Knapp: OK, so Let’s Say it IS an “Invasion”

Long time Libertarian Party activist Thomas L. Knapp at Kn@ppster:

Immigration authoritarians — including US president Donald Trump — urge us to think of the “caravan” now trying to get its members across the gang turf line (“border”) as an “invasion.”

That’s a very common argument from immigration authoritarians about immigration in general, and of course it’s bullshit. Some guy trying to get from Juarez to Topeka to get a job plucking poultry isn’t an “invader.” Neither are 5,000 of them an “invasion.” They’re not looking for a fight and they’re not trying to seize territory. They’re doing the same thing you’re doing if you travel from Nashville to New York (crossing numerous city, county, and state “borders” along the way) for a job interview.

But now Trump has used the “invasion” idiocy to justify stationing military forces at the turf line and having US “law enforcement” attack the immigrants.

Well, OK, then. Let’s take him at his word, just for the sake of argument.

An “invasion” implies a war.

And using CS (“tear gas”) is a war crime.

So, is it still an “invasion?”

If so, the United Nations needs to constitute a war crimes tribunal and demand the handover of the entire chain of command involved in this fiasco, up to and including Trump himself, to face the music. Under the Chemical Weapons Convention, to which the US is signatory, “[e]ach State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare” (among other things (including not having those weapons in the first place).

Hey, don’t complain, immigration authoritarian “invasion”-quackers. Words mean things.


Followup post:

Really, It’s Long Past Leg Iron and Orange Coverall Time for These Thugs

If immigration is indeed “invasion,” then US law enforcement committed a war crime at the juncture of gang turf lines (“US-Mexico border”) yesterday.

But who can bring the perpetrators to jusice?

Presumably the US regime would exercise its veto power over any UN Security Council resolution holding it accountable.

However …

While the stories I’m reading on the war crimes (use of chemical weapons) aren’t specific enough to tell for sure, it seems that the US regime thugs sent their CS canisters flying over to the Mexican side of the turf line.

Mexico is signatory to the Rome Statute, which brings war crimes committed on its claimed turf — and the war criminals who commit them, whatever their nationality and whether or not THEIR government has ratified the Statute — under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

Time for the court to take notice, procure permission from its Pre-Trial Chamber to open an investigation, and issue Interpol Red Notices for the arrests of Donald J. Trump, Heimatsicherheitsdienst (“Homeland Security”) secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan, US Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost, and all others for whom probable cause can be established vis a vis involvement in conspiring to commit, ordering, or actually carrying out the attacks.

16 thoughts on “Knapp: OK, so Let’s Say it IS an “Invasion”

  1. robert capozzi

    tk: They’re doing the same thing you’re doing if you travel from Nashville to New York (crossing numerous city, county, and state “borders” along the way) for a job interview.

    me: Nope. The set of laws in Juarez are different than they are in Nashville.

  2. dL

    Thanks for running this. I ended up using those posts as the starter culture for a Garrison Center op-ed — hopefully a little more polished and newspapery

    Good piece, Tom…

  3. dL

    me: Nope. The set of laws in Juarez are different than they are in Nashville.

    Juarez is actually a medical tourism destination for Americans. You might even have an easier time using your health insurance down there than here. Lot cheaper. Insurance companies like that.

  4. robert rich

    Christ, I remember this nonsense being spread by ‘libertarians’ during JFK’s administration.

    Conservatives, the far-left and now Knapp conflate immigration by peaceful (read libertarian-inclined) with invasion by people hostile to the US Bill of Rights and libertarian ideals. Or simply invasion by crooks. BTW–Invasion does not imply war but may imply piracy, in this case with the co-operation of the far-left. Nor is migration and settlement the same as free immigration/emigration.

    Libertarians make these distinctions. Immigration of the peaceful is not invasion by the hostile. The right confuses them because they’re (for now) against immigration. The left because they want anti-rights invasion.

    Libertarians across the Americas are trying to revive the San Lorenzo Treaty that sets free migration and trade legalities between the US and Latin countries. As libertarians create Bill of Rights enforcement parties and prosperity across nations this will quiet down. Focus on that, not accepting the far-left/-right terms of debate.

  5. Tony From Long Island

    Rob RIch: ” . . . . . The right confuses them because they’re (for now) against immigration. The left because they want anti-rights invasion. . . . . ”

    Umm, what is “anti-rights invasion?

  6. William t. Forrest

    No, he takes the claim that there is an invasion seriously and points out that in such a case war crimes have been committed. I’m taking his suggestion and emailing the international criminal court asking them to look into it. Trump needs an orange jumpsuit to match his skin and hair.

  7. William t. Forrest

    I hope others here write them too. The email address is in the garrison center column linked in comment 1 above.

  8. DJ

    There will be no war crime indictments just like there were no war crime indictments against Bush and/or Cheney. To start with, Indictments require legal action, not to mention a pretentious enforcer and that ain’t gonna happen. The enforcers are just as guilty as the perpetrators and that is a can of worms that will never be opened.

    Oh, BTW, the “invasion” is happening at Tijuana, not Juarez- just an FYI.

  9. DJ

    rr: Focus on that, not accepting the far-left/-right terms of debate.

    Me: They can’t. It skews their debate.

  10. William t. Forrest

    I think the ICC just may take up a case against Trump. If not for this than for one of his many other crimes. He is a tinpot dictator type in a major industrial power first world nation with too much economic significance for the world to ignore and allow a clown like that to turn into a Uzbekistan style shit show like what he is doing. I see the Orange Man wearing Orange in his future.

  11. Thomas Knapp

    “I think the ICC just may take up a case against Trump.”

    Well, there are criteria.

    In order to come under the ICC’s jurisdiction, a person must either be a national of a country that’s signatory to the Rome Statute (the US is not) or be accused of committing one of the applicable crimes on the soil of a country that is signatory to the Rome Statute.

    The instant a tear gas canister flew across the border from San Ysidro and into Tijuana, the ICC had jurisdiction over the perpetrators (including those who conspired to further and/or ordered the attack), if the use of chemical weapons is one of the crimes the ICC prosecutes (I believe it is) and if the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor determines that such a crime was committed.

    Trump’s own statements and actions framing the confrontation as an “invasion” that need be met by military force would seem to be an admission that what was going on there was “warfare.”

    Of course, I am for open borders and against letting the state have chemical weapons either way. But Trump made a rhetorical bed that there are practical consequences for lying in. I’d like to make him lie in that bed. He’d almost certainly not be handed over to the ICC, but if the ICC charged him, he wouldn’t be able to leave the US without risking arrest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *