Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Progressives must push for economic justice, health care for all, civil liberties, environmental protection and demilitarization.

100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

What Progressives Need to Do After November 4th

By Norman Solomon, AlterNet. Posted October 28, 2008.


Progressives must push for economic justice, health care for all, civil liberties, environmental protection and demilitarization.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Norman Solomon

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

It could be a start -- a clear national rejection of the extreme right-wing brew that has saturated the executive branch for nearly eight years.

What's emerging for Election Day is a common front against the dumbed-down demagoguery that's now epitomized and led by John McCain and Sarah Palin.

A large margin of victory over the McCain-Palin ticket, repudiating what it stands for, is needed -- and absolutely insufficient. It's a start along a long uphill climb to get this country onto a course that approximates sanity.

McCain's only real hope is to achieve the election equivalent of drawing an inside straight -- capturing the electoral votes of some key swing states by slim margins. His small window of possible victory is near closing. Progressives should help to slam it shut.

Like it or not, the scale of a national rejection of McCain-Palin and Bush would be measured -- in terms of state power and perceived political momentum -- along a continuum that ranges from squeaker to landslide. It's in the interests of progressives for the scale to be closer to landslide than squeaker.

As McCain's strategists aim to thread an electoral-vote needle, it cannot be said with certainty that they will fail. Who can credibly declare that an aggregate of anti-democratic factors -- such as purged voting rolls, onerous requirements for voter ID, imposed obstacles to voting that target people of color, inequities in distribution of voting machines, not counting some votes as they are cast, anti-Obama racism and other factors -- could not combine to bring a "victory" resulting in a President McCain and a Vice President Palin come Jan. 20, 2009?

Under these circumstances, the wider the real margin for Obama over McCain, the less likely that McCain can claim sufficient electoral votes to become president.

Progressives are mostly on board with the Obama campaign, even though -- on paper, with his name removed -- few of his positions deserve the "progressive" label. We shouldn't deceive ourselves into seeing Obama as someone he's not. Yet an Obama presidency offers the possibilities that persistent organizing and coalition-building at the grassroots could be effective at moving national policy in a progressive direction. In contrast, a McCain presidency offers possibilities that are extremely grim.

Some progressives, as a matter of principle, have come to a different conclusion. They're eager to cast their votes for a presidential candidate (Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney) who can't win.

Of course people's votes are entirely their own, to do with as they see fit. But the right to do something is distinct from the wisdom of doing it.

Last week, a mass email from the Nader for President 2008 campaign began by telling supporters: "Ralph Nader is at 5 percent in The Show Me State -- Missouri. And he's moving up. That's according to the most recent CNN/Time Missouri poll." The celebratory tone of the message was notable. Nader was polling at 5 percent in a crucial swing state -- where polls showed that McCain and Obama were in a dead heat. No wonder, on the same day as the email message, McCain spoke at rallies in suburbs of St. Louis and Kansas City.

Nader's potential effect on the election may be too small to increase the chances of a McCain victory. But from all indications, even if McCain and Obama were tied in polls across the country, the Nader campaign would be proceeding as it is now. What does that tell us about the logic of pressing forward with a vanguard approach even if it might serve the interests of right-wing forces that most progressives are straining to roll back in this election?

From the 1960s through the '90s, Ralph Nader had an unparalleled record of fighting for progressive reform. But the 2008 campaign of Nader and running-mate Matt Gonzalez has a frozen-in-time quality. Their campaign makes an electoral argument that focuses largely on Democrats, not Republicans. Much of Nader's pitch for votes is centering on the charge that Democrats are as corporate and compromised as ever -- and in many ways he's right. But he ignores the reality that Republican leaders keep getting worse and more right-wing; they are clearly more dangerous than many assumed a decade ago.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: obama, progressives, election08, mccain

Norman Solomon's latest book Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America's Warfare State (PoliPointPress) is available now. For more information go to www.madelovegotwar.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Another Solomon attack on Progressives who want Nader
Posted by: steveconn on Oct 28, 2008 11:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As predictable as winter is Solomon's attacks on Nader. Remember his warning to Greens about Nader's anti-war run? Here it is-
Don't gamble with your vote in 2004
By Norman Soloman
15 Oct 2003|

Is Ralph ready to run?
Photo: Nader 2000.Activists have plenty of good reasons to challenge the Democratic Party operatives who focus on election strategy while routinely betraying progressive ideals. Unfortunately, the national Green Party now shows appreciable signs of the reverse problem -- focusing on admirable ideals without plausible strategy. If Ralph Nader runs for president next year, as now appears quite likely, this recurring exercise would amount to a Green Party crutch that, ironically, could do more to hobble the party than help it.

