Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Thursday, May 05, 2011
Who Really Won This Round?
The question that troubles me is who is going to have the last laugh?
In his first taped statement following the 9/11 attack, bed Linen outlined his strategy. His objective, he said, was to bankrupt America. His plan was to do something very dramatic (9/11) to which we'd have to react. He succeeded. He anticipated that we would over react. We did. We put an army in the field at great cost. Bed Linen must have been rolling with laughter when we invaded Iraq and opened a second war in a place that would be significantly more expensive to field an army that Afghanistan. That it had nothing to do with him and his 9/11 attack on us was frosting on the cake. A standing army in somebody else's country generally pi$$es of the people of that country (not to mention all of their friends). The invasion of Iraq a.) divided all those who supported us in our actions in Afghanistan to that point; b.) united our enemies in the Arab world and c.) provided an unimaginably fantastic recruiting tool for al Qaeda and their franchises throughout the world.
Now, with a war cost estimated by some to be on the order of $3T (economist Joseph Stiglitz [1],) including external war fighting, internal security and off budget, "emergency" funding .. we are finding that we are close to bankruptcy. Mission accomplished?
Bed Linen had a template and a proof of concept already in hand. The Soviet Union was tied up in Afghanistan for a decade and, as much as some of us like to think that Reagan telling Gorby to "tear down that wall" did the trick - it was Afghanistan that was the straw on the camels back that broke the Soviet Union. Their economy simply couldn't sustain an arms race with us and a never ending war in Afghanistan. One or the other, maybe ... but not both.
While we played checkers for the better part of a decade, bed Linen was playing chess. He's dead ... but we're close to bankrupt and running around like chickens with our heads cut off, trying to figure a way out of a dilemma we've created for ourselves by sending armies to do what a team of SEALS supported by good "police work" could have accomplished in the first place.
We got him! Yes!
But I don't think there's much to celebrate if, in the end, he accomplishes his mission anyway.
In his first taped statement following the 9/11 attack, bed Linen outlined his strategy. His objective, he said, was to bankrupt America. His plan was to do something very dramatic (9/11) to which we'd have to react. He succeeded. He anticipated that we would over react. We did. We put an army in the field at great cost. Bed Linen must have been rolling with laughter when we invaded Iraq and opened a second war in a place that would be significantly more expensive to field an army that Afghanistan. That it had nothing to do with him and his 9/11 attack on us was frosting on the cake. A standing army in somebody else's country generally pi$$es of the people of that country (not to mention all of their friends). The invasion of Iraq a.) divided all those who supported us in our actions in Afghanistan to that point; b.) united our enemies in the Arab world and c.) provided an unimaginably fantastic recruiting tool for al Qaeda and their franchises throughout the world.
Now, with a war cost estimated by some to be on the order of $3T (economist Joseph Stiglitz [1],) including external war fighting, internal security and off budget, "emergency" funding .. we are finding that we are close to bankruptcy. Mission accomplished?
Bed Linen had a template and a proof of concept already in hand. The Soviet Union was tied up in Afghanistan for a decade and, as much as some of us like to think that Reagan telling Gorby to "tear down that wall" did the trick - it was Afghanistan that was the straw on the camels back that broke the Soviet Union. Their economy simply couldn't sustain an arms race with us and a never ending war in Afghanistan. One or the other, maybe ... but not both.
While we played checkers for the better part of a decade, bed Linen was playing chess. He's dead ... but we're close to bankrupt and running around like chickens with our heads cut off, trying to figure a way out of a dilemma we've created for ourselves by sending armies to do what a team of SEALS supported by good "police work" could have accomplished in the first place.
We got him! Yes!
But I don't think there's much to celebrate if, in the end, he accomplishes his mission anyway.
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
Random thoughts on bin Laden
"I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure."
— Mark Twain
OBAMA: "I made killing or capturing Bin Laden our top priority"
GOP: "NO Gay Marriage" (because their so tough on terrorism)
Some are suggesting that Bush get substantial credit for tracking down bin Laden. Perhaps they have a point. After all, Bush made thorough search of all the places that Osama bin Laden probably wouldn't be... like Iraq, for example. Then, Bush having ruled out all the places bin Laden wasn't, Barack Obama only had to focus on the places in which bin Laden probably was. The process of elimination is a well regarded forensic tool and, seeing that there were more places in which bin Laden wasn't, the argument could be made that Bush did the lion's share of the work.
