I have been hanging out of late at a web site for writers (www.helium.com), which seems to be an eclectic place with both mostly poets and occasional scribes. Anyway, they do have discussion threads for a host of different topics including one on the liberal bias of the mainstream news media.
In that vein, I came across and interesting article by a former BBC editor I would commend to any one's perusal. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2240427.ece) Having been a journalist for most of my life, and having witnessed exactly what this former editor says, his take is spot on ... even for a Brit.
I also note that Dubya's top political advisor is stepping down from his official White House position at the end of the month. I imagine the Democrats and anti-Bush Luddites with be jumping with joy at this news. Thinking as many do, I believe, that Rove was one of Bush's puppet masters and Dubya is just a mouthpiece and puppet on a string, I fear they are going to be surprised to find that the president is going to be just about the same. I think those who hate Bush to the point of myopia, fail to see that what is going on in the White House at this time is almost predictable. The end times for this administration is near and those weary from the constant struggle in the highly partisan environment that is our nation these day, especially its capital, are leaving the epicenter in order to prepare to get on with their lives. This is just one more step that belies the canard I seem to hear so often in the blogosphere about King George and how he is a threat to democracy and our freedoms and the nation is going to hell in a hand basket. Well, it ain't and he ain't. I predict that on January 20, 2009, at noon, someone not George W. Bush will be standing in front of the U.S. Capitol Building taking the oath of office as president of the United States in what remains the most exceptional and incredible acts in the world: The peaceful transition of power from one administration to another. After which George Jr. will return to Texas and do whatever ex-presidents are wont to do.
A lot can happen between now and then, but I am willing to bet my shirt that everything that can be done will be done to make this peaceful transition occur as scheduled and on time.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Random thoughts 6
Question for the day: Should the United States pull its troops out of Iraq and surrounding countries in the Middle East to stop the violence?
Not unless everyone stops looking to the United States for leadership is my thought.
If the U.S. pulled out the Middle East, why should it not also pull out all the other countries where it has forces forward deployed?
The problem is that because the U.S. is the 900-pound gorilla in world affairs, it is caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Today, the U.S. with its huge economy that drives much of the world’s commerce is dependent upon and inexorably linked to the economies of other countries. It cannot just withdraw and try to isolate itself, to be dependent on its own resources and no other markets.
The same holds true militarily. There are those who are begging for the Americans to intervene in Dafur and the Sudan, while nothing was done in Bosnia and Kosovo until the Americans took the lead. When disaster strikes, who often is the first responder to bring immediate relief? It is the U.S. military, which has the resources, the training and the capability to go almost anywhere in the world.
Many countries took for granted during the Cold War the protection of the U.S. nuclear umbrella that kept the Soviet Union at bay for more than 40 years. The war in Korea happened because the U.S. said South Korea was outside its area of interest. The invasion of Kuwait in 1990 happened because the U.S. told Saddam Hussein that the sheikdom was outside the area of American defense interests.
If the Americans are to withdraw, then don’t ask them to return or intervene anywhere, militarily or economically. No military aid or economic assistance and the Americans will not be there to help those asking for American help and/or leadership.
IF the Americans pulled out of Iraq tomorrow (physically impossible, but let’s consider the hypothetical), what would be the result? Would peace immediately descend on Iraq? Does anyone really believe that? No, the factions – tribal groups, clans, Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds – probably would descend into a frenzy of internecine warfare as they jockeyed for power and dominance. Little to no effort would be made to achieve political compromise or community co-existence. And who would be blamed? Not the Iraqis, not the foreign jihadists flooding the country. No, it would be blamed on the Americans.
The Americans always are responsible for everyone else’s problems. It is easier to blame the Americans than to look inward and find where the responsibility truly lies.
The sad thing is the Americans are guppies and they have yet to overcome their innate desire to do good in the world. In their blind arrogance and imperious hubris, surrounded by their incredible wealth, they can’t see that nothing they do in the world will be perceived as attempting to help the less fortunate, to protect the weak, and to help end the killing.
Not unless everyone stops looking to the United States for leadership is my thought.
If the U.S. pulled out the Middle East, why should it not also pull out all the other countries where it has forces forward deployed?
The problem is that because the U.S. is the 900-pound gorilla in world affairs, it is caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Today, the U.S. with its huge economy that drives much of the world’s commerce is dependent upon and inexorably linked to the economies of other countries. It cannot just withdraw and try to isolate itself, to be dependent on its own resources and no other markets.
