RoR: Forum

This is a well-written article. Do you know who funds the ICC and does Sudan recognize their authority to prosecute?

ald.

Post 1

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - 10:50am

While this is a positive article I have major problems with "crimes against humanity."

... it will prosecute a former Sudanese minister of state and a Janjaweed leader on charges of crimes against humanity.

It is a phrase that can mean anything that you want it to mean, from chastising your children to genocide, from blasphemy to slavery.

I would much prefer "crimes against life, liberty and self-determination." In fact, I'd prefer the latter to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Sam

Post 2

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - 11:01am

Interesting, though why is it ok to intervene with this particular murderous dictatorship to stop an attempted genocide and not ok to interfere with other murderous dictatorships to stop genocides? Is Angelina proposing that the richest, freest, and most miliatarily powerfull part of the world, actually take a stand against the poorest, weakest, and most murderous part of the world; the dictators the brutally subjugate half the worlds population Or is it just Darfur that we should care about?

Post 3

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - 1:31pm

All good points, but I do think that momentum is building that it is clear just "aid" is useless and that without some actual justice against the despots/tyrants - essentially of no value. Not sure about the ICC - but it gives some venue that for example would have been better to use for Saddam Hussein than the Iraqi kangaroo court. Despite his guilt, it looks better done this way and I doubt he would have gotten off. Short of executing them outright, this works for me, though I don't expect they will use the death penalty.

Post 4

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - 4:57pm

I'm proud of her.

Unlike her Hollywood fellows, who are all adopting and rallying around the Jolly Green Gore Giant, Jolie's standing on fundamentals appears pretty solid to me.

Not that I ever had a doubt, but there really is a brain under all that gorgeousness.

Michael said

Interesting, though why is it ok to intervene with this particular murderous dictatorship to stop an attempted genocide and not ok to interfere with other murderous dictatorships to stop genocides?

Where did she say it wasn't okay to interfere elsewhere? What she actually said was this (emphasis is mine) :

What the worst people in the world fear most is justice. That's what we should deliver.

Honestly, I took her to use the Darfur reference as an example. Darfur is what she knows best, so that's what she used as an example to make her case for justice.

Post 5

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - 5:12pm

A better alternative than the Iraqi kangaroo court - and I see no reason to call it such, since he both made a defense and more than sufficient evidence was presented to hang him 700 times over - would have been summary execution on the battlefield. But I think the image of him hanged (scroll half way down to see) was more useful than the image of Zarqawi and Saddam's sons blown up.

Darfur itself is such a tragedy. Dozens of small ethnoi, (which I have studied due to their linguistic uniqueness) farmers and herders who have lived in peace for centuries, and millenia (had they not, they would all speak one language, as they do from Morocco to Mosul, instead of the 132 which are spoken there now, only one of which is Arabic) mostly without female circumcision and other evil practices, are being wiped out by savage drugged-up cutthroat killers who think @ll@h needs them to murder Christians and Animists for him, because, in his benevolent omnipotence, he can't do it himself with a famine or a plague.

For those who've reads the "let's be nicer to witch-doctor thread" these victims are essentially primitives, their killers are quite definitely barbarians.

God bless Angelina, Angelina for President! (even if she's quite a lady.)

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 2/28, 10:20pm)

Post 6

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - 9:36pm

Great article, and I admire Jolie's use of her celebrity for something positive. However, beware of "International Courts" as I guarantee you they will be used to launch attacks on our values. I can foresee an International Court declaring America guilty of mass murder through our contributions to "global warming".

Post 7

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - 9:45pm

Doug Bandow, writing at http://antiwar.com/bandow/?articleid=10491, raises this point:

"However, there's another potential problem with humanitarian intervention that advocates of warmongering for good rarely acknowledge: threatening to intervene to settle bitter internal conflicts creates an incentive for weaker parties to foment such conflicts. For many rebellious groups, outside intervention is the only hope for success; thus, triggering involvement by a neighboring nation, regional power, or the globe's superpower becomes an overriding objective. In economic-speak this is the problem of "moral hazard."
It's a highly plausible thesis backed by anecdotal evidence. When I visited Kosovo in the summer of 1998, for instance, local ethnic Albanians were openly pressing for American and European action. Alush Gashi, then active in the resistance against Serb rule, told me that the prospect of outside intervention "depends on how we look on CNN. People need to see victims in their living rooms."
Perhaps the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) would have flourished even if there had been no hope of foreign involvement. However, it seemed clear that the ethnic Albanians, like the Bosnians before them, adjusted their tactics to enhance the prospect of winning outside support."

