I almost never post hate mail. The posting of hate mail on blogs is usually a passive-aggressive form of hasty generalization – Ah, look what a bunch of raving lunatics/bigots my detractors are! But occasionally I get a piece that is truly instructive, one that wrings out the very essence of a movement in a way that labored analysis never could. Allow me to share one such epistle, written in mock parody of one of my blogposts:
Led by the United States, global “defense” spending has risen 18 percent since 2001, presumably justified by an increase in global terrorism. According to a U.S. congressional study, terrorism has risen 35 percent since 2001. The increase in spending has coincided with an increase in terrorism. With every dollar, the U.S., which accounts for 47 per cent of the spending, manufactures new terrorists, which will, in turn, lead to demands for increased defense spending.
The Iraq war and occupation certainly led to the hideous Madrid train bombing. The astute U.S. reaction was to increase its military presence in Iraq. U.S. troop levels in Iraq, originally scheduled to decrease to 105,000 by this summer, are now going to be at 145,000, with several Army units having their tours extended 90 days. The Pentagon has pulled 3,600 troops out of South Korea to help in Iraq. Since U.S. troops in enemy territory provoked North Korea to develop nuclear weapons, removing the provocative troops would be a positive and necessary step toward a negotiated disarmament between the North and South – but sending the troops to the Iraqi quagmire is not what libertarians had in mind.
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, the current morass was predicted in many quarters. In a policy study for the Cato Institute two days after the attacks, Charles V. Peña wrote,
The answer is that it won’t. To be sure, military action is the appropriate response to the heinous terrorist acts committed on American soil. But a larger military would not have prevented that devastating tragedy. And it won’t prevent future terrorist actions. Why?
Because terrorists are not traditional adversaries deterred by traditional military force. If that was the case, then terrorism should not exist in Israel. The Israeli military is bigger and better equipped than any of the Palestinian terrorist groups, yet terrorism persists. So the answer is not that simple. Terrorism – by its nature – is not traditional warfare. Terrorists pick and choose the times and places of their attacks, and they are not on military battlefields. Terrorists do not wear uniforms to distinguish themselves from their adversary. In other words, terrorists are the antithesis of the kind of enemy that armed services are designed and trained to fight.
Like trying to swat a fly with a machine-gun, fighting terrorism with massive military force is inappropriate and destructive, leading to the creation of more fanatics willing to sacrifice anything for their cause. As Justin Raimondo put it on September 28, 2001,
And in a column on September 14, 2001, Raimondo on how to stop terrorism:
The results of increased defense spending were predicted long ago by libertarians here and at Cato, Old Right conservatives such as Pat Buchanan and Old Left liberals such as Alexander Cockburn. President Bush didn’t listen to these people; instead he opened his ears to superhawk Paul Wolfowitz, the Office of Special Plans and other war-crazy neocons.
What has increased defense spending (i.e., war, occupation, regime change, etc.) given us? Not surprisingly, more terrorism.
Understanding the enemy, while not condoning his actions or agreeing with his views, is the first step toward achieving peace. Nations like Britain and the U.S. don’t really have to do anything to fight terrorism; they only have to stop doing things that provoke terrorist responses. Stop the flow of money to Israel, end the occupation of Iraq, pull troops from foreign soil, close foreign bases, trade freely with every country in the world. The moral crusade to end terrorism can only begin with a realistic assessment of its cause. The U.S. must put down the machine gun and try a flyswatter for a change.
Amidst this glowing account, Better days beckon for Baghdad’s weary postmen, about the dedication of the workers and all the improvements being made to the “new” Iraqi postal system, be sure not to miss the following sentence:
Although “major combat” ended over a year ago, the Coalition can’t seem to get the Iraqi post office up and running any more than it can get the electricity and water flowing at their pre-war levels.
Shame!
Today’s statement from Sibel Edmonds:
John Ashcroft’s actions are anti-freedom of speech and anti-due process. His actions are anti-transparency and anti-accountability. In short, John Ashcroft’s actions are anti-Constitution and anti-democracy.
To become an American Citizen I took the citizenship oath. In taking this oath I pledged that I would support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Therefore, not only do I have the right to challenge John Ashcroft’s anti-Constitution and Un-American actions, as an American Citizen I am required to do so. So are you.
Michael Froomkin parses the OLC’s Aug. 1, 2002 Torture Memo (“the Bybee Memo”.) This is a very helpful post to read especially if you’re becoming confused by the sheer number of various torture memo leaks bombarding us daily.
After explaining what the OLC is ( Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel) and sketching the relationships between the various legal offices and lawyers in the FedGov, Froomkin sets up his argument:
The memo is about what limits on the use of force (“standards of permissible conduct”) for interrogations conducted “abroad” are found in the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( Torture Convention) “as implemented” by 18 USC §§ 2340-2340A (the Torture statute).
The memo concludes that the restrictions are very limited — that only acts inflicting and “specifically intended to inflict severe pain or suffering”, whether mental or physical, are prohibited. Allowed are severe mental pain not intended to have lasting effects (pity if they do…), and physical pain less than that which acompanies “serious physical injury such as death or organ failure” (p. 46). Having opined that some cruel, inhuman, or degrading acts are not forbidden, only those that are “extreme acts” (committed on purpose), the memo moves on to “examine defenses” that could be asserted to “negate any claims that certain interrogation methods violate the statute.”
- This is not a draft, but it’s not an action document either. It’s legal advice to the Counselor for the President. The action document was Gonzales’s memo to Bush.
- This OLC document is a legalistic, logic-chopping brief for the torturer. Its entire thrust is justifying maximal pain.
- Nowhere do the authors say “but this would be wrong”.
- Lots of the (lousy) criminal law legal reasoning in this memo is picked up in the Draft Walker Working Group memo
- This memo also has a full dose of the royalist vision of the Presidency that informs the Draft Walker memo. In the views of the author(s), there’s basically nothing Congress can do to constrain the President’s exercise of the war power. The Geneva Conventions are, by inevitable implications, not binding on the President, nor is any other international agreement if it impedes the war effort. I’m sure our allies will be just thrilled to hear that. And, although the memo nowhere treats this issue, presumably, also, the same applies in reverse, and our adversaries should feel unconstrained by any treaties against poison gas, torture, land mines, or anything else? Or is ignoring treaties a unique prerogative of the USA?
A particularly interesting bit from the end:
Ultimately, the best legal commentary on this memo may belong to Professor Jay Leno:
According to the “New York Times”, last year White House lawyers concluded that President Bush could legally order interrogators to torture and even kill people in the interest of national security – so if that’s legal, what the hell are we charging Saddam Hussein with?
In light of the information breaking in the White House’s torture scandal, along with the legal complications of their thousands of detainees in Iraq as well as the fact that the Iraqi insurgents are clearly winning, I’m wondering who the Republicans are going to run as their presidential candidate. Do they have time to find someone?
On the other hand, they could probably just support Kerry, anyway. Maybe the Republicans could swing a pardon deal for the Bush Administration with Kerry.