— Mark Twain
OBAMA: "I made killing or capturing Bin Laden our top priority"
GOP: "NO Gay Marriage" (because their so tough on terrorism)
Some are suggesting that Bush get substantial credit for tracking down bin Laden. Perhaps they have a point. After all, Bush made thorough search of all the places that Osama bin Laden probably wouldn't be... like Iraq, for example. Then, Bush having ruled out all the places bin Laden wasn't, Barack Obama only had to focus on the places in which bin Laden probably was. The process of elimination is a well regarded forensic tool and, seeing that there were more places in which bin Laden wasn't, the argument could be made that Bush did the lion's share of the work.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Guantanamo guard reunited with ex-inmates
Why would a former Guantanamo Bay prison guard track down two of his former captives - two British men - and agree to fly to London to meet them?
"You look different without a cap."
"You look different without the jump suits."
With those words, an extraordinary reunion gets under way.
... catch the video from BBC after the click.
"You look different without a cap."
"You look different without the jump suits."
With those words, an extraordinary reunion gets under way.
... catch the video from BBC after the click.
Monday, January 11, 2010
The Bull and the Bull Fighter
The "war on terrorism" is a significant example of the effectiveness of asymmetrical strategies; the "David and Goliath Effect". Like toreadors, waving a cape at a raging bull in the bull ring, al-Qaeda fields a single operative with explosives in his underwear at the cost of a plane ticket and we spend a billion dollars installing scanning machines in airports all over the country.
Al-Qaeda abandons Afghanistan for the tribal regions of Pakistan leaving us to spend billions of dollars fighting the Taliban who's goals don't extend beyond the national boundaries of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda's cost is next to nothing but the cost to us is immeasurable.
A large military presence in a foreign country only serves to inflame indigenous resentments. Our presence in Iraq and in Afghanistan is a recruiting tool that al-Qaeda could only imagine in their wildest dreams and, over the better part of the last decade, they've learned how to push the right buttons to keep things going.
They don't need to "win". They only need to keep us chasing our tails to achieve their goal of driving us to bankruptcy. For them to merely survive is the big win for them.
We cannot "win" as long as we continue trying to "fight terrorism" on their terms ... as long as we pursue al-Qaeda as if it were a military entity by putting our military force into the field we are playing to their strengths. Like the art of jujitsu, they are using our sheer weight against us. They count on our macho bravodo that dictates, once committed, we cannot back away. Like a bull in a bull ring, we cannot stop chasing the illusive capes.
Al-Qaeda abandons Afghanistan for the tribal regions of Pakistan leaving us to spend billions of dollars fighting the Taliban who's goals don't extend beyond the national boundaries of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda's cost is next to nothing but the cost to us is immeasurable.
A large military presence in a foreign country only serves to inflame indigenous resentments. Our presence in Iraq and in Afghanistan is a recruiting tool that al-Qaeda could only imagine in their wildest dreams and, over the better part of the last decade, they've learned how to push the right buttons to keep things going.
They don't need to "win". They only need to keep us chasing our tails to achieve their goal of driving us to bankruptcy. For them to merely survive is the big win for them.
We cannot "win" as long as we continue trying to "fight terrorism" on their terms ... as long as we pursue al-Qaeda as if it were a military entity by putting our military force into the field we are playing to their strengths. Like the art of jujitsu, they are using our sheer weight against us. They count on our macho bravodo that dictates, once committed, we cannot back away. Like a bull in a bull ring, we cannot stop chasing the illusive capes.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Mythbusting Right-Wing Domestic Terrorism
1. These are just "lone wolf" psychos who are acting alone. You can't hold anybody else responsible for what crazy people decide to do.
True and false. But mostly false.
2. These terrorists are really left-wingers, not right-wingers. Because everybody knows that fascism is a phenomenon that only occurs on the left.
False does not even begin to cover the absurdity of this claim.
3. Public right-wing groups like Operation Rescue or the Minutemen don't advocate violence, so these acts have absolutely nothing to do with them.
