A man has been charged and faces death in the bombing of the USS Cole, which took place in October of 2000. He’s also been charged with various other crimes, including being a member of Al Qeada. In theory, bringing a perpetrator of that act, which killed 17 American servicemen, and a member of a notorious terrorist organization to justice is more than a good thing, it’s well, justice. In practice, however, things tend to get more complicated.
The man is named Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. He’s been in US custody for six years. During much of that time, his imprisonment was top secret, known only to the CIA and certain top level federal officials in the Pentagon and above. More recently, he’s been confirmed as one of the men who were tortured (er, aggressively interrogated?) by way of waterboarding between 2002 and 2003. During one of these sessions, he apparently offered a confession to involvement in the destruction of the USS Cole. That confession will now likely be held against him, not in a court of law, but in a secret military tribunal, whose rules are defined by the Executive branch and whose proceedings and evidence will be kept in secret indefinitely. There are claims of other damning evidence potentially existing, but who gets to see it?
It seems Brig. Gen. Thomas W. Hartmann, legal adviser to the U.S. military tribunal system, put it best:
We will look at the evidence, all of the evidence that is associated with the case,” Hartmann said. “While there has been an admission that there was waterboarding, there may well be other evidence in the case. That’s not … necessarily the only part of evidence in the case.
If only you or I or even the defendant (can you imagine them handing over classified information to him?) could be included in ‘we.’ I don’t think this is what they meant by ‘Justice is blind.’
So, the question becomes, how can there be justice when due process of law has been tossed aside? How can justice be served if the evidence of that service is only available to a privileged few? At what point does it become symbolic revenge? Wouldn’t a trial cloaked in secrecy and ending in execution only serve to lend fuel to the fire of fundamentalist ‘Islamists?’
Even a verdict of ‘not guilty’ accomplishes nothing because it won’t prove innocence or guilt; it’s an empty declaration. Besides, it seems likely that such a verdict would only lead to a fine-tuning of the tribunal rules, which appear to be wholly experimental and in-flux. And, in what should be significant, these military tribunals don’t meet UN standards for international trials. In fact, Phillip Alston a UN Envoy from the UN’s Human Rights Council, after completing his review of the upcoming tribunals, had this to say:
It would violate international law to execute someone following this kind of proceeding.
What do these and future tribunal trials truly accomplish? Do they make Americans safer when the void in Al Qeada left by hypothetically guilty ‘detainees’ were filled years ago and the years of uncharged incarceration and admitted torture likely multiplied Al Qeada membership? Are they in the service of justice when the UN (whose resolutions were simultaneously used as justification and dismissed as obstacle for war in Iraq) describes them as violations of international law?
So, the Iraq war has been going on for over 5 years now. It’s cost more than we expected:
It’s lasted longer than we anticipated:
And the lack of a connection between Al Queda and Hussein has been admitted:
As President Bush states in the last video, though, Iraq is still a part of the ‘War on Terror,’ so it must be helping out there, right? Sorry to disappoint. According to the Government Accountability Office, nearly seven years after 9/11 and the US’s invasion of Afghanistan, the border between that country and Pakistan is still a safe haven for Al Queda and it seems anyone else who needs a good place to hide/wage war from:
The United States has not met its national security goals to destroy terrorist threats and close the safe haven in Pakistan’s FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas]. Since 2002, the United States relied principally on the Pakistan military to address U.S. national security goals…GAO found broad agreement, as documented in the National Intelligence Estimate, State, and embassy documents, as well as Defense officials in Pakistan, that al Qaeda had regenerated its ability to attack the United States and had succeeded in establishing a safe haven in Pakistan’s FATA. No comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national security goals in the FATA has been developed…Neither the National Security Council (NSC), NCTC, nor other executive branch departments have developed a comprehensive plan that includes all elements of national power–diplomatic, military, intelligence, development assistance, economic, and law enforcement support–called for by the various national security strategies and Congress. As a result, since 2002, the U.S. embassy in Pakistan has had no Washington-supported, comprehensive plan to combat terrorism and close the terrorist safe haven in the FATA.
