At this website: http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=66710&bheaders=1
One Ibrihim Baker writes: "Why is it that the demolition of the WTC, the Madrid and London bombings, are considered acts of "terrorism" while the air bombing of civilian shelters, by the USA in 1991 in Baghdad which resulted in some 500 civilain fatalities (Al Amirieh) and by Israel in Qanaa (Lebanon) which led to some 200 civilian casualties, are NOT considered as acts
of "terrorism" but deemed acts of war since both were terribly
"terrorizing" and both led to the same result: the killing of uninvolved civilian bystanders?"
One Jim B. Harris replies:
"One thing that comes to mind right away is "What was the intent?". What is the intent of the party doing harm and what are they trying to accomplish?"
"How many times as parents do we ask our kids, "What were you intending to do?"
"When the person in Iraq a few weeks got into a car laden with bombs and drove it into a group of school children getting candy from a group of US Soliders, what were they intending to do?"
But the real question to ask is, not "what is the intent." But, the deeper question, of what is the cause and what is the effect. Intent is just one component of causality. Ultimately whether a bomb is put by a terrorist, or by a pilot flying a plane, to the civilians the "effect" is the same. To the propagandists the "effect" is in the hands of the propaganda. And to the peace-maker, the question to be asked is "how do we stop it?"
Obviously, when folks are fired up, they aren't going to stop themselves. Obviously when the subject becomes one of "collective guilt" every act will result in a reprisal. There seems no getting around it. The crude civil wars that used to occur between family and family now become huge wars between entire collections of families. With both sides seeing red.
What was the intent? Did Israel really intend to harm civilians in Qanaa? Of course not, but to folks we know from the Arab Street, that doesn't matter. There is no explaining that "mommy died in an accident" or "your baby died because a missile was 100 feet off course." And the propagandists don't care.
Does it matter whether it is Bush and Cheney, or their equivalents in Hezbollah or Israel -- out to destabilize the region or Syria and Persia? They both seem only too happy to profit from the chaos. They play chess with other people's lives, and send other people to die. Yet, the folks in the street can't see how they are being played. Don't we all regret the loss of civilian lives? Don't we all mourne the young men, even the useful idiots wearing suicide belts, who carry out or are the targets of these attacks?
Don't we wish that God would soften their hearts and that they would listen to higher voices than those of the devils within their hearts? The intent does matter, but so does the effect. At some point all concerned are going to get tired and realize the utter folly of what they are doing. Will it take Atom bombs hitting New York, Meggido, Damascus and Tehran for that to happen?
Chris
Israel is between a rock and a hard place. Hezbollah is definately using human shields to cover their weapons, which is a despicable and deplorable tactic -- but is working rather well. Every effort Israel makes to defend itself from the attacks which Hezbollah is launching, just kills more civilians, as Hezbollah deliberately puts them in harms way. I hate to find myself agreeing with Olivar North and various Republicans, but in this case it is obvious that the propaganda has gotten so twisted that otherwise smart people are seeing things totally backwards. Somehow the accounts always ignore that Hezbollah initiated this fight with an invasion and a kidnapping followed by repeated and civilian aimed rocket attacks. The New York Post reports:
and I agree with Ambassador Dan Gillerman's assessment:
"Those people including women and children who were killed in this horrible tragic incident may have been killed by Israeli fire, but they are the victims of the Hezbollah," Gillerman said. "They are the victims of terror. If there were no Hezbollah this would never have happened."
But of course as USA today reports:
War is a terrible thing, and this one needs to end permanently. But I will not lay blame for what is happening on Israel. Israel shouldn't be relying on air-war tactics and should have struck with ground forces instead, but I can't fault them for that. Still it plays into Hezbollah hands, not all Israeli attacks are killing civilians because of "human shields" -- a lot of it is because air-war is by its very nature subject to inaccurate fire and mistakes. Air Warfare minimizes casualties for soldiers, and Hezbollah is attacking with rockets that are placed in neighborhoods far from the frontlines, but the very nature of air-war is a gold mine for Hezbollah propagandists.
Hezbollah makes no bones about its goal of destroying Israel and killing every Jew it can world wide. Hezbollah also makes no bones about its goal of destroying the USA, killing Christians and Jews world wide, and has committed far more numerous and onerous attrocities than even Al Qaeda did. And I have a special regard for Hezbollah because they were the ones who carried out the attack on the AMIA in Buenos Aires, with the help, of course of both Iran and Saudi Arabia, and Carlos Menem.
NATO needs to police the border, The arabs need to stop the incitement and propaganda, and they need to start thinking more about the future and making a workable society and less about how to kill Israelis.
Of course the reality doesn't matter in a propaganda war, Israel can release photos of missiles flying from Qana all it wants, and we can show photos of Hezbollah launching its rockets while smiling women and children look on; but it doesn't matter to the Arab Street, and that is why this tactic of using Human shields is working so well. More:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/30/world/main1847561.shtml
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/07/30/161724.php
Chris
One of the archetypes and subtexts of classic English Language folk history is that of the "noble outlaw." But what drives this mythic archetype? The answer is that this archetype of the "noble" outlaw is driven by the archetype of the noble who acts like an outlaw, or to be more universal, of the rich and powerful who act as outlaws under the cover of the law.
In each story of a Robin Hood type person; Al Capone, Robin Hood, Jesse James, others, there is always a "Guy of Gisborne" and other corrupt characters lurking in the background, who are using the law to achieve corrupt ends and who are oppressing people with ruinous taxes, legal theft, cronyism, and other forms of injustice. Robin Hood gets in trouble for betting with a Forester that his arrow could travel further and more accurately than that of the forrester. He represented the "Yeomanry", free men who owned little land and who were always subject to class warfare by the Norman Nobles of England. The nobles needed money to fight in the Holy land, they got that money either through borrowing from Jews who they later killed (the Story of Robin Hood is set around the time that the Jews of England were expelled for Usery after allegations of the "blood libel") -- or by userous taxes.
Userous taxes were also seen as an excuse for the kind of brutality that could be used to keep corrupt and theiving individuals in power. Robin Hood was a hero to the people because the people who were running the country were alien and corrupt. And sure enough the archetype is reinforced when he "comes out of the woods" to serve the "Good King Richard." You don't get a Robin Hood without kleptocrats. Robin Hood and Guy of Gisborne represent a mated pair of archetypes.
Now this archetype doesn't require reality to be activated. Both Hamas and Hezbollah have developed the Robin Hood Archetype despite the brutal reality of their actions. Moreover, insurgency groups have a way of becoming what they criticize when they get to power themselves. The Robin Hood archetype is actually often a dishonest distortion of reality. Al Capone and Jesse James were not heroic individuals. The very Anglified Normans who Robin Hood was pitted against actually started as pirates and invaders who converted to Christianity learned French and became what they had once opposed. In fact much of the older lines of European nobility are descended from pirates, bands of thieves, and other extraordinary individuals because the Visigoths, the Ostragoths, the Vandals and the Alans, etceteras... all got their start as insurgent bands who gained power by opposing a corrupt government.
Nobility world wide often gets its start by hiding behind the Robin Hood type myth. The metaphor of Animal House is older than Communism, but Communism embodies this mythic tool in action. "Vanguard of the proletariat?" My eye. Nobody breaks free of oppression by giving away their power to such people. When people take power, when the Robin Hood's become the Nobles, all that happens is that power transfers to new bosses. It seems a universal desire to control other people, and whether it is a giant Klepto-Military-Industrial complex or Bureaucrats the results start looking the same after a while.
Ultimately the reality of Robin Hood, and of those who foment revolution in the name of "the people", is usually that of thieves marketing their thievery with slogans like "merry yeomen of Sherwood Forest," and "rob from the rich and give to the poor" [with a 90% cut for the thieves]. Sometimes a group of insurgents really are "Robin Hoods" but more often they are simply wanna-be King Johns putting on a pretense of caring about the "People" while putting those same people's lives in jeapardy, so they can gain fame, power, glory and loot.
Chris
This story, called "Aprils Storm" first came out in 1997 at the news group alt.religion.buddhism.nichiren, it was posted by Terry Ruby, who has posted it ever since repeatedly where-ever he's been active. I could corroborate parts of the story, because I was at Maryland at the time, and I voted for Marc Strumpf to become student council President there. I also knew April Omara, periphrially. She was a passionate student, and a passionate and brave member who never failed to question leadership of the Gakkai when something didn't seem to be right. I remember that campaign, and the oceanic rush it gave me to think that there were so many members of the Gakkai at Maryland. I was thinking (deludedly it turned out) that we'd be achieving Kosenrufu in no time -- we were on a role. I had my own "benefits" of a kind with April's Storm.
The Rest of the Story...
When I heard she had died I was sad. I still don't know all the facts about what happened. But I do know that I cannot stand hearing the "April's Storm" story for the way it turned out. It makes me sad every time I hear it because I know the "rest of the story" and it is different from this nice beginning. I heard, almost immediately after the story first came out, that April had committed suicide. Terry now says that she died of a "heart attack" and calls any stories about other things "misinformation" -- but that is not the story first put out on the Internet and at the time he would not answer queries. Steve and Bruce put up a story that she'd committed suicide. It was pretty ugly. Later I heard other people fill in gossip about what happened. But I'll never know exactly what happened. Gossip has all the accuracy of, well Gossip. There were allegations and counter-allegations.
This guy Bruce eventually left Buddhism and wandered off to other-lands. The point is, whatever happened to April in her life, her story got tied up in the nastiness that occured in the US, and about the "temple issue" between the Gakkai and Nichiren Shoshu, and third parties. Bruce was a pioneer with the Kempon Hokke and a bit of a trouble maker sometimes. Another member put up an anti-Kempon Hokke website and that started flames. Anyway I'm just writing this down because my memory is getting old, because some people are still trying to milk the original and "protect" themselves from the truth, and I wanted to document the subject before it is too old to bother with. The point is she didn't die of just a heart attack, the poor soul took her life as I reported. Marc Strumpf was there. She may have been surrounded by love, but like all suicides she couldn't resist the darkness closing in.
