|
 Monday, October 11, 2004
Durbin Anti-Torture Amendment Survives, Awaits Bush's Signature. Some good news. Last Friday, the conference on the Department of Defense authorization bill was completed and, after a difficult fight with the House, the Durbin anti-torture amendment survived virtually unchanged. On Saturday, the Senate and House approved the conference... [TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime]
Doesn't it say something about America today that we have legislate an Anti-Torture Amendment? Many people believe that a collection of cells should be given the same moral equivalency as a human being, yet also believe that torturing said human being is just fine. Many of these people are in this Administration. Hope Bush signs it. 11:55:54 PM 
|
|
The New York Times did a long profile of John Kerry in the magazine this weekend. It had an interesting section on Kerry's approach to foreign policy. This section is particularly useful given its claim that Kerry is focused on global guerrillas and not on rogue states (the Bush team's focus). I believe this is a correct approach, however, I can't find any writing/thought from either Kerry or his "policy" team other than sweeping statements to support the claims made in the article. It does appear that there are signs of life from at least one candidate:
...Kerry was among the first policy makers in Washington to begin mapping out a strategy to combat an entirely new kind of enemy. Americans were conditioned, by two world wars and a long standoff with a rival superpower, to see foreign policy as a mix of cooperation and tension between civilized states. Kerry came to believe, however, that Americans were in greater danger from the more shadowy groups he had been investigating -- nonstate actors, armed with cellphones and laptops -- who might detonate suitcase bombs or release lethal chemicals into the subway just to make a point. They lived in remote regions and exploited weak governments. Their goal wasn't to govern states but to destabilize them.
It continues with the correct assertation that global guerrilla activity is not confined to Islamic sources:
The challenge of beating back these nonstate actors -- not just Islamic terrorists but all kinds of rogue forces -- is what Kerry meant by ''the dark side of globalization.'' He came closest to articulating this as an actual foreign-policy vision in a speech he gave at U.C.L.A. last February. ''The war on terror is not a clash of civilizations,'' he said then. ''It is a clash of civilization against chaos, of the best hopes of humanity against dogmatic fears of progress and the future.''
He is also correct that global guerrillas are mounting a direct challenge to the viability of the nation-state system:
Kerry's view, on the other hand, suggests that it is the very premise of civilized states, rather than any one ideology, that is under attack. And no one state, acting alone, can possibly have much impact on the threat, because terrorists will always be able to move around, shelter their money and connect in cyberspace; there are no capitals for a superpower like the United States to bomb, no ambassadors to recall, no economies to sanction. The U.S. military searches for bin Laden, the Russians hunt for the Chechen terrorist Shamil Basayev and the Israelis fire missiles at Hamas bomb makers; in Kerry's world, these disparate terrorist elements make up a loosely affiliated network of diabolical villains, more connected to one another by tactics and ideology than they are to any one state sponsor. The conflict, in Kerry's formulation, pits the forces of order versus the forces of chaos, and only a unified community of nations can ensure that order prevails.
However, Kerry makes a crticial error in thinking that global guerrillas are only really dangerous when armed with nuclear weapons (hence his focus on non-proliferation). New tactics/strategies of system disruption makes it possible for guerrillas to win decisive victories against the global system without nukes. He compounds this error with this (which has a kernal of truth: our actions have elevated al Qaeda, but the wrong conclusion):
Such a theory suggests that, in our grief and fury, we have overrated the military threat posed by Al Qaeda, paradoxically elevating what was essentially a criminal enterprise, albeit a devastatingly sophisticated and global one, into the ideological successor to Hitler and Stalin -- and thus conferring on the jihadists a kind of stature that might actually work in their favor, enabling them to attract more donations and more recruits.
While global guerrillas draw on the strength of criminals and criminal methods, it is much more than just a criminal activity. It will be interesting to see where this goes if Kerry is elected. I would like to be hopeful. [John Robb's Weblog]
This is the battle we fight and the tools we will need. The wars of the 21st Century will not be like those of the 20th. We are still fighting the last war, using tools and techniques that are quickly becoming obsolete and damaging. We will have to adapt to the new approaches quickly. 11:51:37 PM
|
|
Colonial Shock Therapy. While I find deeply disturbing about the Bush Administration's handling of Iraq goes far beyond the decision to attack. A great opportunity is being lost to leverage financial aid, economic and democratic reform for stability and prosperity. Much of... [Ross Mayfield's Weblog]
A very different perspective on the Iraq situation, one that I had not thought about before. Has this Administration has taken a lofty goal, one with the potential to make the world better, and completely botched it up. Is it better to do the wrong things for the right reasons or the right things for the wrong reasons? I am beginning to think that they are doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons. I want us to do better. 11:34:54 PM
|
|
Mission Accomplished. Improving on the original. . . and this one happens to be true! You Forgot Poland [youforgotpoland.com]... [Wonkette]
Now this is funny. 11:27:47 PM
|
|
The New Bush Attack Ads. There's a new wave of BC04 attack ads based on the New York Times Magazine article about Kerry's foreign policy, which contained this controversial quote:''You know, when your buildings are bombed and 3,000 people get killed, and airplanes are hijacked,... [Wonkette]
This would be funny except it is actually something they might do. 11:25:39 PM
|
|
Bush Promises That His Supreme Court Justices Will Ban Abortion. Paperwight write:
Paperwight's Fair Shot: Dred Scott = Roe v. Wade: Some people seem to be a bit boggled by Bush's Dred Scott remark last night. It wasn't about racism or slavery, or just Bush's natural incoherence. Here's what Bush actually said: "If elected to another term, I promise that I will nominate Supreme Court Justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade."
