October 09, 2006
Not everyone is a "terrorist"Issues
We will not allow the enemy to win the war by changing our way of life or restricting our freedoms. —George W. Bush, September 12, 2001
As most of you have heard, Congress recently rubber-stamped a bill at the behest of the President that will supposedly “help fight terror.” The Village Voice has a nice summary article:
Right after 9-11, then attorney general John Ashcroft was directing the swift preparation of the USA Patriot Act. He sent a draft to the aggressively conservative James Sensenbrenner, Republican chair of the House Judiciary Committee. The bill included the suspension of habeas corpus for terrorism suspects—the right to go to a federal court to determine whether the government is holding you lawfully.
Sensenbrenner angrily recoiled at the proposed disappearance of the Great Writ and forced Ashcroft to strike it from the Patriot Act. Five years later, Sensenbrenner helped shepherd through Congress the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which prevents detainees held by us anywhere in the world, not only at Guantanamo, from having lawyers file habeas petitions in our courts concerning their conditions of confinement.
In 1798, the writer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson—who insisted habeas corpus be embodied in the Constitution—said to generations to come: “The Habeas Corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen [freedom from arbitrary confinement]…”But now, the Republicans’ Military Commissions Act can not only remove this bedrock of our liberty from prisoners outside the country but can also strip habeas protections from legal immigrants here, as well as from American citizens.[Link]
In the wake of 9/11 many of us South Asian Americans have dealt with the erosion of civil liberties by joking around about it. “Hey, don’t talk in Tamil at the airport or they might arrest you as a terrorist.” Or what about “Hey, be careful going to Pakistan because they may suspend your 5th Amendment rights and ask you to take a polygraph when it is time to return to America.” Behind all of these nervous jokes is the suspicion that under these new laws perhaps anyone, including U.S. citizens, could be arbitrarily labeled a “terrorist” and stripped of their rights. The Bush administration counters by arguing that we should trust them and that they will only pin the label of “terrorist” on the real bad guys. You see, under the Patriot Act once you are officially designated as a “terrorist” you are in a whole new legal reality.
Now consider for a few minutes the case of Luis Posada Carriles. 30 years ago last week he masterminded a bomb plot that brought down a Cuban jetliner off the coast of Barbados. 73 people aboard were killed.
New documents made public on Thursday by the US National Security Archives prove the participation of Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch in the bombing of a Cubana airliner in 1976 that killed 73 people on board.
Among the documents posted are four sworn affidavits by officers in Trinidad and Tobago police, who were the first to interrogate the two Venezuelans — Hernan Ricardo Lozano and Freddy Lugo — who were arrested for placing the bomb on flight 455. Information derived from the interrogations suggested that the first call the bombers placed after the attack was to the office of Luis Posada’s security company ICI, which employed Ricardo. Ricardo claimed to have been a CIA agent (but later retracted that claim). He said that he had been paid $16,000 to sabotage the plane and that Lugo was paid $8,000.
The interrogations revealed that a tube of Colgate toothpaste had been used to disguise plastic explosives that were set off with a “pencil-type” detonator on a timer after Ricardo and Lugo got off the plane during a stopover in Barbados. Ricardo “in his own handwriting recorded the steps to be taken before a bomb was placed in an aircraft and how a plastic bomb is detonated,” deputy commissioner of police Dennis Elliott Ramdwar testified in his affidavit. [Link]
According to US National Security Archives, Carriles helped down this airplane in much the same way as the suspected terrorists in London were planning on bringing down airliners a few months ago. This act was also historically significant:
The attack marked a new era of fear. It was the first act of midair airline terrorism in the Western Hemisphere. [Link]
Where is this terrorist Carriles now? Well…he was arrested on immigration violations as he tried to sneak into the U.S. from Mexico and is currently sitting in a U.S. jail awaiting deportation. The border system does work! Only in this case maybe the Bush administration wishes that it didn’t. Some of you can see where this is headed I’m sure:
Posada Carriles’s legal odyssey has turned into a diplomatic quandary for the Bush administration and a test of the president’s post-Sept. 11 credo that nations that harbor terrorists are guilty of terrorism. While the United States does not want to free a terrorism suspect, it is also reluctant to send him to Cuba or Venezuela, countries that not only remain hostile to the Bush administration but that, according to court testimony of a Posada Carriles ally, also might torture him.
Attorneys for the Justice Department must respond by Thursday to a Texas magistrate’s recommendation that Posada Carriles be freed by a federal judge because he has not been officially designated a terrorist in the United States and cannot be held indefinitely on immigration charges.
”This is the moment of truth for the Bush administration,” said Peter Kornbluh, a senior Cuba analyst with the National Security Archive, a nonprofit research library at George Washington University.
The prospect of freeing Posada Carriles, who is also a suspect in a series of 1997 hotel bombings in Havana that left one Italian tourist dead, has outraged Cuban leaders. Havana is papered with Cuban government posters and billboards invoking President Bush’s position on harboring terrorists.
