War Criminal

The US Supreme Court ruling that the US must uphold the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Gitmo detainees has blogger Andrew Sullivan asking the big question: is Bush a war criminal?

That question has troubled me for quite a while. The Hamdan decision certainly suggests that, by ignoring the Geneva Conventions even in Guantanamo (let alone in Iraq), a war crime has been committed. And in the military, the command structure insists that superiors are held accountable. I've been saying this for a long time now, and have watched aghast as the Bush administration has essentially dumped responsibility for war-crimes on the grunts at Abu Ghraib. The evidence already available proves that the president himself ordered torture and abuse and the violation of the Geneva Conventions. Now he has been shown to be required to act within the law, and according to the Constitution, his liability for war crimes therefore comes into focus.

In an excellent background piece about the Bush presidency, Elizabeth Drew writing in the NY Review of Books provides potent insights into the workings of the Bush presidency. The Bush administration has injected fear into the hearts of Republicans, so this congress puts no check on presidential power grabbing. Drew concludes her piece with a historical reality check:

James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper No. 47:

The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

That extraordinary powers have, under Bush, been accumulated in the "same hands" is now undeniable. For the first time in more than thirty years, and to a greater extent than even then, our constitutional form of government is in jeopardy.

Zoot!

Today I feel like praising my favorite piece of software, called Zoot.

Zoot, like lanything truly worthwhile, has to be experienced to be appreciated. Zoot is generally described as information processor, or PIM. But it would be more apt to call it a second brain, a powerful accessory to everyday thinking.

What Bush Said About Indian Nuke Agreement

What Bush actually said (from the Washington Post):
"Proliferation is certainly a concern and a part of our discussions and we've got a good-faith gesture by the Indian government that I'll be able to take to the Congress," Bush said. "But the other thing that our Congress has got to understand that it's in our economic interests that India have a civilian nuclear power industry to help take the pressure off the global demand for energy. ... To the extent that we can reduce demand for fossil fuels, it will reduce the cost to the American consumer."

There we have it: nonproliferation is a "concern" to Bush. However, not so important as low gas prices for American motorists.

One could imagine Rove having instructed Bush that such a message would go over well in the heartland. I don't think that this administration cares about US geopolitical stategy vis a vis China. I suspect that this too is just a lame justification. Like so many every other US foreign policy initiative of the past six years, I suspectthis one is also about enriching private interests closely associated with the Bush administration. This time they see they have a good shot at boosting US arms sales to India and Pakistan. One thing to keep in mind: Bush always delivers for his base.

India's an ally, so its nukes are cool Bush

Just caught Bush's news conference in New Deli with the Indian PM. Key background point: the US has blocked nuclear cooperation with India in the past becuase India has pursued its nuclear weapons program outside the auspices of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. IAEA hasn't been allowed to inspect India's reactors. Well, it looks like Bush has just signed an agreement that makes a mockery of the nonproliferation treaty. Apparently Bush has agreed that the IAEA should have access to inspecting India's civilian nuclear reactors (but not its military reactors). Also, apparently the agreement helps to open the door to US defense contractors: there's talk of selling over a hundred US fighter jets to India. From Reuters:

...New Delhi would commit itself to certain nonproliferation standards including allowing international inspections of its civilian nuclear plants.

In return, it would gain access to U.S. civilian nuclear technology, including fuel and reactors denied for 30 years. India's military facilities would not be subject to inspections under the deal.

- The agreement hinges on India separating its nuclear facilities into civilian and military components.

Sounds like a sham deal from the perspective of the international community, and US security, which demands that non-proliferation agreement be upheld. Jotman believes non-proliferation ought to be the the number one US national security priority. Period. The logic is simply this: only WMDs pose a serious military threat to the US homeland. The fewer countries that have nukes, the better. It's a no brainer: it's not in the national security interest of the US to do anything that could be interpreted as undermining the sanctity of the non-proliferation ethic. So the US should be upholding and strengthening existing nonproliferation agreements, not risk being seen as bending the rules to satisfy a new ally. In this case, the Indians.

Creepy Lawsuit Against Craigslist

A recent Time Magazine article comments on the ludicrous lawsuit against Craigslist:

Here are a few listings that have appeared in the housing section on Craigslist's Chicago-area site: "Ladies Please Rent from Me," "Requirements: Clean Godly Christian Male" and "African Americans and Arabians tend to clash with me so that won't work out."

Offensive as these ads are, should Craigslist be liable for them? A civil rights group thinks so. The Chicago Lawyers' Committee recently sued Craigslist for running ads that allegedly violate the Fair Housing Act, a federal law that bans housing discrimination. "The laws against discrimination don't change because you add technology," says Stephen Libowsky, an attorney for the group. At issue is whether Craigslist is a publisher, subject to the Fair Housing Act, or a content distributor, which may not be liable for discriminatory ads, according to the Communications Decency Act. Housing-advocacy groups say the definition is crucial, because they think websites should abide by the same standards that newspapers are held to, especially since so much classified advertising is moving online.

What has this got to do with fair housing? Absolutely zip, except that punishing Craigslist could make it harder for everyone to find housing. Is this case of lawyers fishing for bounty? Perhaps. But the last line got me thinking: We know that the newspapers get a huge chunk of their revenues from classifieds, and they have identified Craiglist (and the internet in general) as a threat to their commercial viability. Could this lawsuit against Craigslist be motivated by newspaper interests trying stave off financial ruin?

The "attack on our freedoms" continues...

According to today's NY Times "Mr. Bush is seeking broad new authority to allow federal agents — without the approval of a judge or even a federal prosecutor — to demand private records and compel testimony. "

The Bush Myth

I'm impressed by the US administration's ability to perpetuate the myth that they have earned the people's trust on national secutity issues. After all, it was under Bush's watch the entire country got shut down by men armed with box cutters. Now we learn that his bold initiative "Homeland Security" is a big, underfunded mess. Government's Hobbled Giant (washingtonpost.com) Maybe if tax cuts weren't at the top of the Bush agenda there would be money for secondary priorities like national security.

Freedom

It's a mantra these days to say that 9-11 was "an attack on our freedom." Of course the terrorists didn't succeed in taking away our freedom -- at least not initially. But in the process reacting to the attacks of September 11, I think the goverment has turned the attacks into that very thing -- a threat to freedom. The goverment did what no terrorist could ever accomplish -- the Patriot Act takes away real freedom.

I'm talking about an assault on the basic legal freedoms that people in democratic countries enjoy. Magna Charta stuff. The right to a lawyer. The right to a fair trial. The administration has certainly put a lot of energy into efforts that would deny even American citizens these basic rights. Relative to so many other actions the administration won't take or can't seem to accomplish, I don't see that we're any more secure now that Americans have lost some of their basic rights. Randall Hamud asks what this means for the country he loves. My Turn: We’re Fighting Terror, But Killing Freedom

Bad Air

Who will pay the cost of Bush's relaxed air quality standards? The answer lies in a recent study of infant mortality rates.

Clean Air Rules To Be Relaxed

Brought to you by the friends of scum... Clean Air Rules To Be Relaxed

Has Halliburton Inc. Hijacked America's Defense Policy?

In 'The Pentagon's Eastern Obsession' (NY Times Op-Ed, July 30)
Lawrence Korb asked whether the best explanation for Defense
Department plans to move US bases from Germany to Eastern
Europe might be the desire of the Bush administration to
punish 'Old Europe' over Iraq. 'Since moving to new bases
would not save money or improve our strategic flexibility,
there must be another motive' writes Korb. Indeed. But I
suspect a motive more rational than mere pique at long-time
allies. Korb points out that upgrading the 'crumbling and
out of date' Soviet-era bases of Eastern Europe will be
expensive. This begs the question as to who will be
contracted to rebuild the bases. Close friends
of the administration, perhaps?

