Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Election Results - Happy Birthday Osama!
Just kidding.
On a more serious note, every Democratic victory speech contained at least one sentence like "The American people have voted for a change" or "a new direction" or "something different". Soon-to-be the first female majority House speaker Nancy Pelosi mentioned in her own victor's cackle last night that there would be a change of direction in Iraq.
In light of this, let's return to the question posed earlier as to whether or not a Democrat-majority house is going cause any significant changes in Iraq. And keep in mind that this includes changes brought about by other nations/groups, who might react to news of a Democratic victory linked to the idea that the American public are dissatisfied with Bush and the Republican party.
To be perfectly honest, I'm more interested in the latter right now. I honestly don't think there's going to be a lot of Democratic initiative to radically transform the current policy in Iraq. We're not going to withdraw, but now it'll be harder to increase the troop number. Heck, the only two exerpts from Pelosi played on the radio mention "changes in Iraq" right after a promise to increase minimum wage.
Latin America's reaction will be very interesting to watch. Keep in mind that Daniel Ortega was confirmed as President of Nicaragua. If you've heard that name a lot recently and wondered who he is - look him up. If we had Chavez pleading with Americans to impeach Bush and read Chomsky before, now we'll probably have him demanding Cheney's balls on a plate and reading Shatner's Tekwar.
Someone is going to announce that terrorists have promised renewed attacks. UBL himself may release another late-night Jihadi infomercial - hell now that the Democrats are in power he might even show up on the Daily Show.
Now, what about China or North Korea? Iran?
And here's one final question. If Democratic countrol of the House, and possibly senate, leads to decisions even more unpopular with the American public than the (until January) current Republican incumbents, what sort of effects will a conservative backlash have?
On a more serious note, every Democratic victory speech contained at least one sentence like "The American people have voted for a change" or "a new direction" or "something different". Soon-to-be the first female majority House speaker Nancy Pelosi mentioned in her own victor's cackle last night that there would be a change of direction in Iraq.
In light of this, let's return to the question posed earlier as to whether or not a Democrat-majority house is going cause any significant changes in Iraq. And keep in mind that this includes changes brought about by other nations/groups, who might react to news of a Democratic victory linked to the idea that the American public are dissatisfied with Bush and the Republican party.
To be perfectly honest, I'm more interested in the latter right now. I honestly don't think there's going to be a lot of Democratic initiative to radically transform the current policy in Iraq. We're not going to withdraw, but now it'll be harder to increase the troop number. Heck, the only two exerpts from Pelosi played on the radio mention "changes in Iraq" right after a promise to increase minimum wage.
Latin America's reaction will be very interesting to watch. Keep in mind that Daniel Ortega was confirmed as President of Nicaragua. If you've heard that name a lot recently and wondered who he is - look him up. If we had Chavez pleading with Americans to impeach Bush and read Chomsky before, now we'll probably have him demanding Cheney's balls on a plate and reading Shatner's Tekwar.
Someone is going to announce that terrorists have promised renewed attacks. UBL himself may release another late-night Jihadi infomercial - hell now that the Democrats are in power he might even show up on the Daily Show.
Now, what about China or North Korea? Iran?
And here's one final question. If Democratic countrol of the House, and possibly senate, leads to decisions even more unpopular with the American public than the (until January) current Republican incumbents, what sort of effects will a conservative backlash have?
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Ortega II: The Rise of The Marxists?
Unfortunately, Dr. Duke Nukem's post on the apparent return of Daniel Ortega to power in Nicaragua didn't get quite the attention it deserved. This is understandable though, because the guilty verdict of Saddam is, while inevitable, very important.
Taking a timeout from Saddam-talk for a second (My two cents: the rest of his life spent in solitary confinement, followed by an eternity in hell, is more of a punishment for a man who spent the last 25 plus years in extreme luxury than a quick death at the gallows), I'd like to return to the topic of Marxism returning to the Western Hemisphere, and most importantly, why it isn't a big deal.
Firstly, it is important to point out that Ortega appears to have been democratically elected. So, I don't want to hear anybody bitching about him getting elected. Secondly, Ortega's election has no implications on American national security. The USSR doesn't exist anymore, so there is no fear that Nicaragua will be a launching pad for ICBMs. To be upset that leftists have come into power is sooo Cold War. Ortega himself has said that, while he is still a leftist, he no longer considers himself a Marxist--but a pragmatist. He even chose a political opponent as his running mate. The NY Times reports that his election seems to be as much a result of blowback against the corrupt former regime as anything else.
What type affect this could have on the US, if any, is in economic terms. I'm not well-versed in how the Nicagaruan government operates, but maybe Ortega's ascenion could result in the Nicagaruan government pulling out of CAFTA and future trade deals? The people of Latin America see on the one hand some countries in their region fairing poorly with free trade (Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia), but on the other hand have seen just as many countries succeed with it (Chile, Brazil, Columbia, Costa Rica). Maybe Nicagurans are ready for a new approach. I don't think walking away from free trade deals is the right way to go, but they'll figure that out by themselves.
Lastly, who cares if he has support from Hugo Chavez? Recent elections in the Andes and Central America have shown that Chavez's support is just as often a "death kiss" as it is helpful. I'd be willing to vote for Ortega based on the simple fact that Oliver North took the time to campaign against him.