The rest of the story is that the kinds of cheap miracles told in stories like "April's Storm" aren't as important as doing "human revolution" or changing ones thoughts words and deeds. That is where religious work is.
Daniel Pipes writes:
"Do not engage in exchanges with terrorist groups, such as the 2004 trade of one rogue Israeli civilian and the remains of three soldiers for 429 living terrorists and criminals. This returns terrorists to the field while encouraging further abductions."
I'm not sure that blanket prohibitions against negotiations work either. I think a better broad principle here is not to not engage with terrorists, but not to be stupid about it. There is always more than one way to skin a cat Mr. Pipes. James Heller has some very smart ideas about how to deal with these people, that might be pretty darn successful if Israel employed them. These are the ideas of David Galula, who literally wrote the book on the subject: "Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/23/AR2006072300579.html
He's writing about Guantanamo, but the same principle would work admirably (and a bit diabolically) with Hezbollah as well. Let 'em go!
He writes:
"Galula lived through this firsthand after he was captured in 1947 by Mao Zedong's forces in the Chinese civil war. Rather than being dealt with as a prisoner, he was treated as an "honored guest," as were all Chinese Nationalist soldiers in the camp. They were given two weeks of food and indoctrination, and upon completion of their stay, they had the option to return to their units."
"As it turned out, many of the prisoners had been in the camps before -- the knowledge that they would be treated well had led them to view surrender as an acceptable option. Eventually they were viewed with suspicion by their own army, and the Nationalists were forced to set up prisoner of war camps for their own people."
"Mao had perfected this technique while fighting the Japanese in World War II; many of the postwar leaders of the Japanese Communist Party were "graduates" of these camps. Mao succeeded in changing the minds of kamikazes -- something for us to think about."
But his best recommendation is:
"Finally, I would make sure that everyone knew that many of the detainees were very cooperative, and I would leave it to al-Qaeda to figure out who was. I would also leak that we had a "classified" ability to track these people no matter where they went. Let the combination of paranoia, fundamentalism and al-Qaeda do its fratricidal work."
And he concludes:
"Let us move away from the bullets, bombs and prisons that have so alienated those we are trying to convert, and instead move into the minds of our opponents. If this truly is jihad, then let us sow the seeds of dissension, and let al-Qaeda engage in an "internal struggle" to its own bitter end."
I know he is right, so why not try this approach. It kills two birds with one stone. It allows Israel to act on its just warfare principles -- and it returns Israel to the sort of moral high-ground that may just turn people's heads towards genuine peace. Folks like Castro and Nasrullah would be already gone by now if they didn't have an "enemy" (Us) to keep the people from focusing on their kleptocratic and autocratic ways.
"Do not allow Hezbollah to acquire thousands of Katyusha rockets from Iran and station them in southern Lebanon. The estimated current arsenal of nearly 12,000 Katyushas not only threatens all of northern Israel, as recent days have proved, it provides Iran with a strategic threat with implications for the entire region."
Who can argue with that principle. But how to stop them? I leave that analysis to you. I have no idea other than convincing the rest of the world to deal with the situation honestly -- and that requires doing a better job playing the information game so that the "propaganda-meisters" can be beaten at their own game; with the truth. Let the prophesy be fulfilled "And the Truth will be taught out of Jerusalem." The world promised to police the borders with Israel and then to turn that policing over to Lebanon. Hezbollah became a Lebanese Party doling out charity to the poor. Israel bombs Hezbollah, Israel looks like it is bombing the poor Shiah. Who wins here? Hezbollah. Haven't we learned that without the cooperation of affected governments we can't stop anything? That principle is true whether one is talking about Mexico, Iraq, or Lebanon.
There you have a learned principle. The previously operative principle was "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Sometimes that work -- however if the alliance is temporary so will be the results.
Nice idea, but every-day of radicalization increases the odds that whatever happens Hamas is going to dominate the outcome -- unless we can figure out how to pull their teeth out in Gaza -- and get them to drop the threat of extermination and come to the bargaining table.
(Note it took a while but this finally showed up at Daniel Pipes Weblog)
Chris
In a previous entry: 001081.html I tried to introduce the subject of "effects." Effects thinking tries to tease out "cause" by developing an imagined view of a desired effect. For example military people will look at precisely how much explosive it takes to destroy a bunker buried 100 meters beneath the ground and made with so and so amount of Concrete. To image such effects military thinkers try to calculate how much explosive it will take to get that effect, what kind of "vehicle" is needed to deliver it, etceteras.
Effects thinking is useful in developing scenarios or images for solving problems. Though it flows out of the military orientation towards accomplishing "objectives" it can be used for solving any sort of engineering type problem, not just military ones. The design for accomplishing such an effect is usually called an "architecture." The architecture of a bomb is analogous to that for a house or a cathedral. In all these cases one tries to anticipate what it takes to make, deliver, and use the system one is looking at.
There is an ethical and cognitive component to human behavior that is subtle, but very real and that must be considered when trying to imagine effective strategy and outcomes or the unintended "effects" of the methods used to attend ones ends will lead to very different outcomes from those intended.
The way that an effects approach generates results is that it starts with an ideal picture, compares it to reality, images an ideal picture, images the current state, and then seeks to image what is needed to get to that ideal state. This works really well when designing architectures such as Buildings or Airplanes. Not always so well when developing political strategy. This is because the scenarios envisioned all reflect contingent reality that contains assumptions about motivations and how people will respond to events that are not always true.
An effects approach is a highly effective (pun) way to go about envisioning an architecture (designs) for solving a practical problem. When thinking in terms of effects one envisions an idealized "effect." Say enlightenment, Heaven, Heaven on Earth, and then works back through a chain of causation to try to figure out how to get to that effect.
The problem with effects thinking is that when people focus on "effects" they often get misleading ideas about cause, not just at the engineering level, but from a moral view. This is because architects sometimes become so focused on "ends" or "effects" that they miss the importance of process (means) in getting to those ends. Or they fail to grasp the role of serendipity, luck, probability, risk, and human complexity in the "effects" they wish to achieve. That is why architects and other otherwise very intelligent people often make such poor quality moral leaders.
The effects approach can be used to design quite beautiful outcomes, but it also can produce less than ethically satisfying results. Indeed ends thinking can generate highly unethical behavior. In past posts I've been trying to explain why Christian and Moslem fundamentalism produces highly unethical behavior despite preachings about universality and peacefulness. The reason is that they adopt a really shallow reasoning to get to their ideal state. It's not rocket science why they arrive at exactly the opposite outcomes from those they imagine. People who "believe" in such visions tend to believe that the ends justify the means used to get there -- despite the fact that their means violate all the rules that their own systems create. God hasn't told anyone that mass murder, tyranny, and dogmatism is good behavior -- these people distort their source material to justify deeds on the grounds that they will produce desired effects which they won't do.
Ends thinking tends to color how people look at cause. The thinking may seem "objective" because it is focused on objectives, but it is not objective because it is colored with bad assumptions. In the complex causality that is the real world, even a particular cause that produces an effect in some cases may not always produce that particular effect in even the most slightly different circumstances. What "worked" in one circumstance may produce a disaster in similar circumstances. For ends thinking to produce predictable results the cause must be universal and when dealing with people it is not. People learn from each other. For every "counter-insurgency" play-book, there is a similar "insurgency" play-book, and vice versa.
War is the ultimate expression of ends based thinking. And war just doesn't really solve long term problems very well. Sometimes people are forced to go to war. Sometimes people are only happy defining themselves as "war-fighters" but warfighting only produces an endless cycle of war-fighting. To get to better results, one has to find better means, and those means involve considering cognitive, psychological, and yes even spiritual factors in designing policy and resolving conflict.
For example Robert MacNamara talks about this approach as used by General Curtis Lemay during World War II. In the "Fog of War" R. MacNamara tells us (in a PBS presentation) that Curtis Lemay wanted to minimize air-flier casualties. He decided that since a certain number of soldiers were going to die anyway, that he could best do this by minimizing casualties by making them a function of enemy casualties. In order to minimize human casualties he began to fly B-29's over Japan, first out of China (which was a disaster) and then out of Islands. Curtis Lemay and R. Macnamara solved massive logistics problems to get B-29's that could fly high high over their targets and destroy them from the air -- an altitude which most Japanese fighters couldn't fly high enough to shoot down.
However, the B-29 bombers weren't accurate enough. In order to hit those targets LeMay needed to bring them down lower. The trouble is that this would cause increased casualties to his troops and defeat the value of the B-29. So he decided that the way around this was that his pilots would fire-bomb Japan. Japan was mostly a wood based economy. If a fire-storm could be started entire cities could be burned down, factories and plants with them. So that is exactly what he did. He firebombed Tokyo, Yokohama, nearly every city in Japan. He skipped Nagasaki and Hiroshima and a couple of others. In the process he killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in each attack and millions in the aggregate.
The problem was that this was highly unethical. MacNamara and Lemay both later agreed that had the US lost WWII they both would have been tried successfully as war-criminals. It minimized American Casualties but maximized civilian casualties. It was disproportionate and barbaric. We justified it that these people would have killed US Marines later -- but that was not true -- these were mostly women and children. Our targets were the factories, war-fighting capabilities and the military men manning those capabilities. To him an effect of killing millions of innocent lives did not justify the cause because of the principle of proportionateness.
Even if a strategy is effective in the short run, if it is so unethical and disproportionate then it may still not be a good strategy.
