4 ms·

That's a pretty noble, if naive reason. "Rule of law" stops where economic interests begin and always has. Rule of law didn't stop the invasion of Iraq. Rule

by tw04 7y ago

That's a pretty noble, if naive reason. "Rule of law" stops where economic interests begin and always has. Rule of law didn't stop the invasion of Iraq. Rule of law hasn't stopped the countless CIA backed coups in South America. Rule of law didn't stop funding/promoting the Arab spring. Larger countries constantly bully smaller ones and will continue to do so anytime it's economically convenient. The reason Grand Cayman exists is because the people with money that control global politics want it to exist. That's the beginning and end of the story. There's a reason the Panama Papers went away quietly despite the assassination of the human who exposed it...

zozbot234 7y ago
> Rule of law didn't stop the invasion of Iraq. Rule of law hasn't stopped the countless CIA backed coups in South America. Rule of law didn't stop funding/promoting the Arab spring. These places were all considered "rogue states" at some point, i.e. places that openly neglected the very same rule of law which protects others. Being a 'rogue' state may leave you open to being bullied, but that's hardly inconsistent with rule of law being very important.
- yourbandsucks 7y ago
  "Rule of law" doesn't mean picking and choosing whom it applies to. Saddam was our best buddy when he was using mustard gas in Khuzestan against the right people. International politics is rule by power rather than rule of law. The person you're replying to got it right.
- maximente 7y ago
  what criteria were/are used to make that consideration? because it sure as hell seems the US and Israel qualify, at least recently, for largely subjective definitions that i can come up with. alternatively if there are objective definitions, let's see them and decide for ourselves. it seems, then, the only thing stopping these rogue states are powers or coalitions of powers with the potential to dominate them (or i guess survive) via conflict, either via subterfuge or military means, and the will to do so. put more simply, reigning in Iraq or Nicaragua is a hell of a lot easier than Israel. why is that, if not for power differentials?
- freeflight 7y ago
  > These places were all considered "rogue states" at some point, i.e. places that openly neglected the very same rule of law which protects others. That still doesn't change the reality that the US broke international laws [0] under the pretext of supposedly enforcing them. And it did so in a very calculated and premeditated way [1] that justified everything on a domestic legal basis, while completely disregarding international law and institutions like they do not matter at all. Imagine if China would pass a law declaring how their soldiers and government officials can't be held accountable by any international body, how would that be framed by US media? Yet in the US, this has been established legal reality for close to two decades and plenty of US Americans defend it like it's the most normal thing in the world due to their internalized "exceptionalism". [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
turtlesdown11 7y ago
>There's a reason the Panama Papers went away quietly despite the assassination of the human who exposed it. The human who exposed it is still anonymous. A journalist who wrote using the Panama Papers as a source was murdered, most likely by local Maltese exposed by the journalist. There has been $1B plus in taxes recovered as a result of the publication.
- tw04 7y ago
  >There has been $1B plus in taxes recovered as a result of the publication. How many people are in prison? How many middle class folks get by with a slap on the wrist for tax evasion?
  - rswail 7y ago
    Most people that get caught for tax avoidance get punished civilly (fines etc). Corporates can't be put in prison and piercing that veil takes a lot of work. Getting the money disgorged is a good step.
mola 7y ago
> funding/promoting the Arab spring. Details? By whom? What for? Is this claim based on anything?

by tw04 7y ago

zozbot234 7y ago

> Rule of law didn't stop the invasion of Iraq. Rule of law hasn't stopped the countless CIA backed coups in South America. Rule of law didn't stop funding/promoting the Arab spring. These places were all considered "rogue states" at some point, i.e. places that openly neglected the very same rule of law which protects others. Being a 'rogue' state may leave you open to being bullied, but that's hardly inconsistent with rule of law being very important.

yourbandsucks 7y ago
"Rule of law" doesn't mean picking and choosing whom it applies to. Saddam was our best buddy when he was using mustard gas in Khuzestan against the right people. International politics is rule by power rather than rule of law. The person you're replying to got it right.
maximente 7y ago
what criteria were/are used to make that consideration? because it sure as hell seems the US and Israel qualify, at least recently, for largely subjective definitions that i can come up with. alternatively if there are objective definitions, let's see them and decide for ourselves. it seems, then, the only thing stopping these rogue states are powers or coalitions of powers with the potential to dominate them (or i guess survive) via conflict, either via subterfuge or military means, and the will to do so. put more simply, reigning in Iraq or Nicaragua is a hell of a lot easier than Israel. why is that, if not for power differentials?
freeflight 7y ago
> These places were all considered "rogue states" at some point, i.e. places that openly neglected the very same rule of law which protects others. That still doesn't change the reality that the US broke international laws [0] under the pretext of supposedly enforcing them. And it did so in a very calculated and premeditated way [1] that justified everything on a domestic legal basis, while completely disregarding international law and institutions like they do not matter at all. Imagine if China would pass a law declaring how their soldiers and government officials can't be held accountable by any international body, how would that be framed by US media? Yet in the US, this has been established legal reality for close to two decades and plenty of US Americans defend it like it's the most normal thing in the world due to their internalized "exceptionalism". [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

turtlesdown11 7y ago

>There's a reason the Panama Papers went away quietly despite the assassination of the human who exposed it. The human who exposed it is still anonymous. A journalist who wrote using the Panama Papers as a source was murdered, most likely by local Maltese exposed by the journalist. There has been $1B plus in taxes recovered as a result of the publication.

tw04 7y ago
>There has been $1B plus in taxes recovered as a result of the publication. How many people are in prison? How many middle class folks get by with a slap on the wrist for tax evasion?
- rswail 7y ago
  Most people that get caught for tax avoidance get punished civilly (fines etc). Corporates can't be put in prison and piercing that veil takes a lot of work. Getting the money disgorged is a good step.

mola 7y ago

> funding/promoting the Arab spring. Details? By whom? What for? Is this claim based on anything?