Rice's nonsense on torture

Oh wow, I only got around to watching this video now, and from some of the comments I thought she must have been making some half-convincing arguments... nope!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijEED_iviTA&feature=channel_page


Well, first we upgrade al Qaeda to tyrants, okay. Then one gets the impression that the US homeland was not attacked in WWII. Those little incidents at Pearl Harbor and on the Aleutian islands are called bombing and occupation, to most people.

Then we are informed that 500,000 deaths in WWII is "no!" Why? Perhaps we should have got the figure correct to the precise soldier?



The problem with the internet is that you can actually find obscure references instantaneously. In this case, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) report on Guantanamo. Turns out, with ten seconds of google:

* the OSCE people were only allowed in on the condition of not actually interviewing any detainees! These same conditions were rejected by other human rights organisations, like Amnesty.

* and, the guy who led the OSCE team, Alain Grignard, with the Belgian federal police, thought detaining prisoners for years with trial was a form of "psychological torture".

http://intelligence-summit.blogspot.com/2006/03/osce-guantanamo-better-than-belgian.html

"Did you know that? Alright, no, well wait a second, if you didn't know that, maybe before you make allegations about Guantanamo, you should read."




But it gets better!

CR: "The ICRC also had access to Guantanamo, and they made no allegations about inerrogations about Guantanamo. What they did say is that they beleived indefinite detention..."

What sort of access did the ICRC have? Does anybody remember? Like, there were some prisoners that were deliberately kept away from the ICRC? And, like, this was such an official policy that it was actually written into the operating manual for the prison, there was an official level given to each prisoner, and the top level were kept away from the ICRC?

In fact, you can read various versions of the manual online.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Chaplain,_Red_Cross_Muzzled_at_Gitmo_in_2004

In any case, with its access, the ICRC did write a detailed report, which was leaked recently. Perhaps you might actually like to read what the ICRC *did* have to say.

http://www.nybooks.com/icrc-report.pdf

From the introduction, the very first paragraph:

"The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has consistently expressed its grave concern over the humanitarian consequences and legal implications of the practice by the United States (US) authorities of holding persons in undisclosed detention in the context of the fight against terrorism. In particular, the ICRC has underscored the risk of ill-treatment, the lack of contact with the outside world as a result of being held incommunicado, the lack of a legal framework, and the direct effect of such treatment and conditions on the persons held in undisclosed detention and on their families."

It's clearly a glowing report, with sections entitled "Suffocation by water", "Prolonged stress standing", "Beatings by use of a collar", "Beating and kicking", "Confinement in a box", "Prolonged nudity", and so on. And clearly none of this involves any allegations about interrogations, surely.

And here is an example of non-allegations about interrogations, from the summary, section 1, page 5:

"as outlined in Section 4 below, and as concluded by this report, the ICRC clearly considers that the allegations of the fourteen [detainees interviewed] include descriptions of treatment and interrogation techniques --- singly or in combination --- that amounted to torture and/or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment."

Can't you see there are no allegations about interrogation?



And this is fantastic:

CR: "By definition, if it was authorised by the President, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture."

I didn't know we had monarchists left in this country!

Hmm, I wonder which article of the Convention has the "President said so" defence? Dang, that could have come in handy for Pinochet's lawyers when he was being extradited for torture under the same convention! Pity he didn't notice that provision, having been President of Chile and all, since by definition anything he authorises doesn't violate the convention!

Civilian Casualties in Iraq?

We have a densely argued discussion of the available evidence andliterature review in footnote number 30 of our open letter:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/antiwar/cgi-bin/mediawiki/index.php?title=Condi_coalition_letter_draft#cite_note-29

(Why does the link for footnote 30 ends in "note-29". I think I blame computer scientists who like to begin counting at 0 rather than 1.)

(If you go there, all the references are hyperlinked, they are not here)

"
See Opinion Research Business and Just Foreign Policy for these estimates. This far exceeds the Iraq Body Count number of around 90,000, which only counts deaths reported by multiple crosschecked media reports: see their information page. The US government has not made any serious study of deaths in Iraq during the war and occupation. Perhaps the closest is Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq, Report to Congress by Department of Defense, September 2008, at p.22. However, as noted in the December 2007 version of this report, there are many deaths for which "the Coalition does not have visibility, in particular, murders and deaths in locations where Coalition forces are not present": at p.18. See the Congressional Research Service report Iraqi Civilian Casualties Estimates, Hannah Fischer, January 12, 2009, for some further discussion. The Just Foreign Policy figure is an extrapolation of an epidemiological-style cluster study study published in the prestigious British medial journal The Lancet, which obtained a figure of 426,000-794,000 for the period March 2003 - July 2006: Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta, Shannon Doocy et al., "Mortality After the 2003 Invasion of Iraq: A Cross-Sectional Cluster Sample Survey," The Lancet, October 21, 2006, 368 (9545), pp. 1421-1429. The UK Ministry of Defence's chief scientific advisor called the survey "close to best practice" and "robust": High Death Toll Backed, Newsday, March 27, 2007.
"

The Just Foreign Policy website estimate is currently 1,320,110... it's a rough estimate based on extrapolation from the Lancet study.
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html

Remarks at dinner

These are my prepared remarks, what I said was some approximation to these.

Hi, I'm Dan. I'm a grad student here in the mathematics department. Thanks for coming.

We are here today because we're concerned.

We're here today to make a peaceful and nonviolent statement that we are deeply concerned about what's going on at this university, and more broadly what's going on in this country and the world.

I would ask everybody here to treat everybody else, including people who disagree with us, with the respect they are entitled to.

But our concern today is not any ordinary concern. It's a concern that goes to the heart of what it means to live in a humane society.

