The same Spanish court that indicted Chilean dictator Pinochet will announce on Tuesday that it will open criminal investigations of Alberto Gonzales, Douglas Feith, John Bybee, John Yoo, William Haynes, and David Addington for sanctioning torture at Guantanamo.
These are the lawyers from george bush's Departments of Justice and Defense who wrote the memos and provided the cover for allowing torture -- in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and our own laws.
This has come up in connection with a case before this court involving terrorism charges against five Spaniards who were held at Guantanamo. A group of human rights lawyers filed the original complaint and asked the court to investigate. It was referred to their prosecutors who, after reviewing the charges, have now decided to proceed with investigations.
Two questions: Why have we not done this ourselves? and Why are not rumsfeld, cheney, and bush themselves included? Perhaps the answer is that these are all lawyers, and they are responsible for the legal opinions that allowed others to pretend they were operating within the law.
I don't think Obama is likely to order extradition, if it comes to that. So it will be a trial in absentia -- but still a very important development. That is, assuming that their investigation leads to indictments.
It will keep the issue alive and in the news, and it will mean that these men cannot travel outside the U.S. without the risk of being arrested and brought to trial.
Ralph
Monday, April 13, 2009
Curmudgeons
"Curmudgeon -- a crusty, ill-tempered, and usually old man." (Merriam-Webster).
Oddly, the late afternoon HuffingtonPost news page juxtaposed two of our highest placed public curmudgeons: Dick Cheney and Clarence Thomas.
The article about Cheney was a poll that asked people if they agreed with Cheney's statement: "actions Barack Obama has taken as president have increased the chances of a terrorist attack against the U.S."
Only 26% agreed, while 72% disagreed.
Of course, that won't carry any weight with our curmudgeon-in-chief. Once while he was VP, a reporter asked him about the fact that some huge number (like maybe 80%) said the country was headed in the wrong direction. He replied, "So what?" In the context, it seemed pretty clear that he meant that he didn't give a good g-damn what the people thought.
The second article was about Clarence Thomas speaking at a dinner sponsored by the Bill of Rights Institute. It seemed an odd occasion for him to declare his uneasiness with the whole concept of rights. He thinks there is too much emphasis on rights and not enough on responsibilities.
This is from an African-American man who probably has benefited from affirmative action as much as anyone in history, who denounces the very concept of affirmative action and would reverse those decisions if he could.
Bah, humbug to them both.
Ralph
Oddly, the late afternoon HuffingtonPost news page juxtaposed two of our highest placed public curmudgeons: Dick Cheney and Clarence Thomas.
The article about Cheney was a poll that asked people if they agreed with Cheney's statement: "actions Barack Obama has taken as president have increased the chances of a terrorist attack against the U.S."
Only 26% agreed, while 72% disagreed.
Of course, that won't carry any weight with our curmudgeon-in-chief. Once while he was VP, a reporter asked him about the fact that some huge number (like maybe 80%) said the country was headed in the wrong direction. He replied, "So what?" In the context, it seemed pretty clear that he meant that he didn't give a good g-damn what the people thought.
The second article was about Clarence Thomas speaking at a dinner sponsored by the Bill of Rights Institute. It seemed an odd occasion for him to declare his uneasiness with the whole concept of rights. He thinks there is too much emphasis on rights and not enough on responsibilities.
This is from an African-American man who probably has benefited from affirmative action as much as anyone in history, who denounces the very concept of affirmative action and would reverse those decisions if he could.
Bah, humbug to them both.
Ralph
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Military insanity
A small factoid was buried within a New York Times article today on Richard Holbrooke, special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the restoration of diplomacy under President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Decrying the imbalance that put the Pentagon and the military, rather than diplomats, in charge of these troubled areas during the bush era, the article made the startling point that we have more musicians playing in military bands than diplomats working around the globe.
Add to this the fact that, under Don't Ask, Don't Tell, we have 55 fewer Arabic language experts working to translate intelligence data -- simply because they are gay -- in an area already critically undersupplied with translators.
Things are out of whack. Obama is determined to change both of these insane situations.
Ralph
Decrying the imbalance that put the Pentagon and the military, rather than diplomats, in charge of these troubled areas during the bush era, the article made the startling point that we have more musicians playing in military bands than diplomats working around the globe.
Add to this the fact that, under Don't Ask, Don't Tell, we have 55 fewer Arabic language experts working to translate intelligence data -- simply because they are gay -- in an area already critically undersupplied with translators.
Things are out of whack. Obama is determined to change both of these insane situations.
Ralph
Newt's very bad day on TV
Newt Gingrich, perhaps (but probably not) stinging a bit from the open letter from his half-sister chastising him for his anti-gay stance, was on This Week With George Stephanopolis. He did not have a good morning.
Several of his rants were shot down, one quite decisively and dismissively by George Will. Others were simply ignored or challenged by other guests or by George himself. The air seemed a bit chilly there for a while. And Newt got that "I'm not wowing them," dejected look on his face.
