The argument for speed over law in the fight against terrorism

Should speed trump legality in America's 'war on terror'?
Just as Elaine Scarry stated that the assertion that speed is necessary for security — e.g. 'not having time' to go through the courts or get a formal declaration war, which has not been done in the US since WWII — has taken power away from the people and given it to an increasingly centralized government (see "Citizenship in Emergency"), which doesn't always do the best thing with its power, it is easy to make the case that Vice President Dick Cheney and allies, such as close advisor David Addington, used speed and the daunting enemy of terrorism as an excuse for the creation of the unitary executive, among other things. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the White House went as far as ignoring Congress, the courts, and even its own departments (e.g. Justice) to get the national security policy it wanted. The need to counter terrorism in a speedy manner has been used by the Bush administration to justify programs like unauthorized NSA domestic wiretapping (ignoring the FISA court), or interrogation tactics that ignore the ruling of Congress and international law.

Defending the homeland has become a battle against existing expectations of legal due process, governmental checks and balances, and personal freedom. As former Justice Department official Jack Goldsmith told Frontline,

[The Bush administration] decided in the fall of 2001 that speed was more important than these other values. I can't say in the fall of 2001 that they were wrong. I don't know exactly what they thought they were going to do in military commissions, but early on the imperatives to get things done trumped the normal processes of deliberation and consultation. In emergencies that often happens. I think as time went on, the circumvention of the normal processes of deliberation and consultation, maybe the balance tipped; that speed and quick decision making may have been able to go slower on that in exchange for more deliberation and consultation.

Detention and torture of terrorism suspects and warrant-less wiretapping, two infamous tools of the 'war on terror', both of which have been direct results of an argument for speed in the fight against an often-invisible, unorthodox enemy. The courts were too slow and Congress' restrictions too inconvenient for 'aggressive interrogation' not to be used on terrorism suspects — the information needed to be gotten, and fast, from the terrorists, supporters say. FISA was bypassed in the case of the wiretapping; the program's defenders said that the FISA court was too slow, and thus, the White House had to act without the consent of neither the legislature nor the judiciary. Communications are moving too fast for judicial oversight; terrorist attacks need to be prevented, beats the drum of former Bush administration legal architect John Yoo. Thanks to Democratic timidity, the NSA wiretapping program was made legal over the summer.

If America is to continue as a (semi-)functioning democracy, her citizens should not let their rights be subdued for the sake of speed or supposed security. Scarry wrote in her article that,

The most frequent argument used to excuse the setting aside of the Constitution is that the pace of modern life simply does not allow time for obtaining the authorization of Congress, let alone the full citizenry.

Over six years after the 11 September attacks, speed has become the excuse for countless questionable actions taken by the president and his staff. No longer should anyone fall for it.

Russia's continued icy relations

Russia breaks the ice with Canada... by annoying it
What does the latest update in the chilling relations between Russia and others (e.g. America, Britain, Georgia, Estonia, and now Canada) mean in the long term? As usual, the implications may be as murky as the waters of which Russia seeks control in the Arctic [see post].

Tit for tat
Russia is trying to show the world that, along with its new-found energy wealth, it has bigger muscles it can flex. Many recent Russian moves of rebellion are meant to distance itself from others and show it is strong enough on its own, or so the theory goes. The former Soviet nation has produced a few surprises, such as (apparently) calling Bush's bluff on the missile shields and proving more a bully than ever with its natural gas.

America and Russia don't look like they are in 'Cold War' mode (I agree with Condi Rice) — as some alarmists have speculated — but the rhetoric is clear: the White House thinks Russia is becoming a bullying autocracy; Russia views the United States as an overreaching imperial superpower. Both can learn from their own talking points.

The most powerful voice in the anti-Russia camp presiding in the Bush administration is none other than that of Vice President Cheney, who has traded jabs with Putin (sometimes similar personalities clash, I guess). Considering his the formidable power he welds in the executive, Cheney might convince Bush to toughen up. Whether that is happening remains to be seen.

We do know that Russia's antics over the past few years — cutting of gas and launching cyberwars against nations, killing and intimidating state opponents, rebelling against the West — do not look like they will stop anytime soon. Depending on the conditions, things may change with some diplomacy, direct or stealth.

