Bush's continued assault on human rights

Another nasty veto...
BBC News:

US President George Bush says he has vetoed legislation that would stop the CIA using interrogation methods such as simulated drowning or "water-boarding".

He said he rejected the intelligence bill, passed by Senate and Congress, as it took "away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror".

The president said the CIA needed "specialised interrogation procedures" that the military did not.

Make no mistake: waterboarding is torture. All human rights organizations agree, as well as other nations and even the American FBI! Waterboarding simulates drowning and leaves the victim psychologically — and sometimes physically — damaged.

There is no reason for torture. This is not a fight between human rights and national security. Torturous interrogation techniques do not get reliable information, countless studies have confirmed this common sense notion. In addition, the declining perception of the US because of the use of torture leaves it more open for attack and helps terrorist recruiters.

The issue of the CIA lies in the fact that by not leaving it objective, the White House opened the door for flawed, politically-motivated intelligence reports such as the ones justifying the Iraq war. The CIA has had continual use as a dirty political tool in the 'war on terror', where it has tortured and detained innocent people without respect to US or international law, whether in Guantanamo, 'black sites', or cases of extraordinary rendition.

"This is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe." Bush says. Mr. President, if I may counter. You have failed to produce any reliable evidence that torture has helped the United States. Yes, I know you don't use the exact term "torture". It's politically sticky. You stick to the euphemism "enhanced interrogation". Let's see how you would feel about having to stand up, shackled, for 40 hours or so, while being threatened by a CIA thug. Maybe that would change your mind about the true meaning of torture. You use the same justification for torture as you do for (previously) illegal domestic wiretapping: It has saved lives, it will save lives! We must counter the most dangerous terrorists! We must prevent another attack! While it is compelling for me to follow along with most Americans and politicians on your national security programs, you see, I have a respect for the law. I also recognize the fact that torturing terror suspects will get us nowhere in our fight against those who have wronged us.

The president's actions are inexcusable; this is one of the times I am seriously angry at George W. Bush and his ludicrous national security policies. Why can't he use at least one of his vetoes to cut spending like he has promised instead of fighting popular stem call initiatives or legalizing torture?

New Cold War spy scare

We already know that Russia's assertion of power — with its new, nuclear-strength megabomb; in the Middle East; the energy trade; the Arctic; and international relations in general — has been clumped into the notion of a 'new' Cold War. China has also been accused of hacking US government computers, in addition to its vast economic growth, heightened interest in what's going on in the world, and military claims (e.g. military expansion, anti-satellite missile launch). Who knew the two could be working in concert against American interest, employing espionage as much as they can? Well they are, says US National Intelligence director Michael McConnell.

Russia and China are spying on US facilities at close to Cold War levels, the head of US intelligence has warned.
...
US agencies are battling traditional state foes as well as terror groups, Mr McConnell told a congressional hearing.

Mr McConnell was defending new legislation allowing the US government to eavesdrop on international phone calls and emails without a warrant.

"Foreign intelligence information concerning the plans, activities and intentions of foreign powers and their agents is critical to protect the nation and preserve our security," Mr McConnell told the House Judiciary Committee.

The Protect America Act allows the government to eavesdrop on foreign communications, even if the recipient is a person living in the US.

These powers are due to expire in January unless Congress extends them.

The White House wants them made permanent.

I agree that the maintenance of national intelligence is essential. But the fact that McConnell says the civil liberties-invading wiretapping program is essential to maintaining national security shows the priorities of America's national security services are mixed up. Never mind that the majority of cargo entering the US by sea isn't checked or scanned at all, of course that would be a superfluous and unnecessary security precaution [sarcasm]! They already have Eschelon and FISA; there is little need for additional spy powers, especially if they're complaining about other nations' spying and there are more constitutional, down to earth, and effective policies waiting to be implemented!

The White House has gone beyond using the omnipresent terrorist enemy to get what it wants, it's invoking Cold War-era scare tactics now! 'They're spying on us, so we better spy on ourselves, and them, and everyone. No need for a warrant either...'

