A Friend In Deed?

According to published reports Pakistani nuclear scientists have been shopping around advanced nuclear technology to the highest bidders. Advanced blueprints have been found on computers that belonged to these scientists that were part of a nuclear smuggling network headed by Abdul Qadeer Khan. Our government has a knack of creating these madmen through a deliberate policy of benign neglect and a policy of supporting tyranny for the sake of political expediency. This is another example of how our unwillingness to gauge the world realistically and our inability to access friends and foes has created a possible nightmare scenario in the near future.

The plans appear to closely resemble a nuclear weapon that was built by Pakistan and first tested exactly a decade ago. But when confronted with the design by officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency last year, Pakistani officials insisted that Dr. Khan, who has been lobbying in recent months to be released from the loose house arrest that he has been under since 2004, did not have access to Pakistan’s weapons designs.[1]

So instead of confronting our so-called friends who are proliferating nuclear technology, we are allowing political and philosophical agendas to dictate our foreign policy. Can anyone say Saudi Arabia? So, lets see what our billions of dollars of public foreign aid has bought us. Pakistan has more instability than ever, they have been an indifferent ally in tracking Islamic extremists in their tribal regions, and we have known for a long time their involvement in the proliferation of nuclear technology. What bothers me the most is how many times this same scenario has been played out over the course of our nations history. It’s like for the last 30 years we have been executing the same whack foreign policy in country after country with the same disastrous results. Cuba, Panama, Iran, Argentina, Philippines, Haiti, and so on and so on.

Since 9/11, the United States has given over $10 billion in aid to Pakistan. The bulk of that amount—more than $6 billion—has come in the form of “Coalition Support Funds,” which are intended to reimburse U.S. allies for their assistance in the “war on terrorism.” Fifteen percent of the total aid has gone toward security assistance, which Pakistan has used primarily to purchase major weapons systems, while another 15 percent has gone toward budget support, which represents direct cash transfers to the Pakistani government.[2]

The time has come for us as a nation to destroy whatever document has been used to craft our foreign policy, because it has not worked. We are no safer as a nation, the countries have no more stability, and the world is no safer of a place. These Presidential doctrines have instead of fostering peace, democracy and world development have had the complete opposite effect. The only beneficiaries from these policies have been the arms manufacturers, war profiteers, and political cronies.

I wonder after reading these reports what the wing-nuts who were up in arms about Senator Obama’s statement about going into Pakistan after terrorists now have to say? We don’t treat our friends this way they exclaimed, well we now see how our friends treat us. The Pakistanis are understandably apprehensive about going after Khan who is considered a national hero by the people of Pakistan and the father of their nuclear development. The government of Pakistan has never really exerted a lot of pressure on Khan to disclose the degree of proliferation of his network. As these reports demonstrate while the Pakistanis may consider the episode closed the rest of the world will be dealing with the fall-out for years to come.

However, in recent days top American intelligence officials, who declined to speak about the discovery on the record because the information is classified, said that they had been unable to determine whether Iran or other countries had obtained the weapons design. Pakistan has refused to allow American investigators to directly interview Dr. Khan, who is considered a hero there as the father of its nuclear program. In recent weeks the only communications about him between the United States and Pakistan’s new government have been warnings from Washington not to allow him to be released.[3]


[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/world/asia/15nuke.html?hp
[2] http://www.fpa.org/topics_info2414/topics_info_show.htm?doc_id=592512
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/world/asia/15nuke.html?hp

Read more!

Wake Up America, The Holocaust Has Begun

I wonder if the people living in those fascist countries during WWII knew when they crossed the line. I mean was there a single moment in time that crystallized in their minds, that oh boy we have reached a new level. I wonder if the lines had become so blurred that they could not distinguish when they had crossed the line. As history has shown, once that line was crossed there was no turning back, anything was possible. Well, for those who don’t know or are too blurred eye to notice, we have crossed a dangerous line. The Bush Administration has badgered, lied, and coerced the American public and lawmakers to turn a blind eye to torture. Make no mistake about it, we are torturing people.

President Bush today delivered a stern defense of the nation's detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects, saying that lives have been saved by the aggressive questioning of suspects and that any interrogation tactics have been in compliance with the country's "international obligations" and been fully disclosed to "appropriate members" of Congress.

Faced with a backlash over a secret Justice Department memo that some lawmakers say authorized the use of torture, Bush said in a brief statement today that Americans expected the administration to protect them from future terrorist attacks.[1]

Using the justification that we are saving lives, this President has placed us on a kamikaze flight that will only end in our self-destruction. The destruction won’t come from some unnamed faceless terrorists, but from the cancer that has been created from within. Fear has replaced rational thinking and so everyone has turned a blind eye to the ugliness that the war on terror has become.

