gnat submits "I was reading this morning that Donald Rumsfeld has put Paul Wolfowitz in charge on Military Tribunals. After ranting about it for a bit, I realized it reminded me of something.



(Source: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/ 20030627/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_tribunals_9 )


It reminded me that Wolfowitz (as well as Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush Sr., Powell, and circumstantially W.) are imperialists in the real sense of the word, so much so that their ideologies of global domination make their conception of justice as just as that of crusaders and absolute monarchs. Any trial whereby US interests can be furthered in any way, as is obviously the case when speaking about POWs held in US custody hostile to American interests, should not be the domain of those who seek gains from the outcome. The plaintiff in any case cannot be the judge, the jury or the executioner. Unless of course we are willing to drastically redefine what justice is, and open for discussion of allowing foreign armies to try US military officials for war crimes in Afghanistan (http://www.democracynow.org/index.pl?issue=200305 23 for information of US complicity in war crimes during the “liberation” on Afghanistan). In all honesty, aside from the American ere of moral superiority and the fact that the winners of the war must be “right”, the situation looks the same from both sides. This is not an endorsement of terrorism, my argument, while clearly overly simplified, is stating that leaders of both sides are driven by a particular moral beacon, which is something that should be remembered. The morality that Wolfowitz, and the Bush Administration follow are summed in this statement whose source is discussed later (PNAC):



“a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.”



They want to build the great empire at any cost. That’s impartial justice?



I can engage in lengthy discussions of the illegal political activities, and the insane writings of a group of people who believe that NOW is the right time to assert global US dominance, but for now lets just talk about Wolfowitz.



For years Wolfy has been a Republican intellectual mouthpiece along with folks like Robert Kagan. A great recent example is his involvement in the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). This think tank pines for the days of Reaganite military spending as a way of accepting responsibility for “America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.” (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprin ciples.htm) The list of signers to the PNAC is impressive, including such Clinton era private citizens as Cheyney, Rumsfeld, and other familiar names as Jeb Bush and Dan Quayle. These folks are the same cadre that rallied around Reagan and Bush Sr. While the PNAC is a great starting point for understanding why not a soul in the cabinet can see past their lust for a great US empire under their control, Wolfowitz has more of a history than that.



On March 8, 1992 Patrick E. Tyler wrote an article in the New York Times, based on a leaked report from the Pentagon. He states that this report’s drafting was supervised by then Pentagon Undersecretary for Policy Wolfowitz, and endorsed by the cabinet and then Defense Secretary Cheney. (Is this starting to sound repetitive?) This report, completely writes out the use of the UN in foreign actions taken by the US, emphasizing the importance of “the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S." and "the United States should be postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated"



While these are two great examples of Wolfowitz’s belief in USA uber alles, other similar writings from the same cast of characters is not that hard to find.



The bottom line is that Wolfowitz has a long history of aggressive imperial tendencies, with clear disregard for international standards and laws, up to and including non-UN endorsement for police actions. Someone who thumbs their nose at international law should have no right to claim judiciary standing within a matter of international law. Terrorism is not the domain of the USA, it is an issue of international law, and it is apparent that Wolfowitz does not believe in international law that conflicts with US interests. To most people it would make sense to say the he is ineligible for this position.



And for those who still think that he is, here’s some new judiciary appointments, Bill Gates shall now reside over all computer technology legal issues. A joint team of Pfizer and Merc CEOs will head up lawsuits concerning drug side effects. Verizon will now work on the judiciary issues in the telecom world. It all makes perfect sense...."