A CIA Critic in the White House?

Trump NSC appointee Michael Flynn is a critic of the CIA, and of the Osama bin Laden killing. And that makes sense to me . . . .

I read the other day that Donald Trump's choice for national security advisor, Michael Flynn, is highly critical of the CIA, and of the way the Obama administration trampled the law. In fact, it got my attention because he expressed almost exactly the same opinions that I have expressed in this blog.

Michael Flynn, Trump's national security advisor pick (Source: NBC)

It caused me some cognitive dissonance because just a few weeks ago I wrote a piece expressing my deep opposition to Flynn's statements about Islam. (REFLECTION: When people say "the Muslim faith itself is the source of the problem")

And yet here we have Flynn tearing into the CIA:

“They’ve lost sight of who they actually work for,” Mr. Flynn said in an interview with The New York Times in October 2015. “They work for the American people. They don’t work for the president of the United States.” He added, speaking of the agency’s leadership: “Frankly, it’s become a very political organization.”

(Scarry: Here's an idea: SHUT IT DOWN! (Reading the Report on CIA Torture))

Flynn zeroing in on the Osama bin Laden killing:

In killing Bin Laden, he said, “we created a new version of Allah.”

(Scarry: Why Have We Built A Monument To Bin Laden?)

Flynn on the benefit of applying the law:

“What we should have done is shown him to be a decrepit old guy, put him in a freaking cage, in a cell, and put him on trial,” Mr. Flynn added. “Make it a big messy trial, make it global.”

(Scarry: TRIAL OF THE CENTURY: United States v. Bin Laden )

The lesson for me is: in the Age of Trump, we'll have to learn to work with people who speak their minds, and deal with their opinions one by one. We may actually find points of agreement. And opportunity.


Related posts

In the film "The Response," as military judges are debating the fate of a detainee at Guantanamo, one of them says, "Okay, if 9/11 is the measuring stick, are we a great nation because of the blow we took? Or because how we, as a country, respond to that blow? The response matters. Our response defines us . . . . "

(See Why Have We Built A Monument To Bin Laden?)


The U.S. government and its military talk constantly about the new world of "asymmetric warfare" -- which basically boils down to how "unfair" it seems to them that individuals can wield any meaningful amount of power, given how minuscule their numbers or the firepower available to them. But what what we should spend much more time focusing on is "asymmetric policing" -- i.e. the overwhelming power that the U.S. state wields in every encounter with individuals.

(See Too Much State Power? (Asymmetric Warfare and Asymmetric Policing))








The story of the past decade-plus has been the story of the assertion by some that the conception of law that our society has is not sufficient. Simply put, there are those who say that there is a third, "in-between" category of behavior -- and legal status -- that is not civilian (subject to criminal law) and not military (subject to military law and the laws of war). And since there are no rules about how to deal with that third category . . . .

(See Using the Good, Old Criminal Justice System: Worth a Try?) 

Regime Change! Intervention! "Kick Out the Bad Guys!" Not so fast ...

Need an anchor for your human rights activism? I recommend everybody read Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning by Timothy Snyder, and "Writing Human Rights ... And Getting It Wrong" by Alex de Waal in the current Boston Review.

Black Earth: The Holocaust as History
and Warning by Timothy Snyder

Snyder details how the Holocaust happened - specifically, the way it proceeded according to the particular conditions in the lands to the east of Germany as occupations and re-occupations unfolded. Snyder encourages us to relinquish our grip on our ideas "good guys" and "bad guys" creating that history, and instead to see the impact of conditions and institutions. (He encourages us to recognize "political resources," "psychological resources," "material resources" -- how they get generated, and how they are taken advantage of.) What happened in Poland? Ukraine? Belarus? Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia? What happened in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, the Balkans, Greece? What happened in Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, France?

