Posts Tagged ‘war’
Bush Torture Memos
As most of you may have heard, memos concerning the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” have been released to the public by the Department of Justice. We thought it necessary to provide everybody with a copy of these disgraceful documents. Download them here.
I would like to point out that the position the Obama Administration has taken to not prosecute individuals responsible for carrying out these techniques is in direct violation of the UN Convention Against Torture. The US is a signatory of this convention and ratified it as a treaty, which under the US Constitution gives it the full authority of law within the United States. As Ryan Powers from Think Progress puts it:
Indeed, Article 2 of the convention on torture explains that “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever” can be used to legally justify torture. Further, the convention states that an “order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.”
STANDARD: CIA torturers are according to U.S. President Obama not to be prosecuted. Is that decision supportable?
NOWAK: Absolutely not. The United States has, like all other Contracting Parties to the UN Convention Against Torture, committed itself to investigate instances of torture and to prosecute all cases in which credible evidence of torture is found.
Therefore, President Obama is now in violation of US law. The American people should demand a full investigation of the Bush Administration and the current Obama Administration and have all guilty of war crimes brought to justice. If not, we are setting a dangerous precedent for future presidents.
The Late, Great George Carlin
Carlin spoke of the first Gulf War, but his comments could easily be applied to our current wars.
Warning: Strong profanity, if that bothers you. If not, enjoy.
Afghanistan: Graveyard of Empires
Fear-Mongering
How Can “Fear-Mongering” Incite Wars?
The infamous cycle of fear-mongering and war basically works like this:
- Politicians focus their campaigns on something that incites fear among the population and claim to be the best candidates for fighting against the source of fear;
- Terrified voters vote for who they think will best protect themselves and their loved ones;
- Fear-mongering politicans get elected;
- Anticipating re-election, and with ample resources from a scared population (willing to pay nearly anything for defense), the politicians attack the source of fear with the military resources at-hand;
- Weapon suppliers lobby politicians for contracts, fund political campaigns, and integrate themselves into military operations;
- Major construction companies and other “war-profiteers,” with potential financial gains embedded in fighting particular wars, integrate themselves into military operations;
- Giant corporations hold vested financial interests in military spending;
- Military spending legislation is ratified by the politicians;
- Defense spending increases;
- An election approaches;
- Politicians focus their campaigns on something that incites fear among the population…
This explanation addresses fear-mongering only in the context of the military-industrial complex, and with a narrow scope at that. Another context to consider is the distractive nature of a political focus on providing security. As self-preservation is the fundamental concern of most living things, the political emphasis on security distracts voters from other issues, which decreases the politicians’ accountability. Less accountability gives politicians more freedom to govern. Thus the distraction inherently gives more power to the government, which requires taking power away from the governed (through tax increases and relaxed restrictions on government’s authority over the people). The tragic irony is that the focus on security ultimately results in decreased security, due to the afflicitions of exploiting military force in foreign lands. The CIA coined the term “blowback” to describe this counterforce of defense spending.
But it’s not just the distractiveness of fear that empowers bureaucratic government. The sociological and political consequences of a frightened population have concerned scholars for hundreds of years. From Machiavelli to Tocqueville, from Arendt to Chomsky, the ultimate conclusion remains the same: exploited fear leads to more war and less liberty, despite its utility in winning elections.
Victims of Politics
I have read several letters to the editor regarding the importance of honoring the victims of the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I could not agree more, we need to view these fallen soldiers as human beings, not as casualties or statistics. However, the men and women who have died during the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and during the brief overthrow of said governments, deserve more than just a brief “moment of silence” every day. They deserve more than words, flags, patriotism, memorials, and parades. They deserve our respect. There is a difference between “supporting the troops” and supporting the unethical, unconstitutional, and unwinnable foreign policy of our government. We ALL support the troops. The difference is between those who support the human beings in uniform and those who support the foreign policy of our government at the expense of those in uniform.
What we are subjecting our military personnel to is sickening. They deserve better. According to the Department of Defense, 35% of Iraq veterans seek psychological counseling within a year of coming home. While overseas, our soldiers are pressured to bottle up their psychological illnesses and fight their way through it. Upon their return to reality, the bottle explodes and many lose the ability to live life as a civilian without anti-depressants. The next time you find yourself saying, “someone has got to do it” or “they volunteered for the job”, take a moment to think about the damage being done to these young men and women, as well as their friends and families. Then take a moment to think about whether their lives, limbs, and mental health, are worth the continued occupation of nations that no longer desire our presence. Then write your State Representative and tell him or her your thoughts.