Some things are so morally abhorrent that no society can condone them and call itself civilized.

Some actions amount to crimes. But some actions go beyond mere crimes.

Such as torture. Such as the waging of aggressive war.

Some actions so shock the conscience, they so strike at the heart of what it means to be human, that we consider them crimes not just against the victim, not just against the law, but against every human being. Torture, war, they ruin the human soul, they break lives, they lessen us all.

And I think what brings us here today is our concern that there is substantial evidence – growing by the day, with every newly released report and memo – that a tenured faculty member here at Stanford has been:

firstly, a principal participant in the planning and propaganda efforts of an aggressive war waged in supreme violation of international law;

and secondly, an explicit authorizer of brutalities which have long been widely understood as torture.

War and torture. Hundreds of thousands, millions of ruined lives. A tenured faculty member. That is the situation which confronts us here today.

* * *

Let me tell you what this is not about.

This is not personal. Maybe, if you live here at Roble, you might take this personally. But I have nothing personal against anybody, here at Stanford, or anywhere; and I hope that you don't either. We are not attacking anyone on a personal basis, but we do want to see accountability where there is evidence of involvement in extremely serious crimes.

Second, this is not about beliefs; this is about actions. If there's a faculty member who makes a statement I disagree with, well, we can respectfully and politely disagree. If there's a faculty member who makes a statement that is shocking and offensive – we might respectfully but not politely disagree. Maybe we might even be moved to protest. Freedom of speech protects unpopular views, as it protects protest; academic freedom protects intellectual inquiry.

But here, today, we are in a different category. We have a professor who did not merely advocate for brutalities like waterboarding – but authorised them. A professor who did not merely cheerlead for war, but was involved in official planning and propaganda efforts of that war, at the highest levels. These are not things to respectfully disagree about. These are not experiences to learn from. These are crimes to be prosecuted.

What do we do, if the authorities are not prosecuting --- whether in US courts, overseas, or internationally?

What does it say about us, about our campus, if we let this pass?

What does it say about us, about our campus, if we ignore the evidence of these monstrous crimes and have a dinner party instead?

* * *

Let's just briefly review some of the evidence.

You probably all know that our professor was National Security Adviser and chair of the National Security Council's Principals Committee. We now know that this committee authorised specific instances of waterboarding – and the discussions there were so detailed they were "almost choreographed". Moreover, our professor was not a passive participant; according to the report, she was "decisive". She told the CIA: "This is your baby. Go do it."

Now, in the last week, a declassified narrative from the Senate Intelligence Committee reveals that our professor became on July 17, 2002, so far as we know, the first high-ranking US official explicitly to authorize the brutal drowning technique known as waterboarding.

Now, torture is a crime under international law, under US law, there's an international treaty about it. It's very clear. There's no defence of protecting national security. There's no defence of intelligence chatter. Read the convention. Article 2 says that "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture". There are some things that, if you are minimally civilized, if you respect minimal human rights, you just don't do. The evidence suggests that it also doesn't work very well, but that's not the point; it's just wrong, and it's a crime.

However, there are these "torture memos". More of these have come out last week. Our professor assures us that everything she authorized was legal, and these memos provide the legal argument. Well, just go and read these memos and see what you think about the reasoning. Don't be afraid of legalese, this stuff speaks for itself.

Take the memo of August 1, 2002, which was released last week. August 2002, just after our professor authorised waterboarding. The conclusion: waterboarding, and all other desired techniques, not torture.

So, how is waterboarding not torture? Well, there might be a bunch of legal precedents that it is, going right back to the Spanish-American war, 1898, but somehow the lawyers didn't find them.

Anyway, the reasoning is pretty good. The statute says that to be torture, waterboarding must "inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering". But you see, waterboarding only – only! -- involves the panic of imminent death from drowning! That's not actual physical pain, you see. Okay, but what about actual physical suffering? The physiological response of drowning seems like physical suffering to me! But no, you see, we are informed, that's not how it works. The phrase "pain and suffering" in the defintion of torture must be understood as a single concept, not "pain", not "suffering", but "pain-and-suffering". So, there's no pain, might be suffering, but there's no "pain-and-suffering". Get it?

And so it goes on.

The requirement in the War Crimes act is for "specific intent". So, says the memo, you have to actually explicitly specifically intend to inflict severe pain or suffering! If you intend anything else, it can't be torture! You just have to believe in good faith of something other than that you are inflicting severe pain or suffering. Your belief doesn't even have to be reasonable. And --- and this is a key point --- your good faith belief that you didn't actually specifically intend to inflict severe pain or suffering can be established by reliance on experts. Like legal advice. Like this very memo.

And this is the way to regard these memos. They were regarded as a "Golden Shield". They were written to get torturers out of jail. And producing fallacious legal arguments, reinterpreting the law to justify conduct that was previously clearly torture, has another name: aiding and abetting torture.

And there's plenty more. Go and read it, I'm just scratching the surface. Especially read the bit about putting someone in a box with insects.

So every time our illustrious professor talks about how everything was assuredly legal, that is the reasoning it's based on. It's ridiculous, it's unbelievably bad, it has been rescinded as an embarrassment, and it is aiding and abetting torture

And, our professor can't claim any ignorance about this. We know from the recently released report of the Senate Armed Services Committee, that through 2002-2003, she was present at several meetings in the White House at which Mr. Yoo, her Berkeley colleague, provided legal advice. So she has heard it. She knows how bad it is. And yet, the evidence is that she was decisive regardless.

* * *

Torture is one thing, and it's terrible. But I'm sorry, my friends, there are worse things in the world than torture. A full-scale war is much, much worse.

