Politics: J'accuse!

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
Huh? It is why she should be OFF the commission.

Huh? Because you give more importance to avoiding the appearance of impropriety than you do to the safety of America?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Huh? Because you give more importance to avoiding the appearance of impropriety than you do to the safety of America?

SS, she should be off, if for no other reason than that the name Gorelick causes historical confusion....

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Huh? Because you give more importance to avoiding the appearance of impropriety than you do to the safety of America?

We have an inherent conflict between security and rights. Pre-9/11, we enacted a sweeping directive cordoning off the sharing of information between domestic and international sources, in an attempt to avoid the use of one in situations we had deemed improper in the other. As it turns out, that walling-off likely contributed, more than most other factors, to the inability to ferret out what was happening. Having one of the primary authors of that policy on the commission significantly decreases the likelihood that the commission will adequately and critically deal with that issue, whether through conscious choice (unlikely) or some attenuated form of professional courtesy and politeness. That's not an appearance of impropriety - that's a clear interference with the purpose of the commission. It may not come to pass - but the makeup of the panel makes it more likely. That goes far beyond appearance.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
This just tells me that you and Cheney think very much alike.

Oooooooo. See, it's only Monday morning and already you're being nasty. I hereby consider myself forewarned for the week.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
No, what I'm saying has nothing to do with oil for food. That was a part of the sanctions. It had nothing to do with selflessness. And the idea that money was siphoned off by UN bureaucrats is odd to me -- I thought it was diverted by Iraqis. But whatever. None of this has anything to do with why we should want the UN there.

You need to read up on this. It is a HUGE scandal that is just starting to get play.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
We have an inherent conflict between security and rights. Pre-9/11, we enacted a sweeping directive cordoning off the sharing of information between domestic and international sources, in an attempt to avoid the use of one in situations we had deemed improper in the other. As it turns out, that walling-off likely contributed, more than most other factors, to the inability to ferret out what was happening. Having one of the primary authors of that policy on the commission significantly decreases the likelihood that the commission will adequately and critically deal with that issue, whether through conscious choice (unlikely) or some attenuated form of professional courtesy and politeness.

Calling her one of the "primary authors" of that policy demonstrates either confusion on your part or hyperbole.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You need to read up on this. It is a HUGE scandal that is just starting to get play.

I saw more re this after I posted. It does sound ugly. However, it still doesn't have anything to do with my point. I want the UN involved out of US self-interest, not goo-goo motives.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Some libertarians and criminal rights activists believe that terrorists should be dealt with like criminals. That terrorists (especially terrorists that happen to be US citizens) should have the full protections of Article III courts and the like. That is pure and utter nonsense. Terrorists are agents of non-governmental entities that are committed to extreme violence against the US are as dangerous as governments that have declared war against the US. Article III protections should not apply; standard protections for citizens under the Bill of Rights should not apply. Treating terrorists like criminals encourages violent opponents of the US to work out of non-governmental organizations rather than governmental organizations. Terrorists should have no more protections than foreign troops, and presumably even less because in some ways they harder to find and stop.

Assuming that you think this is true for terrorists who are U.S. citizens, how would you amend the Constitution to make this work?

That's because of the libertarians and criminal rights activists. You all have skewed the FBI's incentives.

That's a load of crap. The FBI doesn't give a rat's ass what libertarians and criminal rights activists think. And please note that I am not in either camp.

Who among you will allow the FBI to assassinate terrorists leaders (citizens and non-citizens) with as little red tape as Israeli intelligence faces?

Now it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about. That would be a CIA job, not an FBI job.

Who among you will allow the FBI to seize terrorists (citizens and non-citizens), hold them secretly, and use lies, psychological torture, and some physical discomfort to debrief them -- all of which Israeli intelligence does? Not many, I assure you. More than before 9-11, but still not many.

We have laws against such things so that the government can break them if need be. See the passage from the Clarke book that Shape Shifter quoted a few days ago.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I saw more re this after I posted. It does sound ugly. However, it still doesn't have anything to do with my point. I want the UN involved out of US self-interest, not goo-goo motives.

