There's no need to shout. The revolution is not on a rigid time line, so we can talk it over. ALL allegiance to ALL governments is "provisional." If you have been though US armed forces basic training, you are taught the duty to disobey unlawful orders...but that you'd better be damned sure. This is the principle that the US created at Nuremberg, over the objections of both Stalin and Churchill. This idea of an international rule of law and "crimes against humanity" is very new, and the US was critical to the creation. Lest you consider me an imperialist capitalist dupe, I'm aware that this country has obstructed the progress of international human rights law at every turn since, most spectacularly when President Bush II "un-signed" President Clinton's agreement to the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court. I did not know he could do that, but without the votes in the Senate to ratify the treaty, whether we can "un-sign" is moot. Now, to make this criticism, I have to, in a sense, stand outside my US citizenship. If I were to view the US as likely to attack tribal nations and "finish the job," as it were, I would be standing inside my tribal citizenship....but no tribal governments are of that opinion, and I'm aware of no tribal government taking a position on the Rome Statute or relating it to the Indian wars. The connection is certainly there to be made; I'm just telling you nobody has yet made it. Governments are about policy. Individual Indians, whether sages or wingnuts, do not make policy, although they may influence it. The purpose of expressing political opinions in this forum is to participate in policy formation within and among tribal governments. It is the American Indian version of the NY Times editorial page. In light of that purpose, would you like to slow down, quit shouting, and suggest to the people who read this forum what policies they ought to entertain?
Saturday, September 15, 2012 - 22:31