lewrockwell.com — by Paul Craig Roberts--The Washington, DC, think-tank, The American Enterprise Institute, camouflages its purpose with its name. Its real name should be The Center for Middle East War.AEI has the largest collection of warmongers in America. AEI "scholars" have agitated for war in the Middle East for years. A moronic president and 9/11 gave th
May 26, 2007 View in Crawl 4
vertinoxMay 27, 2007
@zombiedepotYou are right. I have a hunch the Chinese won't like an attack on Iran due to the fact it is one of the major oil suppliers and might consider it as a blank check to invade Taiwan.
pimpdownMay 27, 2007
What percentage of White Christian Americans thought bombing the Iraqis until they were left in Shock and Awe was OK.? 80 percent?The percentage of people who support perpetual war and torture changes dramatically once you ask non whites.
digbirdMay 27, 2007
A couple of comments about this essay:In the last 16 years, the US used military force, not once, not twice, but three times to protect Muslims (1991--Kuwait, 1995- Bosnia, 1999-Kosovo).The September 11 conspiracy may come to deadly fruition in the time of the Bush Administration, but it gestated during the Clinton Administration's time. And during that time, Clinton made a heroic effort to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But none of that cut any ice with Bin Laden and company.Regarding Guantanamo Bay: we have to hold the terrorists somewhere. Why not at a secure and remote location? Regarding the detainees lack of access to US Courts: Ever read about the difficulties that the British had adapting their legal system to handle the IRA? The British got rid of things that we rightly hold as sacred in the US --like a right to a jury trial. If we gave the terrorists access en mass to our legal system, we would have to make profound changes to it in order to handle something like.Also, anyone who thinks that our legal system can handle al-Qaeda ought to read about how the so-called 20th hijacker, Zacharias Moussaui, tied our legal system in knots for years --then multiply that disruption by several hundred if you allowed the baddies at Gitmo access to our courts.Regarding fingernails: show me a credible bit of reporting that says this happened. I will concede that water-boarding did happen, but I have not heard anything about fingernails.Mass suicides: When did three people committing suicide together get defined as "mass"? Jonestown was a mass suicide, not three guys doing themselves in.Regarding asymmetric warfare: Read about the Irish hunger strikers. The deliberate suicides of ten members of the IRA and a splinter group called the Irish National Liberation Army got the Republican Movement (and I don't mean the GOP here a huge windfall of support that translated into military vitality for years after those events).Regarding judges: Judges rule on themselves all the time in criminal courts on various types of motions.The one thing I do agree about is that we (the US and the West) do a lousy job with propaganda and public diplomacy. This being said: a lot of hatred directed against us has little to do with what we do and a lot to do with who and what people like Bin Laden are.
overtokeMay 27, 2007
the act of the united states attacking iraq is a suicide bombing
jedikvMay 27, 2007
@digbirdIf you want a well-balanced, civil, intellectual debate - you've come to the wrong place buddy. The only thing that exists here is personal attacks and hyperbole.
gojedaMay 28, 2007
"How about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act? The President wasn't working in the gray area of that law, he simply ignored its requirements. The law requires that court orders be obtained for any domestic surveillance (it does however allow surveillance of communications to take place without a court order for up to one year provided no U.S. resident or citizen is included in the surveillance). These court orders can even be obtained retroactively. No one bothered to do this. It is a flat-out violation of the law, nothing gray about it."This is incorrect. There are conditions to be met here, but to say that a US citizen shall not be included in said surveillance by the mere fact that he is a citizen is patently incorrect.A US citizen can be surveilled if he is found to be "an agent of a foreign power" or engaging in activities of "international terrorism". His citizenship does not protect him in this case. In other words, anyone (citizen or not) can be surveilled if he is an agent of a foreign power or engages in international terrorism.As for any alledged violation of FISA law, it is probably worth looking at what FISA is. Before the government can start surveillance, it needs to already have a body of evidence to warrant it. This changes modus operendi of what FISA is. It ceases to become a tool for intelligence gathering and becomes, instead, a tool for confirming intelligence. The irony here is that those, mostly in the democratic party, have been lambasting the FISA act ever since it came into effect in 1978. The ACLU, for example, has criticized the program for just blindly issuing warrants - yet, after 9/11, the government (such as the FBI) was widely criticized for not doing enough to prevent the attacks. There has been a tug of war regarding FISA for years. I will remind you of the famous FISA case involving Zacharias Moussaoui's laptop. The government had come into possession of his laptop in August of 2001, but was not allowed to be searched until after 9/11 because the government could not procure a warrant. There was also Wen Ho Lee, the Chinese-American scientist from Los Alamos Labs who absconded with nuclear warhead secrets and gave them to the chinese. The administration attempted to secure a FISA warrant, but failed to do so because it did not have a substantial body of evidence against the scientist. Furthermore, it was judged by the FISA court that Lee's activities with fellow scientists were of an academic nature - a judgement that turned out to be disastrously wrong.So, it was things like this that led to the administration to address the problem of intelligence gathering in a more aggressive way.That being said, with subsequent "review" of FISA - there has not been any substantiated allegations of wrong doing. The reason for that is simple: under Constitutional Law - the President, and the President alone, is responsbile for intelligence gathering and national security."If