False. ... these groups may not engage in violence themselves, but they do provide the narrative and worldview that convinces people that terrorism is the only available means of getting what they want
4. This is just a minority movement that isn't really capable of changing anything. We don't really need to worry about it.
False. And evidence of tremendous denial.
5. It's not fair to hold right-wing media talking heads responsible for the things their listeners might do.
Riiight.
6. All that crazy stuff you hear on the right -- you can find the left wing saying things just as bad. They're equally culpable for how bad it all its.
False. There is no equivalency whatsoever to be drawn here.
7. "Dial it down?" Don't you mean that you want to use the power of government to forcibly shut up right-wing hate talkers?
False. There are a few folks in Congress who tried to gin up support for some kind of legislation -- but progressives should resist this impulse, and denounce it as the shameless grandstanding that it is. We believe in the First Amendment. And if we compromise it now, we're no better than the Bush-era conservatives who were so eager to shred the Constitution when they felt threatened. We are better than that -- or should be.
8. But what you're suggesting is censorship! You're trying to censor free speech!
Oh, please.
9. What about that guy who shot the recruiters in Arkansas -- isn't that proof that the left wing is just as bad as the right?
False. I mean: really, really false.
... read the full demythification after the click
True and false. But mostly false.
2. These terrorists are really left-wingers, not right-wingers. Because everybody knows that fascism is a phenomenon that only occurs on the left.
False does not even begin to cover the absurdity of this claim.
3. Public right-wing groups like Operation Rescue or the Minutemen don't advocate violence, so these acts have absolutely nothing to do with them.
False. ... these groups may not engage in violence themselves, but they do provide the narrative and worldview that convinces people that terrorism is the only available means of getting what they want
4. This is just a minority movement that isn't really capable of changing anything. We don't really need to worry about it.
False. And evidence of tremendous denial.
5. It's not fair to hold right-wing media talking heads responsible for the things their listeners might do.
Riiight.
6. All that crazy stuff you hear on the right -- you can find the left wing saying things just as bad. They're equally culpable for how bad it all its.
False. There is no equivalency whatsoever to be drawn here.
7. "Dial it down?" Don't you mean that you want to use the power of government to forcibly shut up right-wing hate talkers?
False. There are a few folks in Congress who tried to gin up support for some kind of legislation -- but progressives should resist this impulse, and denounce it as the shameless grandstanding that it is. We believe in the First Amendment. And if we compromise it now, we're no better than the Bush-era conservatives who were so eager to shred the Constitution when they felt threatened. We are better than that -- or should be.
8. But what you're suggesting is censorship! You're trying to censor free speech!
Oh, please.
9. What about that guy who shot the recruiters in Arkansas -- isn't that proof that the left wing is just as bad as the right?
False. I mean: really, really false.
... read the full demythification after the click
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
The Bush Hangover: Guantanamo Undercuts Our Protests of North Korea
by Mitchell Bard
I woke up this morning to the chilling news that two American journalists had been sentenced to 12 years of hard labor by a North Korean court for the "crimes" of illegally entering the country and committing "hostile acts." We can only hope that the reclusive, bizarre and barbaric leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-il (or those working for him), is putting on a show to get the attention of the rest of the world, and the two Current TV reporters, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, will be allowed to return home soon.
The two journalists have clearly committed no crimes (as such a term would be understood in any rational section of the world), and the international community has to stand against the heinous actions of the North Korean government. Clearly, the United States should be at the head of such international action.
But today, I also read about Lakhdar Boumediene, and the truly disturbing story of what happened to him after the 9/11 attacks. An Algerian man living with his wife and two children in Sarajevo, Bosnia, he was working for the Red Crescent in October 2001 when he was arrested and charged with conspiring to blow up the American and British embassies in the city. An investigation revealed no evidence of his involvement in any plot, so a Bosnian judge ordered him released, but the Bush administration intervened, and in January 2002 he was shackled and flown to Guantanamo Bay.
... read the rest after the click.
My comment: How can we take the moral high-ground? How can we set an example for the rest of the world? How can we condemn North Korea in a way that doesn't sound hollow and hypocritical? Who have we become? How are we different?
