The question of the legal right to condemn a government, flank civil rights and equal protection of the law for some may seem disparate concepts, yet in the progress or digress of political time people may wonder how the laws are applied historically. Is the purpose to establish clearly manifest conventional criteria or to allow the will of the stronger to prevail?
The first Bush administration sought U.N. support for its Gulf War and found solid legal grounds to deploy troops in Kuwait at the request of the legitimate Kuwaiti government instead of that of the invading military authority of Sadam Hussein. The second Bush administration sought U.N. approval to wage war upon Kuwait and falling a little short of that-just a little-formed a 'coalition of the willing to wage war upon Iraq.
The Obama administration has given loud public support toward overthrow of the lawful Syrian government-so how does that work ethically? Is that consistent with rule of law?
One would think that U.N. approval for removal of a lawful government should occur at some level before the U.S. government decides to support the overthrow of one. At least that is one approach. Another way might be to go before a World Court and win a judgment to overthrow and incorrigible regime. Falling short of that it might be possible to have a trial and get a judgment to remove a corrupt political leader yet leave the government intact.
In some respects it seems that the informal, unlawful approach to supporting regime change produces inconsistent and difficult to support results for many Americans. Though the broadcast media is plainly in support of regime change in Syria, the U.S. government ought to withhold further recognition of unlawful combatants and unlawful governments as the new revolutionary legitimate government simply because the U.S. finds the new government a moral improvement over the old. The consequences of that are emergent in Egypt and have yet to be determined in Libya.
The American left along with the European left and even the Tudeh-communist party of Iran-supported the revolutionary movement of the Ayatollah Khomeini in the belief that getting rid of the government of the Shah was of overriding value. Of course the communist party was subsequently purged by the fundamentalist a.s.a.p. The new left seems to be seeking the same results in 'the Arab spring' movements. So I wonder where that will lead if not in the same direction.
One may believe that for the American left homosexual empowerment is the most important element of 'civil rights' in which they equate themselves with black slaves and freedom marchers. In Africa it might be difficult to persuade Islamists that homosexuals are the moral equivalent of repressed blacks. It might be difficult to persuade Islamists that homosexual marriage ought to be made legal in a society in which one husband can have four wives. Arab societies may have trouble supporting the concept socially that one bull homosexual should have four fem-homosexual 'wives' though Obama administration supporters might like that.
After the Obama administration is successful in removing the Assad government and creating a new Lebanon chaos in that region, will it logically follow up its effort to organize democracy inn the Middle East and support overthrow of the Jordan monarchy to rid the region of the Hashemite Government once and for all that was long ago a rival to the Saudi Government for rulership of Saudi Arabia?
The jewel in the crown for liberation leading to a snowfall of democracy in hell lasting for an hour or two would be Saudi Arabia itself. A long range goal perhaps yet a nation crying out for the egalitarianism of fundamentalist Islam-at least that appears to be the logical criteria of what fundamentally works amidst people of moderate to poor incomes living in the hotter regions of the planet.
The administration did come out in support of the no-right-to-work position in Michigan recently that would only allow duess paying members of a Democrat part supporting union work for the Michigan government-something like requiring that only dies paying communist party members could work for the Soviet Union, and that seems a flgrant violation of the concept of a government for, of and by the people wiithout requiring does-paying allegiance to anyone.
The prosperous do seem to have a bent point of view of civil rights though now and then fundamentally failing to understand that civl rights are real as well as abstract. Equal protection of the law has a purpose-to let a citizen be secure in job opportunity, security and business negotiation on an equal basis with everyone else that is a citizen of the United States. Letting illegal aliens into the U.S.A. to work comprises the largest and most egregious violation of civil rights doing harm to the poor of the U.S.A. today. Illegal workers benefit the people they work for and displace the economic, social and lifestyle equal rights of the poor through their illegal entry that civil rights are supposed to protect.
With a Democrat Party moving more toward developing areas of historically traditional decadence such as legalized marijuana and homosexual marriage the existential live-for-the-moment arrogance of the amoral lets much practical public interest structuring go to hell. In 30 years when Asians surpass the United States economically and perhaps militarily as leftist propagandists proudly prophesied recently, perhaps the corrections of different forms of more disciplined fundamentalism will remove U.S. concerns about decadence or global warming. Its difficult to say. Its also difficult to discern what the logic of legal consistency is of the Obama administration.
