So Senators Feinstein and Schumer have decided to support Michael Mukasey's AG nomination, despite his refusal to call waterboarding torture. As I noted in response to WaPo's article this has become one sorry display of officialdom. Schumer hopes Mukasey can "restore the [Justice] department," and Feinstein says at least the nominee is "not Alberto Gonzales." Our national degradation is nearly complete. The Judiciary Committee will pass forward a man who won't call torture torture because, the logic apparently goes, it could be worse; by that I assume they mean we could have a nominee who might cackle with glee while refusing to condemn waterboarding instead of a nominee who says it's repugnant--while refusing to condemn waterboarding. A distinction without a difference, to be sure.
Here's something these senators ought to consider: the Justice Dept. cannot be "restored" by an AG who condones a form of torture long-rejected by civilized nations. It cannot be restored by a nominee who sees no wrong in spying on Americans without a warrant and without probable cause. There will be no restoration, just a maintenance of the status quo. And that status quo includes a complicit Senate.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Friday, November 2, 2007
Cheney and an Imperial Presidency
Whatever one might say about the Daily Telegraph's list
of the most influential Conservatives and Liberals, I have to seriously question the compilers' understanding of what drives the Vice President. Listed at #6 , Dick Cheney "has dedicated himself to protecting America by offering unvarnished and sometimes unpalatable advice to George W. Bush about the steps he believes need to be taken." Really. Really? Cheney's prime interest isn't in the establishment and protection of an imperial presidency? Although Republicans might consider synonymous an imperial executive with the protection of America, some of us rather believe the first seriously weakens the second. Take a look at the congressional minority report of 20 years ago. It tells us something about Cheney's motivation that the Daily Telegraph doesn't.
of the most influential Conservatives and Liberals, I have to seriously question the compilers' understanding of what drives the Vice President. Listed at #6 , Dick Cheney "has dedicated himself to protecting America by offering unvarnished and sometimes unpalatable advice to George W. Bush about the steps he believes need to be taken." Really. Really? Cheney's prime interest isn't in the establishment and protection of an imperial presidency? Although Republicans might consider synonymous an imperial executive with the protection of America, some of us rather believe the first seriously weakens the second. Take a look at the congressional minority report of 20 years ago. It tells us something about Cheney's motivation that the Daily Telegraph doesn't.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Saudi Nuclear Proposal
Saudi King Abdullah's proposal to end the standoff between Iran and the United States can't be faulted for its lack of imagination. Whether it'll get very far is another matter since Iranian President Ahmadinejad pronounced the nuclear issue closed last month in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly. The Saudi plan calls for the creation of "a consortium for all users of enriched uranium" for nuclear power plants. The plan comes a day before representatives from the UN Security Council plus Germany meet in London to discuss additional sanctions.
I doubt the Iranians will eagerly embrace this proposal; indeed, President Ahmadinejad was in top diplomatic form earlier today in comments about sanctions directed at Europe: "You know that we are able to react. In the economy, you need us more than we do you."
Iran has deftly exploited the American presence in the trap that is Iraq. That can't come as much of a surprise, particularly with the most belligerent American government in history issuing threats on a near-daily basis.
However the Saudi plan is received by Iran, the United States ought still to pursue--and should have been pursuing--negotiations with them. No one has ever lost a thing by talking and nowhere is it written that a nation somehow disarms itself by entering discussions with another. It's a peculiar notion, isn't it, that we would be weakened by negotiating?
I doubt the Iranians will eagerly embrace this proposal; indeed, President Ahmadinejad was in top diplomatic form earlier today in comments about sanctions directed at Europe: "You know that we are able to react. In the economy, you need us more than we do you."
Iran has deftly exploited the American presence in the trap that is Iraq. That can't come as much of a surprise, particularly with the most belligerent American government in history issuing threats on a near-daily basis.
However the Saudi plan is received by Iran, the United States ought still to pursue--and should have been pursuing--negotiations with them. No one has ever lost a thing by talking and nowhere is it written that a nation somehow disarms itself by entering discussions with another. It's a peculiar notion, isn't it, that we would be weakened by negotiating?