Now Macnamara is still a believer in using effects based thinking. To him the attacks violated the principle of proportionality. The problem with effects based thinking is that it often leads to misapprehension of causality.
But the real issue here is that regardless of Macnamaras or LeMay's attitude what they did was barbarous. MacNamara doesn't blame Truman and notes that had the US not won the war he and LeMay would have been tried as war criinals. But this is too easy. Regardless of proportionateness or non-proportionate behavior, the calculations were based on the goals of the US, which were to beat the Japanese into submission. And given that over-arching goal, the means used to attain it were ruthlessly and diabolically effective. Nobody gets off the hook here. Not MacNamara, not the Presidents (Roosevelt and Truman), not the Japanese and not the US people either. War itself is an evil, and when nobody is living by any kind of "rules of war" then it is an ultimate evil and those sucked into part of that evil and soon caked in cloying sticking oily blood.
MacNamara later was Secretary of Defense for both Johnson and Kennedy. During his entire tenure he was less than enthusiastic about Vietnam, but like Colin Powell with Iraq, he was a good soldier and obeyed orders. He crunched the numbers according to the policy given him. The policy was flawed and the "intelligence" was flawed, and the South Vietnamese we were trying to help were never winning, and we undermined their chances by the decision to help them.
(note I started this post on June 18 2006, but just now finished it)
Years ago I spent a moment with the Amway people. They seemed harmless enough, though their products were expensive, and their pyramids unstable, the principles of positive thinking and posibility thinking were principles that were resonating with me at the time and which it took me a while to internalize in my own way. I kind of sucked at Amway. Anyway, even though I sucked at it, I learned a lot from the group. One thing I learned is that it is not enough to talk about positive thinking. You have to apply the buddhist principle of thought, word and deed. At the time I thought that the combination of chanting daimoku and Amway would make me rich. It wasn't to be that easy.
The basic principle here was "what you can conceive, if you can believe, you can make real." This principle is behind religion, behind any kind of successeful effort, and the difference between success and failure. When Nichiren Daishonin (the founder of Nichiren Buddhism) is depicted talking about Buddhism being about "victory and defeat" he is talking about this ability to envision a correct outcome and make it a real outcome. Victory doesn't always mean killing or destroying an enemy. Sometimes it is something far more powerful. It is about conceiving productive, producible, "realistic" dreams, and then making them reality.
When people start chanting in Nichiren Buddhism a seed is planted. This seed is the possibility that "hey I can succeed at something." What is that something? That something is the notion that "hey I can be happy!" If people can conceive it, and believe it, then it can become real. However, where the mistake is is in the notion that some magician is going to wave a wand and a magic city will appear for them. Actually the magician waves his wand, and the people believing in the city to be built come and build the city. To make something real one has to build a foundation, walls, roof, etceteras... All that is very real work. It is not easy and it is easy to tear down. The magic didn't come from the magician after all, it came from the architects, engineers, technicians and laborers who travelled with him and built a magical city with the labor of their backs.
If we are the architects of our own lives, then we don't have to build the things that others tell us we have to build and live in. The same effort that constructs a prison constructs a warehouse or a box-store. The same creativity that goes into designing a Predator drone can build wonderful little toys that teach little kids to do wonderful things. Human life is change-able -- and that is a good thing. All things die, but in giving their lives creatively they ensure that life can be a joyous and beautiful thing. This is the "value creation" that Makiguchi used to talk about. It is the creative life that American Philosophical Architects like Dewey talked about. There is no need to accept a dark and ugly vision when a bright and shiny alternative is available.
That is why lately I've been seeking to 'redeem' the religions of my childhood and have been studying once again the Judeo-Christian heritage. It is posible to redeem these myths and beliefs from the people who claim to own them. We redeem these things by acquiring them back. We reclaim religion and politics and say "What you are saying is a lie" to the false architects, the funeral directors and executioners who claim to own them now. We talk truth to power in the way that the little girl Pollyanna does -- with sincerity and appreciation. Everyone has a Buddha nature. This means that the local preacher, minister, and Rabbi can be redeemed too. They don't have to be stuck in dark dreams with dark fears controlling their every move.
Some of them understand this instinctively. How many Christian preachers preach the talk of Positive thinking, Amway and American Exceptionalism? What they are missing is the connecting concept of realism. America is only exceptional if it is built that way. A person has to build his "line" one rock at a time. It is not enough to talk about how exceptional America is. This talk is important. One has to both "talk the talk" and "walk the walk" however to make it reality. Those who do this are indeed exceptional.
Chris
There are three or four principles that must be dealt with and established in order to establish the kinds of basis that can be enable genuine peace and diplomacy by establishing a shared image (conceptualization) of what peace means -- of alternatives. If common principles can be established, shared rules can be created and enforced. Without a common basis and a shared vision of where to go next it is impossible to secure peace even between folks like myself and anyone else. My dialogue with "Clown Hidden" is proof of the difficulty of this. A shared vision requires that people see the same thing. The nature of delusion is that the "world elephant" is also a donkey, a bear, a large man with a long white beard, a mountain, a city, a Cathedral, a Cross, a Star of David, a five pointed Star in a Red field, etceteras.... we each see the Universe from different perspectives. One function of enlightenment is to give people a brief flash of light so they can see Universe from a broader perspective. In the absence of illumination we have to try to use words to try to explain the World Elephant and that these different views are all equally true, and equally deluded. That is why a single picture is worth a thousand words -- and why I've had limited luck explaining these concepts so far.
Let us look for some candidate principles for sustaining and transforming paradigms.
One the principle of collective responsibility versus the principle of individual responsibility. Another is the principle of proportionality. In this post I want to discuss these two principles. Please feel free to join in and help.
Warfare nearly always embodies the principle of collective responsibility to one degree or another. In the current conflict South Africa alleges:
"The extension of the principle of collective punishment from the Palestinian Occupied Territory to Lebanon is a very serious development. Deputy Minister Pahad called on the Palestinians and Hezbollah to release the Israeli prisoners and called for an end to the launching of rockets. Failure to do so is resulting in Israeli military offensive causing massive death and destruction."
Aside from the fact that they seem to take the view that the entire region of "Israel" is occupied territory this allegation is interesting because it at least shows that some people are thinking about the subject of collective responsibility. They condemn the extension of that principle into lebanon. That is a bloodless way to condemn the widening of the war, but for now it will do for me. The principle of measured response might have been a better response to Hezbollahs invasion and kidnapping. Had I been Israel and those people made such an incursion. I'd have made a similar incursion into Lebanon and kidnapped 20 members of Hezbollah -- and then offered the usual 10-1 trade. But I'm not king David. King David dealt with Syria by raiding their king when he made an incursion into their territory on his way from Egypt back to Syria to "restore his power along the Euphrates." He defeated an army that far outnumbered him and then killed every third of the "enemy soldiers." For some reason all three religions see him as a hero, but this was a ruthless thing by our standards. By the standards of his time it was probably merciful. He "only" hamstrung the horses, he didn't kill them.
He enforced a collective punishment on the Syrians to prevent them from attacking his country in advance. It worked during his life-time and during the life-time of his successor. However, Syria waited until King Solomon died and then supported a rival to David's throne. "Syria" has been an enemy of "Israel" ever since even when both were ruled by other people or nominally part of the same country. Its weird how long a country can nurse a grudge -- so long that they forget how the grudge got started in the first place. It seems strategically advantageous to play the old game "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" or to use excessive force to intimidate "enemies." But as history shows us, once made an enemy it can be nearly impossible to ever restore friendship.
Nevertheless, how one fights does influence how the "enemy" responds, and can even lead to an "enemy" becoming eventually a friend. When the US showed largesse and mercy to Europe and Japan after World War II, and didnt' take advantage of their powerful position excessively -- this led to a generation of peace. Of course the presence of the Russians in East Germany helped too. The principle of fighting with restraint and measure, and then being merciful after the war is over and helping the "enemy" recover, is a good one even if the historical examples are not as sturdy as we'd like them to be. The US Magnaminous behavior enabled the Germans to pick new priorities for who their principle enemies are. It showed them that the US wasn't a real enemy to Germany -- which destroyed the Nazi destructive narrative. Holding the perpetrators of Nazism accountable helped too. There is nothing like shame to hold down hyper-nationalism and hubris. The US established in the World Courts the notion that there is a principle of responsibility in the International arena. Later MacNamara and LeMay would note that had the results been reversed, they'd have been on trial simlar to the Nazis. They had not observed either the principle of proportionateness, nor the principle of individual responsibility. The entire Japanese people were treated as collective targets for US fire-bombs. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were lesser horrors compared to the fire-bombings that preceded them.
The principle of proportionality is difficult to achieve, and so is the principle of individual responsibility. When Israel attacks a military position or "infrastructure" with the goal of stopping the transport of kidnapping victims or rockets, that manifests as collective punishment no matter how accurate they make the bombs they use. The Pentagon might use the bloodless phrase "collateral damage" but for those "collaterally damaged" the suffering is the same as if the bomb targetted civilians. When the Palestinians target civilians that too is collective punishment.
War is collective murder. Nice people kill people in the name of their country and in the name of survival. The ones carrying out the orders are in a no win situation morally. It is often more immoral to not fight than it is to fight. Their leaders are responsible.
I'm not sure it is appropriate to kill every leader of Hezbollah or Hamas. They are responsible, but we have to leave someone to talk to in order to eventually have peace. The principle of responsibility also dictates that nobody be killed until the facts are aired and a trial has been conducted. This principle was created by Hammurabi, who developed his code principally to end the blood feuds that wracked the middle east prior to his time. An eye for an eye was a progressive principle in the light of the human tendancy to seek a life for an eye, or at the very least two eyes for an eye. If I were king of the world (or PM of Israel) instead of issuing death threats I'd issue "wanted dead or alive" posters for perpetrators of attrocities. Then I'd set a date and hold a courts martial for the leaders of my enemies. They'd be invited to defend themselves in court, themselves or by proxy. That is the principle of proportionality and the principle of responsibility at work.
