Additional Perspective

In the spirit of my previous post, some additional historical perspective applied to the recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate.

by Tim Reagan
Scientific Christian Monitor
January 18, 1944

A classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) contends that the war in Japan has increased Shinto radicalism, and has made the kamikaze threat around the world worse. Based on information from US government officials who had seen the document and spoke on condition of anyonymity...

read it all here.

Were They Safer Then

The Sineman asks, "3 1/2 years later, are we safer now"?

We're 5 years into Bush's War on Terror as some like to call it. Others call it the struggle against radical Islam. Call it what you may, it's going to last a while longer. Some say 20 years. Some say 50 (BBC).

So, go ahead and answer Sineman's question to yourself, honestly, using whatever logic you choose. I'll not debate your reasoning or your answer. What I would like to do is, by way of example, help put your answer in perspective. Let's pretend the War on Terror will last 20 years. That means we're 1/4 of the way through.

How would Londoners have answered the question "are we safer today?" 1/4 of the way through WWII? In say, Fall/Early-Winter of 1940? Not sure? Read up on The Blitz. Oh, and Italy invaded British controlled Egypt in September 1940 also. Not exactly glorious days.

Further back, the American Civil War, how was that going about 1/4 of the way through? Did you ever wonder why the Confederates had Lee in command and the Union had McClellan then Burnside then Hooker and then Meade? Well, lets just say things weren't going so well for the Union. About a year after the start of the war, the Battle of Shiloh was fought. Casualties, 23,741 (13,047 USA, 10,694 CSA). Numbers like that redefine the word safe as we use it in modern times.

On a larger scale, imagining the struggle against radical Islam runs on for 50 years...that means we're 1/10th of the way through. Ugh. How would people in North America or Western Europe have answered Sineman's question in the 1955-1965 timeframe? They might have mentioned things like the Warsaw Pact, Mutually Assured Destruction, The Bay of Pigs Invasion, and The Cuban Missile Crisis. Or even The Bomber Gap, The Missile Gap, or Duck and Cover (Google Video).

The whole point is, take sineman's question seriously. Answer it honestly. Then, put your answer in perspective.

Conceptual Error

If you can't figure out what's wrong with this headline...then pack it in now.

Palestinian supporters from Hamas burn an Israeli flag during a demonstration against Pope Benedict's remarks in the West Bank city of Ramallah September 22, 2006. REUTERS/Loay Abu Haykel

Can "torture" be avoided?

Perhaps the most difficult 'response' to articulate regarding my previous post about questioning detainees could be, how can we make sure that we are never in a position to consider unconventional interrogation techniques?

It's easy to say, "no torture". But when you frame the question against an imminent attack threatening people's lives, it becomes a bit harder to say "no". We'd be smart if we devoted our energy and attention to making sure we never find ourselves in that position.

So, how do we prevent a situation when "torture" seems to be a realistic option? Programs like the NSA surveillance program could help. Allowing us to detect and disrupt plots before the develop into a real threat.

Now, I can hear you saying already, we're giving up our libery to be safe. We shouldn't have to do that! What good is a country like that?

In this case, we'd be balancing our rights with the rights of others. Our right to a private phone call with a suspected terrorist overseas, balanced with our neighbors right to life, balanced with an Al-Qaeda fighters right not to be interrogated harshly.

Or, we can refrain from harsh interrogation. Refuse to monitor communication of those who would attack us. Thereby refusing to protect ourselves and our neighbors.

What good is our country then?

I say, let's hope for the best and plan for the worst.

Monitor the communications of suspected terrorists regardless of the geographic location of the participants. Sure, get some legal oversight but, don't let it slow things down to a point where the program is ineffective.

Make provisions for dealing with the Hollywood scenario. An imminent attack threatening lives, and a knowledgable detainee who's unwilling to share information. Demand full accountability afterwards to prevent abuse of the provision.

The Spirit and The Letter

The issue of the status and treatment of detainess has become heated. My opinion on this subject can not be charaterized as 'black and white'. If you're not going to read the whole thing, don't read it at all.

• I do not advocate cruel treatment or torture as a general policy regarding detainess.


• I do advocate public trials for detainees when appropriate.

The section of the Geneva Conventions most often cited with respect to this issue is Convention III, Part I, Articles 3 and 4. These were authored and agreed upon after WWII to improve and guarantee the treatment of members of the Armed Services of a nation, militia, volunteer corps, and civilans, in non-occupied territory, who spontaneously take up arms to resist and invader:

"without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."

History had shown the need to protect these categories of people from reprisals and cruel treatment in efforts to gain intelligence about military operations.