I woke up this morning to the chilling news that two American journalists had been sentenced to 12 years of hard labor by a North Korean court for the "crimes" of illegally entering the country and committing "hostile acts." We can only hope that the reclusive, bizarre and barbaric leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-il (or those working for him), is putting on a show to get the attention of the rest of the world, and the two Current TV reporters, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, will be allowed to return home soon.
The two journalists have clearly committed no crimes (as such a term would be understood in any rational section of the world), and the international community has to stand against the heinous actions of the North Korean government. Clearly, the United States should be at the head of such international action.
But today, I also read about Lakhdar Boumediene, and the truly disturbing story of what happened to him after the 9/11 attacks. An Algerian man living with his wife and two children in Sarajevo, Bosnia, he was working for the Red Crescent in October 2001 when he was arrested and charged with conspiring to blow up the American and British embassies in the city. An investigation revealed no evidence of his involvement in any plot, so a Bosnian judge ordered him released, but the Bush administration intervened, and in January 2002 he was shackled and flown to Guantanamo Bay.
... read the rest after the click.
My comment: How can we take the moral high-ground? How can we set an example for the rest of the world? How can we condemn North Korea in a way that doesn't sound hollow and hypocritical? Who have we become? How are we different?
Monday, June 08, 2009
A Question For Dick Cheney:
Should We Now Waterboard Tiller's Murderer?
from Chris Wright / HuffPo
I have a question for former Vice President Dick Cheney, who has been staunchly defending the Bush administration's use of waterboarding and other torture against prisoners in our care. My question: Should Scott Roeder, accused murderer of abortion doctor George Tiller, now be waterboarded? Roeder has just gone on the record stating that further violence is coming, in "many similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal." In other words, Roeder is claiming the now-infamous "ticking time bomb" scenario of what can only be termed domestic terrorism. So, Mr. Cheney, doesn't this mean (following your own "logic") that Roeder should immediately be waterboarded to tell us what he knows? Anything less, by your standards, would be hypocritically picking and choosing which terrorists get a pass, and which don't.
... read the rest on Huffington Post after the click.
from Chris Wright / HuffPo
I have a question for former Vice President Dick Cheney, who has been staunchly defending the Bush administration's use of waterboarding and other torture against prisoners in our care. My question: Should Scott Roeder, accused murderer of abortion doctor George Tiller, now be waterboarded? Roeder has just gone on the record stating that further violence is coming, in "many similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal." In other words, Roeder is claiming the now-infamous "ticking time bomb" scenario of what can only be termed domestic terrorism. So, Mr. Cheney, doesn't this mean (following your own "logic") that Roeder should immediately be waterboarded to tell us what he knows? Anything less, by your standards, would be hypocritically picking and choosing which terrorists get a pass, and which don't.
... read the rest on Huffington Post after the click.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism
from Shannyn Moore
It's shocking to write. But it's time to start calling it what it is.
When Jim D. Adkisson walked into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church with 76 rounds and a shot-gun, he killed 2 people and was charged with murder. His motive was "he hated the liberal movement" and was upset with "liberals in general as well as gays." He should have been charged with terrorism.
Today, George Tiller, the Wichita doctor was killed INSIDE the lobby of his Wichita church. Reformation Lutheran Church became a crime scene; fundamentalist terrorism.
... read the rest after the click.
It's shocking to write. But it's time to start calling it what it is.
When Jim D. Adkisson walked into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church with 76 rounds and a shot-gun, he killed 2 people and was charged with murder. His motive was "he hated the liberal movement" and was upset with "liberals in general as well as gays." He should have been charged with terrorism.
Today, George Tiller, the Wichita doctor was killed INSIDE the lobby of his Wichita church. Reformation Lutheran Church became a crime scene; fundamentalist terrorism.
... read the rest after the click.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Bible Quotes on "World Intelligence Updates?"
Since the time of the February 1979 revolution in Iran that swept Ayatollah Khomeini into power Americans have grown accustomed to looking down their noses at "Islamic fundamentalists." Many of us see these religious fanatics who call America "the Great Satan" and promise to "avenge the Crusades" as backward people susceptible to extremism and the influence of radical clerics. But what are we to make of Robert Draper's reporting in GQ magazine that during the initial stages of launching the war in Iraq senior intelligence officials in the Pentagon affixed Bible quotations on eleven different cover sheets of President George W. Bush's "Worldwide Intelligence Updates?"