I also know for a fact that the people who carried out orders to torture people to get information should not have been held accountable while their masters continue to give similar orders to others. This violates the principle of responsibility while pretending to carry it out. The US should hold the top leaders who ordered Abu Gharaib and Guantanamo responsible for their actions. Then we could hold our heads up high again.
Unfortunately, there is a nastiness involved in warfare that should make warfare the last possible option for solving any problem. This nastiness is why attrocities happen and evil people use war to do business that hurts all of us -- but makes them very rich. Getting to a state of peace involves shifting from collective responsibility to individual responsibility -- but that is always harder than it looks. People don't always act reasonably, and worse when they are being unreasonable they are often the last ones to realize just how unreasonable they are being. I should say "we" -- because this is the human condition.
More importantly, behind these people are cynical folks who know that teaching irrational, ignorant, putrid and hatred filled ideas allows them to make money. The Ayatollahs of Iran are not poor. The Saudis and Bush's are not poor. Their wealth comes not just from Oil but from human lives. The useful idiots who believe their BS go to their death expecting 70 virgins or a second coming of Jesus Christ -- but all they get is dust. You can't find any of this nonsense in either the Koran or the Bible -- it is all manufactured by folks playing chess with human lives and who consider the rest of us their ponds. The only people not expecting a second coming or a reward of 70 virgins are probably the Israelis because they know that they are fighting just to survive. But I'll never convince their enemies of that.
One reason that the principle of collective responsibility holds largely because those making military decisions don't have the ability to hold trials and figure out who is "really" culpable. If trials are to be held under current law, the "enemy" would have to conduct them. And the enemy sees its own responsibility as collective so that will never happen in anything but a just war. It is hard even for the US to hold people responsible for the real crimes. The tendancy is to find scape-goats and let the culprits get away with it.
One of the principles of efforts to moderate or ameliorate the injusticeof war is to hold responsible those who are culpable for an event or deed. And this leads to a form of collective responsibility that is perfectly legitimate. Given there is a conflict, those who are directing the conflict are responsible for the deeds and commissions of their officers. Given an office, the officers are responsible for their conduct and that of their charges. And the militarized components of a society are collectively responsible for the methods and outcomes it pursues in conducting a conflict. As long as war is seen as a possible way to deal with disagreements over sovereignity and other issues, this is Thus it is entirely reasonable for Israel to attack Hezbollah or Hamas Guerillas for attacking them. And it is entirely appropriate that they take the steps of trying to decapitate or hold accountable their leadership. But it is not appropriate for either Hamas or Hezbollah to want the complete and utter destruction of their enemies nor that they want to commit genocide. If they truly want to achieve peace they first have to moderate them to no longer include that goal. Then peace can be negotiated.
Chris
Since I posted the last post I've found myself, when I have time, discussing a variety of issues: the principle of Non Violence, the principle of proportionality, and the principles and history involved in the existence of Israel. I am not on the defensive on these matters because I'm trying to enforce a balanced conception of where (I) we can go as (a human being) human beings and that can only be done in an honest and progressive manner. Israel's existence and future is a matter of current importance to everybody, especially to me because I too have had my imagination inflamed by the events that led to the current situation.
There are some good articles on this subject today:
Richard Cohen writes:
Hunker down with History: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071701154.html
Richard Cohen writes;
"The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself."
Israel probably is indeed a mistake. Religious radicalism was lit up by the oxygen of even the prospect of a prophesized Jewish return their homeland. Orthodox Rabbis mostly opposed the idea because they knew that the land still had many spiritual issues and that those isses and concepts would be rekindled by creating a State there before the figurative "Davidic King" was restored under ideal circumstances. Anything less would rekindle the kind of conflict and hatred that led to the destruction of the first two states. Moslems have their own end-times predictions about Jews. To them a State in Israel isn't a mistake but a unpardonable sin.
The Haskallah Jews of Zionism were looking at ideals and thought that the Arabs would welcome progressive, hard working people who would use science and technology to make the area a breadbasket that could support millions of people. They rejected such figurative arguments, especially since these weren't framed in a way that these hard-headed, myth-rejecting people could understand.
Sure enough The Orthodox Rabbis were right, but once the state was founded most of them found they had no choice but to sign on. Figuratively God had spoken. To this day some Orthodox and many Marxist Jews oppose a State in Israel, for different reasons. Marxists because they oppose any particular state.
The Hazkallah Jews also came to Israel because they didn't see much of a choice. Between 1922-1948 Europe, the United States, and much of the world shut their doors to Jewish Emigration. Going to Israel, legally or illegally, was often their only choice. When Jews moved to Palestine starting at the end of the 19th century they dreamed of reconstituting a Jewish State there, but many of them were quite content to live as members of the broader state they were living in until circumstances forced them to seek independence in the 40's. They also came to the US, to Argentina, to any port that would have them. Those who left left because they were forced to and could. Those who stayed died.
Chris
I had a couple of experiences over the last few days that I'd like to share because they illustrate a concept I've been seeking to develop. My wife is a lover of theater and loves Spanish Language theater. The only real example of Spanish Language theater in the Washington Area is usually at the Gala theater in DC and so we usually attend their opening performances -- also because we usually get a discount for first night performances. Usually she has her students there. Our relationship with the Gala theater is sometimes checkered. They are a little avant Guard, sometimes too much for our taste.
Their acts are good, but sometimes they try to beat people over the head with their message. This performance was no exception: "Caribeana Imperia World Premiere! - An Original Musical Directed by Wendell Manwarren with Hugo Medrano featuring 3canal (Trinidad). The music was stirring, melodic, inspiring, and I was really enjoying the performances, music, dancing and singing. They were singing in Spanish and Carribean English. I was thinking how nice their message was...
-- until the third to the last act when they unfurled a red flag and came out wearing military clothes with Che Guevara images on the front. At that point they lost me.
At any rate, both my wife and I had a reaction. Hers was conditioned by years of living in Argentina where for a long time just being associated with such people was a death sentance, mine was conditioned by my intense loathing for the methods and goals of Communism. I see the fundamental problem of modern life is in the tendancy of moderns to disenfranchise the majority of the people. I don't see Communism as any ideology that can settle that problem. And furthermore I don't see its ideology as constructive. The image of conflict, revolution, leveling, to me is an image of violence, destruction, and ultimately failure. The Red flag, whether waved by Communists or Neo-Cons, is a flag of violence and death.
However, they'd done so well before that. The poetry they'd shared shared a philosophy radically different from that of Che or Castro. It was a poetry of construction, of taking charge of one's own life, of creating your own dreams of non-violence. If they'd been wearing tee shirts from my heros; Nelson Mandela, Mohandis Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, I'd have been able to buy their message fully (okay at least mostly). They had gotten the concept half right, but totally wrong. I figure this is the influence of old Hugo Chavez and his Venezuela Oil Money, but it is still the wrong concept as far as I'm concerned. We survived the night and went home. I guess what pissed me off the most is that they were a bit deceptive. They talk about Gandhi style ideas and then unfurl the red flag. I felt deceived.
I wouldn't have thought of this again, but then the subject came up again in the context of the attack by Hezbollah on Israel and Israel's response. I heard offers from South Africa to mediate and it sounded reasonable. I'm a fan of Nelson Mandela and of non-violent principles.
A central issue on my mind is the escallating tensions with the Arab World in Israel. I'm all for defending one's country. When Hezbollah attacks Israel I figure that Israel is perfectly right to demand that the international community take action to make Hezbollah withdraw from direct attacks. I don't buy the case the Palestinians make at all when that case is carried on the tip of a Katyushka Rocket. Even Gandhi said that if the only choice is violent action, then violent action is better than inaction. If disciples of Mandela could mediate successfully this would be wonderful!
If people really want to achieve a strong capability for transforming society they should look at models that have worked in the past not ones that failed -- no matter how romantic those models may seem. Che Guevara and Castro represent, to me at least, losers who present a narrative of loss and dispossession that claims to be aimed at an ultimate goal of remedying dispossession and "class struggle". If the principle problem of the common folk is dispossession, how is dispossessing everyone going to remedy that problem? As George Orwell pointed out in his allegory Animal Farm, all that leads to is enabling another group of Pigs to take over the "Farm." The common factor in the losing narratives has been lack of consensus and moral authority by the "agents of change." What makes for moral authority?
Building self-rule (swa-raj or independence), using non-violent methods, using moral authority to change "concept" and thus change minds, represents a method, that albeit is imperfect, has a far greater chance of succeeding in ending conflict in the long run. Better to follow the examples I mentioned and work for success than follow the romantic but perilous road of the Ceasars (Castro is just another variant on this path) or the Popes (same). Ends rarely justify the means because ends are based on means and desired ends only come about when the means used are the right means. People are stubborn that way. A warrior might be able to pummel an enemy into submission -- for a time; but unless he does indeed manage to "kill them all" -- they'll be back again for revenge. The path of violence may be necessary for short term survival, but in the long run people have to find another way.
If the Palestinians want any long run peace and truly don't want to exterminate the Jews of Israel (a big if considering their election of Hamas in the South and Hezbollah in the North) then their only sane method would be to follow the advice of Arun Gandhi and follow the teachings of his Grandfather.
But on the other hand, the reality is always a more difficult field for developing consensus and moral authority than it seems. As much as I'd like to see South Africa broker a deal between the Palestinians and the Israelis, they are already off to a bad start.
http://supernatural.blogs.com/weblog/south_africa_relations/ in which he notes: "The Independent on Saturday reported that whilst the South African government is not yet considering cutting ties with Israel or imposing sanctions, it is open to debate on the issue. This was the message expressed by Minister in the Presidency Essop Pahad who said:"
"The question of imposing sanctions isn't a matter that can be taken lightly and should be treated with great seriousness. So the government is ready to discuss the issue with any organisation, but (we) support the Palestinians and oppose the escalation of tension in the Gaza as well as in Lebanon."