Taking a timeout from Saddam-talk for a second (My two cents: the rest of his life spent in solitary confinement, followed by an eternity in hell, is more of a punishment for a man who spent the last 25 plus years in extreme luxury than a quick death at the gallows), I'd like to return to the topic of Marxism returning to the Western Hemisphere, and most importantly, why it isn't a big deal.
Firstly, it is important to point out that Ortega appears to have been democratically elected. So, I don't want to hear anybody bitching about him getting elected. Secondly, Ortega's election has no implications on American national security. The USSR doesn't exist anymore, so there is no fear that Nicaragua will be a launching pad for ICBMs. To be upset that leftists have come into power is sooo Cold War. Ortega himself has said that, while he is still a leftist, he no longer considers himself a Marxist--but a pragmatist. He even chose a political opponent as his running mate. The NY Times reports that his election seems to be as much a result of blowback against the corrupt former regime as anything else.
What type affect this could have on the US, if any, is in economic terms. I'm not well-versed in how the Nicagaruan government operates, but maybe Ortega's ascenion could result in the Nicagaruan government pulling out of CAFTA and future trade deals? The people of Latin America see on the one hand some countries in their region fairing poorly with free trade (Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia), but on the other hand have seen just as many countries succeed with it (Chile, Brazil, Columbia, Costa Rica). Maybe Nicagurans are ready for a new approach. I don't think walking away from free trade deals is the right way to go, but they'll figure that out by themselves.
Lastly, who cares if he has support from Hugo Chavez? Recent elections in the Andes and Central America have shown that Chavez's support is just as often a "death kiss" as it is helpful. I'd be willing to vote for Ortega based on the simple fact that Oliver North took the time to campaign against him.
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow...
My Dear Mr. Cooke:
In terms of summarizing your argument in a word, I can’t decide between adorable and cheeky. Not only did you ignore my reasoning, you introduced an inaccurate definition with this Merriam-Webster business. Had you bothered with the authoritative dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, you would have found: “A. adj. Of or pertaining to a system of government which tolerates only one political party, to which all other institutions are subordinated, and which usu. demands the complete subservience of the individual to the State.” I agree that a two party system makes us less exciting to watch, but it also negates the possibility that we are totalitarian.
More to the point, you claim: “Execution is an exercise of absolute state authority, in a way that taxes or gun control simply aren't.” That doesn’t quite satisfy, does it? To use your own language, taxes and execution “are different in degree, not in kind.” I think a debate on the death penalty is something worth having, though I’m not certain if this is the appropriate forum for it. Let’s try and focus on the case at hand:
Do you agree that crimes against humanity are in a category somewhat more severe than the common criminal? Evidence is easily available for the former, though the latter is oftentimes mired in doubt or dubious police tactics. There is a fantastic argument against capitol punishment for common criminals; it doesn’t persuade me, but it’s a valid argument. Saddam didn’t kill his wife’s lover while in the heat of passion nor did he steal a television from Sears; Saddam decimated generations. Keep your eye on the ball, my friend.
If proportionality should be a guideline in meting out punishment, what is an appropriate response to genocide, using chemical weapons, and wasting a nation over a 24 year period? I simply don't understand how jail-time is a fair way for Iraqis to show their disdain for Saddam's crimes. Sometimes, with appropriate evidence and appropriate aggrievement, states can and should decide that the actions of an individual are so egregious that they only proportional response is death.
Saddam’s guilt is beyond the shadow of a doubt; he videotaped many of his crimes, bragged about them, and used them to subdue his populace. Saddam, ever the legal scholar, has confined his complaints largely to procedural matters and screaming exhortations. Was his trial 100% perfect? No, and what trial is? The fact that he received a trial at all is remarkable in a state embroiled in civil war with only the tatters of government. Hell, when Saddam came to power in 1979, he did so personally at the barrel of a gun. Where is your concern and compassion for this? When I read opinions criticizing the trial, I can’t help but note a lack of commiseration for his millions of victims. Critique at will, but at least acknowledge the man’s crimes.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Count me out
1. Free Saddam? Well, probably not. But when three of his defense attorneys are murdered during the trial, and the chief judge is forced to resign because of political pressure, a.k.a. fear... well, it's not exactly a high point in the history of jurisprudence. As the Human Rights Watch page to which you linked points out, the Iraqi tribunal doesn't even have a requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
You say that my objections are useless, and the real question is whether international and Iraqi law allow the court to sentence Saddam to death. You've got it ass-backwards. From a practical standpoint, it doesn't matter if the legal right exists. What, are EU troops going to extradite the judges to the Hague and put them on trial? What matters are issues of perception, and while I agree that the court system is a brave exercise in creating Iraqi institutions, it could certainly have been done better. Sentencing Saddam to death without an actual verdict, and not requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, lowers the percieved legitimacy of the trial.
2. Execution=taxes=gun control. Riiiight.
What is totalitarianism? Here's a not-bad definition, from Merriam-Webster:
You can't, in any logically consistent way, support the death penalty without agreeing to the concept in part 2 above.
Execution is an exercise of absolute state authority, in a way that taxes or gun control simply aren't. Death is absolute.
