Archive for the ‘war’ Category
Threat Level Doctorow
When I saw this t-shirt on shirt.woot.com, I couldn’t resist.
Filed under culture, politics, war : Comments (0) : Jul 29th, 2007
Executive Order : Constitution be damned!
Read this executive order [emphasis mine]:
[. . .] all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
Now read the 5th Amendment [emphasis mine]:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Your assignment is to tell me how this executive order is not a clear violation of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution.
Filed under politics, war : Comments (1) : Jul 21st, 2007
Poppy fields of Afghanistan
The nation of Afghanistan has a fairly poor economy. (Gasp!) One of the few means for poor, uneducated farmers to make a meager living is to grow poppy plants for sale into the opium trade. It’s not particularly wholesome a profession, but it sure beats starving.
The U.S., in a display of our violently successful War on Drugs, in conjunction with the even more violently successful War on Terror, has been trolling the Afghan hinterlands slashing poppy fields and displacing the already poor farmers. (At great cost, as you might imagine.)
Believe it or not, this anti-poppy campaign has not been particularly popular with the Afghan population. The various resistance forces operating within Afghanistan have started to offer protection to these hard-scrabble farmers by fighting back against the U.S. forces. Shockingly, most of the farmers would rather be protected by the terrorists than willingly give up their livelihood by cooperating with the U.S forces. Who would have guessed?
Let’s recap: After invading their country, toppling what government they had, and installing a puppet regime, we are now going after the poorest of the poor and destroying their poppy farms. This, in turn, generates more support (and money) for the terrorists that we’re trying to fight. All because we are married to a cultural fantasy that [some] drugs are evil and must be destroyed at all cost.
Oh, and one more thing–the other reason the Afghan farmers grow poppy instead of wheat or other conventional crops? Because our farm subsidies and import tariffs keep global prices low. Great job, US!
Filed under environment, politics, war : Comments (1) : Jul 21st, 2007
National Intelligence Estimate
We’re heading into the fifth year of the war on terror. President Bush and his supporters have rarely hesitated to remind us that 1) we are at war; and 2) his leadership is uniquely suited to protect the U.S. from future attacks.
This week, a new National Intelligence Estimate report was released that contradicts at least one of these claims. In light of the recent Senatorial slumber party, it’s time that the American people had a serious debate about the wisdom of our current foreign policy.
The NIE reports that the terrorists we’ve been fighting over there are gaining strength and are a growing threat to the U.S. This is important to note. We are not safer due to the protracted war on terror.
Not surprisingly, the Bush administration has answered the report by informing us that the terrorists would be even stronger if it weren’t for our actions in combating terrorists. (If you buy this claim, I have a bridge you might be interested in.)
I’m no spring chicken. I know that foreign policy, particularly between diametrically opposed civilizations, particularly when one of those civilizations has the habit of invading the other, particularly when the other civilization has a whole lot of something that everyone else wants. . . is tricky. There are no quick answers or fast fixes for the situation in the Middle East.
What I do know is that I believe in the concept of Democracy and I would, frankly, like to see it exercised a bit to sort out this debate. I’m pretty well fed up with the Disinformation News Networks and our absolute faith in the two party system. I would love to see some courage and leadership come out of the Washington DC region.
The writing is on the wall. The NIE report confirms it. How long must we pay for our failed decisions? Who will be brave enough to admit that we made a mistake?
Filed under culture, politics, war : Comments (0) : Jul 19th, 2007
Bush v. US Constitution
Just when we thought the US Constitution was a quaint thing of the past, a federal appeals US court ruled that the executive does not have the authority to declare a civilian an enemy combatant and detain him indefinitely in a military prison. This is a landmark decision, and one long overdue, in the Bush Administration’s war on terror/war on civil liberties.
The myth and disinformation surrounding a case like this is plain to see: Bush supporters (including the tarnished DoJ) will claim that we must do anything and everything to protect Americans from terrorist attack. Yet what we seem to forget so quickly is that we already have a functional–and fair–system for doing so: the U.S. legal system.
It’s important to note that the court ruling says nothing of Ali Al-Marri’s guilt or innocence. Rather, the ruling supports a civilian’s rights as written in the Constitution. Namely, that a criminal can’t be held without being charged of a crime (due process). As soon as formal charges are filed, his incarceration can be justified.
This is a very important decision in the ongoing of Bush v. US Constitution. Up until now, the president has operated under the pretense that the Constitution applies only when convenient, only during peace-time, and always at the executive’s preference.
Our model of democracy requires three co-equal branches of government. Our pathetic Congress has been asleep for the last 6 years and has happily obeyed the whims of the executive. Fortunately, the judicial branch still has enough courage to challenge the president in his grab for power.