Brendan O'Neill, in his article "Darfur: damned by pity" (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1687/) opines that "There is no civil war so bad that it cannot be made worse by the intervention of Western liberals ...Fairly ordinary brutal civil wars are described as genocides in order to drive home the good and evil framework, bolster the case for international intervention, and make the campaigners wearing their green �Save Darfur� wristbands while having a latte in New York or London feel like they are doing something historically profound to stop another Hitler-style outrage.

Civil war? Violent rebel armies SLA and JEM, anyone? (http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?l=1&id=3723) There's nothing in Jolie's piece that hints at this analysis of the situation. Her piece reminds me of the alarmist and false stories from the 1990s regarding Bosnia and the alleged genocide committed by Serbia and Slobodan Milosevic, who were acquitted of genocide this week by the International Court of Justice (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6395791.stm.) Lieutenant Colonel John E. Sray, US Army, wrote about this "Bosnian Myth" in 1995 at http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/bosnia2.htm.

The last thing I'd expect to read at a site inspired by Ayn Rand is advocacy of selfless, self-sacrificial brothers-keeperism that I've read today in response to Jolie's piece. I don't consider the individuals involved in what I understand is a dirty, intractable civil war between pro-government forces and multiple, fractious, opposing rebel forces to be my "brothers" or "neighbors" or any such Ellsworth Toohey-esque warm-fuzzy terms.

If Jolie and George Clooney have a guilty conscience about making millions of dollars at their cushy Hollywood careers, then by all means they can fund whatever causes they wish with their own money. I think most of us have more pressing matters to worry about, such as the welfare of our families and friends, and our consciences are clear as we practice our professions in our community honorably and treat our clients and customers with justice and rationality. Myself, I have hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical debt due to a genetic heart disease, and I'd be ashamed of myself if I considered that to be anyone else's responsibility other than my own. Likewise, I'll be damned if I'll consider the problems of Darfurians to be my responsibility.

To further elaborate on Ms. Jolie's sense of life, I found this Jolie quote online (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/angelinajo167260.html) I don't believe in guilt, I believe in living on impulse as long as you never intentionally hurt another person, and don't judge people in your life. I think you should live completely free.

Don't judge people? That contradicts Rand's statement (from The Virtue of Selfishness) that "One must never fail to pronounce moral judgement" and "Judge, and be prepared to be judged." Rand's philosophy is an idea that I wholemindedly agree with, and had been waiting to hear articulated all my life.

"I believe in living on impulse" Whim-worship, anyone?

"as long as you never intentionally hurt another person" Jolie would do well to meditate on Camus:

"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack understanding. On the whole men are more good than bad; that, however, isn't the real point. But they are more or less ignorant, and it is this that we call vice or virtue; the most incorrigible vice being that of an ignorance which fancies it knows everything and therefore claims for itself the right to kill. There can be no true goodness, nor true love, without the utmost clear-sightedness."

I'm not impressed by Jolie's alleged good intentions. Frankly, I don't believe her when she claims to "not believe in guilt." I'd prefer her to mind her own business rather than advocate the use of our (my) tax money (seized at the point of a gun, on pain of imprisonment, remember) to appease distant strangers and soothe her conscience. Recent Balkan history shows the dangers of uncritically swallowing a child-like narrative of "good vs. evil", or "right vs. wrong", depending on whether the manipulative speaker is George Bush or George Clooney, respectively.

"One man who minds his own business is more valuable to the world than 10,000 cocksure moralists." H. L. Mencken

(Edited by Vincent Rozyczko on 3/01, 6:52am)

(Edited by Vincent Rozyczko on 3/01, 6:53am)

(Edited by Vincent Rozyczko on 3/01, 7:24am)

Post 8

Thursday, March 1, 2007 - 7:50am

Those who have enjoyed the Brendan O'Neill articles I linked above may wish to read the following.

"The Hollywood Actor's Burden" http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CB04A.htm

"What the anti-war critics really disliked about Bush's moral posturing over Iraq, and to a certain extent Iran, is that it was unsophisticated: it was a bit too Christian and crass and clumsy for their tastes. They much prefer a secular, supposedly 'humanitarian' form of moral posturing, one which discusses conflicts in terms of 'right and wrong' rather than using the archaic categories of 'good and evil'. However, the end result is precisely the same: someone else's conflict, other people's trials and tribulations, are reduced to a simple story that apparently has a simple solution - the intervention of the international community. Difficult questions about politics, territory, resources and development, and also about how Western intervention in Africa, including in Sudan, has proved disastrous over the decades, are discarded in favour of saying 'we are good, they are bad, let's act'. That might make Clooney and Co feel all good and moist about themselves, but it is unlikely to do anything to assist anyone in Darfur or Sudan more broadly."