The same holds true militarily. There are those who are begging for the Americans to intervene in Dafur and the Sudan, while nothing was done in Bosnia and Kosovo until the Americans took the lead. When disaster strikes, who often is the first responder to bring immediate relief? It is the U.S. military, which has the resources, the training and the capability to go almost anywhere in the world.
Many countries took for granted during the Cold War the protection of the U.S. nuclear umbrella that kept the Soviet Union at bay for more than 40 years. The war in Korea happened because the U.S. said South Korea was outside its area of interest. The invasion of Kuwait in 1990 happened because the U.S. told Saddam Hussein that the sheikdom was outside the area of American defense interests.
If the Americans are to withdraw, then don’t ask them to return or intervene anywhere, militarily or economically. No military aid or economic assistance and the Americans will not be there to help those asking for American help and/or leadership.
IF the Americans pulled out of Iraq tomorrow (physically impossible, but let’s consider the hypothetical), what would be the result? Would peace immediately descend on Iraq? Does anyone really believe that? No, the factions – tribal groups, clans, Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds – probably would descend into a frenzy of internecine warfare as they jockeyed for power and dominance. Little to no effort would be made to achieve political compromise or community co-existence. And who would be blamed? Not the Iraqis, not the foreign jihadists flooding the country. No, it would be blamed on the Americans.
The Americans always are responsible for everyone else’s problems. It is easier to blame the Americans than to look inward and find where the responsibility truly lies.
The sad thing is the Americans are guppies and they have yet to overcome their innate desire to do good in the world. In their blind arrogance and imperious hubris, surrounded by their incredible wealth, they can’t see that nothing they do in the world will be perceived as attempting to help the less fortunate, to protect the weak, and to help end the killing.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Random Thoughts 5
Does the war on terror threaten civil liberties in the US?
Short answer: No
Long Answer:
What are Americans’ “civil” liberties?
- The freedom of religion?
- The freedom of speech?
- The freedom of the press?
- The freedom to freely associate with others?
- The freedom to peaceably assemble?
- The freedom to seek redress of grievances?
- The freedom to own property?
- The freedom to travel?
- The freedom of unwarranted intrusion by government (and others?) on our private property?
- The freedom of unwarranted intrusion by government in our private lives and affairs?
Before we determine if the war on terror is threatening American’s civil liberties, we have to define what civil liberties we are talking about. Then we can rationally discuss what those threats are and how we should we deal with them.
First, freedom of religion, the right we have to worship (or not worship) god/gods in our own way (I hope that definition is sufficient for most). How has the war on terror affected this? Well, it has drawn scrutiny to Muslim mosques and for a very good reason: So far almost all of the terrorists who have attacked Americans at home and around the word recently have been Muslims. It stands to reason that a mosque, where Muslims congregate, would garner more attention from government’s limited resources than a Quaker meetinghouse. Quakers are not likely to go around blowing things up; so far, Muslims have done most of that. It makes sense to observe the Muslim community, where most of the latest crop of homicide bombers has emerged. To do otherwise, then those who are paid to protect and serve people and society at large would be terribly remiss. However, the government has not closed any mosques or threatened large numbers of Muslim-Americans with prison without charge and without recourse to judicial review.
Granted, a small number of Muslims (and yes a couple of thousand among six billion on the planet – or even less the 300 million in the United States – is a relatively small number) have been detained by the U.S. government, mostly non-U.S. citizens. Many, if not most, of those who have been detained already have been released. Some even have been documented as to having had returned to waging war on America and Americans.
Now, a brief digression: The U.S. Constitution, its Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and all the other codes and laws that govern American life are not a suicide pact. Vested in the power of the American government is the inherent power of doing whatever is necessary to protect the nation and its people from all threats, foreign and domestic. And we are at war ... and have been at war for many years ... with members of the Islamic civilization/culture/religion. We may not acknowledge this fact, but it is the truth, as the Jihadists go to some length to keep reminding us. The government of the United States (made up mostly of citizens of the U.S.) has an affirmative obligation to take measures, consistent with the Constitution and the laws of the United States, to protect Americans from these enemies. To do otherwise, would be malfeasance of the highest order. From all accounts, for better or worse, President George W. Bush is taking this task with utmost sincerity.
Other than observing, what has the Bush Administration actually done to infringe upon the right to worship freely in this country? No action whatsoever has been taken that I have heard and I doubt you will hear of any soon.
