REPUBLICANS FROTH AT U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION UPHOLDING OBAMACARE

How about all those mean Republicans and Libertarians denouncing Obamacare and saying how they will do anything to overturn it, in spite of today's decision at the U.S. Supreme Court upholding it as constitutional?

David Frum, writing in The Daily Beast, says repeal is a fantasy.

" . . . today's Supreme Court decision will make it a lot harder to elect Mitt Romney. President Obama has just been handed a fearsome election weapon. 2012 is no longer exclusively a referendum on the president's economic management. 2012 is now also a referendum on Mitt Romney's healthcare plans. The president can now plausibly say that a vote for the Republicans is a vote to raise prescription drug costs on senior citizens and to empower insurance companies to deny coverage to children for pre-existing conditions. Those charges will hurt—and maybe hurt enough to sway the election."

UN INVESTIGATOR SAYS U.S. DRONE ATTACKS VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

The Guardian has an article today about how U.N. investigators believe that drone attacks make shambles of international law.  This of course assumes that international law is real and not a fiction.

Owen Bowcott writes:



"The US policy of using aerial drones to carry out targeted killings presents a major challenge to the system of international law that has endured since the second world war, a United Nations investigator has said.

"Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, summary or arbitrary executions, told a conference in Geneva that President Obama's attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, carried out by the CIA, would encourage other states to flout long-established human rights standards."

The drone attacks subject Obama (and the war monger Panetta) to charges of war crimes.

Writes Bowcott:

"In his strongest critique so far of drone strikes, Heyns suggested some may even constitute "war crimes". His comments come amid rising international unease over the surge in killings by remotely piloted unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)."

OBAMA, CONDEMN BAHRAIN FOR HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

Even though nine medical personnel are set free, an appeals court in Bahrain reaffirms prison sentences for nine other doctors and nurses, some up to five years.  Just because they treated wounded protesters calling for greater democratic freedoms for Shiites in a country ruled by Sunnis.

Moreover, Bahrain arrested an 11-year old boy for associating with a group protesting the government's discrimination, and then kept him in jail for several weeks.

Why won't Pres. Obama and Sec. Clinton come out and condemn Bahrain and its repressive monarchy?

The answer is, the U.S. Navy has its Fifth Fleet based in Bahrain, ready to bomb and attack Iran at moment's notice.   Animus towards Iran trumps American values of freedom and democracy as to Bahrain.

MAY ONE COUNTRY CROSS ANOTHER'S BORDERS TO ATTACK MILITANTS?

What do you think?  Is it in accord with the laws of nations for one country (the United States) to send unmanned aircraft across the borders of another (Pakistan) and attack militants and jihadists?  And can the U.S. do this without the permission of the second country, Pakistan?

Suppose it were in the opposite direction?  Suppose it were Pakistan that was sending armed drones into U.S. airspace?

The second question takes no little reflection. Most Americans would see it as a violation of national sovereignty and an illegal incursion.  It probably would precipitate an immediate counter-strike.

So why does Obama and Panetta think that they are justified in sending drones into Pakistan?  Is there any clearer violation of international laws?  I don't think so.