Republican rage at China due to Conavirus, should be in part directed at Donald Trump who sabotaged responding to this crisis. Blatant Corruption
Mind you, the PRC didn't handle the Conavirus optimally, but this article mentioned below is the height of idiot reflex behavior. The article about suing the PRC is below, but then it is followed up by another article which goes into the sickening manner which Donald Trump intended to profit off the Cornavirus pandemic. 29 million doses of an unproven drug were to be distributed in New York and New Jersey, with the proceeds going straight to Trump trust funds. One little problem, the drug they wanted to manufacture would kill a lot of people.
Here is the issue:
Not only rotten case law and it would be a guaranteed failure, it also would be torpedoed by little things like what is mentioned about who benefited from Chloroquine, i.e. the Trump trust fund, while there may have been thousands of fatalities. From improperly administered Chloroquine
First about the non Trump vulnerability the USA might incur
Why this is DUMB i.e. taking China to court over the emergence of the Cornavirus. I.e. others can play the same game. i.e. the ME nations who suffered the devastating effects of the invasion of Iraq, and the 6 year nation wrecking spree in the ME due to George Bush II could under the cover of this PROPOSED action against China over the Conavirus literally sue the USA out of existence, in terms of international law established. I.e. it is so stupid, that it goes back to the same problem as confronting the Church Committee in the mid 1970s over assassination of foreign leaders. i.e. what could be done against say the leaders of Chile in 1973 or so could be easily done against our own leadership. The fact is, that the USA is uniquely vulnerable in a strict bean counting international law setting due to drone attacks, Iraqi Freedom (2002), and numerous other interventions to be battered to pieces in legal trial situations. We can write this off as political grand standing by the GOP , but the fact is, that the USA would not stand a snowball's chance in hell if the legalistic framework so beloved by Senator Cotton, among others is uses against American officials and the USA.
Ahem now to the Trump related idiot behavior.
It is compounded by the rampant idiot pronouncements of Donald Trump. Actions as to the Conavirus which are so idiotic that a good case could be made that Trump has affixed to the USA the crown as the world's enabler of spreading the Conavirus. Now for the article. See this
Quote:
Republican Lawmakers Are Taking China to Court
Just as Trump promised to make Mexico pay for his wall, Republicans want to get China to pay for the cost to Americans of the COVID-19 pandemic.
By Peter Isackson ? Apr 23, 2020
? sirtravelalot
In more halcyon days, back in 1964, at a time when most popular music in America was still about idealized romantic love, radio stations across the US broadcast the sonorous voice of Dean Martin intoning the lyrics of a song composed 20 years earlier: “You’re nobody till somebody loves you, So find yourself somebody to love.” Dan Crenshaw, a Republican representative and former Navy SEAL, upset by the feeling of becoming the innocent victim of Chinese aggression, now appears to be echoing Dino’s performance with his updated lyrics: “Find somebody to sue.”
Why Are American Companies Still Operating in China?
Interviewed by Sean Hannity on Fox News, alongside Republican senator and conspiracy theorist Tom Cotton, Crenshaw explains his sacred mission to wage war against China, not with military means, but by using the US judicial system, essentially as a weapon of mass delusion. At a time when President Donald Trump and the media, including The New York Times, are content to simply to inspire patriotic indignation and xenophobic enthusiasm by complaining out loud about the evil Chinese, the former Navy SEAL has defined a pragmatic combat strategy.
Reaching into the depths of US cultural reflexes, Crenshaw has taken to blitzing the media as the champion of an action plan that will hold China responsible for the massive damage done to the US economy by the spread of the novel coronavirus, known as COVID-19. And, of course, make them pay.
Crenshaw made his case by saying: “So now that we know how they have wronged us, Americans are going to do what Americans do when we feel an injustice is leveled against us. We’re going to find somebody to sue.”