”It’s as if you were to say to the American people that country X has found Osama bin Laden, who arrived without a passport or a visa, and that he is being held as an illegal immigrant but will not be sent back to the U.S.,” Ricardo Alarcón, president of Cuba’s general assembly, said in an interview. [Link]
So we have a real life, honest to goodness terrorist in our custody. All we have to do is designate him as a “terrorist” under the Patriot Act and we can hold on to him and keep him in a jail cell for his crimes. With the new law we can even strip him of Habeus Corpus. Why doesn’t the Bush administration just call him a terrorist already and be done with it?
In a brief submitted to the judge Thursday evening, the administration of President George W. Bush said it opposed the release of Luis Posada Carriles and argued that granting him freedom on bail may have “serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”.But, while referring to Posada as “the admitted mastermind of terrorist plots and attacks”, the administration declined to officially declare him a terrorist under the USA Patriot Act which, unlike the immigration law, gives the government authority to detain him indefinitely.[Link]
Could the administration’s reluctance stem from the fact that Carriles’ act is rumored to have been CIA sponsored and the victims were Cuban nationals? Also, what would the Cuban American voters in the battleground state of Florida think if we labeled this “freedom fighter” as a terrorist?
“It simply indicates that, as far as we’re concerned, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter; it completely undercuts our position against terrorism,” according to Wayne Smith, who served as Washington’s top envoy in Havana in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
“Bush himself has said numerous times that anyone who shelters a terrorist is a terrorist,” Smith, a Cuba expert with the Centre for International Policy here. “Under that definition, President Bush and members of his administration are terrorists because they are effectively harbouring Luis Posada Carriles…” [Link]
For the record I do not support sections of the U.S. Patriot Act nor do I support the bill that passed in Congress last week. I just wanted to point out why our founding fathers were sound in their logic and why I believe that a President should never be given the powers that are currently being granted by the American voters through their Congressional proxies. The word “terrorist” is not always an objective description and can be employed as a political tool as we see here.
abhi on October 9, 2006 12:51 AM in Issues, News · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
This should not come as a surprise to anyone. The principles of freedom and democracy are wonderful ideals, but unfortunately the US Government is and always has been selective in their application. We scorn dictators and oppressive regimes that deny people freedom but support those who provide us with some tangible benefit. Whether it's oil, buying jet fighters from us, or allowing us to have a military base in their country, we will turn a blind eye to things that should offend our sensibilities. So the question becomes how much are we willing to sacrifice for the illusion or reality of security? It would be nice to address the nature of the conflicts, but to question one's own integrity amounts to charges of treason, sedition, or being unpatriotic.
Still few people are willing to remain faithful to their values and principles when they are tested. The Amish forgiving and attending the funeral of the man who murdered their daughter is a testament to true nature of forgiveness.
All this reminds me of a quote attributed to Golda Meir in the movie Munich, "Every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values."
Mr J and his peeps, in the US constituion, also allowed for Habeus Corpus to be suspended. lincoln suspended it during the civil war, grant suspended it in regards to the KKK (another terrorist group), and only FDR abused it (japanese internment).
You're right to worry, but you're avoiding addressing the tough questions that Mr. J himself grappled with.
Good point. Bush is right to rename this a war on islamic fascism. We're not firghting a means here, especially a means we've used.
As for the suspension of the writ, Jefferson by no means thought it should be indefinite as seems to be the case in practice (Gitmo) and the MCA...
- Jefferson to Madison, 1789Thanks for highlighting the loss of habeas corpus rights for EVERYONE even SUSPECTED of being a terorist...which these days we know includes young Brazilian men wearing jeans and backpack...
I think it's a terrible blow for the US Legal System that in a country with a written constitution which is meant to be supreme law, the Patriot Act has remained in place and has been used time and time again to deny people their human rights.
Well if it is it would be one of the precious few the world has seen from it so far. I don't care if half of ya voted for him, I dislike Bush, Rove, Rumsfeld et al so much I even feel sorry for the Americans living under their tyrannical, farcical rule.
Except for Manju, who is clearly beside himself with joy over every chance to defend Bush because, hey, other people have done dumb-ass things too. The point isn't that people haven't suspended habeas corpus before, it is that it should not in any way be happening now, in the 21st century, right NOW. And you can't even use Clinton's extra-marital affairs to cover up this clear breach of a right which is not only part of US law but a fundamental doctrine in international law.
* a backpack...
I'd better watch my Ethnic Speak...
Understatement of the
yearpast five years.I love John Yoo. So representative of Berkeley's esprit de corps.
I dont know about others but I had a serious headache for a week after this bill was approved by Congress. The only good thing about this bill is that it will hopefully get knocked down by the US Supreme Court as violating the 14th amendment.
I think Manju exemplifies the problem with the Republican Party. These people have no problem with the suspension of HABEUS CORPUS for all legal immigrants! For anyone who thinks that the control of all levers of power in the hands of the Republican Party is good for our liberty, this should be a serious wake up call.
Also citing the examples of the suspension of habeus corpus from the last century and the Japanese internment serves what purpose apart from justifying its current application?
Manju's dad could not become a naturalized citizen before the 50s and Blacks had seperate restrooms. So if Southern states re-initiate segregation, should we take solace in the fact that it has precedence?
A lot of the Democrats also voted for this draconian bill (12 dems in the Senate voted for it)
Some of them are from the house like Harold Ford (TN) and Sherrod Brown (OH) who are democratic senatorial nominees from TN and OH. These mofos need to be held accountable as well.