If, like me, you have a vaguely sick feeling as you read Black Earth, it may that you are learning the lesson that Snyder spells out in the conclusion:

Most of us would like to think that we possess . . . "moral instinct" and "human goodness." Perhaps we imagine that we would be rescuers in some future catastrophe. Yet if states were destroyed, local institutions corrupted, and economic incentives directed toward murder, few of us would be behave well. There is little reason to think that we are ethically superior to the Europeans of the 1930s and 1940s, orfor that matter less vulnerable to the kind of ideas that Hitler so successfully promulgated and realized. If we are serious about emulating rescuers, we should build in advance the structures that make it more likely that we would do so. (p. 320)

I've just finished reading Black Earth -- for the first time. Now I'm going back to page one to read it all over again.

Alex de Waal

De Waal's piece in Boston Review is about much more recent events, told from a much more personal perspective, and is painfully honest about As such, it is a must-read for those who aspire to be effective in their human rights advocacy.

De Waal discusses his work with Human Rights Watch, and later with African Rights, with a focus on events in the 1990s, particularly documenting conflict and human rights abuses in Sudan and Somalia. The key question is where human rights advocacy starts to turn into agitation for interventionism.

After you've read De Waal's piece, you'll have a much clearer idea about the role of the human rights advocate, on the one hand, and the political activist, on the other -- "human rights advocacy is a critique of power, not a directive for exercising it."

Get a copy of Boston Review and read "Writing Human Rights ... And Getting It Wrong" today.


Related posts

Anyone who has had to write a speech knows that the hardest part is to land on the main idea. Once you've got that right, the rest practically writes itself.

(See "The way to respond to ISIS is not through violence." )





Glenn Greenwald gave an outstanding talk in Chicago in May, 2012, in which he warned against humanitarian interventions: "The US -- no, everybody -- always says the reason for military intervention is 'humanitarian.'  . . . "

(See Greenwald Was Right: "Humanitarian" War in Syria? It's Just More War)












It's way too easy to launch U.S. missiles. (Maybe if it were a little more costly, challenging, or painful to carry out these attacks, they would at least require someone to give an explanation that makes sense first.)

(See AMERICAN MIDEAST M.O.: "When in doubt, attack SOMEBODY!" )




Sergey Ponomarev won first prize in the 2016 World Press Photo awards: General News for this November 16, 2015 photo: "Refugees arrive by boat near the village of Skala on Lesbos, Greece."
(See Image to Action: Sergey Ponomarev on the Refugee Crisis)

SOUTH CHINA SEA FACE OFF: Does this make ANY sense?

"World War III's First Shot:
Will It Be Fired in the South China Sea?"

I pick up a Chinese language newspaper at the corner store in my Berkeley neighborhood every day, and almost every day there is an article about:

(a) US Navy activities challenging Chinese positions in the South China Sea; and/or

(b) China's activities to establish sovereignty in areas of the South China Sea; and/or

(c) China's military and naval buildup to try to get into the same league with the US.

The mainstream Western press has been reporting on these developments at an increasingly frequent rate.

Unquestionably a lot is going on in the South China Sea. I think we can choke on the detail if we don't try to step back and gain perspective on the situation.

What's the right way to think about what's going on in the South China Sea? I wrote a short post on this several years ago ... but I think it's time to address the question a bit more thoroughly.


The "Law and Order" Paradigm

USA as global policeman -- ever since TR.
(More on The Federalist website.)

On the face of it, there should be no controversy. There are laws about this sort of thing, and everything should be decided according to international law, e.g. the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

So it can be very easy for US people to cast the US and its navy as the "white hats" who stand ready to "police" the situation, keeping things fair for everyone. One problem: "the United States now recognizes the UNCLOS as a codification of customary international law, it has not ratified it." Well, that's awkward . . . .

In other words, before we say "Who is China to think they should be entrusted with being the traffic cop in the South China Sea?" we should first ask the question, "Who is the US to think they should be?"


The "Befitting a Global Power" Paradigm

Teddy Roosevelt with his "big stick" in the Caribbean.