... more from Joseph Palermo after the click.
My comment: So ... our religious fundamentalists are different from their religious fundamentalists because .... ??
... more from Joseph Palermo after the click.
My comment: So ... our religious fundamentalists are different from their religious fundamentalists because .... ??
Friday, May 15, 2009
Regarding Pelosi and Torture
1.) Weren't those briefings covered by security clearances containing a restriction by law on spilling the beans on their content? If Pelosi had said anything, wouldn't she find herself a defendant in a Federal Court? If she had outlined the content of the briefings publicly at the time, wouldn't Republicans branded her as a traitor ... and in this case, rightfully so (for a change)?
2.) In that no notes were taken by anyone at those highly secure briefings and there are no transcripts, it seems to me there is some doubt about the exact content of the briefings. Is it even remotely possible that Pelosi might be actually telling the truth and that "torture" was discussed in the abstract or hypothetical rather than the real, here and now? It seems to me that the CIA has traditionally had some level of disdain for civilian oversight and I personally find it very plausible that an agency dedicated to secrecy would couch a briefing for civilians in the most vague and ambiguous terms possible. Isn't there a "need to know" unwritten rule around here somewhere? Isn't there a Jack Nicholson, "You can't handle the truth!" attitude in some quarters? No, I guess not. Everyone always plays it straight.
3.) As for the Republicans, it seems to me they have taken the unenviable position that, on one hand, "It wasn't torture! It was nothing more than a fraternity hazing!" while on the other hand, maintaining, at the same time and with equal vigor that, "It most certainly WAS torture and Nancy Pelosi was complicit!" When you come right down to the bottom line, it seems to me that the Pelosi "scandal" is just another distraction from the important issues - in a similar vein to the Republican discussion of whether or not Monica swallowed.
Torture is an interesting topic. If we used torture in order to gather honest, actionable intelligence, it would set a precedent of historic proportions because torture has never before in the history of man been used to get honest answers. It HAS been used throughout history to get people to say things they didn't want to say, regardless of the truth because, under torture, people will say whatever it is they think will make it stop ... truth is not an issue .... getting it to stop is the issue.
McCain was tortured by the North Vietnamese. They wanted a list of names of the people in his squadron and in his chain of command. He gave them the names of members of a football team (though now it seems he can't keep straight just which team). They wanted names; he gave them names. The torture stopped .. at least temporarily. But it stopped .... not because he gave them the truth but because he gave them what they wanted to hear. But of course, McCain was a whole lot tougher, smarter and more dedicated than those brown skinned, ill-educated, religious fanatics, counting their virgins due as they face their martyrdom.
Jessie Ventura got it right the other night on Larry King. "Give me a waterboard, Dick Cheney and a half hour and I'll have him confessing to the Tate murders."
Torture has had one and only one purpose throughout history. That purpose has been to get the answers the torturer wants to hear, whether it be a conversion from one religion to another or a list of other "witches" in the village. Getting the honest, objective truth has never been the issue. Has the "intelligence" gained been actionable? Absolutely! Jews, Polish resistance fighters, Salem Massachusetts "witches" and a lot who weren't got swept up, tortured and killed as a result of that kind of actionable "intelligence".
Evidence is mounting that the purpose of torturing al Qaeda captives (the three that we admit to torturing) was not to defuse a ticking time bomb but to create a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda ... whether or not such a link truly existed. It was necessary to the "selling" of the war, both here and abroad. If was a political end, not a security concern. One hundred eighty three waterboard sessions over the course of a month, six months into captivity does not speak to a ticking time bomb a'la "24"! And, if it took 183 sessions, was it really working? It seems to me that somewhere after five or ten the motives for inflicting that level of terror come into question.
We have a serious mess and we have, to my mind, two choices ... and only two. Either we clear it up, find out the who, what, where and when of the situation, determine which laws were broken and whodunit ... and bring those people to justice under the law. -OR- Someone from some other country (Spain leaps to mind, given at least three Spanish citizens got swept up in this fiasco) will do it for us (as was done in the case of Pinochet and Milesovich, Eichmann and others) ... creating an even greater embarrassment for us than if we take care of it properly ourselves.
