American War Crimes
The Washington Post broke a story about the CIA's removal of prisoners from Iraq, although this appears to violate the Geneva Conventions. According to the Post, the Justice Department wrote a memo in defense of the practice. Although the memo was stamped "draft" and apparently never finalized, it was circulated to other agencies, and the CIA relied on it in undertaking the removals or "renditions."
On Sunday, the New York Times had a long article on the rewriting of military law after 9/11 to allow sending prisoners to Guantanamo, where the administration expected them to be beyond the reach of the US judicial system. The article says that the White House proponents of this system kept lawyers from other agencies -- including uniformed military lawyers and State Department lawyers -- out of the process because the White House considered them too soft.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Bush Failures on Non-Proliferation
The Washington Post has a major article on the failures of Bush's non-proliferation policy, involving most of the biggies, but with relatively little focus on Iraq. After all, it turned out that Iraq wasn't really a non-proliferation threat. It also doesn't mention India, since India is sort of doing its own thing, except that the unmentioned free pass for India complicates enforcing the entire non-proliferation regime, such as it is, against anyone.
The article, however, has in depth information on Pakistan (and the free pass given to A.Q. Khan), North Korea (and the absence of a policy -- "no carrot, no stick and no talk"), Iran (where the US turned down several opportunities to negotiate), Libya (about which the UK was much more concerned than the US), and finally Russia. According to the article, "'The big gorilla in the basement is the material from Russia and Pakistan,' said Robert L. Gallucci, dean of the Georgetown School of Foreign Service and a classified consultant to the CIA and Energy Department laboratories. 'This is the principal, major national security threat to the United States in the next decade or more. I don't know what's in second place.'" Regarding Nunn-Lugar, the article continues, "Securing the [Russian nuclear] materials is laborious, expensive and dangerous work. Bush decided to let two of the major programs lapse because Russia declined to accept a change in the agreement that would shield U.S. firms from liability for worker safety."
The other disturbing fact was that intelligence types are almost certain that A.Q. Khan was doing nuclear business with another country, but nobody knows which one, and Khan is not talking. Bush continues to coddle Khan and Pakistan because we need their help in the war on conventional terror. Apparently nuclear terror is not so important.
The Washington Post has a major article on the failures of Bush's non-proliferation policy, involving most of the biggies, but with relatively little focus on Iraq. After all, it turned out that Iraq wasn't really a non-proliferation threat. It also doesn't mention India, since India is sort of doing its own thing, except that the unmentioned free pass for India complicates enforcing the entire non-proliferation regime, such as it is, against anyone.
The article, however, has in depth information on Pakistan (and the free pass given to A.Q. Khan), North Korea (and the absence of a policy -- "no carrot, no stick and no talk"), Iran (where the US turned down several opportunities to negotiate), Libya (about which the UK was much more concerned than the US), and finally Russia. According to the article, "'The big gorilla in the basement is the material from Russia and Pakistan,' said Robert L. Gallucci, dean of the Georgetown School of Foreign Service and a classified consultant to the CIA and Energy Department laboratories. 'This is the principal, major national security threat to the United States in the next decade or more. I don't know what's in second place.'" Regarding Nunn-Lugar, the article continues, "Securing the [Russian nuclear] materials is laborious, expensive and dangerous work. Bush decided to let two of the major programs lapse because Russia declined to accept a change in the agreement that would shield U.S. firms from liability for worker safety."
The other disturbing fact was that intelligence types are almost certain that A.Q. Khan was doing nuclear business with another country, but nobody knows which one, and Khan is not talking. Bush continues to coddle Khan and Pakistan because we need their help in the war on conventional terror. Apparently nuclear terror is not so important.
Saturday, October 23, 2004
What Happens to Saddam?
The New York Times reported Friday that a weeklong training session for Iraqi judges and prosecutors who are supposed to try Saddam Hussein did not go well. Western experts said the Iraqis were not acquainted with the complexities of international law used to deal with mass killing and genocide.
On the other hand, the UN said that Secretary General Kofi Annan had expressed "serious doubts" that the Iraqi court could meet "relevant international standards," worried that its ability to apply the death penalty went against UN policies, and therefore Annan had concluded that UN legal experts should not assist the Iraqis. According to the article, an Iraqi said he would welcome UN participation because, "It would stop the impression that the whole thing is run by Americans."