As I look at what China is doing in the South China Sea, I can't help thinking of a cartoon of Theodore Roosevelt treating the Caribbean Sea as a private lake belonging to the US.

[Not a bad time to make this comparison - President Obama just visited Cuba this week to attempt to reverse some of the effects of the past 50 years of antagonism between the US and Cuba.]

The US history of imperialism in its own backyard does not justify China in taking the same attitude; nonetheless, the fact that the US has really not come very far from its "We're a global power and what we say goes" attitude makes it a little difficult to wonder that China may think they should be following in the US' footsteps.

I think one thing we all need to do is notice the double standard that is applied to China. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. China can legitimately be asked to exhibit a 21st century form of non-militaristic global power when the US decides to even make a head fake in that same direction.

(By the way, there certainly must somewhere exist a really clever cartoon updating the Caribbean-as-US-lake concept, i.e. South-China-Sea-as-China-lake, but everything I've seen so far is predictably based on boring dragon and Great Wall imagery.)


The "Neoliberal" Paradigm

To many people, it probably seems that the issues in the South China Sea should just be viewed as a matter of property rights. Stuff (e.g. oil) is there for people to exploit, and everything has a price; in light of overlapping claims, the parties simply need to define rights and compensate each other accordingly.

In other words, "we should be happy with the solution, as long as it smells like capitalism."

Oil and gas in the South China Sea
(Source: Grenatec)

But aren't the assets that lie under the South China Sea precisely the kind of oil and gas properties that are rapidly becoming valueless in light of the carbon bubble?  Given that the oil companies already have five times as many reserves as they can ever put to use without breaking the planet, aren't those South China Sea hydrocarbons destined to stay beneath the sea where they belong?


"A Piece in the Larger Puzzle"

US Military in the West Pacific
(Source: Thomson-Reuters)

I can't help believing that, from a Chinese perspective, the question of whether it is "right" for China to grab (and militarily build up) bits of land in the South China Sea can only be considered in light of the precedent established by the US in grabbing (and militarily building up) bits of land in strategic locations through the Pacific (and worldwide).

Looking at a map of US military installations in the Western Pacific brings to mind the old quip, "How dare they put their country so close to our bases?"

Moreover, of at least equal importance to bases is the terrifying firepower of US carrier strike groups. Is it any wonder that China is building up its navy? Though it may never come close to the strength of the US navy, China's navy may have the ability to close the gap in its own part of the world.

Maybe the South China Sea is just a sideshow.

Maybe what we should really be talking about with China is a military stand-down, followed by a military build-down.

(To be continued . . . . )

Additional resources:

Map showing overlapping claims in the South China Sea



Related posts

The problem: the U.S. "pivot to Asia."

The opportunity: asking ourselves, "What would we do differently if we revised our myths of Asia?"

(See U.S. Militarism in Asia: THINK DIFFERENT!)





What people in Asia (and others) have seen for the past century is that something is happening in the Pacific, and it's being driven in part by advances in naval (and, subsequently, aviation and electronics) technology, and in part by powerful nations (principally, but not limited to, the U.S.) proximate to the area.

(See The Imperialized Pacific: What We Need to Understand)





Strategic analysts are pointing out that the South China Sea is an area through which a vast amount of the world's trade passes.  And some of them have made the modest suggestion that it would be a good idea for the U.S. to dominate it now, in much the same it dominated the Caribbean at the turn of the 19th century.

(See SOUTH CHINA SEA: No End of American Grand Designs)

A Layman Reads Obama's "Targeted Killing" Memo

Memo author Barron: Lots and lots of "trees"

Now that it is available online, every American should read the Justice Department memo approving the targeted killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki.

There is a lot in the memo, much of it recitation of precedents, and teasing apart of legal categories like "non-international armed conflict" and "public authority," and the parsing of the precise definition of terms like "taking no active part in hostilities" and "unlawful killing."  Readers with law degrees could spend years dissecting it.  And once you get into it, it can be easy to miss the forest for the trees.