Snowflake Rumsfeld
Robin Wright at WaPo has an article on former Defense Sec.y Donald Rumsfeld's memo musings in which he showed his frustration at the growing public perception, media driven of course, that the War on Terror (including Iraq) was failing. As we've seen over the past six years, the Bush Administration and its supporters desperately seek--and have sought--to conflate Muslim fundamentalists and Islam: "Talk about Somalia, the Philippines, etc. Make the American people realize they are surrounded in the world by violent extremists" (my italics), he wrote.
Never mind that the United States, because of people like this, are dispensing their own violence in spades at a population that never sought confrontation, did not attack the United States and seek only--how dare they?--to have access to employment, food and water of sufficient quality and quantity, and the opportunity to raise their families. Kind of like what Americans expect.
At this point, of course, someone will sputter "and what about Al Qaeda and 9/11?!" which requires me to respond "and where have I said the United States should not go after, track down and bring to justice the perpetrators of 9/11--Al Qaeda?"
There. That's out of the way.
Never mind that the United States, because of people like this, are dispensing their own violence in spades at a population that never sought confrontation, did not attack the United States and seek only--how dare they?--to have access to employment, food and water of sufficient quality and quantity, and the opportunity to raise their families. Kind of like what Americans expect.
At this point, of course, someone will sputter "and what about Al Qaeda and 9/11?!" which requires me to respond "and where have I said the United States should not go after, track down and bring to justice the perpetrators of 9/11--Al Qaeda?"
There. That's out of the way.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Karen Hughes' Departure
The resignation of Karen Hughes, a State Department undersecretary and long-time Bush confidant, ends an odd, silly and sorry chapter in the Bush Administration's Book of Malgovernment. Salon's amusing headline
nicely captures the failure of Hughes' heavy-handed efforts to convince the Islamic world that America is a bunch of good guys regardless of its policies. In her remarks to the U.S. Islamic World Form in February 2006, she described the attacks of 9/11 as "acts of hate and murder inspired by a violent ideology that seeks to impose tyranny by force and fear." And she uttered this, presumably, with a straight face.
But it gets worse. It's excruciatingly obvious that, while this might apply to "the world today," it apparently is not the behavioral standard of the Administration. The telecommunication immunity demanded by the Administration of Congress is certainly a fine example of accountability. And a more honest society? How about the small matter of lawyerly gamesmanship now taking place before the Senate Judiciary Committee's Atty. Gen. nomination hearings of Michael Mukasey.
During her final press conference comments, Hughes was asked about the recent shooting deaths of 17 Iraqis involving Blackwater security forces and she displayed remarkable rhetorical empathy for the many Muslims whom she has sought to convince of America's goodness: "Negative events never help." All that's missing from that is a kneeslap and guffaw.
nicely captures the failure of Hughes' heavy-handed efforts to convince the Islamic world that America is a bunch of good guys regardless of its policies. In her remarks to the U.S. Islamic World Form in February 2006, she described the attacks of 9/11 as "acts of hate and murder inspired by a violent ideology that seeks to impose tyranny by force and fear." And she uttered this, presumably, with a straight face.
But it gets worse. It's excruciatingly obvious that, while this might apply to "the world today," it apparently is not the behavioral standard of the Administration. The telecommunication immunity demanded by the Administration of Congress is certainly a fine example of accountability. And a more honest society? How about the small matter of lawyerly gamesmanship now taking place before the Senate Judiciary Committee's Atty. Gen. nomination hearings of Michael Mukasey.