Here is today’s 3D definition:
Find somebody to sue:
Prove one’s commitment to establishing the truth (or untruth, as the case may be) in a court of law, by hiring expensive attorneys who will know how to use the judicial system and the media most effectively to publicize the cause, with the aim of either receiving monetary compensation following a judgment or settlement or of obtaining an important intangible advantage (such as winning an election), or both
Contextual Note
Senator Cotton has claimed that China “deliberately” contaminated the world with COVID-19. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, which he has also published on his website, Cotton makes his case in detail, before admitting: “This evidence is circumstantial, to be sure, but it all points toward the Wuhan labs.” The New York Times describes his accusation in these terms: “Scientists have dismissed suggestions that the Chinese government was behind the outbreak, but it’s the kind of tale that gains traction among those who see China as a threat.”
In a tweet, Crenshaw announces his intention to “make the communist regime pay for their lies and coverup that allowed this pandemic to spread across the world.” The tweet contains another clip from a Fox News appearance in which he once hammers away at the same theme. “There’s an increasing amount of evidence that shows that they are culpable. So what can we do about that? Well, when Americans are wronged, what do we do? We sue somebody.” Repeating a phrase that sounds more like a campaign slogan than a policy proposal may be Crenshaw’s way of signaling to lucid observers his true motivation: feeding a fever of anti-Chinese xenophobia to help Republicans win in November’s election.
Crenshaw has presented a bill to change an existing law, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which prevents US citizens from suing foreign countries. That modification would be required before any suit could be effectively adjudicated in a US court. The point of Crenshaw’s legislation would be to amend “the act to create a narrow exception for ‘damages caused by China’s dangerous handling of the COVID-19 outbreak.’” It is, of course, beyond unlikely that Congress would vote such an amendment, and the chances are even more remote that a suit based on this principle could lead to a judgment or settlement.
Nevertheless, the state of Missouri, whose governor is a Republican, has already filed the first suit of this kind. Al Jazeera explains that this is most likely an attempt at political grandstanding that will have no legal consequences, though there may well be diplomatic ones: “The lawsuit’s chances of success are far from certain as US law, under the principle of sovereign immunity, generally forbids court action against foreign governments.” The article cites Tom Ginsburg, a professor of international law at the University of Chicago, who judges that it can best be explained as a political ploy. He observes that “the recent flurry of lawsuits against China serves a political end for Republican leaders facing an election in November.”
So, how solid is Cotton’s accusation and Crenshaw’s claim? On April 20, The Australian newspaper published an article reviewing how the rumor claiming that COVID-19 originated in the Wuhan lab has evolved over the past few months. When suspicion first arose, an investigation into the records of all the activities in the lab led to the conclusion that “the sequencing of the new infections did not match those of the viruses her team had sampled.” That scientific evidence seems to have convinced a majority of scientists across the globe that the virus couldn’t have originated in the lab. The most likely hypothesis of its origin remains the wet market in Wuhan that had been evoked since the very beginning.
The Australian explains that “the scenario was pushed to centre stage last week by hawks close to Donald Trump, with the fans flamed by the President.” We also learn that “last week the US brought the rumours into the mainstream, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo saying US officials are doing a ‘full investigation’ into how the virus ‘got out into the world.’” This has clearly become the focus of what is likely to be six months of electioneering and TV ads based on the Trump administration’s neo-Cold War attitude of getting tough with China.
Historical Note
Dan Crenshaw reveals his deep understanding of the most basic principle at the very core of US culture when he promises to “do what Americans do when we feel an injustice is leveled against us.” The history of the nation began with a reaction of a group of people who, after “feeling” an injustice leveled against them by an overseas government, successfully rebelled against it. The first version was a spectacular raid of British ships, followed by what became known as the “revolutionary war” leading to the establishment of the world’s first democratic nation-state. The modern version of that process is to take the villains to court.