Using cruel treatment and torture to gather information (morality aside) is unwarranted as every person on the battlefield is aware of the risk they are exposed to. Every person on the battlefield has the ability to defend himself, to call on the support of his countrymen and allies, and can rest assured that, at his time of surrender, he will be treated humanely.

Other sections of the Geneva Conventions, which are less often cited include:

Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.

• Civilians are not to be subject to attack. This includes direct attacks on civilians and indiscriminate attacks against areas in which civilians are present.


• Civilians must not be used as hostages.


• Civilians must not be subject to outrages upon personal dignity.


• Civilians must not be subject to collective punishment and reprisals.


• Civilians must not receive differential treatment based on race, religion, nationality, or political allegiance.

And finally:

Although all combatants are required to comply with international laws, violations do not deprive the combatants of their status, or of their right to prisoner of war protections if they are captured.

So, we learn several things from these citations. First, if you violate the laws, you do not forfeit your right to be protected by them. Second, intentional attacks on unarmed civilians in occupied or non-occupied territory is forbidden. Third, if a combatant attempts to hide among civilians he looses his protection under the conventions.

How does this apply to the current situation?

The argument that our actions will influence the treatment of US soldiers or civilian captives/hostages has no legal basis. Is it based on reality? How have captured US Soldiers and civilians been treated since 2001?

Some Taliban fighters and certainly all terrorists gave up their protections under the Geneva Conventions long ago when they adopted the strategy of hiding among civilian populations.

Some Taliban may be, and certainly all terrorists are guilty of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and should be tried. Grave breaches include:

Any unlawful act which causes death or seriously endangers the health of a prisoner of war. (Convention III, Art. 13)

Unlawful transfer, deportation or confinement of civilians, willful killing, hostage taking and torture . (Protocol IV, Art. 147)

Attacking cultural objects when they’re not located near a military target or used for the war effort. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 4D)

Depriving civilians who are under the control of an enemy power of the right to a fair trial (Convention IV, Art. 147)

Depriving combatants, prisoners of war, refugees, or medical or religious personnel of a fair trial. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 4e)

Most importantly, the authors of the Geneva Conventions did not contemplate protecting non-uniformed combatants who attack or seek to attack civilains in occupied territory. The spirit of these laws was to protect civilians from war, and lawful combatants, capture in non-occupited territory, from abuse. I believe the current situation calls for a reinterpretation of various articles opposed to following them to the letter. Specifically, when the detainees are part of conspiracy or plot which poses direct and imminent threat to civilians.

As distasteful as it feels, we should all put our right to live above the rights [arguably] afforded to the attackers under the Geneva Conventions.

Civilians are not alert to the risks posed by terrorists (they don't carry arms openly). Civilians can not defend themselves. We can not shoot back. We don't wear helmets, body armor, camoflage. We don't drive APCs to work. We've seen numerous videos of terrorists cutting the heads off journalists and other civilians. We have no guarantee of proper, humane treatment by our would-be captors.

In the unlikely, Hollyood-like case when unconventional interrogation techniques would be necessary (a near last-minute effort to prevent an attack) the government should be required to provide a full accounting of its evidence and its actions in a public court after the fact. If the case can't be made, officials at the highest levels should be tried.

Great Minds

How does the saying go? Great minds think alike?

Terror Cells Tracked in Palestinian Territories

One interesting point here is that you've got the Israelis, Palestinians, and Jordanians all agreeing on something.

Both the Palestianian and Israeli intelligence services report that terrorist cells with connections to al-Qaida have been established.

and later:

Jordan's King Abdullah II, whose secret service has solid West Bank intelligence, has also confirmed activity within the terror cells.

Palestinians are sent off to "religious schools" where they are recruited into the terror network. Then they are sent home to "spread the good word". Additionally, agents of Al-Qaida are infiltrating the area.

Another interesting point:

European Union border patrols are also stationed at Rafah, but they only have observer status and can do little to stop the problem.

sigh

International Insight

John Birmingham is an Australian author. I've read a few of his books. Most recently, Weapons of Choice and Designated Targets. I'm anxiously awaiting Final Impact.

To vastly summarize, he's written a trilogy about a UN Naval Task Force, spearheaded by the U.S.S Hillary Clinton, named for the late president (Ironically, she was assassinated by extremists because of he ultra-tough policy on terrorism.) which is sucked back in time to WWII while en route to fight terrorists in Indonesia in 2020. His books really focus on the resulting cultural clash and the alternate history that results. Including changes to military, political, cultural, civil rights, etc history. Decent stuff if you're into it.

