Category: Terrorism

Posted on

Kidnapping: Military Contractors

If private contractors were hired to fly victims of “extraordinary rendition” out of the country, to places like Syria– yes, indeed– so they could be tortured– under what legal mechanism have they succeeded in not being arrested and charged with kidnapping?

They were. Some of them were enthusiastic. Some of them were reluctant. Almost all of them complied. They trusted that a lying, scheming amoral government would cover their asses. And pay them well. And they did.

We’ve seen a glimpse of “legal mechanism”. The Federal Government has intervened in court cases begging the judges to refuse to hear the cases because it would “endanger national security”. Most judges– so far– to their everlasting disgrace– have complied. If I was a U.S. citizen I’d be organizing some kind of campaign to have those judges impeached.

I cannot express, in words, my contempt for the judge who accepted that rationale and informed the victim and the victim’s family: all of the most sacred rights you are entitled to as a human being can be disposed of in an instant because Dick Cheney wet his pants at the thought of the Moslem hoards rolling down the streets of Palos Park, Illinois.

Everything that people have fought for for a thousand years, from the Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1965–everything–is tossed out the window with that simple phrase. National Security.

And all the lying scumbags in the Republican Party with their obscene little flag pins in their lapels and their tearful demonstrations of patriotism and loyalty should be impeached. And the complicit scumbags in the Democratic Party who tsk-tsked the left wing about having to be responsible and after all we can’t be seen as “soft” on terror…. impeach them all.

They won’t be impeached. They will be re-elected to office by a people who do not deserve democracy.

There is no “war” on terror.

There was no crisis. There was no emergency.

There was a dramatic attack and many casualties, but there was absolutely nothing in 9/11 to justify the hysterical, overwrought panic that turned weasels like Dick Cheney into whimpering simpering bed-wedding weasels like Dick Cheney.

Posted on

Generals Who Never Admit Defeat Even When it Stares Them in the Face

General Petraeus thinks that Obama is leaving Afghanistan too soon.

After 10 years of rather conspicuous failure, Petraeus and the other generals and a few faithfully militant Republicans like John McCain claim that we are on the verge of success– just give me one more chance, honey. I know I’ve let you down over and over again, but this time I think it’s going to work.

Philosopher Karl Popper argued that a scientific theory (or any theory) could not be said to be true unless it was theoretically possible, in a rational sense, to prove that it was false. In other words, to “falsify” it. I wish there was a succinct, well-known term for this position. Maybe there is and I just don’t know it. But once you understand it, it makes perfect sense.

For example, someone tells you that he is underpaid. He deserves more money for the work he does. That’s his theory, his hypothesis.  But is it possible that everyone deserves more money for the work they do? I think a rational person would think not. Next question: is there a single person in the world who does not feel he deserves more money for the work he does? No. So you can’t falsify the hypothesis here– you can’t reasonably believe that any person feels that he should not get paid more. So you respond, “don’t we all”. He hasn’t made his case.

So when the generals argue that the Afghanistan effort is on the verge of success, we could believe they might be right if you could make a sensible case for the idea that they might, if the evidence was convincing, believe that they were ever not on the verge of success. But it is clear that, short of a total annihilation, these generals will never admit that they lost this war. We know this because the generals have lied from the very beginning about how well they were doing, and the prospects of a conclusive victory. Now, some generals even argue that they shouldn’t even look for a conclusive victory: let’s just stay there forever.

That, of course, is not what they promised the American tax-payer when they initiated this war.

In certain criminal cases, fiber evidence is sometimes presented by an “expert” to prove the guilt of an individual. The question I always ask is, knowing what we now know about fiber experts, is it possible that this expert could have failed to find at least one match for any fiber in any suspect’s apartment?

Apparently not. Has one of these experts ever testified in court that they could not match any fibers from the body with any fibers found in the suspect’s apartment? I’ve never heard of it.

So if I had been a congressman back in, oh, 2005, and had been part of one of those hearings at which the generals explain what they are doing and why and how it will lead to success, I would have asked the generals to lay out for me a definition of “failure”, just so we would know what it looks like if it was ever staring us in the face. I would have written it down carefully, made it into a framed poster, and hung it on the wall in the hearing room, so that five, six, seven, ten years later, when the same general was arguing that the U.S. should continue to spend over $1 billion a week on this war, I could point to the poster and say, no, we failed, let’s admit it and move on.

