I have been extremely busy and a little sick so my blogging has been very irregular. However, i have seen something that deserves a post. The issue is whether or not the "War on Terror" is over. I am prompted to explore this based on several pieces, one in the WaPo, one by Yglesias, and one in TAP. These pieces have made several important points about not only an end to the phrase, "War on Terror", but the mindset behind it. If Obama is truly ready to end the mentality it can only be considered a dream come true for non neo-cons everywhere.
The first piece on the demise of the "War on Terror" is in the WaPo. It presents a story where Obama is the man undoing the WoT at the stroke of the pen.
Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away: The military's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees, will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from maintaining its own overseas prisons. And in a broad swipe at the Bush administration's lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.
I have issues with the post piece. The first is that they present the WoT era as solely the provenience of George W. Bush. The unifying theme of the piece is that this was Bush's war. While it is true that Bush was definetly a leading figure and fully culpable for the abuses that embodied the WoT the article misrepresents exactly how the WoT played out. The Post conveniently leaves out the idea that people were opposed the WoT. Instead it sounds as if the WoT was afad Bush sold the people on that the eventually tired of. For example,
It was a swift and sudden end to an era that was slowly drawing to a close anyway, as public sentiment grew against perceived abuses of government power. The feisty debate over the tactics employed against al-Qaeda began more than six years ago as whispers among confidants with access to the nation's most tightly held secrets. At the time, there was consensus in Congress and among the public that the United States would be attacked again and that government should do what was necessary to thwart the threat ... The published reports in The Post and elsewhere earned the news media sharp recriminations from the administration, the Republican leadership in Congress and the public. Government leak investigations were launched. Bush administration officials argued that such methods and operations were necessary to effectively thwart terrorism, noting to this day that there have been no major attacks since 2001.
If there were dissenters back then, they were largely silent.
While the moves made by Obama do end many of the Bush tactics for battling terrorists the post piece fails to detail any long term actions taken to ensure it never happens again. By presenting the death of WoT as something organic, something that would have died even without Obama, there seems to be no need to make long term changes. This is wrong. The key is to augment the inducement to comply with substantive law. This means Congress needs to act and forbid these practices.
If we take the Post version of the WoT death we will not do enough to prevent future abuses. It was not Bush alone and to portray it that way is dishonest. While the Post counts the WoT as dead Matt Yglesias is more cautious, here and here.
One thing that a number of people have noticed during the transition and the first few days of the Obama administration is that Obama and his appointees don’t, generally speaking, use the phrase “war on terror.” But when pressed, they don’t disavow the term either. They’ve just kind of backed away from it.
and
Back during the campaign, meanwhile, Obama said he didn't just want to end the war in Iraq, he wanted to "end the mindset that got us into the war in the first place." The idea of a hazily defined "war on terror" would certainly seem to qualify as an important part of that mindset. But thus far, Obama and his team have been mighty ambiguous on the issue. Obama isn't prone to using the phrase himself, but back during the primaries, all the Democratic contenders were given a specific opportunity to disavow it, and only John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich stepped up to the plate. During confirmation hearings neither Attorney - General Eric Holder nor Secretary of State Hillary Clinton nor any of the new Pentagon sub - Cabinet officials spoke of a "war on terror." But on the day of his rollout as Obama's choice to run the CIA, Leon Panetta committed himself "to consulting closely with my former colleagues in the Congress to form the kind of partnership we need if we're to win the war on terror."
Obama himself split the difference in his inaugural address, eschewing the WOT terminology, but arguing that "our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred."