"I have put this program in place for a reason, that is to better protect the American people," Bush said. "There are highly trained professionals questioning these extremists and terrorists. We have professionals who are trained in this kind of work that are going to get the information to protect the American people."[2]

The President is not being truthful when he makes this statement because we had no professionals trained in torture techniques, remember we didn’t do torture until the President authorized it. We had to contact our more nefarious allies to get some torture tips and instructional videos. And once again he is hiding behind the disingenuous lie that torture saves lives. How long are we going to live under the threat and the fears of 9/11, yes Americans were killed but not to the level that we have to accept these measures quietly. The death of 2,000 Americans means we have to give up our rights and our freedoms, that we now condone torture? I don’t think so, the death toll would have to be a lot higher for me to surrender these quietly.

With virtually no experience in interrogations, the C.I.A. had constructed its program in a few harried months by consulting Egyptian and Saudi intelligence officials and copying Soviet interrogation methods long used in training American servicemen to withstand capture. The agency officers questioning prisoners constantly sought advice from lawyers thousands of miles away.

“We were getting asked about combinations — ‘Can we do this and this at the same time?’” recalled Paul C. Kelbaugh, a veteran intelligence lawyer who was deputy legal counsel at the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorist Center from 2001 to 2003.[3]

If we allow this to continue in our name, then we are no better than those we prosecuted after WWII. They also claimed to just be following orders. We have crossed the line of morality and just because they parade out “Christian leaders” who condone it doesn’t make it right. Remember the Nazis had religious people excusing their behavior as well; they were good Christian folk who allowed the destruction of millions. There will always be those who will misquote scripture to condone their own agendas in the name of God. God does not condone torture of any human no matter what their race, culture, or religion. It amazes me how silent the voices of God’s ambassadors are as America continues its rapid descent into the abyss. They meet in Salt Lake City to discuss abortion, but can’t spare a moment to discuss the torture of God’s creation and their brothers.

The destruction that resulted in the Holocaust wasn’t started all at once, I’m sure there was a gradual progression from a little “enhanced interrogation” to “holocaust”. Once we accept torture as an acceptable treatment of our fellow human beings what is there to stop of us from committing more heinous acts. Where will it end, after we have destroyed a million Arab heathens (terrorists) for the sake of democracy? Oh and by the way they won’t be needing this oil they so generously left us.

I’m sorry, but just taking the word of George W. Bush is not enough for me. If he says we are not torturing people, this will ease the consciences of some enough to sleep at night, I on the other hand am not so trusting of a man who deliberately lied to invade a country so he and some of his Neo-Con friends could experiment with their empire building ideas. Well, if the President said it; I’m sure there were those in Germany who said the same thing. No my friends we have to let this President and any future President know that we will not stand for torture of any humans, not because it does or doesn’t work but because it is wrong, immoral, and inhumane. We raise a giant fuss about Michael Vick and his dogs, yet allow people to be tortured by our government and let out not a yelp. I’m sure those dogs went down with more bark and bite then we are. We all should feel a little bit ashamed by all of this, I know I do.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100500443.html?hpid=topnews
[2] Ibid
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

Read more!

America’s Fox News Arab Style

It appears that freedom American style is not real freedom. To help combat the supposed distorted news that the Arab language media is broadcasting, we have created our own media company directed at the Arab viewers. Al Hurra, is suppose to be our counter to the “terrorist views and anti-American sentiment being broadcast by Al Jazeera and other Middle Eastern press.

It appears that none of the top executives of Al Hurra speak Arabic, so they have no clue if the message being broadcast even meets the stated policy of the station. These executives must rely upon the Arabic speaking employees to police the broadcasts.

“Al Hurra was supposed to follow that tradition. But the station’s executives admitted Wednesday that they could not be completely sure that Al Hurra was doing so, because none of the top executives speak Arabic.

“How do you know that they’re being true to the mission if you don’t know what’s being said?” Mr. Ackerman demanded.”

Needless to say this arrangement has allowed the network to air a 30 minute speech by Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, which is considered a terrorist organization by this government. They also provided extensive coverage to the Holocaust conference held by Iran.

“But Mr. Blaya also contended in an interview on Wednesday that Al Hurra would lose all credibility if it did not give air time to people who disagree with American policy. He said that complaints about air time for Mr. Haniya were unjustified because he legitimately holds the post of Palestinian prime minister.