War is generally illegal, has been illegal since 1928. It can only be justified, legally, in two circumstances: as self-defence from imminent attack, or with authorisation from the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. That doesn't necessarily make it moral, or good, but makes it legal. That's international law. Very simple. And neither condition was satisfied in the case of Iraq. So it's illegal. It's aggressive war.

And the waging of aggressive war is not just a crime. It's a crime against the world, a crime against humanity, the same crime for which the Nazis were tried at Nuremberg. Countries don't invade other countries in the 21st century. That belongs to a world long past, that belongs in past ages of barbarism.

So the invasion of Iraq is not to be regarded as a mistake, or a blunder, but, to quote the Nuremberg tribunal, it is "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." That is the position at international law, reaffirmed ever since.

Well, what is the role of our illustrious professor?

She was one of the "five Administration officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public opinion on Iraq", and central to policy formulation and execution. Here I'm quoting a Congressional Committee and leading reports. She was among the topofficials promoting, planning, and eventually perpetrating the war.

Smoking guns and mushroom clouds. That's our professor.

The Center for Public Integrity has calculated that, overall, the Bush administration made 935 public false statements about the national security threat posed by Iraq. Of those 935, our illustrious professor made 56 false statements.

Aggressive war, and a breathtaking tragedy. Hundreds of thousands have died as a result of the war – by some estimates, well over a million. Over 4 million refugees. Lives broken across an entire region of the planet. A humanitarian catastrophe, and still ongoing.

That's our professor, who's having dinner parties in dormitories.

* * *

In the end, for us here at Stanford, I think it comes down to asking –

What sort of a world do you want to live in? and

What sort of a campus do you want to study in?

The horrors are not over. Violence in Iraq continues. War in Afghanistan escalates. Bombings in Pakistan escalate. Foreign policy goes on with the new President, as it has gone on for a long time, and it is not pretty. Before Iraq and Afghanistan there were interventions, just to name a few – in Panama, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Libya, Grenada, Angola, Guatemala, Iran; the list goes on, and it's bipartisan.

There is plenty to push the President on. And on the question of prosecuting torture, he is possibly wavering, he's been hedging.

He needs some backbone. But we can help to give him some backbone. Imagine what a message a strong stand by Stanford students on campus could send.

Because for us, this is not an abstract question. For us, this question has come home – today, it has come home for dinner.

I think it's important to realise that, in calling for prosecutions, we are not looking for retribution. The most important thing is to make sure that the horrible episodes we have seen – war, torture, aggression, violations of international law – do not happen again. How do you ensure they do not happen again? By letting anybody who is thinking of doing it again know that if they do it again, they will be prosecuted. And how do you ensure that? By prosecuting those who did it this time. The best way to put the past behind us is for people to face accountability now.

It's also the law – article 12 of the Convention Against Torture requires investigations, whenever there is reasonable ground to believe torture has been committed.

But we have to ask ourselves some questions:

How can we change a culture where such a professor considers herself able to invite herself over to dinner, where dozens will sign up adoringly?

Somehow we have to grow up. We have to realise that not every adult around here, not every authority figure, is someone to look up to.

Somehow we have to get people to think about their place in the world, their place at this university, and the place of this university in the world. Considering the role of this university in the power structures of society, what do we want it to be? And how can we make it so?

So I invite you to join with us, work with the coalition that is coming together to work on this issue, to work for justice, for accountability, and for peace.

After all, we all live here. It is the responsibility of all of us.

War Criminals of Tomorrow

An awesome video by a friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O2KeDPTh3o

"Condoleezza Rice is back at Stanford University. What does it mean for the Stanford community to accept an alleged war criminal on their campus? What does the pipeline of war criminals to universities mean for students everywhere? Please read about Rice's alleged crimes during the past 8 years: http://www.stanford.edu/group/antiwar/cgi-bin/mediawiki/index.php?title=Condi_coalition_letter_draft and support the movement on Stanford's campus to hold Rice and former Bush administration officials accountable..."

On dinner parties and war criminals

"Oh, your prudery; oh, your squeamish respectability; all the abominations are allowed to *happen*, but no one may mention them. Delicate women must not know anything or say anything about blood and filth... There is nothing indecent about death and killing as far as you are concerned, you well brought up little ladies..."

"[T]he way [respectable] conversation customarily handles a new movement that strives to create a big upheaval: with an expression of prudent doubt and reservation, gentle ridicule, condescending recognition of the noble cause --- and all of that against a background of unmoving, rigid indifference."

--- Bertha von Suttner, 1889

Keeping the flame alive

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/03/26/18583436.php

These Colors Won't Run... Afghanistan

This construction of "run" had never occurred to me before. Rather reminds me of the other construction of "Operation Enduring Freedom", the official name of the invasion of Afghanistan --- to endure means to suffer. And, I saw a similarly subversive and humorous construction recently:

The government official asks, "Do you advocate the overthrow of the US government by force or violence?"

"Hmmm... Well, not violence, so I suppose I have to choose force then."

These Colors Won't Run... Afghanistan
Mar 25, 2009
By Norman Solomon
http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/3814

The Herd strikes again

These have been around for a while now, but still, songs about history, US foreign policy, and war, are always interesting.

The first one in particular is one of the most educational music videos I've ever seen (read the headlines!).

And we you knew you were frauds
But onwards we went to war
Nothing could be said to convince you
We've already seen it before
...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n65x_cSHSHE

I'm a Starship Trooper
This is my letter to dad, transferred from Saigon to Baghdad
and now I'm dead
...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG9773tnvac

Shoes ahoy

Pictures now on the wiki.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/antiwar/cgi-bin/mediawiki/index.php?title=Protest_at_Condoleezza_Rice%27s_inaugural_%22public%22_address

Also linked from the main page antiwar.stanford.edu under "Past events".