Reminds me of the TADA days in India....
This is the part that left me most shocked, along with the fact no Republican defected (Chafee doesn't count) despite all the controversy leading up to the bill passage. How the WH was able to push everyone to vote their way is, from a political standpoint, impressive...dangerous for the country, yet politically impressive.
I really hope that some judge out there gets to hear this case and tells the administration that they can't have their cake and eat it, too. Though, I'm very skeptical.
In addition to the terrorist designation issue that Abhi discusses, the government's refusal to extradite or deport Posada-Carriles to Venezuela is particularly interesting/arbitrary. The government did not bother to contest Posada's claim that he would be tortured in Venezuela, even though the Venenzuela government has apparently given "diplomatic assurances" that won't happen. Under other circumstances that are certainly no more credible, and may be a good deal less credible, such assurances appear to have been more than enough for the administration to justify rendition of someone to a country where they might likely face torture....
If anyone is interested, the Posada-Carriles detention order can be found here.
That's what Bill Clinton apparently thought too when he pardoned the Puerto Rican terrorist group FALN in 1999, despite opposition from the U.S. Attorney's Office, Congress, the FBI, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Bureau of Prisons and his own wife, citing "Executive Privilege"
We are in a war. People forget the sacrfices that have to be made in order to win a war. Wars are not won on the basis of slick arguments. Just a few decades ago, there was a draft. If it was still in place, I am sure most desis here would have taken a cowards way out and run to Canada. Roosevelt limited a lot more rights than Bush has ever done. If current thinking was in place, USA would have never won WW2. It seems more and more people are vested in defeat of the US. Its what the US can do for me me me.
You're right. And if there was a draft, there would be much greater opposition to this war, and Bush would not have been re-elected. End of story.
Are you in uniform, Vic?
As you can see with Vic, the right has become a parody of itself.
Last time I checked, Clinton left office at the beginning of '01.
tu quoque = ad nauseam
Hello Vikram. I am watching you.
As you can see with Vic, the right has become a parody of itself
C'mon now you have used the same unimaginative remark more than once!
And if you have stooped to picking your political talking points in general and the ones on the war on terror in particular from The Village Voice, you might as well start getting your daily news from the National Enquirer.
And if you have stooped to picking your political talking points in general and the ones on the war on terror in particular from The Village Voice, you might as well start getting your daily news from the National Enquirer.
When did I do that?
What an utterly empty argument. I cited about a dozen sources above including declassified CIA cables.
How can we ever compare WWII to either the Iraq/Afghanistan conflict or to the greater 'War on Terror'? WWII was a war where according to some estimates ~2.5% of the worlds population was killed. Almost every major economic power in the world was a participant in the war. There were major battles being waged in sea/land/air in Europe/Asia-Pac/No.Africa. link
The attempt by the right wingers to compare what Bush has started in Iraq to WWII is just an attempt to further stymie public-objection to the Iraq War. They tell people to look at what it took to win WWII and that we are in the fight for our freedoms yet again and that it is going to take the same level of sacrifice as it took to win WWII is just another ploy to try and shame the people that oppose the war. Anyone who doesn't support the administrations point of view, let alone the war in Iraq, is un-American, hates baseball and apple-pie.
The closest comparison to the Iraq war is the Vietnam War. A localized conflict where we grossly under-estimated what its going to take to win. Regarding the War on Terror, I believe its a sham to use the word 'War' to describe our struggle against terrorism. If this is a war, it has to be a war mainly of ideas, not just of weapons.
I grew up in the middle-east, in Qatar, and I have seen first hand what almost every local thinks about America's foreign-policy. Most locals don't really hate the American people, but, when it comes to the American govt, there was almost universal hatred, and this was before 9/11. People in Qatar were relatively wealthy and they did not feel the sense of hopelessness that some in other middle-eastern countries feel and that leads them down the path to Al-Qaeda. But, most in the middle-east are relatively poor and with very poor prospects for a stable future. These people are indoctrinated from a very young age on the wrongs that Israel and its ally the US have done to all Muslims. This hatred is our enemy and what we have to target. We can't fight this hatred on a battle-field. If we use weapons to fight this, well, we are on our way to becoming a state similar to Israel, where decades of conflict have now created a society that is perenially wary of the next attack.
Are you in uniform Vic?
I am a US Army Veteran having served three years (I only saw two others desi in the US Army, and one was a nurse). I went enlisted and the GI Bill certainly helped me. In case anyone wants to know my MOS was 54 B (NBC), and I did my basic at Ft. Jackson, and AIT at Ft McClellan at Army Chemical School. My personal opinion is that there should be a mandatory draft, as it instills a sense nationalism and service in individuals.
If there was a draft, more people would be exposed to ground realities of winning a war. I know if there was an existing draft prior to Bush, it would have certainly helped Bush. Its pretty obvious now that anyone who instutes a draft commits a political suicide.
Vic, thank you for speaking up. I can't stand the implied chicken-hawk meme behind the question, "are you in uniform?" It's intellectual sloppiness and it's funny how often in blog comment sections it ends up with a reply like yours. Oops. It's like saying you can't be a progressive if you don't pay more in taxes than you are meant to, or somesuch nonsense.