Yglesias TAP piece does a much better job at addressing the real issues with the WoT. His piece looks at the strategic flaws and failures of the WoT. This contrasts with the Post Piece that looks simply at the demise of the tactics. A tactical change does not herald an end to WoT because that leaves the conceptual framework in tact. Yglesias succinctly illustrates why this should not be labeled a war,
Simply put, terrorists are not warriors. The German soldiers my grandfather fought during World War II killed people, but they weren't murderers; they were soldiers. When captured, they became prisoners of war, not criminals. Some on the Nazi side were, of course, criminals -- war criminals -- and were charged as such. But the typical German soldier was a soldier, entitled to return to his home and family unmolested if he survived the war. Men who blow up nightclubs and train stations and demolish office buildings, by contrast, are murderers. We neither should nor will treat them as soldiers. But insofar as that's the case, we're not at "war" with them any more than we're actually "at war" with the guy who used to sell me pot.
Just as we don't afford terrorists the wartime exemption from prosecution, however, we must observe restraint in going after terrorists. If the FBI has reason to believe a terrorist is holed up in an apartment somewhere in Philadelphia, we don't bomb the building -- we arrest the terrorist. The same thing is generally true abroad -- we need to work with friendly law enforcement to unravel plots against targets in Europe and Canada and other Western nations. But we don't fire mortars or drop bombs in friendly cities -- we seek cooperation with local governments.
Its still too early to tell if the WoT is truly dead as an idea and a mindset. Obama has only been in office for a couple days and the people who supported the policies are not totally gone. The key will be to convert the image of the fight against these subnational groups as a law enforcement issue. Obama has yet to fully transform his rhetoric to reflect this. When he says "we will defeat you" it is not the language of law enforcement.
Instead i would like to see the language and the framing shift to arrest and trial in civilian courts. This is the other key point, the trial of those arrested in civilian, not military, courtrooms. Trials in military courts lend weight to the idea that this is a military action. War criminals are tried in front of the military, criminals are in tried in front of civilians.
Most of what i have said is not particularly new. However it is important to keep the pressure on Obama and on those who backed the WoT in the past. If the coverage from the Post is typical of the coverage on the WoT then Obama is going to get lots of well deserved credit for his initial actions. Without additional pressure Obama will take this credit and move on to the myriad other challenges that we face of a country. By definition a stroke of the pen cannot end the WoT. the WoT is a mind set, a strategy and there is much more to work on before we can truly consider the WoT dead.
Read more...
I often wonder if people who claim not to be bothered by the government spying on them 24/7 would hold those views if the government actually spied on them then threw them in prison without revealing that the evidence to do so was from the spying. I imagine that they would be rather unhappy to have that evidence, that could clear their name withheld. Too far-fetched? Not so.
A Congressional oversight panel plans to ask the National Security Agency to start an investigation into new evidence that the agency illegally wiretapped a Muslim scholar in Northern Virginia and concealed the eavesdropping during a 2005 trial in which the scholar was convicted on terrorism charges. ... Prosecutors described Mr. Timimi as the spiritual mentor to a group of young men in Northern Virginia who were convicted of giving material support in Kashmir to Lashkar-e-Taiba — the separatist group blamed by the Indian authorities for the recent attacks in Mumbai. Several of the Northern Virginia men had received paramilitary training in Pakistan, apparently at the urging of Mr. Timimi, but there was no evidence that they had taken part in any terrorist attacks.
Mr. Timimi’s lawyers maintain that the N.S.A., without acquiring court-approved warrants, used the eavesdropping operation approved by President Bush weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks to wiretap his communications, and that the interceptions might include evidence that would point to his innocence in what they regard as a free-speech case. They charge that the government has intentionally withheld that material despite repeated requests.
If this man is such a bad guy and the evidence was so strong what prevented the government from tapping the phone and going to the court afterward and getting the warrant? Why cut corners and taint evidence? The eavesdropping operation was actually put into place before Sept 11 but that's beside the point. The point is that this is simply lazy and an unnecessary infringement on our rights. It offends the basic tenants of justice.
The right to have the evidence that is going to be presented against you and the governments evidence that may exonerate you is essential in any fair and just judicial system. The Times article goes on to suggest that there is a strong chance that the government did in fact hold out on evidence of eavesdropping. This is serious misconduct on the governments part. It is this type of misconduct that leads to putting the bad guys back out on the street or preventing their trial. It hurts our country.