Do Republicans and Conservatives still think they're in favor of strong enforcement of the law? Or is the new motto, "Sure I robbed a bank, but look at all the bills I paid off!"
2.) In that no notes were taken by anyone at those highly secure briefings and there are no transcripts, it seems to me there is some doubt about the exact content of the briefings. Is it even remotely possible that Pelosi might be actually telling the truth and that "torture" was discussed in the abstract or hypothetical rather than the real, here and now? It seems to me that the CIA has traditionally had some level of disdain for civilian oversight and I personally find it very plausible that an agency dedicated to secrecy would couch a briefing for civilians in the most vague and ambiguous terms possible. Isn't there a "need to know" unwritten rule around here somewhere? Isn't there a Jack Nicholson, "You can't handle the truth!" attitude in some quarters? No, I guess not. Everyone always plays it straight.
3.) As for the Republicans, it seems to me they have taken the unenviable position that, on one hand, "It wasn't torture! It was nothing more than a fraternity hazing!" while on the other hand, maintaining, at the same time and with equal vigor that, "It most certainly WAS torture and Nancy Pelosi was complicit!" When you come right down to the bottom line, it seems to me that the Pelosi "scandal" is just another distraction from the important issues - in a similar vein to the Republican discussion of whether or not Monica swallowed.
Torture is an interesting topic. If we used torture in order to gather honest, actionable intelligence, it would set a precedent of historic proportions because torture has never before in the history of man been used to get honest answers. It HAS been used throughout history to get people to say things they didn't want to say, regardless of the truth because, under torture, people will say whatever it is they think will make it stop ... truth is not an issue .... getting it to stop is the issue.
McCain was tortured by the North Vietnamese. They wanted a list of names of the people in his squadron and in his chain of command. He gave them the names of members of a football team (though now it seems he can't keep straight just which team). They wanted names; he gave them names. The torture stopped .. at least temporarily. But it stopped .... not because he gave them the truth but because he gave them what they wanted to hear. But of course, McCain was a whole lot tougher, smarter and more dedicated than those brown skinned, ill-educated, religious fanatics, counting their virgins due as they face their martyrdom.
Jessie Ventura got it right the other night on Larry King. "Give me a waterboard, Dick Cheney and a half hour and I'll have him confessing to the Tate murders."
Torture has had one and only one purpose throughout history. That purpose has been to get the answers the torturer wants to hear, whether it be a conversion from one religion to another or a list of other "witches" in the village. Getting the honest, objective truth has never been the issue. Has the "intelligence" gained been actionable? Absolutely! Jews, Polish resistance fighters, Salem Massachusetts "witches" and a lot who weren't got swept up, tortured and killed as a result of that kind of actionable "intelligence".
Evidence is mounting that the purpose of torturing al Qaeda captives (the three that we admit to torturing) was not to defuse a ticking time bomb but to create a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda ... whether or not such a link truly existed. It was necessary to the "selling" of the war, both here and abroad. If was a political end, not a security concern. One hundred eighty three waterboard sessions over the course of a month, six months into captivity does not speak to a ticking time bomb a'la "24"! And, if it took 183 sessions, was it really working? It seems to me that somewhere after five or ten the motives for inflicting that level of terror come into question.
We have a serious mess and we have, to my mind, two choices ... and only two. Either we clear it up, find out the who, what, where and when of the situation, determine which laws were broken and whodunit ... and bring those people to justice under the law. -OR- Someone from some other country (Spain leaps to mind, given at least three Spanish citizens got swept up in this fiasco) will do it for us (as was done in the case of Pinochet and Milesovich, Eichmann and others) ... creating an even greater embarrassment for us than if we take care of it properly ourselves.
Do Republicans and Conservatives still think they're in favor of strong enforcement of the law? Or is the new motto, "Sure I robbed a bank, but look at all the bills I paid off!"
Friday, May 01, 2009
What does your religion teach you?
The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.
More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified. Only 42 percent of people who "seldom or never" go to services agreed, according to the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
... read the rest at CNN after the click.