During her final press conference comments, Hughes was asked about the recent shooting deaths of 17 Iraqis involving Blackwater security forces and she displayed remarkable rhetorical empathy for the many Muslims whom she has sought to convince of America's goodness: "Negative events never help." All that's missing from that is a kneeslap and guffaw.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Again With the Hilter
Glen Greenwald at Salon highlights
and underscores a common "strategy" employed by those thirsting for war with Iran. When all else fails, simply conjure the image of Hitler and the Nazis and, somehow, you've won the argument. It's disgraceful that the presidential candidates spend any time at all trying to best their opponents on this issue. It's a shame, too, that those who see Iran as a threat have closed the door on negotiations, a decision that requires courage, of course, but is the best opportunity available for Iranian opposition groups. Oh, and no one gets killed.
and underscores a common "strategy" employed by those thirsting for war with Iran. When all else fails, simply conjure the image of Hitler and the Nazis and, somehow, you've won the argument. It's disgraceful that the presidential candidates spend any time at all trying to best their opponents on this issue. It's a shame, too, that those who see Iran as a threat have closed the door on negotiations, a decision that requires courage, of course, but is the best opportunity available for Iranian opposition groups. Oh, and no one gets killed.
Blackwater Immunity
Several media outlets including the NYTimes are reporting on an immunity deal for Blackwater employees regarding the shooting deaths of 17 Iraqis last month. According to the report, State Department officials lacked the authority to grant immunity while the Justice Department, which does have the authority, was not aware of the deal.
It sounds as if a potential double-jeopardy defense is being prepared. Then again, perhaps that's not even an issue since no one has been charged, much less prosecuted, for earlier, similar "incidents."
So what can we say about this? Among other things, Congress can start exerting a few of their Constitutional muscles, the ones that have been atrophied by some six years of neglect.
It sounds as if a potential double-jeopardy defense is being prepared. Then again, perhaps that's not even an issue since no one has been charged, much less prosecuted, for earlier, similar "incidents."
So what can we say about this? Among other things, Congress can start exerting a few of their Constitutional muscles, the ones that have been atrophied by some six years of neglect.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Congenial Evasion
Salon's Joan Walsh wonders
whether attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey will be voted out of committee for a senate vote on his confirmation. Questions abound, to be sure, given the evasive answers he's provided thus far. On the one hand, Deputy Press Sec.y Tony Fratto has said that the nominee hasn't been "read into classified intelligence programs." On the other, as Walsh notes, citing Paul Kiel at TPM, Mukasey testified that he wouldn't "say something that is going to put . . . careers or freedom at risk simply because I want to be congenial." It's more of the same from an administration that demands "congeniality" from Congress on matters of confirmation, approval for expanded wiretapping and immunity for telecoms, while simultaneously exhibiting less than congenial behavior when Congress comes calling for documentation regarding these matters.
whether attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey will be voted out of committee for a senate vote on his confirmation. Questions abound, to be sure, given the evasive answers he's provided thus far. On the one hand, Deputy Press Sec.y Tony Fratto has said that the nominee hasn't been "read into classified intelligence programs." On the other, as Walsh notes, citing Paul Kiel at TPM, Mukasey testified that he wouldn't "say something that is going to put . . . careers or freedom at risk simply because I want to be congenial." It's more of the same from an administration that demands "congeniality" from Congress on matters of confirmation, approval for expanded wiretapping and immunity for telecoms, while simultaneously exhibiting less than congenial behavior when Congress comes calling for documentation regarding these matters.
Saudi Arabia and Liberalization
The Daily Telegraph's David Blair has a commentary on the visit to Britain by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Many people, of course, are upset that the king of an absolute monarchy is being given a royal welcome. But, as I observed, what is the realistic alternative to encouraging the steady, albeit slow, development toward a liberalized form of government?
Holding talks with Saudi Arabia, or any other non-democratic state, doesn't signal a hypocritical lack of commitment to a more desirable form of government. In truth, the alternatives are few, namely: warfare (no one needs to be reminded of the Iraq debacle); sanctions (in a global economy states have a multitude of alternatives-- witness Iran's re-orientation toward China due to sanction pressures); and, support for opposition groups (where the effort is frequently offset by normalized relations with governing authorities). Does this mean we give up on promoting liberal government? Of course not. It merely tells us that the effort takes time and intelligence to produce that desirable outcome. King Abdullah is making such liberalizing efforts himself by endowing a new university to the tune of $12.5 billion. The NYTimes reports that this effort will, among other things, allow men and women to study together, prohibit the presence of the country's religious police, and welcome all religious and ethnic groups. The West ought to welcome and support such efforts and urge on similar developments. It's certainly better than than smugly demanding reforms that will be rejected out of hand but, pathetically, make us feel better about ourselves. Or is that our goal after all?