What an utterly empty argument. I cited about a dozen sources above including declassified CIA cables.
And yet The Village Voice piece was your headliner. That publication is a champion at selective information.
...brown.
Cool, you are quite observant I see. Last I checked FALN was still free in '06. No President past or present is above using skewed political reasons to justify controversial decisions.
Indeed. Comparisons with WW2 are truly egregious. They represent an absence of thought. They represent grunting unthinking platitudes. This current campaign is in no way comparable. In fact I cringe whenever I hear or read the comparison.
It's alright though, North Korea just dropped a nuke, the world is a much safer place.
Ahem. The British and Russians (30 million dead Russians) and Canadians with the help of millions of Indian, African, Irish, Australian and Carribean soldiers 'won' WW2 alongside the American forces, who entered the war 3 years after London was first bombed by the luftwaffe.
Sometimes Sepia Mutiny makes me want to sing.
===
America!
FUCK YEAH!
Comin' along to save the Motherfuckin' Day!
America!
FUCK YEAH!
Freedom is the only way!
===
How so? Wouldn't there have been greater opposition to the war (since anyone's family member could be drafted?). I think it's a safe assumption that people are much less willing to go to war if it's themselves having to fight. The families/selves of volunteer soldiers is a different story since they would have other motivations than just being forced into it. Could you explain, please?
Can we all stick to the arguments rather than asking who's making the arguments, please?
Vic, could you elaborate on what you specifically have in mind?
Ah! The draft.
Yup.
Hey the NewYorker says ".... the government has recently denied, delayed, or revoked visas to a group of seventy-five South Korean farmers and trade unionists opposed to a free-trade agreement; a Marxist Greek academic; a Sri Lankan hip-hop singer, whose lyrics were deemed sympathetic to the Tamil Tigers and....
Holy Paratha, no MIA? Screw Habeus Corpus, but not letting MIA is just plain wrong. Bush Murdabad!
I would love to continue the debate...but I am at work, and have actual work to do. Perhaps later at home...then maybe not cuz I won't change anyone's mind.
Quick replies. Under Roosevelt...think about the Japs and their rights. If there was a draft, perhaps there would be more delibration about going into war, but once we were in a war, things like eavesdropping, and prisoners right would resonate a lot less. Would Bush have been reelected if there was a war? Who knows?
I meant to say if Bush would have been elected if there was a draft?....Ok back to work
Please do, if you have a moment -- I genuinely was interested in what you had in mind. There is of course internment, but I was curious if you had a list of other things in mind as well.
Forget the draft, was Bush even really elected the first time? Oh woops I forgot, it doesn't actually matter how the votes add up to the Bush administration.
Would Bush have been re-elected if the votes of the 13% of African Americal males whose vote has been taken off them due to incarceration had been given the chance to vote?
Most importantly for the rest of the world (except for Tony Blair, and what a brilliant career move his support of Iraq turned out to be), would Bush had been re-elected if the rest of the world had a say?
NOTE to the Clinton bashers: I'm not saying that Democrats are better, or even slightly less worse (which is all I think they are), I'm just saying that there has to be a better way than electing an administration willing to overrule the human rights of its own citizens. Republicans dismiss anti-Bush views as anti-American but most of the world cares about American people, just not their current government.
I for one would be very scared to live in a country where potentially someone's subjective decision on their terrorist-radar could get me locked up in a jail cell somewhere, watching the paint dry and keeping score on how many of my fundamental, constitutionally protected rights have been trampled on.
Vic,
Against what enemy? I hear a lot about war this, war that, but I still don't understand what is meant. Perhaps since you have actually served in the military you can tell us what war we are fighting. Also, in this war, what constitutes victory?
Also, in this war, what constitutes victory?
When Jews are allowed in Mecca.
Forget the draft, was Bush even really elected the first time? Oh woops I forgot, it doesn't actually matter how the votes add up to the Bush administration.
Would Bush have been re-elected if the votes of the 13% of African Americal males whose vote has been taken off them due to incarceration had been given the chance to vote?
I for one would be very scared to live in a country where potentially someone's subjective decision on their terrorist-radar could get me locked up in a jail cell somewhere, watching the paint dry and keeping score on how many of my fundamental, constitutionally protected rights have been trampled on.
The very people who accuse the current administration of lying and fearmongering are in fact some of the most brazen practioners of both.
In comment # 39 the second amd third para should have come out italicized in addition to the first.
I too have served in the US Army (Iraq), and I am completely against a mandatory draft. You cannot force a sense of nationalism in an individual; at the most, it is cultivated out of necessity. Vic, you are flashing your colors, boy, and I cannot blame you - I support our men and women in Iraq 100 percnet. But at the risk of sounding like I'm having an existential crisis, I would often kick up dirt in the wastelands of Iraq and wonder which meaningless brutality I would be in charge of executing next. Let's call a spade a spade - this is a war of images and perceptions, with no clear enemy. Maybe I was better able to perceive this since I'm older than a lot of the 19 year olds who I was in duty with, but make no joke - it's a fucked up scenario out there, and I wouldn't wish it upon anyone.
And Vic, before you get on your high horse, man, there are many ways to be patriotic. My brother is a doctor and his heavily taxed income helps pay for our war in Iraq; yes, it is a passive act, but it's reality. So let's think about the bigger picture before coming down on each other now.