More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified. Only 42 percent of people who "seldom or never" go to services agreed, according to the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
... read the rest at CNN after the click.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
If we don't hold our own accountable for their actions in our name ...
... someone else will.
from the Daily Beast
In a ruling in Madrid today, Judge Baltasar Garzón has announced that an inquiry into the Bush administration’s torture policymakers now will proceed to a formal criminal investigation. The ruling came as a jolt following the recommendation of Spanish Attorney General Cándido Conde-Pumpido against proceeding with a criminal inquiry, which was reported in The Daily Beast on April 16.
... read the rest after the click.
from the Daily Beast
In a ruling in Madrid today, Judge Baltasar Garzón has announced that an inquiry into the Bush administration’s torture policymakers now will proceed to a formal criminal investigation. The ruling came as a jolt following the recommendation of Spanish Attorney General Cándido Conde-Pumpido against proceeding with a criminal inquiry, which was reported in The Daily Beast on April 16.
... read the rest after the click.
Friday, April 24, 2009
A Problem with Tortured Logic
If you start with the premise that America is ALWAYS the good guy; always pure, always above board, always moral and ethical, then you have to conclude that everything that is done in the name of the country is good and positive.
"America does not torture" is the only conclusion that one can come to, considering that premise. If America is always good, then it follows that anything that is done in the name of America must also be good. If torture is defined as NOT good, then whatever done in the name of the country must not be torture ... because torture is bad. Therefore "America does not torture" becomes a hard and fast position.
The problem is that in mistaking a conclusion for a premise requires one to either ignore or redefine the evidence to fit the narrative that assumes America is always the good guy.
In real world logic, one first assembles and analyzes the evidence and then, based on the evidence, draws a conclusion.
I think it's important to make clear that, if the US engaged in torture, as the evidence seems to suggest ... the fact, in and of itself, does not make America bad. However, the means and degree to which we address the issues of law and justice involved will constitute evidence, one way or the other.
"America does not torture" is the only conclusion that one can come to, considering that premise. If America is always good, then it follows that anything that is done in the name of America must also be good. If torture is defined as NOT good, then whatever done in the name of the country must not be torture ... because torture is bad. Therefore "America does not torture" becomes a hard and fast position.
The problem is that in mistaking a conclusion for a premise requires one to either ignore or redefine the evidence to fit the narrative that assumes America is always the good guy.
In real world logic, one first assembles and analyzes the evidence and then, based on the evidence, draws a conclusion.
I think it's important to make clear that, if the US engaged in torture, as the evidence seems to suggest ... the fact, in and of itself, does not make America bad. However, the means and degree to which we address the issues of law and justice involved will constitute evidence, one way or the other.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Insanity
We used waterboarding a total of 266 times on two terror suspects ...
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
If only we'd waterboarded one of them just one more time ... maybe we could have solved the Lindberg kidnapping or unraveled the Kennedy assassination!
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
If only we'd waterboarded one of them just one more time ... maybe we could have solved the Lindberg kidnapping or unraveled the Kennedy assassination!
Friday, April 17, 2009
Isn't "Laying blame for the past" what we used to think of as "justice"?
by Howard Rodman on HuffPo
President Obama did something which should be commonplace but which, in this terrible time, is now thought of as optional for high officials, which is to say, he obeyed the law. The law in this case required him, in response to an ACLU lawsuit, to disclose the Torture Memos, prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel under the Bush administration. (It is a sad testimony that doing as the law requires is, in our political climate, an act of bravery.)
... more after the click.
President Obama did something which should be commonplace but which, in this terrible time, is now thought of as optional for high officials, which is to say, he obeyed the law. The law in this case required him, in response to an ACLU lawsuit, to disclose the Torture Memos, prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel under the Bush administration. (It is a sad testimony that doing as the law requires is, in our political climate, an act of bravery.)
... more after the click.
Monday, February 23, 2009
How Bush's Policies in the Muslim World Played into Terrorists' Hands
from Robert Cramer:
I just returned from Jordan where I attended a seminar on Islam and American Foreign Policy. What struck me most is that the more you talk to leaders from the Muslim world - the more you study the polling of Muslim attitudes - the clearer it is that George Bush didn't just get the "War on Terror" a little wrong. The basic thrust of the "War on Terror" was 100% wrong - 180 degrees off the mark.
