Worrisome parallels appear to exist between the North American genocide and current events in Libya with regard to the clash of aboriginal tribalism with modernity sponsored and to a degree engineered and perhaps fabricated by imperialism. I say “appear to exist” rather than “do exist” for while I have reliable information establishing the fact and the means of the North American genocide the information available for Libya is bedeviled with propaganda. I neither have direct access to the parties on the ground nor a master of arts degree in the Libyan constitutional history and a law doctorate in the jurisprudence of the life and death struggle between constitutional democracy and imperialism there, although I do have that personal experience and professional qualification regarding North America.
Yesterday an article of mine, upon which I’d like to build here, was published as “The futility of political reform without judicial reform,” Reader Supported News, 6 September 2011, http://readersupportednews.org//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7328. Its point was that political arguments against the American empire substitute endless rhetoric for legal action that immediately is available and urgently needed if the war, genocide and possibly the ecocide of the planet is to be prevented in good time pursuant to the rule of (existing) law.
The critical fact is that the constitution of each of the ostensibly constitutional democracies comprising the empire already precludes those crimes against humankind and nature and, secondly, the principle of constitutional supremacy is already established as the foundation of constitutional democracy, its sine qua non.
What is needed is a court case in the United States Supreme Court that is counter-counterrevolutionary: i.e., 1776: 1st was the American revolution establishing constitutional democracy including protection for the sovereignty of the Indian tribes and foreign Nations ; 1871: 2nd was the judicial counterrevolution by obstructing and ignoring that protection in aid of replacing constitutional democracy with empire; 2011: 3rd can and hopefully will be the judicial counter-counterrevolution reinstating constitutional democracy by fulfilling the judicial duty imposed by the judicial oath of office to uphold the principle of constitutional supremacy upon which the existence of constitutional democracy is contingent.
Only the United States Supreme Court can perfect the counter-counterrevolution because that is where the critical counterrevolution occurred and Washington is the imperial center.
Once that particular court reestablishes that the constitution precludes the imperial war machine being put into the field except to repel an invasion by an Indian tribe or foreign Nation the constitution’s military officers will be true to their military code of honor. Each of them, the same as each politician and each judge as stipulated by article VI of the constitution, swears or affirms to uphold the principle of constitutional supremacy.
That principle is the sine qua non of constitutional democracy. When considered in conjunction with the article V amendment clause which requires that the People be informed, and do by a substantial majority consent to any modification of their constitution in order for the modification to be legal, constitutional supremacy establishes the exclusive nature of the People’s sovereignty. And that, by definition, is what constitutes constitutional democracy as opposed to mere representative democracy such as that of the United Kingdom whose parliament is not constitutionally restrained. See, W’Lawpsh, “Argument,” Might is Not Right, http://mightisnotright.org/.
I have no doubt each military officer presently and honestly albeit mistakenly believes that by being stationed abroad in peace time, by invading other nations other than in retaliation for invasion and by providing the means for revolutionary regime changes by violent force of arms, he or she is fulfilling their duty to serve and protect constitutional democracy’s fundamental principle of constitutional supremacy. The officers are mislead by the politicians’ and judges’ obstruction and ignoring of the amendment, commerce, defence and treaty clauses and their constitutive precedents.
In any event I personally do not have evidence that the military of the People any more than the People as a whole fully are informed and on that basis freely do consent to the fact the political and judicial branches are in dereliction of that same duty to uphold constitutional supremacy against all challenges, especially from themselves, because really the constitution and the empire is invulnerable to attacks from outside, a risk of which the framers of the constitution acutely were aware and took pains to forestall.
The court case to reinstate constitutional democracy need only present to the US Supreme Court the former constitutional democracy’s superior law precluding war other than in retaliation, along side the imperial politicians’ inferior laws initiating wars for commercial advantage and, having done that, ask for a declaration upholding the supremacy of the constitution by declaring the federal laws of non-defensive wars null and void for unconstitutionality.
The only difficulty is that the courts of the nations comprising the empire since 1871 willfully have obstructed and ignored court cases restricted to the constitutional question of jurisdictional law alone of Indian tribal and foreign National sovereignty.
The framers of the constitutions took into account the inevitability that politicians with great military power sooner or later exceed their restricted delegated jurisdiction and assume “plenary power” which is to say sovereignty over weak Indian tribes and foreign Nations.
