In one of two standing cases incriminating the USA, without yet getting into potential investigations of war crimes committed in Afghanistan, the International Court of Justice in the Hague has ruled against Uncle Sam for openly violating the bilateral peace treaty signed with Iran in 1955. The court has unanimously found that the ongoing “humanitarian sanctions” imposed against Iran are in fact endangering lives while flagrantly disregarding international law. Jan Hennop and Danny Kemp report that the judgement might be taken as symbolic however, as Washington has actually ignored ICJ rulings in the past.
The Encyclopedia Britannica has this to say in regards to the concept of the Rule of Law:
Rule of law, mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law, secures a nonarbitrary form of government, and more generally prevents the arbitrary use of power. Arbitrariness is typical of various forms of despotism, absolutism, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism. Despotic governments include even highly institutionalized forms of rule in which the entity at the apex of the power structure (such as a king, a junta, or a party committee) is capable of acting without the constraint of law when it wishes to do so.
Ideas about the rule of law have been central to political and legal thought since at least the 4th century bce, when Aristotle distinguished “the rule of law” from “that of any individual.” In the 18th century the French political philosopher Montesquieu elaborated a doctrine of the rule of law that contrasted the legitimate authority of monarchs with the caprice of despots. It has since profoundly influenced Western liberal thought.
In general, the rule of law implies that the creation of laws, their enforcement, and the relationships among legal rules are themselves legally regulated, so that no one—including the most highly placed official—is above the law. The legal constraint on rulers means that the government is subject to existing laws as much as its citizens are. Thus, a closely related notion is the idea of equality before the law, which holds that no “legal” person shall enjoy privileges that are not extended to all and that no person shall be immune from legal sanctions. In addition, the application and adjudication of legal rules by various governing officials are to be impartial and consistent across equivalent cases, made blindly without taking into consideration the class, status, or relative power among disputants. In order for those ideas to have any real purchase, moreover, there should be in place some legal apparatus for compelling officials to submit to the law.
Not only does the rule of law entail such basic requirements about how the law should be enacted in society, it also implies certain qualities about the characteristics and content of the laws themselves. In particular, laws should be open and clear, general in form, universal in application, and knowable to all. Moreover, legal requirements must be such that people are able to be guided by them; they must not place undue cognitive or behavioral demands on people to follow. Thus, the law should be relatively stable and comprise determinate requirements that people can consult before acting, and legal obligations should not be retroactively established. Furthermore, the law should remain internally consistent and, failing that, should provide for legal ways to resolve contradictions that can be expected to arise.
Just days ago, Jenn Abelson, Nicole Dungca and Todd Wallack together reported on the secret courts of Massachusetts, in which private hearings directly and quite unfairly enable cronyism, entitlement and class privilege. Of course, there is no earthly reason to disbelief that such courts also exist in the other 49 states. Months earlier, the Sacramento Bee reported on a decades-old practice of California’s state lawmakers enjoying a closed to the public DMV, where rank allows legislators extra perks in addition to not having to suffer the same time-consuming red-tape as their constituents.
And then infamously there is the FISA court, established the year I was born, where federal laws are written in secret with retroactive implications; a decidedly undemocratic system of undue process with far-reaching effects on civil rights particularly. More often than not, these secret laws have been drafted after the fact to safeguard governmental bodies from prosecution for violating their own national laws. But such casual practice of rewriting laws is not particular to FISA, as even the EPA is loosening its own regulations, and for no better reason than for national business interests to trim financial corners even should it result with radiation poisoning for the general public. Literally the polar opposite of the EPA’s Nixonian beginnings, as though the Powers That Be are not even toying with pretending any longer. But either nobody cares or not everybody is desperate enough to steal from nilskidoo. The world’s collective level of unintelligence is certainly glaring enough, as is its natural maliciousness. There is always something of graver import than entertainment, unless we’re talking about counting clovers beneath the clouds.
All of which should prove to the mind of any rational creature that this government of the people, by the people and for the people is utterly unrepentant horseshit. Representation here is a two-way fun-house mirror, as lip-serviced by a blind Lady (Justice). Why expect the government of the USA to abide by international laws when for its very own it displays all the consistency of a typical American teenager? As the bible states, which this government surely knows as regardless of a purported freedom of religion no politician is permitted into any federal office unless they are indeed vocal about their being Christian, “If thine eye offends thee, then pluck it out.” If, going by the definition provided by Britannica which nobody is accusing of partiality, there is in fact no rule of law in the USA, only a continuous ruling junta that conveniently disobeys its own laws, mandates and regulations wherever self-interest is even remotely plausible, then nor should its citizens feel obligated to abide by any of those same illusory rules. Because there fucking is no rule of law in the USA, only the two-faced deception of “do as I say not as I do” in neutral response to “monkey see, monkey do.” Laws manifestly exist only to keep the commoners in check, to deny them the freedoms of the self-anointed elite, while the only ones with the time or resources for grandstanding atrocity are those same elitists. Gullibility is off the charts.
Piss on laws wherever you can, in fullest accordance with your little government of the people, by the people and for the people. Unless that’s not the world you want to exist in, in which case, rip the government to flaming shreds, and make room for actual justice, real equality and honest Democracy, where none may ever again be so grossly empowered to bend rules to their own self-serving favor. And consider the distinct probability that your definition of foolish is out of sync, referring wrongly to how the foolhardy is idealized by others rather than the fool’s self-perception.
Uncle Sam is passed out, his throbbing member still enveloped entirely up the ass of the still-squirming Lady Justice. Howard Weinstein’s attorneys, Brett Kavanaugh’s supporting pundits, the women in Kanye West’s life, these are all just symptoms. For that matter, offense over language is nothing more than a distraction from that, and so an enabler to that. Trappist monks are required to stay silent, when Cardinals choose to do so independently. That’s where cardinal syn comes from. And for that matter, it’s a mystery for the ages that if Lot was good enough for his God despite later fathering his own grandchildren, then why Christian politicians must struggle with morals and ethics today. To say nothing of legalities.