Home Australia Killing Is No Picnic.  A Message for Julie Bishop re Bombing Syria

Killing Is No Picnic.  A Message for Julie Bishop re Bombing Syria

19

354940-01-02_1

By Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB

Dee McLachlan, editor of GumshoeNews, set up her camera on a bayside picnic table in Melbourne, and encouraged me to unburden myself on the subject of “international law.”  This talk has to do with Australia wishing to bomb Syria, but also with the famous Wesley Clark revelations. Below I will print the main points so you need not invest 12 minutes in the video.

The main points are as follows:

  1. “International law” is not the place we should look for guidance in the matter. International law reminds me of Aleister Crowley’s joke: “Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law.” Indeed, in any textbook of International Law you will see the list of four ‘sources’ of that law. One of them is — I kid you not – STATE PRACTICE. Think about it!
  1. From the day the United Nations Charter was written, in 1945, by “the great powers,” it was not meant to be a system for preventing war. Never mind that its Preamble says it’s intended “to save succeeding generations from the SCOURGE OF WAR, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.” (Sure the public bought that line, but ain’t no “Great Power” ever believed it or wanted it.)
  1. As there is no overarching ruler to enforce the nice principles of the UN Charter, or other ‘international laws’ such as the Geneva Conventions, we must stop talking to each other as if those constraints really existed. It is illusory; we have an intellectual obligation not to indulge in “PARALLEL REALITY.” I repeat: Great Powers have not the slightest intention of abiding by any rules. They have “other goals.”
  1. As regards Syria, it is misguided to say Australia should get in there “to stop the creation of refugees.” I don’t doubt that stopping the creation of refugees would be a lovely thing to do. But that is not WHY we would be bombing. So please don’t lie about the motive.
  1. General Wesley Clark, POOR BASTARD, told us in a Youtube video in 2007, that the US was planning to destroy 7 countries – really 8 all up as the bombing of Afghanistan had been going on since October 8, 2001. (Why? Because a guy reportedly hiding in a cave in Afghanistan had caused so much damage in Manhattan. Broken windows, white goop on the street, fugitives jumping, maybe a touch of thermite, you remember).
  1. Clark gave no reason for the other seven ‘coming attractions,’ namely: Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, and “finishing off with Iran.” Why should he give a reason? Nobody even demanded a reason. Why not? I think it’s because our brain avoids going there. We assume if the Good Nation is doing something it must be SOMETHING GOOD. If instead it’s for malicious purposes, we do not wish to know, thank you.
  1. Reinhold Niebuhr, an independent-minded theologian in the 1930s wrote a book entitled Moral Man and Immoral Society. I did not know of it till I had mostly finished writing my PhD thesis “The Moral Relationship among States.” Niebuhr came to his conclusions based on observation. I came to mine (identical) based on the sociobiology of Richard Alexander. Long story short: TRIBES DO NOT HAVE MORAL SCRUPLES when confronting an enemy tribe.
  1. I said above that there are four sources of international law; that is, some persons have agreed on a list of four! These are: treaties, customary law, state practice, and the opinions of jurists. ‘JURIST’ MEANS ANYONE WHO AT LEAST TRIES to work out solutions for intergroup rivalries, and makes an impression on scholars.
  1. Should the UN Charter count as the opinion of jurists? I think so. Should high flowing principles enunciated at Nuremberg count as new ideals, e.g. regarding “crimes against humanity? I think so. How else do we ever move ahead – and WE DO MOVE AHEAD. It matters a lot that people are trying to find a better deal for the ones on the receiving end of the bombs, and the receiving end of torture. (Hmm. I wonder if Martin Bryant and Dzhokar Tsarnaev have been tortured lately.)
  1. OVER TO YOU, MADAME FOREIGN MINISTER, Your Excellency. Cook something up. Move the Syria problem ahead. Become the greatest Australian this side of Ned Kelley and Albert Namatjira.

aboriginal_watercolour_paintin_photo.CACHE-600x345-nowatermarkA Namatjira watercolor, circa 1950

What’s the worst that could happen to you if you take a stand re bombing? A Dismissal? You could get Harry-Holted? Sure. These things happen. Look what happened to Edward Said. I recall him speaking on TV in 1991, before the Desert Storm fiasco. He was the only person making sense. He said “If America invades, all will be chaos for the Iraqis. SO DON’T DO IT.”

Be brave, Julie. And you won’t be alone. Here at Gumshoe, we’ve got your back. Plus everybody else will love you. Help the Syrians. Help Europe. Help Australia.

Help!

— Mary W Maxwell lives in Adelaide. She is co-author with Dee McLachlan of Truth in Journalism (2015), and can be reached at her website, ProsecutionForTreason.com. If you like GumshoeNews, kindly spread the word to increase our readership.  We want NewsLtd to know there’s competition….

