What Lies In Store For Bush

The moment Bush II exits the White House and leaves us all to confront the deluge he has helped sow, his legal immunity will descend a notch and leave him open to criminal prosecution, something he should consider before preparing to settle back into his hollow life of unreflective ease. I predict that Bush and his perpetual Secret-Service detail will step gingerly before traveling abroad, if they ever do so again.

International law bestows a generous immunity (rationae personae) on sitting heads of state that shields them from virtually any prosecution imaginable. However, former heads of state receive a much more limited immunity (rationae materiae) that covers only their "official acts" while in office, and unfortunately for Bush, most countries regard torture as falling outside a government's legitimate, official acts. Such was the reasoning of the British House of Lords when concluding that former Chilean strongman Augusto Pinochet lacked immunity for ordering torture, and such will be the reasoning of several nations itching to arrest Bush and thereby establish yet another precedent to prop up the New World Order (which, ironically, Bush's daddy heralded). When you add aggressive warfare (crimes against the peace) to the torture of enemy combatants and civilians (war crimes and crimes against humanity), you have achieved the Nuremberg trifecta over which international lawyers salivate.

I relish the image of Canadian mounties squaring off against feds in reflective sunglasses, although that type of confrontation might not last very long. At a bare minimum, though, Bush will be forced to consider the consequences of his actions -- something he shows no indication of having done in his entire life.

UPDATE:

It was callous of me not to mention that a town in Vermont has begun considering whether to indict Bush and Cheney. My admiration for this turn of events is two-fold: first, because Bush's and Cheney's conduct cries out for a criminal inquiry; and second, because Vermont has once again staked a claim to its sovereign independence.

United States Government Recognizes Legitimacy Of Secession!

The debate is over, folks. The Tumor has publicly admitted that communities have a right to secede from larger political entities. Kosovo is free at last from Serbia!

Of course, there never was much of a debate to begin with, since the right of secession has been commemorated on several prominent occasions, such as our own secession from the British Empire; Latin America's secession from Spain and Portugal; Virginia's, Rhode Island's, and New York's ratifications of the Constitution (reserving the right to secede); the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution (permitting States to do anything not expressly prohibited to them, nor reserved to the Tumor); and the doctrine of national self-determination as enunciated in the International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights and the International Covenant On Economic, Social, And Cultural Rights.

Up until now, all the Tumor could assert against secession was violence, specifically to the tune of 600,000 corpses and countless mutilations accumulated from 1861 to 1865. It's never too late to admit you were wrong, and I'm glad to learn that the Tumor has finally embraced at least one undeniable truth.

Secession Gains Traction

I just stumbled on an excellent article describing the Vermont secessionist movement, whose link appears on this very page, and which appears to be drawing more interest in secession than any other time in recent memory.

The sentiments expressed echo many of my own, especially with regard to the corporate-political complex that rules over us in a manner that highly resembles fascism: the continuation of private property, yet under the management and control of a select few. (My preferred term is "oligarchy" in that we are controlled by a few who are certainly not the best among us, which would be an "aristocracy"). Another accurate observation in the article is our culture's collapse under the weight of rampant narcissism, consumerism, and conformity (masquerading as individualism, but nothing more than libertinism). Such collapse is both the cause and the effect of government gone out of control, leaving us with a simple choice: bid farewell to the Tumor, or bid farewell to America.

Elections vs. Pro-Wrestling: Which Is More Authentic?

It's been some time since I've posted -- the life of a lawyer may be dull, but it can simultaneously be eventful.

In one of my rare free moments lately, I was surfing through the television channels and caught glimpses of two events that might seem to have nothing in common: the "Super Tuesday" primaries, and ECW wrestling. After all, one might say, the first of these concerns the governance of the most powerful nation in history, while the second is shallow entertainment. But I ask you, can you honestly ascribe the following characteristics to only one of those two events?

• Hyperbolic and inane commentary

• Absence of critical thought

• Crazed mobs

• Trash talk

• A pre-determined outcome

Try as I might, I cannot shake the conclusion that the elections carry no greater meaning or authenticity than scripted wrestling does. They are both shallow entertainment, microwaved and served up for a nation bereft of citizens and brimming with consumers. Anyone attempting to inject sanity or reality into the proceedings will be swiftly discarded. Watching Ron Paul speak truth at the "debates" resembled the awkwardness of introducing a true wrestler into a WWE matchup -- imagine the fans' horror upon seeing their somersaulting heroes grappled into submission! Paul accomplished this many times over, despite the best efforts of the media to neutralize him with infrequent and impertinent questions, and Americans cannot forgive him for it. The real inspires a modern American far less than the fake ever can. (It amazes me that Ron Paul didn't figure this out after decades of futility on Capitol Hill).

Most important of all is the fact that no matter which particular candidate/wrestler emerges victorious, the company always wins, and the great mass of consumers always comes back for more. The results of this year's spectacle confirm the triumph of farce: Hillary or Obama against McCain? I can only imagine all the exciting changes that await us: higher taxes; higher spending; porous borders; more federal control; less local control; another presidential war somewhere far away; another Justice Ginsburg or Justice Souter. The media doyens are positively gushing that their handpicked favorites rule the field, having shouldered aside the ruffians who thought that the Internet could break the establishment's iron grip on opinion-making.

As the spectacle unfolds, I sit back and marvel at the silliness of it all. Those of us who value the rule of law have been written off and banished from the prevailing discourse. My recommendation has always been, and continues to be, that we regard the mainstream political enterprise for what it is -- a complete joke.