Like with my friends from the Carribean at the Gala, they are touching all the right principles, but their message is garbled by dishonesty. In the case of the Gala it was just a matter of no fair warning -- but South Africa is actually changing the facts to demonize Israel. When I hear of "truth and reconciliation" to me the emphasis should be on truth. They aren't off to a very good start with statements like this:
http://www.dfa.gov.za/docs/2006/isra0713.htm
"The South African Government is greatly concerned at the increasing cross-border violence involving Israel, the Gaza Strip and now also Lebanon. The escalating Israeli military strikes into Gaza after the capture of an Israeli soldier has now reportedly been followed by rocket attacks into Israel from Lebanon as well as Israeli military incursions and air attacks into Lebanon, resulting in the capture of two other Israeli soldiers and the death of seven Israeli soldiers."
— From the South African government’s statement on the Lebanese-Israeli conflict."
Israel didn't "escalate" tensions all by itself. There was this little matter of kidnappings and Katyushka rockets (manned by Iranians by the way). If South Africa wants to play hero and broker a peace deal they aren't going to get anywhere good by substituting a dishonest narrative for the truth. That soldier was kidnapped before Israel decided to do anything with Lebanon. Israel has a determined and bloodthirsty enemy on its border shooting rockets at it from two directions -- and South Africa says it is escalating tensions? Not a good place to start if they are going to play mediator and peace-maker. They remind me of a thing I heard from someone once about peacemakers -- "beware of peacemakers because they'll start wars so they can play the role."
So why do they do it? As the blogger says:
"Why deny that Hezbollah crossed the border to kidnap those Israeli soldiers, when the fact is not in serious dispute?"
Well it turns out that the reason is that, for all the talk about truth and reconciliation, the ties of these people to Gandhi are not as strong as their ties to one another. South Africa finally adopted the methods of Gandhi, but its leadership also fought in tandem with Cubans and Palestinians, with Castro and Che Guevara; and so they feel like "brothers in arms." They too would rather wear an image of Che on their shirt then that "wuz Gandhi" or that old guy Mandela. Worse they see the Jews of Israel as "Whites" and remember when Israel could find its only allies among pariah regimes like that of white South Africa. It looks like the reality of truth and reconciliation is harder than the theory would make it seem. It is easier to wave a red flag and talk about the hypocrisy and greed of others -- than to set aside ones own hypocrisy and ambition not to "seem weak."
More sourcing:
http://commentary.co.za/archives/2006/07/14/dishonest-diplomacy/
A few years ago I read an editorial (I think) that talked about George Orwell and his experiences as a Government Official in Colonial India (Burma actually).
One day he was sent to a village where a rogue elephant had killed
someone. As naturalist know, once an elephant learns it can kill
humans it becomes a very different animal from what it is before it
learns this lesson. And this elephant was very dangerous, but George Orwell was in a quandary. The elephant was the livelyhood for a family
man who lived in the village, and for all his family. He earned money
by hiring it out to do jobs no human can do. The elephant was the
equivalent of a bulldozer or a forklift in India. If he killed the
elephant he'd be a hero to half the village, but a villain to this
family.
On the other hand if he didn't kill the elephant he'd be held responsible for all the deaths that the elephant might cause. He'd be a villain to all the village except this one family. So he killed the elephant and was seen as a villain by all the village anyway.
The point of telling the story is that the British learned the hard
way that a nation can only help another if it doesn't stick around
too long after helping the other country or "help" so much that
people start making that nation responsible for their lives. If the
villagers had been responsible for making their own decisions and
there'd been a functional democracy they'd have had to work out a
deal satisfactory to everyone, but with the British Raj involved, no
deal could satisfy anybody. They'd all be blaming the Raj.
We got into this boat in Vietnam, and now we've done it again in
Iraq. This report in the post details the terrible human rights,
moral and emotional mess we are in. And all of it is our own fault.
We just haven't known when to pull out and now we've left Iraq
pregnant with a monster of our own making.
The author recounts the allegations about Haditha and other places,
but then says: "...recall a more recent incident, in Samarra . On May
30, U.S. soldiers manning a checkpoint there opened fire on a
speeding vehicle that either did not see or failed to heed their
command to stop. Two women in the vehicle were shot dead. One of
them, Nahiba Husayif Jassim, 35, was pregnant. The baby was also
killed. The driver, Jassim's brother, had been rushing her to a
hospital to give birth. No one tried to cover up the incident: U.S.
military representatives issued expressions of regret."
Accidents happen, war is ugly, people get killed. But we've been
singularly callous in this occupation. An expression of regret isn't
culturally sensitive. Even the most culturally sensitive regrets
can't bring back the dead, or repair the damage to the living. These
checkpoints have been killing innocents in the name of protecting
American Soldiers for a while now. We almost killed an Italian
Journalist because these checkpoints are designed to be virtually
invisible until people are right up on them. Heaven help a pregnant
woman or an unwary motorist. And we are in the Elephant dillemma:
evidence "suggests that in Iraq such mistakes have occurred
routinely, with moral and political consequences that have been too
long ignored. Indeed, conscious motivation is beside the point: Any
action resulting in Iraqi civilian deaths, however inadvertent,
undermines the Bush administration's narrative of liberation, and
swells the ranks of those resisting the U.S. presence."
Our Commanders chose to draw their lessons not from the lessons of
the British Raj, but from its worst mistakes: "In the early days of
the insurgency, some U.S. commanders appeared oblivious to the
possibility that excessive force might produce a backlash. They
counted on the iron fist to create an atmosphere conducive to good
behavior. The idea was not to distinguish between "good" and "bad"
Iraqis, but to induce compliance through intimidation."
And this was done on the mistaken notion that "effects" can be
generated through brute force. Somehow the psychology of operant
conditioning can be applied to human beings, either in Abu Gharaib
style prisons or by shooting at anyone who comes too near a convoy.
The result is a human disaster, and a time-bomb at home. This
attitude attracts skin-heads and neo-nazis:
It is only a matter of degree between an attitude that states things
like ""You have to understand the Arab mind," one company commander
told the New York Times, displaying all the self-assurance of Douglas
MacArthur discoursing on Orientals in 1945. "The only thing they
understand is force -- force, pride and saving face." Far from
representing the views of a few underlings, such notions penetrated
into the upper echelons of the American command. In their book "Cobra
II," Michael R. Gordon and Gen. Bernard E. Trainor offer this ugly
comment from a senior officer: "The only thing these sand niggers
understand is force and I'm about to introduce them to it."
But this displays a huge ignorance and sheer stupidity and we are
paying the price. What is the point of "removing" white supremicists
from the military when company commanders are allowed to express such
opinions openly without their own bosses at least making them take
lessons on Arabic culture and language? How can we "build schools"
and rebuild Iraq with that kind of attitude on the part of even a
minority of our soldiers. But we aren't doing any of those things.
That stuff was only for real for those troops who came to the country
in the first wave of the operation. Since then it has only been cruel
propaganda:
"There are no official statistics about the number of children who
have died in Basra since January," said Hassan Abdullah, a senior
official in the Basra governorate. "But local health department
employees and volunteers from some NGOs have collected information
suggesting that about 90 children have died as result of the lack of
medicine." According to Abdullah, this is worse than the same period
last year, when some 40 children died for similar reasons."
"Marie Fernandez, a spokeswoman for Vienna-based aid agency Saving
Children from War, said that the agency – which has been working with
local doctors – has noted a lack of essential supplies, especially
intravenous infusions and blood bags. "There's a lack of everything.
Children are dying because of bleeding because there are no blood
bags available," said Fernandez. "Antibiotics, Pentostam [an antimony
compound used in the treatment of parasite infection], special milk
for dehydrated children, and almost all medical material for
emergency conditions aren't available."
I know for a fact that many of our troops would want to help these
people. That they aren't comes from the top. It is disgusting.
Even if we weren't killing the people of Iraq through massive neglect
and conversion, we'd be having problems, compound the fact that we
aren't doing any of the things we said we'd do with the massive
brutality and ineptness with which we are doing what we are doing --
and we are in real trouble.
It is a disgrace that; "The report quotes Scott Barfield, a Defense
Department investigator, saying, "Recruiters are knowingly allowing
neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces, and
commanders don't remove them from the military even after we
positively identify them as extremists or gang members." And this makes the job of fighting "terrorism" abroad nearly impossible. I read an email from some Arab today, in the context of these stories it sounded plausible, until he recounted his experience being interrogated. He claimed his interrogators spoke to him with Israeli accents. That is possible but not likely. But how can I know when the reality keeps proving more lurid and bizaare than the propaganda? Why should these fools be giving such a propaganda advantage to our enemies?
It is insane what they are doing, were doing, and intended to do.
But then they are almost to the point where they'll take a guy my
age. Meanwhile these Nazi guys are training for the next war they see
coming -- the one at home with us "liberals" and "patriots."
On a side note, The good news is that today, bowing to the UN, the United States Supreme Court, and World Opinion, the US has finally decided to treat detainees in Guantanamo under the Geneva Conventions -- which specify that if a person is fighting as a soldier he is a soldier and should be treated as one, if he is a civilian or an enemy combattant he should be either turned over to law enforcement or charged with some crime.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071100094.html
"Are you a loyalist to King George or a Patriot?" How long until they
burn the declaration of Independence? And who will cheer?