I made the above comment in letter to the NY Times
(they didn't publish it). Today I came across a
story about the Pentagon's increased dependence on private military contractors by Barry Yeoman in the May/June issue of Mother Jones. You probably already know that VP Dick Cheney is the former CEO of Halliburton. Well, Yeoman reports that Halliburton subsidiary Halliburton KBR (formerly Brown & Root) has so far been awarded "$2.5 billion to construct and run military bases, some in secret locations, as a part of the army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program." (my italics)

So let's put two and two together. Korb made a convicing argument that relocating US bases to Eastern Europe is uneccessary and costly. Also, he pointed out that the relative lack of infrastructure Eastern Europe would actually mean slower deployment times for US troops. Yet the Bush administration is hell-bent on building expensivenew bases anyway. I think Bush enthusiasm for new bases is about more than dissing Old Europe (as Korb speculates). It's mostly about funnelling US taxpayer dollars into the pockets of the same gang who get the big contracts to rebuild Iraq: Halliburton.

So we see that Bush defence policy is just like Bush tax cut policy, the interests of the United States of America never really seem to enter into the equation.

Killing Patriotism

Let me get this right: Bush promises to increase Teach for America by 75,000 teachers, and now (after getting the would-be volunteers excited) he sits back and watches as the program gets cut in half. Muting the Call to Service.

What Drives Bush Administration Foreign Policy?

Central to the Bush administration's approach to defense policy appears to be a desire to punish those who have snubbed it. Thus, we find that the Pentagon is about to spend billions of dollars to move US bases out of Germany and into Eastern Europe. Certainly the cost of living is lower in Eastern Europe and it is closer to some hot spots writes Lawrence Korb in a NY Times editorial The Pentagon's Eastern Obsession. However, Korb explains that Easter Europe's transportation infrastructure is inferior to Western Europe meaning slower troop deployment times, the new bases will have to be built as the Soviet ones are in a state of decay, and these governments (unlike Germany) are not in a position to help pay some of the costs for keeping US troops there. I don't see the Bush administration's foreign policy as being dictated by national security interests, or even strategic forethought about securing oil reserves for US industry. Petty grudges against old allies can't be the whole story here either. I suspect that the Bush foreign policy is simply a calculated strategy to profit members of the administration and their financial backers through military and energy contracts on one hand and tax cuts on the other. Will new bases in Eastern Europe be constructed Texas based companies with links to the administration? I’d like to know the answer to this question.

Killer App Alert

I hate backing up my files, but after losing my last laptop in the attack on the WTC, I have been trying to change my ways. Now I may not need to. Novell has a killer app called ifolder that conveniently, securely, and efficiently backs stuff up over the net. Novell also has a great web-based email program at myrealbox.com. The beta version provides you with 10 megs of free storage.

Anything would be better than nothing

Bush's great error was not to have prepared the public for the possiblity that Iraq might not be a cakewalk. Bush skipped the "blood, toil, sweat and tears" speech. Saw no need for that. Neither did he say anything to the effect of "ask not what your country can do for you..." Why has so much been asked of those 18 year olds coming home in body bags -- guys who wouldn't have been allowed to legally drink beer in the USA for another four years, and so little been asked of the rest of America? This is not how a leader unites a great country. A nation pays a price when it lets 99 percent of the population off the hook while a few kids give everything for the war. F or one thing, it fosters a collective sense of guilt. It also breeds the feeling of impotence that comes from the misplaced belief that one has nothing to contribute to the effort. Such states of mind a true leader would fight like the plague. He'd ask something of his fellow Americans: A tax hike to increase military pay. A big push towards energy conservation. Anything would be better than nothing.

Recent posts: ALL

All recent posts from Jotman's blogs.

Search for more:

Recent posts: Fitness and Health

All recent posts about health and wellness.

Search for more:

Recent posts: ENVIRONMENT

All recent posts concerning the Environment.

Search for more:

Recent posts: TRAVEL

All recent posts at Jotman's Jot Around the World.

Search for more:

Recent posts: JOTMAN'S PICKS

Highlighting some recent posts of note, these are Jotman's picks:

Search for more: