|
|
Tuesday, May 20, 2003
|
|
| |
US heightens terror alert. The US goes on "high" alert citing possible terrorist attacks at home and in Saudi Arabia as embassies there shut down. [BBC News | Front Page | UK Edition]
So they actually did announce an "orange alert." This suggests that the government is about to do something nasty. Fortunately, based on past experience, it also tells us that there's little or no chance of an actual terrorist attack.
10:19:26 PM 
|
|
Was Saddam Rational?. For some damn assignment I regret taking, I have been reading a book called Saddam Hussein: A Political Biography by Efraim Karsh and Inari Rautsi. One of the authors' contentions is that Saddam Hussein was a reckless but essentially rational dictator who tried (successfully, with two glaring exceptions) to calculate the risks every time he made a major move. This is an idea that has surfaced here and there. Karen Kwiatkowski made a similar argument in a comment about the Iraq debate between Brink Lindsey and John Mueller in Reason a while back:
On recklessness, Iraq's behavior in the past has been not reckless, but extremely cautious, with Saddam always seeking to assure the outcome before committing forces. That's why he broached the subject of the Kuwait invasion with April Glaspy [sic.] in 1990 (before he did it), and why his assessment of his war against Iran in the 1980s would work. In both cases, he thought the U.S. was on his side (and in fact we indicated we were). Dictators also need wars to maintain and fuel crisis mode management and media control. Iraq has not been reckless in projecting power, but actually quite rational and thoughtful. That Saddam mistakes our messages doesn't make him irrational, just part of a larger global crowd trying to figure out what the U.S. really wants.
I shouldn't have to note that calling Saddam rational isn't the same as saying he's a nice guy. Anyway, the two glaring exceptions I mention above were the Iran-Iraq war and the Gulf War. I don't know whether to include this year's war as well, because I am not sure there is anything Saddam could have done to prevent it. Throughout the last two years, he responded to various stimuli in fairly predictable ways; other than fleeing the country it's not really clear there is any step he could have taken to prevent his own downfall. If there wasn't anything he could have done, will that make any difference for American efforts to get compliance from other state actors (since the obvious motivation in these cases is the promise that if you do what the U.S. wants you won't be punished)? [Hit & Run]
I think Saddam's rationality is pretty obvious to anyone who has been following the news all along and remembering what's happened (which rules out most Crusaders). The "Saddam is insane" routine was part of the Crusaders' propaganda effort to convince people that Iraq had to be conquered because their "insane" ruler might spontaneously use his "weapons of mass destruction."
6:39:23 PM
|
|
Neo-Conservatism Explained. Thus with neoconservatism, we have the statist aspects of the old conservatism minus the libertarian aspects that led the old conservatives to favor decentralist political institutions and free enterprise. Add to that the natural tendency of anyone in power to use the tools they have at their disposal. What we end up with is a danger to liberty as fierce as any ever posed by the left.
But by the standard of loving Leviathan, today's neo-conservatism is worse than every brand of conservatism that preceded it. It is worse than Reaganism, which included some libertarian impulses, and worse than National-Review-style conservatism from the 1960s and 1950s. One expects pro-state affections from socialists, but the puzzle of neo-conservatism is how it could exist within a group of self-professed non-socialists who even claim to despise what the collectivist left has done to the world. [LewRockwell.com]
1:59:55 PM
|
|
Why A Recent Supreme Court Decision Erroneously Abridges Immigrants' Rights. Kim challenged his denial of a bail hearing as a violation of Due Process as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. He pointed out that Due Process rights extend to all "persons," not only citizens. And he argued that due process requires that, for a detention to be valid, a judge must hold that, after an adversarial hearing at which the detainee can present his case, the detainee poses either a flight risk, or a danger if he is released back into the community. Only after the government proves these facts by "clear and convincing evidence," Kim argued, may a detainee be held without bail.
The Court said that this was the law for most detentions, but not for Kim's. Why? According to the majority, simply because Congress had exercised a broad constitutional power, and "[i]n the exercise of its broad power over naturalization and immigration, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens."
In other words, Congress' broad power over immigration means that immigrants have fewer due process rights, even though they are persons protected by the Bill of Rights. (link)
This legal commentary follows up on 'Not Too Much for an Alien' (recently posted to The Clipboard) and explains how the ruling discussed in that article falls short of justice. [Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs]
The Supreme Court is, as usual, wrong--Congress has no "broad power over naturalization and immigration." The extent of Congress' power is this, given in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization
Note that Congress is granted no power at all over immigration, and arbitrary imprisonment such as in this case is hardly a "uniform rule."
The Court did have it right when they said that, "Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens." They most certainly do, and their unacceptability doesn't stop them from applying those rules to citizens either.
11:57:06 AM
|
|
Vinnell and the House of Saud. Few people had ever heard of the Vinnell corporation before the recent bombings in Riyadh. The company, which is a subsidiary of Northrop Grumman of the US, has always kept a low profile, remaining behind the scenes throughout many of the most controversial chapters of US foreign policy over the past 70 years.
However, for members of the Saudi royal family, Vinnell is well known since in many ways the company represents the last line of defense between the crown and those that might seek to bring it down. And now the spotlight has fallen on Vinnell as the residential compound and the offices its used were hit, with nine of its employees killed, in the suicide attacks on Monday. (link)
Excellent background information on the Vinnell Corporation and its role in Saudi Arabia. More information on Vinnell is available at Bombings Bring U.S. 'Executive Mercenaries' Into the Light. [Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs]
I had been wondering why the terrorists went after an obscure housing complex instead of something more high-profile. This explains it.
11:46:58 AM
|
|
Too Yellow to Go Orange?. It didn't make sense last week that Homeland Security did not go to Code Orange in the wake of terrorist attacks against Americans in Saudi Arabia. Now that we have a fresh FBI warning that al Qaeda may strike again in the U.S. the code system is revealed to be a farce.
"The U.S. intelligence community assesses that attacks against U.S. and Western targets overseas are likely; attacks in the United States cannot be ruled out," said an FBI bulletin sent to state and local law enforcement and leaked to the press. Nothing like keepin' the public fully informed. Worse, we are likely stuck with a full-fledged propaganda office until the end of time. [Hit & Run]
One of the comments on the post explains what's going on:
I take them seriously. Whenever the code goes above yellow, Congress will introduce (or vote on) a bill to expand the police state, or the military will bomb the shit out of some far off country.
Exactly right. Since the government is not trying to push through some anti-American law or attack some inoffensive foreign country, there is no reason for them to increase the color code.
9:19:56 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2006
Ken Hagler.
Last update:
2/15/2006; 1:54:41 PM.
|
|
|