Without a doubt– without the slightest doubt– people like John McCain would have objected. He would say, we didn’t define failure in the right way. I have a new definition. And it’s not what we have now. And we would know that the truth is that every last U.S. soldier could be killed and every last armament destroyed and he would still insist they could win if they would just do the same except more of it.

At least it would be more transparent what people like John McCain want to do, how they see the world, how they understand the purpose of government.

Posted on

Censorship: Republicans Win Again– “The UnQuiet Americans”

The US release of this movie was delayed for more than a year by the terrorist attacks on the USA of 11 September 2001. The producers were concerned that it would be seen as anti-American. [IMDB Trivia on “The Quiet American” (2002)]

Think about that. In America, the free, the land of liberty, where we don’t censor the media, where people are not imprisoned for their thoughts– well, they didn’t used to be–, and which never tires of singing their patriotic hymns, a movie about American involvement in Viet Nam was held out of the theatres and almost shelved completely because it would be seen as anti-American.

A number of thoughts spring to mind.

1. Did the producers (Miramax) believe that, given the right time and place, the film would not be seen as anti-American?

2. Isn’t the entire point of the film that American involvement in Viet Nam was a disaster, for democracy, for freedom, for humanity? Isn’t pointing out the hypocrisy of American values in this particular historical situation sort of “anti-American”?

3. Can’t Americans take criticism? Well, not all of them. The Republicans and the Texas State School Board would basically like to just shut those critics up, purge them from our school books and legislatures, and ban them from the airwaves.

4. Why is Miramax, a private company, cow-towing to this minority opinion?

I don’t actually believe that most Americans support the idea of banning a film because some segments of the population simply don’t want to hear criticism of U.S. attitudes (because “The Quiet American” is more than criticism of policy: it’s criticism of attitude). But that minority who do support the idea can screech very, very loudly. That’s why the Republicans have been winning so many battles with Obama lately: they just start screeching.

I just read today a commentary about movies: did you know that almost all of the nominees for best foreign film at this year’s Oscars dealt thoughtfully with the subject of the clash of values between Moslem and Western communities?

And not a single nominee for Best Picture did. Even the recent films, like “The Hurt Locker”, that dealt indirectly with Islam didn’t bother to explore Islam very much at all.

Posted on

The Muslim Brotherhood: Egypt’s Revolution

Perhaps the most disturbing report I have seen on the Egyptian Revolution was also the least inflammatory, the least categorical, the least certain of what was happening.

Frontline (PBS) documents the low-key role played in the revolution by the youth wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. While the elders were clearly out of touch about what was happening, the younger leaders were not. Very savvy about technology and the media, the Frontline documentary revealed how the youth leaders carefully toned down any overt expressions of the faith in favor of generic, pro-democracy statements and ground-roots support for the secularist demonstrators. A number of well-informed reporters and human rights analysts thoughtfully dissected their role and wondered aloud just what their goals really were. They pointed out how the Muslim Brotherhood organized clinics and food distribution points and were the first and most courageous about confronting the pro-Mubarak thugs that tried to invade Tahrir Square at the height of tension.

Towards the end of the program, both the youth leader, Mohammed Abbas, and an elder, make more explicit their desire for an Islamic society.

This is not to suggest that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt will attempt to seize control of the country and build an Islamic state as in Iran. It’s not to suggest they are suddenly pluralists who want to share their message of spiritual enlightenment on Facebook and Twitter.

Frontline is unparalleled in its ability and willingness to suggest that the situation is complex and the outcome, at this point, is unknown.

And where does the U.S. government want to cut spending? The Corporation for Public Broadcasting. If they do and if these cuts prevent Frontline from continuing to produce documentaries like this, it will be as a great a crime as any committed by the Republicans since the days of Tail-Gunner Joe.

Posted on

Egypt and the freedom nazi: No Democracy for You

At least one BBC reporter on the ground in Egypt insists that the Islamic Brotherhood is not a significant factor in the protests — they are just a canard offered by Mubarak consistently for 30 years to scare the Americans into blindly supporting his dictatorial regime.