 

19 COMMENTS

  1. I recall a magazine photo of the lovely Ms. Bishop reclining fully stretched out on a couch represented in white .
    I suspect the representation was meant to represent a mum with virtuous
    attractive staring eyes.
    I trust that her victims in Syria will appreciate her beauty.
    As I have said; beware blondes with bombs’. (And servants of bankers! See Major General Smedley Butler: ‘War is a racket’.)
    For more on who our soldiers are being sent off for, see ‘Mike Rivero. All wars are banker’s wars’. The
    Pity Ms Bishop does not disclose that she wants to bomb ISIS who are our mates armed by Embassador Stephens in Ben Ghasi.
    Some should take her aside and explain to the minister that 911 was part of the concoction to event the war on terrorism and get our boys killed in the Middle East.
    There must be something in the water in Canberra?
    Minister: the internet is exposing the bullshit. Grow up!
    You, Abbott , shorten et al. are sprung.
    So bomb the Middle East, destroy infrastructure and wonder why there are so many refugees.
    All part of the plan as exposed: ‘NWO exposed by Dr. Day March 1969.
    Cause problem, create a reaction ( by the complicit mass media) and impose a solution already planned by those who caused the problem.
    Please: someone tell poor Julie that she is being suckered. As was Howard and his clueless crew.
    Any chance that the 60 retiring Fed pollies at the next election may be replaced with some who are astute and can use a brain. Doubt it.

    • PS.
      To explain: a reported 60 of our parliamentary representatives are scarping because of the change in their superannuation benefits and retirement age.
      Another lurke that should be known is that when Anbott (the PM ) is away the pollies line up for a 24 hour stint of being PM. That way, as a ex PM their retirement and super benifis increase.
      But you have to be in ‘the club’ to get a snout in another taxpayer’s trough.
      Be interesting to see our intrepid main system media obtain the official records as to those who may have been our 24 hour heroes,
      Won’t happen, the parliamentary press gallery know what side their next leak is buttered on.

        • Stole? No not quite.
          Defraud? Well possibly?
          Be interesting to prove, but there is, under the evidence act, the tendency rule which may make a pattern of behaviour which tends to suggest a rort/rought.
          I will defer to Dyson Heydon (sp) on the point.
          Cannot wait for the foi information, perhaps the relevant Governor General, who swears in (if necessary) the 24 ‘hourers’, if any, may be able to assist?
          Love to hear if Laurie Oakes is on to this reported ‘snouts’ in the trough report. He would be on to this in a flash if there was any credibility in the report/s.
          Perhaps we should await the results of his investigation and report If any.

          • First I will write to the front benchers and ask if he or she is one of the Acting PMs. He or she should be proud to say Yes and furnish the date. I will also write to Laurie Oakes and ask if he knows about it.
            Since he hasn’t heard about Building 7, though, he may not be aware.
            I love Gumshoe. We need some money here. Anybody feel like selling one of their yachts for us?

          • There would not be much happening in Canberra that
            uncle Laurie would not know of, so it is all a bit sus, otherwise uncle would have exposed it, being reporter of recognised public status.
            Further the shock jocks would have yelled by now.

  2. Ned, re your comments below on the matter of a person having the unmitigated cheek to upgrade their pensions by means of a false claim, I can’t quite differentiate your acerbites from the real thing. I thought the report was factual, not just goss.

    Anyway i will simply ask Laurie and he can say yea or nay.
    If it is a false rumor i hereby apologize for wishing anybody damnation.
    If it’s not, I don’t.

    PS My phrase “unmitigated cheek” does not do justice. Can you think of a stronger term, Ned? Or anybody else?

  3. This is all so funny.
    Radio 2UE in Sydney, has George and Paul on Sat and Sun day mornings. Entertaining couple. Paul likes a Quiz.
    Now here is one for Paul: ‘how many people has Australia had as PM and/or acting Prime Ministers since, say the year 2,000? As a bonus, for a another prize, name those who have been acting prime ministers in that period?
    Go for it Paul!
    Btw radio 2ue is also now 2gb, (Jones etc. 2ch and possibly others controlled by the Fairfax, ‘Always Independent’ headed news print.
    Perhaps the SMH column eight could give the answer to Paul?

  4. Mary, I think your conversational approach in the video is exactly the challenging and questioning logic that we must present to those who must be held accountable for the faulty policies and interpretations commonly used as justifications for war.

    The video I link contains a lot of valuable supporting explanation about why as individuals we must stand up and be accountable and move forward laying down a process and record that achieves something tangible that others can join and build.

    Scott Bennet sets out some valuable information and even more importantly he sets an incredible example of documenting the reality. Scott explains how to use his record to move forward with questions and bring assisting force to accountability.

    A very notable “device” he constantly expounded upon was his card that linked his case to the body of knowledge behind the “Shell Game” publication. He hinted at the psychology behind this technique of having a simple and convenient way of identifying and delivering a deeper substance that justifies his questions and challenges to individuals, authorities and relevant accountable associations.

    We need to distribute fridge magnets that remind us to “Use Your Vote Today” and include relevant media and political desk contacts. Perhaps even better would be some type of fridge magnet linked to a web page for your particular area that has a full updated contact list and basic principles on making your “vote” work for yourself and not allowing power to steal it through Party Power and Factional Flavour tricks.
    Basic critical thinking and research methodology could be incorporated along with a selection of high quality TED or similar lectures that open the mind to better reasoning and focused issues and results based action.

    This has similar attributes to my concept of urging people to deliberately build an identifiable “Collection of Information” that can then be confidently linked and referenced as an identifiable substance of your challenge when you stand up or speak up in public on the record.

    We need to describe things in terms of the fully honest political architecture and invite all we engage with to demonstrate their competence and integrity by providing us with an accounting of their interpretation of the architecture, now and historically, to test if it stacks up and can be defended out in the open under critical scrutiny, as it must if it is valid.

    In this presentation Scott does not include some of the deeper critical aspects of money monopoly or the identities and history of concentrated power but it may not have been in his brief on this occasion.

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion