The Rule of Law or the Rule of Force

May 15, 2007 07:35

It is being said about the US that "The Rule of Law has indeed collapsed in the United States. You can't have a PARTIAL Rule of Law." Which is important to Europeans n particular because, "They illustrate the fact, now forgotten in the decadent United States and Britain, that the Rule of Law was once backed up by force. Indeed, the Rule of Law came into being over time precisely as a SUBSTITUTE for the use of force, which by definition fundamentally represents the Law of the Jungle."

Law enforcement is that substitute for the rule of law. To the American mind, there can be no law without force. It is part of the mindset that justifies any means if the objective is good. Like saving the children from their religious parents.

The rumors from the foreign rulers are increasing.

On Monday, 7 May 2007 the Queen is rumored to have had terse words with the President regarding a financial scam and the lack of rule of law in America.

On Wednesday, May 9, 2007 "President Vladimir Putin of Russia obliquely compared the foreign policy of the United States to the Third Reich," a lawful tyranny, but the regime panicked and responded immediately.

A few days latter, on May 11, 2007 Bush issued "National Security Policy Directive 51 (NSPD1) and Homeland Security Policy Directive 20 (HSPD20)," which is essentially a bug out order.

For that reason we disagree with J. R. Nyquist's analysis that "Vladimir Putin can say whatever he likes. He can threaten a new Cold War. He can initiate an arms race. The American strategists will not suspect him of evil intentions. When New York is burning and fallout is killing everyone in Connecticut, the leadership of the United States will not suspect Putin of treachery."

Whether they are retreating because of Putin or potential domestic unrest is the question.


http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=5642323
http://www.worldreports.org/news/61_the_rule_of_law_vs._
http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/analysis.html