Mr. Blaya also said it was ironic that the government was seeking to promote American values like democracy and a free press while at the same time trying to censor what is shown in the station.

“That’s the difference between a free media and propaganda,” he said.”[1]

Mr. Blaya raises an interesting question, do we really want to promote freedom of the press or are we merely using our propaganda to offset their perceived propaganda? This is similar the controversy surrounding the funding of the Arts. We want to fund the Arts, so long as they do not offend our sensibilities. We want to promote freedom so long as it is our version of freedom. A free press implies exactly that, a free press. Just because the “free press” in America has been co-opted by this government, does that mean that this is our standard?

Do I want to hear terrorist giving their diatribe on a US sponsored network? No, but at the same time in order for anyone to take this network seriously they must report other viewpoints even if those views run counter to our own. If we do not allow the network to report all of the news, then we are in fact creating an Arab version of Fox, “fair and balanced” propaganda. The answer to lies is not more lies, the answer to darkness is not more darkness; it is the light of the truth. I believe that the truth will stand on its own; it does not need anyone to co-sign for it. I believe that if we provide them with the facts, they will make the correct decision.

The problem with anti-Americanism in the Middle East is not who is delivering the news, it is the policies that we are pursuing. It is the disconnection from what we are saying we stand for and what we are doing that is creating the problems. It doesn’t matter how many stations we have broadcasting how great we are and all of our virtues, if we continue to pursue colonial policies people will continue to resist. Not even Bill O’Reilly and put a good spin on that.

When asked about the reason for the difficulty of the network to counter the anti-American sentiment, one witness argued that it was the policies and not the messenger. Should we be attempting to alter perception or policy?

“But those efforts do little to counter the rising anger among Arabs over the American role in Iraq and the Bush administration’s refusal to shut down the military prison at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba.

“One witness before this subcommittee last week argued that, ‘Quote, “It’s the policy, stupid,” close quote,’ ” acknowledged Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, although, he added, “I’m not one who believes we should significantly reorder our policy toward the Middle East.”[2]

Ok, so it’s the policies that are driving the negative feelings, but let’s not change the policies. Instead, let’s show them how these policies are benefiting them. The other stations just have it all wrong. It’s like the American media downplaying all the success that is going in Iraq. If this in fact were true then why isn’t Fox reporting on all the successes?

---

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/washington/17hurra.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/washington/17hurra.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Read more!

We Don’t Need No Stinkin Lawyers

In an effort to continue to circumvent due process, this administration wants to limit access to the detainees in Guantanamo and their attorneys, attorneys which by the way they didn’t want them to have in the first place.

The Justice Department has asked a federal court to impose these tighter restrictions on the attorneys. They argue that it is a breach in security to have them meeting so much with their clients and also to be able to view classified documents. These classified documents are the ones being using to prove the status of the detainees. This is eerily similar to the run up to the war strategy. The strategy where the administration would plant a story in the media and then quote the story later as proof of their quote’s authenticity, better known as a circular argument and propaganda.

Imagine being on trial for your life and the judge saying, “You are meeting too often with your lawyer and he cannot see the evidence against you.” When did America stop being America? Was it September 11, 2001? If it was, then all those people died in vain and we have made a mockery of their memorial. While I personally consider lawyers one step up from earthworm on the food chain, if I were fighting for my life in a court of law, I would probably have one. Are not the fundamental rights of being a human being reserved for those people in our control, but outside of our borders as well? One wise American said that there are certain rights that are inalienable, they belong to everyone. The true test of a democracy is not how it treats its allies, but how it treats its enemies. The world is watching us to see if those noble words we espouse real or just something we put on cereal boxes.

If these men are who we say they are, then won’t that come out in a trial with or without attorneys? Can the attorneys make evidence disappear? Either justice works or it doesn’t and if it doesn’t then lets dispense with the formalities and start executing these men now. That would be more humane than what they are receiving now.

Let’s be clear, this isn’t about lawyers or national security risks. This new strategy is about keeping dirty laundry in the hamper. This administration does not want its ugly secrets to become public and by keeping these attorneys at bay they can hope to continue their campaign of terror. Some of these attorneys have brought to light much of the information we have of the deplorable conditions found at Guantanamo, exposing this dark place to the light of morality. By doing so, they have now become “enablers of the terrorists” and therefore security risks. This argument has just about worn thin, anyone who does not fall in and goose step to the administration’s beat is at best naïve and at worse a terrorist sympathizer. The exercise of our democratic rights should not come with questions of our patriotism or our feelings about terrorists. Torture or terrorists should not be the framework of the argument. One should be able to disagree with one and not be accepting of the other. This is not the 3^rd grade playground; we are adults who have the capacity to see the world in more shades than these. So, according to the Bush administration we don’t need no stinkin lawyers!