That's where being a non-lawyer comes in handy. Because if you don't know enough about legal theory to become fascinated with the minutiae, you are more inclined to sense the big thing that is missing here, namley, the "facts" upon which the government based its decision to go to war against Anwar Al-Awlaki.

The memo seeks to circumvent the rule of law -- in which a person is charged with a crime, a trial is conducted (including presentation of evidence, contesting of evidence, and findings of fact and findings of law), a verdict is reached, and in the event of a guilty verdict a sentence is passed, after which the sentence is carried out -- and replace it with a justified act of war.

But what is missing in the "targeted killing" memo are the evidence, the contesting of the evidence, and the finding of fact. And by offering nothing to make up for the jettisoning of these parts of the process, the U.S. government leaves us unconvinced that abandoning legal process can be justified.

Let's face it: the Obama administration and the rest of the U.S. government know that they have a big problem: they want to go to war against anyone they suspect is an enemy -- and skip the rule of law. They wish that a miracle could happen and everyone would just let them do it.

The closest they can come is some hand-waving and fast talk, ending with the words, " . . . and that's why we can skip legal process and go to war against (fill in name here)," and then hoping like hell that Americans fall for it.

But Americans aren't such pushovers.  Sure, not every American has figured out what's going on yet. But they will. And when they do, there will be political consequences for the leaders that have been trying to pull the wool over all of our eyes.

Related posts

If the public will join us in asking the question "Who decides?" about drone executions, I believe they will rapidly come to realize that they are utterly dissatisfied with what the government is saying.

(See Who Decides? (When Drones are Judge, Jury, and Executioner) )











Eric Holder addressed a group of Northwestern Law students and others. Afterward one audience member summed up the speech as he left: "He pretty much said he can kill anyone he wants." The details of that speech will turn you more topsy-turvy than anything Alice experienced when she ventured through the looking glass.

(See Eric Through the Looking Glass)

By now, everyone knows about the New York Times article describing Barack Obama's personal administration of drone killing around the world. What few people are willing to face up to is that Obama 2012 partisans actually see this as a way to get a lot of Americans to like Obama: "This is the candidate; you MUST support him!"

(See Being a Team Player for "Mr. Forceful": Obama and the Dems )

Now HERE'S an "Asia Pivot" I Can Believe In! (Marshall Islands Sues Nuclear "Haves")

Smack dab in the middle of a Barack Obama's suavely jingoistic Asia tour, and on the eve of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Preparatory Conference in New York, there has been in new development:

Breaking News: Nuclear Zero Lawsuits Filed

Today, a small country filed a historic lawsuit against the 9 nuclear weapon states. Join them to demand #NuclearZero.

Big news today out of The Hague and San Francisco. The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) has filed unprecedented lawsuits against all nine nuclear-armed nations for their failure to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament, as required under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The suits were filed against all nine nations at the International Court of Justice, with an additional complaint against the United States filed in U.S. Federal District Court.

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation applauds the courage of the RMI’s leaders in bringing lawsuits against the nuclear-armed nations. The people of the RMI continue to suffer today from U.S. nuclear weapon tests that took place on their territory in the 1940s and 1950s, and they want to ensure that such devastation – or worse – is never brought on anyone ever again.

NAPF is playing a key role in the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits campaign, which just launched this morning. Please go to www.nuclearzero.org, where you can learn more about the specifics of the lawsuits and show your support by signing a petition supporting the RMI’s bold, non-violent action.

We’ll be bringing you much more news about these lawsuits in the coming days and weeks. But right now, there are two things I’d like for you to do:

1. Go to nuclearzero.org and sign the petition, and then share it with your friends.

2. Share / re-tweet announcements about the lawsuits from our Facebook and Twitter pages.

These lawsuits could be the thing that finally breaks the nuclear weapon states’ shameful decades of inaction on nuclear disarmament. Please take a moment to add your voice to the campaign today.