Cases like this one reinforce the need to fully explore the perfidy of the Bush admin and examine in depth everything that went on in regards to law enforcement and antiterror operations. The number of abuses will probably be legion. So far the most commonly advanced plan is for a commission that lets everyone know what went on but provides no actual consequences for those involved and lets us move on with no real pain or accountability. Even this though is a point of contention and will probably never happen because of dem spinelessness.
Some Democrats have called on Mr. Obama to establish an independent commission that would examine the wiretapping program, interrogation tactics used on prisoners, and other tactics used by the government in its campaign against terrorism since the 2001 attacks.
Republicans in Congress who support the N.S.A. program say that Democrats have been too eager to investigate issues that have long been resolved.
Nothing to see here. All in the past. The idea that these issues have long been resolved is a farce. I wish the times had actually gotten people on the record instead of simply hanging their hat on the generic "some demorats" and "republicans in congress". Names and actual quotes of these people. Law makers should not be giving anonymous quotes on this stuff, especially if they simply want to sweep it under the rug.
The point of the times article was to talk about the NSA Inspector General launching his own investigation into the matter. forgive me if im not overconfident in that report. I have never been a fan of the intra-agency investigation system. i prefer to have independent investigators to avoid any possible attempts by the agency to cover its misdeeds. independent investigation and actual prosecutions are the only way to prevent this from repeating the next time a president or intelligence agency is so inclined to violate the laws.
Read more...
There has been a great number of blog posts around the net expressing opinions on what Obama is doing with his national security and foriegn policy team. Keeping Gates at defense, bringing in Clinton to State, Jones as National Security Adviser with Tom Donilon as his Deputy and Susan Rice as the UN ambassador, Biden as VP. Instead of simply bitching about these people and whether they are new enough or left enough i want to get a little deeper into the weeds and see if we can sort out exactly what Obama wants to achieve with this group.
A lot of the critique of this group centers around the idea that Obama is selling out his positions that he staked out during the primaries. Many if not most of the aforementioned group were not strong backers of his exact positions across the board so questions about Obama's intent are more than ok, they are necessary. As the flotation of the Brennan nomination showed, making a strong case against someone can have an effect. Dissent is not a bad thing as long as it is reasoned. What appears to be driving the Obama picks is what appears to drive the Obama agenda in general, a broad consensus about what needs to be done,
What is interesting in my view is that what you now see forming is a broad consensus among liberals, liberal hawks and realists. There is relatively universal agreement among these groups that we need to begin withdrawing from Iraq, focus more on Afghanistan, opt for direct diplomacy with Iran, reengage with the world, improve our image, strengthen our alliances, close Guantanamo and deal with global warming and energy security.
That is a pretty broad consensus and it's one that politically was first pushed hardest by the left. On the traditional right-left spectrum, you would have to call this a solidly left of center consensus that has in fact been Obama's foreign policy platform for the last two years
It is reflected in Obama's ability to pick realists, liberals, and liberal hawks to build a coalition foreign policy team. It's unfair to typify any of Obama's picks as absolutely from one school but roughly speaking Obama campaign advisors and folks such as Susan Rice are more representative of liberals. Jim Jones and Bob Gates are more representative of the realists, and Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are more representative of the liberal hawks. Although, again, none of these labels really fit perfectly.
Whats missing in that set of broad consensus but is still a critical part of Obama's ideas on foriegn policy is a focus less on the national level and more on the transnational and the subnational. Obama favors a shift to a soft power strategy that knows no boarders. Its a radical change but one that has the potential to deal with a number of our serious challenges. Back in March Salon had a piece entitled The Obama Doctrine. The central premise of this article is that Obama is centered on rettoling American foreign policy to target and fight against the potential terrorist and transnational groups. The label given to the soft power side of this is "Dignity Promotion"
This ability to see the world from different perspectives informs what the Obama team hopes will replace the Iraq War mind-set: something they call dignity promotion. "I don't think anyone in the foreign-policy community has as much an appreciation of the value of dignity as Obama does," says Samantha Power, a former key aide and author of the groundbreaking study of U.S. foreign policy and genocide, A Problem From Hell. "Dignity is a way to unite a lot of different strands [of foreign-policy thinking]," she says. "If you start with that, it explains why it's not enough to spend $3 billion on refugee camps in Darfur, because the way those people are living is not the way they want to live. It's not a human way to live. It's graceless -- an affront to your sense of dignity."