The failsafe device addressing this risk was the creation of the Supreme Court of the United States and the delegation to it of independent and impartial third-party adjudicative jurisdiction over sovereignty disputes between the sovereign United States on the one hand, and on the other the equally sovereign Indian tribes and foreign Nations. Being a constitutional court as opposed to a federal or state court the Supreme Court has no master other than the constitution itself. That is what makes it a third party with regard to sovereignty disputes.
The framers provided for judicial review of political excess of jurisdiction by means of just such a judicial declaration of constitutional paramountcy over conflicting ordinary laws. Specifically, the constitution’s commerce, defence and treaty clauses jointly establish political jurisdiction to regulate trade with those other sovereign entities, to defend against war initiated by them, and otherwise to respect their sovereignty by dealing with them upon the basis of negotiated consent recorded by treaties.
Nonetheless ever since 1871 the political branch habitually has initiated war if and when weaker sovereignties refuse to be dictated to and the judicial branch has enabled this counterrevolution by obstructing and ignoring court cases that seek declarations of unconstitutionality by reason of this excess of delegated jurisdiction.
Political and judicial obstructing and ignoring is not an alternative to compliance with the constitution’s mandatory amendment clause which expressly and explicitly stipulates it is the only procedure capable of modifying the People’s terms of conditions of government. That is the meaning of the adage “government of, by and for the People.”
By obstructing and ignoring court cases based upon the question of constitutional jurisdiction to override the sovereignty of Indian tribes and foreign Nations the judicial branch intentionally permits the political branch to exceed the jurisdiction delegated to it by the People’s constitution and, in the course of the resulting imperial war, to commit the crime of genocide with impunity.
The reasonably foreseeable and probable consequence of the unconstitutional wars caused by the judicial obstruction and ignoring is not only genocide but in due course will be planetary ecocide if the commercial excess that is the purpose of the wars is not stopped in time. The cumbersome phrase “reasonable and probable consequence” is a term of legal art. For criminal law purposes a person is presumed to intend the “reasonable and probable consequences” of his acts. A person who commits a criminal act such as for example putting deadly poison in another’s drink is presumed without further proof by the prosecution to have had a guilty intent. It is the conjunction of the guilty act and the guilty intent that rebuts the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
While the judicial obstruction and ignoring is prima facie criminal for breach of the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948, the purpose of the test case brought by the Mahican and Mi’kmaq tribes is not punishment pursuant to a criminal law prosecution. Their test case is a civil law proceeding designed to prevent genocide.
It is quite simple really: if the judges will address the constitutional question of the war power vis-à-vis Indian tribes and foreign Nations, since the constitution is so unequivocal and mandatory it is certain the judges will declare the Appropriations Act, 1871, and the War Powers Act, 1973, null and void by reason of their conflict with the amendment, commerce, defence and treaty clauses as settled by the constitutionally constitutive precedents.
That counter-counterrevolutionary declaration by reinstating constitutional democracy will stop future imperial wars from happening and, correspondingly, prevent the genocide that is the reasonably foreseeable and probable consequence of such wars.
Not only is punishment beside the point but neither do the Mahican and Mi’kmaq suitors seek money damages for the deaths and serious bodily and mental harm done to ancestors. To do so obscenely would be to seek to profit from the death and torture of others. This generation only wants to stop the horror for the future on behalf of their own people and other potential victims including the planet itself.
Today I read the article by Nil Nikandrov, “Revolt in Libya: A Message to Chávez,” Voltaire Network, http://www.voltairenet.org/Revolt-In-Libya-a-Message-to.
In part, it elaborates upon the strategy adopted to this juncture by Venezuela of relocating its oil revenue assets outside of imperial control. Libya started down the same path but too late and it remains to be seen whether Venezuela’s defensive strategy is capable of greater success.
To the old-way indigenous people of North America current events in Libya are reminiscent of the war and genocide inflicted against them by means of the divide and conquer coups staged by the European nations and their successors the governments of the United States and Canada over the past 519 years.
The Indians’ tribal lands have been invaded and occupied; their sovereignty usurped; and their peoples dispossessed, ostensibly with the intent of saving their souls and extending peace, order and good government under the auspices of constitutional democracy and the rule of law, pursuant to what now is called the R2P or responsibility to protect doctrine, formerly known as the white man’s burden.