Afghan public opinion

The views of the populations invaded, bombed, or otherwise on the receiving end of US foreign policy are rarely discussed in the US mainstream. That is, of course, outrageous, and as of the last few days we have another case in point.

As far as I know, there has been no public study by the US government or media of what the Afghan "beneficiaries" of its policies think of it.

The usual US voluntary censorship regime aside, that's actually somewhat surprising, since the evidence suggests that the news could be spun positively for the foreign invaders. When it has been studied, the Afghan public is largely in favour of the foreign presence, although universally condemning night house raids and air strikes (precisely the part of the invasion that is expanding). The foreign presence is associated with foreign aid, reduced crime, and the local militias and police are often corrupt and incompetent; at least, this is what the evidence suggests. If one goes into the detail, however, the evidence suggests that the Afghan population strongly supports negotiations with the "Taliban", possibly a coalition government including them: that is, a political solution.

("Taliban", used to describe opponents of the Karzai "government", is a terrible term which fails to capture the heterogeneous and complex nature of the conflict --- recently leaked documents on wikileaks show how the word "Taliban" is deliberately used inaccurately in this blanket fashion, for propaganda purposes, in NATO public relations.)

In essence, then, the Afghan public is strongly opposed to a policy of expanded bombing and airstrikes, such as Obama and NATO are implementing right now.

This silence on Afghan opinion within the US, despite the potential for positive spin, suggests that, so far as US media and political elites are concerned, Afghan people are not simply uninteresting or irrelevant as far as policymaking is concerned, but do not arise the first place as a voice to be considered --- they are "unpeople", arising only tangentially as the recipients of bombs and missiles and the source of public relations difficulties.

On Wednesday, a coalition of humanitarian groups released a report on Afghan views of "security". They report that they could not visit as many parts of the country as in their previous 2004 report --- and even though they could only visit less violent parts of the country, in contrast to a general mood of optimism in 2004, "the picture painted today is bleak". They call for international organisations to recognise that Afghans "consistently identify poverty and unemployment as the driving forces behind insecurity and call for these issues to be addressed as a priority."

Study: Afghans View Security as Deteriorating Humanitarian groups call on U.N. forces to increase focus on civilians
Press release: http://www.care.org/newsroom/articles/2009/03/Afghanistan-HRRAC-report-security-research.asp?s_src=170960110000&s_subsrc=
Report: http://www.care.org/newsroom/articles/2009/03/Afghanistan-HRRAC-report-security-research.pdf?s_src=170960110000&s_subsrc=

Just google-news-ing now, I could find this report covered in the UK,
Canadian and Australian press, but not a single article in the US,
apart from a triumphalist neo-con journal applying the aforementioned
spin.

Afghans losing hope: aid groups
http://www.theage.com.au/world/afghans-losing-hope-aid-groups-20090319-93cb.html
Afghans' sense of security evaporating, poll shows
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/19/afghanistan-nato

The most recent previous study of Afghan public opinion, so far as I
know of, is a Canadian one from 2007:

http://erg.environics.net/media_room/default.asp?aID=653

See also discussion by Noam Chomsky on this topic in his recent article in Z Magazine:

Elections 2008 & Obama's "Vision"
What we can expect in 2009, given both parties are well to the right of the population
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/viewArticle/20424

On the legal side, the invasion of Afghanistan was as much an aggressive war as Iraq, waged in supreme violation of international law, the same crime for which the Nazis were hanged at Nuremberg. Was it in self-defence following the terrorist atrocities of September 11, 2001? Of course not --- international law grants a (very limited) right to self-defence, not to retaliation and vengeance; if it was permissible to invade Afghanistan on this ground, then it must also have been permissible to invade Saudi Arabia, Germany, and much else. Was there UN Security Council authorisation? No. Peacekeepers were later authorised --- as they were after the initial invasion of Iraq. The first Afghan peacekeeping force was authorised December 2001, two months after the initial invasion. As we all should recall, the invasion began in October 2001, with humanitarian organisations forced to pull out, warning of mass starvation in the millions. Fortunately, that appears not to have happened --- but that was the assessment at the time, and the assessment in the face of which the US decided to invade anyway. The possibility of mass starvation is no matter when it applies to "unpeople".

The proper way to deal with such vast criminal acts as the September 11 attacks would have been to bring the perpetrators to criminal trial. Indeed, there were offers from the Taliban to extradite Bin Laden for criminal process.

Nonetheless, war continues and escalates, bringing with it the certainty of escalating civilian casualties. This is "the good war".

Closed Zone

Interesting video.

http://www.closedzone.com/

Bennis on Iraq Withdrawal

Good analysis by Bennis of the antiwar movement's situation now. From ZNet.

Contested Terrain: Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Plan and the Peace Movement
Mar 08, 2009 By Phyllis Bennis
URL: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/3797

Raytheon recruitment day

There was an email sent to all students in the mathematics department, essentially advertising for Raytheon... My response.

Woah.

Well, if it's legitimate to advertise for controversial weapons manufacturers on an email list for mathematics students, it's certainly also legitimate to provide some critical information about them. Hey, they might be "virtually indistinguishable" from the CIA and NSA, according to the Washington Post, they might have their top lobbyist at #2 in the Pentagon, but still, I don't think they've completely taken over the mathematics department yet...