During Bush's second term, a strange disconnect has arisen in liberal foreign-policy circles in response to the president's so-called "freedom agenda." Some liberals, like Matthew Yglesias in his book Heads In The Sand, note the insincerity of the administration's stated goal of exporting democracy. Bush, they observe, only targets for democratization countries that challenge American hegemony. Other liberal foreign-policy types, such as Thomas Carothers and Marina Ottaway of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, insist the administration is sincere but too focused on elections without supporting the civil-society institutions that sustain democracy. Still others, like Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch, contend that a focus on democracy in the developing world without privileging the protection of civil and political rights is a recipe for a dangerous illiberalism.
What's typically neglected in these arguments is the simple insight that democracy does not fill stomachs, alleviate malaria, or protect neighborhoods from marauding bands of militiamen. Democracy, in other words, is valuable to people insofar as it allows them first to meet their basic needs. It is much harder to provide that sense of dignity than to hold an election in Baghdad or Gaza and declare oneself shocked when illiberal forces triumph. "Look at why the baddies win these elections," Power says. "It's because [populations are] living in climates of fear." U.S. policy, she continues, should be "about meeting people where they're at. Their fears of going hungry, or of the thug on the street. That's the swamp that needs draining. If we're to compete with extremism, we have to be able to provide these things that we're not [providing]."
This is why, Obama's advisers argue, national security depends in large part on dignity promotion. Without it, the U.S. will never be able to destroy al-Qaeda. Extremists will forever be able to demagogue conditions of misery, making continued U.S. involvement in asymmetric warfare an increasingly counterproductive exercise -- because killing one terrorist creates five more in his place. "It's about attacking pools of potential terrorism around the globe," Gration says. "Look at Africa, with 900 million people, half of whom are under 18. I'm concerned that unless you start creating jobs and livelihoods we will have real big problems on our hands in ten to fifteen years."
The focus on an actual shift to ways of fighting counter insurgency instead of paying lip service to fighting counter insurgents would be a major step in the right direction. However the transition requires more than a shift in the civilian side of things it requires a shift in the military side too. This is where keeping Gates at defense comes in according to Slate's Fred Kaplan and promoted by Steve Benen,
In his nearly two years at the helm of the Pentagon, Gates has delivered a series of speeches on the future direction of military policy. He has urged officers to recognize the shift in the face of warfare from the World War II legacy of titanic armored battles between comparably mighty foes to the modern reality of small shadow wars against terrorists and insurgents.
More than that, he has called for systematic adjustments to this new reality: canceling weapons systems that aren't suited to these kinds of wars and building more weapons that are; reforming the promotion boards to reward and advance the creative officers who have proved most adept at this style of warfare; rethinking the roles and missions of the individual branches of the armed services; siphoning some of the military's missions, especially those dealing with "nation building," to civilian agencies.
From the start, he knew that he wouldn't have time to make a lot of headway in these campaigns -- which, within the military, represent fairly radical ideas. His intent was to spell out an agenda, and lay the groundwork, for the next administration.
Now it seems he's going to be in the next administration. And it's a good bet that President Barack Obama will be more receptive to Gates' agenda than President George W. Bush ever was. First, Obama is open to new ideas generally. Second, at his Nov. 25 press conference, Obama said he would direct his new budget director to go over every program, every line item, with an eye toward eliminating those that don't work or aren't needed -- and he pointedly included the Department of Defense among the agencies to be audited.
In short, Gates might be able to do many of the things that until now he has managed only to advocate.