So the 85 million people of Egypt– no democracy for you! The U.S. has several important interests in the Middle East– your freedom and prosperity don’t figure into any of them.

No doubt the Obama Administration is giving considerable thought to Iran these days. The U.S. backed the Shah’s despotic regime for 25 years. When protest rallies spun out of control in 1979, the Carter Administration appears to have backed away from their proxy. There was short struggle for a secular, constitutional government, but when Ayatollah Khomeini was allowed to return, the radical Islamacists succeeded in wresting control of the government away from the moderates.

It could be argued that the lesson to be learned is that repression by the Shah would have been better. But you could make an equally cogent argument that the extremists were able to take control because long-term unconditional support for the Shah had weakened the moderates.

It is possible that if Mubarak leaves, the Islamic brotherhood may succeed in eventually seizing power. It wouldn’t be the end of the world. Iran today is really not the caricature that the U.S. likes to present to the public, and Afghanistan and Iraq are not exactly sterling models of the kind of alternative society the U.S. has in mind. But it also may be the result of the U.S. supporting Mubarak for 30 years without pressuring him to democratize gradually, to allow the establishment of a moderate opposition with real power, and to cultivate the institutions of society that moderate political power, like labour unions, universities, and regional governments.

The long sad history of U.S. support of anti-democratic regimes.  [Sorry– the website has been taken down, but my comments still apply.]

I don’t totally buy the list. Yes, we know that U.S. corporations like Standard Oil and ITT continued to do business with the Nazis during the war, and that Henry Ford was a big fan of Adolf Hitler, and it is clear that the U.S. allowed many Nazi war criminals to escape responsibilities for their crimes so they could be used elsewhere for American interests, but I think those complaints are more in the nature of the world being an unjust place than a steaming indictment of U.S. foreign policy.

At a national, policy level, Roosevelt clearly opposed Hitler. That’s different from George Bush Sr. cozying up to Marcos, or Jimmy Carter welcoming the Shah of Iran to the U.S. for medical treatment or Nixon instigating the coup in Chile.

Posted on

Entrapment Again

“His planning unfolded under the scrutiny and even assistance of undercover agents, officials said. ” NY Times, November 27, 2010, in reference to Mohamed Osman Mohamud, who was recently arrested in Portland, Oregon, for “attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction”.

This horrible person was planning to blow up a bomb at the lighting of a community Christmas Tree expected to attract up to 10,000 people.

Well… was he. Did Osman Mohamud, out of the blue, suddenly decide that he wanted to kill a lot of Americans? Or was he a rather fanatical Moslem whom the FBI recruited for a terrorist act which the FBI undercover informant was “planning”.

The FBI got wind of him months ago when he apparently tried to contact radicals in Pakistan. They got wind of him. Then undercover FBI agents contacted him and offered to help him commit some kind of terrorist act. They demurely “suggested” — on the secret recordings, of course– that he do something less destructive and more symbolic, but he insisted, no, no, he wanted to see innocent people die. That should satisfy those human rights activists who keep complaining about entrapment!

So the FBI undercover agent offered to help him build a bomb. Wait a minute…. Mohamud obtained some of the materials and turned them over to the FBI undercover agent and the undercover agent returned a device to him which he told him was a bomb. The FBI supplied the bomb. Mohamud then drove to the public square at the Christmas Tree Lighting and dialed the number that was supposed to blow it all up. That’s when the FBI arrested him.

So the FBI encouraged Mohamud to commit a crime but when Mohaumd proved too inept to actually commit the crime on his own, the FBI kindly stepped in and provided him with the bomb.

So if an FBI undercover agent went up to a man in a bar– let’s go crazy and suggest a white man– and said “I could get you some top grade heroin” and the man said, wonderful, let’s go, and he was arrested and brought to trial, what would happen? Most judges would refuse to convict. The question is, would the defendant have committed a crime without the intervention of the undercover police officer?  If not, it’s called “entrapment”. It’s why policewomen posing as prostitutes can’t actually bring up the idea of sex for money; the man has to bring it up or the charges won’t stick– it will look like committing a crime was the police woman’s idea. That’s why policemen can’t pose as drug dealers, going around offering drugs to people. It has to be the idea of the person committing crime.