The one rant that perhaps might have had some lasting impact was his decrying Obama's passive stance on the American sea captain being held hostage by the Somali pirates. Newt portrayed it as a sign of weakness that Obama had refused to discuss it when asked by a reporter. He assumed that silence meant he was ignoring the plight and the problem.
Now comes news that the captain has been safely rescued, that three of the four pirates were killed and the fourth is in custody. Details not in yet, but it was definitely a U.S. Navy operation, perhaps Navy Seals or some other special U.S. forces that pulled off the rescue.
See, Newt. A real leader doesn't bloviate to the press like you do. He just gets the job done; and sometimes that's better done while keeping your mouth shut.
I think Newt just drove another nail in the coffin of his presidential hopes. And Obama looks more like a president and a commander-in-chief than ever.
Ralph
Several of his rants were shot down, one quite decisively and dismissively by George Will. Others were simply ignored or challenged by other guests or by George himself. The air seemed a bit chilly there for a while. And Newt got that "I'm not wowing them," dejected look on his face.
The one rant that perhaps might have had some lasting impact was his decrying Obama's passive stance on the American sea captain being held hostage by the Somali pirates. Newt portrayed it as a sign of weakness that Obama had refused to discuss it when asked by a reporter. He assumed that silence meant he was ignoring the plight and the problem.
Now comes news that the captain has been safely rescued, that three of the four pirates were killed and the fourth is in custody. Details not in yet, but it was definitely a U.S. Navy operation, perhaps Navy Seals or some other special U.S. forces that pulled off the rescue.
See, Newt. A real leader doesn't bloviate to the press like you do. He just gets the job done; and sometimes that's better done while keeping your mouth shut.
I think Newt just drove another nail in the coffin of his presidential hopes. And Obama looks more like a president and a commander-in-chief than ever.
Ralph
Warren skips opportunity to explain his flip
On 4-8-09 I posted comments about Rick Warren's conflicting statements about whether he endorsed, was an activist for, or otherwise supported California's Prop8.
Today he was scheduled to have been interviewed by George Stephanopolis on This Week, but he canceled just moments before the scheduled interview, citing exhaustion.
I suppose it is exhausting for a religious figure of his following to have to explain on national TV how he stretched the truth, if not outright lied. But I think he could have done a credible job of explaining the difference between (1) his own personal view and advice that he gave on his church's web site and at the same time (2) the fact that he was not part of the activist campaign to push Prop8, as the Mormons and Catholics and other evangelicals were -- to their dishonor, in my view, given the lies and disinformation they spread all over California like manure.
As I did when Obama picked him to give the inaugural prayer, I give Warren some slack for being less offensive than most megachurch, evangelical pastors. I don't think he was really lying, just emphasizing different aspects of the truth in order not to offend one group or the other in dealing with a controversial issue.
And, as I said about Obama's inclusiveness in choosing an evangelical to give the invocation, what if this influenced him to rethink his position and to become a little more moderate on the issue? Warren is a supporter of civil rights for gays and other issues of social justice and equality; what if he actually did change his mind on marriage?
I suspect that behind the "exhaustion" may be some ambivalence in his own private thoughts. Perhaps the Iowa and Vermont decisions this week made it just too hot an issue for someone like him to have to discuss on national TV right now. If he were sure of his opinion, he would probably welcome the forum to explain it.
Stay tuned.
Ralph
Today he was scheduled to have been interviewed by George Stephanopolis on This Week, but he canceled just moments before the scheduled interview, citing exhaustion.
I suppose it is exhausting for a religious figure of his following to have to explain on national TV how he stretched the truth, if not outright lied. But I think he could have done a credible job of explaining the difference between (1) his own personal view and advice that he gave on his church's web site and at the same time (2) the fact that he was not part of the activist campaign to push Prop8, as the Mormons and Catholics and other evangelicals were -- to their dishonor, in my view, given the lies and disinformation they spread all over California like manure.
As I did when Obama picked him to give the inaugural prayer, I give Warren some slack for being less offensive than most megachurch, evangelical pastors. I don't think he was really lying, just emphasizing different aspects of the truth in order not to offend one group or the other in dealing with a controversial issue.
And, as I said about Obama's inclusiveness in choosing an evangelical to give the invocation, what if this influenced him to rethink his position and to become a little more moderate on the issue? Warren is a supporter of civil rights for gays and other issues of social justice and equality; what if he actually did change his mind on marriage?
I suspect that behind the "exhaustion" may be some ambivalence in his own private thoughts. Perhaps the Iowa and Vermont decisions this week made it just too hot an issue for someone like him to have to discuss on national TV right now. If he were sure of his opinion, he would probably welcome the forum to explain it.
Stay tuned.
Ralph
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Nuclear disarmament
Obama would like to have a world free of nuclear weapons, and he and Russian president Medvedev have agreed to restart the nuclear disarmament talks. Although he doesn't expect that ideal goal to be reached in his lifetime, Obama is both an idealist and a pragmatist.