If a state claims or exercises absolute authority over its subjects, then it's a totalitarian state.
If a state does not claim or exercise absolute authority over its subjects, then it's not a totalitarian state.
There are a lot of things totalitarian states do that other states do, too -- send mail, build roads, shoot fireworks on national holidays. What makes a state totalitarian is absolute state power over its subjects.
On a side note, did you just quote H.L. Mencken for moral authority? Niiiice.
And if you do, in fact, "want to see the plan," the Human Rights Watch link provided a few posts ago has some decent ideas on how a better-structured trial court would have looked.
You say that my objections are useless, and the real question is whether international and Iraqi law allow the court to sentence Saddam to death. You've got it ass-backwards. From a practical standpoint, it doesn't matter if the legal right exists. What, are EU troops going to extradite the judges to the Hague and put them on trial? What matters are issues of perception, and while I agree that the court system is a brave exercise in creating Iraqi institutions, it could certainly have been done better. Sentencing Saddam to death without an actual verdict, and not requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, lowers the percieved legitimacy of the trial.
2. Execution=taxes=gun control. Riiiight.
What is totalitarianism? Here's a not-bad definition, from Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: to·tal·i·tar·i·an·ism
1 : centralized control by an autocratic authority
2 : the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority
You can't, in any logically consistent way, support the death penalty without agreeing to the concept in part 2 above.
Execution is an exercise of absolute state authority, in a way that taxes or gun control simply aren't. Death is absolute.
If a state claims or exercises absolute authority over its subjects, then it's a totalitarian state.
If a state does not claim or exercise absolute authority over its subjects, then it's not a totalitarian state.
There are a lot of things totalitarian states do that other states do, too -- send mail, build roads, shoot fireworks on national holidays. What makes a state totalitarian is absolute state power over its subjects.
On a side note, did you just quote H.L. Mencken for moral authority? Niiiice.
And if you do, in fact, "want to see the plan," the Human Rights Watch link provided a few posts ago has some decent ideas on how a better-structured trial court would have looked.
A National Security Breach
An article in the 11/13 issue of Newsweek discusses what one Los Alamos official calls, "potentially the greatest breach of national security" in decades.
Several Los Alamos police officers were dispatched to a trailer park in New Mexico last week expecting to find a domestic dispute. The police entered the trailor to find the makings of a crystal-meth lab. Dozens of items were taken with the police but none more disturbing than three computer storage devices.
On the memory sticks was more than 400 pages of classified documents from Los Alamos computers containing, among other information stamped SECRET- RESTRICTED DATA, data on nuclear- weapons designs. The trailor owner, Jessica Quintana, had recently been employed by a contractor and had been assigned to scan aging paper documents into a digital format.
Quintana had been granted a "Q clearance" giving her access to nuclear weapons designs. She was also able to override the security locks on U.S. Nuclear Weapons. While the hard drives are kept in cages (to prevent such an incidence) they are "rarely locked" and Quintana was able to access everything and take everything home with her. She claims she downloaded the info after a deadline forced her to work at home and had intended to destroy all evidence when she was done.
I read this article and asked if it was a joke. It is really possible for someone to download on a jump drive nuclear weapons designs and then leave the government facility? That is absurd. Does anyone else find it odd that a girl with this kind of security clearance was also growing meth? What kind of precautions are taken to evaluate individuals with security clearances? Clearly, she does not have the best judgement.
Is this, as the official states, one of the greatest national security breaches in decades? I will leave that to my much more intelligent classmates to answer...
Several Los Alamos police officers were dispatched to a trailer park in New Mexico last week expecting to find a domestic dispute. The police entered the trailor to find the makings of a crystal-meth lab. Dozens of items were taken with the police but none more disturbing than three computer storage devices.
On the memory sticks was more than 400 pages of classified documents from Los Alamos computers containing, among other information stamped SECRET- RESTRICTED DATA, data on nuclear- weapons designs. The trailor owner, Jessica Quintana, had recently been employed by a contractor and had been assigned to scan aging paper documents into a digital format.
Quintana had been granted a "Q clearance" giving her access to nuclear weapons designs. She was also able to override the security locks on U.S. Nuclear Weapons. While the hard drives are kept in cages (to prevent such an incidence) they are "rarely locked" and Quintana was able to access everything and take everything home with her. She claims she downloaded the info after a deadline forced her to work at home and had intended to destroy all evidence when she was done.
I read this article and asked if it was a joke. It is really possible for someone to download on a jump drive nuclear weapons designs and then leave the government facility? That is absurd. Does anyone else find it odd that a girl with this kind of security clearance was also growing meth? What kind of precautions are taken to evaluate individuals with security clearances? Clearly, she does not have the best judgement.
Is this, as the official states, one of the greatest national security breaches in decades? I will leave that to my much more intelligent classmates to answer...
Well, Mr Cooke, We'd all love to see the plan....
Mr. Cooke-
My friend, you're wrong; while capitol punishment is/was routinely practiced by totalitarian governments, many non-totalitarian governments also practice it. Stalin taxed his citizens; is
The way you’ve framed your argument creates a false-dichotomy of either siding with the shooter, Chief of Police in Saigon Lt. Col. Nugyen Loan, or a version of jurisprudence sans sang. Coy rhetoric is no substitute for logical thrust.
