Politics

Yeah, well, I had to jump back into this side of things eventually. On the bright side, much as this stuff might worry and/or scare me, at least I’m paying attention to it now, which I wasn’t for far too many years.

• With the possible exception of Bill Gates, Dick Cheney is the smartest man I’ve ever met. If you get into a dispute with him, he will take you on a devastatingly brief tour all the weak points in your argument. But he is a careful listener and not at all the ideologue he appears at this distance.
  >

  Here is the problem I think Dick Cheney is trying to address at the moment: How does one assure global stability in a world where there is only one strong power? This is a question that his opposition, myself included, has not asked out loud. It’s not an easy question to answer, but neither is it a question to ignore.

  …it’s possible Cheney and company are actually bluffing.This time, instead of trying to terrify the Soviets into collapse, the objective is even grander. If I’m right about this, they have two goals. Neither involves actual war, any more than the MX missile did.

  First, they seek to scare Saddam Hussein into voluntarily turning his country over to the U.S. and choosing safe exile or, failing that, they want to convince the Iraqi people that it’s safer to attempt his overthrow or assassination than to endure an invasion by American ground troops.

  Second, they are trying to convince every other nation on the planet that the United States is the Mother of All Rogue States, run by mad thugs in possession of 15,000 nuclear warheads they are willing to use and spending, as they already are, more on death-making capacity than all the other countries on the planet combined. In other words, they want the rest of the world to think that we are the ultimate weaving driver. Not to be trusted, but certainly not to be messed with either.

  By these terrible means, they will create a world where war conducted by any country but the United States will seem simply too risky and the Great American Peace will begin. Unregulated Global Corporatism will be the only permissible ideology, every human will have access to McDonald’s and the Home Shopping Network, all ‘news’ will come through some variant of AOLTimeWarnerCNN, the Internet will be run by Microsoft, and so it will remain for a long time. Peace. On Prozac.

  John Perry Barlowe, Sympathy for the Devil, via Phil Ulrich

• This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption — the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future — is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our — or some other nation’s — hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.
  >

  One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.

  But to turn one’s frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

  Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq — a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 — this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare — this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

  We are truly “sleepwalking through history.” In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

  Sen. Robert C. Byrd, We stand passively mute, via Allan Moult

• And lastly for tonight, Dori Smith posts a number of articles worth reading, including the two I just quoted from.

I still find it amazing and more than a little concerning that the best commentary regarding the current and upcoming conflict comes primarily from columnists, webloggers, and “ordinary people” across the nation, and all-too-rarely from those on Capitol Hill (with speeches like Senator Byrd’s being a welcome exception). I’ve certainly not seen anything come out of the White House that’s nearly as well thought-out or well presented as many of the less “official” arguments are (both pro- and anti-war).

More good news as I catch up on my newsreading — the Total Information Awareness program is facing heavy opposition, and is likely to be barred from collecting information on American citizens.

House and Senate negotiators have agreed that a Pentagon project intended to detect terrorists by monitoring Internet e-mail and commercial databases for health, financial and travel information cannot be used against Americans.

The conferees also agreed to restrict further research on the program without extensive consultation with Congress.

House leaders agreed with Senate fears about the threat to personal privacy in the Pentagon program, known as Total Information Awareness. So they accepted a Senate provision in the omnibus spending bill passed last month, said Representative Jerry Lewis, the California Republican who heads the defense appropriations subcommittee.

Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, the senior Democrat on the subcommittee, said of the program, “Jerry’s against it, and I’m against it, so we kept the Senate amendment.” Of the Pentagon, he said, “They’ve got some crazy people over there.”

One important factor in the breadth of the opposition is the fact that the research project is headed by Adm. John M. Poindexter. Several members of Congress have said that the admiral was an unwelcome symbol because he had been convicted of lying to Congress about weapons sales to Iran and illegal aid to Nicaraguan rebels, an issue with constitutional ramifications, the Iran-contra affair. The fact that his conviction was later reversed on the ground that he had been given immunity for the testimony in which he lied did not mitigate Congressional opinion, they said.

Excellent, excellent news. It finally looks like the “anything to catch a terrorist” fervor that has been running rampant is starting to ebb, and more and more people in positions where they can do something are starting to take a second look at what’s going on. I just hope this trend continues.

(Via /. and Tom Tomorrow)

Finally, some good movement happening on the polictical front — a very welcome change from last week’s ranting and raving. It seems that the recently-leaked ‘Patriot II’ draft, in addition to getting attention in the blogging world, is also raising eyebrows on Capitol Hill.

Unlike its hastily passed predecessor, the Justice Department’s wide-ranging follow-up to the Patriot Act of 2001 is already facing intense scrutiny, just days after a civil rights group posted a leaked version of the legislation on its website.