Those natives historically who collaborated and do still collaborate with the invaders do so for hope of advantage and fear of prejudice, i.e., for federal money, sinecures and privileges (such as the obscene Indian casino industry) and also to avoid being killed or oppressed unto self destruction.
The old-way indigenous peoples are the constitutional Indians who resist the unconstitutional federal law and in consequence pursuant to it are made victims of these latter years of the half millennium of war and genocide. The federal law Indians of the United States and Canada are the collaborators and co-perpetrators.
It has always been thus and always will be for this is the hallmark of the phenomenon of imperialism. E.g., Libyan Tribal Council, “Manifesto of the Libyan Tribal Council of 26 July 2011: The war promoted by western leaders is condemned by 200 Libyan tribes,” Voltaire Network, Tripoli, Libya, http://www.voltairenet.org/Manifesto-of-the-Libyan-Tribal, 25 August 2011. The message is the same as that given so futilely by the constitutional North American tribes with regard to the federal law puppet governments established by the United States and Canada to aid and abet the genocide in the modern era subsequent to 1871 and, for this reason, the article is quoted here in full.
The genocide-by-chicanery technique perfected in North America plainly is being applied there. As witness:
“By this letter to the extraordinary African Summit, convening in Addis Ababa, the notables of the Eastern tribes of the Great Jamahiriya confirm their complete rejection of what is called the Transitional Council in Benghazi which hasn’t been nominated nor elected by Tribal representatives but rather imposed by NATO.
“What is called the Transitional Council in Benghazi was imposed by NATO on us and we completely reject it. Is it democracy to impose people with armed power on the people of Benghazi, many of whose leaders are not even Libyan or from Libyan tribes but come from Tunisia and other countries?”
“The Trial Council assures its continuing cooperation with the African Union in its suggestions aimed at helping to prevent the aggression on the Libyan people…”
“The Tribal Council condemns the crusader aggression on the Great Jamahiriya executed by the NATO and the Arabic regressive forces which is a grave threat to Libyan civilians as it continues to kill them as NATO bombs civilian targets.…”
“We do not and will not accept any authority other than the authority that we chose with our free will which is the People’s Congress and Peoples Committees, and the popular social leadership, and will oppose with all available means, the NATO rebels and their slaughter, violence and maiming of cadavers. We intend to oppose with all the means available to us the NATO crusader aggressors and their appointed lackeys.”
“According to one representative of the Libyan Supreme Tribal Council, “The tribes of Libya have until today not fully joined in repelling the NATO aggressors.”
“As we do, we serve notice to NATO that we shall not desist until they have left our country and we will ensure that they never return.”
Reading that manifesto makes an old-way adherent of the tribal sovereignty system in North America very suspicious of the news reports concerning what is really happening in Libya when the reports say the purpose of NATO’s involvement is to introduce constitutional democracy under the rule of law to that country, because that was said of the genocidal eradication of the tribes here.
Tribalism all too often is confused with hereditary systems that inherently are undemocratic, at least in the political discourse promoted by the North American media and by the governments of Canada, the United States, England and France. The people of those countries, their military and that of their NATO allies take for granted that making war against tribes is good not only for the west but for the tribes themselves. They assume it lifts them out of the dark ages, brings them enlightenment and the rule of law. Anthropologists know better but no one pays attention to them other than other anthropologists.
This conventional wisdom certainly is wrong regarding the tribes of North America and may be wrong regarding tribes elsewhere. The parties promoting the misconception know better because they are more fully informed than the average person who takes news reports and government propaganda at face value even though they know governments rarely tell the truth unless caught out in the lie and not even then in most cases as the liars just wait out the minor interest raised by the occasional exposé of lies.
Exposés of government and business or finance industry lying are mundane, no longer big news that changes governments or modifies media circulation figures or advertising revenue.
The truth about tribal peoples was learned by the early imperialists engaged in the European invasion of the Americas. For example, the Colonial Office of the British Privy Council had a long and intimate experience of the actual state of affairs among the Indian nations or tribes of North America. Upon the basis of this, the Direction of the King delivered by the Lords of Trade to Sir William Johnson, Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Northern District of North America, and dated 10 July 1764 (E.B. O’Callaghan et al., eds., Documents relative to the Colonial History of New York, 15 Vols., Albany, 1856-83, 7:634) instructed, “a steady and uniform attachment to, and love of Justice and Equity is one of their first principles of Government.”