Manju - Are you saying the objective of this war is reformation of Islam?
It's a shame - they were very good points - much better in fact than the original italicized point.
Care to be more specific about that?
Yes, what are you saying? I asked the question of Vic and would still like to hear his reply. But since you're answering too, please give me a full answer. Please tell me what we are at war against.
"The very people who accuse the current administration of lying and fearmongering are in fact some of the most brazen practioners of both."
Yeah I don't get this either. The current administration has a much larger "machine" as it were to propogate lies and fearmongering. Hate to make a racial parallel, but it's much the same when whites accuse others of racism, when by a preordained power difference, it can never be possible.
Lastly,
BUCK FUSH
Thinking out aloud: Maybe thats the objective of this war - to answer that question? To me atleast, it has taught a lot. I understand the issues facing us much better than I did pre 9/11. Sadly though, I am more pessimistic today than I was before.
And on whose authority. As far as I understand it, the only wars currently authorized by Congress (which has the power to declare war) are (1) against those responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001 (i.e., against Al Qaeda, mostly in Afghanistan/Pakistan), and (2) to implement the UN Security Council's resolutions on Iraq and WMDs. If we agree on that much, then we can discuss the proper limits of each one, but to hear some people talk, we're in a War Without End against an Endless List of Enemies.
And I certainly don't recall anything about forcibly admitting Jews into Mecca, though I do, of course, recall this gem.
America! FUCK YEAH! Reforming Islam by bombing Muslims to FREEDOM to save the motherfuckin' day!
Yeah!
*high fives*
Yeah!
Rohit - care to share which brutalities you were charged with executing for the US? Do tell. I'm perfectly serious. I'd like to know, as would others I am sure. As you were kicking up the sands, which acts of brutality were you charged with executing as official US military policy?
That might be because Iraq had NOTHING to do with Al Qaeda extremism and Islamist terrorism. Focussing on Afghanistan/Pakistan would have done that, allied to pursuing peace in Israel/Palestine and encouraging democracy across the Arab world.
Manju is the anouncer of eternal war.
Yes. Muslims support terror as a response to perceived threats to Islam, among other reasons. A reformation is in order to bring criticism of Islam legitimacy in the Islamic world. This, along with encouraging democratic reform although I'd take a dictator as a stopgap method if democracy is unrealistic.
The best analogy is the cold war. It's a war against an ideology (Islamic fascism) that takes many forms and various degrees, as well as those who are outside the ideology (Hussein, N.Korea) but may help it perpetrate terrorist acts.
Now to know when to fight some of these characters (Taliban, Hussein, Al Quaeda) and to appease others (Saudi's, Pakistanis) in hopes we can divide and conquer in a Nixon goes to china way is part of the art form of statecraft. Bush is very good at knowing who can be negotiated with and who is beyond the pale, whether he can execute in this political environment remains to be seen. But it was critical we got rid of the taliban and Hussein, IMO.
At the end of the day, the ideology must die and be replaced with liberal democracy, as Wolfowitz argues. So my "jews in Mecca" line was only a bit factious. I meant it as a symbolic act that tells the ideology is dead, like the collapse of the Berlin wall.
So we kill thousands more of them, to dissuade them of this perceived threat. I get it.
A war to force reformation! I get it. And supporting liberal democrats is part of the 'war', so as long as they reform we leave them alone, if not, we kill them. FUCK YEAH! Saving the day! Woo hoo! *high fives*
Hey, a man of principles, I like your style...
Ah yes, that genius of statecraft Nixon, with his brain Kissinger, this art of statecraft is sublime and so enticing, and strategic and exceptional eh?
Of course, if Wolfowitz argues it...
And people like you will decide when it is dead, and liberal democracy has prevailed over the beknighted Muslim world, and Jackie Mason shall do a gig at the Mecca City Hall, and all shall be well.
-----Perpetual War----Eternal War------
Lie
Forget the draft, was Bush even really elected the first time? Oh woops I forgot, it doesn't actually matter how the votes add up to the Bush administration.
Extremist mumbo jumbo
Would Bush have been re-elected if the votes of the 13% of African Americal males whose vote has been taken off them due to incarceration had been given the chance to vote?
Fearmongering
I for one would be very scared to live in a country where potentially someone's subjective decision on their terrorist-radar could get me locked up in a jail cell somewhere, watching the paint dry and keeping score on how many of my fundamental, constitutionally protected rights have been trampled on.
Exaggerating aberrations while totally discounting the routine aka lying
I would often kick up dirt in the wastelands of Iraq and wonder which meaningless brutality I would be in charge of executing next.
Unadmitted, but hate for America and the White Man nonetheless
America!
FUCK YEAH!
Hate to make a racial parallel, but it's much the same when whites accuse others of racism, when by a preordained power difference, it can never be possible.
Lastly,
BUCK FUSH
Nice.
Focussing on Afghanistan/Pakistan would have done that,
Now don't disappoint your comrades here. Many of them were deadset against going to war against the Taliban.
encouraging democracy across the Arab world.
And which US president made this a centrepiece of his Middle East policy?
"This, along with encouraging democratic reform although I'd take a dictator as a stopgap method if democracy is unrealistic."