Sincerely,

Rick Wayman
NAPF Peace Ops Director

Related posts



One way in which the patterns of the past are being turned on their head is through social media. Even if you are "just a 'dot' in the middle of the ocean," you can still have a global voice.

(See MARSHALL ISLANDS HIBAKUSHA: Can social media trump empire and entertainment?)











I don't think Alanna and I ever talked about what it must be like to be trying to escape a shower of sparks and hot ash. But she seemed to know that the sparks and hot ash are too important a part of the picture to be left out.

(See The Children Are Waiting )

The problem: the U.S. "pivot to Asia."

The opportunity: asking ourselves, "What would we do differently if we revised our myths of Asia?"

(See U.S. Militarism in Asia: THINK DIFFERENT!)

Sixty-seven years ago tonight, morning in Japan, a single B-29 dropped the first atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima. This incredible blast destroyed most of the city and killed over 60,000 people almost immediately. Another 80,000 more died in subsequent months and years from the deadly radiation.

(See Our Dark Beacon: Prayer Vigil for Hiroshima and Nagasaki (August 5, 2012)





More related links

You are strongly encouraged to spend 6 minutes to watch the trailer of NUCLEAR SAVAGE: The Islands of Secret Project 4.1, produced, written and directed by Adam Jonas Horowitz. "A shocking political exposé and heartbreaking, intimate ethnographic portrait of Pacific Islanders struggling for dignity and survival after decades of intentional radiation poisoning at the hands of the American government. This untold and true detective story unfolds in the remote Marshall Islands, where during the cold war the United States exploded 67 nuclear bombs, vaporizing islands and contaminating entire populations. Most incredible is the central story of the film, which reveals how U.S. scientists used the local islanders as human guinea pigs for decades to study the effects of nuclear fallout on human beings."

March 15, 2014 - "Times of Change in the Marshall Islands" (posted by B.F. Johnson) on the blog Cold War Warrior: A Legacy of Technology, Economics, and Strategy provides one personal account of the kind of cavalier treatment that the U.S. atomic weapons complex has dished out to the Marshall Islands.

An Open Letter to Congressman Mike Quigley on H.R.4372: the Targeted Lethal Force Transparency Act

 [UPDATE: June 5, 2014 - Support for the "Come Clean on Drone Killings" bill is growing! There are now 9 co-sponsors, in addition to the original 2 sponsors -- most recently Illinois representative Mike Quigley.  THANKS MIKE! Now . . . where does your representative stand?]



Rep. Mike Quigley
Illinois 5th Congressional District


Dear Congressman Quigley,

We have met and communicated frequently in recent years, particularly with respect to U.S. military actions, and I am grateful for your attention to my concerns as a constituent.

As you know, I have worked with others around the country over the past several years to raise awareness about U.S. drone killings and to build support for bringing those killings to an end.  I have written frequently in my own blog about drones, as well as worked with others in Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Missouri, Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, the New England states, Washington, California, Arizona, and New Mexico, as well as other states, to build a national network and a critical mass to stop drone killing.

Over this same period, there have been several indications from Congress that it is concerned about U.S. drone killings.  Finally, in recent weeks, a bill has been introduced to force the administration to come clean about its drone killings: H.R.4372: the Targeted Lethal Force Transparency Act.

Debate is beginning about the merits of H.R. 4372. I urge you, as one of the leading progressive members of Congress, to do everything you can to advance this bill to passage.  We need this bill for the following reasons:

* Operating in secret is undemocratic. The bill calls for disclosure of what the Executive Branch is doing. First and foremost, we must get the truth into the open. Without H.R.4372, the Executive Branch will be able to continue to carry out killings in secret.

* We need to operate under the rule of law. The administration has dodged scrutiny of the legality of drone killings by hiding the facts. The first step in a return to the rule of law in this area is a finding of fact.

* With the facts, we will be able to judge legality. My personal belief is that the killings are wrong. I believe that once the facts are known, those killings will be generally recognized as wrong, and will be condemned, and will be subject to a variety of remedies (e.g. in our courts, by Congress, and by the general public).