Tribal government in North America was and to the extent it survives still is the most perfect form of direct and pure democracy known to humankind. There were no leaders with jurisdiction to dictate to the indigenous people here. There was no word for “chief” with a meaning analogous to that English word. However there were many words for the different offices of persons charged with the responsibility of serving different aspects of the peoples’ needs. In the Algonkian language of northeastern North American the word for the spokesperson who carries out the peoples’ instructions about what to say to the European newcomers was ogima, sagimaw or sachem and so on, all being part of the linguistic chain that ranged northwards up the Atlantic coast and swept north and west over the Great Lakes to the Rocky Mountains.
That is why the Royal Proclamation of 1763 (UK) enacted regarding the treaties whereby the Crown could in accordance with colonial constitutional law legally acquire territorial jurisdiction and possession from the sovereign tribes:
“We do with the Advice of our Privy Council strictly enjoin and require that no private Person do presume to make any purchase from the said Indians of any Lands reserved to the said Indians within those parts of our Colonies where We have thought proper to allow Settlement but that. if at any Time any of the Said Indians should be inclined to dispose of the said Lands the same shall be Purchased only for Us in our Name at some public Meeting or Assembly of the said Indians to be held for that Purpose by the Governor or Commander in Chief of our Colony respectively within which they shall lie.”
Indian “chiefs” had no jurisdiction under either Indian law or colonial law to sell the aboriginals’ land or any aspect of it out from under the Indian people. There were no dictators. Maybe the tribes of Libya are the same in this regard as the tribes of northeastern North America.
And, in contrast with the discovering European governments that in virtue of their discovery acquired the sole jurisdiction as against the others to negotiate with the tribes for the acquisition of jurisdiction and possession, the tribal governments were not and are not pathological liars. There is a reason that is so. It is tied in with the totem system which constituted the basis for the tripartite adjudication process that regulated and regulates all aspects of all public meetings of the people, meeting all the people at which every person has the right to be heard and the duty to listen with respect. Two totems argued an issue back and forth until they came to consensus on the true way based upon the traditional laws applied to the evidence of the relevant facts. Then, that decision was turned over to a third totem group which debated whether the absolute truth had been the basis for the decision. If so, the decision was ratified as unanimous. If not the issue was handed back to the first two for reconsideration in the light of the concerns identified by the third, and so on until the truth was ascertained as objectively as possible in human affairs. Maybe the tribes of Libya are the same.
The evidence indicates that Euro-American representative democracy based upon simple majority vote is not nearly so punctilious concerning either the views of all the people or fidelity to truth. Rather it is by nature both dictatorial and opportunistic. Under it an individual person is largely irrelevant unless he is very rich, powerfully connected and male. The two party system does not serve nearly so adequately as the aboriginal tripartite system “justice” (as the application of truth to affairs) within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States of America:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
In 1760 many of the tribes of northeastern North America united and designated a spokesperson named Pontiac as coordinator of the defence of this part of the world against the British empire and for a time achieved a significant measure of military success. Pontiac and others like him over the ages were demonized with names like today’s all purpose word terrorist (“merciless savages” in the Declaration of Independence) even though in truth they had not invaded but were defending against invaders.
The Indians’ territorial defence coordinated by Pontiac regarding their lands not ceded by treaties in accordance with the colonial constitutional law ultimately was unsuccessful because tribal peoples who live directly from the lands and waters as hunter-gatherers and fishing peoples cannot win wars of attrition against industrial powers.
Maybe Libya is the same. Maybe Kaddafi is more like Pontiac as a tribal spokesperson than a dictator like the monarch of Saudi Arabia or any of the myriad other dictators put and kept in power round the world to suppress direct democracy and popular struggles for the same values as those identified by the American constitution. It is hard to tell since the imperial governments, the elites they serve, and the judicial branch that obstructs and ignores the constitution, and the rich who own the media are one. Imperialism preempts truth when it is not opportune because if it didn’t it couldn’t do what imperialism by its very nature and character does: grow by means of war and the threat of war as against those who decline to be bought.