So not only are the terrorists of the world out to get America, but in addition to its usual enemies, two world powers are snooping like crazy. Some excuse for the even more scary spy program, the NSA wiretapping scheme legalized (sadly) by Congress earlier this year by a piece of legislation with the propaganda-esque name of the Protect America Act. (It better protect something, because it sure doesn't protect the Constitution!)

It's as if the Bush administration wants another excuse, namely a national security threat or new 'war', to expand its already over-extended powers.

Smile! You're on satellite camera

The United States is moving up in the world in terms of state surveillance...

The Bush administration has approved a plan to expand domestic access to some of the most powerful tools of 21st-century spycraft, giving law enforcement officials and others the ability to view data obtained from satellite and aircraft sensors that can see through cloud cover and even penetrate buildings and underground bunkers.

A program approved by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security will allow broader domestic use of secret overhead imagery beginning as early as this fall, with the expectation that state and local law enforcement officials will eventually be able to tap into technology once largely restricted to foreign surveillance.

Administration officials say the program will give domestic security and emergency preparedness agencies new capabilities in dealing with a range of threats, from illegal immigration and terrorism to hurricanes and forest fires. But the program, described yesterday by the Wall Street Journal, quickly provoked opposition from civil liberties advocates, who said the government is crossing a well-established line against the use of military assets in domestic law enforcement.

Does its implications against freedom cancel out the good it does for security (see security v. freedom); or is there nothing to worry about? And what is up with the WSJ getting all these major political news scoops?

Although the federal government has long permitted the use of spy-satellite imagery for certain scientific functions -- such as creating topographic maps or monitoring volcanic activity -- the administration's decision would provide domestic authorities with unprecedented access to high-resolution, real-time satellite photos.
...
Oversight of the department's use of the overhead imagery data would come from officials in the Department of Homeland Security and from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and would consist of reviews by agency inspectors general, lawyers and privacy officers.

No warrants are needed for this kind of spying, and yet it is my personal view that the NSA wiretapping program is probably a larger infringement on civil liberties. However, both these spy programs can be easily abused for political motives because the oversight comes from those within the Bush administration. Many of the people overlooking these spy programs, such as officials in the DHS and DoJ, have already proven themselves to be political appointees, cronies, incompetent yes-men, and by no means objective like they should be. And all they ever seem to want is more power to spy on Americans.

I think it is a good idea to update America's satellite imaging system, just as I believe a FISA for the 21st century was a good goal, but the lack of oversight is alarming for both of these surveillance programs. At least the NSA program will have audits and this new spy program will be reviewed by a number of people who hopefully will prevent abuse of this important and slightly worrying technology. Still, it is up to the courts, Congress, and, ultimately, the people to keep the executive in check, and that includes its more sensitive programs.

Pros and cons of Israel's Gaza raid

Here we go again: another Israeli excursion
Judging by previous experiences, how can Israel expect these raids to make things better? It will just make Palestinians more annoyed and spark even more terrorism. But since the matter is hardly void of opinion, here I present a list of "Pros" and "Cons" of the Israeli raid of Gaza.

Pros:

Helps with Israeli security*

Gets rid of some terrorists

Weakens Hamas*

Good for domestic politics; makes Olmert not seem soft

Secures Israeli military personnel

Increases power and leverage in future negotiations

Cons:

Creates more Palestinian strife

Kills, injures, and destroys

Weakens support abroad, save the US

Puts semi-stable Palestine unity government in disarray

Creates more terrorism (see fire paradox)

Does not accomplish mission and objectives*

Cuts chances of diplomacy

Infringes on human rights, political sovereignty (if officials are arrested like in previous raids)

Palestinians support radicals more because of anguish and need for security against Israel, which appears more malevolent than ever

Moderate Abbas loses support of people because of above reason

* - Questionable

Almost unbelievable...

(Thanks to Balkinization for letting this news out.) A renowned law professor (emeritus) at Princeton and Bush administration critic has been put on a terrorist watch/'no-fly' list.