Further, due process is an American value and one of our core beliefs. This is precisely the reason that Americans were so repulsed by Eddie Adams’ Pulitzer Prize-winning photo from 1969. The suggestion that
We can all forgive a filched wallet or even a black eye, but it’s neither humane nor compassionate to ask a rape victim to forgive her violator; H.L. Mencken, far more eloquently than I, once noted, “But when the injury is serious, Christianity is adjourned and even saints reach for their sidearms.”
Iraqis should not suffer Saddam to live. Islamic law formulates such a proclamation with the simple, elegant dictum: “his blood is forfeit.” When you murder a village, either with a rifle or with a phone call, you’ve placed yourself outside the law’s protection. Saddam will hang for his evil deeds and both Democrats and Republicans can raise a glass to the final, sickeningly-justified snap of a tyrant’s neck. More importantly, so can his victims.
"Free Saddam!" Any takers?
Lest we get carried away in debating the moral legitmacy of Saddam's excecution, based on such weak grounds as the unfeasible requirement that one be 100% "just" in order to carry out "justice", there are two excellent websites for substantive legal material and legislative issues surrounding the trial.
1) The first is on the Law Library of Congress website, highlighting the specific legal concerns.
2) Then there's also Human Right's Watch excellent background on the trial's legitimacy from the standpoint of international law
More than any philosophical, but in this circumstance largely useless, questions about whether or not the undoubtably U.S.-supported Iraqi court has the moral authority to sentence Saddam to death, the real issue here is whether the court can legitimately sentence Saddam to death without breaking international and Iraqi law.
Calling the trial a "sham" or an "outrage against justice" may be a fine bit of rhetoric alongside Dean's "Yargh!" and the Jihadi's "Death to the West!", but it doesn't do anything to address the heart of the matter.
This is not a puppet court. They aren't taking him out and stoning him, shooting him in the back and decapitating him and kicking around the head. These are not Iraqis being forced against their will to testify against Saddam, and these are not Iraqis forced against their will to weigh his crimes, and these were not Iraqis forced against their will to find him guilty. The Iraqi people are undergoing a serious, difficult debate on what to do with the man who - all credit for employing bloody terror to maintain the calm aside - destroyed Iraq.
This trial is one of the few real instances in which the Iraqis have tried to reach out to America, Europe, the UN and the EU, to try and act as a legitimate nation with legitimate institutions, to incorporate the ethics and behavior of the global community into one of the most significant episodes in their nation's history.
There needs to be debate about the trial: honest, serious debate. But if anyone wants to make the claim that the Iraqi court does not have the right to sentence Saddam to death, they need to support that claim with more than some vague, relative notion of "justice" or a snip about the moral hypocrisy of the Bush administration. Such claims need to incorporate the Iraqi legal system and international law.
That's how informed Iraqis are trying to frame the debate. Yes, there are also many Iraqis calling it a joke, or the inevitable result of a court on the payroll of the American dogs; but those are precisely the comments you'd expect from a populace that still hasn't grasped the concept of the democracy that has given them, at a bloody cost, the right to determine their nation's future in governance and law. You saw it in the USSR: "Oh, a trial? That's when the government kills whomever they want, right?" This is precisely why the Occupation is failing. Because when it comes to actually educating Iraqis about all the ways they can constructively inform themselves and criticize the governmment, all we have are marines trained to kill and destroy. No one seems to pay any attention to the fact that there is an Iraqi legal system. No one seems to pay any attention to the fact that there is a prominent Iraqi national institution carrying out a very difficult task, and that's a damn good reason for Iraqis to think the trial is a sham.
But that doesn't make it true.
1) The first is on the Law Library of Congress website, highlighting the specific legal concerns.
2) Then there's also Human Right's Watch excellent background on the trial's legitimacy from the standpoint of international law
More than any philosophical, but in this circumstance largely useless, questions about whether or not the undoubtably U.S.-supported Iraqi court has the moral authority to sentence Saddam to death, the real issue here is whether the court can legitimately sentence Saddam to death without breaking international and Iraqi law.
Calling the trial a "sham" or an "outrage against justice" may be a fine bit of rhetoric alongside Dean's "Yargh!" and the Jihadi's "Death to the West!", but it doesn't do anything to address the heart of the matter.
This is not a puppet court. They aren't taking him out and stoning him, shooting him in the back and decapitating him and kicking around the head. These are not Iraqis being forced against their will to testify against Saddam, and these are not Iraqis forced against their will to weigh his crimes, and these were not Iraqis forced against their will to find him guilty. The Iraqi people are undergoing a serious, difficult debate on what to do with the man who - all credit for employing bloody terror to maintain the calm aside - destroyed Iraq.
This trial is one of the few real instances in which the Iraqis have tried to reach out to America, Europe, the UN and the EU, to try and act as a legitimate nation with legitimate institutions, to incorporate the ethics and behavior of the global community into one of the most significant episodes in their nation's history.
There needs to be debate about the trial: honest, serious debate. But if anyone wants to make the claim that the Iraqi court does not have the right to sentence Saddam to death, they need to support that claim with more than some vague, relative notion of "justice" or a snip about the moral hypocrisy of the Bush administration. Such claims need to incorporate the Iraqi legal system and international law.