Read more!

Defending the Indefensible

Here is an excerpt from one of the confessions of an “enemy combatant” that claimed to be tortured by US interrogators. Read it and then please consider how it makes you feel as an American, not a Republican or a Democrat, but just as an American.

“PRESIDENT (of the tribunal): Please describe the methods that were used.

DETAINEE: (CENSORED) What else do I want to say? (CENSORED) There were doing so many things. What else did they did? (CENSORED) After that another method of torture began. (CENSORED) They used to ask me questions and the investigator after that used to laugh. And, I used to answer the answer that I knew. And if I didn’t replay what I heard, he used to (CENSORED).”[1]

Officials defended this censorship by arguing that interrogation methods are so secret that they cannot be discussed, even by the prisoner. But they also said that Al Qaeda members are trained to claim torture and that Mr. Nashiri lied. If so, why censor the transcript? His answers can’t help Al Qaeda. Tragically, the most likely answer is to spare United States intelligence agents and their bosses, who could face charges if the Military Commissions Act is ever repealed or rewritten. The law gives a retroactive carte blanche to American interrogators for any abuse they may have committed.[2]

How can any person who respects the freedom and rights of humans defend this type of behavior? Have we become so afraid after 9/11 that we are willing to condone any type of behavior in the name of fighting terrorism? If we continue to follow this path; what will separate us from them? It is a slippery slope that we are on folks and I believe that once we start down this slope it will be difficult if not impossible to turn back.

While the loss of 2,973 Americans[3] is tragic and unjustified under any conditions, can we now justify holding 6.6 billion people hostage as a result? We have declared war not only on the terrorists but on the whole world as well. When we start using the language of “either you are with us or against us” we force the world and ourselves to either accept everything we do or “embolden the terrorists”. Life despite what some in this administration would like us to believe is never that black and white. By defining the struggle in those terms we declare war on ourselves and our democracy. No one said having a democracy would be easy, no one said defending a democracy would be easy either. Living in a democracy we put our beliefs to the test every day. Those beliefs include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We believe that these are unalienable rights granted by a beneficent Creator.

I do not believe that the way you defeat evil is with evil. I do not believe that the way you save a democracy is with a dictatorship. We have to kill the democracy to save it? I am not following that logic. As a democracy we have to maintain the high ground even when that high ground is difficult. I submit that it is when democracy is the toughest to defend, is when it must be defended the more. There are those who want to take shortcuts and easy outs to defeat this invisible enemy, but there are none. It is frustrating fighting a war without borders or an enemy with no state, but we will not defeat this enemy by might. We can only win this war by our ideals and our leadership, not by torture and injustice. This administration has lost the high ground in this war. By condoning torture and turning this into a war of cultures they have lowered our standing not just with our enemies, but with our allies as well. In the long run how we choose to defend our democracy will determine if we save our democracy. You will never know love, until the unlovable shows up. Anyone can love the cute kitten, but it is the wolf that truly tests our doctrine of love. Some people believe that democracy cannot survive terrorism; I believe that terrorism cannot survive a true democracy. One thing that the fall of communism should have taught us is that everyone wants to live in freedom. That freedom is defined in different ways by different people, but isn’t that what freedom is. We cannot expect everyone’s freedom to look like ours nor compel them to make it so. All that we can do is to promote an atmosphere where freedom in any form can flourish. That process though must begin at home with us, we must say no to those who want to lead us astray from democracy in the name of war. Torture can never be condoned under any circumstances in a democracy. By resorting to torture we are demonstrating to our enemies and our friends that democracy does not work or that our belief in it is not real. They can then tell their potential converts, “See we told you it was not genuine or that it will not work.” Our country has been the greatest experiment in human history. Can people from so many different backgrounds come together for a common cause and live in peace?

There is a principle in our system of justice that states it is better to let nine guilty men go free, than to punish one innocent man. We do not always live up to that ideal, but it is that goal that separates us from those who choose to attack us. The system of secret prisons, torture, and state sponsored kidnappings must end. Our continued use of places like Guantanamo and imprisonment without any redress undermines our democracy not only in the world, but at home as well. Our domestic policies that place everyone under the umbrella of suspicion are not the answer to terrorism. I say that it is these policies, not the questioning of them, which in fact are emboldening the terrorist. The more they can change our democracy into a fascist system the more they win. We must stop defending the indefensible.

---

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/opinion/06fri1.html

[2] Ibid

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks

Read more!