Bush couldn't say that in plain language, because it would freak out every moderate swing voter in the country, but he can say it in code, to make sure that his base will turn out for him. Anti-choice advocates have been comparing Roe v. Wade with Dred Scott v. Sandford for some time now. There is a constant drumbeat on the religious right to compare the contemporary culture war over abortion with the 19th century fight over slavery, with the anti-choicers cast in the role of the abolitionists.
Don't believe me? Here.
Further, Bush has to describe Dred Scott as about wrongheaded personal beliefs, rather than a fairly constricted constitutional interpretation because he needs to paint Roe v. Wade the same way, and he wants "strict constructionists" in the Supreme Court, so he can't really talk about the actual rationale used in Dred Scott.
I can't emphasize enough how important this is, and how much it needs to be publicized.
I had missed this. It sounds plausible. But it is also important to recognize that, as a strategic move, it didn't work.
Those who know that in right-wing legalspeak Roe=Dred are already voting for Bush.
Those who don't know saw him go incoherent. [Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: A Weblog]
Well, this explains the Dred Scott stuff from the debate. But it also demonstrates that he is still playing to his base instead of moving to the center. It is usually not a good idea to still be working the base at this late date. 11:23:56 PM
|
|
The Coming Military Draft...Again.... Details here: "Col. David H. Hackworth, one of the country's most decorated soldiers, thinks Kerry and the people passing around... [The Leiter Reports: Editorials, News, Updates]
As I recall, Bush said we would not have a military draft. But the process coming will not be to draft combat personnel. It will be to draft medical, computer and other necessary personnel, such as truck drivers. Failure to register and truthfully provide your skills can result in a jail sentence. The Skills draft will be used to fill positions we are currently farming out to private contracters. But this is becoming too expensive and dangerous for civilians who can not be forced to work in combat zones. But the military can be forced. So expect this draft to be used to create the sort of endentured servants who have no choice but to be placed into combat zones. It will save the US money. And allow more in the volunteer army to be moved into full combat. 11:13:39 PM
|
|
"This madness will not stop....". Here's a pleasingly blunt essay which takes the radical position that everyone--not just Americans--have moral standing. (I think Jesus Christ... [The Leiter Reports: Editorials, News, Updates]
The essay brings up things we would rather not want to look at. Might does not make right. The Iraqi people did not attack us, nor want to. What moral code allows us to kill tens of thousands of them who have done nothing to us? There are people who now suggest we just drop a few nuclear bombs on them and leave. The sort of hubris that suggests we can simply go anywhere we want and do anything we chose, without fear of judgement or retribution, will be the cause of our fall some day. It has to every civilization that fell for the seduction of power for its own sake. 11:04:48 PM
|
|
To people who hate humanity… [Pharyngula]
Harsher than I might put it but not too far from my own thoughts. Stem cell research is not a gulf that will be easily crossed. I wonder what will happen when Japanese or European or Chinese researchers actually develop this technology to cure spinal cord injury? Will these people make it illegal for Americans to use this technology? What is their plan? because it looks more and more likely that America will not be the one to develop this technology. 10:49:07 PM
|
|
The Rise of Pseudo Fascism
. Part 1: The Morphing of the Conservative Movement
Part 2: The Architecture of Fascism
Part 3: The Pseudo-Fascist Campaign
Part 4: The Apocalyptic One-Party State
"We don't want to get rid of all liberals. I want to keep a couple, for example, [Orcinus]
A very interesting series. It demonstrates that many in the Republican party care little about America or Americans. They want a one party state where their political power can never be shaken, either by another political party or by the people. Power simply for its own purpose. Does not sound like a country where being different, creative or innovative will be a plus. too much possibility of upsetting the one party system. 10:31:49 PM
|
|
|
|
|