The collaborating federal law Indians of North America call themselves First Nations and Tribal Councils though they are neither and the delegated jurisdiction they exercise as glorified municipalities allows them to enact dog bylaws and garbage collection, subject to disallowance at the discretion of the federal government. Their chiefs and elected councils are petty dictators in terms of dispensing the federal benefits and privileges to the families members of those in office at any given time and these perquisites, though less substantial than the rewards monarchs and dictators put and kept in power elsewhere in the world, are in essence bribes for suppressing the people in return for the imperial rape of the peoples’ environment.
In sum, the phenomenon of the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer is the experience of the tribal peoples inflicted by coups instigated, armed, paid for and logistically directed if not directly fought by imperialist NATO and its agent the United Nations.
Maybe it is the same with Libya. Maybe the revolting persons are opportunists, chancers like the collaborating federal Indians whose leadership aids and abets the genocide of their own people, for profit and position.
The genius of the American empire consists in the beguiling success of its propaganda and the brilliant technological progress of its science. The propaganda has modified the mindset of humankind in virtue of the global conversion of consciousness from the certainty that all creation is a single self, into modernity’s diametrically opposed consciousness where each individual knows himself to be a separate self whose gratification is the meaning of life.
The science puts the empire on the brink of achieving fusion power so long, at least, as the global oil supplies controlled by the empire aren’t exhausted before fusion comes online. With fusion power the empire can eliminate competitors for the other resources needed to satisfy its unlimited wants, because that revolutionary source of power is inexhaustible, clean, cheap and self generating in perpetuity. Nuclear weaponry is to fusion weaponry as sticks and stones are to guns. Michio Kaku, Physics of the Future: How science will shape human destiny and our daily lives by the year 2100; Knopf Doubleday PG, 2011.
The existential challenge facing all peoples, therefore, is to identify the means whereby the empire can be re-converted back to a set of constitutional democracies.
Here follows the specific means.
The great maritime powers of Europe in the Americas—France, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain and United Kingdom—established the “discovery doctrine” that originated the constitutional law much later codified by the commerce, defence and treaty clauses of the United States’ constitution which itself in turn became the model for each of those European nations and, in due course, was reiterated as the basis for modern international law and global human rights law.
A very long and consistent series of court cases, from 1789 when the US constitution was adopted to 1871 when it was abrogated, settled this as being the state of the supreme law. Furthermore, this same law was applicable to foreign Nations no less and no more than to the Indian tribes.
The only thing that could alter that supreme law would be compliance with the amendment clause, that being the clause specifically reserving to the People the exclusive power of enlarging, diminishing or reapportioning the jurisdiction of each branch of the People’s government: legislative, executive and judicial. No such repeal has been enacted and none is being proposed in so far at least as the sovereignty of Indian tribes and foreign Nations is concerned, as that sovereignty is protected and guaranteed as aforesaid by the commerce, defence and treaty clauses and their constitutive precedents.
In 1871 the US Congress enacted ordinary legislation, as opposed to processing a constitutional amendment, which ordinary legislation unconstitutionally pretended to repeal the constitution’s treaty clause. It ordered the President not to make and the Senate not to ratify any more treaties with Indian tribes for the consensual acquisition by the United States of the tribes’ territorial sovereignty and possession. Congress then incorporated municipal councils under federal law to serve as puppet Indian quasi-national governments and paid them to aid and abet in the genocidal eradication of the old-way sovereign tribal governments and their adherents.
In 1973 the War Powers Act unconstitutionally enacted the President can declare an emergency if he or she thinks a foreign Nation threatens the economy and, upon the basis of such declaration, forthwith can initiate preemptive war to dispose of the threat, thusly putting the rest of the world in the same position as the Indians.
There is a test court case presently in limbo that brings all this to a head. It is in limbo because the Clerk of the US Supreme Court simply sends back the documents commencing it on the ground the ordinary federal law preempts consideration of constitutional law that renders the ordinary law null and void for prima facie and blatant non-compliance with the constitutions’ amendment, commerce, defence and treaty clauses and their voluminous constitutive interpretive precedents. This is an instance of the historical pattern of obstruction and ignoring of the critical constitutional question of jurisdictional law alone of Indian tribal sovereignty and, by necessary implication, of the sovereignty also of foreign Nations.
