Cheney=Batman?

Spencer Ackerman has a very interesting article comparing and contrasting the policies of the Bush Administration (particularly those advocated by Vice President Dick Cheney) with the worldview and resultant tactics of the Batman. You should not read Ackerman's article if you have not yet seen the movie as it contains a number of spoilers!

Oh, Snap!

Via Ezra Klein, I came across this nifty article from the Washington Post by Anne Kornblut and Karen DeYoung. Kornblut and DeYoung provide a great summary of yesterday's scrap between Obama and the Mack over terrorism. For those of you that are not already aware, McCain criticized Obama for his support of last week's Supreme Court decision that restored the right of habeus corpus to detainees at Guantanomo Bay. Using traditional Republican fear mongering tactics, angry John accussed Obama of being naive and possessing a September 10, 2001 mindset. Like John Kerry before him, Obama identifies terrorism as an issue that relates primary to the fields of intelligence and law enforcement. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Joe Lieberman, and the King of Maverick all believe that terrorism is a military issue. In essence, they believe that we should meet the forces of terrorism on a battlefield somewhere and annihilate them. Now, in and ideal world, that would be great! I'm all for killing the bastards. But that's not how terrorism works. Terrorists rarerly assemble in force and fight against a standing army. What would they accomplish? They'd literally be defeated in minutes. Again, in an ideal world, this is how things would work. Unfortunately, however, in the real world terrorists aren't that stupid. That is why well trained, properly funded intelligence services and law enforcement are the keys to preventing attacks and tracking down terrorists. Center the to debate, is the role of civilian courts, or standard military courts, versus the military tribunal system set up by the Bush Administration. Here's a key quote from Obama, bringing up the 1993 attack on the WTC:

In the ABC interview, Obama said the perpetrators of the 1993 bombing are proof that the existing justice system can handle terrorism cases. "They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated," he said. "And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, 'Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.' "

In response, James Woolsey, whom as Keith Olbermann pointed out last night, lobbied for Con Man-in-Chief, Ahmad Chalabi; and John Lehman had this:

Tuesday, the McCain team drew a direct line between the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, saying that submitting the bombers to the criminal justice system was, in the words of former Navy secretary and 9/11 Commission member John Lehman, "a material cause" of the 2001 attacks. Lehman participated in the McCain conference call.

Huh? The terrorists attacked us on 9/11 because their comrades were tried in civilian court? Am I the only one that doesn't think that makes any sense?

Anyways, it's good to see that the Obama campaign is not shying away from this debate. It appears that the Democrats are starting to realize that conceeding this territory to the Repulicans is no longer necessary (not that it ever was!). Terrorism really is best left to the CIA, FBI, and various other intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Occupying Muslim countries swells the ranks of groups like al-Qeada and Hamas. As I've discussed previously on this blog, it's no secret that John McCain believes the state of war is good for the country. War is an end in itself, as opposed to a tool utilized towards a certain objective (i.e. war is the objective!). This highlights two disturbing themes in St. John's candidacy, McCain is the one who is naive, and he displays a fundamental lack of understanding (i.e. dumb as a rock) for the national security issues that are of the utmost concern.

P.S. Kudos to Anne Kornblut and Karen DeYoung for writing this insightful article. I always accused Kornblut of being in the tank for McCain, clearly I spoke to soon. I regret the error and I hope to see much more of this.

Photo used courtesy of Flickr user Chief Joseph March 26, 2008

U.S. Constitution 1, Bush 0

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled today that the prisoners held in captivity at Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their imprisonment in U.S. courts. The majority was made up of Breyer, Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens, and Kennedy. The dissenters were Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas. Scalia commented that the "nation will live to regret what the court did today." I know, classy. Look, I have no doubt that many, perhaps even a majority, of the dudes being held at Gitmo are bad news. However, it's not even worth fighting the so called "war on terror" if the US treats its prisoners as subhuman demons without rights. Also, we can be almost certain that at least some of the prisoners being held in Cuba were innocents picked up by Afghan warlords and turned over to US forces in exchange for cash. Our system should be one that risks the possibility that some of the guilty may go free in order to ensure that NO innocents are punished. This decision will be lauded around the world and hopefully it will begin to mend our image.