So whatever Gates other thoughts this idea of shifting is in line with Obama's thoughts. As Kaplan and Benen note the advantage of keeping Gates on to carry out this shift is that he is already familiar with the shifts that need to be made and has the street cred to carry them out with Obama's backing. A new face with the same idea's would take time getting up to speed and Obama has made clear that he plans to waste no time when he can avoid it.
Assuming Obama's chief goal is actually to fight terrorists it explains one of the reasons that he has been so close to the Brent Snowcroft school of foreign policy as Josh Marshall explains in this video.
Snowcrofts WSJ piece was premised on the idea that attacking Iraq would derail our counter terrorism efforts,
But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive. The most serious cost, however, would be to the war on terrorism. Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence.
Scowcroft's thoughts do tend to go very well with what Obama has put forth. That segment of the foriegn policy establishment has been outspoken about the need to engage our enemies and stop the policy of ignoring people we dont like just as obama has. If were going to talk to people more we might want to go back to respecting the UN as an institution.
If Obama hopes to make major shifts in the way america works on the world stage he needs someone competent and important to head the UN. Susan Rice is that person. Susan Rice is someone who was with Obama during the primaries and was also a veteran of the Clinton white house. Her primary focus seems to be on Africa and she has been noted for her involvement in the lack of intervention in Rwanda. She is for intervention in Darfur. Her close ties to Obama may be taken as a signal that the US is giving that institution more respect. Obama is a big fan of multilateralism when available and if he hopes to make a major shift in the way the US combats terror world wide using the UN as an institutional vehicle is going to be very important. Obama has a history of being in the forefront of those dealing with Africa and the multitude of genocidal wars going on there and the UN spends a lot of time dealing with Africa so Susan rice seems like a good fit there.
Not much is known about General James Jones views on general foreign policy. His views on energy are one of the best understood because of his Sept 30th speech at Fort Collins Co where he came out for increased off shore drilling and increases in nuclear power. He views energy security as an important part of national security and advocated a policy of fixing our energy infrastructure that rachel maddow would be proud of. We also know that he views afghanistan/pakistan as an essential fight in defeating terrorism and is committed to a long term presence there. He shares that with obama. Jones' white paper on afghanistan is available in pdf form here.
The key to success - as in any counter-insurgency - rests on the Afghans. If enabled with effective security forces, the promise of a growing economy and legitimate institutions of government including the legal and judicial system, Afghanistan can become a functioning and secure country. This will take a great deal of time. Hence, nato and the international community must reaffirm its commitment for the long haul that will be measured in years and perhaps decades, though the form and substance of assistance will change as that nation progresses towards peace, stability and democracy.
But, if nato and the international community, together with the Karzai government, cannot put forward a coordinated and comprehensive effort that is sustainable and adequately resourced for this long-term, Afghanistan will experience only the worst of possible outcomes, and nato itself could be on the path towards irrelevancy. This need not be the case and it is still not too late to act decisively as the main foundations for solution are essentially in place. The first step is to understand that the situation in Afghanistan is grave and that immediate action and attention are needed by the United States and the international community in order to prevent a setback to regional and global security. Urgency is the watchword. The international community must act, and it must act now.
Jones and Obama clearly align on their views of what needs to be done regarding Afghanistan/Pakistan and the role they will play in combating transnational terrorist actors. Jones also has a healthy appreciation for the fact that military power alone is not close to strong enough to deal with the problems that plague Afghanistan. the paper devotes a great deal to the creation of a corruption free afghan judicial system. That is something that strikes me as an important step in fighting any group that thrives on the illegitimacy of the government. If we cannot establish the basic rule of law in that country how can we ever hope to have a people who meet the type of dignity level that obama clearly believes is important?
so far there are obvious areas of alignment between Obama's picks and his announced foreign policy ideas. Obama has always been an advocate of a strong interventionist and activist foriegn policy that places america in a firm and central role. Obama was very clear on his desire to engage John McCain on a debate about US foriegn policy during the election. It is an area he feels comfortable with despite his lack of hands on experience. The people he has picked reflect that. The only one who seems to be incongruous is Hillary Clinton.