It's impossible to know whether the vote margin between Bush and his Democratic challenger will be narrow or wide in November 2004. I've never heard a credible argument that a Nader campaign might help to defeat Bush next year. A Nader campaign might have no significant effect on Bush's chances -- or it could help Bush win. With so much at stake, do we really want to roll the dice this way?

We're told that another Nader campaign will help build the Green Party. But Nader's prospects of coming near his nationwide 2000 vote total of almost 2.9 million are slim. Much more probable (given the widespread eagerness to prevent a second term for Bush) is that a 2004 campaign would win far fewer votes -- hardly the sign of a thriving party.

It appears to me that the entire project of running a Green presidential candidate in 2004 is counterproductive. Some faithful will be energized, with a number of predictably uplifting "super rallies" along the way, but many past and potential Green voters are likely to consciously turn away. Such a campaign will generate much alienation and bitterness from natural constituencies.

Norm, why not admit you are not a progressive and you hate Ralph Nader for reminding you?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not too late to wake up!
Posted by: Average American on Oct 28, 2008 11:22 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All you Democrat leaning sheep had better get those Obamam pom-poms of the National Media out of your eyes and look at the facts for your self!

Gov. Palin is herself much more qualified to be President than Obama! Watch this quick clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8zXi90EVeg

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think McCain is the best choice for President, however, Obama is by FAR the worst choice for President! Even his own running mate has told us over and over again that he is too dangerous for the country! When are you going to listen? After we invade Pakistan like he said he would do during the debates?

We Americans have to take responsibility and work through this hard time! We can’t spend or tax our way out of it! We must elect McCain if we stand a chance at all of heading off a depression and further world conflict!

Come on, even you Democrats have to admit, there are far more qualified people in your Party than Obama. The one trait that got Obama his nomination was his RECORD of voting obedience to the Party. So for you who can’t see what is happening, the Democratic Party is making a bid for the Oval Office, it’s not just Obama. He will only be a puppet for the Democratic Party, doing their bidding.

Remember now, the Democratic Party has controlled Congress for the last 2 years and has an approval rating that is 1/2 of President Bush’s! Just look what they’ve done to our country in those two short years! And that’s fighting against an opposition Administration! Think what will happen to the country if these same chukleheads gain control of it all!
They will long for President Bush’s approval ratings! And you and I will pay the price for decades to come!

— Average American

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nader: After Nov. 4, Watchdog groups in each Congressional District
Posted by: betterthannader on Oct 28, 2008 11:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ralph Nader announced concrete plans for what to do after November 4th back when his exploratory committee came out near the beginning of the year. He said he wanted to have congressional watchdog groups in every congressional district to turn Congress around. Whether this plan will become reality just depends on whether you and me are willing to support it and get involved. If you haven't seen it, I pasted the announcement his exploratory committee put out here.


We need to start paying more attention to Ralph Nader. He's been warning us about the things that caused this economic crisis for decades and that's documented quite well. He also has solutions for the crisis now, but instead of listening to Nader we keep putting the arsonists in charge of the fire station.

When we're stuck in wars that have killed over 1.5 million innocent people, the economy is in shambles, and the Constitution is being gutted--well, I take that as a sign that it's way past time we need to draw a line and stop supporting either of the parties that got us into such a mess!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

After the election action
Posted by: bnerin on Oct 28, 2008 2:50 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Soloman, The Nation magazine and dozens of progressives are in unison in saying - After the election we hold Obama's feet to the fire. But they don't lay out an effective plan exactly how to do it. More street demonstrations? More letters to the WH and Congress? More signing of MoveOn and other petitions?

We've done all that to no avail even with Democrats controlling Congress. What makes anyone think any of these will work now?

The ways to hold the fire to the feet is only by threatening them where it hurts - the threat of losing an election, the threat of stopping the enterprise as labor strikes do (the Boeing machinists just won their fight). Are Progressives gutsy enough to bring millions to DC and surround the Capital with a human chain so legislation comes to a halt like happened at the WTO in Seattle in 1999? Or whatever other types of boycotts, picketing, strikes can be envisioned.