That's how informed Iraqis are trying to frame the debate. Yes, there are also many Iraqis calling it a joke, or the inevitable result of a court on the payroll of the American dogs; but those are precisely the comments you'd expect from a populace that still hasn't grasped the concept of the democracy that has given them, at a bloody cost, the right to determine their nation's future in governance and law. You saw it in the USSR: "Oh, a trial? That's when the government kills whomever they want, right?" This is precisely why the Occupation is failing. Because when it comes to actually educating Iraqis about all the ways they can constructively inform themselves and criticize the governmment, all we have are marines trained to kill and destroy. No one seems to pay any attention to the fact that there is an Iraqi legal system. No one seems to pay any attention to the fact that there is a prominent Iraqi national institution carrying out a very difficult task, and that's a damn good reason for Iraqis to think the trial is a sham.
But that doesn't make it true.
You say you want an execution...
Just three points.
1. While Saddam was sentenced to death, the actual verdict hasn't been completed yet, but should be issued later this week. As if this trial needed to look more like a sham...
2. Hurrying the sentence, before the verdict is actually ready, makes for convenient political timing. But I couldn't possible imagine the Bush administration deliberately perpetrating an outrage against justice.
3. The death penalty is totalitarian. The police execution in the photo above and the sentence-without-verdict in Saddam's case illustrate the point. There are states in which the sovereign holds the citizens' lives in his hands, and there are those in which the state does not have the legal authority to kill its citizens. The officer on the streets of Saigon, the farcical court in Baghdad, or the district court on North Limestone are different in degree, not in kind.
E.OFF
A recent massive power outage in western Europe (article) makes an interesting case study for the high reliability and normal accident theories outlined in this week’s Sagan reading. Apparently our new friends at E.ON made a little mistake in shutting down a line over a river for a ship to pass. The result was darkness in millions of homes across Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Austria, Belgium, and even Morocco. Although the accident didn’t involve a major safety concern, many aspects of the event can be related to the two theories. Particularly, the issues of redundancy and decentralization are raised in Romano Prodi’s call for a common European energy policy. Would such a policy have prevented the accident? A normal accidents theorist might say so. He or should would probably claim that the accident was a result of redundancy “increasing interactive complexity and opaqueness and encouraging risk-taking.” Furthermore, the redundancy and overlap of the power grids may have complicated the problem. The high reliability theorists would argue with Prodi that the current “decentralized decision making is needed to permit prompt and flexible field-level responses to surprises.”
Although safety wasn’t involved here, the power industry is one that should be concerned about massive disasters, especially in Europe where so much of the power is nuclear. And of course, the event has implications and could raise concerns for us here in Lexington, since E.ON is our provider as well. That said, I am taking my stand with the high reliability theorists. The competition fostered by decentralization, especially in the power industry, should typically result in fewer accidents as there is the added pressure on the power suppliers to not only provide power, but to provide power more safely and regularly than their competitors.
Although safety wasn’t involved here, the power industry is one that should be concerned about massive disasters, especially in Europe where so much of the power is nuclear. And of course, the event has implications and could raise concerns for us here in Lexington, since E.ON is our provider as well. That said, I am taking my stand with the high reliability theorists. The competition fostered by decentralization, especially in the power industry, should typically result in fewer accidents as there is the added pressure on the power suppliers to not only provide power, but to provide power more safely and regularly than their competitors.
just a note...
Is there anything in Latin America we should be paying attention to? We have Daniel Ortega - a blast from the Reaganite past - in all likelihood coming back to power in Venezuela. Then we have Chavez, who may in fact be backing Ortega's campaigning. Is this going to be a problem? Do we have a growing crisis in Latin America, or is this just business as usual? Does the existence of a more leftist, anti-American Latin America have any significant implications for US national security? It has barely been mentioned in the congressional campaigning of the past months. Is it safe to completely overlook what's going on immeadiately to our south?
Guilty
I agree with my fellow student below in the joy it is to see the court process finally be completed for Saddam in Iraq. There were many errors, and problems that occurred along the way, however, it worked out for the best. You must remember, this was the first major trial they have had. There was no trial and error prior to the trial of Saddam.
Had this taken place after everything had been set in stone: Saddam's outbursts would not have been tolerated, (he would have been gagged, or just his council show up), there would not have been a change of judge in mistrial, nor would the actions of his council been tolerated. One must look at their process as an adolescent graduating to the next level. They have shown they can handle themselves in judicial contexts, now they must improve upon it in hopes of ironing out the wrinkles.
With this verdict, we should expect an upsurge in violence. Especially after his death sentence has been carried out. We hope that the perpetrators of this violence finally realize that Saddam will not be returning and they must join Iraqi society or leave it. It is not beneficial to them to continue committing acts of violence by killing their fellow Iraqis.
What would have happened if Saddam was found innocent? Would he have been shot by a sniper, or someone in the crowds as he walked out? (I would like to think so, and would almost expect). Would he have been welcomed by the people? Would there still be an upsurge in violence? These are questions that we will never know the answers to and it is for the better. There is enough of a problem now with the insurgency and other violence in the Iraq, if Saddam was set free, this would only grow. It would be the confirmation they needed for their cause.
