Angelina Jolie shills for genocide
March 4th 2007 05:46
As if all the adualtion she recieves, totally disproportionate to her acting achievements, were not enough, Angelina Jolie has been invited to be on the board of Council of Foreign Relations. Bang on target, Ms. Jolie writes a "smart" editorial in Washington Post. It's certainly smart if you compare it with an imaginary editorial of Paris Hilton. But if you don't, the whole article is asinine in the extreme.
She's of course shilling for ICC's efforts on Darfur." What the worst people in the world fear most is justice. That's what we should deliver." Yeah right. When thousands of people are being killed every month, all we need is an overtly bureaucratic court to start a stupid trial that can imflame the killings further. Europe, of course, won't do anything else and will keep pretending that this show trial will somehow prevent the genocide. But even accepting the sentiment expressed by Jolie, even agreeing that justice should be delivered, shouldn't international community first pull up its socks to stop the genocide? The criminals can be tried later. Why put the horse before the cart?
The other question is of course whether ICC is a competent agent for such matters. Richard Fernandez spells out clearly in his article what this show trial is all about:
This is a very grave matter, not for the clueless Americans who are gladly walking lemminglike into a transparent trap, but for the rest of us. The only reason we are not all living under a liberal monostate is because it was stopped not just by American force of arms or capitalism, but by its constitution. Whatever be your nationality or ideological persuation, you cannot but admire the greatness of American Constitution. Because it limits the power of leftwingers in America and by extension in the rest of the world. They can pass their shenanigans but not limitlessly. That's why they have been trying to tweak the constitution, coming up with more and more exotic interpretations. Still, as long as they held that document inviolabe, they could do only so much damage. Now slowly that authority is being given over to other institutions.
Which means the rest of us have to submit to European neo-imperialism or leftist statism. Both are dark prospects.
Angelina Jolie was of course invited to the board of that council to put a glamorous face to the whole proceedings. A brazenly cynical attempt to manipulate public opinion. Tired of watching her vacuous performances, I have long wished she stopped doing movies but after this affair my advice to her is: Angelina, stick to your movies.
She's of course shilling for ICC's efforts on Darfur." What the worst people in the world fear most is justice. That's what we should deliver." Yeah right. When thousands of people are being killed every month, all we need is an overtly bureaucratic court to start a stupid trial that can imflame the killings further. Europe, of course, won't do anything else and will keep pretending that this show trial will somehow prevent the genocide. But even accepting the sentiment expressed by Jolie, even agreeing that justice should be delivered, shouldn't international community first pull up its socks to stop the genocide? The criminals can be tried later. Why put the horse before the cart?
The other question is of course whether ICC is a competent agent for such matters. Richard Fernandez spells out clearly in his article what this show trial is all about:
Advocates of international law noted that “the US position [to allow Darfur investigations to go forward] is a turning point institutionally,” according to Diane Orentlicher of American University’s Washington College of Law, “since it reflects a willingness of the US to accept the jurisdiction of the court.” In short, the ICC is not out to get killers in Darfur, but compliance from the United States.
Whether or not the ICC ever pulled a single genocidal criminal from Darfur into their courtrooms was no big deal as long as they could get a grip on the American Constitution. This blustering judicial maneuver was set up to see if the ICC could get the United States to cede it some power over the United States for future war crimes charges to be brought against, not the Sudanese, but US citizens.
Whether or not the ICC ever pulled a single genocidal criminal from Darfur into their courtrooms was no big deal as long as they could get a grip on the American Constitution. This blustering judicial maneuver was set up to see if the ICC could get the United States to cede it some power over the United States for future war crimes charges to be brought against, not the Sudanese, but US citizens.
This is a very grave matter, not for the clueless Americans who are gladly walking lemminglike into a transparent trap, but for the rest of us. The only reason we are not all living under a liberal monostate is because it was stopped not just by American force of arms or capitalism, but by its constitution. Whatever be your nationality or ideological persuation, you cannot but admire the greatness of American Constitution. Because it limits the power of leftwingers in America and by extension in the rest of the world. They can pass their shenanigans but not limitlessly. That's why they have been trying to tweak the constitution, coming up with more and more exotic interpretations. Still, as long as they held that document inviolabe, they could do only so much damage. Now slowly that authority is being given over to other institutions.
Which means the rest of us have to submit to European neo-imperialism or leftist statism. Both are dark prospects.
Angelina Jolie was of course invited to the board of that council to put a glamorous face to the whole proceedings. A brazenly cynical attempt to manipulate public opinion. Tired of watching her vacuous performances, I have long wished she stopped doing movies but after this affair my advice to her is: Angelina, stick to your movies.
| 48 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