What might Obama be preaching if he thought Nader was a real threat, since above all he wants to win? Maybe he might say we will have Medicare for all; the insurance industry is out of the picture and that he would offer Nader a cabinet role in his administration. Wow, if Nader accepted something like that, all of his supporters would vote Obama.

As it is, Obama hasn't done such a thing because he well knows he is going to win. So he maintains his ineffective solution to health care bowing to his insurance donors.

Progressives wake up, you can only affect power with power, not words!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Norm's Leadership & Rally Cry: Fear Baiting and Vendetta
Posted by: adamsja4 on Oct 28, 2008 4:49 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is simply a tired, sad, and pathetic diatribe about Ralph Nader and more primary school, culture of fear puffery about McCain/Palin! With no hint of irony, Norm argues that the Nader/Gonzalez campaign is anachronistic!

Apparently it's OK for Norm to trivialize the neoliberal, imperial, and rotten soul of Obama and the Democratic Party, but somehow it is heresy for Nader to fail to highlight the obvious reactionary nature of McCain/Palin.

This is called "projection": Norm wants us to conveniently ignore the fact he minimizes the rabidly pro-war and pro-corporate positions/actions of Obama, to focus on the purported fact that Nader ignores the equally pro-war and pro-corporate positions/actions of McCain/Palin.

Norm has to fear monger progressives about Nader and McCain because his candidate is morally bankrupt when it comes to killing innocent civilians abroad and economic terrorism on the home front. Nader doesn't have to fear monger because he has maintained a principled stance on issues, especially war. Norm is left propping up a war monger in an illogical and contradictory attempt to maintain his antiwar credibility.

Norm terrorizes the electorate about the drift of the Republican Party to the extreme right. Yet he fails to note that this shift is not possible without the tacit cooperation or direct complicity of the Democratic Party. Norm and Obama are the faux resistance. The counterbalance to an extreme right is a principled and differentiated left. Norm and Obama have long ago abandoned the left, the center, or any pretense of regard for the will of the people. Why? They are dialing for the same corporate dollars as the Republicans. The Democrats stay in lock-step unison with the Republicans to maintain the probabilities of converting some of their more ever-right-leaning base and snagging independents. In short, the principled stance is too politically risky for the Democrats. They certainly aren’t going to try and offset any vote losses incurred due to a principled stance by tapping the potential electoral majority represented by non-voters and poor. It’s much easier and more expedient to fall in line with the needs of corporate capital, just like the “evil” Republicans.

Notice the contradiction in Norm saying the “fight” and success is really up to us, but somehow Obama is the critical linchpin for the movement to be successful? This is basic neoliberal diffusion: responsibility for Obama is preemptively assuaged because a) voters knew he was neoliberal, b) voters accepted the disingenuous argument that Obama's election was critical to the progressive movement, and c) voters were warned that progressive change would really be up to them.

Any failure of the progressive movement is conveniently put on the usual neoliberal scapegoats: personal responsibility and individual pathology. The public-private linkages in political life have been destroyed by Norm's sell-out strategy: Obama is anointed to yield power at will, unchecked, unencumbered of demands, constraints, or even basic fiduciary expectations - any improvement in your life must be attained by "fighting", struggling to take back power that was granted without condition (what is won back are “neoliberal scraps from the table”).

Reciprocal responsibility is destroyed. Obama is preemptively off the hook, but he can always blame any real or implied lack of a progressive mobilization. Citizens are quickly on the path to further alienation as the “Obama as progressive linchpin” fallacy is quickly overcome with more regressive neoliberal economic realities. Citizens can blame Obama for being unresponsive, but ultimately they can only blame themselves for Obama's failure because there were no promises made; in fact, just the opposite: they were told Obama was neoliberal and it would be a "fight".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What we Democrats (not Progressives) Face
Posted by: Drume on Oct 28, 2008 7:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We must continue to think long-term, no matter what happens on Tuesday.

We need to resolve the voting issue once and for all. The reason I bring this up is that if the Democrats win, there won’t be much of a push to do anything about it. Greg Palast will fade back into obscurity only to surface whenever the Republicans next make noise in the polls.

We need to sit down and ask ourselves some extremely hard questions.

As Democrats, how would we have chosen to handle the attacks of Sept 11? Seriously. Rhetoric aside.

To what do we attribute the fact that we have not been attacked at home since 911?

What advantages and disadvantages are there to continuing in Iraq?

Do we realize the massive output the British expended to gain a strong foothold in the lands they were occupying/governing? What are we willing to do to secure Iraq and Afghanistan? What (more) are we willing to spend? What is the vision?

These are the two most salient issues pressing against us AS DEMOCRATS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Palin Hater
Posted by: PalinHater on Oct 29, 2008 11:20 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have to find a way to follow up and expand on Obama's vote as a senator. We must have the right to kill any baby born alive if it is not wanted by the mother. We then have to convince people like palin their conservative kids are not wanted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why the attacks at this late date?
Posted by: steveconn on Oct 29, 2008 11:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Camp Followers on The Way to Obama’s White House
By Steve Conn


As Obama’s Presidential campaign marches inevitably toward Washington DC, Camp Followers emerge from the left, right and center and jog to catch up. They freshen up their resumes with belated help for their candidate and would-be employer. They throw ethics to the wind, in apparent desperate attempts to get more than a chance to boogie at one of the many inaugural balls. They want a chance to replace a Bush appointee in the new Obama administration. Their chutzpa is shocking and depressing.

One example is a voice from the left, Norman Solomon, who comes forward in these last days to warn his Progressive voter friends to stay away from Ralph Nader at the polls. No matter that national polls say consistently that Nader draws his votes from McCain’s side, Solomon is worried. Even as he acknowledges Obama’s progressive policy failings both domestic and foreign, he explicitly counsels voting for Obama with no expectation of change:
“When I've spoken to dozens of audiences during the two months since the Democratic National Convention (where I was an elected Obama delegate), there's been an overwhelmingly positive response when I make a simple statement about Obama and the prospects of an Obama presidency: "The best way to avoid becoming disillusioned is to not have illusions in the first place."
“Looking past the election, progressives will need to mobilize for a comprehensive agenda including economic justice, guaranteed healthcare for all, civil liberties, environmental protection and demilitarization.”
I recalled (though many may not) his similar warning to the Greens in October 2003 to stay away from Nader, a decision which ultimately allowed Democratic operatives and Republican law firms to keep Independent Nader’s anti-war message off of state ballots and out of the 2004 campaign. Thousands more died while Progressives mobilized.
If Hertzberg wants to write speeches again and Powell wants in on Presidential foreign policy decisions, Solomon seems ready to audition as the next Ralph Nader within the Obama circle, ignoring entirely Nader’s reason for pursing tirelessly multiple Presidential campaigns- the corporate dominance of the political agenda in both major parties, a dominance which blocks new generations of citizen activists and their plans. That corporate dominance is already implanted in the Obama program of change.
“Expect nothing and you won’t be disappointed,” is hardly a battle cry for Progressive mobilization , but, I suppose, it’s a living.
Camp followers are not professional political fabricators like James Carville and Mary Matalin. They are tactical amateurs who arrive when the march is nearly over and shout to be heard. When their own career agenda shades their advice to those who trust them, especially younger voters, they deserve to be tagged with warning labels. Those who rely on their counsel before they vote, need to understand that their intent is simply to advance in the ranks of Obama supporters on the way to the White House.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And Clinton Time Was So Glorious
Posted by: jooljetkmae on Oct 29, 2008 1:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I couldn't have predicted this kind of article coming from "Nobody But The Democratic Candidate" Solomon. It's Ground Hog Day with the left in the presidential election all over again. We have to vote for a candidate whose policies we are opposed to, or else the world is going to come to an end.

Solomon conveniently leaves out the fact the Clinton was more right wing than his predecessors and was able to do things that Reagan-Bush could only dream of doing. NAFTA, the WTO, the Crime Bill, welfare reform, re-inventing government. These were all initiatives that were on the table before Clinton came in, but a Republican led White House couldn't get passed through the Congress. But Clinton did, and the left went out and voted for him again in '96.

Add to that, the continuation of the U.S. War of Aggression Against Iraq, 1990 - Present, plus, the U.S. War of Aggression Against Serbia 1999, and you have a legacy that hardly represents a golden age of progressive politics.

Contrary to what Solomon argues here, the left will never have any leverage over Democrats if the threat of voting for other candidates isn't an option.

Obama, if elected, is going to champion policies his base is opposed to and expect them to vote for him again in 2012. I firmly expect Solomon to pen another article similar to this one four years from now on the alleged "danger" posed by the Republicans and voting for third party candidates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What Do They Have to Do to Lose Your Vote?
Posted by: jooljetkmae on Oct 29, 2008 8:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think Nader's running mate Matt Gonzalez does a good job of debunking Solomon's
"Nobody But The Democratic Candidate" nonsense here:

http://counterpunch.org/gonzalez10292008.html

It's a long column, but worth the read.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Voting Democratic Is a Wasted Vote
Posted by: left_libertarian on Oct 30, 2008 5:29 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why would you vote for the Spineless Democrats is you are:

against the Iraq War
against FISA
against the Patriot Act
against the War on Drugs.