Chris
I know I've been pushing this issue a bit. But if you don't believe me about all this you can ask Representative Hoekstra:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/09/AR2006070900705.html
"Hoekstra said the briefings took place after he complained in a May 18 letter to President Bush of hearing about "alleged Intelligence Community activities" not described to committee members in classified briefings. "If these allegations are true," he wrote to Bush, "they may represent a breach of responsibility by the Administration, a violation of law and . . . a direct affront to me and the Members of this committee."
For more go here;
http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/07/08/hoekstra-failing-to-inform-congress-of-spying-projects-might-be-illegal/
As several folks have noted, this program is nothing less than a wholesale attack on the fourth Amendment rights of every US citizen -- not just our Arab minorities. But it's nice that Hoekstra is finally noticing that the administration doesn't care whether it breaks the law and that the President will say just about anything -- but doesn't give a rats behind about anything in the Bill of Rights.
One blogger notes:
http://baltimoregroupblog.com/
"Shocking, telling a Congressman about an illegal wiretapping program isn't a threat to the national security. Who knew?"
He goes on:
"Congress has yet to hold Bush accountable for his illegal, extra-legal, and secret spying programs that have been instituted without required Congressional oversight. Oversight for the programs Congress now knows about is not the same as holding the executive branch accountable for its repeated transgressions. Hoekstra’s desire to know more is a step in the right direction, but it looks like Congress is still working under a faith-based policy that Bush isn’t going to do anything worse. Unfortunately, that doesn’t help me sleep at night."
No, the Congressmen are just waking up to the fact that this President doesn't really give a rats ass about separation of powers. Even Republicans ought to take that seriously.
Prior posts:
1098.html,1099.htmlhttp://www.fraughtwithperil.com/blogs/holte/archives/001097.html
More:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800897.html
More information:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/080106illegal_spying.htm
"While the officials insisted that the NSA tracks only individuals with apparent links to organizations that the US government considers to be terrorist, other agencies may be using it for more general purposes, the Post reported. “What data sets are included is a policy decision [made by individual agencies] when they involve other than terrorist links,” the newspaper quoted one former administration official as saying."
"The DIA databases are coordinated by Northcom, which collects information from the NSA as well as other intelligence and police agencies. According to an earlier report by Pincus, one of the databases run by the military included information on anti-war protestors. This database is shared with other organizations, including law enforcement agencies."
One of the reasons that domestic spying was taken out of the hands of the military was the role that military spies played in red-baiting and civil liberties abuses in the period from the 20's to the 50's. When Van-Deman, the founder of Military Intelligence died, his house was found to be full of files on US citizens, most of them guilty of nothing more than being liberals, jews, or living in big cities. A narrative had grown up that these people were all commies, fellow travelors or sympathizers. You still see that attitude in some on the right, and these people find niches in the Military Intelligence as well as at Fox news. They managed to continue their activities until the Church committee tried to shut them down. It looks like they just laid low until now.
"This sharing of names and information within intelligence agencies is widespread. A brief report in Newsweek on May 2, 2005, which has received little attention in the media since, noted, “According to information obtained by Newsweek, since January 2004 NSA received—and fulfilled—between 3,000 and 3, 500 requests from other agencies to supply the names of US citizens and officials (and citizens of other countries that help NSA eavesdrop around the world, including Britain, Canada and Australia) that initially were deleted from raw intercept reports.” In total, the news magazine reported, the number of names provided by the NSA to other agencies during this period surpassed 10,000."
I remember reports from NSA about the care with which they avoided listening in on citizens. Since 2000 this stuff has been "out the window."
"The danger that these steps pose to the democratic rights and personal freedom of the American people can hardly be overemphasized. The establishment of the Northern Command in 2002 was a critical step in the expansion of the role of the military in domestic affairs. In the summer of 2005, reports emerged of plans being developed within Northcom for the military to assume sweeping new powers, using a terrorist attack or natural catastrophe as the reason. (See “Pentagon devising scenarios for martial law in US”)"
Yep, the forces are in place for a future coup, dictatorship, or worse. The grounds for that have been laid.
"Any databases or lists of names, culled from searches through e-mails and telephone conversations, could form the basis for mass round-ups and arrests of anyone considered to be a threat to “national security.”
This sounds paranoid, but it can be avoided.
"Such plans are hardly unprecedented. In the 1980s, the Re[a]gan administration worked out a procedure for mass arrests of opponents of a US invasion of Nicaragua or El Salvador. The current director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, was US ambassador to Honduras during the time, and was closely involved with US actions in Central America, including the US-financed war against the government of Nicaragua."
Yep.
"Negroponte, now occupying a position tasked with coordinating the work of 15 different intelligence agencies, including the NSA and the DIA, is presumably a central figure in the coordination of the illegal spying operations currently being employed by the Bush administration.
And they encouraged Central and South American militaries to "disapear" innocent as well as guilty people. The spying was not effective enough. All it could produce were rumor quality evidence. That was enough for a reign of terror. People just disapeared.
"A central component of the administration’s policy since it came to office has been to erect the foundations for what would amount to a presidential dictatorship. The same officials who developed pseudo-legal arguments to justify the spying program have argued that the president has the constitutional authority as commander in chief to detain any individual, including any US citizen, indefinitely and without charges on the grounds that he or she may be a threat to national security."
Yep, and they've been promoted. Gonzalez, etceteras.
"The new NSA spying program was so blatantly in violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the NSA to obtain warrants for domestic spying from a special intelligence court, that it generated divisions within the Bush administration itself."
And the President has admitted this.
"A New York Times article on January 1 noted that at one point in 2004, Deputy Attorney General James Comey, then acting as attorney general while John Ashcroft was recovering from surgery, refused to give approval to some aspects of the program. Ashcroft himself apparently indicated some reservations after an emergency intervention by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, now attorney general. That Ashcroft, who was closely associated with all the attacks on democratic rights of Bush’s first term, had some concerns is indicative of the extraordinary breadth of the spying program."
This sounds true.
"The Bush administration continues to lie about the extent and purpose of the spying. In a speech on January 4 to the Heritage Foundation, Vice President Dick Cheney repeated the argument that the spying is authorized by the US Constitution and the congressional resolution passed following the attacks on September 11. He also repeated the line that the spying is necessary for the “war on terrorism” and is limited to “terrorist-linked international communications.” If the surveillance had been in place prior to September 11, “we might have been able to pick up on two hijackers who subsequently flew a jet into the Pentagon,” he said."
Yep, this is the "one percent" solution I mentioned in a previous post. Detain or spy on hundreds of people on the hope of getting that one real criminal. This is totalitarian thinking.
"According to the arguments of Cheney, Bush and the administration as a whole, the “war on terrorism” grants unlimited powers, and anyone who opposes these powers is aiding and abetting terrorism. The claim that if the government had these powers before September 11, it would have been able to stop the attacks is absurd on two counts. First, it is by now well documented that the FBI and CIA had information on at least some of the hijackers but did not act on this information. There is considerable evidence that points to the complicity at some level of the government itself in facilitating the attacks, which provided a pretext for a major policy shift, including the introduction of new spying powers and a vast expansion of US military action abroad, including the implementation of pre-existing plans to invade Iraq."
"Second, plans for the expansion of NSA spying powers began before September 11. Their aim is not to combat terrorism, but to monitor the activity of the American people."
And according to some reports were executed before 9/11.
"According to a January 3 report in the online magazine Slate, the NSA’s attempts to gain access to telecommunications switches began months before the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. “A former telecom executive told us that efforts to obtain call details go back to early 2001, predating the 9/11 attacks and the president’s now celebrated secret executive order,” Slate reporters Shane Harris and Tim Naftali wrote. “The source, who asked not to be identified so as not to out his former company, reports that the NSA approached US carriers and asked for their cooperation in a ‘data-mining’ operation, which might eventually cull ‘millions’ of individual calls and e-mails.”
"A report written by the NSA in December 2000 for the incoming Bush administration argued that the agency had to develop new ways to exploit modern communications systems. While circumspect on specific proposals, the Transition 2001 report, made public after a Freedom of Information Act request by the non-governmental National Security Archives, called for much more expansive monitoring of telecommunications."
"The report stated that under conditions in which communications are now “mostly digital, carry billions of bits of data, and contain voice, data and multimedia...senior leadership must understand that today’s and tomorrow’s mission will demand a powerful, permanent presence on a global telecommunications network that will host the ‘protected’ communications of Americans as well as targeted communications of adversaries.”
"A report written somewhat earlier, in June 1999, by Lieutenant General Jim Clapper of the NSA Scientific Advisory Board, argued for similar measures. While heavily redacted, the report, also made available by the National Security Archives, called for the development of “digital network intelligence,” which it defined as “the intelligence from intercepted data communications transmitted between, or resident on, networked computers.” Modern communications posed the problem of “manipulating huge volumes of heterogeneous complex data,” it said."
"Such large-scale data mining operations have now been implemented."
The articles author maintains:
"The Democratic Party is complicit in the implementation of these broad new spying powers. Leading members of the party were informed and repeatedly briefed on the NSA program, going back to at least October 2001."
However, if folks like Hoekstra were kept in the dark on details, I doubt seriously that democrats were briefed on the full ramifications of the program or of the uses to which that program would be put by seriously renegade elements within the DIA and the Administration.
"A letter recently released by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, written on October 11, 2001, when she was the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, demonstrates that the Democrats knew of the attempts to expand the powers of the NSA, even prior to an explicit and secret presidential authorization to begin the program."
"The letter was written in response to a briefing given by the head of the NSA, Michael Hayden, to the House and Senate intelligence committees. In her letter, Pelosi does not object to the new programs as such, but rather raises concerns about “whether, and to what extent, the National Security Agency has received specific presidential authorization for the operations you are conducting.”