(I feel ridiculous explaining this. I would be very happy to learn it’s not necessary– most people understand why allowing entrapment by the police is a bad idea. )

The police should not be going around trying to create crime by presenting opportunities to people to commit crimes. Among other things, this is offensive to the idea of equality under the law, for the police have no intention of going up to just anybody to see if he or she might be willing to consider committing a crime if offered the opportunity.

No, no, they only approach certain, selected, unlucky individuals. Right now, they certainly don’t seem interested in approaching, say, NRA members, or members of white supremacist militia groups, or vigilante groups, or Scientologists, any of which might have a number of members who could easily be persuaded to commit a serious crime with the right encouragement, and technical assistance. Say, burn down a house, or shoot a few illegal immigrants, or burn down a mosque.

If the police had not intervened, it is by no means certain that Mohamud would have committed any crimes on his own initiative. He might have. He might have remained a blustery, stupid young man who nevertheless never had the guts to actually go out and do something with his big talk. Like a lot of people.  He might have realized he didn’t have the technical skill to build a bomb and given up the idea.

He should perhaps have been charged with being an accessory to attempted murder. The FBI agent, of course, is the conspirator.

Ah yes… and I hear the right-wingers squawking hysterically, “Oh! So you want to wait until a crime has been committed before you lock someone up!”

Well, maybe not.  I think I could go along with the idea.  As long as the FBI approached other militant groups– including America militia groups– as well as potential Moslem extremists.  The fact is, we know that there are many, many more American Nationalist militants than there are Moslem extremists in America.

“So you think the police should have let him build a real bomb and set it off at the Christmas tree lighting?” No, but they should never have assisted him with building a bomb. They already had him under surveillance.  They could have charged him with a minor offence like “uttering threats”.  They should have let him fend for himself and then arrest him if he succeeded in building a bomb, once he had a real bomb in his possession, before he had a chance to use it. If I were a judge, I would ask myself again and again: would a crime have been committed if not for the intervention of the police?

Why should that be frightening? That’s how we do it with every other crime, even murder. Did you forget that there was a price to be paid for freedom and democracy? And one of them is that most of the time people commit crimes before being arrested.

And anyway, didn’t you want the government off your back?

The tabloids, in Britain, have been offering bribes to officials with FIFA to see if they would take them. Some of them did. My first question is, did they bring up the idea of a bribe or did the undercover reporter?

It absolutely matters. If the reporters were the ones who brought up the idea of bribes, they should first investigate every other FIFA Official to see how many others would accept the offer. It would not be fair to single out only the ones who happened be available to the undercover reporters.

I know– a lot of people are going to go, “well, even if it wasn’t his idea, he still agreed to it and should be locked up for at least 50 years”.

Yeah right. And why is it inevitable that some of the recordings of Mohamud’s conversations with the undercover FBI agent have been “lost”? It is inevitable. It is inevitable. It is inevitable. The police ask you to believe that they just happened to go missing. What a coincidence!

And you don’t want to look like a fool for being soft on crime, do you?

I personally would be quite satisfied if we had a justice system that would immediately drop any charges against an individual if it becomes clear that no crime would have been committed without the active participation or encouragement of the police or police agents or informants. Simple. The police already understand that principle when it comes to prostitution and illegal drugs.

Actually, I would not be satisfied with this because it is an innovation. I would be satisfied with this because it’s what 200 years of jurisprudence has settled on in order to prevent the police and justice system from abusing their powers.

Yes, there will be some crimes committed that would have been prevented under the newer interpretation of the law. But, that’s pretty well how our justice system is supposed to work. Until recently, we in the democratic west, didn’t try to lock people up for thinking about committing a crime.

The reason is that we don’t know who else might commit a crime if offered the same “encouragement” as people like Mohamed Osman Mohamud were offered.

Posted on

The Dog Must be Walked; War Must be Paid For

Why oh why oh why did the Democrats not demand that the Republicans pay for their wars out of current tax revenues?

Would Americans have voted for a war that was going to cost each of them, man, woman, and child, $750 (over $2000 per household) so far? Or would they have demanded better proof, at least, of the actual existence of weapons of mass destruction?

