As these ET debate goalposts tend to always drift, a reminder of my original premise:You know what's funny, I hold the same opinion as you do on domestic judicial matters precisely for that reason. I didn't bat an eye when the justice department made statements about the Russian investigation without presenting proof prematurely because there is judicial review. An investigator makes shit up or steps out of line, he may face a judge.
What you're missing is no one holds the federal government accountable in foreign matters. There is no checks and balance at that level except for the people, and shocker, the press. We laugh at international tribunals and "chastisement" by UN observers. We ignore their inspectors and go in guns blazing anyway.
I continue to stand by that premise.Reporters can ask all they want, whether the country is made of unicorns and rainbows, or not. The silliness is in a country revealing information that can be extremely detrimental to itself, sooner than should be released. And also in its own citizens wanting and expecting their own country to reveal sensitive information publicly and prematurely.
As to the subsequent contentions:
- I agree that the U.S. and a few other nations are not bound by The U.N.--a feature.
- I disagree that the U.S. doesn't hold itself accountable in foreign matters. We have convicted military personnel etc., and Oliver North comes to mind.
- I agree that there should be greater U.S. accountability; but until the public decides to make that a voting priority, they can't really point the finger.