While the abstract does point out some positives, like the death/capture of hundreds of Al Queda operatives; it also tempers that with the 1,400 Pakistani special forces that lost their lives in the process. There’s also the glaring concern that we’ve given Pakistan nearly $11 billion to fight for us in
the ‘War on Terror’ since 2002, and are no better off in terms of security against Al Queda than we were on September 11, 2001. Is it just me, or does that seem like kind of a big deal?
Back to Iraq, where there’s a war still raging, costing a shade under $4,000 per second and whose 80,000 or more civilian deaths will lead to untold recruitment opportunities for Al Queda and like-minded Islamo-fascists. Yeah, that Iraq. Turns out, there are big plans for the future of downtown Baghdad, and they center around Marriott, literally. The hotel giant has apparently sealed a deal to build a luxury hotel in a city that has no reliable power or sewer system. I’m sure the Iraqi people, who aren’t currently welcome in the Green Zone where it’s going to be built are thrilled to hear the news, although, I’m not sure how the message will get delivered. There are also plans to build an amusement park, starting with a skateboard park this summer.
Now this is all great news for investors, and the influx of capital into Baghdad will certainly raise the standard of living for certain segments of the population, but am I the only one wondering what effect a skyline and economy shaped by Western corporate interests is going to have on the Iraqi people and the Muslim world, in general? In terms of Al Queda’s grievances, excessive Western influence was pretty high on the list. I’m not suggesting we should give into whatever demands they come up with, but in terms of the ‘War on Terror,’ this seems about an effective a tactic as, well, invading Iraq. Who am I to question the President or the Pentagon, though? They’ve done such a great job so far, right?
With the NY Times’ recent report on how the Pentagon made puppets out of retired generals, the corporate media, and the American people, we’re reminded yet again that if you’re looking for the truth, it’s best to avoid the executive branch.
Is this a new phenomenon, though? Or has it been the status quo since, well, ever? In later posts, I’m going to cover several examples of the executive branch not letting the truth get in the way of an economically beneficial war, but I want to start with Vietnam.
We’ve all heard of the Domino Theory of the Cold War, right? Basically, it said that if one country fell to the Soviet Union, its neighbors were next, one after another, like a cascade of, well, dominoes. As stated by President Eisenhower:
Finally, you have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the ‘falling domino’ principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences.
There were some key assumptions to this theory, though. One is that a communist presence in a country was inherently evil. A second is that any communist presence in a country was a result of external force by the Soviet Union. A third is that the aim of US intervention in these oppressed countries was for the sake of the people living there. If all these were true, then a President would have an airtight justification, even a moral obligation, to pull the trigger whenever and wherever they saw fit. The problem is, what do you do when reality doesn’t fit those assumptions, but you’ve just got to go to war? You lie.
In the case of Vietnam, You pretend that Ho chi Minh and his Viet Cong didn’t have popular support, that instead, the Soviet Union, which was still recovering from WWII, was somehow responsible. You pretend that the people of Vietnam didn’t draw up their own Declaration of Independence after Japan’s withdrawal, that France had a right to return to its imperialist rule over Vietnam after the end of WWII. Of course, when they think no one will hear them, the executive branch tends to be more truthful:
Ho had built the Viet Minh into the only Vietnam-wide political organization capable of effective resistance to either the Japanese or the French. He was the only Vietnamese wartime leader with a national following, and he assured himself wider fealty among the Vietnamese people when in August-September, 1945, he overthrew the Japanese…established the Democractic Republic of Vietnam, and staged receptions for in-coming allied occupation forces…For a few weeks in September, 1945, vietnam was–for the first and only time in its modern history–free of foreign domination, and united from north to south under Ho Chi Minh. —The Pentagon Papers
Despite, this newly found and earned independence, Vietnam was immediately handed back to the French after WWII, but why? If the rhetoric of post-WWII Presidents was to be believed, the newly independent Vietnam should be a beacon of democracy and freedom for Asia, as it was the first country to assert its independence from colonial rule, beating India to its own passively resistant punch. The answer can be found in another one of those ‘never meant to see the light of day’ memos:
Southeast Asia, especially Malaya and Indonesia, is the principal world source of natural rubber and tin, and a producer of pretroleum and other strategically important commodities.