Holding talks with Saudi Arabia, or any other non-democratic state, doesn't signal a hypocritical lack of commitment to a more desirable form of government. In truth, the alternatives are few, namely: warfare (no one needs to be reminded of the Iraq debacle); sanctions (in a global economy states have a multitude of alternatives-- witness Iran's re-orientation toward China due to sanction pressures); and, support for opposition groups (where the effort is frequently offset by normalized relations with governing authorities). Does this mean we give up on promoting liberal government? Of course not. It merely tells us that the effort takes time and intelligence to produce that desirable outcome. King Abdullah is making such liberalizing efforts himself by endowing a new university to the tune of $12.5 billion. The NYTimes reports that this effort will, among other things, allow men and women to study together, prohibit the presence of the country's religious police, and welcome all religious and ethnic groups. The West ought to welcome and support such efforts and urge on similar developments. It's certainly better than than smugly demanding reforms that will be rejected out of hand but, pathetically, make us feel better about ourselves. Or is that our goal after all?
Chinese Diplomacy
The Washington Post reports today that Iran is adapting to economic pressure from the US.
China, and to a lesser extent Russia, has demonstrated remarkable foreign policy skills over the past six years. It's veto power in the UN precludes the legitimizing of American policy goals toward Iran. And when the US skirts the UN and pressures its European allies to accept enhanced sanctions and reduce economic ties with Iran, China steps in to exploit this new opportunity.
We see a similar (and equally effective) strategy in Sudan. The inaction on Darfur can be laid at China's door--again, thanks to its veto power--and while the West laments the immorality of the Sudanese government, China steps in, buys its oil and builds its infrastructure with the thousands of Chinese engineers sent to Sudan explicitly for that purpose.
Further, it serves the interests of Russia (see Chechnya and the Caucaus region generally) and China (the occupation of Tibet and studied inaction on Burma) to have a neutered UN.
It's a shame, really, that this is not recognized in any demonstrable way by our government (in policy terms). Under the current international order, China and Russia--understandably--will use their UN veto powers to thwart American policy goals.
This is why the US needs to undertake, seriously and without precondition, full and genuine diplomatic efforts with Iran. That is the only meaningful way to achieve our policy goals in that region. Unilateral military action only serves the diplomatic and economic goals of China and Russia while steering the US economy toward disaster and destroying the lives of millions.
China, and to a lesser extent Russia, has demonstrated remarkable foreign policy skills over the past six years. It's veto power in the UN precludes the legitimizing of American policy goals toward Iran. And when the US skirts the UN and pressures its European allies to accept enhanced sanctions and reduce economic ties with Iran, China steps in to exploit this new opportunity.
We see a similar (and equally effective) strategy in Sudan. The inaction on Darfur can be laid at China's door--again, thanks to its veto power--and while the West laments the immorality of the Sudanese government, China steps in, buys its oil and builds its infrastructure with the thousands of Chinese engineers sent to Sudan explicitly for that purpose.
Further, it serves the interests of Russia (see Chechnya and the Caucaus region generally) and China (the occupation of Tibet and studied inaction on Burma) to have a neutered UN.
It's a shame, really, that this is not recognized in any demonstrable way by our government (in policy terms). Under the current international order, China and Russia--understandably--will use their UN veto powers to thwart American policy goals.
This is why the US needs to undertake, seriously and without precondition, full and genuine diplomatic efforts with Iran. That is the only meaningful way to achieve our policy goals in that region. Unilateral military action only serves the diplomatic and economic goals of China and Russia while steering the US economy toward disaster and destroying the lives of millions.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)