The big freeze?
Just because Moscow has called the icy Arctic theirs doesn't mean relations will stay cold. They may turn frozen, or perhaps the thaw will come. Russia views itself as a new world player. It will take tact by western states to balance this new perceived world power seesaw, no matter how politically superficial it seems.

Russia might fear containment; both sides fear the other's overreach. A new article by the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov intended for publication in Foreign Affairs (no, it wasn't censored) tackles this issue.

Cooperation or mutual stubbornness is what it comes down to, but it takes two to tango. Both Russia and America, et al, impact their mutual relations. Both will have to fix them or face more diplomatic tension.

Zero presidential oversight

This week there were revelations about how both the president and vice president of the United States have managed to remain clear of any sort of accountability or oversight.

First Vice President Cheney's story:

For four years, Vice President Dick Cheney has resisted routine oversight of his office’s handling of classified information, and when the National Archives unit that monitors classification in the executive branch objected, the vice president’s office suggested abolishing the oversight unit, according to documents released yesterday by a Democratic congressman.
...
Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, disclosed Mr. Cheney’s effort to shut down the oversight office. Mr. Waxman, who has had a leading role in the stepped-up efforts by Democrats to investigate the Bush administration, outlined the matter in an eight-page letter sent Thursday to the vice president and posted, along with other documentation, on the committee’s Web site.

Officials at the National Archives and the Justice Department confirmed the basic chronology of events cited in Mr. Waxman’s letter.

The letter said that after repeatedly refusing to comply with a routine annual request from the archives for data on his staff’s classification of internal documents, the vice president’s office in 2004 blocked an on-site inspection of records that other agencies of the executive branch regularly go through.
...
“I know the vice president wants to operate with unprecedented secrecy,” Mr. Waxman said in an interview. “But this is absurd. This order is designed to keep classified information safe. His argument is really that he’s not part of the executive branch, so he doesn’t have to comply.”

Bush too has declared himself exempt:

The White House says the president's own order on classified data does not apply to his office or the vice president's.
...
The White House said Friday that, like Vice President Dick Cheney's office, President Bush's office is not allowing an independent federal watchdog to oversee its handling of classified national security information.

An executive order that Bush issued in March 2003 — amending an existing order — requires all government agencies that are part of the executive branch to submit to oversight. Although it doesn't specifically say so, Bush's order was not meant to apply to the vice president's office or the president's office, a White House spokesman said.

Changing the rules — even the ones you wrote — by distorting them. That's the White House's message. So does that mean it's OK if/when Congress ignores it's own laws?

bush, cheney

Read Rice's lips: no new Cold War

The long awaited response by the secretary of state to cold exchanges between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US Vice President Dick Cheney has come.

No 'new Cold War', Condi RIce emphatically exclaims.

Rice, who sees Putin on Tuesday, said Washington was committed to working through those differences, notably over U.S. plans for a missile defense system in Europe, Russia's threat to suspend a major military treaty and Moscow's opposition to a U.N. plan for Kosovo independence.

There is also growing U.S. concern about Moscow's treatment of its former Soviet state neighbors and steps Putin has taken to consolidate power in the Kremlin are seen as democratic backsliding as Russia prepares for presidential and parliamentary elections next year.
...
She said she would use her meetings in Moscow to impress on Putin and other top Russian officials the need for a missile defense to counter threats from Iran and North Korea and the genuine U.S. desire to work with Russia in building the system transparently.

The missile defense matter is of issue as America charges forward with a new anti-missile defense system that is making many countries feel uncomfortable. Putin has already said how dominant the US is and how it presses for unipolarity in the global politik, and the perceived hegemony around the missile defense system is proof of that.

Russia is asserting power on international stage because of its energy resources. It is a key state geopolitically and influential actor in issues like North Korea and Iran. It is also giving nuclear material to some of the worst nations on the planet, including Myanmar (aka Burma).

Cheney: the outspoken master of myths

After attacking Congress for challenging the White House — again — the US vice president continued, over the weekend, to further his ideological cause: make Iraq the battle against terrorism it isn’t while still holding on to the greatest vice presidential power America has ever seen.
Chicago Tribune:

There are a few “myths’’ about the war against terrorism that Vice President Dick Cheney wants to refute.