The legislation, nicknamed Patriot II, would broadly expand the government’s surveillance and detention powers. Among other measures, it calls for the creation of a terrorist DNA database and allows the attorney general to revoke citizenship of those who provide “material support” to terrorist groups.

Despite assurances to lawmakers that no bill was in the works, the Justice Department internally circulated a confidential 120-page summary and text of the Domestic Security and Enhancement Act in early January.

Given the intense attention already focused on this bill, some doubt it will be introduced soon.

“This is a very audacious bill designed to strike while the iron is still hot, but I wonder if it is still hot,” said Chris Hoofnagle, deputy counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center . “There is already resistance to new government surveillance powers .”

“This is something you have on the shelf,” said Hoofnagle. “You wait for an opportune moment, like going to war, to introduce it. They call this a draft, but this bill is definitely close to final and gives a good road map of what the Justice Department wants.”

Could it be time to start thinking about impeaching Bush? Realistically, we’re probably not at a point where it’s going to happen, but that hasn’t stopped some people from considering the idea — including Johnson Administration US Attorney General Ramsey Clark. Mr. Clark has drafted articles of impeachment, outlining the crimes and misdemeanors that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft should answer for, and the Vote to Impeach website is collecting ‘signatures’ to move the process forward.

The U.S. Constitution provides the means for preventing George W. Bush from engaging in a war of aggression against Iraq, and from advancing a first strike potentially nuclear preemptive war. It’s called impeachment.

Impeachment is the direct constitutional means for removing a President, Vice President or other civil officers of the United States who has acted or threatened acts that are serious offenses against the Constitution, its system of government, or the rule of law, or that are conventional crimes of such a serious nature that they would injure the Presidency if there was no removal.

Impeachment appears six times in the U.S. Constitution. The Founders weren’t concerned with anything more than with impeachment because they had lived under King George III and had in 1776 accused the king of all the things that George W. Bush wants to do: Usurpation of the power of the people; Being above the law; Criminal abuse of authority.

(Via Stavros)

North Korea is entitled to launch a pre-emptive strike against the US rather than wait until the American military have finished with Iraq, the North’s foreign ministry told the Guardian yesterday.

“The United States says that after Iraq, we are next”, said the deputy director Ri Pyong-gap, “but we have our own countermeasures. Pre-emptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the US.”

I have got to find some more cheerful news to post soon, this is getting ridiculous.

I just stumbled across a very well written rebuttal to Powell’s UN address in the Pakistan Daily Times: World Views: Rebutting Powell:

If one believes everything Colin Powell said to the Security Council on February 5^th^, one’s first response ought to be that there’s no reason to fight a war, since US surveillance capabilities are so awesome that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) can easily be found. And one’s first question should be why has the United States for over two months withheld this apparently so damaging evidence from those weapons inspectors, who could have verified conjectures and destroyed WMD stocks and production facilities.

If indeed the evidence presented is of the character claimed by Powell, then the United States has chosen to sabotage UN Security Council Resolution 1441, clause 10 of which “Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes.”

[…]

It is becoming increasingly likely that the United States will obtain a Security Council resolution authorizing war. And if it does, its main argument will be that it must go to war with Iraq to uphold international law. It’s important to understand ahead of time just how obscene that argument is. It’s not just because the United States has systematically undermined international law with regard to Iraq, by refusing to acknowledge the basis (disarmament) for lifting the sanctions, by committing repeated acts of illegal aggression against Iraq (like the Desert Fox bombing), and by deliberately making the sanctions bite Iraqi society as hard as possible for purely political reasons (see “Economic sanctions as a weapon of mass destruction,” Joy Gordon, Harper’s, November 2002). It’s not just because the United States enforces a double standard, in which itself and favoured allies are exempt from legal requirements while states it decided to target are not.

It’s because this war is a violation of the ultimate international law. It is a “crime against peace,” a war of aggression. It was decided on long ago in the White House, and the only reason other countries may vote in support of it is the repeated statements that the war will happen whether they want it or not. It is the United States holding not just Iraq but the entire world hostage.

Y’know, sometimes, whether or not it’s polite, whether or not it’s “politically correct,” you just need to say what you feel, in all its uncensored glory.

To the so-called “authors” of the report that much of Colin Powell’s recent address to the UN was based on, for plagarizing the majority of the paper from a twelve year old academic paper detailing Iraq’s strengths and capabilities at the time of the (original) Gulf War:

Fuck you.

(Via Kirsten, more info and many more links at What Really Happened)

To the representatives introducing a bipartisan resolution to rein in Bush and repeal the “blank check” he has for the Iraqi invasion:

Thank you.