The Catholic Church believes he should not be put to death. Though I agree that every life ahs meaning and should be valued, there are calls for exceptions to be made. This is one of them. When someone has done the evil that this man has done, there is not a place on this earth for them. It would serve the greater good by putting him to death. Not just by punishing him for his evil deeds, but to get rid of the light at the end of the tunnel for the Iraqis who are committing these acts of violence in hope that one day Saddam will return.
Had this taken place after everything had been set in stone: Saddam's outbursts would not have been tolerated, (he would have been gagged, or just his council show up), there would not have been a change of judge in mistrial, nor would the actions of his council been tolerated. One must look at their process as an adolescent graduating to the next level. They have shown they can handle themselves in judicial contexts, now they must improve upon it in hopes of ironing out the wrinkles.
With this verdict, we should expect an upsurge in violence. Especially after his death sentence has been carried out. We hope that the perpetrators of this violence finally realize that Saddam will not be returning and they must join Iraqi society or leave it. It is not beneficial to them to continue committing acts of violence by killing their fellow Iraqis.
What would have happened if Saddam was found innocent? Would he have been shot by a sniper, or someone in the crowds as he walked out? (I would like to think so, and would almost expect). Would he have been welcomed by the people? Would there still be an upsurge in violence? These are questions that we will never know the answers to and it is for the better. There is enough of a problem now with the insurgency and other violence in the Iraq, if Saddam was set free, this would only grow. It would be the confirmation they needed for their cause.
The Catholic Church believes he should not be put to death. Though I agree that every life ahs meaning and should be valued, there are calls for exceptions to be made. This is one of them. When someone has done the evil that this man has done, there is not a place on this earth for them. It would serve the greater good by putting him to death. Not just by punishing him for his evil deeds, but to get rid of the light at the end of the tunnel for the Iraqis who are committing these acts of violence in hope that one day Saddam will return.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Saddam found guilty
For all the trouble it's given the U.S., there have been some major accomplishments in operation Iraqi freedom. The first of which was invading Iraq, the second of which was killing Uday and Qusay, the third of which was capturing Saddam himself, and now, the fourth: the sentencing to death and eventual execution of Saddam. Is this going to have a "Wicked Witch is dead" effect? Certainly not. But it's going to do a hell of a lot more good than it will ill.
2 of Saddam's seven codeffendents will join him at the gallows. More than that, though, one can hope that a lot of the more anti-American (rather than pro-Iraqi) sentiment will die with him.
Was the trial perfect? No. If Saddam had been an average citizen in any Western country, and his trial had gone on with the outbursts, assassinations, mishandled documentation and other courtroom indiscretions that plagued this trial, he would have been let off with a mistrial. But this isn't any citizen, and this isn't any case. This is Saddam Hussein. Iraqis know what he did. The world knows what he did. Iraqis will forgive the court if the trial was not 100% legitimate.
And furthermore, do not give too much credence to Saddam's last-ditch attempt to become a martyr. The only people who are really going to miss him are those who saw their survival as being dependent on his authority. So there will be some significant Sunni unrest in Tikrit and the rest of Saddam-Land. So what?
This won't fix all the problems in Iraq, but it will give the entire nation a chance to pause and ask themselves, "Now that he's dead, now what do we do?" It will encourage debate amongst Iraqis, serious debate. I don't know what the U.S. needs to do to make the most of it, but I do know what they have to avoid: letting Saddam live. There will be an appeal, according to Iraqi law, but no matter what happens the conviction must not be overturned.
Justice must be done, and this is the best opportunity the U.S. will ever have to show that Western justice and Iraqi justice are on one side, and the "justice" of the Islamists and of the Saddams of the world will always be on the other.
The article, for those who wish to read it: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/world/middleeast/05cnd-saddam.html?ref=middleeast.
I think I speak for many, when I say, good riddance. That being said, Saddam is a clever SOB, and no human life is without merit. But I think God will understand me when I say, I forgive him, but it's time for him to die.
2 of Saddam's seven codeffendents will join him at the gallows. More than that, though, one can hope that a lot of the more anti-American (rather than pro-Iraqi) sentiment will die with him.
Was the trial perfect? No. If Saddam had been an average citizen in any Western country, and his trial had gone on with the outbursts, assassinations, mishandled documentation and other courtroom indiscretions that plagued this trial, he would have been let off with a mistrial. But this isn't any citizen, and this isn't any case. This is Saddam Hussein. Iraqis know what he did. The world knows what he did. Iraqis will forgive the court if the trial was not 100% legitimate.
And furthermore, do not give too much credence to Saddam's last-ditch attempt to become a martyr. The only people who are really going to miss him are those who saw their survival as being dependent on his authority. So there will be some significant Sunni unrest in Tikrit and the rest of Saddam-Land. So what?
This won't fix all the problems in Iraq, but it will give the entire nation a chance to pause and ask themselves, "Now that he's dead, now what do we do?" It will encourage debate amongst Iraqis, serious debate. I don't know what the U.S. needs to do to make the most of it, but I do know what they have to avoid: letting Saddam live. There will be an appeal, according to Iraqi law, but no matter what happens the conviction must not be overturned.