5 Excuses for Afghanistan
President Obama recently stated that he was going to move 100,000 troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. In no particular order, I tried to justify the most common reasons for continued occupation:
1. To Capture Osama/Al Qaeda: While it is clear Bin Laden is no where near Afghanistan (and why would he be, he’s not even from there), someone in the country might know where he is. Also, none of the 9/11 terrorists were from Afghanistan, and the bulk of Al Qaeda is spread amongst 45 different countries (according to CIA reports). Therefore, a surge is needed in Afghanistan to enable us to move to the next country harboring Al Qaeda terrorists. If the occupation’s true intention is to capture and kill all of Al Qaeda, why would we ignore their presence in the other 44 countries? Al Qaeda in Afghanistan are just as dangerous as Al Qaeda in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, one of which is housing Osama and the other produced nearly all of the 9/11 terrorists.
2. Eliminate Terrorism: Terrorism can not be eliminated if there are no terrorists to eliminate. Since Al Qaeda is using our occupation as a recruiting tool, it is likely our evacuation would reduce the amount of terrorists (violent dissenters) available to eliminate. Thus, only by continuing our occupation can we create enough terrorists to be able to wage a war to eliminate terrorism.
Why are we in Afghanistan
In a recent article, Senator Fritz Hollings asks a very important question: Why are we in Afghanistan?
After years of brutal failure in Iraq, you think the US would have learned its lesson when it comes to fighting wars which have no good rational behind them. So just why exactly do we need more troops in Afghanistan?
Majority Rules
Government never has impressed me. If anybody has read more than one of my articles, that fact is pretty clear. I feel as if most government action is based on special interest and ultimately does no good for society as a whole. Obviously government intervention has gotten us into the mess we are in today. If you feel it is a free market problem, I would suggest doing some research. Since the government has gotten more involved in trying to fix our economy, our national debt has ballooned from about $5 billion to $10 trillion. Also, as author G. Edward Griffin of The Creature from Jekyll Island explains, net worth of two-income families is lower than one-income families used to claim, the percentage of Americans who own their homes is dropping, the age at which a family acquires their first home is rising, mortgage foreclosures are increasing, the number of families in the middle-class is falling, family debt is greater, savings are smaller, the number of people below the poverty level is rising, the percentage of people working beyond age 65 is rising, and the rate of personal bankruptcy is quadruple what is was in 1960. This is all with government run programs trying to help the poor, regulate the banks, and save the economy. Is it any wonder I don’t buy into government help?
Greed, War, and their Visit to Ole Miss
The world is too astonishing for me sometimes. I usually end up with my hands being thrown in the air screaming, “They did WHAT!!” The most recent news with the ability to elicit such a response from me is that Colin Powell was picked to speak on our campus about, “A World of Opportunity and Challenge” as part of Black History Month. He has also been touted as being, “an extraordinary human being who has reached the top ranks of military, diplomatic and political circles,” by the Honors College dean. It’s a nice attempt to characterize the extremely expensive guest speaker as better than he actually is, but don’t be fooled.
In order to grasp the horrid picture I have of Colin Powell, I must first describe the events in which he played a major role. According to Richard Cummings and his article Lockheed Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, a meeting occurred in November of 2002 between Stephen J. Hadley, then deputy national security advisor, and Bruce Jackson where they discussed how to get American citizens complacent with a needless war that they were about to start. Hadley reportedly told Jackson, “they are going to war and are struggling with a rationale,” to justify it. So Jackson’s job was to do just that, create a reason to have innocent American soldiers and Iraqis murdered.
Mises and Peace
Ludwig von Mises, the founder of Austrian Economics, was more than just an economist. His ideal economic system of free markets and minimal government intervention arose from a vision of peace, freedom, and prosperity. Mises was one of the greatest intellectual proponents of libertarian ideals and maintains a strong following in contemporary academic circles. Ron Paul is one of the few American politicians to pay homage to Mises, but the vast majority of politicians fail to concern themselves with economic theory altogether. To learn more about Mises, visit the Mises Institute at mises.org. Here are some quotes from Mises relating to the codependency of peace and free markets:
“If you want to abolish war, you must eliminate its causes. What is needed is to restrict government activities to the preservation of life, health, and private property, and thereby to safeguard the working of the market. Sovereignty must not be used for inflicting harm on anyone, whether citizen or foreigner.”
“But what is needed for a satisfactory solution of the burning problem of international relations is neither a new office with more committees, secretaries, commissioners, reports, and regulations, nor a new body of armed executioners, but the radical overthrow of mentalities and domestic policies which must result in conflict.”
“The only means to lasting peace is to remove the root causes of war.”
