it's all in the crazy today

[solarbird]

Meanwhile, in the rest of the world - all the non-frozen bits - we have a cavalcade of zomg and wtf. Here, have a bunch of links.

The Daily NK, a North Korean defector-run site, says the idolisation programme in North Korea consumes 40% of the NK budget;

North Korea importing giant rabbits from German giant-rabbit breeder to try to address some of their chronic starvation problems; cue Night of the Lepus theme music, and see if you can't get a state composer to weave in a Food of the Gods leitmotif, can't you;

Crazy-ass Fox News Chorus Line member Sean Hannity has a new schtick: declaring people Enemies of the State;

The Sunday Times reports Robert Mugabe's policies have created 1.3 million orphans;

From The Independent, a much-belated story about how Dick Cheney was talking about oil production peaking - as a Halliburton director - back in 1999. "Lest there be any doubt about what was at stake, the man who was to become one of the most powerful proponents of the invasion of Iraq went on: 'Oil is unique because it is so strategic in nature. We are not talking about soapflakes or leisurewear ... The Gulf War was a reflection of that reality.'" Neat, huh?

Electronic Freedom Foundation trying to get the TSA to publish its regulations for travelers - particularly the one where they make people show IDs before boarding airplanes. The TSA has refused, repeatedly, and the Supreme Court has now let that stand, meaning we effectively have secret, or at least unpublished, law;

And rumours are flying that the Chief Executive has has declared war on Iran. As far as I know, it's hard to argue that a consulate raid isn't an act of war, so they pretty much have a point. Fun!

Comments

[banner.livejournal.com]

If their taking our embassy wasn't an act of war, I hardly see how they can complain about a little old consulate. Paybacks :-)

[banner.livejournal.com]

Okay, I just heard from another news source this morning that it was -not- a consulate that was raided. So now to find out which one is right.

[solarbird]

The US military says it wasn't; the Iraqi government (whose word matters, since they decide what to recognise) said it was. Iran, of course, also said it was, but whatever. Unfortunately, there are local Kurd officials also saying it was. So that's no fun at all.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

If violating diplomatic missions is an "act of war," it doesn't matter whether it's a justified retaliation for a previous violation. This is particularly true when the previous violation was 28 years ago. The relevant question is whether it is a good idea to commit an act of war given current circumstances.

I don't think it is. We have a hard enough time in Iraq without starting a new war in Iran. From a purely practical standpoint, the US doesn't have the troop force to back up its actions, much less the diplomatic support necessary to sustain military action against Iran. In that context, this violation was a mistake, and the strategic decision by the Bush administration to target Iran's involvement in Iraq is a real strategic blunder. Fortunately for everyone, the Iranians are unlikely to respond to this provocation with aggression of their own.

[jessie-c.livejournal.com]

cue Night of the Lepus theme music, and see if you can't get a state composer to weave in a Food of the Gods leitmotif, can't you;

I have the scene with the giant carrots and chicken in Sleeper in mind myself...

[stickmaker.livejournal.com]

"That's a big Chicken."

Probably my favorite line from that flick.

[stickmaker.livejournal.com]

I hadn't heard the US Supreme Court had supported this. I really don't see how they could. It is irrational to punish people for violating rules they are prohibited from knowing about.

[solarbird]

Mr. Bush has been nominating (and for the most part, getting) judges who subscribe to this - to my mind utter bullshit - theory of the "unitary executive," which is to say, an executive whose power in a variety of issues is supposedly unalloyed by the checks of the other powers. How the hell you can think this after reading any fucking thing whatsoever about the Constitutional debates and/or the Federalist papers (or even the anti-Federalist papers, who warned explicitly about this and were told to sush because clearly they couldn't read about the system's built in checks) is beyond me. But the idea that a "unitary executive" theory encompasses the entire executive branch and not just the office of the President surprises me zero.

This is why we no longer have a president.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

Actually, it's not an act of war to raid a consulate. Consulates do not have the same international legal protection as embassies (which are considered sovereign territory.) However, it's definitely an act of provocation that is just the other side of a declaration of war.

Given Bush's language in his speech, where he specifically called out Syria and Iran and declared he would cut off their alleged support of elements of the Iraqi insurgency, it's clear that Bush intends to provoke a wider war. Given the movement of aircraft carrier groups into the region and the appointment of an admiral to head the military effort in the region, my guess is that there's a plan to engage in carrier-based air attacks on Iran in the near future, possibly supplementing attacks by US allies such as Israel. This speculation is supported by the tone of questions to Secretary Rice yesterday in the Senate. Both Biden and Hagel specifically raised the issue of Iran, showing that there's a bipartisan concern at the official level (i.e., this isn't just bloggers engaging in unsupported speculation and conspiracy theory.)

[solarbird]

Actually, it's not an act of war to raid a consulate. Consulates do not have the same international legal protection as embassies (which are considered sovereign territory.)
Really? I thought they had protection.

Guess that's why I'm not a lawyer. Oh wait, no, that's not why.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

Your response gave me the sinking feeling I might be wrong, so I went looking for legal support for the idea that consulates are not considered sovereign territory on par with embassies. Without going into too many of the details, my conclusion is that I was wrong.

See the treaties on diplomatic relations in general (http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf) and consulates (http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_2_1963.pdf) to compare how "inviolable" both kinds of diplomatic missions are. My legally untrained reading suggests that the protections are very similar.

The relevant treaties are between "sending" and "receiving" states, presumably because third states who violate a diplomatic mission in another country are first and foremost guilty of violating the sovereignty of the receiving (i.e. "host") nation. However, it's unclear how that's changed by a country under military occupation, or what the occupation status of Iraq even is currently under international law. It's also unclear whether these violations are "acts of war," as that phrase has no legal standing under international treaty as far as I can tell.

If I had to guess, I'd say the US committed serious violations of the sovereignty of both Iraq and Iran, and that both countries have standing to take action against those violations under international law. But mostly I've learned that I shouldn't expound on legal subtleties like this when I'm not a lawyer and I haven't at least checked the relevant source documents. Oops.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

I should also add that the proper course of action by the Democratic Congress would be to revoke their support for the effort in Iraq (including both the Iraq War Resolution and the Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed in 2001). Then they could debate and pass a new resolution limiting the scope of the president's authority to US military attacks on actual terrorist networks and insisting upon a phased withdrawal of US troops from Iraq in the context of a negotiated diplomatic solution. This would reassert their Constitutional authority to declare war and prevent an escalation that is ill-advised and contrary to the will of the American and Iraqi peoples. If the president and his cohorts and minions insisted upon ignoring this resolution, there would be a clear-cut case for immediate impeachment. I realize that legally speaking there is already such a case on (several) other grounds, but this creates a clear impeachable case on an issue where the public opposes the president by a 2:1 ratio.

[tinlail.livejournal.com]

Perhaps sending support to insurgents (www.inthebullpen.com/archives/2007/5921) counts as reason to be doing something about Iran's actions

[solarbird]

(Corrected URL: http://www.inthebullpen.com/archives/2007/5921 - the version you posted is broken.)

I'm not criticising the idea of acting against Iranian covert activities in Iraq; that's all well and fine. I'm not real sure that acting against protected diplomatic facilities is a real good idea - particularly not without telling your allies who own the territory, the Kurds - and I'm pretty damn sure that invading Iran would be a real bad idea. What I'm hoping is that I'm not smelling a pretext-generating event.

I don't think the Iranian leadership is dumb enough to fall for it even if it is one, tho'.