Petroleum, huh. Sound familiar?
Finally, and most telling, is an excerpt from a Joint chiefs Memo to President Kennedy in 1962:
In this regard, should a successful coup overturn Diem, we might discover that many of Diem’s difficult characteristics are national rather than personal. The Vietnamese are tough, tenacious, agile, proud, and extraordinarily self confident. Their recent political tradition is one of the multiplicity of parties and groups inclining toward conspiratorial and violent methods. The disappearance of a strong leader who can dampen and control these tendencies could well mean reversion to a condition of political chaos exploitable by the strongly led and well disciplined communists. If Diem goes, we can be sure of losing his strengths but we cannot be sure of remedying his weaknesses. Achievement of US objectives could be more difficult without Diem than with him. Therefore, it must be made clear to Diem that the United States is prepared and willing to bolster his regime and discourage internal factions which may seek to overthrow him.
I should mention that the ‘strongly led and well disciplined’ communists were the people of Vietnam, not the USSR. They were ‘strongly led’ by the native Ho chi Minh and ‘well disciplined’ by the Declaration of Independence they had written for themselves. The leader in danger of being overthrown, Ngo Dinh Diem, on the other hand, had no popular support. Similar to Ahmed Chalabi in Iraq, Diem was placed in power by the US; he was previously living in New Jersey. From a neutral perspective, the United States had made itself into the Soviet Union of the Domino Theory. To drive the point home, the coup against Diem was allowed to take place, and the generals that carried out kept the CIA informed of their plans, and the CIA kept President Kennedy informed through Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge. No effort was made to warn or protect Diem. He and his brother were executed by the leaders of the coup.
Unforunately, the new leaders were no better at controlling a population that refused to rest until their independence was assured. This led to the need for further lies in order to escalate US involvement, specifically, the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The story, which resulted in the Congressional resolution that legalized full scale war in Vietnam, was as follows:
At 8:08 a.m. Greenwich meridian time, August 2,1964, the United States destroyer Maddox was on routine patrol in international waters in the Gulf of Tonkin, proceeding in a southeasterly direction away from the coast about 30 miles at sea from the mainland of North VietNam. The Maddox was approached by three high-speed North Vietnamese torpedo boats in attack formation. When it was evident that these torpedo boats intended to take offensive action, the Maddox, in accordance with naval practice, fired three warning shots across the bows of the approaching vessels. At approximately the same time, the aircraft carrier Ticonderoga, which was also in international waters and had been alerted to the impending attack, sent out four aircraft to provide cover for the Maddox, the pilots being under orders not to fire unless they or the Maddox were fired upon first…Our hopes that this was an isolated incident did not last long. At 2:35 p.m. Greenwich meridian time, August 4, when it was nighttime in the Gulf of Tonkin, the destroyers Maddox and C. Turner Joy were again subjected to an armed attack by an undetermined number of motor torpedo boats of the North Vietnamese navy. This time the American vessels were 65 miles from shore, twice as far out on the high seas as on the occasion of the previous attack. This time numerous torpedoes were fired. That attack lasted for over 2 hours.
The truth, as it would later be fought for and released, was that the CIA was actively attacking coastal installations, throwing the ‘unprovoked’ claim out the window. Not to mention, the ‘attacked’ ships were part of the Desoto program, which meant that they had electronic spy equipment on board, making it the opposite of a ‘routine patrol.’ Also, the ships had authorization to come in as close as 12 miles to the coast. So much for the ‘international waters’ claim. To top it all off, the second attack, the one that ‘lasted for over 2 hours’ and destroyed hopes ‘that this was an isolated incident’ never took place. It…never…took…place. The August 4 attack, as reported to then SecDef Robert McNamara, was nothing more than ‘freak radar echoes.’ The Viet Cong were literally too busy salvaging their lost ships from two days earlier. It seems the only difference between the case for war in Vietnam and the one for Iraq is the length of time it took for the truth to come out.
