re: #391 iossarian

OK, so I read that argument as:

“Because human rights campaigners pushed for the use of force against leaders of abusing movements, irresponsible governments have been able to use the legal apparatus in place as cover for unprovoked assaults. Therefore, blame human rights campaigners for these unprovoked assaults.”

Is that about it?

No. That last sentence should be, “Therefore, blame human rights campaigners for the mechanism by which these unprovoked assaults are justified.”

You seem to be straining at the subtitle. It seems to be provoking the same sort of behavior KT shows when “Occupy” is mentioned. I’m tired of defending an article you haven’t read, that I didn’t write, against attacks that claim it is saying what it doesn’t say.

It is an article that lays out the fact that sovereignty as we understand it is going away, that the primary cause of this is the humanitarian actions that allow intervention, and that the Bush and Obama administrations have been using the language underlying that to allow their drone actions. She concludes by wondering what we will wind up putting in place given this erosion of the principle of sovereignty.

That’s it. It uses a provocative sub-title for the same reason most people do so - as a tool to draw in readers, with a passing relation to accurate reflection of what’s in the article.

And the claim of the article, which has basis in truth whether liked or not, is that because the law has been weakened the actions are ‘legal’ — and the people who weakened those laws were not the war-mongers.