Crenshaw believes he is simply reconnecting with the principle that spawned the colonists’ war of independence against the British crown. In 1773, instead of taking King George III to court, which would have posed serious logistic problems, the colonists, dressed as Native Americans (in a bold act of what would now be called “cultural appropriation”), boarded British ships and dumped the cargo of the British East India Company’s tea into the sea at Boston harbor. (This act of insurrection was motivated by the fact that the colonists preferred to consume the untaxed tea illegally smuggled into the colonies by the Dutch.)
Nearly two and half centuries later, the principle remains, but the methods have changed. The injustice Americans “feel … leveled against them” isn’t even the coronavirus. That is simply the convenient pretext. The real issue is the sense that China has begun to threaten the prerogative — assumed by the United States for the past 70 years — of controlling the global economy. It’s something Americans don’t even need to think about or require evidence for, precisely because they can “feel” it. In any case, it’s the kind of thing that stirs emotion during electoral campaigns.
Interestingly, conservative Republicans who spend more time thinking about it than simply feeling its effect, and who are not up for reelection every two years, have started showing serious concern with this kind of showboating initiative. Writing for the conservative National Review, Andrew C. McCarthy details all the complex reasons for understanding that this attempt to humiliate China makes no sense. He sums it up in this remark: “This is foolish on so many levels it is tough to know where to begin.”
At the end of a lengthy article, McCarthy caps his multi-dimensional argument with this: “Do we really want to encourage the adoption of a principle that sovereign immunity from lawsuits should be denied to a country that was acting within its legitimate rights if its actions caused unintentional harm?”
The fear he expresses is that, if such a precedent is established, the US could become a target of similar action. He undoubtedly realizes — though he doesn’t admit it — that the US is far more exposed than China concerning actions that cause damage to other nations. Regime change wars, invasions, ongoing drone attacks, crippling sanctions — none of these actions can be confounded with accidents due to negligence. And evidence of deliberate malfeasance abounds.
Tom Cotton admits that “we may never have direct, conclusive evidence” of the crimes for which he wants to sue China, but when the point is to focus the blind hatred of voters toward another population, evidence — which is required in the courtroom — is never required in the court of public opinion. The media, in particular, clamors for stories, not for evidence.
As Cotton himself says, with a sense of seriousness and logical clarity that Lewis Carroll or the Monty Python might appreciate, “Americans justifiably can use common sense to follow the inherent logic of events to their likely conclusion.” That could qualify for the most spectacular concatenation of meaningless clichés of the 21st century: “common sense,” “inherent logic of events” and “likely conclusion” — all in a single phrase to conclude a sentence that begins by acknowledging a lack of evidence. Who couldn’t be convinced? And once convinced, it shouldn’t be too difficult to “find somebody to sue.”
*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
End of quote
Once again:
Why this is DUMB. I.e. others can play the same game. i.e. the ME nations who suffered the devastating effects of the invasion of Iraq, and the 6 year nation wrecking spree in the ME due to George Bush II could under the cover of this PROPOSED action against China over the Conavirus literally sue the USA out of existence, in terms of international law established. I.e. it is so stupid, that it goes back to the same problem as confronting the Church Committee in the mid 1970s over assassination of foreign leaders. i.e. what could be done against say the leaders of Chile in 1973 or so could be easily done against our own leadership. The fact is, that the USA is uniquely vulnerable in a strict bean counting international law setting due to drone attacks, Iraqi Freedom (2002), and numerous other interventions to be battered to pieces in legal trial situations. We can write this off as political grand standing by the GOP , but the fact is, that the USA would not stand a snowball's chance in hell if the legalistic framework so beloved by Senator Cotton, among others is uses against American officials and the USA.
It is compounded by the rampant idiot pronouncements of Donald Trump. Actions as to the Conavirus which are so idiotic that a good case could be made that Trump has affixed the USA the crown as the world's enabler of spreading the Conavirus
So what is the summary?
First of all, Senator Cotton should practice what he preaches. I.e. of assuming responsibility. The abject fail of the GOP to reign in Trump as to sensible anti pandemic measures means that Cotton and others bringing suit over the Conavirus would be uniquely legally vulnerable.