I think it does. There seems to be this view that if the UN were to get involved it would (a) facilitate our goals in Iraq and (b) some how cleanse our involvement there. My point is that the the UN is not in a position to do either, because it is a corrupt organization in general and, in particular, with respect to Iraq.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I was the same one. We're all pretty mainstream, other than Panda/Greedy.

Is this about the $500 brownie? Heck, I was just kidding. And people pay more than that for a plateful of rubber chicken.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think it does. There seems to be this view that if the UN were to get involved it would (a) facilitate our goals in Iraq and (b) some how cleanse our involvement there. My point is that the the UN is not in a position to do either, because it is a corrupt organization in general and, in particular, with respect to Iraq.

Non-sequitur. The point of having UN involvement is so that Iraqis perceive the government and occupation as an international thing, not as something the US is foisting upon them.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
We have laws against such things so that the government can break them if need be. See the passage from the Clarke book that Shape Shifter quoted a few days ago.

A few silly laws didn't seem to hinder Ollie North.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Non-sequitur. The point of having UN involvement is so that Iraqis perceive the government and occupation as an international thing, not as something the US is foisting upon them.

Huh? So the UN is foisting upon iraqis government and occupation--what's the difference? The same people who are pissed off now would be then as well--they're losing power and don't like it; others are gaining and like it.

The UN provides one thing: purported legitimacy. It's a cover to counter claims of american imperialism. "No, it's not America, but the whole world, who thinks Saddam is dangerous and that Iraq needs a new government." But why, if the end result is the same, does it matter if the US does it alone or the UN does it? Because Iraqi dissidents can't say that world opinion is mixed.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Non-sequitur. The point of having UN involvement is so that Iraqis perceive the government and occupation as an international thing, not as something the US is foisting upon them.

Allowing the UN to take over would be the most counterproductive thing we could do right now.

Iraqis follow strength. They are on our side as long as they perceive that we won't bug out. I think the UN would be perceived as being ready to bug out on a moment's notice, and thus the Iraquis would move to the side of the likely prevailing party at that point.

Plus, after twelve years of "the US sactions are killing millions of our children", the new information that it was really UNSCAM that was responsible for whatever shortage-based discomfort there was precludes Iraqi faith in the UN.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Huh? So the UN is foisting upon iraqis government and occupation--what's the difference? The same people who are pissed off now would be then as well--they're losing power and don't like it; others are gaining and like it.

The UN provides one thing: purported legitimacy. It's a cover to counter claims of american imperialism. "No, it's not America, but the whole world, who thinks Saddam is dangerous and that Iraq needs a new government." But why, if the end result is the same, does it matter if the US does it alone or the UN does it? Because Iraqi dissidents can't say that world opinion is mixed.

Because we and the UN are perceived differently. As you said, it's the legitimacy. To conservatives in this country, maybe it's only purported (which maybe explains why this hasn't happened yet), but to the rest of the world it's not just a fig leaf.

Originally posted by bilmore
Plus, after twelve years of "the US sactions are killing millions of our children", the new information that it was really UNSCAM that was responsible for whatever shortage-based discomfort there was precludes Iraqi faith in the UN.

I think we all understand that Hussein was the perp here.

Originally posted by bilmore
Iraqis follow strength. They are on our side as long as they perceive that we won't bug out.

Kevin Drum was just posting about this idea that the Iraqis respect strength:

SPEAKING THE SAME LANGUAGE....Matt Yglesias was listening to the talking heads on CNN read some viewer mail this morning:

• One common trope was that the unspecified "they" we're fighting in Iraq "knows only violence" or else "only understands force." I know it's a strange comment for a blogger to make, but I wonder where all these instant experts on the psychology of the Iraqi insurgency came from. America's intelligence services don't seem quite sure who "they" are, much less what the full scope of their knowledge is.

CNN's armchair sociologists aren't the only ones who believe this. Steve Coll, in Ghost Wars, reports the following from Osama bin Laden's mentor, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in 1998:

• Like bin Laden, al-Zawahiri believed that it was time for jihadists to carry the war to "the distant enemy"....A key war-fighting principle, al-Zawahiri believed, was "the need to inflict the maximum casualties against the opponent, for this is the language understood by the West, no matter how much time and effort such operations take."

That's why they attacked the Twin Towers. Because everyone knows the only language westerners understand is force.

link (contains internal links)