They may produce cruise missiles, bunker buster missiles, anti-missile missiles, and other missiles used to kill lots of people, but hey, that's legal, right? They may even produce missiles used by military forces in serious and massive violation of international law -- but that's not their responsibility, right? They might produce missiles which deliver cluster bombs -- declared illegal by 95 countries -- but hey, the US isn't one of them, right? They produce crazy experimental microwave-ray weapons to disperse peaceful protests, but that keeps the rabble in line... right? They might supply surveillance equipment for the wall in occupied Palestine, declared illegal by the International Court of Justice, but that surely gets lost among the yearly $3 billion in US aid to Israel... right? Their subsidiary might have purchased the airline used by the CIA for covert activity in southeast Asia, and then used it in Mexico in a program which Congress called a "shambles", but that doesn't mean anything... right? And they might have supplied explosives devices to a repressive Argentinian government in its US-supported dirty war, but that should be well down the memory hole by now... right? And then there is all that overstating of costs, falsifying records, terrible labor practices, and other legal liabilities, but hey, what good corporation doesn't... right?

Nonetheless, I'm sure none of this matters, because there may be interesting mathematics in designing their products.

Anyway, below are some interesting links for further critical information. BTW, I'm happy to provide sources or discuss any of the claims in the above: most of them are in the articles below. They are all serious claims.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Raytheon
http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=141
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11096
http://www.corpwatch.org/section.php?id=13
http://www.ruckus.org/warprofiteers/cards/clubs/eight.html
http://www.crocodyl.org/wiki/raytheon

The uses of the world: On "foreign policy debate"

The most powerful person in the world is one who is chosen democratically, somewhat. It's not the case that everyone affected has a say – and there are volumes written on the extraordinary flaws and outrages of the system that produces the decision – but there is an election. At every such election, there is an opportunity for a society to decide for itself its trajectory within the world – and, when the society is the most powerful in the world, to determine in substantial part the trajectory of the world.

It's now well into the twenty-first century. Societies are richer than ever before, we have more options than ever before; our technology and our knowledge can build the world we want to see. We know everything. And yet, societies are beset by crises, cowed in fear, uncertain about the future, and united in our pessimism. We know nothing.

But in a democratic society, people can decide for ourselves; inform themselves, understand, decide, and act. In a democratic society, all ideas proceed forth, filter through, clash, synthesize, and the compelling passions of human desire resolve themselves into some semblance of a plan. A democratic society is a self-determined society, with institutions to carry out collective understandings and decisions; at the highest level, a democratic society is a planned, a self-planned society. Your individual plan for your own life is democracy, a tyrannical democracy, and rightly so; our collective plan for our society is substantive democracy, and the highest expression of human society. You are nothing more than the effect you have on the world; the world should be nothing more than the synthesis of the best the human race can produce.

What is the plan for the world? There being no institution to decide this question consciously, the nearest question we have is – what is the plan of the richest and most productive society on earth, with respect to the world? What is our orientation to the world? We have no right to a say over the rest of the world – but our orientation to the world matters crucially. What is the world we want to see, and how do we want to get there? And, in the context of a democratic election to determine who shall have the power to make decisions on these issues – how will those questions be answered? What visions will be presented, what shall be made of the possible uses of the world?

It's now the twenty-first century – there is no excuse for isolation, for cultural ignorance, for racism or the denigration or fear of those far away, or different. At least not in the richest society in the world – it's all on the internet. The conclusion is inescapable that there are no exotic people. Similarly, there is no excuse for the most basic of human needs going unfulfilled: hunger, preventable disease, homelessness, displacement and war became indefensible long ago. Everybody wants to get on in life; everybody wants a world free of hunger, disease, and suffering; everybody wants a life neither nasty, brutish, nor short; everybody wants a better world for their children. It is trite – it is embarrassing to say it.

And yet the world which does not satisfy these most basic needs, when such goals are within the power of the world community, is also an embarrassment. The universal imperative of moral reciprocity demands that we treat others as we would be treated ourselves. And it tragically, embarrassingly, fails still. Are you embarrassed to live in this world? Are you proud to be one of the humans: this rich, extraordinary, complex, beautiful, tender species – this paragon of animals? Or are you embarrassed to be one of these poor, pathetic, abject, cowering, vicious animals – this quintessence of dust?

It is always overblown to talk about human destiny, and to apply Shakespearian hyperbole to human nature; but nor is it far-fetched, today. Choices made today may irrevocably change the course of human development; and the debate on foreign policy between presidential candidates in the most powerful nation in the world is arguably the closest forum currently existing where one might see a conscious democratic discussion about the trajectory of the world.

What shall we do? What shall we do to achieve the coming together of all peoples? What shall we do to deal the final blows to preventable disease and hunger? What shall we do to achieve a truly global society – a human society worth the name? What shall we do to achieve a true globalization – not just the flow of capital and goods; not just the cessation of wars; but the creation of a true, integrated global community? What could we achieve?

These are crucial questions to be discussed in the context of a democratic election in the most powerful nation in the world. Not to decide the questions for the world – but to determine the orientation of this society towards their answer, in recognition of the rights and the dignity of all peoples. They go further – they lead to deep and searching questions about the nature of the world and its future.

What relevance does the nation state have in the present? What justification is there for the concept of sovereignty – the idea that the absolute and final power in all matters legal and political should reside within the nation state, with its possibly arbitrary borders and whatever hodgepodge of social fragments lies hemmed in between them? What can be done to achieve the self-expression and self-determination of the global society – with institutions at the appropriate levels for the decisions that need to be made, from the individual and the municipal, to the regional and the global?

What is the appropriate basis upon which the world should operate? The United Nations? A federation? A parliament? Or are clashing sovereign nation states with populations that have much in common still the best arrangement possible – for the time being? International law, with its current customary minimum essential to civilization – fundamentally, start no wars, respect sovereignty, respect self-determination, and respect the United Nations – should it be expanded above this minimum, and more thoroughly applied?

