-Caveat Lector-
From
http://www.antiwar.com/bock/pf/p-b021302.html
}}}>Begin
Eye on the Empire
by Alan Bock
Antiwar.com
February 13, 2002
The Empire Plans Strikes
The word this week is that the Bush administration is engaged in a
large-scale review of current policies that could lead to a massive
military campaign against Iraq. The administration plans to have the
review completed in time for Vice President Dick Cheney to inform
Arab leaders of American plans during his planned tour of West Asia
next month. According to the Los Angeles Times, the administration
now believes that the Iraq problem has to be solved, not simply
managed, as they believe the Clinton administration did.
Washington is now said to be willing to push the envelope with
ostensible allies in the War on Terror by opening a campaign against
Iraq. The campaign might begin with a diplomatic option, pushing the
United Nations to re
open the Iraq issue by passing new "smart" sanctions and demanding the return of UN
weapons inspectors. If Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein rejects the demand, US
policymakers believe they will then have a rationale for a mi
litary campaign, that would probably begin with intensive bombing and involve
subsidies for disaffected Iraqi exile groups.
In an op-ed piece in Sunday's New York Times, former British Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher gave push to the invade-Iraq crowd. "America and its allies, indeed the
Western world and its values, are still under deadly th
reat," she wrote. "That threat must be eliminated, and now is the time to act
vigorously." She identifies the main threat as "Islamic terror," but soon gets around
to recommending that we move quickly to get rid of "the m
ost notorious rogue ... without doubt, Saddam Hussein � proof, if ever we needed it
that yesterday's unfinished business becomes tomorrow's headache."
Dame Thatcher doesn't mention that, however horrific Saddam's regime may be, it is a
secular government rather than an Islamic fundamentalist regime. Nor does she mention
that despite the best efforts of American, British
and Israeli intelligence, so far no link between Saddam and the terrorist attacks of
September 11 has yet been established. Indeed, a New York Times story last week based
on interviews with unidentified top-level CIA off
icials not only confirmed the opinion that Saddam wasn't involved in the September 11
attacks, it said the Iraqi regime hadn't engaged in financing or sponsoring terrorist
attacks on the United States for about a decade.
Never mind all that. Saddam is said to be developing weapons of mass destruction "so
as to challenge us with impunity," as Dame Margaret put it. So he must be eliminated.
It should be understood that an American incursion against Iraq would be a purely
imperial mission. The American empire might not be a traditional empire as these
institutions have been constituted in the past. We have ve
ry few outright dependencies or colonies overseas. But we seem to believe firmly that
we have the unquestioned right to intervene in any country anywhere in the world � to
effect what the war-whoopers call a "regime chang
e" � whenever any American leaders believe that U.S. interests, even loosely-defined,
are affected, even peripherally.
Our interests as viewed by our leaders bear little resemblance to the kind of "core"
national interests most traditional writers on international relations would define.
Core interests would include a decent defense of th
e homeland against imminent and some potential threats; these might even include the
occasional aggressive action against a possible enemy who, according to intelligence,
is getting dangerously close to having the capacit
y to pose a threat in the near future.
These days, however, it is enough for a significant percentage of policymakers simply
to dislike a regime, whether because it is too undemocratic or too democratic, too
repressive or too lenient, to trigger an attack. As
Gary Dempsey and Roger Fontaine show through extensive quotes in the recent Cato
Institute book, Fool's Errands, America's policymakers don't even bother to try to
hide their contempt for the outmoded notion of national s
overeignty as a bar to "humanitarian" intervention. As Clinton-era Deputy Secretary of
State Strobe Talbott put it in January 2000, summing up a decade of evolution in the
way interventionists justify themselves, the Unit
ed States had "accepted the principle that the way a government treats its own people
is not just an 'internal matter.' It's the business of the international community."
This may be a new kind of imperialism, but it's imperialism nonetheless.
CONVICTED OF THOUGHT CRIMES?
You might have thought that the demise of the Soviet empire would have led to a
certain discrediting of the notion of "thought crimes," the conceit of totalitarian
regimes that they had the right to control and punish not
just anti-social actions by citizens, but antisocial thoughts and opinions as well.