To the multutudes of news organizations around the country who would rather continue to help Bush wag the dog than run this story and let the American people know that some of their elected representatives, Republican and Democrat alike, are concerned about Bush’s actions and trying to reinstate some limits:

Fuck you.

(Also via Kirsten)

To the Bush administration, the justice department, and Ashcroft’s staff, for drafting a mindbogglingly expanded ‘Patriot Act II’ that makes the sweeping damages to personal liberty and freedom of the original Patrot Act look like childs play:

Fuck you.

(Via MeFi)

To Kirsten, who I figured would have a lot to say and would say it well once she entered the blogging world, for proving me oh-so-correct:

You rock. R – A – W – K, RAWK!

You’d think that watching Trent Lott shoot himself in the foot would make an impact on people. Apparently that’s not the case for North Carolina congressman Howard Coble, who sees no problem with WWII-era Japanese-American internment camps.

A congressman who heads a homeland security subcommittee said on a radio call-in program that he agreed with the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

Rep. Howard Coble, R-N.C., made the remark Tuesday on WKZL-FM when a caller suggested Arabs in the United States should be confined. Another congressman who was interned as a child criticized Coble for the comment, as did advocacy groups.

Coble, chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, said he didn’t agree with the caller but did agree with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who established the internment camps.

“We were at war. They (Japanese-Americans) were an endangered species,” Coble said. “For many of these Japanese-Americans, it wasn’t safe for them to be on the street.”

When pressed for an apology by groups rightly surprised and outraged over this remark, Coble said he didn’t feel that he needed to apologize.

Coble said Thursday he intended no offense, but still believes he was right.

“I apologize if I offended anybody,” he said. \”I certainly did not intend to offend anybody.

“I certainly intended no harm or ill will toward anybody. I still stand by what I said…that, in no small part, it (internment) was done to protect the Japanese-Americans themselves.”

“I may give a statement (later) further clarifying,” he said, “but I don’t think I said anything that calls for an apology.”

Eric at IsThatLegal? is doing an excellent job of following ‘Coblegate’, with a lengthy rebuttal examining Coble’s statment that the internment was for the protection of the Japanese-Americans.

…the Carter-Munson plan was the only plan for dealing with Japanese Americans that took their security into account in any way. And it never got off the ground.

Why didn’t it get off the ground? For four main reasons. First, by late January 1942, General John DeWitt (the commanding officer of the West Coast Defense Command) and his advisor Karl Bendetsen had become persuaded that mass action to remove all people of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast was necessary for military reasons. Their viewpoint was fed largely by outrageous rumors of Japanese American subversion, none of which ever panned out.

Second, by mid-January, a rabidly racist press along the Coast had begun campaigning for the eviction of all “Japs” from the area–not for their protection, but because they could not be trusted.

Third, white farmers in California began lobbying ferociously for the removal of all people of Japanese ancestry–not to protect them, and not even really for national security reasons, but to drive the very successful Japanese farming industry out of business.

And fourth, their lobbying, and the voices of the editorialists, succeeded in pushing most of the congressional delegations of the West Coast states to demand mass exclusion.

Rep. Coble needs to apologize. And the rest of America’s electorate really need to realize that these short-sighted, racist, and inflammatory remarks are neither likely to “slip under the radar” as they did in pre-internet days, nor are the people they affect going to just shrug them off. It’s time to grow up.

(Via Meg Hourihan and Dave Winer)

Okay. I, and the majority of the people that I know and associate with, think that Bush is rapidly heading towards the point of no return, chomping at the bit to start lobbing bombs into Iraq. He tells us that Saddam has been working on creating “weapons of mass destruction” (rapidly becoming one of the most over-used phrases in existance), but he’s hiding them. Proof through a lack of proof — a technique historically used primarily by conspiracy kooks, and one that is subject to a lot of skepticism (rightly) and derision (maybe less rightly).

But what if he’s right?

I’m not about to start defending Bush, or joining the camp stating that war is inevitable, or even necessary. But this is something that’s been bouncing around in my head for a bit now. Like it or not, we may not know if Saddam currently has the ability to start nuking or gassing people, but we do know that the guy’s something of a nutcase, with a demonstratable history of doing some horrible things to the people of his country. Whether or not we have the “smoking gun” we’d all prefer to see before sending troops in (and, at this point, we don’t), it really isn’t inconceivable to admit that the possibility does exist that Bush really isn’t entirely off the wall with his accusations. All we have is circumstantial evidence, and while much of it isn’t as strong as Bush et al would like us to believe it is, it still doesn’t paint a pretty picture.