Justice must be done, and this is the best opportunity the U.S. will ever have to show that Western justice and Iraqi justice are on one side, and the "justice" of the Islamists and of the Saddams of the world will always be on the other.
The article, for those who wish to read it: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/world/middleeast/05cnd-saddam.html?ref=middleeast.
I think I speak for many, when I say, good riddance. That being said, Saddam is a clever SOB, and no human life is without merit. But I think God will understand me when I say, I forgive him, but it's time for him to die.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
More NPT threats?
I couldn't help but notice that six, yes six, Arab states are beginning programs to develop nuclear technology, allegedly for peaceful purposes. The news report, linked from Drudge, states that the states want to use the technology for energy and desalination, but the proliferation of reactors in this area should, in my mind, be troubling. The states the article names are
Even if these programs are for peaceful purposes, allowed under the NPT, does this development have the potential to cause destabilization in the region(s)? The report notes that many of these states are worried by
Clearly, I think this forces the
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Some Irrational Thoughts on Rational Choice
So I still have some troubles with yesterday's class.
Did we ever really answer Douglas' question as to how we evaluate current situation? It seems to me you can't ever really guess which model a country will follow. We know countries can change their grand strategies and ways of thinking so looking at the past can only really tell you what was done in the past. Sure if a country has stayed the course and has been 100% consistent it could help us- but does that happen?
As for rational choice, I think it's interesting to think of in terms of the American presidency. If Bush were up for re-election would we still be in Iraq letting things progress as they are? It seems to me a president might be more likely to pay attention to what's rationally right for the country he represents when he could stay in the White House for 4 more years. When you are not facing the campaign trail, perhaps you start to think more in terms of you and your best interests.
Did we ever really answer Douglas' question as to how we evaluate current situation? It seems to me you can't ever really guess which model a country will follow. We know countries can change their grand strategies and ways of thinking so looking at the past can only really tell you what was done in the past. Sure if a country has stayed the course and has been 100% consistent it could help us- but does that happen?
As for rational choice, I think it's interesting to think of in terms of the American presidency. If Bush were up for re-election would we still be in Iraq letting things progress as they are? It seems to me a president might be more likely to pay attention to what's rationally right for the country he represents when he could stay in the White House for 4 more years. When you are not facing the campaign trail, perhaps you start to think more in terms of you and your best interests.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Unrelated News
While driving to campus today, I almost ran over a jaywalking Rich Brooks (coach of the UK football team). Question: Would this have been a disservice to UK fans? Follow-up: Would this act of violence have angered Dr. Farley (because I would have maimed/killed the first coach to take the University of Oregon to the Rose Bowl in X amount of years)?
...I probably have some reading that I should be doing...
...I probably have some reading that I should be doing...
George's "Multiple Advocacy"
For a moment, let's put aside any suspicion that there were any shadowy motives behind the decision to invade Iraq still unknown to the general public. Forget for the time being about the New World Order, the International Zionist Conspiracy, and the timeline of events in which the Iraq War is simply the step between 9/11 and the goal of turning the world into a prison planet.
Let's look at Alexander George's "Case for Multiple Advocacy in Making Foreign Policy". The Iraq war is now far enough along so that we can apply the "Multiple Advocacy" framework to the information we now have about the deliberation process that led to our to stick our willy in the oil-rich hornet's nest that is Iraq.
There's no denying that something important happened when the President and his closest advisers decided to invade Iraq, expecting a populace teeming with latent ethnic tensions checked only by a brutal dictatorship employing every nasty trick in the book - including music videos. The most publicly debated concern is that certain important considerations were given insufficient attention - which is a nice way of saying that the decision makers overlooked some pretty important sh*t. Could this oversight have been prevented if there had been stronger representation for alternatives to the 2003 invasion of Iraq? The readings for this week are obviously centered around the fiasco of the Bay of Pigs, along with the near-fiascos of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the threat of annihilation posed by the Cold War, but we can at least use the George, Halperin and Allison's analyses to come up with some further questions regarding the Iraq War and future important foreign policy decisions.
I think the BoP was the best example of an uninformed president making a bad decision based on incomplete information provided by a group of men determined to carry out a certain plan - or an UPMBDBIPGMDCP scenario, in the foreign policy lexicon. What was similar, and what was different about the decisions regarding BoP and IW(the iraq war)?
For one thing, Kennedy didn't have Rumsfeld and Cheney - how much of an effect can "multiple advocacy" have when up against two undeniably strong and skilled bureaucratic grapplers? For another thing, BoP was a US covert military action, where the Iraq War was (supposed to be) a multilaterial action sanctioned by the international community and in accordance with UN requirements for war. During last week's Iraq Roundtable discussion, the point was raised that when one sees such a plethora of reasons for going to war, one should ask why one good reason does not suffice, and whether this implies the absence of any good reason to go to war. I think that would be an excellent point...if the Iraq War hadn't required some sort of international support. How many of those reasons - humanitarian, national security, economic, etc. - were just for the US citizenry, and how many were for the international community? After all, the EU may not give a fig about some US domestic issues, but they might care quite a bit about a more general, humanitiarian objective.
Just a few thoughts on the matter, which is appropriate given how few thoughts were given the matter in the first place.