The democrats have voted for the above
if you think that if you vote enough 'progressives' into the party it will change you are very naive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reva
Posted by: Reva on Oct 31, 2008 2:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey check out our response to this post here. You can also see our argument for why a vote for Obama is a vote for peace here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wrong Message
Posted by: CaBeachBum on Oct 31, 2008 7:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Norman,

This is the first time I have disagreed with one of your posts. You said:

"Progressives must push for economic justice, health care for all, civil liberties, environmental protection and demilitarization."

So, I ask you. Which candidate is pushing for single payer healthcare, Obama or Nader? Was Obama rallying support for civil liberties when he voted for the FISA bill? Who is for demilitarization, Obama or Nader (think Afghanistan)? And just who is the non-corporate supporter of environmental protection, Obama or Nader?

You've got your thesis backwards Norman. You and all the other self-proclaimed progressives should be supporting Nader. An Obama presidency, albeit far better than McCain, would be controlled by the DLC and the corporatocracy that Obama has already acceded to. And if people like Rahm Emmanuel make up an Obama administration, what hope do real progressive have?

To think that the Democratic Party can be transformed into a progressive movement is a pipe dream.

So I ask you Norman. What exactly will be your plan when progressives are marginalized?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Which Nader campaign is he referring to?
Posted by: GretnaBlast on Nov 3, 2008 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only swing state he's hitting is Pennsylvania (and he's not even on the ballot in North Carolina). He was in Minnesota on the 31st; Maryland, Nevada, and Pennsylvania yesterday (how, I don't know), and today he's in Delaware.

I receive emails from the Nader campaign and there is absolutely no distinction regarding the swing states. They are not, and never did, run harder in the swing states.

Any Democrats who were pissed about 2000 should have been pushing IRV this whole time instead of bitch about one man who they AGREE WITH on almost all the issues!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Open Letter to Senator Obama: The Rule of Law is Indivisible
Posted by: david.model@senecac.on.ca on Nov 3, 2008 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Senator Obama

I hope that you succeed in your campaign to become president. I was particularly impressed with your commitment to international law as revealed on your website when you affirmed that “As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions.” America’s flagrant and blatant dismissal of both American and international law is a foreboding and ominous step backward in the march towards a just and law-biding world. I wish to pass onto you some of the changes that I believe are necessary to move forward on the question of the rule of law.

As President, you need to commit yourself to abiding by the United Nations Charter, and in particular, Chapter 7, Article 39, which states that “The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.” In other words, the United States is prohibited from committing acts of aggression against any country without the approval of the Security Council. There is one exception to Article 39 which recognizes “The inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain international peace and security.” (Article 51)

In other words, no Member State shall take aggressive action against any other state without the approval of the Security Council or in the case of an act of self-defence, against an attack, without referring the matter to the Security Council for resolution. There are no exceptions to these two Articles authorizing the use of force against another nation. There is no provision in the Charter or anywhere else in international law for acts of aggression against another state under the rationale of “preemptive war” or “humanitarian war”. Unless an attack is substantial and immediate, a threat becomes merely speculation and can not justify the premature use of force. As for “humanitarian wars”, the Security Council is the proper body to decide when and how violations of human rights shall be resolved. Without compliance to these two Articles in the UN Charter, the world will descend into a state of lawlessness, violence and disorder which will self-perpetuate itself.

If you are serious about your commitment to international law, you must withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, cease any further attacks on Pakistan, and stop all subversive activities intended to undermine the sovereignty of such nations as Iran. None of these countries pose an immediate or substantial threat to the United States and aggression can not be justified under the rubric of the “war on terror”. The “war on terror” is a nebulous, misleading concept which does not implicate any specific country as an enemy posing a substantial and immediate threat.

I hope that you will extend your commitment to international law to the United Nations Charter and recognize that obedience to the rule of law is indivisible. In other words, you can not choose which laws to obey and which laws to ignore otherwise the concept of the rule of law is meaningless.

Yours truly:

David Model

State of Darkness: US Complicity in Genocide since 1945.
http://www.stateofdarkness.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]