The Republicans cut taxes while taking on the war and then borrowed to cover the deficit. Why did the Democrats allow the Republicans to bill the war to future generations? Did they not realize that once Bush had run up the deficit, the Republicans, having whipped the nation into a patriotic frenzy (with, among other things, those nauseating “God Bless America” interludes at ball games), could now use the deficit as an excuse to slash spending on programs that actually benefit most Americans?

Was this planned?

David Stockton appeared on “60 Minutes” last Sunday. The former Reagan budget director actually advocated higher taxes on the rich for the simple common sense reason that the country’s bills need to be paid.

One could be forgiven with coming away with the impression that there is indeed a class war going on in the U.S.: the rich are out to destroy the middle class.

Common sense: whether you were in favor or opposed to the Iraq War, it defies belief that the Republicans were able to get away with cutting taxes at a time when it was clear that the government needed additional revenues to defend itself against terrorism. Who benefits the most from the peace and security of the U.S.? The rich. So who pays the least to defend the peace and security of the U.S.? Proportionately, the rich.

By borrowing the money for his wars (and that is absolutely what he did), and then cutting taxes to the rich, George Bush stunningly shifted the burden of the cost of the wars to the middle-classes. The next step in the process is for the Republicans to scream bloody murder about the awful deficit they created and weep crocodile tears: “now we’ll have to cut Social Security and Medicare and other social programs! Alas!”

The Democrat’s biggest blunder? By allowing themselves to be cornered into supporting the war and terrified of being accused of raising taxes, the Democrats consented to screwing themselves. They should have demanded that Bush raise the revenue to pay for the war without borrowing! That would have been a Rove-like tactic that might have brilliantly positioned themselves as the more fiscally responsible party in 2010.

Instead, they are like the adults whose kids promised they would walk the dog every day, if they would only, please, please, please, get a dog. And now the Republicans sit on their fat asses watching “American Idol” on TV, ignoring the dog.

And now, well, the dog must be walked. And it’s raining, and it’s cold, and it’s dark. And the dog must be walked.

Posted on

3%

In a very recent poll, only 3% of American voters considered the war in Afghanistan the “most important” problem facing the country. Now, you may say, well, that doesn’t mean a lot of voters don’t consider it somewhat important. I would suggest that the fact that only 3% consider it the most important (consider that way more people think there really are witches), that it is a dead issue.

So, ten years after this war was considered so urgent, so important, so vital to the security interests of the United States that thousands of people would die for it, and billions of dollars of weapons would be deployed for it, it now doesn’t even register on the radar. Is there a lesson here?

Sure there is.

  • Americans have a very, very short attention span. If you can distract them for a few days, you too can be a Senator or Congressman or president. Do not worry your pretty little head about the consequences of your decisions five years down the road.
  • Number 1 explains why so many state and city pension funds are bankrupt. Apparently, American politicians are almost uniformly irresponsible or stupid or both. Don’t blame them: the same voters keep putting them back into office because they promise to be patriotic, religious, and heterosexual.
  • Americans can be fooled over and over and over again. We are about to see an entire new crop of idiots thrust into political office where, God help us, they may get their hands on Social Security, Medicare, and the Education system. God help us again.
  • Those large segments of America’s deeply religious communities who claim to be pro life? Shameless liars, all of them. Life is cheap. Life is shit. People are dying in a war no one cares about. These people never actually save anyone’s life, but they are more than happy to kill for cheap oil.
  • Those nations who sign on to America’s wars? Do you realize that your soldiers are also dying for a war that barely registers in the consciousness of the population of the country that talked you into this?
  • Obama, I guess, would love to walk away. The fact that Karzai is now talking to the Taliban about an accommodation of some sorts speaks volumes about where this is going. How lovely to be a Republican: you convince Americans it will be clean and simple and decisive, you start the war, you wage the war, you lose the war (make no mistake about it: it is lost), you borrow the money to finance the war, you reduce taxes on the rich so they don’t have to pay for it ever, then you walk away from the disaster. Then, in the next election, you run on a platform of a government that is less intrusive and more fiscally responsible.
Posted on

Secured Confessions

“Still, our team pressed ahead and, together with agents from the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, we tracked down many of the Qaeda members responsible for the attack, secured confessions from them and prosecuted them. We were aided by courageous Yemenis from the country’s security, law enforcement and judicial services who shared a commitment to justice and an understanding that ignoring Al Qaeda would only embolden it. We left Yemen with most of the terrorists locked up. ” Ali H. Soufan in the New York Times, October 11, 2010

Isn’t that amazing? They “tracked down” the terrorists who then “confessed” to the crimes, were prosecuted and imprisoned. Case closed, Perry Mason. On to the next injustice!