How is one society to approach the problems of the day? In other words, what is to be the foreign policy of this nation? What sort of foreign policy would you like to see? Or better, what sort of international policy – for today there are no foreigners, only those who live outside the arbitrary borders of our nation – would you like to see?

So, when two main contenders for the election to most powerful person in the world come together and debate their visions for the world – their orientation to the world – on September 26, 2008, in a debate specifically about foreign policy, what was the vision we saw of the human community?

Of the human family, peace on earth, and a vision for the world – nothing.
Of globalization, cultural interconnection, about worldwide understanding – nothing.
Of the contemporary place of the medieval legal concept of sovereignty – nothing.

Perhaps, then, we should lower our expectations.

Of the United Nations – nothing.
Of worldwide hunger and preventable disease – nothing.
Or, even, of multilateralism? Nothing.
Or, at the least, of international law? Nothing.

Did they even suggest any policies chosen because of accordance with international law? No – from maintaining a war waged in supreme violation of international law; to escalating an occupation which daily bombs civilians from afar; to crossing borders for unilateral attacks; to threatening nations about their nuclear programs without once mentioning the International Atomic Energy Agency.

What a vision is this, then, of the uses of the world. Weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable, all.

But still, it is true that we have a choice.

We have a choice – we can have an open-ended commitment to war in Iraq; or a timetable to bring home “combat brigades”, leaving about half the military troops still there – and all corporate mercenary forces.
We have a choice – to attack Pakistan with more consent from president “Kardari” (sic, McCain), or less.

From there, it only gets better.

We have a choice – to escalate war in Afghanistan, or to escalate war in Afghanistan.
We have a choice – to escalate the military budget, or to escalate the military budget.
We have a choice – to threaten Iran, or to threaten Iran.
We have a choice – Venezuela is a rogue state, or Venezuela is a rogue state.
We have a choice – ally with Georgian atrocities against Russian atrocities; or ally with Georgian atrocities against Russian atrocities.
We have a choice – enlarge NATO and threaten Russia; or enlarge NATO and threaten Russia.
We have a choice – provoke and waste resources with missile “defense” systems; or provoke and waste resources with missile “defense” systems.

And those are the major issues. Those are the uses of the world. In the debate of the great men, in the visions of the hopes of the world, that is where the discussion begins and ends.

But to a more important vision – to you, what of this society and this earth? What is in your vision? Is it a vision of threats and bullies, of guns and bravado – is it the world operating, as it does today, as a giant version of the mafia? Is it a vision of enemies to be defeated, and victories to be won? Is it a vision of one nation predominant over the rest? Is it a vision where the assumption always holds that your government has the right to attack anywhere on earth it sees fit? Is it a vision of international lawlessness? Is there any hope? Are we forever to escalate wars, provoke, threaten, and reign – even when the world is as rich, as educated, and as enlightened as it is today? Is it merely a sterile promontory, this world, a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours? Does anything really matter at all?

Or is it, rather, this world, this planet, before the stars, a spaceship tracking an extraordinary course, a small planetary community struggling to make its way in the universe, a family about to put aside its squabbles – upon a brave overhanging firmament, an excellent canopy, a majestical roof fretted with golden fire – what is it?

What is the debate a democratic society should be having? What is the change we should believe in?

It is childlike, of course, to look upon the world with such a view. But the naivete of children looking upon the world is not to be denigrated – for it is rarely false. And growing up should never mean abandoning a vision for the future – for it is only with such vision that we stand a chance of getting there.

Do they care?

Do you truly believe the American people care about Afghan civilians who are killed in airstrikes? Are you in this anti-war effort because you think American people would truly care about international law, the Constitution, and brown skinned people if given the opportunity? Who are you fighting for?

These are searching questions. I do actually think the answers are yes, yes, and yes. The philosophical question aside, there is factual evidence to bear on the questions of the attitudes of the US population. The US public is not the same as what you see on television; its thoughts are not necessarily the same as those of media pundits and the major parties; the insanity of elect-o-tainment and "drill, baby, drill" is not the same as the everyday lives of everyday people.

At a time when polls of the US public regarding the election seem to be moving in the direction of McSame, it may actually be refreshing to see what Americans think about various important issues in the world. The US population has a notorious reputation for factual ignorance; but that does not necessarily mean that its moral sense is clouded. Polls on actual issues are very rarely reported on; quite apart from distractions, rhetoric, bluster, posturing, distortions and lies, when the MSM goes to polls they are usually horse-race polls of the candidates; when polls on issues are discussed, they are usually on whatever topic has been rabidly propagandized recently, and asked in the framing of elite media discussion. Of course, whatever polls say, our job is the same; if the polls showed a depraved population that would be just more reason to work harder.

So some data is below. A fairly random selection, but I think there is evidence there to support most of an answer of "yes, yes and yes" to these questions. A great website to see on these matters is http://www.americans-world.org/default.cfm, on American attitudes to the world. Most of the data below I got from there. One has to be careful with poll results but I think some general thrust can be discerned here. They are loosely organised, not very well organised.

It might be a bit much to say that this is enough to restore one's faith in humanity, but they may be somewhat reassuring. Then imagine what the results would be if the media were actually informing the population of what's going on. And also imagine how people feel, giving answers in some cases which go against everything the media and both parties tell them. I actually think there are some fantastic nuggets in there.

Who am I fighting for? I don't consider it a fight. To me it is more a matter of being able to look in the mirror. If it is a fight for anything, it is a fight to save the future; that the world can operate according to the bulk of the poll results below. In a democratic society, that should be automatic. So why are we not there yet?