I’ve been out of the country and not able to follow the Clinton for Secretary of State gossip in all the level of detail I would have liked. But surely I wouldn’t be the first to observe that this would seem like an odd pairing. Clinton and Obama are both formidable political leaders and, as we saw during the primaries, they have very similar ideas about the vast majority of public policy areas. But Obama thinks Clinton’s support for invading Iraq in 2002-2003 showed bad judgment and Clinton thinks Obama’s stated willingness to hold direct, high-level talks with Iran without preconditions is “naive and irresponsible.”
That’s not to say it’s a bad idea — what matters is ideas moving forward, not things that have been said in the past. But the specific policy area at issue seems to be one in which the two of them aren’t all that well-aligned.
On the other hand people like steve benen think it is a fine pick,
Between her Senate work and time as First Lady, Clinton has established international respect and credibility, and she's on a first-name basis with leaders around the world. She's arguably more hawkish than the President-elect, but when it comes to global diplomacy, there's no reason to think Clinton and Obama aren't on the same page.
The other worry is exactly how well she will run the agency and the overall look that the agency will take under Clinton. Clinton did not run a great campaign and the drama could be considered quite epic. Spencer Ackerman laid out the big questions,
The dispute is only partly ideological in nature. While the coterie of foreign-policy thinkers around Obama have been more liberal, in an aggregate sense — on issues like Iraq and negotiations with America’s adversaries — the Obama loyalists question the boldness of the Clintonites. They fear that Obama’s apparent embrace of Clinton represents an acquiescence to the conventional Democratic foreign-policy approaches that they once derided as courting disaster. Some wonder whether a Clinton-run State Dept. will hire progressive Obama partisans after an acrimonious primary.
In addition, some Obama loyalists wonder whether the same people who attacked Obama on foreign policy during the primaries can implement Obama’s agenda from State Dept. perches. “Look, Clinton and Obama are both smart people,” said one Democratic official who would not speak for the record, “and I’m sure their one-on-one relationship would be OK. But when you hire a Clinton, you hire more than just that one person, you get the entire package.” If Clinton becomes secretary of state, it’s possible that the fissures between her loyalists and Obama’s would be a significant undercurrent of the administration’s foreign-policy decision-making.
No one would comment for the record for this story from either the Clinton or the Obama camps. Several people were reluctant to speak even on background, whether out of an exhaustion with a dispute that has lasted for more than 18 months within the party or out of reluctance to jeopardize their own prospects for jobs with the Obama administration.
Some in the Democratic foreign-policy community worry about the implications for a cohesive diplomatic message, given the differences in substance and tone between the supporters of the two Democratic giants.
“Foreign policy is probably where Clinton and Obama differ the most,” said the Democratic official. “They just have fundamentally different instincts. On the big decisions, Obama can and will certainly call the shots, but the consistency of follow-through could really be a problem. And the instincts on the smaller decisions will be very different. Cohesion of our foreign policy could suffer.”
So Clinton seems political in nature to me. Maybe she plays bad cop to Obama's good cop or maybe she was promised something during the election season. Whatever the reason i really dont see that she was the best choice, the most logical choice for the position. Because of this i have a hard time anticipating exactly how Clinton is going to work out. That is an appointment that only time can sort out.
Generally speaking the choices for Obama's foriegn policy team represent the broad non-neocon consensus about what america needs to do in foriegn policy. When Obama speaks about ending the mindset that got us into the iraq war i think he is not talking about a huge reevaluation about the role of america's primacy on the world stage but instead a shift away from great power state level dealings to a more transnational approach.
Read more...