Listen to the glibness of “secured confessions from them”. What do you think that means? I guess Al Qaeda is not as hard-nosed as some people make them out to be! They were arrested. They were put in cells. The interrogator from the CIA or FBI said, “all right now — tell us the truth!” And the Al Qaeda member wept. Do I have to? All right…

I’m guessing that most people don’t pause at that “secured confessions” and wonder just what that means. I’m guessing that most people would just assume that the evidence that these men were responsible for the attack on the Cole is overwhelming and definitive.

I’m guessing that most people don’t wonder why confessions were necessary if this gentleman, identified as an FBI agent, had clear and convincing evidence.

I’m guessing that most people don’t wonder how the confessions were obtained– these men were held in Yemen, a Muslim state governed by Sharia law, whose elections are rated as “partly free” by international bodies.

Posted on

The Last Christian President

I have long regarded Jimmy Carter as the only real Christian president of the last 50 years. He has recently given a number of interviews with the publication of “White House Diary”, an account of his four years in the White House.

Carter used to carry his own luggage, even as president. He also put a stop to the absolutely inane practice of playing “Hail to the Chief” every time the president enters a room.

Did you you hear that, tea party Republicans? You howl about your politicians being corrupted by Washington. So how did people react when Carter put a stop to paid musicians following him around with idiotic tributes every time he met with the public? They hated him. They hated him when he put solar panels on the White House and Ronald Reagan, in a monumental act of mindless spite, had them removed. They hated him most of all when he preached to America, when he suggested that people learn to postpone gratification, make sacrifices for the greater good, and stop indulging in mindless consumerism.

Frank Capra used to make movies about naive innocents of pleasant virtue suddenly being thrust into corporate or political rats’ nests of corrupt decadence. In the Capra films, virtue triumphed and “the people” came to the rescue. Well, no they didn’t– check out “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”. It’s actually one of the most darkly cynical movies about politics ever made.

So Carter kept America out of a war with Iran, and he cut U.S. dependence on foreign oil by substantial amounts, and his conservation policies produced stunning gains in efficiencies. And he was vilified by Republicans for leaving office with a deficit of about $45 billion. Ronald Reagan came in and tackled that deficit problem: he ran it up to $450 billion by the time he left office, but you should hear Republicans wax nostalgic about the “great” Ronald Reagan. It took another “liberal” (by American standards), Bill Clinton, who got the deficit under control.

The closest recent presidential candidate to Jimmy Carter was Al Gore, who, similarly, understood that some self-restraint and sacrifice is good for the country. Gore was smart and fairly virtuous– as politicians go– and he seemed more rueful than disappointed when the Supreme Court paid its debt to the Republican Party and put Bush into office. Gore, like Carter, was a bit of a moralist. He liked to lecture people about social virtue. Americans don’t like that. Gore might well be the best president the U.S. never had.

Since he left office, Carter has made a career out of volunteering with Habitat for Humanity, various peace missions, and living modestly on his farm indulging his grand-children. Everyone calls him the best ex-president there ever was. He may also have been the most responsible president there ever was, but his reward was to be ridiculed by the very people who elect those characterless, corrupt politicians over and over again to undo all the good policies Carter implemented.

The greatest compliment to President Jimmy Carter: the scads of third world dictators, torturers, and murderers who expressed their relief when he was knocked out of office by Ronald Reagan. Thank god! Finally an end to all the hassles about human rights, for heaven’s sake.

The attitude of many European leaders to Carter: I remember reading about it at the time and being rather flabbergasted that they seemed to prefer the worldy and “sophisticated” Nixon. I thought Nixon was the bad guy, bombing Cambodia, rattling the sabres, promoting the nuclear deterrent.

It turns out the Europeans appreciate someone who understands that you have to break a few eggs to make an omelets, as they say. Well, no, let’s say: you have to kill people to get what you want.

It’s complicated.