I think you're wildly ignoring vested interests. Mossadegh was democratically elected, nationalized the oil fields much to British dismay,
The government of Britain had grown increasingly distressed over Mossadegh's policies and were especially bitter over the loss of their control on the Iranian oil industry. [link]
Given the history of the west's treatment of the middle east, can one really say they are genuinely interested in democracy?
The first 2 were appeased, then when became too unruly, battled with. According to Musharraf, Pakistan wasn't exactly "appeased" into cooperation.
Interestingly, Muslims believe that if a non-muslim goes to Mecca, its the end of Islam. That is why they have strict checks to make sure it doesnt happen, for example not letting Ahmediyas to go on Haj. So, if Islam becomes liberal enough to allow non muslims to go to Mecca, then Islam as we know it, is dead. Unintentionally, your point is more than factious my friend.
An important point is, if reformation of Islam is a foreign policy objetive, is it constitutional? (Its different from the objective combating communism)Can government actually spend tax dollars in trying to reform religions? I suppose one can claim that objective can be reached indirectly...
Manju, he's amazingly good at it. He's particularly good at distinguishing between real and imaginary threats, and at keeping family psychodrama out of his decision-making altogether. And don't underestimate Bush's capacity to execute, whether in this political environment or a more favorable one -- he's amply demonstrated his execution skills many times over.
The one who bombed Iraq?
I don't have comrades bwana - I am the one and only Red Snapper. I stand alone.
FUCK YEAH!
#36:
I suppose then you might be moving out of New Zealand soon ?
The one who bombed Iraq?
No, the one who precision bombed. Lovers of nuance take that!
Um, care to provide some support for this sweeping assertion about "many of them"? I don't think you can, without picking out a handful of unrepresentative straw men/women to attack. The post-9/11 resolution authorizing the war in Afghanistan was essentially unanimous in Congress, and had wide public support across party lines. What was that you were saying about "brazen practitioners"?
Manju has told us what he thinks the war is against, and what he thinks would constitute victory. Anyone else got an answer? Vic? Vikram? Jilted?
Manju advocates forced Reformation. Maybe we can call it "Crusades II." Like a sequel.
MD, its speaks volumes how you engaged a military person that agreed with your predetermined views:
...but challenge a soldier person that disagrees with them:
Jilted_manhood throws in a communist slur:
Should I now imlpy you are a fascist nazi? I am getting really tired of your "debate" tactics dude.
Vic,
On the stance that you are in the military changes a lot of your perceptions. I have a number of friends who currently serving in the military some in reserve and a few over in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some are marines and have little knowledge, others work within intelligence operations and have access to highly sensitive materials. While they are not at liberty to speak about classified material, they have mentioned the amount of censored media material which are provided for soliders. There is definitely a lot of material which could be viewed as propaganda or half truths which do a few things, not all bad. 1)create confidence within the soldiers, reinforcing strength, in my opinion a positive attribute and 2)teaching soldiers all the clever ways to respond to situations when there is no clear answer, i don't consider this brainwashing but really just politcal rhetoric techniques which have been simplified for the masses. While its clearly not as maniacal as it may sound right now, its
Very intersting. The CIA should sneek one in, take some pics, and, by their own beleif system, Islam will cease to be and they will hve nothing left to fight for.
Since this post is about constituinal law, let me answer this. My interpretation of the 1st ammendment is that religion is on equal setting with other ideologies. In other words, if the governement wants to fight a secular ideology it can also attempt to to reform a religious one. Same goes for providing support, though many liberals disagree with this. Seperation of church and state is not in the constitution.
While you guys come up with your answers, I should add that I do not see a war. As far as I can tell, there is no war going on. There was a brief war in 2003 between the US and Iraq, which the US rapidly won. There was also a brief war in 2001 between the US and Afghanistan, with the same outcome.
I see no war. I see a military occupation of Iraq, under the stewardship of which a civil war is developing that the occupation seems so far unable to stop.
You can agree or disagree, but if you disagree, kindly tell me what war you see, with as much precision as you can muster as to the protagonists and the definition of victory.
Well... you brought up Crusades. You are not exactly indulging in intellectual discourse yourself.
For people interested in what one soldier thinks read here. This letter has apparently been circulating and has been reaching important ears. I though the midget anecdote was especially poignant.
Explain to me how what he is describing is much different than the Crusades? He is advocating forced Reformation of a religion through military power. What historical parallel would you cite?
Siddhartha, without necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with you more generally, from at least one narrowly-defined perspective, the objectives of the first war (Afghanistan) *might* still remain unfufilled, at least to the extent that the premise of that war involved retaliation against those who attacked the US on September 11 and Bin Laden et al are still at large. Of course, the outer limits of those objectives are rather hazy -- and in any event, the administration seemed to lose interest in that war rather quickly.
To the extent that the second war (Iraq) was authorized to enforce the Security Council's WMD resolutions, the premise of that war never really existed -- the objectives were "accomplished" before hostilities commenced.
As for whether "reformation of Islam" is constitutional, that seems beside the point. It's not the premise/objective of either Afghanistan/Pakistan (self-defense/retaliation) or Iraq (enforcing the UN Security Council's resolutions on WMD).
