Some yes and some no. If this is to be applied, at least people need to have total freedom of movement.
Hmmmmm -- to *me* this kind of approach is *problematic* because the term 'politics' *implies* that there's a uniform *consistency*, meaning a single policy *everywhere*.
If the issue at-hand is 'killer cops' then there should be a fundamental *change* in police procedure so that these summary executions don't *happen* anymore, as a matter of governmental *policy*.
Would there be some specific population or locality where there should be a *looser* approach in policy to killer-cops? I just don't see how geography would be pertinent at all for this issue.
So then who / what body should have *authority* over the U.S. / NATO, since they've been 'tactically wrong'? (What's to prevent Western militarism from being 'tactically wrong' in the *future*?)
First, the citizens of those countries themselves.
Okay, yes, I agree, and we saw it historically from the people of Syria in 2013 when -- from recollection -- many went to the government buildings that were targeted for missile strikes by the U.S. / Obama.
Second, a smaller international body which does not include countries that do not respect the game rules.
Ultimately I don't think that *any* organization of capitalists will be able to be 'non-capitalist' in their decision-making -- the U.N., ICC, UNSC, etc. won't be able to have the *people's* best interests in mind with whatever approaches they come up with. We saw this clearly with MINUSTAH's treatment of Haitians.
UN hides its role in Haiti cholera outbreak
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/0 ... t-m02.html
I agree that the United States are to blame for police violence around the world, but the problem for many other places in the world is that they have even worse civil rights or even more authoritarian governments than the United States to begin with.
What do you think should *happen* with those socially reactionary places?
First, they simply cannot model their police after the United States. Come to think of it, if it is unacceptable in the United States why is it acceptable elsewhere in the first place?
Yes, I definitely agree with this ethos.
Second, for those countries I am afraid at least sanctions or embargo is required. Let those of their citizens who know better decide the rest. Lose some kind of conflicts or economic / resource competition should it arise.
'Embargo', though, implies some kind of regulation from *without* -- meaning *externally* to the country at-hand.
Trump has been *fucking up the world* with the additional sanctions set up during his administration, and how would a country *select* those who 'know better' -- these points just *beg the question* of how to get to an appropriate policy in the first place.