Freedom of Speech: No laws have been passed restricting speech as part of the war on terror that I am aware of, except maybe the PC codes at a variety of major colleges and universities and a number of “hate speech” laws aimed at criminalizing thoughts. I have seen no politicians of any stripe being hauled off to detention merely voicing their opinion. There have been a few, whose conduct has been less than savory, who have been hauled off for doing things that really were blatantly criminal ... bribery, selling votes, etc. However, no one has been hauled off to prison for saying vicious things about Dubya and accusing him of all sorts of crimes and misdemeanors, not that the president and his advisors don’t probably wish they could.
Freedom of the press: After one remembers that the freedom of the press extends only to he (or she) who owns the press, I know of no law or regulation stemming from the war on terror that has been used to shut down or limit any person, organization or business for saying whatever they want about the war on terror (which includes Afghanistan, Iraq, the Horn of Africa, and a multitude of other fronts in a truly global conflict), even if some of which would be libel or slander if directed at a truly private citizen; or, if not that, considered treasonous in an earlier day and age. The only assault on the freedom of the press that I am aware of is the campaign to bring back the so-called “fairness doctrine”, which truly is an assault on the freedom of the press because injects government into decisions about what will or will not run or be aired those who own the presses (or radio or TV stations).
Freedom of association: Again, I know of no law that has been passed to criminalize associations ... unless you want to count local and state laws intended to curtail the criminal activities of gangs and organized crime. There, however, have been no laws passed that criminalize political associations whose views, tactics, outlooks may be less popular in the mainstream quarters. Yes, right-wing militias and black and white supremacy organizations still exist.
The freedom to peaceably assemble: How has this been infringed on in the past five years? Well, I don’t see large groups of protesters of any stripe being hauled off to jail, much less concentration camps. In fact, other that Guantanamo Bay (which is more of a war prison than a concentration camp), I have heard no reports, or even rumors, of any detention facilities for such protestors. Now there was the case of the imams on that airplane who as a group were asked to deplane after they made a disturbance and acted in such a fashion as to arouse the suspicions of the passengers and airline crew. It is like a supreme court justice once said, people do not have the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. If you are acting like a duck, then you are liable to be treated like a duck and that is reality.
The freedom to seek redress of grievances: Just because Congress or the State Legislature or County Commission or City Council doesn’t act on your petition the way you want does not mean that your right to petition for redress of whatever grievances you may have has been infringed upon in any way ... just means other people disagree with you. No, the war on terror has had no impact on this right.
The freedom to own property? Again, at last look, we still have the right to own just about anything we want, except maybe drug paraphernalia but that is unrelated to the war on terror. So, I don’t see how the war on terror has impinged on our right to own stuff ... unless you count the prohibition on owning machineguns and other implements of war, which by all rights should be covered under the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms. Again, nothing in the government’s war on Islamic extremists have affected this right.
The freedom to travel: Other than have to undergo identity checks in airports and screening for carrying potential weapons, our freedom to travel anywhere in the U.S. (except a few top secret military bases in Nevada and Utah where they secretly test alien technology) has not been infringed upon. Granted, you do have to prove you aren’t carrying anything that might be classed as a weapon when you fly, but you have say that is an understandable requirement (although definitely overkill) in light of the events of 9/11/01.
The freedom of unwarranted intrusion by government (and others?) on our private property: Ah ha! Herein lies the rub, so to speak. Just how much expectation can we have of privacy from unwanted, versus unwarranted, intrusion on our property? Well, given the technology available to just about anybody with the right price, we have more to fear from our neighbors than we do than the government, which easily has the money to invest in the equipment. Unless every other person starts working for a government surveillance agency, government usually has to target its resources rather just cast wide nets.
In our modern world of web cams, cell cams, ubiquitous surveillance cameras, global telecommunications, the Internet, we are going to have to redefine our expectations of privacy. A junior high school hacker could do more to intrude on our privacy than the federal government ever can. Given the diffuse nature of the Internet, it is impossible to expect that anything you pass electronically from point A to Point B can truly be expected to be private. The same for anything said over the telephone or conveyed by any electronic means. In this world, there literally is no place to hide and no way to keep secrets. Too many people, mostly non-governmental actors, can find ways to monitor our communications, our activities, our lifestyles. The war on terror has done nothing to changes this, other than to make us all aware that some who are charged to watch over the safety of us all want the legal authority to do things Jack Bauer on “24” does on every episode (which is fantasy, but not reality).
