re: #352 kirkspencer

FWIW, the article doesn’t say that. Nor, as far as I can see, did KT.

In fact Ms. Brooks says she thinks that prosecution of leaders, of violation of sovereignty for protection, is on the whole a good thing.

The basic point she’s making is that it appears the powers of sovereignty are in the process of being minimized if not eliminated, and wonders what we (the world) are going to put in place. That she used a provocative sub-title, and justifies it by noting the first processes of ignoring sovereignty for situations other than war were driven by humanitarian objectives, is secondary.

I can’t read the article in full because it’s requiring a login that I don’t really want to provide. But if the author (or editor) is going to slap a needlessly provocative subtitle on the article, then they’re going to have a hard time getting me to accept that it’s anything beyond a grade-level analysis.

Once again, I think it’s obtuse to the point of willfulness to claim that, because human rights campaigners have pushed for cross-border prosecution of the leaders of abusing movements, we can blame those campaigners for the US practice of dressing up unprovoked assaults as self-defense on the basis of fraudulent evidence.