This repulsive tendency (one might call it "malignant narcissism") of leftists to focus on distant crises in order to "give meaning" to their lives was also slammed by O'Neill in this piece: http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAFCE.htm

I witnessed this serious flaw recently at a liberal site that I often visit to see what my leftist foes are up to: http://www.alternet.org/sex/47779/

"People who want to see the world bettered -- made more just and honest and kind -- often set their gaze on the farthest horizon. Our instinct, as progressives with global perspectives, is to obsess over situations far afield of our own backyards -- Indonesia, Sudan, the Middle East. These situations stir a sort of Peace Corp romance within us, a love affair with that which might make us feel gallant and extraordinary for caring.
I am as guilty as the next bleeding heart of focusing the majority of my energies on problems I see as compelling in large part because of their strangeness to me. But when I sit with myself, quiet my righteous indignation, my whiny white guilt, my attachment to the idea that I am a humble truth teller among powerful fibbers, I realize that it is not the world outside of me that is in most desperate need of my world-changing instincts. It is the world inside of me, the world between me and my beloved."

After several dozen posters replied to the article (none of whom disassociated themselves from the above ideas and motives), I just had to point out the obvious thusly in my reply:

I have not yet read one Alternet poster disagreeing with the psychological motives and obvious delusions of grandeur delineated above...All of us would be much better people if we would focus on objective reality instead of one's subjective self-image and psychological whims. This can easily be done by behaving honorably and ethically is one's community and family life, following the principle of subsidiarity.

The "malignant narcissism" (that cares for for selfish ego-stroking whims more than understanding objective facts on the ground, and that engages in judgementalism and intolerance as it points fingers at distant Others) inherent in the above confession contradicts the philosophies of such teachers as Jesus, Gandhi, and John Quincy Adams:

Jesus-Remove the log from thine own eye...

Gandhi-Be the change you wish to see in the world...

Adams-Go not abroad in search of monsters to destroy...

My contempt for narcissists extends from those on the Left (who have Serb blood dripping from their hands) to those on the Right (who have Iraqi blood dripping from their hands), all of whom claimed the right to kill in the name of the obscene abstraction called the greater good that they fancied they knew.

"Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

Post 9

Thursday, March 1, 2007 - 1:23pm

Teresa said:

Interesting, though why is it ok to intervene with this particular murderous dictatorship to stop an attempted genocide and not ok to interfere with other murderous dictatorships to stop genocides?
Where did she say it wasn't okay to interfere elsewhere? What she actually said was this (emphasis is mine) :

What the worst people in the world fear most is justice. That's what we should deliver.

I am very glad to see such a public figure making appeals to an absolute conception of Justice. My point was, does she support the Iraq war as well, or is she, like most liberals, picking and choosing which murderous dictators ought to be brought to justice through military action? Saddam, after all, killed far more than the 400,000 people likely so far killed in Darfur.

Post 10

Thursday, March 1, 2007 - 1:55pm

and make the campaigners wearing their green �Save Darfur� wristbands while having a latte in New York or London feel like they are doing something historically profound to stop another Hitler-style outrage.

I have to agree with this little tidbit from the article posted, though I probably disagree with the rest of it and the theme. This 'slacktivism' is the same thing that drives the global warming madness, advocacy for universal health care and parading bumper stickers and T-shirts with 'provacative' slogans in the freest nation on earth. People raised on the ethic of altruism must convince themselves they are doing something good for the world in order to absolve themselves of their secular version of original sin feeling guilty for existence, but since they dont *actually* want to make the world a better place, but instead want to simple feel like they are, they are content with doing the least amount of work with the least amount of critical investigation and review so as to convince themselves the life they life is worthwhile. Slap on that wrist band and and ribbon on your car's bumper and do your part to make a difference in the world!

