In any case brought before this court there is no defense attorney for the accused; in fact, there is no defense of any kind allowed. And if there is no defense then it follows that there can be no objections during any of the proceedings; that's exactly why the government of Pakistan, our supposedly ally in the "fight against the terrorists", as it vehemently objects to the continuous U.S. drone attacks in various parts of that country, is totally ignored and told that its objections are out of order and completely irrelevant.
But this government of Pakistan, which just happens to own a formidable arsenal of nuclear weapons, is still defying this court's decisions and keeps arguing that these drone attacks that are violating its airspace and borders and killing many innocent civilians, must be stopped. This government of Pakistan, seemingly very ignorant and uninformed of the special laws that the U.S. government has instituted in these matters, is making the case against itself that much more substantial and conclusive. But what's going to happen if that nation decides that the pervasive military actions can no longer be tolerated and it unleashes its own forces against them?
The members of the jury largely come from the Military-Industrial Complex, the Washington war hawks and neocons. Most of them are wealthy, sociopathic types, who relish the idea of endless war as a means to generate massive profits for themselves; Washington is infested with them; they love wars as long as others fight them and many of them have used every sort of educational deferment and other schemes in the past to evade service for their country in Vietnam and other wars. And that makes these facilitators of war perfect jurors who will, with no pangs of conscience, make their scripted decisions of guilty as charged.
The judge then announces the sentence to be carried out and that there will be no appeal of any kind considered. Then all these self-appointed officials of the court take their rest until the next case involving the next country is presented to them.
I remember the case that came up against Saddam Hussein and the nation of Iraq in the early years of this decade. The charges against this cruel dictator, that he had a massive cache of weapons of mass destruction and that he was getting ready to rain them down upon America, were absolutely without any factual evidence and should never have been initiated; but they were.
Sure, there were all sorts of witnesses to prove that those weapons did not exist, such as the UN inspectors who, after many years of searching in all corners of that country, found none. Their expert views were never considered and were dismissed as being without any merit or substance. Conversely, the huge number of government witnesses, war hawks, and neocons' testimony was judged as totally factual. The court found the defendants guilty as charged and the sentencing was carried out; an invasion, occupation and the oppression and suppression of the entire nation of Iraq with terrible consequences for millions of its people.
Then there are those independent, rational thinking experts of law in America, those who are not allowed inside this closed court, who have said that these cases should be tried and judged according to international law and the provisions of the United Nations Charter. But these persons are told that their views and opinions are not welcome, that they are irrelevant, that international laws have no jurisdiction in these cases, and so are totally inadmissible.
Is this the way to spread the doctrine of freedom and democracy and to establish peace throughout the world? I don't think so. The most powerful empires in history, most notably the Roman and the British, tried to force their doctrine and ideology on the world and failed. It seems as if each time a major empire was brought to an end, another one emerged soon after to exercise its power over the world. And so, the empire building goes on and on, but it can never be sustained.