nothing new under the sun. Our times are not so special. Our technology is advanced but people are the same. The founders drew their wisdom from 5000 years of recorded history . Nature hasn't change any in the last 200. The founders did not pursue moral crusades because they didn't have the ability - they're writings would have reflected that if that were the case and I challenge you to cite an example of what you propose they believed and founded the country on. To the contrary one could cite John Adams for example who said, and I loosely quote "America is the champion of freedom everywhere but the defender of only her own" and " We do not search the world seeking monsters to destroy." I have not dodged your question. I thought it was directly addressed in the last post where I said "OK. I'm saying so." I am against US forces being involved in anything other than strictly defined self defense of this nation alone. Legitimate defense can take us beyond our borders like in naval actions or for example the barbary pirates incident. Once Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us back in 41 we were within reason to take the war to them. However because of our pre-war machinations to get involved I do not consider our involvement so pure and noble but that is another story.
>XJH: Since the only legitimacy a government has is when it is granted by the consent of the governed, any oppressive state has no claim to sovereignty. Or do you think there's some kind of legal and/or moral right to commit genocide against innocents? Exactly which Federalist Papers contains that nugget?
>And by the way, I'm not even advocating that we do such interventions. I'm just trying to find out if you have a brightline rule that 1) we should never do it, and/or 2) we would lack a legal/moral right to do it if we did so choose.
>U89: Furthermore so called morality is subjective.
> XJH: You sure you want to go there?
National sovereignty is a long standing tradition recognized the world over for many centuries. Only in the very modern era have we decided there is a higher global authority. BTW it was basic conservative tenet that the US should not be bound by UN laws. President Bush did not sign on to the international war crimes treaty and was praised for it on this forum. Are you suggesting that there is one law for the us and another for the rest of the world? Or that the US should be subject to foreign authority? Let's forget that "right to genocide" bit you brought up. As history and recent events amply illustrate we have selective outrage. Serbs supression of insurrection and foreign incursion in their sovereign territory of Kosovo was considered genocide and we had to intervene (on the side of Islamic terrorists). But when those same Islamic thugs kill Serbs and raze historic churches we "see nothing." We "see nothing" wrong with Russian actions in Chetchnia right now. We see nothing wrong with Sherman's march to the sea, with our own western expansion - "the only good Indian is a dead Indian." We "saw nothing" when Indonesia, back in the 70s crushed East Timor and 200,000 people were butchered. We turned a blind eye to Saddam when Iraq was our boy doing the Lords work against Iran in the 80s only to be outraged by these very acts 15 years later when Saddam wasn't our boy anymore. I'll give one more example:
The following are charges against the Nazis from the Nuremberg War Crimes trials.
CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.
Do not jump to the conclusion that Nuremberg reinforces your case. Please bear in mind that Stalin's Soviet Union, our ally, was sitting in judgment at this trail. Now reread that list of crimes and think of just Stalin's war time activities. Now think of our fire bombing of cities in Europe and Japan. We did not limit war to military forces and installation, we laid waste to entire cites with malice aforethought. And if you think that term is strong just last year documents were released from the British archives showing how "Bomber" Harris deliberately chose some small German cities for destruction just because they would burn well. In case there was some doubt as to the morality of wasting cities here's an inside look at what we were thinking. Also remember that quite a few Americans at the time of the Nuremberg disagreed with the idea of these trials as it set a precedent and established a global governance that claims authority beyond the nation state thereby eliminating sovereignty. Now if you're against national sovereignty then I question your conservative credentials as conservatives have historically been opposed to global government.
Okay. I don't agree with that, but at least its a bright line. And to avoid messy details, I'll give an overview reason why. I think the United States has the best chance of surviving as a free democracy if it is not alone in the world. It makes selfish sense for us to support economic freedome and democracy elsewhere in the world where it is possible and practical to do so. I also think that a long term strategy of ignoring your enemies until they are at your doorstep is militarily, economically, and politically unwise.
National sovereignty is a long standing tradition recognized the world over for many centuries.
Wrongly so, IMHO.
Only in the very modern era have we decided there is a higher global authority
I don't think there is a "higher global authority". Or at least, there shouldn't be. I'm speaking of a moral authority, which is all you have in the absence of a higher legal authority.
Also remember that quite a few Americans at the time of the Nuremberg disagreed with the idea of these trials as it set a precedent and established a global governance that claims authority beyond the nation state thereby eliminating sovereignty. Now if you're against national sovereignty then I question your conservative credentials as conservatives have historically been opposed to global government.
I don't know where you get the idea that I agree with some form of global governance. I never said anything remotely hinting at that. I am proceeding from a far more basic premise -- that nobody has the right to rule anyone else through force. If you're a dictator who has taken power at the point of a gun, then you've got no cause to whine if some third party removes you from power forcibly. And it doesn't matter what the U.N. or anyone else says about it, either.
Just in our own history, the South may (or may not) have been correct regarding the right to secede. But if (and I'm not saying that's the case), the North had invaded solely for the purpose of eliminating slavery, I think such an action would have been morally justified, regardless of whether the South would have been "sovereign" or not.
In anything, that makes me a quintessential non-internationalist, because I don't believe the U.N. or any other "global" organization can or should trump that.