"In spite of the fact that the Democrats were informed of the illegal program, no attempt was made to inform the American people and oppose this illegal and unconstitutional violation of democratic rights. Even with the public exposure of the secret NSA program, and Bush’s brazen assertion of his intention to continue its authorization, no leading Democrats have broached the possibility of impeachment. They are well aware of their own responsibility, and they have no disagreement with the administration’s fundamental aim: the suppression of political opposition to the militarist and imperialist policies of the US ruling elite."
NSA denied that it went outside the scope of efforts to catch Islamicist and other terrorists. But that is the nature of spying. The field attracts people with a certain paranoia and extreme views, their tendancy is to act illegally and secretly, how can anyone expect them to remain under control once they are given a greenlight to spy on citizens? Remember Nixon created the Plumbers after the FBI stopped cooperating with his efforts to use intelligence and selective revelations of wrong-doing to get re-elected.
Haven't we noticed how democrats get prosecuted for crimes that somehow aren't so serious when Republicans commit them? But these are serious enough that even Hoekstra is noticing.
Chris
I've got two choices for what to believe about this latest "plot"
that's been uncovered.
Judging by the official propaganda coming from the Bush
Administration and the [liberal?????] media:
The Government just broke up a serious ring out to do us harm.
"Eight suspects — including an al-Qaida loyalist arrested in Lebanon
and two others in custody elsewhere — had hoped to pull off the
attack in October or November, federal officials said. But federal
investigators working with their counterparts in six other countries
intervened. The other five suspects remained at large."
Of course, if "secrecy" is so important, publishing this information
while those 5 suspects are still at large may make it difficult to
apprehend them -- if they were serious about what they are doing.
According to this report;
http://tinyurl.com/fcpkh
"One former intelligence field officer says, and two other CIA
officials confirm, that the alleged plot by Muslim extremists to bomb
the Holland Tunnel in New York City was nothing more than chatter by
unaffiliated individuals with no financing or training in an open
forum already monitored extensively by the United States Government,
RAW STORY has learned."
According to RAW story the "plot" was little more than what was known
as "chatter" before 9/11 and the new attitude towards law
enforcement. So which is it? Were these folks part of a vicious
determined enemy out to destroy our country or was their talk
mere 'chatter'? What does this say about the State of US and world
civil liberties?
See this post from the other day:
http://www.fraughtwithperil.com/blogs/holte/archives/001098.html
RAW story's version seems to be corroborated by lines in the original
report:
""It was never a concern that this would actually be executed,"
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in Boston. "We
were, as I say, all over this."
So Michael Chertoff agrees with RAW. If there'd ever been any chance
of these people actually executing their plot, the Government wasn't
going to let them get that far:
"They were about to go to a phase where they would attempt to surveil
targets, establish a regimen of attack and acquire the resources
necessary to effectuate the attacks."
Obviously they are going to try these guys on "conspiracy" -- if they
are ever brought to trial. And this sets a precedent for ever
increasingly spurrious charges. Don't think this approach won't be
applied to increasingly "American" crimes. It already is.
Why release this information now? Unfortunately the official reports
don't support this as anything but part of an orchestrated effort to
roll up our press and individual freedoms. For a reason why, one need
only go visit Fox news and listen to an evening of their propaganda --
which unfortunately many people actually believe as truthful. On the
Hannity I heard a CIA agent (former?) explain that this is further
proof of a need for an Official Secrets Act. And I heard Newt
Gingrich extolling the need for even stronger restrictions on
personal liberties and the Press. I missed Olivar North expounding on
the need for a National Secrets Act (so he could do the things he
went to jail for in the Reagan Administration with impunity?)
Everyone was talking in goose-step. Sorry but the analogies are no
longer hypothetical or hyperbolic -- if still for a moment figurative.
Just read Linda Chavez:
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060706-085929-8918r.htm
And here is Oliver North with his faux historical analogies;
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/onorth.htm
"The revelation of yet another super-secret operation to root out
terrorists has prompted some in Congress to call for hauling editors
of offending media outlets into court. Rep. Peter King, New York
Republican, has called on the Justice Department to prosecute the New
York Times for "treasonous actions." As our FOX News "War Stories"
documentary "Deception In the Pacific" noted, that's what President
Franklin Roosevelt wanted to do in June of 1942 when Robert
McCormick's Chicago Tribune revealed that we had won the Battle of
Midway because we had broken the Japanese JN-25 naval codes. Though
the story did terrible damage, leading the Japanese to immediately
change their codes. McCormick was never prosecuted -- in part because
Adm. Ernest King, chief of naval operations, feared that a public
trial would result in revelations about other ongoing intelligence
operations."
Except, that in reality, (this is not reality -- it is propaganda)
what the New York times did was neither illegal, nor immoral, nor
revealing anything not already known by the general public. They were
just revealing things that were "embarrassing" to allies and to the
Government; probably illegal, and possibly unethical. (click here to follow link)
"That's just one reason why the "reporters," editors and publishers
who repeatedly promulgate classified information will never be tried
for treason. But that shouldn't be the case for the leakers. They
clearly have broken the law -- and they need to be found, prosecuted,
convicted and jailed -- for they are no different than Walker, Ames
and Hanssen."
In Oliver North's mind he is practicing his own version of "uchi iri"
the revenge/vindication game. Oliver North sought to use illegal
(smuggling, arms sales, and conversion) means to achieve what he
thought was a noble end; defeat communism. He was punished in the
courts for it. If we get an Official Secrets act, we can guarantee
that nothing like that will ever happen again. He goes on:
"Defenders of what the New York Times has done will claim that the
press must "protect their sources" -- and not reveal the leakers.
That too is wrong. The courts have the power to compel media moguls
to reveal government employees who unlawfully divulge classified
information about intelligence sources and methods during time of
war -- or be jailed for contempt. If we fail to do so we're accepting
the premise that media "sources" are more valuable than the sources
and methods used to protect the American people from those who seek
to kill us. If that's the case, we might as well just fax all our
secrets to our enemies."
It would be an uneven contest indeed. Tell me what the goal is of
these people? Is it to preserve our freedoms or theirs?
How long before I have to stop posting on this subject or risk arrest
myself?
Chris
The President and Vice President, and indeed the entire cabal of neo-con-artist sycophants who surround him falsely accused the New York Times of leaking classified information last week and the week before. Of course with the confusing and confused laws we have, almost anything can be labelled "classified" -- even long after it has become public knowledge. The administration has been up in arms about "leaks" of "classified information" for months now. They justify it on the grounds that "loose lips sink ships." But this is a lie according to research done by Larry C Johnson and documented in his blog entry "What Secret".
The fact is that most of what is left of the mainstream media in this country (forget Fox) is so cautious about releasing information that it won't leak the kinds of things that cause toy boats to leak (much less sink) -- unless the Vice President himself -- as happened with the Plame case, leaks the information. The information they were complaining about was public knowledge and had never been a secret. The US has quite openly been trying to track down terrorism (and other miscreants) through financial records since 9/11 and before. The only difference is that this particular program was so brazenly broad and scope and un-monitored, that it provided a potential for spying on non-Terrorists Americans and people world wide and the people who gave this information to the press said so. This administration doesn't want people thinking for themselves down in the "ranks".
The Vice President said:
on June 30:
"Some in the press, in particular The New York Times, have made it harder to defend America against attack by insisting on publishing detailed information about vital national security programs."
The President called it "disgraceful"
"First they reported the terrorist surveillance program, which monitors international communications when one end is outside the United States and one end is connected with or associated with al Qaeda. Now the Times has disclosed the terrorist financial tracking program. On both occasions, the Times had been asked not to publish those stories by senior administration officials. They went ahead anyway. The leaks to The New York Times and the publishing of those leaks is very damaging to our national security. The ability to intercept al Qaeda communications and to track their sources of financing are essential if we're going to successfully prosecute the global war on terror."
But is this true? Was it a real leak?
Read the article:
Article:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html?ex=1308715200&en=4b46b4fd8685c26b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Okay the program was classified. But the only thing that was (sort of) news from the report was this part of the report:
"That access to large amounts of confidential data was highly unusual, several officials said, and stirred concerns inside the administration about legal and privacy issues."
"The capability here is awesome or, depending on where you're sitting, troubling," said one former senior counterterrorism official who considers the program valuable. While tight controls are in place, the official added, "the potential for abuse is enormous."
and later:
...."But L. Richard Fischer, a Washington lawyer who wrote a book on banking privacy and is regarded as a leading expert in the field, said he was troubled that the Treasury Department would use broad subpoenas to demand large volumes of financial records for analysis. Such a program, he said, appears to do an end run around bank-privacy laws that generally require the government to show that the records of a particular person or group are relevant to an investigation."
"There has to be some due process," Mr. Fischer said. "At an absolute minimum, it strikes me as inappropriate."
The New York times defended releasing the story on these grounds:
Letter from Bill Keller:
"Since September 11, 2001, our government has launched broad and secret anti-terror monitoring programs without seeking authorizing legislation and without fully briefing the Congress. Most Americans seem to support extraordinary measures in defense against this extraordinary threat, but some officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to the Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government's actions and over the adequacy of oversight. We believe The Times and others in the press have served the public interest by accurately reporting on these programs so that the public can have an informed view of them."
This seems to be what bothered Cheney. Because the rest of the information has been pretty much public for some time. The only people they seem interested in keeping them secret from are the terrorists. Larry Johnson on his blog titled "What Secret" writes:
"If you still labor under the fantasy that the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal divulged "classified information" that put U.S. lives at risk or hampered our ability to track terrorist financial assets, you are willfully ignorant or have been living in a sensory isolation tank."