they've got nothing to hide, they've got nothing to worry about, right? You honestly don't see the problem with that logic?"It seems the ones who are incessantly crying wolf about some imagined erosion of civil liberties are the ones that have the most to hide. Again, government surveillance is nothing new - and this country is far (very far) from being the worst in this regard."Yes... but the requirements for labeling anyone, including a U.S. citizen, an enemy combatant, are nonexistent."Precisely false. The scope is rather narrow. An enemy combatant is someone who, directly or indirectly, makes war against the state."No court review is required. No oversight of any kind.'Again, false.....military law exists precisely for this reason."You might look into the Jose Padilla case: the man is a U.S. citizen who is imprisoned as an enemy combatant. No trial, no bail, no oversight, not even *charged* for a crime. No evidence is required. He was not allowed to meet with any legal counsel for nearly two years. Eventually he was indicted, after the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that he must be released from military custody and either tried or let free."It seems you have forgotten that the 4th District Court of Appeals, in September of 2005, ruled that the President does have constitutional and statutory authority to detain Padilla without charges due to his "enemy combatant" status."He was then indicted on charges completely different from the reasons originally given for holding him as an enemy combatant; indeed, he is not even charged with anything that could conceivably be interpreted as being an enemy combatant."The only charge that has been dropped against him is the original charge that he was conspiring to plant a dirty bomb in the US. Other serious charges, such as conspiring to make war against the state by attending an Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan are still there. Evidence ranges from an application to be admitted into a terrorist camp, with Padilla's fingerprints on it, will be part of the trial. Testimony from dozens of witnesses, FBI taps, bank records, and passport documents.So to say that there is no evidence against the man is simply false. Time will tell whether the charges stick or not."Why would you be willing to trust *anyone* with that kind of power?"A rather ridiculous question. Essentially, you are asking, "Why would you be willing to trust the President with authorities that come with being President?"Either the President has authority, or he doesn't. Clearly he has the authority, as given by the constitution and statutory law, to do certain things. You can avail yourself of getting into the business of Constitutional revisionism. I'll pass on neutering the government more than it already is."Would you trust Hillary Clinton with the abilities Bush possesses?"I expect a President, any President, to do their job."Why should the mere *accusation* of a crime be sufficient to lock a person away indefinitely?"Depends what you mean by accusation, I suppose. The people in Gitmo are not owners of a hardware store in Peoria. They are there because they were either found in a place where they should not be, or doing something that they should not be doing. So I fail to see where someone is being held on mere accusations. If that were the case, than 400 people from Gitmo would not have been released.
wakanandaMay 29, 2007
We no longer have the right to a trial by jury; we no longer are free from "cruel and unusual punishment;" we no longer have the right to legal counsel. There is no more Habeus Corpus: the Executive branch of the governement can abduct you, torture you, hold you indefinitely (forever) without trial, without access to counsel or any communication with your loved ones. This HAPPENED TO A US CITZEN, Jose Padilla, who is now on trial in Florida on charges unrelated to his original (false) arrest - charges founded on evidence obtained under torture (he appeared before a judge to plead on these charges, wearing a "shock belt" torture ["pain compliance"] device). This is a "test case": they want to establish a precident. The legal framework has been laid, a victim has been chosen, and they are now seeing if this abomination, this perversion of justice, can be got away with. I hear diggers saying, in essence: "stop worrying: they aren't shooting us; they're just pointing a gun at our face and c**king it." Add this state of affairs to the militarization of the police, federal seizure of command over the National Guard, building of concentration camps on US soil (AP wire) and "historic" preservation of fully functional existing "internment" camps, and "Continuity of Government" measures/executive orders which provide for forced relocation, separation of families and conscripted labor (slavery), and you have every indication that plans for a totalitarian, military government are being laid. It's not just "emergency measures" - you have to open your eyes, stop being sentimental about daddy government, and see the big picture, in an historical context. And I'm not a "marxist." I'm a US Constitutionalist, a healthcare worker and budding entrepreneur. I believe in America. And all of the evil machinations listed above are NOT America. They are part of a globalist oligarchy, with loyalties to global financial networks apart from and against the interests of Americans. They are liquidating America in a hostile takeover, the remains to be absorbed and integrated into the "North American Union," which in turn will coordinate it's activities with the EU - and like the EU, all will be under the control of unelected officials. Please wake up.
darnyMay 30, 2007
Haven't you heard? According to the new American Bush Dictionary, democracy means bombs, guns and murder.
thenormokJun 11, 2007
I think I heard Grumpyrain say this was a war of Ideals - I cant for the life of me think of a single war that has ever been carried for ideologies. Every war I am familiar with has been about resources, land, money and power. Men in power dont waste their resources on ideals. Their goal is gain more power period. Even WWII was about power. We couldnt wait to join the war but needed the backing of the american people so we put an oil embargo against japan hoping they would retaliate and they did.I think we need to keep prospective of history when discussing politics and also keep in mind that the only that is different now is the time.