The cold war and the "forced reformation" of the "opiate of the intellectuals"
Also let's try to stay on topic as best we can. This post was about a hypocritical position taken by the administration on its "war on terror." It was about their ability to strip even citizens of their rights. I don't really feel like arguing with the Manju's and jilteds of this world because it is really a waste of time. A month from now a lot of us will vote. Let's let our ballots do the arguing.
I would contend that there is a small fraction of Muslims world-wide that 'actively' supports terror. Does this mean there is only a small fraction of Muslims that sympathize with certain terrorist organizations (Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, etc)? I am not certain, but, most likely the answer is no, a lot more Muslims sympathize with wha these organizations than actively support terror. Look at it from the average Muslim in Cairo's POV. The choice in front of him/her is between support for the west (America), with its purported anti-Islamic foreign policy goal of 'reforming Islam', and these terrorist organizations that offer some semblance of a POV that is similar to what he/she believes in. Who do you think they are going to sympathize with? Kind of like a choice between bad and worse and in their eyes the lesser of the two evils is the terrorist!
I don't give a rats-ass for labels like liberal/conservative, etc. My only suggestion to politicians is to use their brain to form their own ideas. Think about the issues rather than just toting the party line. We elect you to represent us, the people, not to further a certain pre-ordained party-ideology.
This war on terror, in its current form and using the current strategy, I can almost guarantee cannot be won (at least not for many decades to come). Even if every American was to magically be transformed into a Bush-lover and gave it his/her all, we couldn't win this war. Why? Because, going back to the crux of the problem it is not a war that can be won by weapons. And I dont' see the current administration (or even the Democrats for that matter) offer any compelling strategies to wage a war of ideas.
Islam, I contend, will never be able to be reformed by anything other than a grass-roots Muslim-owned Muslim-driven movement to introduce liberty first and then democracy to the greater middle-east. When there is change forced on a people from the outside, it will most likely be rejected. Maybe its because of pride, nationalism, religious-fervor, whatever, its just much harder to force change from the outside.
Vic, thank you for speaking up.
...but challenge a soldier person that disagrees with them:
Rohit - care to share which brutalities you were charged with executing for the US?
Thank Vic because not only did he speak up but he is more credible. He answered questions. He provided proof to support his job credentials. Rohit has yet not answered either MD or me?
I am getting really tired of your "debate" tactics dude.
This coming from a man who had once rudely answered a commenter as to why he has his head buried in the sand! I remember he had asked you to provide some proof of your assertion that most Indians are prejudiced against Blacks. Remember that ? I had not known comrade was a slur and had not meant it to be that way. Yes, you may accuse me of being lazy on this thread and skimping on explaining my positions. But I am sure my point is coming across to many. I have after all some damn good debating history on your blog! Go check it.
He is advocating reform - not forced reform. Don't you?
The Crusades were not about reforming Islam.
There has always been war since the dawn of Man. Such is his nature.
In this case, war was declared on the US by people who bombed WTC in 1993. US did nothing. They bombed US again with couple of embassy bombings and then again USS Cole. It did not warrant US' attention as it was thought it was some 'piddly' group that could be handled. Then 9/11 happened and it got the attention. It was also chilling to note that if these guys had nukes, they would have used it. So its quite clear that for now we are at war with these people.
What do these people want? They want destruction of Israel, and since US is supporting Israel, US is a target. The same people have other goals of 'liberating' Kashmir, Chechnya, and eventually the whole world (Darul harb etc etc.)in varying priorities. Should US have given in, and stopped support for Israel? If Israel ceases to exist, would these people allow us to live in peace? Where would it stop?
Did the war really start in 1993, or has it been going on since 700 AD when Islam came into existence. War has existed since mankind, but I would put it out there that Islam has given certain people a convenient reason to wage war. How do you define victory against this ideology? It is when the people who follow this ideology are powerless to do anything significant. Right now they are extremely well organized, camouflaged and funded . In my view this war will continue for at least my lifetime. The only way to end it swiftly would be through extreme violence (I can easily see a scenario where a US city is nuked, and US nukes a couple of arab countries)
Its the same situation as the Kashmir conflict. The choices are to drag this conflict out for umpteen years and slowly bleed the enemy to death, or to have one violent resolution. US may not have a choice if one of its own cities are attacked by wmd. I believe that is the reason for preemptive war.
In any case, even if this conflict is resolved, that will not be the end of war. There will be some other reason to attack someone else or vice versa. There always are.
This little thingie above did not have anything to do If Bush got elected in 2000 or not. To debate the law of the country whether incarcerated men should have a right to vote is pointless, and there are countless 'what if' scenarios that can be presented
I also supported a draft. That is a personal opinion. I think couple years of service instill values that are good for citizenry in general. It also ensures that decisions about going to war are not taken lightly. There are pros and cons and in my opinion, pros outweigh the cons.
I don't really feel like arguing with the Manju's and jilteds of this world because it is really a waste of time
You just snatched the words out of my mouth! At least on this topic. Just replace the names with Abhi and Vinay.
Perhaps Rohit is not interested in wasting any more of his time on someone who accuses him of "Exaggerating aberrations while totally discounting the routine aka lying." Talk about supporting the troops. What the hell do you think the US military is doing in Iraq, cuddling up with bunny rabbits?
