Bolton Fires At ICC

Cue the outrage, hysteria, and screaming tantrums from Americans’ enemies, both foreign and domestic.  President Trump’s National Security Adviser, John Bolton just severely rebuked the International Criminal Court (ICC) and threatened that America will retaliate against them if this foreign body follows through with its attempt to prosecute American military and intelligence personnel for supposed war crimes committed during the conflict in Afghanistan.

Yeah, our enemies are going to blow their tops over this because the only thing that they hate more than our warfighters and intelligence operatives is the idea of America as a sovereign nation unbounded by foreign control, restrictions, and authority.

Of course, what the liberals and progressives who will be screaming are either ignorant of- or in wilful denial thereof is that the US is not signatory to the ICC and is not one of its state-parties and is therefor outside of its jurisdiction since the amendments to the ICC’s powers during 2010 Review Conference of the Rome Statute made the ICC unable to prosecute individuals of a non-state party, e.g., the US.  Additionally, US federal law, specifically the 2002 American Service-Members’ Protection Act (ASPA), prohibits any agency or entity of the United States Government or of any State or local government, including any court, from cooperating with this body in just about any fashion whatsoever.

But then, this isn’t about facts or laws. This is all about our domestic enemies’ pathology.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | |

Straight Outta Europe

Yesterday, Thursday, June 23, 2016 The British government put the question of whether or not Britain should exit (Brexit) the European Union (EU). The results were shocking.

Straight Outta Europe
Britain – Straight Outta Europe

Yeah, I’m American and have no horse in this race but the image above is hilarious. They took their biggest political question to the streets and the streets answered. The world went from N.W.A (Niggaz With Attitudes) to B.W.A (Britonz With Attitudes). 😆

Yeah, with the highest voter turnout rate since 1992 (71.8%), Britons voted 52% to 48% to leave the EU.

Tags: | | | | | | | | |

Breaking It Down

Bill Whittle who breaks down the differences between the two major populist movements that have arisen in the wake of America’s economy tribulations, OWS and The TEA Party.


Breaking It Down: TEA Party v. Occupy Wall St.

H/T to Tattered Bits of Brain for this video – though the actual “chain of custody” from here to it’s original source is hilariously long an involuted.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Pakis Defy American Law

Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha - Pakistan's ISI Chief and/or Terrorist RingleaderThe “government” of Pakistan has defied US laws and refused to have its chief of Intelligence, Lt. General Ahmed Shuja Pasha appear in a US court to face a lawsuit alleging that he was responsible for the November, 2008 Muslim Terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India.

Pasha is the chief of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency.

As reported Thursday, December 23, 2010 by the Economic Times of India:

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani today said that no force could pressurise the ISI chief Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha to appear in a US court to face a lawsuit filed by relatives of victims of the Mumbai attacks.

“The ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence)… is an extremely important (and) sensitive institution of this country. If they do not agree to go to the American court, then no one can send them,” Gilani said.

His remarks came as media reports from New York said the plaintiffs in two US lawsuits accusing Pakistan’s spy chief of nurturing terrorists involved in the 2008 Mumbai attacks are hoping for a historic outcome recalling the Lockerbie settlement.

The lawsuit against the ISI and the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) was filed before a Federal court in Brooklyn, NY on November 19, 2010 by relatives of Rabbi Gavriel Noah Holtzberg and his wife Rivka, who were both brutally gunned down by Islamist vermin while at the Chhabad House in Mumbai. The court promptly issued summons to Lt. Gen. Pasha along with other key leaders in the ISI and LeT.

The 26-page lawsuit accusing ISI of aiding and abetting LeT in the slaughter of 166 people was filed before a New York Court on November 19, following which the Brooklyn court issued summons to Major Samir Ali, Azam Cheema, Inter-Services Intelligence of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Major Iqbal, Lakhvi, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Sajid Majid, Pasha, Saeed and Nadeem Taj.

“The ISI has long nurtured and used international terrorist groups, including LeT, to accomplish its goals and has provided material support to LeT and other international terrorist groups,” said the lawsuit filed by relatives of the slain Rabbi. Pasha, who has been director general of the ISI since September 2008, has been summoned, so is Nadeem Taj, the director general of ISI from September 2007 to September 2008.

From what evidence we have, including testimony by Pakistani-American Muslim Terrorist David Headley, the case has definite merit. It is very likely that Pasha and others in Pakistan’s ISI are Islamist terrorists and it’s even more certain that they’ve been waging a war of terrorism against India due to the long dispute over Kashmir.

I wholeheartedly sympathize with the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. These Muslim vermin need to be made to pay in any way that mankind can make them pay.

Then, when we’ve punished them fully, we can shove pork chops down their vile throats and shoot them in their respective heads – unto their last misborn crotch-dropping.