The professor offered these words in concluding his statement:

"I have a personal stake here, but so do all Americans who take their political system seriously. Thus I hope you and your colleagues will take some positive action to bring the Administration's conduct to the attention of a far larger, and more influential, audience than I could hope to reach. "

As was posted in a follow-up post on Balkinization, the question is: is it because of bureaucratic incompetence, was it a mistake by the airport and airline authorities, or is the White House going (even more) mad with supposed security policy? Is Walter Murphy's inclusion on the list a mistake or another 'big brother' incident – just because he opposes the Bush administration. He is not a radical peace protester. He is a retired Marine colonial.

This is slightly similar to the Plame/Wilson affair — i.e. the outing of a CIA agent's identity allegedly because her high-profile husband was critical of the administration. It comes down to whether there was a command given for this to happen, or did a flaw in the security apparatus, in Plame's case, just a coincidence, just let it happen.

There seems to be a fine line between political dissidence and so-called national security. Of course, the people of the United States have it relatively good. Lest some of the more radical ideologues forget: the grass is not always greener on the other side.

I am skeptical — not of Murphy's story, but of whether politics has anything to do with him being listed on a 'terrorist watch' or no-fly list.

The Terrorism Index

Foreign Policy magazine and the Center for American Progress have released their second "Terrorism Index" (full PDF) six months after the first one (which was released around the five year anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks). This is really interesting...

Six months ago, we launched a groundbreaking new index that asked more than 100 of America's top foreign-policy hands if the United States was winning the war on terror. Their answer? No. Now, surveyed again today, this bipartisan group sees a world that continues to grow more dangerous and a U.S. national security strategy that is failing on several fronts. In the second FOREIGN POLICY/Center for American Progress Terrorism Index, these experts warn that not only is another attack imminent, but that the United States may be distracted from the threats that matter most.

Bush administration policies (14%) are more dangerous to US national security than the Iraq war (10%), al-Qaeda/Jihadist movements (11%), WMD (12%), or terrorism (11%), say the experts. However, nuclear weapons and materials (25%) as well as "other" (17%) are higher. By far most of the people surveyed say that the world is becoming a more dangerous place for the United States and Americans in general (81% versus 12% who think it is becoming safer). When asked whether "the United States is winning the war on terror" the experts were categorized by declared political ideology. 43 conservatives, five moderates, and five liberals agree; 50 conservatives, 81 liberals, and 93 moderates disagree with the statement. Overall 16 agree and 75 disagree with the notion that the US is winning the 'war on terror'.

Putting political ideology aside, six in 10 of the experts think Bush is doing the worst job possible in Iraq. A majority think the US should not raise troop levels in Iraq, but definitely should in Afghanistan — which I agree with. There is little faith in the government on its progress since 9/11 on the 9/11 Commission's recommendations; which is in line with this administrations abysmal report cards from the Commission. Most agree that the US has "worked to curtail terrorist financing" and the lesser majority believes that identifying terrorist hot-spots and sanctuaries has seen some improvement. The Taliban is stronger; al Qaeda is about the same; Hezbollah is much stronger; Hamas is stronger say the polled experts.

North Korea's nuclear program (see here and here for latest developments) is ranked the overall most pressing and dangerous issue facing America and the world. In addition a majority say the United States' policy towards North Korea has only worsened the problem. Nearly one in 10 of the experts believe the US is the most dangerous government in the world today, only beaten by Iran (40%) and North Korea (35%).

But how does the American public's views differ from the experts'? The public is clearly too sure of the government, too optimistic, seems jut plain uneducated in general according to the date this index displays. Most think the US is winning, the Bush administration has a plan and is doing well, and that the US is more secure — all things the experts dissent to a higher majority than the public agrees (e.g. more experts think the US is loosing the "war on terror" than public think the US is winning). Nonetheless, while I agree with practically all of the experts' decisions in this index, the public is way off base. I am not too surprised, but it is still disturbing that a majority of people in America hold such off views.

technorati tags: foreign+policy, center+for+american+progress, terrorism, terrorism+index, war+on+terror, public, experts, poll, security, bush, national+security, global+issues, north+korea