When it comes to Iran and North Korea and their nuclear weapons ambitions, Obama brings a quality to the negotiations that was missing in his predecessor, who could only think in terms of black/white, good guys/evil guys, and who only spoke the language of bluster and aggression.
Obama has the capacity to think strategically about the other side's point of view. There's just a hint that "nuclear politics" may be on the table along with "numbers of warheads" and who's got the biggest one? Negotiations that start and end with "Iran can never be allowed to have nuclear arms capability" will be very different when we consider why Iran (or North Korea) may genuinely feel the need to have the bomb and then seek ways to reduce that need.
Iran is not seeking the bomb because we have it. They feel threatened by Israel and its bombs and by our troops on their borders (and our special operations forces operating inside Iran even now). Suppose the situation were reversed and we didn't have the bomb, but Russia and China and Iran and North Korea did? And if we were treated as a global pariah for trying to make one too?
Is there some law written somewhere in the universe that says it's ok for the U.S. (the only country that has ever used a nuclear weapon against another country) to have them, and for Israel and Pakistan to have them, but not Iran?
I am not for a minute saying I want Iran to have nuclear weapons. I wish no one did. What I am saying is that we have to take a broader view than the assumption that we have the right and they don't. Obama is at least willing to have talks with them without first insisting that they prove that they are not building a bomb.
What if they really aren't and are only, as they say, seeking nuclear energy for peaceful uses? Our intelligence was wrong about Iraq and WMD.
Ralph
When it comes to Iran and North Korea and their nuclear weapons ambitions, Obama brings a quality to the negotiations that was missing in his predecessor, who could only think in terms of black/white, good guys/evil guys, and who only spoke the language of bluster and aggression.
Obama has the capacity to think strategically about the other side's point of view. There's just a hint that "nuclear politics" may be on the table along with "numbers of warheads" and who's got the biggest one? Negotiations that start and end with "Iran can never be allowed to have nuclear arms capability" will be very different when we consider why Iran (or North Korea) may genuinely feel the need to have the bomb and then seek ways to reduce that need.
Iran is not seeking the bomb because we have it. They feel threatened by Israel and its bombs and by our troops on their borders (and our special operations forces operating inside Iran even now). Suppose the situation were reversed and we didn't have the bomb, but Russia and China and Iran and North Korea did? And if we were treated as a global pariah for trying to make one too?
Is there some law written somewhere in the universe that says it's ok for the U.S. (the only country that has ever used a nuclear weapon against another country) to have them, and for Israel and Pakistan to have them, but not Iran?
I am not for a minute saying I want Iran to have nuclear weapons. I wish no one did. What I am saying is that we have to take a broader view than the assumption that we have the right and they don't. Obama is at least willing to have talks with them without first insisting that they prove that they are not building a bomb.
What if they really aren't and are only, as they say, seeking nuclear energy for peaceful uses? Our intelligence was wrong about Iraq and WMD.
Ralph
Small and cheap
This was an eye-opener for me.
I am a member of an interactive blog, TheBackFence, and the discussion has lately turned to the question of nuclear disarmament. One of the other members is Peter Zimmerman, who is a physicist and arms-control expert. He is a former Chief Scientist for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
He is careful not to reveal classified material, but he has shared some information that was quite surprising and a bit frightening to me. Here's a sample:
Ralph
I am a member of an interactive blog, TheBackFence, and the discussion has lately turned to the question of nuclear disarmament. One of the other members is Peter Zimmerman, who is a physicist and arms-control expert. He is a former Chief Scientist for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
He is careful not to reveal classified material, but he has shared some information that was quite surprising and a bit frightening to me. Here's a sample:
Let me tell you three dirty little secrets about nuclear weapons, that don't show up in most of the pro and con arguments:The amazing thing is that nuclear weapons have existed since 1945 and never been used again after our bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's even more amazing, given how small and relatively cheap these modern versions are. It certainly changes the ease with which they could be smuggled in or out of a country.1. Nuclear weapons are cheap, really cheap. A simple nuclear bomb probably doesn't cost 10% of the fighter-bomber needed to carry it. Well under $10M. The plutonium would cost much less than $1M to make in a government reactor.
2. Nuclear weapons are incredibly small and light. I have picked up full size/full weight dummy weapons used for training with my two hands and not had much trouble. Since we have 155 mm nuclear artillery rounds, it's pretty obvious that you can make a nuclear weapon that's less than six inches in diameter. You have to get pictures of Fat Man and Little Boy out of your mind; nukes aren't like that any more!
3. Nuclear weapons are very simple to make. I've written articles and co-wrote a novel about nuclear terror in which small groups build there own starting only with the uranium or plutonium. Most designs are very fault tolerant.
From this it follows that there are a lot of people who know how nuclear weapons are built, and that modern weapons are incredibly easy to hide and hard to find. And further, this tells us that if we do sign a treaty banning nukes, somebody somewhere will keep a few or few dozen in a mineshaft somewhere, and we'll never find them.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
