Evidently, a person (or persons) unknown has posted something on-line that purports to be a "final order" concerning me from New Jersey's Consumer Protection Agency. Since I have not set foot in New Jersey -- except to visit family members -- for more than ten years, I assume that the posting of this document is yet more lies or insults from Mr. McGill and the OAE.
I have reason to believe that Mr. McGill advised persons to pursue such actions against me from before the first grievances were solicited and/or paid-for against me. Hence, I will simply ignore all bogus documents and insults from Trenton and rise to higher ground. To the best of my knowledge, I have never received any pleadings or documents from such an agency in Trenton.
New Jersey has many new problems. Besides the mysterious fires throughout the state and continuing sabotage in courtrooms, there are new arrests in Bergen and Hudson Counties about which I plan to write at greater length very soon. These scandals include the arrest of Mr. Ferreiro, former Democrat Party Chairman and legal ethics committee member involved in efforts to target me, allegedly, perhaps at the request of Mr. Menendez. Mr. Ferreiro is said to be involved in a fraud case concerning $1.7 MILLION. Also, new corruption allegations are engulfing the Christie administration. The Garden State may be a lost cause and certainly humiliates America. ("Law and Ethics in the Soprano State.")
Steven Lee Meyers, "As Obama Pauses Action, Putin Takes Center Stage: For Russians, Series of Goals Achieved," The New York Times, September 12, 2013, p. A1.
Peter Baker, "A Rare Public View of Pivots on Policy," The New York Times, September 12, 2013, p. A1.
"Diplomacy as Deterrent," (Editorial) The New York Times, September 12, 2013, p. A30.
"More Mistakes at the N.S.A.," (Editorial) The New York Times, September 12, 2013, p. A30.
Vladimir Putin, "A Plea For Caution From Russia," (Op-Ed) The New York Times, September 12, 2013, p. A31.
It is difficult to dispute that the biggest winner in the recent Syrian/U.S. crisis was neither President Obama nor Mr. Assad (nevertheless, Mr. Assad has probably benefitted from the exchange), but President Vladimir Putin of Russia.
Mr. Putin has "outslicked" Mr. Obama, like Johnny Cochran dancing around flat-footed prosecutors in the O.J. Simpson case. Part of the reason why Mr. Putin has been the global winner is that he has shrewdly "capitalized" on international perceptions and fears surrounding U.S. actions over the past ten years, or more.
After 9/11, America's National Security State (NSS) has turned away from the obligations, discipline, and restraints of international law to engage in covert and overt wars in many countries in pursuit of Al Qaeda and something described only as "terror." Al Qaeda has morphed and spread all over the world. Terror -- like rich and poor people -- is always with us. We can expect decades of continued fighting in the "War on Terror."
Among the changes that Americans have witnessed from their government are heinous violations of privacy, surveillance, monitoring of individuals within the U.S. and in many parts of the world, including Russia, and monitoring of everyone writing on-line. (My first effort to type this text was interrupted by hackers forcing me to retype the work in its entirety.)
Massive killings of innocent civilians have resulted from U.S. impositions of "soft" and "hard" power throughout the world; drone killings of thousands; detentions without trials; tortures; targeted asassinations, and worse.
Is the world and are Americans safer as a result of these policies? Probably not. The opposite may be true.
The U.S. is identified by millions of persons in Europe and throughout the world as the greatest threat to world peace on the planet. This is far from how Americans see their government. Mr. Putin probably enjoys MORE popularity and respect in the world than Mr. Obama at the moment.
Even if this reality seems bizarre or insane to Americans, I believe that we need to understand why people feel this way and what Mr. Putin is articulating for millions of persons in his recent Op-Ed piece in The New York Times.
In response to Mr. Putin's essay, I focus only on three points. I will not bother to quote or respond to insults or any kind of ad hominem attacks against Mr. Putin (or myself), insults are irrelevant to the merits of what is said and/or to my quest for the truth and justice from New Jersey: 1) First, I will examine the U.S./Russia disagreement concerning the nature of the dispute in Syria; 2) next I turn to questions of international law; then 3) I will close with a discussion of American "exceptionalism."
The concept of "exceptionalism" is understood in radically different ways by Americans as compared with most others in the world. Discussions by officials, such as Mr. Kerry and his Russian counterpart, or diplomats from other countries, are almost comical (to me) because of the lack of a "meeting of minds" due to diametrically opposed definitions and logical usages for the idea of "exceptionalism."
The vast literature concerning the logic of concepts and entailments should be noted. Mr. Putin's frequent references to "logic" together with his respect for mathematical rationalism combined with pragmatism should not be underestimated. This text was not significantly ghosted by anyone. I detect the tone of Mr. Putin's thinking and terminology in these words.
What is the Syrian conflict about?
Mr. Putin states: "Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country."
