And the Cognizant Court would BE????

Submitted by SAKOVKT (United States), May 28, 2016 at 14:11

Of course, the Secretary of State would have to be involved with a foreign power and that is why this entire thing is ridiculous, to begin with, never mind the Attorney General or anyone else a la Woodrow Wilson, FDR, the League of Nations cum U.N., World Court or Alice in Wonderland.

What court has jurisdiction over nations?

Does this court have an army?

If not ( and I suspect that's the answer), then this bill could only be considered propaganda designed to arouse the will to war, if it was truly designed for any legitimate purpose at all, which it probably wasn't, given the LOSERS we have in gov't, today, who also don't seem to understands the role of police in domestic affairs.

We are not going to "morally evolve" into creatures willing to sacrifice ourselves simply on the advice of some egghead, no matter what Obama said in Japan, recently.

That is not because we don't recognize the destructiveness' of war.

It is because most of us recognize Eggheads for what they are and, guaranteed, if you don't, just wait : you will.

Happens every time, historically speaking.

Saudi Arabia is dong exactly what Saudi Arabia should be expected to do in the face of Eggheadery and, in this instance, I have to applaud them because they make more sense than this bill does.

That is not to say that I hold Saudi Arabia in very high esteem.

I just hold the writers of this bill in lower esteem.

As for Donald Trump, I hold him in higher esteem than both because he recognizes Saudi Arabia as an enemy and would more likely deal with it as such, rather than think he might fabricate a court to which the Saudis would submit their sovereignty any more than he would.

Bernie et al are something entirely different.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".