The Construction of Terror

Spencer Ackerman has a very insightful post this morning that should be read by every American. Ackerman touches briefly on the story of one Abdullah Salim Ali al-Ajmi who it is believed has participated in terrorist activity since his time at Guantanamo Bay. There's not really any more I can say on the subject that Ackerman doesn't already cover. Please read his post. It's short and of the upmost importance to those seeking to understand the motivations of the other side of the "war on terror."

Obama's Gift of Dignity

This great article by Spencer Ackerman has been up on the American Prospect site for a week or so now, but I just read it last night in the print addition. Ackerman takes an in-depth look at Barack Obama's team of foreign policy advisers and their views. Obama has some great names (or in the case of Samantha Powers, has had) including Susan Rice, Tony Lake, Ben Rhodes, Sarah Sewall, and Gen. Scott Gration. Rice and Lake are veterans of the Clinton administration, Rhodes advised Lee Hamilton, Sewall is a human rights activist and counterinsurgency authority, and Gration is a retired Air Force General and Iraq War veteran. The focus of Ackerman's article is the revelation that this team of advisers represents a coherent visioin of American foreign policy that is a significant departure from the CW of the past 30 years. In other words, Obama came along and realized the ship was sinking and instead of repairing the ship, he built a new one. This group of advisers advocates the promotion of basic human dignity over democracy. They argue that democracy is meaningless if you can not live with dignity. In order for one to live with dignity they need to be well fed, have access to quality and affordable health care, have a plentiful supply of safe drinking water, etc. If the United States can provide a leadership role in alleviating the suffering of those in the developing world (particularly the Middle East and Africa) it will go a long way towards removing the conditions that al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups thrive on when seeking new recruits. I've already said too much about the article, read it for yourself, I assure you that you will come away impressed!

St. John the Idiotic

Yet more evidence that John McCain is a complete moron: he said yesturday in Jordan that it is "common knowledge" that Iran is training al-Qaeda operatives in Iran. Wait a minute...what? See, I was under the impression that Iran was a Persian country full of Shia muslims; whereas al-Qaeda is a terrorist group dominated by Arabs that also happen to be muslims of the Sunni sect. Why would Persian Shiites aid Arab Sunnis? Once again, my impression was that these two demographics have been in conflict with each other for upwards of a thousand years. Look, Iran is not exactly our biggest ally, nor should they be, but to say that they are training al-Qaeda operatives or even working in anyway with al-Qaeda is simply ludicrous. It would be like saying that the Orange Order and the IRA were banding together to expell the British from Northern Ireland. That just wouldn't happen. It's even more disturbing that the media is calling it a gaffe. As Max Bergmann writes at Democray Arsenal:

Many in the media seem willing to dismiss McCain's statement that Iran is training Al Qaeda as a simple slip of the tongue. This is wrong. McCain did NOT misspeak. If he had simply made the statement once, he could perhaps expect to be given a pass.
But he didn't just say Iran was training Al Qaeda once. He said it in his initial statement. He was then asked about it in a follow up question where he repeated it. It is not a simple slip of the tongue if when challenged on the "slip" you then. [He also repeated it on Hugh Hewitt's radio show] That is not a gaffe. That is called believing something that isn't true. It is called being confused. And being confused about the differences between Shia and Sunni when claiming that you should be elected president of the United States on your foreign policy knowledge and experience, is simply not okay. This is a big deal.