Much of my frustration at the chain of events we’ve seen so far stems from two things. One, that the US propaganda machine has parlayed the Al-Quaida attack into justification for the Iraqi invasion (as discussed in this Salon article that Kirsten pointed out), and two, that Bush seems determined to have his war whether or not the UN feels that his case is strong enough.

The first frustration I’ll probably just have to live with. The second, though…. What if the UN actually does decide to back the invasion of Iraq? I’ve gotten the impression (though, admittedly, I’ve still yet to actually go through it all myself) that Powell’s presentation was something of a dog-and-pony show, given more for the benefit of the American public than for the UN, and it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if there was a lot more behind-the-scenes negotiation, maneuvering, and conferencing going on than we’re privy to.

As nice as it would be for this to be an entirely black-and-white issue, it’s really not, and I’m trying to see more of the shades of grey than I’ve wanted to. Part of what got me on this (admittedly somewhat rambling) diatribe was a couple links posted today.

Firstly, Meg pointed to an article in the UK Times by Matthew Paris — A dove’s guide: how to be an honest critic of the war.

…to our doves hearts content, we may make sport with the arguments of Bush and Blair. But when the mockery dies away do we not have to ask ourselves one awkward little remaining question? What if the undeclared major premise is true? What if the weaponry is there, just as Washington and London believed all along? … To that one awkward little question we doves should add another. What if the United Nations Security Council does in the end authorise an invasion?

The answer to the first question, we may not know until this is all over (if we’re lucky — if we’re unlucky, we could very well find out much earlier when a warhead of one type or another is detonated). To the second, though, well, I don’t like the fact that we may very well be going to war, nor am I entirely convinced at this point that we’re justified in pushing this war — however — should the UN support the invasion, then at least the US wouldn’t be acting on its own (much like Bush accuses Saddam as having aspirations of doing). I’d still dislike the fact that the conflict is there, but I’d feel somewhat better if it were approached with the ‘go ahead’ of the UN.

The second article, pointed out by Jonathan Delacour, looks at some of the issues surrounding Saddam beyond just the current situation.

Like most Australians, I’m against the Bush Administration’s war, but that doesn’t mean that we in the majority can congratulate ourselves about our moral superiority. All those offering a variety of peaceful, patient, reasonable and bloodless options should at least have the honesty to acknowledge that if Saddam Hussein retains power in this stand-off with George Bush, the anti-war movement will have delivered a de facto victory for a psychotic, genocidal tyranny. And not for the first time.

…The moral virgins in this debate who pronounce themselves “against war”, and who rail against American arrogance, need to at least acknowledge the impact that inertia and appeasement have had on the continuing murders and torture in the Abu Ghraib prison, the genocide against the Kurds and the Madans, the invasions of Kuwait and Iran, the missile attacks on Israeli civilians, the use of chemical weapons, the degradation of the environment and the general malevolence of a kleptocracy run by Saddam and his Caligula-like son, Uday, and their vast apparatus of suppression.

Had this regime not been decisively and violently checked by US power 12 years ago, it would now control the vast oil resources of Kuwait as well as its own, would have used this economic power to build an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, would have sought nuclear weapons, and would probably be untouchable. All thanks to prudent, peace-loving people who are against military interventions and American imperialism.

As easy as it might be to boil all this down to cute little soundbites — it’s “all about oil,” or it’s “finishing what Daddy Bush started” — it’s not. They play a part, I’m sure, but with just about everything, it’s never just that simple.

I don’t like the situation we’re in. I’ll be very happy if, however unlikely it may seem, we manage to get out of this without sacrificing lives (American, allied, or Iraqi). I don’t in the least support Bush’s handling of the situation, or his subtle as a bulldozer, “damn the torpedos” approach, and I look forward to the day when I can cast a vote against Bush.

I’m just not sure if I can unequivocally condemn the drive to oust Saddam. There should be a better way than what we’re facing — the concept of the end justifying the means has never sat well with me — but should we enter into this, I just hope it’s over quickly, with as little bloodshed as possible, and that this time, it’s successful. We didn’t get Saddamn out before. We still haven’t found bin Laden. I can’t even remember if we ever actually ousted Kaddaffi (going back a few years to the Reagan days). If we must go into this conflict, as the powers that be seem to be convinced, can we at least just get it right this time?

Sorry if this is a bit rambling, it’s getting late, and I don’t edit these posts before putting them up. Things were just bouncing around in my brain (frustration, concerns, and confusion), and I wanted to get a few of them out. Hopefully some of it will be coherent when I re-read it in the morning.

Gen. Powell made his presentation to the UN today, giving America’s (ahem…Bush’s…) case for going to war with Iraq. I haven’t had time to look over the full thing yet, but the US Department of State has the entire presentation available on the web. I’ll be printing it out and looking it over as soon as I have an opportunity.