Geitner Simmons has an essay that describes how "governments and activists are attempting to constrict the assertion of U.S. military power by erecting legal restrictions that equate warmaking in fundamental ways with mere police work... without any regard for their military consequences." The article he cites, by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, certainly does a fine job of listing the inehrent problems with this approach. I'm glad it does, because the blurring and deliberate misunderstanding of war vs. policing has become a staple of "dialogue" with the political left, and a firm feature of the transnational progressivist agenda. As Geitner noted: bq. "Judging from the rhetoric of Amnesty International," Rivkin and Casey write, "any use of force whatsoever would necessarily be deemed illegal under Protocol I." As dishonest and foolish as it is predictable. This is a good and appropriate follow-up to my article on Iran's hellishly dangerous idiocy, so obviously unconstrained by such things. As I replied to Geitner in an email: bq. "That, indeed, is part of the long-term concern as international law is pushed in this direction. But then, that is the exact intent behind these changes. Deeply immersed in their decadence and sheltered in their cocoons, Europe and the tranzies believe they are criminalizing all war, as opposed to just criminalizing self-defense by democracies." And criminalizing self-defense by democracies wouldn't exactly trouble many of them, either.