“The most common myth is that Iraq has nothing to do with the global war on terror,’’ Cheney said last night at a dinner in Manalapan, Florida, addressing the Republican Jewish Coalition. “Obviously, the terrorists have no illusion about the importance of the struggle in Iraq… They know it is a central front in that war.''

I must say, Cheney is indeed a myth-master. In trying to dispel myths, he actually spreads them! The only reason Iraq is now so important in the so-called fight is against terrorism is the insurgency provoked within Iraq, and the outrage blossomed from throughout the Middle East and wider Muslim world — which only helps the extremists recruit more and point to the US as the evil occupier.

Cheney was the one, after all, who pushed with his pal Donald Rumsfeld for the Iraq invasion. He was one of the first linking Saddam Hussein's Iraq to al-Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein to nukes, thus connecting a dangerous terrorist organization/ideology to the most destructive weapon known to man. His chief of staff, you may remember, was convicted of perjury when the White House was being investigated following the ousting of a CIA agent's identity; her husband was a war critic who tried to dispell the Saddam Hussein-nuclear weapons material connection.

Cheney never stops speaking his mind, which is, I'll admit, an admirable, if not courageous, quality of someone on Capitol Hill. I also hear he has great marksmanship; amazing that he got the friend that he shot to apologize to him — Cheney, the shooter. Cheney also cannot resist swearing every once in a while. On the Congressional floor, he told the then-ranking member (now chair) of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Lehey (D-VT), to "fuck yourself". He has also locked horns with world leaders, namely Russia's President Putin.

Cheney thinks he's above everyone. Somebody needs to bring him back down to earth.

technorati tags: dick+cheney, vice+president, united+states, politics, iraq, war+on+terrorism, iraq+terrorism, cheney+iraq, news

Cheney's attacks: Pakistan, China, and beyond

US Vice President Dick Cheney, recently wrapping up a three-day excursion to Australia, has sparked plenty of global controversy. First of all, he finally roughed up Pakestan a bit, which he visited following his rhetoric-spewing sessions with right-wing Aussie PM John Howard in the land down under. (Howard was the man who said if Barak Obama won the 2008 election for US president, it would be a 'victory for al-Qaeda'.) Australians are angry about Iraq, among other things, including the United States' illegal detention of an Australian citizen, David Hicks. As a result, there were plenty of protests for the man charged with war crimes in Belgium, i.e. Cheney, during his stay in Australia. Why aren't Americans angry about the detention of US citizens, namely Jose Padilla?

On the Pakistan topic, Cheney said, or we think he said, it needed to do more in combating terrorism and, namely, the Taliban, which the government looks to be supporting. I hate to admit it, but, like with Russia, I agree with Cheney, or at least the comments coming from anonymous officials saying they speak Cheney's position and that he was tough with Pakistan's leader during the short visit.

NYT:

A particular source of concern is Mr. Musharraf’s peace accord with the tribal leaders, a deal giving them greater sovereignty that he has assured Mr. Bush would not diminish Pakistan’s commitment to fighting extremists. Mr. Bush noted in September that Mr. Musharraf had looked him “in the eye” and said, “There won’t be a Taliban and won’t be al Qaeda.” Now, American officials contend those groups have gained ground.

One problem is the secretive nature of the visit and the lack of reporting thanks to the media-hating — unless the media is really supportive (e.g. post-9/11, pre-Iraq war) — White House. He attacks even his allies; whether democracy-supporting political foes at home or despotic US-friendly regimes abroad, Cheney seems to be lashing out at everyone — or so it seems.

Maybe Cheney's views aren't being represented by the mysterious mouthpiece(s). If that be the case I retract my agreeing with him to a small degree on the Pakistan issue. He was either pushed to pressure Pakistan, genuinely wanted to pressure Pakistan, or didn't actually pressure Pakistan — there are conflicting reports and views. His Russia comments, while somewhat true, were also cavalier for an executive of the world's most powerful state to say and only made foreign relations worse. Both Pakistan and Russia need to respect the will of the people, as well as not inflame terrorists or — in Russia's case — seemingly only help Iran with its nuclear program while claiming otherwise the whole time.

Pakistan is a dictatorship, plain and simple; and effectively so is Russia, or it is becoming one that is. Pakistan has been a long-time American ally in the 'war on terror', though it may only be an ally by name. The US gives hundreds of millions of aid to the Musharraf regime. Like with much aid, who knows where it goes.