Now, there is the question of the freedom of cruel and unusual punishments, which I supposed includes interrogation techniques for suspected and known terrorists seeking to do harm to Americans and/or America. Do different rules apply for non-U.S. citizens who have declared war on the U.S. and refuse to honor the Geneva Convention rules for combatants in wartime? Besides, what is “torture”? It reminds me of necessities and luxuries ... what is one man’s luxury is another man’s necessity. Again, unless the interrogators are more like Jack Bauer, I suspect that their techniques are a bit of a stretch to really call torture. Besides, at least we don’t videotape our interrogators slitting throats and cutting off heads, which we know the Jihadists do. And if you call the hijinks at Abu Graib prison torture, then I think you really must have led a sheltered existence. A fraternity hell week was worse than that.
No, the war on terror has not eroded Americans’ civil liberties. Those they had before are still there, unaffected by this administration or its opposition. If anything, technology poses a greater threat than the government but the American government, by design, is too incompetent and inefficient to be such a threat.
Short answer: No
Long Answer:
What are Americans’ “civil” liberties?
- The freedom of religion?
- The freedom of speech?
- The freedom of the press?
- The freedom to freely associate with others?
- The freedom to peaceably assemble?
- The freedom to seek redress of grievances?
- The freedom to own property?
- The freedom to travel?
- The freedom of unwarranted intrusion by government (and others?) on our private property?
- The freedom of unwarranted intrusion by government in our private lives and affairs?
Before we determine if the war on terror is threatening American’s civil liberties, we have to define what civil liberties we are talking about. Then we can rationally discuss what those threats are and how we should we deal with them.
First, freedom of religion, the right we have to worship (or not worship) god/gods in our own way (I hope that definition is sufficient for most). How has the war on terror affected this? Well, it has drawn scrutiny to Muslim mosques and for a very good reason: So far almost all of the terrorists who have attacked Americans at home and around the word recently have been Muslims. It stands to reason that a mosque, where Muslims congregate, would garner more attention from government’s limited resources than a Quaker meetinghouse. Quakers are not likely to go around blowing things up; so far, Muslims have done most of that. It makes sense to observe the Muslim community, where most of the latest crop of homicide bombers has emerged. To do otherwise, then those who are paid to protect and serve people and society at large would be terribly remiss. However, the government has not closed any mosques or threatened large numbers of Muslim-Americans with prison without charge and without recourse to judicial review.
Granted, a small number of Muslims (and yes a couple of thousand among six billion on the planet – or even less the 300 million in the United States – is a relatively small number) have been detained by the U.S. government, mostly non-U.S. citizens. Many, if not most, of those who have been detained already have been released. Some even have been documented as to having had returned to waging war on America and Americans.
Now, a brief digression: The U.S. Constitution, its Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and all the other codes and laws that govern American life are not a suicide pact. Vested in the power of the American government is the inherent power of doing whatever is necessary to protect the nation and its people from all threats, foreign and domestic. And we are at war ... and have been at war for many years ... with members of the Islamic civilization/culture/religion. We may not acknowledge this fact, but it is the truth, as the Jihadists go to some length to keep reminding us. The government of the United States (made up mostly of citizens of the U.S.) has an affirmative obligation to take measures, consistent with the Constitution and the laws of the United States, to protect Americans from these enemies. To do otherwise, would be malfeasance of the highest order. From all accounts, for better or worse, President George W. Bush is taking this task with utmost sincerity.
Other than observing, what has the Bush Administration actually done to infringe upon the right to worship freely in this country? No action whatsoever has been taken that I have heard and I doubt you will hear of any soon.
Freedom of Speech: No laws have been passed restricting speech as part of the war on terror that I am aware of, except maybe the PC codes at a variety of major colleges and universities and a number of “hate speech” laws aimed at criminalizing thoughts. I have seen no politicians of any stripe being hauled off to detention merely voicing their opinion. There have been a few, whose conduct has been less than savory, who have been hauled off for doing things that really were blatantly criminal ... bribery, selling votes, etc. However, no one has been hauled off to prison for saying vicious things about Dubya and accusing him of all sorts of crimes and misdemeanors, not that the president and his advisors don’t probably wish they could.
Freedom of the press: After one remembers that the freedom of the press extends only to he (or she) who owns the press, I know of no law or regulation stemming from the war on terror that has been used to shut down or limit any person, organization or business for saying whatever they want about the war on terror (which includes Afghanistan, Iraq, the Horn of Africa, and a multitude of other fronts in a truly global conflict), even if some of which would be libel or slander if directed at a truly private citizen; or, if not that, considered treasonous in an earlier day and age. The only assault on the freedom of the press that I am aware of is the campaign to bring back the so-called “fairness doctrine”, which truly is an assault on the freedom of the press because injects government into decisions about what will or will not run or be aired those who own the presses (or radio or TV stations).