Pied Piper:
Hm.
This is the way of Zen.
There was no reason to do this. The communists were regular soldiers and by in large did not conduct terrorist activities. They were conscripts who could be returned to their country without us worrying that they'd return to try to blow up innocents in planes.
Now, Abhi and Co. is right to worry that a suspension of the writ is ripe for abuse, but I'm struck by that fact that no one who supports habeas corpus even bothered to address the prime arguments for suspension...the uniqueness of the terrorist threat as i stated in the above paragraph. It's like a strawman argument, where one avoids the toughest formulation of one's opponents argument.
Instead, what we get were some platitudes from our founding fathers, who, ironically, were nuanced enough to consider the possibility of a suspension...something we would never learn from abhi.
What the hell do you think the US military is doing in Iraq, cuddling up with bunny rabbits?
Why the anger? So you think the troops are brutalizing the Iraqi people? Your tone has a strong undercurrent of revulsion for the troops in Iraq. But you reserve an exception of sympathy for those soldiers who are severely self critical;
Perhaps Rohit is not interested in wasting any more of his time on someone who accuses him of "Exaggerating aberrations while totally discounting the routine aka lying." Talk about supporting the troops.
Going back to the topic. Lets say suspending Habeus Corpus is not an option. Are the laws of the land as we exist today sufficient to combat terrorism and prosecute terrorists? Is terrorism to be treated exactly like any other crime? If not, then we need to come up with alternative ways of investigating and procesuting terrorism.
To me it sounds like we are still in the process of formulating the new rules to play by. Suspending Habeus Corpus might be an extreme measure, but then so is treating as equals people who intend to blow nukes in cities and people who intend to murder their wives for cheating on them.
You're really fishing here. And I was not speaking to the troops. I was speaking to you.
I don't blame you. Hard to find time when you're dating 4 women at once.
Yes.
When cartoons don't lead to riots.
Yes.
But suspension is ripe for abuse. Congress should be involved in a bipartisan way to review cases where individuals hve not been charged. The same, btw, should happen with leaks of classifyed material. The "whistleblower" should go to a commision, not the press. checks and balances.
There are ways to partially adress the concerns of both sides if we at least racognize both sides have a point. But partisans have a hard time with that.
Extreme for those whose rights are so denied, but extreme for us too.
The thing with the improvised approach to law that Bush so favors is that we sacrifice long-term benefits for highly debatable short-term ones.
The principles that we're eroding are exactly what we most value, or that we ought to most value. Our leaders should be concerned, above all else, with preserving the very quality that makes us a worthwhile target for enemies of freedom: freedom itself. But they're not.
As a result, we are not acting like free people. We're acting like a fearful schoolyard bully, devoid of moral intelligence, unable to do what is in our own best self-interest, much less that of others. We act exactly the same way those others-- the ones we're so keen to tutor on justice and freedom-- would act in the same situation. We think the real sufferers in Guantanamo are the detainees. We don't count the atrocious cost to the detainers.
It comes as a surprise to our leaders (but to no one else) that the war on terror has been a great boost to acts of terror. Eyebrows are raised all over Washington, and a cry of dismay goes out, in the wronged voice of children with empty stockings on Christmas morn, "But we thought we were solving this problem!"
But too far along the road to turn round now. It may be the wrong road, but it's the one we chose, and we'd rather be wrong, no matter the toll, than be seen to have been wrong. Let us, therefore, stay the course, and pile crime on crime.
You are quite right Manju. Were I a founding father my stance on people like you would be quite undemocratic and not nuanced at all. Thankfully I believe the majority of voters, and the majority of people that visit this site will be nuanced enough in their understanding of global realities to thwart your world vision and see through the nonsensical idealogy you continually spout.
I actually laughed aloud at this. Thanks for cutting the tension.
Well, if I'm desperate wouldn't that mean I respect him being so "busy"?
I do not continually spout a nonsensical ideology! I take breaks from time to time.
They want destruction of Israel, and since US is supporting Israel, US is a target. The same people have other goals of 'liberating' Kashmir, Chechnya, and eventually the whole world (Darul harb etc etc.)in varying priorities. Should US have given in, and stopped support for Israel? If Israel ceases to exist, would these people allow us to live in peace?
No, not at all. It would likely embolden them to carry on, and provide charismatics the fodder to attract more intelligent people to the world-cause. Yes, intelligent people.
I would contend that there is a small fraction of Muslims world-wide that 'actively' supports terror. Does this mean there is only a small fraction of Muslims that sympathize with certain terrorist organizations (Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, etc)? I am not certain, but, most likely the answer is no, a lot more Muslims sympathize with wha these organizations than actively support terror.
Ther proportion of Muslim populations that support fundamentalist interpretations of Islam and even suicide bombings is actually quite high; the same goes for Muslim residents of the diaspora in Europe. Preaching the relatively tolerant Sufi strains of Islam will get you not marginalized, but killed in many Muslim countries, including among the allies of convenience. Yes, not every fundamentalist-fascist regime is a threat to the world, but so long as the ideology has life, it will continue to attract people, from one generation to the next...
A month from now a lot of us will vote. Let's let our ballots do the arguing.
We may have