Indeed, this is a very big fucking deal! This is a very disturbing occurence. There are two possibilities here:

1. John McCain believes that al-Qaeda is being trained by Iran. In this circumstance that is quite alarming and I agree with Matt Yglesias: perhaps John McCain isn't really paying much attention to what is happening in Iraq.
2. McCain know that Iran and al-Qaeda are not in league but he is willing to lie about it anyway, IN FRONT OF A CROWD OF MUSLIMS IN JORDAN!

Look, I understand I'm biased and I obviously am not a fan of John McCain, but this is a truly dangerous situation. McCain doesn't know squat about the economy (by his own admission), taxes, healthcare, or really any other important domestic policy issue. Apparently, he also knows very little about foreign policy and national security (his professed strengths). Now, I know you may be thinking, "give me a break Scott, this is just one time!" Yes, this is just a single occurence, but if he doesn't understand the difference between Shia and Sunni muslims, and the shaky dynamic between the Persian and Arab ethnicities; then in reality everything he thinks he knows about the Middle East and the Arab world is probably wrong. This is stunningly idiotic. I hope for the sake of this country and this planet we elect either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to the presidency over this know-nothing fanatic.

Our Conquering Hero

Via Matt Yglesias, I stumbled upon this Reuters article that includes this fancy little tidbit:

"I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed."
"It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," Bush said.

Wow. Where to start. Actually, nevermind. You all are smart enough that you know that what Bush said is beyond preposterous and it would be insulting of me to point out all that's wrong with that statement. That being said, look on with a mixture of wonder and disgust at our glorious commander-in-chief.

Good vs. Evil

I've been meaning to link to this great article by Gershom Gorenberg for a few days now. It's pretty much a berated point now, but one of the great failings of the Bush administration's foreign policy has been the unencumbered embrace of a good vs. evil mentality. Gorenberg states it perfecty here:

...The neocons are Cold Warriors sorry that it was cold. Their policy vision is quasi-theological: Whether or not there is a God, there is most certainly a devil. The evil empire is gone, but the axis of evil is present. It would not do to compromise with the devil, or contain him. His territory must be pushed back, transferred to democracy and American hegemony. This way of thinking restores a sense of order when looking at the Middle East -- two sides, facing each other. Of course Saddam and Al-Qaeda were in cahoots: They are both bad, so they must be allies. In this conception, the new world order looks just like the old -- it is bipolar.

Terrorism is a tactic as oppossed to a theology. That is why the label "War on Terror" is so misleading. It would be like calling a campaign to fight child obesity the "War on Eating", except we don't want to stop children from eating, rather we would like to discourage overeating and the consumption of excess amounts of unhealthy foods. There is no doubt in my mind that terrorists are evil. However, terrorism is a tactic used in a greater campaign. The goal of that campaign is not necessarily evil. Many terrorist groups have legitimate causes. Unfortunately, the utilization of terror has the effect of deligitimizing those causes in the eyes of the world. We also must be careful as to what groups we label terrorists. Insurgents fighting against Americans aren't terrorists. Bush and the media seem to define anyone that shoots at an American utilizing guerilla tactics a "terrorist." One problem, we used the same tactics in the Revolutionary War, and we take credit for that. If China, Russia, and Europe banded together to invade America, I'm sure we would cheer when American militias shot RPGs at Occupation forces. We would have reason to cheer, after all, our used of guerilla tactics has enabled us to mount an effective resistance against the Occupation. This seems to get lost in the fray of our conversation.

Disclaimer: I shouldn't even have to write this, but, I feel I need to to clarify my stance in this post. I find terrorist groups such as Al-Qeada and Hamas abhorrent. I in no way sympathize with these groups or their tactics. While I disagree with the label "War on Terror" and some of the resulting consequences of the campaign against "terror", I do believe the terrorist threat is real and am pleased that it has been, and continues to be addressed. Moreover, while I oppossed the war in Iraq from the beginning and still do today, I support the American campaign in Afghanistan. I have friends and family that serve in the military. I have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for their service and courage in the name of their country.