As his time in office winds down Bush wishes to put his stamp on the government, permanently. Pending that he wants to make it as hard as he can for a possible Obama administration to undue the policies and practices of his administration. He wants to ensure that even has failed conservative policies fail at the ballot box they continue in government through his appointments and changes in the law. One of the more controversial changes Bush has made is his expansion of Presidential power. A key to this expansion was his use of war time powers. It is this war time power that is the subject of his latest attempt to scar our country for generations in his name.
One of the important techniques Bush has used in securing his power and changes in government is making congress complicit in his acts. He is up to his old tricks again as outlined by the NYT piece Bush Seeks to Affirm a Continuing War on Terror . The focus of the piece is Bush's attempt to have congress issue a statement renewing a declaration of war with the Taliban and Al-Queda,
“acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us and who are dedicated to the slaughter of Americans.”
The language is included in a proposal for hearing legal appeals from detainees at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay and is just one in a number of recent attempts to codify Bush policies in law. The goal is to make sure that the next president has the same expanded powers of detention, interrogation and surveillance. It is a power grab at the expense of the legislative branch. If Congress capitulates on this it will mark simply another instance of their complicity in the Bush abuse of power.
Recently the Bush administration rewrote the rules governing spying by U.S. intelligence agencies, both in the United States and abroad. None can forget the recent FISA rewrite. In addition, Bush has been placing judges on US federal benches that comply with his ideology. The same goes for the different US bureaucracies including the epa where Bush has made sure that nothing is done to protect the environment and the FBI where he signed off on torture.
The implications of his actions are many. Already i have briefly discussed the fact that his changes will leave a lasting impact on the US policy and law. The attempt to get a renewed war powers statement is also a way to bring back some sense of fear in the populace.
Mr. Bush “is trying to stir up again the politics of fear by reminding people of something they haven’t really forgotten: that we are engaged in serious armed conflict with Al Qaeda,” said Laurence H. Tribe, a constitutional scholar at Harvard and legal adviser to Mr. Obama. “But the question is, Where is that conflict to be waged, and by what means.”
The war on terror is a war like the war on drugs. It is not a real war. It is essentially a police action and should have been fought as one. When the Rand Corp study on the subject came out at the end of July it only confirmed what others have been saying for years our actions are not working and only strengthening the criminals.
The authors call for a strategy that includes a greater reliance on law enforcement and intelligence agencies in disrupting the group's networks and in arresting its leaders. They say that when military forces are needed, the emphasis should be on local troops, which understand the terrain and culture and tend to have greater legitimacy.
In Muslim countries in particular, there should be a "light U.S. military footprint or none at all," the report contends.
"The U.S. military can play a critical role in building indigenous capacity," it said, "but should generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim societies, since its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment."
Instead of heading the calls of experts the Bush administration is seeking to make sure its crimes and practices become the law of the land. They want to ensure that we continue to use the phrase "enemy combatants". They want to hold the future people America to their odious ideas about how to protect this country, throwing people into a prison camp without legal recourse.
The administration wants Congress to set out a narrow framework for those prisoner appeals. But the administration’s six-point proposal goes further. It includes not only the broad proclamation of a continued “armed conflict with Al Qaeda,” but also the desire for Congress to “reaffirm that for the duration of the conflict the United States may detain as enemy combatants those who have engaged in hostilities or purposefully supported Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated organizations.”
It is truly galling to think that our country has a policy that allows us to hold someone forever under this title of enemy combatant as the jurors in the trial of Osama bin Ladens driver found out. They tried to put in in prison until Bush was out of office as a demonstration that they felt this policy was wrong. They were shocked to discover that he could be held forever,
"After all the effort that we put in to get somebody a fair trial . . . and then to say no matter what we did it didn’t matter — I don’t see that as a positive step," the juror said.
The administration contends that it can hold enemy combatants for as long as the war on terror lasts. If congress goes back and affirms in the way bush wants it will ensure that anyone acquitted or sentenced in Guantanamo will be staying in Guantanamo.