A. Foreign bases:

1. Is the US military presence in the middle east a "stabilizing force" or "provokes more conflict than it prevents"?
53% say it provokes more conflict (33% stabilizing).

2. Permanent bases in Iraq?
At least two-thirds say no consistently.

3. A "major military presence in the Arabian peninsula…even if such a presence near Islamic holy sites may been seen as provocative to Muslims"?
44% yes, 39% no.
But if "a majority of people in the Middle East want the US to remove its military presence there, do you think the US should or should not remove its military presence?"
59% yes (37% no).

4. "If most people in East Asia want the US to reduce its military presence there", should the US do so?
55% thinks so (38% not).


B. US role in the world, unilateral vs multilateral

1."Since the US is the most powerful nation in the world, we should go our own way in international matters not worrying too much about whether other countries agree with us or not."
Two-thirds reject this statement, consistently, over recent years.

2. "The US is playing the role of world policeman more than it should be."
At least two-thirds agree consistently; three-quarters in recent years.

3. "The US should be playing the role of world policeman"?
Consistently majorities say no (at least 57% since 1991).

4. Asked to choose between whether "the U.S. should continue to be the preeminent world leader in solving international problems", or "The U.S. should do its share in efforts to solve international problems together with other countries", or "The U.S. should withdraw from most efforts to solve international problems,"...
... an overwhelming majority (at least 70%) consistently choose the second option.

5. Should the US play "a shared leadership role" or "the single world leader"?
About three-quarters has consistently wanted the shared role.

6."The United States has a responsibility to fight violations of international law and aggression around the world, even without the cooperation of its allies;" or "the United States should work only in a coordinated effort with its allies to fight violations of international law and aggression around the world"?
Consistently at least 60% want the cooperation of allies.

7. Is it important that US foreign policy take into "account the views and interests of other countries"?
90% say yes.
But, on the other hand, should we "what we think is best for our own interests even if other nations oppose us."
79% say yes.

8. "When the United States acts alone against terrorism, it makes itself a bigger target than when it cooperates with other nations in a coordinated crackdown on terrorism".
71% agree.

9. Is it important to US foreign policy "Cooperating with other countries on problems like the environment or control of diseases"?
95% say yes (70% very important, 25% somewhat).



C. International institutions

1. Working with international institutions? Will "it... be increasingly necessary for the US (United States) to work through international institutions", or are "international institutions... slow and bureaucratic, and often used as places for other countries to criticize and block the US. It is better for the US to try and solve problems like terrorism and the environment on its own instead"?
Consistently in recent years at least two-thirds wants the multilateral approach.

2. Do these international institutions need to be strengthened?
The WTO – 63% yes (30% no).
The World Court – 56% yes (29% no).
The WHO – 80% yes (15% no).
NATO – 61% yes (29% no).
The IMF – 42% yes (38% no).
The World Bank - 49% yes (39% no).

3. Should the US "contribute troops to U.N. efforts to help defend U.N. members if they are attacked?"
69% say yes (23% no).

4.Support "working through the UN to strengthen international laws against terrorism and to make sure UN members enforce them"?
Consistently overwhelming majorities (>85%) agree.

5."Trial of suspected terrorists in an International Criminal Court"?
Consistently over 80% agree.

6."The use of military force is more legitimate when the United Nations (UN) approves it."
Consistently at least two-thirds agree.

7."If countries were to feel that they could attack each other whenever they thought it was best, the world would soon fall into chaos and conflict. It is very important for the US to set a good example to other countries by getting UN approval for taking military action."
71% find this argument convincing.

8."When vital interests of our country are involved, it is justified to bypass the UN."
62% agree.



D. Giving up sovereignty (!!!)

1."For certain problems, like environmental pollution, international bodies should have the right to enforce solutions."
60% agree (17% disagree).

2. Should the US participate in the International Criminal Court?
Consistently at least two-thirds say yes.

3. Should the US "make the commitment to accept the decisions of the World Court?"
57% say yes.

4. "In the event that the UN has evidence that there is an international terrorist group operating in a country", should the UN Security Council be able to "requiring the country to allow a UN-sponsored police force to enter the country and conduct investigations?"
70% say yes.
To "freeze the assets of the suspected terrorist group?"
85% say yes.
"Requiring the country to provide intelligence on the suspected terrorist group?"
88% say yes.
"Requiring the country to arrest the suspected terrorist group?"
87% say yes.
"Sending in an international military force to capture the suspected terrorist group, if the country refuses to do so?"
82% say yes.


E. Global warming

1."Do you think the U.S. should or should not participate in the Kyoto agreement to reduce global warming"?
Consistently at least two thirds say yes. (When offered a "no opinion" option things are murkier however.)

2."Do you think President Bush favors or opposes the U.S. participating in the Kyoto agreement to reduce global warming?"
The population is generally split evenly about 45%-45%.

3."As you may know, George W. Bush has decided that the US (United States) should withdraw its support from the global warming agreement adopted in Kyoto, Japan in 1997. Do you approve or disapprove of this decision?"
32% approve, 51% disapprove.


F. Nuclear weapons

1."Do you favor or oppose the goal of eventually eliminating all nuclear weapons"?
82% say yes.

2.Should the US sign "a treaty with other nations to reduce and eventually eliminate all nuclear weapons, including our own?"
70% say yes (24% no).

3.Should the US participate in the comprehensive test ban treaty?
86% say yes.

4.Should the US participate in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty?
78% say yes.
(The question included a brief description of the treaty. Then it asked: Did you know it existed? 51% say yes.)