In the long run, of course, we must put mechanisms in place so that no executions take place without a legal finding by a competent court of law.

There are many additional reasons why this bill is needed: drone killings are ineffective (because they create more conflict, not less); undemocratic (because roboticized war is leading to war without the people's awareness, involvement, or consent); and immoral (because resolving conflict through violence is inconsistent with any vision of peaceful community).

For all these reasons, I hope that you will become an early and strong advocate of this bill.  Tell the administration to "come clean" on its drone killings, and start the return of this country to the rule of law and the due role of Congress in guiding how military force is used.

As always, thank you for everything you do,

Sincerely,

Joe Scarry
Resident, Chicago 5th Congressional District

Related posts

First Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) called the U.S. on the carpet for dodging the call from the international community to come clean about its drone killings. Then Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Walter Jones (R-NC) submitted a bill calling for drone transparency. So ... are we finally going to get the truth?

(See REAL Progressives Demand that the U.S. Come Clean on Drone Killings)

A 2013 U.N. report makes it clear that the U.S. has to report fully on all its drone attacks.

(See 2014: The Year of Transparency (for U.S. Drone Use)?)

The reason the Administration is hiding truth about drones is that they don't have a satisfactory answer for how decisions about drone strikes are made.  As we have known all along, we need the public to think about how crummy the whole drone program is, and then they will be ready to be on our side. The best way to get them really thinking is to shine a spotlight on the secrecy, evasiveness, and deceit involved in the U.S. drone program.

(See Drone Killings: Come Clean )



Please work with your colleagues (in Congress) and your constituents (here in the 5th district) to regain the People's control over war and injury, and bring to a conclusion the current crisis of our government.

(See An Open Letter to Congressman Mike Quigley: Can We Reduce (or Eliminate) the Nuclear Threat? )

The Curious Incident of the "Lone Wolf" Terrorist

Sherlock Holmes is currently experiencing a tremendous resurgence in popularity, and so I am probably not the only person who thought of Holmes upon reading about Jose Pimentel:

Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."
Holmes: "That was the curious incident."

(See "Silver Blaze" on Wikipedia)

Pimentel's case, of course, involves the curious incident of a so-called "lone wolf" terrorist. Pimentel was charged with building a pipe bomb and intending to strike a variety of American targets. And yet, according to the New York Times report, "No evidence has been produced in court that Mr. Pimentel had co-conspirators or was taking instructions from terrorist organizations abroad."

The explanation offered by the authorities for this "curious incident" depends on a species of "auto-genesis," a sort of Muslim twist on the Great American Dream of the self-made man.

Consider the words of N.Y. Police Commissioner William J. Bratton:

This young man really was self-radicalized.

And those of D.A. Cyrus Vance, Jr.:

[T]he threat against us from home-grown terrorists is very real.

Ah!

Of course!  

"Self-radicalized" . . . "home-grown" . . .  He did it to himself . . . !

And yet . . . .

The Pimentel case involved "an undercover officer, two confidential informers and hundreds of hours of recorded conversations." Pimentel pled to a single count of "attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree as a crime of terrorism."  According to his attorneys, however, Pimentel "was easily enticed by the informer to build bombs after being plied for months with free food and marijuana."

Anyone who followed the NATO3 case in Chicago is completely aware of the degree to which all the planning and intent in that case seemed to originate with the undercover police, and that the defendants were led down the garden path. (See Keystone (Undercover) Kops and the Lemonhead Gang)

Jose Pimentel

Undercover police . . . months of infiltration, taping, coaxing, inducements . . . an alleged "terrorist" device . . . lots of police assertions about what the defendant was thinking and intending and wanting . . . Yes, there are an awful lot of similarities to the NATO3 case.  And just as in the case of the NATO3, the feds seemed to think this case was too fishy to get near: "The case in state court was unusual because the federal authorities typically handle terrorism prosecutions. But the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which had monitored Mr. Pimentel, decided not to pursue charges . . . . "

(Of course, one difference was that Pimentel is a Muslim. It is sobering to see the picture of Pimentel in his Muslim skullcap and Guantanamo-style orange jumpsuit and remember, "Oh, yeah . . . if you're a Muslim, they bring the hammer down that much harder on you.")

