Time For A Veto, Methinks

The author G. K. Chesterton had a lot to say about the question of whether or not a bystander who witnesses a crime but does nothing should be considered guilty. As the world watches the rape of Iraq and the fascist takeover of the USA, some of the most vocal critics are now about to fall silent and do nothing, just when their actions, as well as their voices, are needed most. In UN-speak, it's called "abstaining".

As the BBC is reporting, the USA is now demanding war crimes immunity for all its soldiers in Iraq. "Aunty" (to use the old slang name for the BBC) is still recovering from institutionalized rape herself, which is perhaps why she writes so delicately:

"The US is seeking to renew the immunity from prosecution enjoyed by American peacekeepers, with a resolution before the UN Security Council."

Um... "Peacekeepers"???? I haven't heard them called anything like that in a long while.

Let us hope that China, Russia or - more likely? - France has the balls to VETO any such putrid UN resolution.

And let us pity the poor staff writers at the BBC who have to choose their words so carefully these days. There must be a heck of a lot of arguments on the news floor these days. At least the journalist was allowed to leave this little gem of a point in his or her story:

"Washington negotiated special dispensation when the International Criminal Court came into being two years ago, arguing that as the world's only superpower, it might be subject to spurious or malicious prosecutions. The US secured the UN's agreement by threatening to veto all its peacekeeping operations. "