I. Quote Thus, this was an instance where the executive arrogated to itself the power that, properly speaking, belonged to the judiciary. Unquote
Utterly false. It is bey much the job of the executive - to negotiate with the contending party and extract whatever can be extracted. If they fail on their own, they run to the courts. Then the courts arbitrate. Here the BP caved in. Credit goes to the Obama Administration. II. Quote Going one step beyond this, one should also say that it was capitalism that failed the Indian people. Unquote Not quite true. The Obama/BP episode illustrates that. In a different way, Indira Gandhi's bank nationalisation had also so illustrated. III. Quote Well, force Obama to extradite Warren Anderson. Unquote Yeah, force! The Indian government's earlier appeal, with Obama nowhere near the picture, was rejected on the ground of insufficiency of cause or so. Now it is for the Indian government to make a fresh plea, under the extradition treaty. Then only the question will arise. And Warren Anderson is an individual now. Can very well seek the protection of courts. And courts may intervene in his favour. As the deep-sea drilling directive by the court amply illustrates. So, the ball is in the court of the GoI. Yet to reach Obama. IV. Quote Why is a demand from Indians that the US extradite Warren Anderson, any more outrageous or self-demeaning than the demand (made by leftist Indians in the past) that the US deny Narendra Modi an entry visa to the US? Unquote Sheer nonsense! The reference point here was: "The global outrage against such sabotage stage-managed under the guidance of US government that has become evident in the aftermath of the ***June 7 verdict[by an Indian court] merits President Obama's intervention*** to set matters right." (Emphasis added.) In any case, denial of visa (to an alien) and extradition (of one's own own citizen) are two very different cups of tea. It of course takes some minimum sense to comprehend, which is evidently lacking here. V. In view of above, the rest of the blabber doesn't merit any response. Sukla On 28 June 2010 03:56, Sayan wrote: > On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Sukla Sen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > And, the US government and the US courts are two different entities. As > in > > case of India. (It's not North Korea or even China.) > > True enough. However, notice that Obama (the executive wing of the US > government) forced BP to set up the $20 billion compensation fund. > Theoretically (and according to the US Constitution), this sort of > matter is technically under the purview of the courts, however. Thus, > this was an instance where the executive arrogated to itself the power > that, properly speaking, belonged to the judiciary. > > > It is primarily the Indian government and the Indian courts that failed > the > > Indian people. > > True enough. (Going one step beyond this, one should also say that it > was capitalism that failed the Indian people.) > > > Did the US government have any direct role except as regards the > extradition > > of Warren Anderson? > > What role the US President can/should play in making the Indian courts > > deliver justice? > > Well, force Obama to extradite Warren Anderson. (As Obama has shown, > in extraordinary situations, such as the BP spill, he quite happily > arrogates to himself the power of the judiciary. Why not hold him to > this implied assumption and demand that he similarly make sure that > Anderson is extradited?) > > > That's simple outrageous. > > So hugely self-demeaning. > > Why is a demand from Indians that the US extradite Warren Anderson, > any more outrageous or self-demeaning than the demand (made by leftist > Indians in the past) that the US deny Narendra Modi an entry visa to > the US? > > In any case, a demand of this sort is meant to be an "infinite > demand", as Simon Critchley has very cogently argued in his recent > book "Infinitely Demanding": an "infinite demand" is a demand that the > person of whom the demand is made cannot possibly fulfill. (In this > case, the demand to extradite Anderson is a demand that Obama cannot > possibly fulfill, because if he did so (say, by signing an executive > order ordering the extradition), then he will lose his job immediately > -- the lords of capital will ensure that.) > > The motivation, for leftists, in raising "infinite demands" like these > is not any realistic hope that the demand would be fulfilled, but > precisely the knowledge that they *cannot* be fulfilled. These > demands, when raised, serve to "show up", that is, illustrate and > expose, the contradictions and hypocrisy of the existing system. (In > this case, the hypocrisy involved in the feasibility of the US > president to take an executive decision to penalize BP, but the > infeasibility of the US president to take an executive decision to > penalize Waren Anderson.) > > What hypocrisy is shown up through this? The following: the fiction of > capitalism rests on a Lockean assumption that all transactions are > between free and equal agents enjoying identical rights. In practice, > of course, this is not so. Agents only have rights, in practice, > proportionate to their power. > The scandal of capitalism is the occlusion of this basic truth about > power, a truth which lies concealed underneath the mythology of the > free market. Raising demands such as the extradition of Anderson helps > to expose this concealed lie. > -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