The decision is up to congress. Do they want to be seen as the patsies of the Bush administration again? I have little confidence that they will grow a spine and stand up to the Bush admin. Even as we celebrate the coming of the end for Bush we will be stuck with his flawed policies and ideology entrenched in our laws and government.
Read more...
Just over 10 years ago was one of the more forgotten incidents in the War on Terror. Surprising since it was the Genesis for the War on Terror. The U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania were conducted in a near simultaneous fashion. The bombing of the US Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania killed a total of 241 persons and wounded over 5000. Four men have been convicted for their involvement in the attacks. However, the alleged mastermind Fazul Abdullah Mohammed remains on the run more than a decade after his crime.
The hunt for Fazul has been marked by many claims of “near misses” including the most recent one on Aug 3. The ten-year manhunt has started to grate on the welcome and understanding of some Kenyans. The collateral damage has begun to add up leading some to question exactly what the U.S. backed Kenyon authorities.
"The pursuit of these four suspects has had a huge impact in the Horn of Africa," said Ali Said, director of the Center for Peace and Democracy, based in the Somali capital of Mogadishu. "They always say, 'We almost found him!' But then they don't find him. After a decade, they are still after these suspects, still bombing the wrong places, killing cows and camels and herders and arresting the wrong people. . . . The whole community is paying the price."
It sounds very familiar to the experiences of those in Afghanistan hunting the Taliban and other members of Al-Queda. The description in the Post presents the inference that the F.B.I, in their zealous pursuit of Fazul, has been handing resources to Kenyon forces less interested in capturing him than expanding their budget.
The suspicion of the Kenyon side comes from several things. First is the timing of the raid so close to the 10-year anniversary of the attacks. The symmetry and story line seem a little too neat. Second is that the raid was conducted without the FBI’s knowledge and presence. It is easier to make justifications about unnecessary raids and failed action when the bank rollers have to rely on second hand accounts. The third is the corollary raid at a neighbor’s house.
Around the same time, about two dozen Kenyan anti-terrorism police descended on Amina Adan's house, down the road. Adan and her three children, terrified that they were being robbed, barricaded themselves in an upstairs bedroom as the officers broke through three heavy wooden doors and rifled through the family's belongings. The authorities confiscated their cellphones and passports. Adan said she is an acquaintance of Ashur's family but had no idea why her house was raided.
"They are just looking for something to do so they can say they are working," said Adan's daughter, Mumina Fazzini, 21. "I think they have failed -- they are poor in their jobs so they have to try something."
The description of the manhunt in Kenya is similar to the story of the search for WMD’s in prewar Iraq. The hunters are looking for a justification for their actions so they act on bad or weak intelligence. People interested in the monetary compensation for information come forward and implicate their enemies. The Americans are bankrolling a lucrative racket in Kenya.
Kimathi, the human rights advocate, said the Kenyan anti-terrorism unit has cultivated a network of informants who often supply its agents with names of people who turn out to be business enemies, or others with whom they are trying to settle scores. The informants receive a stipend for information, he said.
Snip…
"Americans must know they're dealing with police in a third-world country . . .," said Guled Hassan, 42, a businessman. "Only this week several people have been arrested just for ransom, because anyone who paid the police was released." Similar stories are common in Mombasa, a nearby resort town where the city's old Arab area, a predominantly Muslim neighborhood, is full of skepticism about the anti-terrorism campaign.
Similar to the funding for anti-terror operations in Pakistan the events in Kenya are disheartening. Our government is throwing money around with little to show for it. While we need to hunt down the people who were involved in that terrible, bombing our current method seems to be turning the locals against us. These are the people we need to apprehend the suspects and pissing them off is not the solution. The Kenyon's appear to be acting simply to preserve the appearance that they are very intent on hunting down Al-Queda when in reality they just like the resources we provide.
Read more...
I follow politics and i have a degree in political science and a minor in history. Someday i will have a law degree. I am a member of the millennial generation and take pride in that.
I started blogging because i had the desire to discuss and debate political issues with other people and because i thought i might, on rare occasions, have good insight.
Posts