The so-called "rebels" in Syria are a diverse group of people mostly from forces that are extremely hostile to Western and U.S. interests (Hamas, Al Qaeda, extreme Palestinian factions) as well as the sort of people that Washington would like to see in power in Syria.
Most likely, if the rebels win, there will be a bloodbath in which the pro-Western liberals may be destroyed and a new semi-fundamentalist state would come to power in a post-Assad Syria.
This transformation of Syria would arguably be "better" from the U.S. perspective because it would serve Israeli interests and weaken Russian influence in the region, which may be what Washington really wants.
Actually, however, the entire region could well be MORE dangerous. Syrians would find themselves living in a country that, like Iraq today, exists in a permanent state of disintegration, after millions of deaths and the destruction of that nation's few resources for everyone.
Afghanistan is yet another disaster in the making; Pakistan is tottering on the edge of an abyss that may place nuclear weapons in the hands of fundamentalist forces allied with Al Qaeda; Yemen and other nations are experiencing "unrest" partly due to U.S. robot bombs. Some of these countries are very close to Russia's borders. It is difficult to blame Russians for being concerned about events in Syria. For this reason, Mr. Putin is warning the world:
"The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the Pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict beyond Syria's borders."
Do we respect international law?
The modern regime of international law was put in place after World War II. Generations of American legal scholars, jurists, and other diplomats from all over the world sought to prevent anything like the Holocaust or Stalin's purges or massive global wars from taking place, again, through resort to "reasoned and law-governed" proceedings in which all nations would be seen as equals when resolving disputes.
"Municipalities" (nations) would be equal before the law, as the true subjects of international norms and constraints. Nations were not to attack other states, nor to impose embargoes -- which are acts of war -- use soft power to starve populations based on individual nationalistic policies, but to abide by international norms and principles of law at all times. ("Time to End the Embargo Against Cuba.")
Aside from vetos in the Security Council, nations were generally regarded as equally entitled to assert rights and grievances, or to invoke laws determining when the use of force is valid, and to seek the assistance of the international community in resolving disputes and ending military conflicts. ("Mr. Obama's Waterloo?")
No provision exists under international law for "exceptionalism" for any nation. Neither America, Russia, China nor any other country may step outside the system of international law to kill civilians with drone bombs, or engage in limited strikes against anyone, nor to impose embargoes upon defenseless smaller states. To do such things is simply illegal and maybe criminal, regardless of who does it, under applicable principles of international relations. ("Embargos" and "embargoes" are equally prohibited by law even if both of these spellings of the word are permissible.)
To criticize Russia on the Georgia issue is to admit the point I am making, even as Russians see a territorial threat on that issue, which the parties have seemingly been able to resolve without further military actions. Ukraine is seen in similar terms by Russia.
It follows "logically" that a unilateral American strike, limited or not, robot bombs, tortures, detention without trial and many other such actions are crimes under international law. Worse, these crimes often make situations far worse for millions of people and, geopolitically, for the entire world community, including Israel. ("The Audacity of Hope" and "Israel Heightens the Crisis in Gaza.")
"From the outset," Mr. Putin said, "Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law."
What is American "exceptionalism"?
The idea that Americans may set aside international law when necessary to pursue U.S. national security objectives or interests in the world amounts to a self-given right to ignore the law when we do not like what the laws require of us. (OAE?)
This doctrine is based on something called "American exceptionalism." The idea seems to be that "we" are exceptional because "we" are the good guys, enjoying a special dispensation from God, or Hollywood, or Wall Street, or world history to cure the world's ills, making the planet safe for democracy, or forcing all others to become obedient to our will.
Americans see this concept as a modest statement of what used to be called "The White Man's Burden" or, today, America's moral responsibility to keep the peace and be the world's policeman, also to explain things (like democracy) to the world's "little people." This category of those needing explanations, allegedly, may include Russia and Syria.
Most people in the world and the system of international law, as I have said, does not recognize "exceptionalism" for ANY nation or people. Furthermore, such a doctrine will lead other nations to develop concepts of their own exceptionalism and to sanction violations of international law by others. Noam Chomsky is the most perceptive critic of "exceptionalism" in U.S. foreign policy.
Mr. Assad may claim that "Syrian exceptionalism" allows him to use chemical weapons. Such an argument would not be persuasive to us nor would it stand under international law. No such argument is offered by Syria at this time.
Russia is not persuaded by arguments based on American exceptionalism. However, in the U.S. exceptionalism is seen as a moral responsibility growing out of centuries of experience with democracy and the opposite of a racist creed. Mr. Putin certainly speaks for most of the people of the world on this issue when he says:
"It is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, [Europeans think of Nazism when they hear this word!] whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor countries, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their politics differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessing, we must not forget that God created us equal." (emphasis added!)