Freedom of association: Again, I know of no law that has been passed to criminalize associations ... unless you want to count local and state laws intended to curtail the criminal activities of gangs and organized crime. There, however, have been no laws passed that criminalize political associations whose views, tactics, outlooks may be less popular in the mainstream quarters. Yes, right-wing militias and black and white supremacy organizations still exist.
The freedom to peaceably assemble: How has this been infringed on in the past five years? Well, I don’t see large groups of protesters of any stripe being hauled off to jail, much less concentration camps. In fact, other that Guantanamo Bay (which is more of a war prison than a concentration camp), I have heard no reports, or even rumors, of any detention facilities for such protestors. Now there was the case of the imams on that airplane who as a group were asked to deplane after they made a disturbance and acted in such a fashion as to arouse the suspicions of the passengers and airline crew. It is like a supreme court justice once said, people do not have the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. If you are acting like a duck, then you are liable to be treated like a duck and that is reality.
The freedom to seek redress of grievances: Just because Congress or the State Legislature or County Commission or City Council doesn’t act on your petition the way you want does not mean that your right to petition for redress of whatever grievances you may have has been infringed upon in any way ... just means other people disagree with you. No, the war on terror has had no impact on this right.
The freedom to own property? Again, at last look, we still have the right to own just about anything we want, except maybe drug paraphernalia but that is unrelated to the war on terror. So, I don’t see how the war on terror has impinged on our right to own stuff ... unless you count the prohibition on owning machineguns and other implements of war, which by all rights should be covered under the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms. Again, nothing in the government’s war on Islamic extremists have affected this right.
The freedom to travel: Other than have to undergo identity checks in airports and screening for carrying potential weapons, our freedom to travel anywhere in the U.S. (except a few top secret military bases in Nevada and Utah where they secretly test alien technology) has not been infringed upon. Granted, you do have to prove you aren’t carrying anything that might be classed as a weapon when you fly, but you have say that is an understandable requirement (although definitely overkill) in light of the events of 9/11/01.
The freedom of unwarranted intrusion by government (and others?) on our private property: Ah ha! Herein lies the rub, so to speak. Just how much expectation can we have of privacy from unwanted, versus unwarranted, intrusion on our property? Well, given the technology available to just about anybody with the right price, we have more to fear from our neighbors than we do than the government, which easily has the money to invest in the equipment. Unless every other person starts working for a government surveillance agency, government usually has to target its resources rather just cast wide nets.
In our modern world of web cams, cell cams, ubiquitous surveillance cameras, global telecommunications, the Internet, we are going to have to redefine our expectations of privacy. A junior high school hacker could do more to intrude on our privacy than the federal government ever can. Given the diffuse nature of the Internet, it is impossible to expect that anything you pass electronically from point A to Point B can truly be expected to be private. The same for anything said over the telephone or conveyed by any electronic means. In this world, there literally is no place to hide and no way to keep secrets. Too many people, mostly non-governmental actors, can find ways to monitor our communications, our activities, our lifestyles. The war on terror has done nothing to changes this, other than to make us all aware that some who are charged to watch over the safety of us all want the legal authority to do things Jack Bauer on “24” does on every episode (which is fantasy, but not reality).
Now, there is the question of the freedom of cruel and unusual punishments, which I supposed includes interrogation techniques for suspected and known terrorists seeking to do harm to Americans and/or America. Do different rules apply for non-U.S. citizens who have declared war on the U.S. and refuse to honor the Geneva Convention rules for combatants in wartime? Besides, what is “torture”? It reminds me of necessities and luxuries ... what is one man’s luxury is another man’s necessity. Again, unless the interrogators are more like Jack Bauer, I suspect that their techniques are a bit of a stretch to really call torture. Besides, at least we don’t videotape our interrogators slitting throats and cutting off heads, which we know the Jihadists do. And if you call the hijinks at Abu Graib prison torture, then I think you really must have led a sheltered existence. A fraternity hell week was worse than that.
No, the war on terror has not eroded Americans’ civil liberties. Those they had before are still there, unaffected by this administration or its opposition. If anything, technology poses a greater threat than the government but the American government, by design, is too incompetent and inefficient to be such a threat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)