In a word, Senator Cotton, and GOP. Practice what you preach about responsibility and shut up. Until the GOP confronts its enabling of Trump and the Cornavirus disaster he has created in the USA, and its spill over internationally (hint they will not do it) they have not a leg to stand on suing the PRC in court. I.e. practice what you preach , Senator Cotton and reign in Trump. Otherwise, S.T.F.U.
And here is another good reason for Senator Cotton and others to shut up, i.e. the Trump administration wanted to profit off using 29 million doses of an unproven drug, which can kill people, and here it is.
Quote
“Really Want to Flood NY and NJ”: Internal Documents Reveal Team Trump’s Chloroquine Master Plan
Forget testing, ventilators, and PPE. Donald Trump’s big plan to beat COVID-19 involved distributing millions of doses of an unproven drug. Behind the scenes, senior administration officials pushed hard to bend the rules and back up his boasts.
APRIL 24, 2020
On the afternoon of Saturday, April 4, President Trump stood at the White House podium and escalated his marketing blitz on behalf of hydroxychloroquine, hyping the old malaria drug’s alleged promise in treating COVID-19, as well as his administration’s success in acquiring huge amounts of it.
“We have millions and millions of doses of it—29 million to be exact,” he said, as the official tally of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. topped 260,000 and governors across the country pleaded for federal support to acquire tests, ventilators, and protective gear for health care workers. “We’re just hearing really positive stories, and we’re continuing to collect the data.” That evening, according to emails obtained by Vanity Fair, Trump’s political appointees would ramp up the pressure on career health officials to make good on the president’s extravagant promises, despite clear warnings from federal clinicians about the risks and unproven benefits of chloroquine-based treatments for COVID-19.
Vanity Fair has assembled this account based on documents and interviews provided by multiple federal officials with knowledge of internal Trump administration proceedings.
The president had been touting hydroxychloroquine for weeks, sparking worldwide shortages of the drug and prompting negotiations with Indian prime minister Narendra Modi to lift export restrictions on its active ingredients. But on March 24, the federal government’s top interagency working group of clinicians and scientists privately threw cold water on his claims, according to a federal official with knowledge of the working group’s deliberations. In an internal consensus statement, a medical countermeasures group within Health and Human Services recommended that chloroquine-based COVID-19 treatments should be studied only in controlled, hospital-based clinical trials, as their safety and efficacy was “not supported by data from reliable clinical trials or from non-human primates” and carried “potential risks.” The medicines—which are used to treat malaria as well as autoimmune conditions such as lupus—can have serious side effects, including heart arrhythmias.
And yet, just hours after that April 4 press conference, White House officials pushed ahead with a massive behind-the-scenes pressure campaign on the government’s top health officials to deliver huge amounts of chloroquine drugs to just about anyone who wanted them, according to documents reviewed by Vanity Fair. That night, Brett Giroir, the assistant secretary for health in the Department of Health and Human Services, sent an email with the subject line “Hydroxychloroquine” to a group including FEMA administrator Pete Gaynor, HHS assistant secretary for preparedness and response Robert Kadlec, and Navy Rear Admiral John Polowczyk, who leads a supply-chain task force at FEMA.
The email read:
WH call. Really want to flood Ny and NJ with treatment courses. Hospitals have it. Sick out patients don’t. And can’t get. So go through distribution channels as we discussed. If we have 29 million perhaps send a few million ASAP? WH wants follow up in AM.
We can get a lot more of this. Right Bob? Millions per week?
End of quote
And you rage filled people think you can blame the PRC for all of this **** storm in legal court filings ?
once again
Not only rotten case law, it also would be torpedoed by little things like what is mentioned about who benefited from Chloroquine, i.e. the Trump trust fund, while there may have been thousands of fatalities.
Give it up. This is a guaranteed fail.
Go home Senator Cotton.
Andrew Beckwith, phD