During his Australia visit, Cheney warned China once again of its growing military. China is an up-and-coming world power, what does he expect? Throughout history military might has been key to the assumption of a state's power. When the United States embraced its industrial development, a military expansion followed. What peoples of a country do not want is a constant wartime economic and military attitude, one the US seems to adapted especially under President Bush. During wartime, parts of an economy grow, but so does the deficit. Generally peacetime economies try to defeat deficit, not enlarge it.

Cheney's comments on China focused strongly on its recent test of an anti-satellite missile and expansion of its army. He hinted at his belief that China's massive military expansion is not peaceful. His controversial comments have resulted in Beijing calling Washington a 'nosy neighbor'. (Wow, that's gotta hurt — leaning something you already knew about yourself.)

We know Cheney has directly attacked verbally Russia and China, but the Pakistan stance remains washy. In the past Cheney has been one for hypocrisies: strongly condemning one country for being undemocratic yet supporting another that is just as undemocratic or worse. That pretty much sums up this administration's policies toward its 'favorites' in the global realm, though Cheney is a but more pro-[what he calls] democracy than some in the White House. He will strike at about whoever he wants, and will not hold back. Not much has changed since the Cold War, methinks, and the 'war on terror' is just as vague as to the menace, and worse in the fact it can't be considered a war by any standards.

We know Cheney has openly attacked Russia and China for being undemocratic and a bully and for escalating militarily, respectively, but his stance on Pakistan remains washy. Putin of Russia has struck back and now China has called the US 'nosy'. Which state will be next, and for what reasons?

Update: I forgot to mention the attempt on Cheney's life when he visited Afghanistan following Pakistan.

technorati tags: dick+cheney, cheney, pakistan, china, foreign+policy, united+states, international+relations, news, in+the+news, china+military, pakistan+terrorism+democracy, russia

Putin: United States is 'dangerous'

Russian President (more like dictator) Vladimir Putin has fully come out of the closet, so to speak, on how he views [what he sees as] the United States' virtually unchecked power.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has criticised the United States for what he said was its "almost uncontained" use of force around the world.
Washington's "very dangerous" approach to global relations was fuelling a nuclear arms race, he told a security summit in Munich.

Correspondents say the strident speech may signal a more assertive Russia.

The White House said it was "surprised and disappointed" by the Russian president's comments.

I do agree with Putin's assertions of the United States' foreign policy and nuclear actions, often acting against non-prolifiration and, as Putin says, making the global arms race worse. As a side note, why is the White House's response always so lackluster? I mean first the Palestinian agreement and now this, not to mention a history of boring, generic comments on breaking events and comments.

Not long ago US Vice President Cheney made a speech in which he basically demonized Russia — especially on its energy and foreign policies — and actually made some good points. That was one of the few times I agreed with Cheney — on anything. Putin lashed back, comparing the US to a hungry wolf. Of course, Cheney and Putin, both advocates of a strong, almost-authortarian to authoritarian executive government and favoring the neoimperialistic style bullying of foreign states, have gone back and forth for a while now.

Putin has used Russian state owned natural gas company Gazprom to essentially bully states like Poland, Ukraine, and Georgia — all former Soviet republics — in re to energy. Views of Gazprom, however, differ. An effect of various global energy factors, Russia has been climbing back to the might it held in the Cold War days, or so it seems. Because of that new found prosperity, some have said the people of Russia remain content with Putin's authoritarian reforms and limits on free rights. No doubt the validity of such statements also differ (I happen to have talked with someone living in Russia who says people are not too happy with Putin).

Putin's latest comments have reinitiated speculation of a new Cold War. This is what happens in a unipolar world — though that notion in itself is also disputed, especially if one looks at the latest WEF.

Problems with Putin's assertion of the US trying to make a 'unipolar' world:

If the world is unipolar, it will not be for long;

the global power structure may not be unipolar at all, just as the US might not be a superpower (it depends on one's viewpoint);

with forces like globalization, the world is becoming, if anything, more multi-polar;

the US may be powerless to hamper the effects of multi-polarity.
There's a difference between striving for neoimperialism and establishing unipolarity.