However, I am afraid that the concept of "thought crimes" is experiencing a certain
resurgence here in the land of the free � at least w
hen it comes to the "American Taliban," John Walker Lindh.
To be sure, Lindh has been charged with some relatively specific crimes and will
apparently have the services of a reasonably competent attorney � after having been
denied one for months while he was being interrogated. A
nd it is just possible that when the dust settles and the trial begins the court will
rule much or most of "Jihad Johnny's" "confessions" inadmissible and the government
will have a hard time proving anything specific.
Based on the kinds of letter to the editor we receive at our newspaper, the kinds of
e-mail the cable news outlets publish for viewer delectation and other impressionistic
indicators, however, I fear that a wide swath of
the American public will have no patience with such legal niceties. Lindh made a
conscious decision to abandon his country and sign up with another political entity,
seems to be the consensus, and that's enough to justify
hanging him high.
Never mind that the United States was not at war with the Taliban when John Walker
Lindh joined its forces � indeed, the United States was sending money to the regime to
reward it for being an ostensibly faithful ally in
the Holy War on Drugs. Never mind that there is no evidence � at least not yet, though
some might be forthcoming �that Lindh ever fired on Americans. Never mind that the
U.S. Constitution very purposely defines treason ve
ry tightly, in a way that makes it extremely difficult to get a conviction. Johnny
Walker was disloyal to the country and all it stands for, and that's enough for
punishment.
To me, that's a thought crime � an impulse to punish somebody for having impure or
insufficiently loyal thoughts, not for deeds. It's a shame that so many Americans seem
willing to condone punishment for having the wrong
thoughts rather than for specific deeds. The American judicial system may yet save us
from these baser impulses, but judges take note of polls and expressions of opinion
too.
GUANTANAMO: MISSING THE POINT
It's not so much that the decision to declare that members of the Taliban now being
held at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay are POWs under the Geneva Convention while
members of al Qaida are not is an irrational or indefe
nsible decision. One could argue that it's a fairly reasonable conclusion, and I have
no reason to believe that American assurances that people in both categories will be
treated roughly the same are insincere or incorrec
t.
What's questionable about the decision is who made it. The news reports say President
Bush decided, after consultation with various diplomatic and military experts. If so,
he is acting like an autocrat rather than a leade
r of a country that believes in the rule of law.
The Geneva Convention of 1949 specifically deals with the problem of how to classify
prisoners or detainees whose status is questionable or ambiguous. Article 4 defines
who is to be classified as a Prisoner of War entitle
d to certain standards of humane treatment. Article 5 then discusses problematic
prisoners:
"Article 5: Should any doubt arise as to whether persons ... belong to any of the
categories in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present
Convention until such time as their status has been determi
ned by a competent tribunal."
President Bush may be many things, but he is not a "competent tribunal" in this
matter. The Geneva Convention doesn't strictly define the term, and presumably a
military tribunal would be acceptable. In fact, U.S. law alr
eady contains provisions for a mechanism to deal precisely with this question of
classifying detainees � a tribunal of three officers, with a two-thirds vote required
to determine status and the detainee to be entitled to
competent representation and the right to call witnesses.
It certainly would be nice to see any evidence that the United States plans to abide
by the Geneva Convention � which might be outdated or even ill-advised, but which the
United States did push for and ratify � or by its
own laws in the matter of classifying prisoners at Guantanamo. To have the head of the
executive branch make the decision unilaterally, despite laws being on the books that
specify a different procedure � reeks of absolut
e monarchy, perhaps even of despotism.
And Congress hasn't even formally declared war, which might � or might not � provide
at least some justification for such an arbitrary shortcut around the law of the land.
Please Support Antiwar.com
A contribution of $50 or more will get you a copy of Ronald Radosh's
out-of-print classic study of the Old Right conservatives, Prophets
on the Right: Profiles of Conservative Critics of American Globalism.
Send contributions to
Antiwar.com
520 S. Murphy Avenue, #202
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
End<{{{
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not
believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men.
Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it."
The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
