Signing Off
Until I am actually admitted to the bar, I will still consider myself an Enlightened Layperson and continue to blog as such.
Labels: Non-political
I am in law school, but am not (yet) a lawyer, much less a constitutional scholar. I have read many of this country's founding documents, but am not a historian. I follow current news but have no specialized knownledge of it. I am, in short, an enlightened layperson with a myriad opinions to share. They do not pretend to be more than the opinions of an enlightened layperson
Labels: Non-political
[T]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.To Wilkerson, "all necessary and appropriate force" gives the President a blanket exemption from all laws so far as Al-Qaeda is concerned. Nor do any laws restraining the President apply, event within the United States. "[T]he preamble of the AUMF specifically directs the President
Labels: habeas corpus, War on Terror
Neocons are quite right to point all these things out. Of course, neocons ignore equally serious failings in purportedly democratic allies. Afghanistan is a democracy even though President Karzai is referred to as "the mayor of Kabul" because outside the capital warlords rule. The Iraqi government is democratic even though its power has not always extended beyond the Green Zone; it routinely ignores its own laws; it has allied with death squads murdering men for their religion; it has no meaningful representation of Sunni Arabs, who (foolishly) boycotted the 2005 elections; and it is now seeking to avoid provincial elections that may threaten its power. Georgia's President Mikhael Saakashvilli is a democrat even though he has arrested opponents, charged them with espionage, beaten protesters, and censored unwelcome news.
All of which leads to one basic point. The above criteria are merely excuses. To neocons, for a government to be "democratic," it need meet only two standards. (1) It must have semi-plausible elections and (2) it must toe our line. When a government reverses its policies to our liking, neocons can reverse their judgments with stunning speed. When Mahmud Abbas ran in an uncontested election for President of the Occupied Territories and denounced Israel, Charles Krauthammer jeered that even though this was a Palestinian elections, with the outcome pre-determined, why was Abbas running as Yasser Arafat. But when Abbas opened to negotiations with Israel, he suddenly became a noble democratic leader. Likewise, up to 2006, neoconservatives condemned many of our Arab allies such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States for their lack of democracy. But when they condemned Hezbollah's provocation against Israel, these governments suddenly became "reformist." (Not even neocons could claim they were democratic).
The neocon rule is simple. An elective government that toes our line is a democracy and all blemishes will be ignored. Governments that do not toe our line, elective or not, cannot possibly be democratic.
Labels: Nature of democracy
One of the report's few attempts at extensive analysis was of Iraqi ties to Islamist terrorists. Saddam ruthlessly suppressed any such organizations within Iraq, but wavered on whether to support them abroad. However:
Saddam provided training and motivation to revolutionary pan-Arab nationalists in the region. Osama bin Laden provided training and motivation for violent revolutionary Islamists in the region. There were recruiting within the same demographic, spouting much the same rhetoric, and promoting a common historical narrative threat promised a return to a glorious past. That these movements (pan-Arab and pan-Islamic) had many similarities and strategic parallels does not mean they saw themselves in that light. Nevertheless, these similarities created more than just the appearance of cooperation. Common interests, even without common cause, increased the aggregate terror threat.However, the report gives little supporting detail, other than to mention Iraqi support for Egyptian Islamic Jihad.
Conceivably, the rather weak analysis and poor attempts to quantify the evidence could be because the evidence remains spotty. Although the report is touted as the product of reviewing some 600,000 documents, only 15% of those have been translated into English. And it is not clear whether 600,000 is the total number of documents about terrorism, or the total number of captured documents dealing with all topics. Nonetheless, there are some 2,000 pages of documents in the four succeeding volumes.
If I had the time, I might be tempted to read through all 2,000 pages to see if I could provide a more systematic analysis than the Pentagon has to offer. Unfortunately, I do not.
Labels: Iraq war, War on Terror
Years later it apparently does not occur to American's Funniest Pundit to ask why a "high government official" was warning media figures to start popping Cipro in the aftermath of 9/11. I can see why, at the time, the obvious interpretation would be that there was intelligence about possible biological attacks. But now that we know that the US gov't believes that anthrax came from the inside, shouldn't Cohen be a wee bit curious about what this warning was based on?This is so alarming it starts to look like tinfoil hat territory. So, trying to avoid sinking into utter paranoia, let us consider the possibilities:
My own inclination is to be skeptical of (1) and (4) and to favor either (2) or (3). But whatever the case, Glenn Greenwald is right. Perhaps there was only one anthrax plotter, who misled his colleagues. Maybe there were several. Or maybe the tinfoil hat crowd are less crazy than we think. But we really need to be investigating not only the origins of the anthrax, but also the origins of the tips about anthrax in order to discover how many people were involved. Or even respectable people may start sinking into paranoia.
Labels: Conspiracy theories, War on Terror
So, leaving off the caveats and qualifications, the intelligence community's truly independent judgment was that Saddam had up to 100 tons of chemical weapons (probably consisting mostly of mustard gas), and unknown arsenal of biological weapons, and 25-30 missiles capable of hitting Israel but unlikely, by themselves, to cause much damage. The obvious worst-case scenario to consider here would be arming the missiles with chemical or biological warheads and using them to hit Israel. It should not have been too difficult to figure how technically feasible such an attack was and how deadly it was likely to be.
If the conclusion was that such an attack was technically feasible and apt to be highly deadly, next would be the much more vague and subjective question of how likely Saddam would be to launch such an attack. The most likely predictor would be Saddam's past behavior. He had used chemical weapons, first against the Iranian Army and later against Kurdish rebels, confident that neither could retaliate. During the Gulf War against the United States which could retaliate and promised to, Saddam did not use chemical weapons. He appeared, therefore, to be deterrable. And Israel, certainly, had the capacity to retaliate for such an attack, though it might cause wider repercussions. Most probable conclusion: Saddam was unlikely to launch biological or chemical weapons against Israel out of fear of retaliation.
The decision whether to go to war is, indeed, the realm of policy makers, not of the intelligence community, but not everything is a supportable casus belli. A technically feasible, but almost certainly deterrable, possibility of chemical or biological attack on Israel does not sound supportable as grounds for war to me.