Filed under politics, war : Comments (0) : Jun 14th, 2007
Thompson
The latest Republican to join the race for the White House is actor Fred Thompson. Frighteningly, he seems to be a favorite among the core republican base that rejects Giuliani as too liberal and McCain as too hapless. Here are some choice quotes from Mr. Thompson:
“This is a battle between the forces of civilization and the forces of evil and we’ve got to choose sides”
Gee, I’m glad that decades of foreign policy can be so easily summarized in a quotation. I choose civilization!
“Some people think that our planet is suffering from a fever. … NASA says the Martian South Pole’s ‘ice cap’ has been shrinking for three summers in a row. Maybe Mars got its fever from earth. If so, I guess Jupiter’s caught the same cold, because it’s warming up too, like Pluto. This has led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non-signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle.”
Damn the earth-science experts with decades of experience and actual data. Fred Thompson and his folksy interpretations of climate data is so much more comforting. Plus, he’s on TV–he must be right!
I’m sorry, Mr. Thompson, but we need someone with a little more intellectual honesty and integrity than that. Empty rhetoric like the above have gotten us into our current dire situation–both in Iraq and in terms of climate change–and it’s time we move past.
For 2008 we desperately need someone to step forward who can act–and speak–like an adult. There are no free lunches and no easy answers. The world is not a simple dichotomy of right/wrong; black/white; civilization/evil. Until we have the courage and fortitude to grapple with the inherent ambiguity and nuances of life in the 21st century, we will continue to elect charlatans who peddle easy answers–and we will continue to suffer the consequences.
Filed under climate change, politics, war : Comments (1) : Jun 2nd, 2007
Habeas Schmabeas
I just listened to the latest This American Life episode titled Habeas Schmabeas. The episode features interviews from a few men who were (wrongfully) detained at Guantanamo and lawyers who represent current (wrongful) detainees. It chills my soul that our nation is so plainly violating both US and international law by denying Habeas Corpus and the Geneva Conventions to these prisoners.
The problem, it seems, is two fold: First, the way these detainees are picked up is dubious at best. The military offers a bounty of $10,000 for “terrorists”. This is a huge incentive for a part of the world where most people earn less than $10k in a year. Add to this that hearsay evidence is acceptable proof, and one can imagine how many innocent men are turned over for the bounty.
This first problem is bad enough, but historically we had a way for dealing with this: habeus corpus. At its most basic, this 450 year old law provides all prisoners with the right to appear before a judge and challenge their detention. Keep in mind, these aren’t full trials, but merely a chance for the detainee to say “I’ve been wrongly accused.” So long as the executive can demonstrate some reasonable evidence to support the detention, the prisoner remains in detention. If, on the other hand, there is a lack of evidence (as you might imagine for a “terrorist” handed over by an anonymous character in the streets of Pakistan) the prisoner is released.
Make no mistake: complying with the writ of habeas corpus poses no undue burden on the state imposing detention. One would hope that every single prisoner in US prisons today has a file somewhere detailing exactly the reasons for his detention. Likewise, a valid military prisoner will have a record from the military, CIA, FBI, NSA or foreign intelligence agencies detailing why they are a threat. A habeas corpus hearing could last all of 15 minutes as the judge looks at the evidence and draws a logical conclusion. Even in a time of war, this is a very reasonable expectation. [The interested reader will note that similar proceedings were routinely carried out on the battle fields of WWII to separate the legitimate POWs from the civilians swept up in battle.]
The deplorable situation at Guantanamo is compounded by the use of torture. As I’ve written before, torture is both illegal and it does not work. What value is the information extracted from a prisoner who faces the decision of giving the names of fellow “terrorists” or being beaten, nearly drowned, deprived of sleep, or otherwise abused? Guess what–you or I would likely confess to charges of “terror” if tortured long enough. Not only is torture morally indefensible, it routinely fails at its own goals. How sad a nation we’ve become.
Finally, a useful tool borrowed from philosophy to aid in any future debates with your less enlightened friends:
Imagine a world in which innocent civilians are wrongfully captured and detained by the military, then tortured for information they don’t know, all the while lacking basic legal protections. Now ask yourself, how is that world distinguishable from the world we live in today?
Herein lies the problem: even if I am wrong about this and we don’t torture, and 100% of the detainees at Guantanamo truly are terrorists, it would be indistinguishable from the Kafka-esque nightmare described above. This is the real damage done by suspending habeas corpus.
At the risk of sounding dramatic or invective, I feel like a German citizen in 1939: not quite ignorant enough to carry a clean conscience.
. . .
Sign this petition if you believe in restoring habeas corpus.