"Starting in the immediate aftermath of the 9-11 attacks, the Administration took up the hue and cry of the need to track terrorist finances. Congressman Michael Oxley, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, speaking at the outset of a public congressional hearing on 3 October 2001:"
"I applaud the president and our distinguished witness today, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, for taking swift action to block terrorist assets that may be located here in the United States and to warn foreign banks that the U.S. is poised to block their assets in this country and deny them access to U.S. markets that refuse to freeze terrorist assets overseas. The secretary is also to be commended for setting up a new foreign terrorist asset tracking center which I hope will become a model for interagency cooperation in law enforcement and in the sharing of financial intelligence."
"The information provided to the public went well beyond general platitudes. In fact, U.S. officials provided specific information that anybody, including members of Al Qaeda, who read the testimony would learn what the United States Government was doing and how it was doing it. Here is the public record on what the U.S. Government has been doing to track terrorist finances."
Al Qaeda has known of these efforts for years, in February 12 2002:
"The third lesson in the manual, entitled Counterfeit Currency and Forged Documents, discusses financial security precautions that Al Qaeda members should take to secure their operations. It reads as follows: One, dividing operational funds into two parts; one part is to be invested in projects that offer financial return, and the other is to be saved and not spent except during operations; two, not placing operational funds all in one place; three, not telling the organization members about the location of the funds; four, having proper protection while carrying large amounts of money; five, leaving the money with nonmembers and spending it as needed."
You can read the entire blog here:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/What_secret_0705.html
What it tells us is that Dick Cheney and the President aren't after "plugging leaks" -- or else Dick Cheney would have had to resign over the Valery Plame affair -- which his advisor Scooter Libby is about to be tried over lying about. They are after a state controlled, nationalized and docile press, so that they can substitute overt and obvious propaganda for genuine news.
Go back to the rest of Cheney's speach:
"There's still hard work ahead in the war on terror, because we are dealing with enemies who have declared an intention to bring great harm to any nation that opposes their aims. And their prime targets are the United States and the American people."
He is outlining the case he made in his "one percent solution" analysis several years ago.
"after this conflict began nearly five years ago, with a merciless attack on this very city, President Bush told Congress and the country that we were in a different kind of struggle. He said we "should not expect one battle, but rather a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we've ever seen." This war may, he said, "include dramatic strikes, visible on television and covert operations, secret even in success."
His case rests on convincing people that we are involved in a life and death struggle with Islamofascists:
"So it's critically important to remember that this nation is fighting a war. And as we make our case to the voters in this election year, it's vital to keep issues of national security at the top of the agenda. The President and I welcome the discussion, because every voter in America needs to know where the President and I stand, as well as where the leaders of the Democratic Party stand, and how they view the global war on terror."
This is all for the sake of re-election.
But if this is so, why does the administration consistently concentrate its efforts on things that are guaranteed to inflame Islamofascism? Why do they continuously sabotage efforts to actually bring to justice Bin Laden and these people promising to bring us harm? It is because the fear is useful to them. That is the only reason to explain this attack on the New York Times, the closing of the Bin Laden unit, and the gap between rhetoric -- which is entirely aimed at inflaming fear and anger -- and reality; which seems to be to engage in a tame pursuit of Sunni Islamo-fascists, while turning a blind eye to their operations in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates -- where most of them have come from. It's an incredible explaination, but all the other alternative explainations don't fit the facts. They are not incompetant.
Closing the Bin Laden Unit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html
So why close the Bin Laden unit if the effort needs to continue for a long time? If rolling up terrorists is so important, why continuously divert energy to where it cannot but create more terrorists (Iraq) from where it might just achieve results (Pakistan)? The reason is that fear sells. If the New York Times can be painted as enemies and traitors, and anyone who looks too closely at this administration as "fellow travellors"(a term the Communists used to use), then these folks can literally get away with murder. And they can turn entire theatres of the world into new Abu Gharaib's:
More: http://www.fraughtwithperil.com/blogs/holte/archives/001099.html
warning requires strong stomach:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richard_nortontaylor/2006/06/the_untaught_lessons_of_my_lai.html
This guy uses our bad behavior to pin his own propaganda on:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/haifa_zangana/2006/07/the_personality_disorder_of_th.html
http://www.airamerica.com/randirhodes/live/
Up up away, up into the sky,
You are beautiful Discovery,
flying on engines burning bright with hope,
You go with my prayers,
baited breath, then a smile,
Aging, beaten, suffering fire and Ice,
but flying into where the day meets the night.
Our prayers go with you,
as you float around the earth,
we see you in the sky,
a star travelling to the east,
from the warmth of our hearths,
and if we go outside at just the right time,
we see you pointing the way above.
How I wish to see you retire,
to live out your last days in some museum
after a few more missions,
after birthing bright and shiny children,
who fly without the same level of concerns.
But, meanwhile I watch you soar,
and sing your vital song,
and I wish I could go with you,
In my heart I'm riding along.
Chris
When a person breaks a law it is called a crime. Crimes are defined by actions not effects, and not goals. Crimes are defined by cause, but crimes always have effects. These effects are often quite beneficial to the criminal and to those on whose behalf he/she is acting. There are consequences to crimes. Those consequences are amplified by the responsibilities of the criminals.
The reason for crime and punishment, for the justice principle, is that people commit crimes because they are seeking a beneficial effect; either for themselves or for a cause they believe in. That they have worthy goals doesn't make criminal actions any less criminal. In fact having worthy goals to justify criminal actions often simply makes the crimes themselves more criminal.
In the case of the war-crimes symbolized by the hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo, the goal of the endeaver, supposedly, was to stop Al Qaeda. Supposedly the detainees were the worst of the worst. They were denied due process and subject to harsh conditions on the theory that this way they could be "broken" and mined for intelligence. All this has been documented. The perpetrators of these crimes have been quite open about breaking the Uniform Code of Military Justice and why they were doing it. The Supreme Court does a pretty good job of deconstructing the crime involved in the case of Hamdi versus Rumsfeld. You can read it here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=05-184
When Stevens calls the President's actions "illegal", he is stating in a low key manner something that a more passionate observer might shout:
"Because UCMJ Article 36 has not been complied with here, the rules specified for Hamdan's commission trial are illegal. "
The government does not have the right to ignore the law, make up its own rules, and throw out inconvenient ones. And that is for a reason. It turns out that of the people at Guantanao, detained without trial, without access to lawyers, courts, the right to defend their case or seek witnesses to defend them, all these "evil, dangerous, terrorists." Of these, Ann Marie Lizi, a European investigator says:
"The number of those, when you discuss it with the people in this jail, could move from 70 to a little more than 100 but not more. And in some cases, people say we could have only 30 to 40 real valuable cases,"
"Her report says Guantanamo now has some 460 detainees."
So that means that of 10 detainees, 1 is probably a real "terrorist" or at least associated with terrorism, and 2 more may have been legitimately suspected of terrorism or membership in Talliban or Al Qaeda; but the other 7 are more than likely folks who were swept up in a dragnet and then labelled as terrorists. Doing this is illegal. The Constitution gives no such rights. It violates the rules of war. The "one percent doctrine"(see http://www.ronsuskind.com/theonepercentdoctrine/, the idea that if a terrorist threat is deemed even one percent likely the United States must act as if it’s a certainty) is not an American doctrine, it is an 'un-American" doctrine (even if employed before, it is more at home in Nazi Germany than in the US). It is the kind of self-justification that leads to criminal acts. It is a monstrous doctrine, and according to it, according to this administration things like Gitmo are justified because they got more than "one percent" and put them there.
If we Americans are serious about our rights and liberties we cannot take these things lying down. When the President announces his intention to violate laws, such as he did in this signing statement:
"The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."
He has no such "unitary" power. Unitary power is something asserted by Dictators. The President does not have the right to selectively apply the laws of war. He may have the power to do so, but not the right, and so when he announced in 2003:
'In addition, President Bush today has decided that the Geneva Convention will apply to the Taliban detainees, but not to the al Qaeda international terrorists."
The President does not have the right to abrogate the laws of war. Not on his own. He may claim he obeyed the law, but he did not. As court says:
"The District Court granted habeas relief and stayed the commission's proceedings, concluding that the President's authority to establish military commissions extends only to offenders or offenses triable by such a commission under the law of war; that such law includes the Third Geneva Convention; that Hamdan is entitled to that Convention's full protections until adjudged, under it, not to be a prisoner of war; and that, whether or not Hamdan is properly classified a prisoner of war, the commission convened to try him was established in violation of both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U. S. C. §801 et seq., and Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention because it had the power to convict based on evidence the accused would never see or hear."
He broke the law. Now the courts have said so, and until he can pack the court with enough folks like Justice Thomas and Alito, the courts are the only thing standing between us and Ceasarism. Anyone who loves the constitution. Democrat or Republican, should recognize the danger of these activities and stand up to them. He has also confessed to breaking the law with regards to the FISA courts. Regardless of the legitimacy of the goals, the President has acknowledged that he ignored, skirted, and bypassed the law--while claiming it was all very legal in his opinion("And the people responsible for helping us protect and defend came forth with the current program, because it enables us to move faster and quicker. ") -- and those courts were "too slow" to be bothered with. But as Russel Feingold notes, and as the President himself affirmed:
"FISA Has an Emergency Exception: The Administration has indicated that it ignored FISA because it takes too long to get a warrant under that law. In fact, in an emergency where the Attorney General believes that surveillance must begin before a court order can be obtained, FISA permits the wiretap to be turned on immediately as long as the government goes to the court within 72 hours. Prior to 2001, the emergency wiretap period was only 24 hours. The Administration requested and received the increase to 72 hours in intelligence authorization legislation that passed in late 2001."
Well that is enough for now.
More information:
http://www.fraughtwithperil.com/blogs/holte/archives/001098.html
http://www.fraughtwithperil.com/blogs/holte/archives/001099.html
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/02/2006215.html
http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/live/node/2310
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_061906C.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp
related blog entries:
http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2006/06/the_one_percent.html