G. Moral motivations for foreign policy

1. "How important is each of the following to you personally as a reason for the US (United States) to be active in world affairs?" (0 not important at all, 10 extremely important)
"I want to help people who have less than we do--no matter what country they live in." - 6.85 mean (26% say 10).
"We have a moral obligation to help people in other countries who have less than we do." - 6.41 mean (20% say 10).
"I have a religious belief that we should try to help the disadvantaged wherever they are" - 6.9 mean (33% say 10).
"We have a responsibility to leave a better world for future generations." - 8.93 mean (62% say 10).

2. Should we "only send aid to parts of the world where the US has security interests" or "When hunger is a major problem in some part of the world we should send aid whether or not the US has a security interest in that region."
63% choose the second option.

3. Should the US "use its power to make the world be the way that best serves US interests and values", or "coordinate its power together with other countries according to shared ideas of what is best for the world as a whole"?
Consistently over three quarters choose the global option.

4.Should the US "sometimes... be willing to make some sacrifices if this will help the world as a whole", or should the US "not make sacrifices in an effort to help the world as a whole".
Consistently over three quarters choose the altruistic option.

5."The United States should look beyond its own self-interest and do what's best for the world as a whole, because in the long run this will probably help make the kind of world that is best for the US."
71% agree.

6.Should the US "think in terms of being a good neighbor with other countries, because cooperative relationships are ultimately in the best interests of the United States", or should it "Not worry about what others think, but just think in terms of what is best for the US, because the world is a rough place."
79% choose the cooperative option.

7"It is nice to think that joining in international efforts makes a more stable world. But in fact, the world is so big and complex that such efforts only make a minimal difference with little benefit to the US. Therefore, it is not really in the US interest to participate in them."
39% agree, 58% disagree.

8."When thinking about things like UN peacekeeping, whenever it can, the US should look beyond its own self-interest and do what's best for the world as a whole, because in the long run this will probably help make the kind of world that is best for the US."
75% agree.

9."If people in other countries are making products that we use, this creates a moral obligation for us to make efforts to ensure that they do not have to work in harsh or unsafe conditions", or "it is not for us to judge what the working conditions should be in another country".
74% agree on the moral obligation.

10."As we become more involved economically with another country that we should be more concerned about the human rights in that country."
73% agree.


H. Defense spending

1.Asked to choose between whether "the US [should] spend a larger percentage of its...GNP on defense than its allies" or whether "all of the industrialized countries should spend about the same percentage of
their national income or GNP on defense"...
80% choose the latter.

2.The US defense budget should be based on which of the following: spending enough for the US to "protect itself, but not to protect other countries"; to "protect itself and other countries all on its own"; or "itself and to join in efforts to protect countries together with allies or through the UN".
69% choose the last option.


I. Afghanistan

1.(Asked on 19 September 2001.) Is it important to "get the support of the United Nations -- including a vote of the Security Council -- supporting our response to the attacks, even if this means exercising more restraint than we'd like".
54% say very important, a further 30% say somewhat important.

2.(In November 2001.) Offered two positions: "In the current military action in Afghanistan, it would be better if more countries would join with us, because then it would be an international effort, not just an American one." Or, "it would be better NOT to get more countries involved, because if we did the operation would get bogged down by having to make decisions together with these other countries."
73% wanted more countries involved.

3. (Sept 5-10, 2008, after heavy propagandizing by both major party Presidential candidates for escalation) "Do you favor, oppose, or neither favor nor oppose increasing U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan?"
51% favour, 41% oppose

4. (July 2008) "Would you favor or oppose sending additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan to fight al Qaeda and Taliban terrorist operations in that country?" (Note wording to fight "terrorist operations", declared enemies)
59% favour, 38% oppose

5. (July 2008) "Thinking now about Afghanistan, all in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war in Afghanistan was worth fighting, or not?"
51% worth it, 45% not

6. General approval ("Do you approve or disapprove of the U.S. military action in Afghanistan?" "Do you favor or oppose the U.S. War in Afghanistan?")
Dec 07: 56% approve, 41% not
Mar 07: 53% approve, 41% not
Jan 07: 44% favor, 52% oppose
Sep 06: 50% favor, 48% oppose
Aug 06: 56% approve, 41% not

7. "Do you think the U.S. should or should not be contributing troops to a UN peacekeeping force in Afghanistan?"
67% should, 25% should not

One of my prisoners

An extraordinary moment, or so I thought, on Democracy Now today (Tues Sep 9 2008), as they played "highlights" of the RNC. The speaker is Benjamin Thompson, a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War. I thought it was spectacular (unintentional!) prose poetry, actually including important information. DN juxtaposed it well, I think, if you watch their video. Text below, I have very lightly edited the text and inserted line breaks. "This" in the 6th line is a tattoo in arabic on his arm. Video at http://www.democracynow.org/ 56 minutes in. That whole segment (from about 40 minutes onwards) is well worth watching.




One of my prisoners at Abu Ghraib,
— you didn't know the half of it.
Most of our people didn't live in those cell blocks.
Most of the people lived outdoors.
They're killed by enemy insurgents, in our camps.
This prisoner — this means God hopes for peace.

We had ten-year-old boys in my camps.
We had an eighty-year-old blind man in my camp.
They were killed by enemy fire, because we did not protect them
They were not worth protecting.
The generals that came to my base came with three helicopters apiece.
And when they left, they took 'em with 'em.

We were giving them food that made them sick.
We were giving them water that gave them kidney stones.
We weren't supplying them with medical attention.
They were dying from lack of heart medication that they'd been on for twenty years.
You never heard about this – ever! – because of the fucking photographs.
The Department of Defense focused all of the attention upon those atrocious acts
committed by war criminals, my brother and sister military policemen.
And then everything else that happened at that prison
to the other 95 percent of those prisoners,
went unreported in the media.

This is not OK.