So remember, when your President says he has to repeat the lie until it’s accepted as truth, when he laughs about ‘catapult[ing] the propaganda,’ it’s not because he’s joking. It’s because it seems there’s nothing anyone can do about it, and to the corporations and wealthy minority he serves, that’s hilarious. Now, to be fair, we as consumers are addicted to the economic benefits these wars bring. We don’t find our outrage until the cost outweighs the benefits. The blue pill is much easier to swallow. I suppose that’s why “All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.”
For the other side of this and many other events in American history, I highly recommend People’s History of the United States: 1492 to Present (P.S.). I don’t share Zinn’s political philosophy, but the problems that lead him to his conclusions are real and are laid out clearly and concisely in his work.
It seems the arms dealer branch of the defense department made another oops involving nuclear technology. At least this time, it didn’t involve completed warheads.
The New York Times is reporting a slight distribution error in the arms dealer branch of the defense department. Turns out, when Taiwan asked for batteries, they got fuses for nuclear warheads instead, an error that went undetected for a year and a half.
The fuses have now been returned, and an investigation and confirmation of inventory will be launched, likely similar to the investigation launched after last year’s ‘inexcusable’ mistake that resulted in armed nuclear warheads flying full across the US from North to South. It would be nice if this earlier investigation revealed the fuse fiasco, but I’m afraid Taiwan’s integrity is our savior here. They discovered and reported the error to the US.
While mistakenly shipping highly specialized nuclear missile fuses won’t likely bring about a nuclear driven ‘terrorist’ attack, there’s no reason to think that any given nuclear missile part isn’t capable of being similarly mislabeled and shipped to any of our arms clients (and we have many), since we were unable to detect this or last year’s nuclear errors before they took place.
I wonder if the attorney general would be surprised yet again at the scope and location of this threat?
Finally, one has to ask, if Russia or China made a similar shipping error to one of its arms recipients, how understanding would the US be? Let’s hope China, who isn’t exactly friendly with Taiwan and has been financing our deficit for years, is feeling generous.
Here are some links that are sure to make your day. They’re all about steroids in sports, celebrity drug addiction, and ex-governor’s sex lives. Nothing that would lead one to question authority, I swear.
No matter how corrupt and sloppy the establishment press becomes, they always find a way to go lower. Time Magazine has just published what it purports to be a news article by Massimo Calabresi claiming that “nobody cares” about the countless abuses of spying powers by the Bush administration; that “Americans are ready to trade diminished privacy, and protection from search and seizure, in exchange for the promise of increased protection of their physical security”; and that the case against unchecked government surveillance powers “hasn’t convinced the people.” Not a single fact — not one — is cited to support these sweeping, false opinions. Glenn Greenwald’s Unclaimed Territory
A confidential memo obtained by Wikileaks shows that not only has the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission created an insider trading loophole big enough to drive a truck through, but that Wall Street is taking full advantage of it, establishing ‘how-to’ programs and even client service divisions to help well-heeled clients circumvent insider trading regulations. Wikileaks
Foreign Policy has charted the progression/regression of the Iraq war across several domestic and Iraqi metrics, including casualties, electricity, phones, prison population, and more. Very interesting, but unfortunately, doesn’t include the cost of the war as a function of time, which I would like to see charted alongside the ‘surge.’
One of the keys to restarting the American economy is staring us in the face. While our future hinges on the rapid adoption of fuel-efficient vehicles, our government stands in the way of a rapid free market solution. mpgomatic.com
. I don’t share Zinn’s political philosophy, but the problems that lead him to his conclusions are real and are laid out clearly and concisely in his work.