Less than a year ago there was a feud between Russia and the US over allegations by the US military that Russia had tipped off and supported Saddam Hussein in the lead-up to the American invasion in 2003. Back then there were calls that a new Cold War was coming. For now the feud exists within the bounds of words and rhetoric, not actions; it is highly unlikely this latest Putin comment will result in anything more than an attempted slap on the wrist by the White House and a rebuttal by VP Cheney — which would happen even if Putin said nothing (it's Cheney, after all).

One thing I do like about Putin was when, in a 60 Minutes interview, he responded to criticism of his reforms crippling what's left of Russian democracy with a criticism of his own of the American electoral system. Though the US is no doubt more democratic than modern day Russia, not the least Russia under Putin.


Song stuck in my head right now: "All The Pretty Faces" by The Killers.

technorati tags: vladimir+putin, dick+cheney, cheney, putin, united+states, power, international+relations, politics, unipolar, russia, news

Cheney warns Iran not to 'meddle' in Iraq

Vice President Dick Cheney’s (whose name I always seem to misspell) comments warning Iran not to “meddle” in Iraq can be taken as a realistic warning to Iran, Cheney wanting to keep Iraq stable in secure, but it is unlikely that is the only message given off — or intended to be perceived — in this latest string of accusations by the White House against Iran. His comments only show further the inability of the Bush administration to work with others, especially Iran and Syria. In building Middle East peace and stability — which this administration has only made less of —, working with countries actually in the Mid-East is a step forward. Namely, the decision to go to war with Iraq and the numerous policy blunders following the invasion have made the Middle East much worse, thanks to America.

BBC News:

US Vice President Dick Cheney has warned Iran not to interfere in Iraq.

His comments come after US forces detained several Iranians in northern Iraq on suspicion of aiding insurgents, accusations rejected by Tehran.

Mr Cheney is the latest member of the Bush administration to warn that the US will take steps against those trying to destabilise the situation in Iraq.

Washington has often accused Iran, or factions within the Iranian government, of aiding Shia groups in Iraq militarily and politically, but has offered little proof of Tehran's alleged activities.

President George W Bush on Wednesday warned that the US would take a tough stance towards Iran and Syria, which he accused of destabilising Iraq.

Mr Cheney told Fox News that Iran was "fishing in troubled waters" by aiding attacks on US forces and backing Shia militias involved in sectarian violence.

"I think the message that the president sent clearly is that we do not want (Iran) doing what they can to try to destabilise the situation inside Iraq.

"We think it's very important that they keep their folks at home" he said, adding that the Iranian threat was growing, multi-dimensional and of concern to everybody in the region.

Mr Cheney's television interview formed part of attempts by the Bush administration to promote the new drive to improve security in Iraq, which involves sending an extra 21,500 US troops.

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates is in the UK for a brief visit, meeting Prime Minister Tony Blair and Defence Secretary Des Browne.

"My first priority is making sure that we preserve the gains that we've achieved in Afghanistan and then talking about the way forward in Iraq," Mr Gates told reporters on his flight to London.

Earlier there were tough words from the US National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, who told ABC Television that the US had the authority to pursue Iranians in Iraq who "put our people at risk".

He did not elaborate on whether this could mean sending US troops across the border into Iran if necessary.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, speaking before she embarked on her current Middle East tour, insisted that the US was not going to let either Iran or Syria continue activities that endangered American soldiers in Iraq.

The Iraq Study Group report — among other major proposed plans on Iraq — have all been shot down by the White House; the president seems to want to listen to himself and his closest advisors (i.e. the people who got the US into the Iraqi mess and have only exasperated it). The United States needs to work with Iran and Syria.

No matter how devious these two nations may seem, putting them on the “axis of evil” sure didn’t help things either. Neither have the suggestions of the use of military force against Iran and the lack of mention of continuing the Syria-Israel peace process talks over the Golan Heights (land belonging to Syria, occupied by Israel). I had delved into Syria, on multiple levels, in this post.

technorati tags: iran, iraq, middle+east, rice, gates, cheney, dick+cheney, chaney, syria, bush, white+house, politics, middle+east, golan+heights, axis+of+evil, usa, united+states, news, current+affairs, current+events, bbc+news, in+the+news, iraq+study+group,