Countries becoming bodies becoming countries

It's raining. I have that image from the film in my head where a man is dunked repeatedly in a tank of water (presumably to persuade a confession). The U.N. in the film let the Algerians down as it has so many other nations and peoples. Blame the loopholes in international law. Blame the power the security council ensured itself. Blame history. Blame stupidity. Really, blaming does so little good. Learning the history of the rest of the world will certainly force you to rethink what such catch phrases as 'dignity' 'freedom' 'human rights' 'democracy' 'justice' and 'humanitarian' mean. They sound so GOOD don't they? And yet do those with the power and ammunition to spare ever think that what they are doing is wrong? Okay, whining aside...one of the things that keeps me feeling quite humble is the extent to which people are willing to go to be heard and to take back their human rights, even if that means to disregard the rights of others. It is easy to sit here and type (and whine) on my computer about the violence going on 'over there' and why does no one do anything about it. There's a rather telling line though in the film, where the Colonel asks the reporters interviewing him if they still want Algeria to remain under French control. If so, he says, they must be prepared to accept the consequences. Empires become empires when countries are made of bodies and bodies become countries. When individual lives cease to matter and are deemed worthy of sacrifice to a "higher vision" (be that liberalism, imperialism, terrorism, religion or freedom) human rights law becomes a tool to beat people into submission, rather than protect them from oppression. So, how then do you change this? I can't stand hearing Bush and Kerry (ketchup and mustard) 'vow' about how they won't give veto power over America to anyone else? How though can international law EVER work if those who have the power to fund it and enforce it are perfectly willing to break it and ignore it, to secure or further their power? Who wants "veto power" over the U.S. anyway? They missed the point, it seems, of all of the global protests to the invasion/occupation of Iraq. People weren't asking for a veto power or even that the U.N. or EU would trump us. They were simply asking the "great superpower" to actually consider the consequences of setting such a troubling precedent. I return again and again to that idea of the U.S. being known for human rights rather than military force. I can watch a film like "The Battle of Algiers" or even study the Vietnam war (and our own documents regarding it) and think about how wrong such land lust and power hunger was. As the Colonel suggested, if we are willing to go to any lengths to attain such a goal, we must be willing to accept the consequences.
I just wish the U.N. actually had the power to protect those whose bodies are being crushed and fed to satiate such cruel appetites, that the UN declaration on human rights promises. I think though the only way to achieve that would be to overhaul the idea of State sovereignty and especially, to extend the borders of legal protection to include individuals and not just nations or those legally identified as "persecuted" groups. Perhaps though, the weaknesses existing within the enforcement of international law is that as long as there are individuals who are willing and able to violate the rights of others for whatever purpose, gain, or cause, law will be more punitive rather than protective/preventative. How do you protect those who cannot protect themselves against those who seem to have no morality or fear of punishment? Well, the one way I can think of is to quit arming such people of highly questionable morality to the teeth and to let the idea of 'the enemy of our enemy is our friend' serve as an excuse for rendering international law blind and in a state of perpetual bondage. peace!