Home-grown non-state actors
So, regarding Hamadan v. US, if one of the several States (Alabama) calls up the unregulated Militia, and ships them to, oh I don't know, say France, or maybe Luxembourg or Tahiti, would they be treated any differently than if they went to the U.S. Territories of Puerto Rico or Guam? Would the Governor then be an international non-state actor like Hamadan or Bin Laden? Would Puerto Rico then become South Alabama?
What if Schwarzenegger sent the California Guard into, ummm, Mexico, for example, or if Montana invaded Canada? Not far, you understand, just far enough to secure the border and rename Tijuana to 'South San Diego Adjacent' and assert jurisdiction for taxation purposes over the drug cartels.
If Hamadan can come to the U.S. to wage war and receive the protection of the Geneva Convention, why can’t U.S. citizen William Walker and his army of volunteers secure a toehold in a foreign country and declare soveriegnty? Oh, because THAT foreign country doesn’t have a the same Constitution we do. Does International Law stop at the border or not?
Come on now, we're all asymmetrical here. If we're going to think outside the box, let's REALLY think outside the box. If a private company can equip an army and wage war under the protection of the Geneva Convention, why can't a separate State under the direction of the Governor, or the Nye County Sheriff?
What about you and me? Is a DBA good enough to separate us from the rabble of the common criminal? Remember when all the cowboys had to turn in their guns when they rode into Dodge City except for the guy riding shotgun on the Wells Fargo stagecoach? Was he exempt because he worked for a (big, important) company or was his gun protected as interstate transportaton under the 19th Century interpretation of the Commerce Clause? Do we need the wink-wink, nod-nod of the POTUS and Congress as quid-pro-quo for getting them all elected to become, harrumph, legitimate?
Does this decision promote Individual Rights, State’s Rights, Federalism or Internationalism? Will this 21st Century decision promote the End of the Era of Nation-States that operate under the Peace of Westphalia? That seems to me the direction the world is trending, and this decision plays in very nicely, thank you. “International Human Rights” are for suckers who play the game ‘lawfully’, i.e., not hard enough.
What if Schwarzenegger sent the California Guard into, ummm, Mexico, for example, or if Montana invaded Canada? Not far, you understand, just far enough to secure the border and rename Tijuana to 'South San Diego Adjacent' and assert jurisdiction for taxation purposes over the drug cartels.
If Hamadan can come to the U.S. to wage war and receive the protection of the Geneva Convention, why can’t U.S. citizen William Walker and his army of volunteers secure a toehold in a foreign country and declare soveriegnty? Oh, because THAT foreign country doesn’t have a the same Constitution we do. Does International Law stop at the border or not?
Come on now, we're all asymmetrical here. If we're going to think outside the box, let's REALLY think outside the box. If a private company can equip an army and wage war under the protection of the Geneva Convention, why can't a separate State under the direction of the Governor, or the Nye County Sheriff?
What about you and me? Is a DBA good enough to separate us from the rabble of the common criminal? Remember when all the cowboys had to turn in their guns when they rode into Dodge City except for the guy riding shotgun on the Wells Fargo stagecoach? Was he exempt because he worked for a (big, important) company or was his gun protected as interstate transportaton under the 19th Century interpretation of the Commerce Clause? Do we need the wink-wink, nod-nod of the POTUS and Congress as quid-pro-quo for getting them all elected to become, harrumph, legitimate?
Does this decision promote Individual Rights, State’s Rights, Federalism or Internationalism? Will this 21st Century decision promote the End of the Era of Nation-States that operate under the Peace of Westphalia? That seems to me the direction the world is trending, and this decision plays in very nicely, thank you. “International Human Rights” are for suckers who play the game ‘lawfully’, i.e., not hard enough.
Labels: GWOT
posted by Dewage | 10:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home