Let's look at Alexander George's "Case for Multiple Advocacy in Making Foreign Policy". The Iraq war is now far enough along so that we can apply the "Multiple Advocacy" framework to the information we now have about the deliberation process that led to our to stick our willy in the oil-rich hornet's nest that is Iraq.
There's no denying that something important happened when the President and his closest advisers decided to invade Iraq, expecting a populace teeming with latent ethnic tensions checked only by a brutal dictatorship employing every nasty trick in the book - including music videos. The most publicly debated concern is that certain important considerations were given insufficient attention - which is a nice way of saying that the decision makers overlooked some pretty important sh*t. Could this oversight have been prevented if there had been stronger representation for alternatives to the 2003 invasion of Iraq? The readings for this week are obviously centered around the fiasco of the Bay of Pigs, along with the near-fiascos of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the threat of annihilation posed by the Cold War, but we can at least use the George, Halperin and Allison's analyses to come up with some further questions regarding the Iraq War and future important foreign policy decisions.
I think the BoP was the best example of an uninformed president making a bad decision based on incomplete information provided by a group of men determined to carry out a certain plan - or an UPMBDBIPGMDCP scenario, in the foreign policy lexicon. What was similar, and what was different about the decisions regarding BoP and IW(the iraq war)?
For one thing, Kennedy didn't have Rumsfeld and Cheney - how much of an effect can "multiple advocacy" have when up against two undeniably strong and skilled bureaucratic grapplers? For another thing, BoP was a US covert military action, where the Iraq War was (supposed to be) a multilaterial action sanctioned by the international community and in accordance with UN requirements for war. During last week's Iraq Roundtable discussion, the point was raised that when one sees such a plethora of reasons for going to war, one should ask why one good reason does not suffice, and whether this implies the absence of any good reason to go to war. I think that would be an excellent point...if the Iraq War hadn't required some sort of international support. How many of those reasons - humanitarian, national security, economic, etc. - were just for the US citizenry, and how many were for the international community? After all, the EU may not give a fig about some US domestic issues, but they might care quite a bit about a more general, humanitiarian objective.
Just a few thoughts on the matter, which is appropriate given how few thoughts were given the matter in the first place.
It's all in your mind...
In "Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis" Allison discusses a plan for Marines to "liberate the imaginary island of Vieques."
So on behalf of my Puerto Rican friends, I'll point out that Vieques is real; that it's part of the US, and that by 1969 the US Navy had been trying for 20 years to deport the natives and use the entire island as a gunnery range.
The Navy ended up getting the boot instead, but it took another 35 years.
http://www.vieques-island.com/
Saudi Nuclear Mania
Why isn’t
King Abdullah knows quite well that his kingdom has been in continuous competition with Iran since 1979 for the hearts and minds of the global ummah. While Abduallah's predeccesor, King Fahd, busied himself in funding radical Islamist madrasahs in
At the same time, only 18 short miles separate
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
National Security Policy: September 2006
National Security Policy: September 2006
In reply to a post made on 9/01, this is a re-post of an earlier comment.
In reply to a post made on 9/01, this is a re-post of an earlier comment.
If by the question, “is China planning an Indian invasion?” you mean that they are planning to retake the disputed border territories, then I think the question wrongly assumes that the territory in question, Aksai Chin (阿克赛钦) meaning “desert of white stones”, is Indian in the first place. While the territory is currently controlled by the PRC, it is also claimed by India. It was this border dispute that began the Sino-Indian War of 1962. There are two major border disputes now between India and China, the roots of which can both be directly traced to British Colonization of the Indian Subcontinent. The British were pushing as far as they could to claim territory. Upon gaining its independence, the Indian government placed its borders at the furthest extent of British Colonial expansion. These borders have been disputed between the British Empire and Qing Dynasty for over a century. The line that is respected for practical purposes since the end of the Sino-Indian War is called the “Line of Actual Control”. Currently, the Aksai Chin dispute is not a border dispute that either the Indian or Chinese governments are considering fighting over.
If you mean however, do they plan to invade India proper, then I will respond first by saying that the Chinese have never in their history pushed expansion beyond the realm of what territory they consider to be innately and historically Chinese. Does the PLA have plans, installations, and personnel in place for the defense of its borders with India? Of course they do. Even a government with the best of peaceful intentions should be prepared for a conflict with any of its neighbors to ensure its own territorial sovereignty. However, thanks to the common sense of atomic peace, these two nuclear neighbors will in all probability never come to armed conflict again over this almost uninhabited “desert of white stones”.
If googlers want to be looking for Chinese military build up, they need to scroll down to the Fujian province. Since the end of the Cold War, the People’s Republic of China has been focusing the majority of its military build-up and modernization on a possible conflict with the United States in the South China Sea in a dispute over Taiwan. The only seriously considered plan for expansion on the desks of military strategists in Beijing is a move of the significant forces built up in the Fujian (福建) Province across the straights into Taiwan. Such a Chinese invasion, Beijing claims, would only happen if provoked by Washington or Taipei making any move towards Taiwanese Independence that would alter the regional status quo. It is no secret that the People’s Liberation Army conducts regular drills of marine invasions along in the South China Sea that often even include the PLA’s Second Artillery Corps (The PRC’s Strategic Conventional and Nuclear Missile Division).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)