Unfortunately, irrespective of the merits of the lawsuit or mankind’s sentiments, restitution as dictated by the court will not be forthcoming and no member of what passes for Pakistan’s government will ever stand before a US court. It is delusional or foolish to believe, think, or hope otherwise.

Failed state or not, never should have been created out of whole cloth or not, Pakistan is a sovereign nation. Sovereign nations rarely allow their citizens to be summoned to stand before foreign courts in matters of tort, nor due they make any effort to enforce any judgments rendered by such foreign courts. This is even more true when the defendant is a senior member of the nation’s ruling body.

In point of fact, the US behaves in exactly the same manner and protects its citizens and officials the same way. It’s – at best – ridiculous to expect any other nation to behave otherwise. That’s why retribution in such cases is most often best handled outside of the judicial system and by experts in the field of bringing wrongdoers before the highest bar for judgment.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Pakistan’s Fate

As is right and proper, the 2nd Presidential Debate of the 2008 US Presidential election campaign included questions on US foreign policy and the use of US military forces in foreign countries. The War on Terror as it is being fought in Afghanistan and Pakistan was a key point in these questions. Each candidate was asked how they would handle with hunting down Al-Qaeda terrorists within Pakistan.

Since I have friends in Pakistan this interested me on a more personal level than it did many of the viewers of the debate. My friends, who are fairly secular and educated would be placed in direct peril if the government of Pakistan collapsed due to the rising unrest, insurgency, and terrorism that could result from an increased and expanded US and / or NATO campaign within Pakistan.

So let us discuss Pakistan’s fate at the hands of each of the US presidential candidates. Each candidate has a different approach to the question. Each approach will have a different impact on the nation of Pakistan and its peoples.

The question:

Should the United States respect Pakistani sovereignty and not pursue al Qaeda terrorists who maintain bases there, or should we ignore their borders and pursue our enemies like we did in Cambodia during the Vietnam War?

Sen. John McCain’s answer:

We need to help the Pakistani government go into Waziristan, where I visited, a very rough country, and and get the support of the people, and get them to work with us and turn against the cruel Taliban and others.

And by working and coordinating our efforts together, not threatening to attack them, but working with them, and where necessary use force, but talk softly, but carry a big stick.

McCain wants to work with the Pakistani government and military to remove Al-Qaeda. More importantly he seems to want to work with the people in Waziristani region to convince them to help remove Al-Qaeda. This means that Pakistan gets to keep its sovereignty – and probably its government – intact. It also probably means that the Pakistani military will bear the brunt of the attacks into the Waziristani region of Pakistan.

From a purely American-centric point of view I find Sen. McCain’s plan to be unsatisfying. I can also find several flaws with this methodology for dealing with Al-Qaeda.

Firstly, there’s no positive proof that Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari’s regime is friendly enough towards the US to consider aiding us in this struggle. Secondly, McCain’s plan hinges on successfully winning “the hearts and minds” of the Waristanis.

Sen. Barack Obama’s answer:

What Ive said is were going to encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our nonmilitary aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants.

And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al-Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.

Obama wants also wants to work with the Pakistani government and military to remove Al-Qaeda – when it suits our purposes to do so. He makes no mention of- or allusion to working with the people in the Waziristani region to further this effort. This means that US forces will bear the brunt of the attacks into the Waziristani region of Pakistan.

From a purely American-centric point of view I find Sen. Obama’s idea very emotionally appealing; our dead and bereaved from 9/11 deserve to be avenged. I can find several grievous flaws in his plan however.

Firstly, Zardari’s regime is already quite unfriendly to the US and Pakistani troops have already fired upon US / NATO forces within and near the borders of Pakistan; Obama’s plan would most likely escalate that violence into open warfare. Secondly, Obama’s plan would require that US forces launch unsupported attack into Waziristan. This is an action that the Soviets and the Pakistanis themselves have failed at accomplishing.

From Pakistan’s point of view…

I would have to say that Pakistan would fare better with Sen. McCain as President of the United States of America than with Sen. Obama in that role. In point of fact I think Pakistan would do much better with McCain than they would with Obama.

McCain’s plan is a cooperative effort with the Pakistani government and the people of the Waziristani region. By involving all parties it would mitigate the potential for disaster to be the Pakistani government and it’s people.

Obama’s plan seems to focus on using financial aid to convince Zardari’s regime to aid our forces, or at least ignore our encroachments into their territory. This would likely result in an increase of violence and terrorism in Pakistan if Zardari’s regime could even be convinced in the first place. Alternatively Obama’s plan could place Pakistan in open warfare against the US and at odds with Waziristan. Either is a recipe for disaster within Pakistan.

Tags: | | | | | | | | |