The most patehtic aspect about this is how fleeting the attention span and internally inconsistent the slacktivist are. Why is DARFUR the cause celebre but not ZIMBABWE, BERUNDI, LAOS, or NORTH KOREA, where instead of calling for military intervention to bring justice to beleagured people, they chant about moral relativism and 'self determination'

The last thing I'd expect to read at a site inspired by Ayn Rand is advocacy of selfless, self-sacrificial brothers-keeperism that I've read today in response to Jolie's piece. I don't consider the individuals involved in what I understand is a dirty, intractable civil war between pro-government forces and multiple, fractious, opposing rebel forces to be my "brothers" or "neighbors" or any such Ellsworth Toohey-esque warm-fuzzy terms

I love these 'i've got it all figured out' posts, Thanks Vincent for given me a good laugh. Apparently through your omniscience you have discerned all the absolute logical implications of true objectivism based on you grandiose command all the relevant facts in the world. If only us silly little heathens would be consistent we would see the light. I don't recommend this bullying chest thumping "I'll tell you what to think" attitude as one of gaining much of an audience, especially among people which consciously try to be rational and logical. You have no crystal ball which grants you the ultimate wisdom, people with identical values can both logically hold opposing viewpoints because their information sets may differ.

The fallacy in your thinking is that if someone agrees with some of the comments of Jolie, or in fact intervening in Darfur, or for that matter any murderous dictatorship, is borne of selfless altruism. In fact I quite selfishly want to live in a free, stable, safe world full of constitutional liberal democracies which do not start wars, do not have famines, and do not kill their own people. Where there are no murderously brutal dictatorships which breed nuclear armed terrorists bent on thrusting the whole world into a new dark ages, or anti-human anti-reason nut jobs who seek to bio engineer a virus to wipe out all of humanity, or all of one race, or all of one sex. These murderous dictatorships are the root of all the great geopolitical problems of the world, hiding in our back yards and burying our heads in the sand is not going to make the problem go away. All the resources and attention these genocidal hostage takers demand diverts our attention from more pressing threats, like asteroid impacts, calderic volcanic eruptions, or massive solar flares, all of which need a rational population and massive technological infrastructure to combat. Isolationism is not possible in a world of Global Markets, where, for instance, Iran brands the US as the Great Satan because, classically, satan is a tempter and they damn well know that given a free choice the vast majority of people will choose western culture *over* fundamentalistic islamic culture, witness the massive spreading of western media throughout these culturally stagnate middle eastern nations. How do you propose keeping western culture from tempting the populace of fundamentalist islamic regimes? Shall we blockade their shipping ports to ensure no rogue copies of Titianic corrupt the minds of their precious little children? The temptation of western culture alone regardless of military presence in the middle east is enough to motivate murderous terrorism.

(Edited by Michael F Dickey
on 3/01, 9:37pm)

Post 11

Thursday, March 1, 2007 - 2:52pm

People raised on the ethic of altruism must convince themselves they are doing something good for the world in order to absolve themselves of their secular version of original sin feeling guilty for existence, but since they dont *actually* want to make the world a better place, but instead want to simple feel like they are, they are content with doing the least amount of work with the least amount of critical investigation and review so as to convince themselves the life they life is worthwhile. Slap on that wrist band and and ribbon on your car's bumper and do your part to make a difference in the world!

Well spoken....

Post 12

Thursday, March 1, 2007 - 6:43pm

Isolationism...
Excellent, Mr. Dickey.

Mr. Rozyczko,
An old friend of mine, who's been an Objectivist for longer than you've been alive, sent a very interesting article to me this evening, and I encourage you to indulge. The writer is not an Objectivist, but may as well be.

Post 13

Thursday, March 1, 2007 - 7:26pm

Mr Rozyczko, are you telling me that subsitence farmers and cattle herders who speak dozens of tongues, and have no notion of nationalism, with neither electricity nor running water, nor the evident waste of an education that you apparently have, have been inviting slaughter upon themselves for decades (this is not a new phenomenon) in the hope of expanding political power?

The Janjaweed are jihadists, they are our enemy too. I suppose you think the Canadians shouldn't have bothered to smuggle some of our Iranian consulate wortkers out of Iran back under the Ayatollah either, just altruist busy-bodyism.

Yes, we must pick our fights. This one is an easy no-brainer. Bomb the north and shoot down the janjaweed as they approach. They are caucasian m*slim attackers from the north killing nilotic Christian and Animist non-arabic speakers in the south. This is not a case of embedded "insurgents" but a case of racist genocide, as obvious as black and white.

There was a wonderful novel published in '98 about Western travellers on the Nile, kidnapped by the Mahdi army, and who went to their deaths by beheading all the while thinking that such a thing just couldn't happen, that they were not parties to the conflict. The book was called The Tragedy of the Korosko. It was written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and was published in 1898.

Ted Keer

Post 14

Friday, March 2, 2007 - 9:21pm