Filed under culture, politics, war : Comments (0) : May 4th, 2007
Progress in Iraq
Sometimes Jon Stewart says it best: http://www.ifilm.com/video/2842691
This one is a real gem.
[Sorry, can't imbed video from iFilm. You'll have to click through.]
Filed under politics, war : Comments (0) : Apr 14th, 2007
Fukuyama
I had the opportunity to see Dr. Francis Fukuyama give a lecture on U.S. foreign policy in the Bush doctrine era. Fukuyama was once a part of the Neo-Conservative inner circle, and has worked for or with many of the current Bush Administration officials. It was very interesting to hear his insight and reflections on how we got to where we are today and why the Neocons so radically shifted their policy in the last six years.
He offered five lessons in foreign policy learned during the Bush presidency:
1. Hard power has limited use in unstable regions like the Middle East. This is in contrast to classic foreign policy doctrine of using a large military for deterrence and persuasion. The critical difference in the Middle East is a lack of powerful central states. Al Quaeda and Hezbollah are two examples of powerful non-state actors that operate within the framework of weak states. Simply put, a strong military presence is not an effective deterrence in the absence of true state power. Worse, our presence in Iraq actually empowers non-state groups by further destabilizing the region.
2. Preventive war is not an effective strategy in enforcing nonproliferation. Quoting Otto Von Bismarck, “Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death.” Supposing that the goal was to prevent Iraq from acquiring WMD, preventive war was not the correct action. Economic and political sanctions are much more effective at enforcing nonproliferation, and as we discovered all too late, they were working in the case of Iraq. The only deterrence to come out of our adventure in Iraq is self-deterrence: the U.S. public is now much less likely support military intervention with other dangerous regimes such as Iran and North Korea.
3. Promoting democracy does not directly stop the spread of terrorism. Quite to the contrary, most influential radical leaders use the spread of modernity and democracy as a recruiting tactic. The teachings of Islam are centered on rules and a highly structured community–quite different from the personal liberties and freedoms favored in a democracy. In the long run, the spread of democracy is a good thing, but in the short run it may fuel more radicalization if done too aggressively.
4. Multilateral solutions are critical to nonproliferation and world peace. The U.S. has lost its claimed moral superiority in the world, and anti-US backlash is at an extreme. We cannot act unilaterally in the future if we hope to avoid further conflict.
5. The current U.S. government is incompetent. The ambitious goals of the Bush doctrine were carried out with such egregious incompetence that there was never the possibility of success. The decline of Iraq into civil war was preventable at the onslaught of the war, but with so many errors in judgement it is now impossible to make a clean exit.
Filed under culture, politics, war : Comments (0) : Apr 12th, 2007
Torture
There are many reasons why torture went out of style in the 20th century. Humanitarian movements demonstrated that life has intrinsic value–even if that life happens to live in a foreign nation (that your nation may find disagreeable). Military strategists learned that torture is a very ineffective means to gather intelligence or discourage insurrection. Perhaps the most important element to consider today is the simplest: torture is a sign of weakness.
I am working my way through a European History course (podcast, naturally) and stumbled upon a real gem in lecture #2: throughout the last 1000 years of world history, only the weakest and most power-starved nations have employed torture as a punishment or deterrent. During the long, slow progress from Feudalism to powerful central governments, torture was always used as a tactic of last resort. Rest assured, few (none?) of the campaigns in which torture played a central role were ultimately successful. (Despite the best efforts during the Spanish Inquisition, Protestantism still exists today!)
In the 21st century, some high ranking U.S. officials seem to have forgotten the last few centuries and instead operate in a fictitious Hollywood version of reality. In this neo-reality, torturing an Iraqi or Afghanistan (or American) civilian is a sure-fire method to gather sound intelligence. (Never mind that this tactic almost never works.)
Since the torture program was outed by the press, these same high-ranking U.S. officials have conveniently redefined the word “torture”. Today, such barbaric practises as sensory- and sleep-deprivation, near-drowning (water boarding), and psychological abuse all fall outside the boundaries of “torture” and are thus fair game for any and all military prisoners. (Keep in mind that psychological and physical torture have similar effects on the mind and body.)
Just as torture has a very negative and lasting effect on the victim, it has an equally negative impact on us. In a few short years, we have tarnished a global admiration for the U.S. that took decades to build. We have effectively lost our diplomatic sway when confronting other nations for their humanitarian violations. Finally, we have exposed our lack of power and control in a region of the world that will be ever more important in the next 20 years.
If only our fearless leaders in Washington had bothered to read about their counterparts throughout history. Maybe then we wouldn’t have to learn these hard lessons all over again.
Filed under politics, war : Comments (0) : Mar 14th, 2007