Anyway, he also writes for newspapers and writes a blog. Lately, he's been writing some things which I find myself intrigued by. In Conflict and Metaphor he writes about the misguided comparison between the War on Terror and WWII.

Thinking on this today[Sept 11], I came to the conclusion that 1942, the darkest hour for the free world, is not an appropriate analogy for the present day. But perhaps 1932 is. At that point, Hilter did not control the German state and significant elements within German society – soon to be exterminated – were opposed to his nutty and murderous world view. In power realist terms he was less of a threat than the diffuse networks of modern islamo-fascism.

But within ten years, because nobody had the will to oppose him, he came very close to enslaving the world.

I find this to be a sound argument for the use of the word appeasement. Not for political gain but, because of the potential consequences of the policy.

The next day, in a post titled Creative and destructive energies he writes:

I suspect one of the things that makes it difficult to conceive of fascist islam as an existential threat is that they do not formally control a state and have not yet begun the recogniseable creation of one. Such an entity did exist in Afghanistan under the Talibs. And parts of the mid east are controlled for all intents and purposes by the enemy, which directs some it's energies in those areas to the very basic trench work of building their version of civilization...

Mostly we know them for their destrucitve energies. Suicide bombers detonating themselves inside bars and buses. Mass murderers flying jets into buildings. Psychopaths sawing the heads off trussed up victims on the internet. None of it creating anything material.

Don't know quite where I'm going with these thoughts. But I'm going somewhere.

Let me draw the connection. What if, in 10 years, or 6, or 4, these folks do devote more of their energy to "constructive" tasks? Such as building states? armies? navies? nuclear arsenals? "schools"? and "universities"?

What will these folks do with those armies? and navies? and nuclear weapons? What will they teach in their madrasses schools? and terror camps universities?
Will it be too late for you? for me? for all of us?

Appreciation

On Sept 11, 2006 the sineman posted:



Read his entire post here please.

I have three things to say about this post. In no particular order.

First, were the demonstrations that took place in Iraq in support of Hezbollah part of a grass-roots effort to show support? I suspect not. Why you ask? Well, according to the Washington Post

Thousands of Shiite Muslims marched though the Iraqi capital on Friday in support of Hezbollah guerrillas battling Israeli forces in Lebanon, answering a call by radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to rally to the cause of their fellow Shiites.

So. Big deal. al-Sadr organized a protest. What's the problem? Well, al-Sadr is the leader of the Madhi Army. The Madhi (Wikipedia), a.k.a. The Twelfth Imam, is focus of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's faith. The idea is that the Madhi:

...is the prophesied redeemer of Islam, who will change the world into a perfect Islamic society...

This cartoon by Cox & Forkum (from 2004!!), and the accompanying text, sums up my point. Iran was responsible for the protests (and a BIG chunk of the violence in Iraq). Oh, and Iran happens to be Hezbollah's biggest supporter master.



Second, I actually think this latest post by Sineman is pretty good. His sign does not contain incendiary language. His post is not supremely political, claiming that republicans are fools and democrats will straighten everything out just as soon as they're elected. He framed his point against the anniversary of Sept. 11 and everyone's fear of another attack in a tactful and tasteful way. He could have very, very easily done otherwise. And, with respect to the larger point made by his post, I think, he's simply pointing out the need for flexibility in policy and problem solving.

In all, I actually like the post given the date on which it was made and the tone and content of it. In my humble opinion, the best one since I've been "responding".

Third, and finally, I'm glad he's found the time to post about his signs online again.

Al-Qaeda and 1984

Was reading a transcript of the recently released video featuring the American spokesman for Al Qaeda. I was struck by the repeated use of the words unbeliever and unbelief.

The words strike me as very Orwellian. (see: Newspeak Dictionary)

In case you don't know, the idea behind Newspeak is to control language in such a way as to limit a person's ability to verbalize independent thought. Thereby, limiting independent thought.

By limiting vocabulary, you limit choice. By limiting choice, thought becomes trivialized and will conform to the desired path. If you are not a believer, you MUST be an unbeliever. If you do not believe, my MUST unbelieve.

Is that the language of a tolerant ideology?

Our constitution grants the right of freedom of speech. Our government protects it. We surrender it willingly under certain circumstances, it is restricted by law under others. These people, these Islamic Fascists, would take it away. Along with every other right we hold dear.

Flawed our policies may be. Open to debate they should be. However, failure to achieve the goals our policies seek is unacceptable.

Finally, if ever there was evidence that laws against sedition and treason should be enforced, for the benefit of all, this joker's video is it.