The conflict of laws to which the test case is restricted directly puts in issue the conflict between the constitution protecting Indian tribal sovereignty and the 1871 statute of Congress abrogating it and, indirectly, between the constitution protecting foreign national sovereignty and the 1973 statute of Congress abrogating it. Libya has been invaded and occupied under the auspices of the latter much the same, from all that appears, as the territory of the Mahican and Mi’kmaq tribes who complain of the war and genocide in the test case.
The Indian case genuinely is irrebutable as a matter of law alone. That is the reason the judicial branch engages in genocidal chicanery to evade it. The case contains no arguable error of law capable of being identified. The case does not present a controversy. It presents a previously settled issue and seeks confirmation of the previous settlement in circumstances where, in the absence of a duly processed constitutional amendment, by definition of the principle of constitutional supremacy there can be no arguable dispute.
Since the case is in limbo relative to the US Supreme Court the only available legal solution is to go to the counterpart courts of France, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain and United Kingdom and ask them to prevent the genocide-in-progress by reading their own constitutional law and, upon that basis, to declare that the US Supreme Court should address the constitutional question in order to prevent the genocide otherwise attributable to obstructing and ignoring it. The Mahican and Mi’kmaq complainants in the test case are those tribes’ old-way governments and the named public ministers individually are the only governments and officials recognized at constitutional law.
As such they have neither the money nor the contacts to permit them to go to Europe and deal with the courts there precisely because their capital, namely the land and its resources, have been stolen from them in the course of the war and genocide inflicted and being inflicted against tribalism in North America under the auspices of the unconstitutional federal law.
Accordingly they need a measure of help to take their case out of the limbo into which the criminal obstruction of the US Supreme Court Clerk has cast it. This is all spelled out in detail in the above mentioned Mahican and Mi’kmaq tribes, “Argument,” Might is Not Right, http://mightisnotright.org/.
Please examine it with care. Criticism is welcome with regard to the law presented although not with the regard to the political phenomenon of whether imperialist war and genocide is a good thing. The constitution precludes it and for that reason whether it is good or bad from a political perspective is not legally arguable, other than in relation to a constitutional amendment pursuant to the Article V amendment clause.
I went to Venezuela three years ago to try to get Chávez to help with the legal avenue, in view of the things he is reported to have said about liberty, equality and fraternity and so on, including especially about the rights of indigenous peoples in his own country and round the world. What I found not only in Venezuela but throughout South and Central America is that, political rhetoric aside, the feeling is that since North Americans got rich confiscating the Indians’ capital now it is Latin America’s turn. And it is a hypocritical double standard for anyone in North America or Europe to presume to criticize Latin America for its treatment of Indians and their lands.
In short the global capitalist system is built upon stolen capital and nobody anywhere in power is willing even to contemplate addressing the constitutional law that indicts the theft. In consequence, nowhere in the world does constitutional democracy under the rule of law actually exist. And that is the death knell for the peoples of the earth and the earth itself for only constitutional democracy under the rule of law can establish peace, welfare and justice in time to save us from the ravages and vicious selfishness of imperialism.
All it will take is for one court to free the truth and the others, seeing it set free, will uphold their oaths rather than be seen unequivocally, notoriously and genocidally to be in breach.
No case before this test case has attempted to bracket the several national courts of the constituents of an empire upon the basis of the common constitutional position that links them.
Never before has there been a stepping stone precedent available like the decision of US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas who in 2004 held the 1871 ordinary legislation was prima facie unconstitutional instead of obstructing and ignoring the constitutional question, and he invited the question back into his Court.
Nor has there ever been a precedent available like that of Spain’s constitutional court which in 2005 declared the principle of the universal extraterritorial jurisdiction of all courts to enforce the genocide convention when it appears the courts of the country where the genocide is occurring are letting it happen by judicial inactivity :obstructing or ignoring it.
Finally no other case has been prepared over a forty year period like this test case wherein every conceivable alternative remedy in the North American courts and the international courts has been exhausted in both the civil and criminal law contexts. This test case is the final stone left unturned.
And it is unfair and unjust to conclude the rule of law is a failure unless and until it has been given every opportunity to function. Certainly discouragement with the rule of law is justified but giving up on it while a reasonable chance it can be made to work still exists, is not.
As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “Truth is the summit of being: justice is the application of it to affairs…; and whatever instances can be quoted of unpunished theft, or of a lie which somebody has credited, justice must prevail, and it is the privilege of truth to make itself believed.”