In fact, you could argue, that if Osama Bin Laden himself had designed the strategy, it is hard to imagine how - in its essentials - it could have done more to play into the hands of the small fraction of Muslim extremists who resort to terror.
Bush's policy seemed to presume that if the military could just track down and kill enough Islamic radicals and terrorists, terrorism could be wiped out. But even the Bush administration understood that the small, hard core of Muslim terrorists depends upon support from a much broader group of radicalized Muslims - for new recruits, for money, for protection.
... read the rest after the click. It summarizes some interesting Gallup Poll findings obtained from tens of thousands of random interviews in the Muslim world between 2001 and 2007.
Hint: They DON'T hate us for our freedoms.
I just returned from Jordan where I attended a seminar on Islam and American Foreign Policy. What struck me most is that the more you talk to leaders from the Muslim world - the more you study the polling of Muslim attitudes - the clearer it is that George Bush didn't just get the "War on Terror" a little wrong. The basic thrust of the "War on Terror" was 100% wrong - 180 degrees off the mark.
In fact, you could argue, that if Osama Bin Laden himself had designed the strategy, it is hard to imagine how - in its essentials - it could have done more to play into the hands of the small fraction of Muslim extremists who resort to terror.
Bush's policy seemed to presume that if the military could just track down and kill enough Islamic radicals and terrorists, terrorism could be wiped out. But even the Bush administration understood that the small, hard core of Muslim terrorists depends upon support from a much broader group of radicalized Muslims - for new recruits, for money, for protection.
... read the rest after the click. It summarizes some interesting Gallup Poll findings obtained from tens of thousands of random interviews in the Muslim world between 2001 and 2007.
Hint: They DON'T hate us for our freedoms.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Worth Considering
By Tim Giago (Nanwica Kciji)
© 2009 Native American Journalists Foundation, Inc.
When President Lyndon B. Johnson was about to sign the Immigration and Nationality Act on Oct. 3, 1965, he chose to do it at the foot of the Statue of Liberty. That day he said, "Our beautiful America was built by a nation of strangers. From a hundred different places or more they poured forth into an empty land, joining and blending in one mighty and irresistible tide."
Built by a nation of strangers? An empty land? Joining and blending? Every Native American worth his or her salt would bridle at those words of such monumental ignorance and for those paltry words to be spoken by the President of the United States makes it overwhelmingly appalling. Johnson was probably parroting the opinions of the majority of Americans about America's indigenous people: out of sight, out of mind, out of consideration. What in the hell are Native Americans: chopped liver?
Every human being that landed on the shores of America was an immigrant. They came to this land from Europe bringing along their baggage filled with religious strife and racial prejudice. They discovered that this was not an empty land, but a land filled with thousands upon thousands of industrious and spiritual people. They took from the Natives their industriousness in order to survive and crushed the spiritual because it was not only beyond their comprehension, but a challenge to the teachings of their Holy Bible.
... more from Tim Giago after the click.
© 2009 Native American Journalists Foundation, Inc.
When President Lyndon B. Johnson was about to sign the Immigration and Nationality Act on Oct. 3, 1965, he chose to do it at the foot of the Statue of Liberty. That day he said, "Our beautiful America was built by a nation of strangers. From a hundred different places or more they poured forth into an empty land, joining and blending in one mighty and irresistible tide."
Built by a nation of strangers? An empty land? Joining and blending? Every Native American worth his or her salt would bridle at those words of such monumental ignorance and for those paltry words to be spoken by the President of the United States makes it overwhelmingly appalling. Johnson was probably parroting the opinions of the majority of Americans about America's indigenous people: out of sight, out of mind, out of consideration. What in the hell are Native Americans: chopped liver?
Every human being that landed on the shores of America was an immigrant. They came to this land from Europe bringing along their baggage filled with religious strife and racial prejudice. They discovered that this was not an empty land, but a land filled with thousands upon thousands of industrious and spiritual people. They took from the Natives their industriousness in order to survive and crushed the spiritual because it was not only beyond their comprehension, but a challenge to the teachings of their Holy Bible.
... more from Tim Giago after the click.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)