The Washington Post described the UN decision as "a blow to the United States and Iraq's interim government." The Post added, "A senior U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing diplomacy, said the Iraqi tribunals would proceed without U.N. support, with the first trials against Hussein's associates starting in the new year."
The articles do not mention the role of Ahmad Chalabi's cousin, Salem Chalabi. Salem was initially named to head the war crimes tribunal, but has recently been removed from that position because of accusations of his involvement in criminal activity, according to CNN.
The New York Times reported Friday that a weeklong training session for Iraqi judges and prosecutors who are supposed to try Saddam Hussein did not go well. Western experts said the Iraqis were not acquainted with the complexities of international law used to deal with mass killing and genocide.
On the other hand, the UN said that Secretary General Kofi Annan had expressed "serious doubts" that the Iraqi court could meet "relevant international standards," worried that its ability to apply the death penalty went against UN policies, and therefore Annan had concluded that UN legal experts should not assist the Iraqis. According to the article, an Iraqi said he would welcome UN participation because, "It would stop the impression that the whole thing is run by Americans."
The Washington Post described the UN decision as "a blow to the United States and Iraq's interim government." The Post added, "A senior U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing diplomacy, said the Iraqi tribunals would proceed without U.N. support, with the first trials against Hussein's associates starting in the new year."
The articles do not mention the role of Ahmad Chalabi's cousin, Salem Chalabi. Salem was initially named to head the war crimes tribunal, but has recently been removed from that position because of accusations of his involvement in criminal activity, according to CNN.
Are We at War with Terrorism?
An article in today's Washington Post questioning whether there will be a terrorist attack to disrupt US elections raises the question of whether we are really in a war against terrorism comparable to the war in Iraq, or whether the real war on terrorism is more akin to the war on organized crime or drugs. The first question is what we mean by war. In America, the word war has been applied to wars on poverty, wars against crime, other types of "war" which are not one nation fighting another. Therein lies the problem, the war on terror is not a war against another nation, or an alliance of nations, but against people from many nations who share certain beliefs and hatreds. The nations don't share these dangerous values -- a relatively small percentage of the their populations do.
It's very possible that the 9/11 attacks were a fluke. If airport security had just been a little tighter, they never would have happened. If the FBI and CIA had just worked a little harder, they never would have happened. We were fighting 20-30 people who were intent on destroying thousands of Americans, but nevertheless, wars usually involve tens or hundreds of thousands of people fighting as many on the other side, perhaps millions. That's certainly not the case here, and Bush has never defined how his war on terrorism will be fought, unlike the conventional war on Iraq, which was fought in a relatively conventional way.
Can Bush really defend America if he is fighting the wrong war? I think there is a good chance that Bush is fighting the wrong war and that what he is doing is decreasing, not increasing, America's security.
An article in today's Washington Post questioning whether there will be a terrorist attack to disrupt US elections raises the question of whether we are really in a war against terrorism comparable to the war in Iraq, or whether the real war on terrorism is more akin to the war on organized crime or drugs. The first question is what we mean by war. In America, the word war has been applied to wars on poverty, wars against crime, other types of "war" which are not one nation fighting another. Therein lies the problem, the war on terror is not a war against another nation, or an alliance of nations, but against people from many nations who share certain beliefs and hatreds. The nations don't share these dangerous values -- a relatively small percentage of the their populations do.
It's very possible that the 9/11 attacks were a fluke. If airport security had just been a little tighter, they never would have happened. If the FBI and CIA had just worked a little harder, they never would have happened. We were fighting 20-30 people who were intent on destroying thousands of Americans, but nevertheless, wars usually involve tens or hundreds of thousands of people fighting as many on the other side, perhaps millions. That's certainly not the case here, and Bush has never defined how his war on terrorism will be fought, unlike the conventional war on Iraq, which was fought in a relatively conventional way.
Can Bush really defend America if he is fighting the wrong war? I think there is a good chance that Bush is fighting the wrong war and that what he is doing is decreasing, not increasing, America's security.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)