D.A. Vance -- probably detecting the same opportunity to sound Sherlockian that I did -- observed, "The most important aspect of this case is not what happened but what didn’t." In other words, ignore the fact that no crime was actually committed by the defendant; just be grateful for the demonstration of the state's ability to manipulate events. Feel "safe."

The Pimentel case is just one in a long line of government set-ups of Muslims since 9/11.  People who want to learn more about the unbroken string of such "curious incidents" are encouraged to read The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI's Manufactured War on Terrorism, by Trevor Aaronson.  And once you do that, get involved in the campaign to stop the wave of prosecutions of Muslims: Project SALAM and Salam Illinois.

Related posts

Naturally, the jury in the NATO3 case has no reason to buy into Anita Alvarez's narrative about the threat of terrorism from ordinary citizens and how it justifies a culture of fear and a militarized, all-seeing, secret-driven police state. Which is not to say that they're not concerned about terrorism.

(See In Chi-town USA: got terrorism?)






The NATO3 trial was full of evidence of what "law enforcement" consists of today: undercover cops goading and prodding and coercing people toward doing something -- ANYTHING -- that can be ginned up into a prosecution.

(See ENTRAPMENT: "I know it when I see it!")


 

I think the U.S. is in the midst of a big shift.  I think that for over a decade following 9/11 people have been so enmeshed in fear that their instincts weren't working properly. I think that we are in the midst of a slow process of awakening: people are emerging from the shadow of fear to a wider range of sensibility -- and they are realizing there are some things that are out of joint.

(See Too Much State Power? (Asymmetric Warfare and Asymmetric Policing))

ENTRAPMENT: "I know it when I see it!"

It's up to the NATO3 jury now . . .

As I write these words, the closing arguments in the NATO3 trial are being made in Cook County Court.

As important as anything that gets said in those closing presentations are instructions that will be given by the judge to the jurors.  I am grateful for my correspondent M, who has been attending the trial every day and faithfully providing summaries to the rest of us, including specifics on arguments over those instructions.

Notably, M told us that yesterday the prosecution

argued that the defense had been using “soft entrapment” language and arguments throughout the trial. Prosecutors claimed the defense attorneys had danced around the word “entrapment” in their opening arguments, using every word except for that to describe the undercovers' actions and statements. Further, they argued, the defense attorneys' questions during cross examination were intended to cause the jury to infer entrapment. Thus, the jury should be instructed that the defendants would have to admit guilt to every element of each charged offense to claim an entrapment defense, the prosecutors argued. They advanced this argument even though the defense had just rested their case without presenting any formal defense against the charges. Nevertheless, the judge agreed with the prosecution's claims of “soft entrapment” and said that if they continued in their closing arguments as they had been thus far, he would provide the jury with the state's instruction about entrapment.

Which brings us to the magic word "entrapment."

The legal system contains many formal definitions and procedural rules.  One is that the word "entrapment" can't be used until the defendants first admit that they are guilty of something.

It's important to point out that this is a "lawyer" rule, not a "normal person" rule.  To any normal person, it is clear that the police can and do engage in entrapment, and that it is not necessary for one to believe that an actual crime has been committed in order for it to be clear as day that entrapment has been taking place.

This is extremely important because -- whether people recognize it at a conscious level or not -- the NATO3 trial is predicated on punishing people for things that they thought.  So let's all say it: the undercover cops goaded and prodded and coerced the defendants to think thoughts about hurting somebody, and though the defendants never hurt anybody or tried to hurt anybody, the trial has been full of testimony that, in essence, aims at suggesting, "Well, they shouldn't even have allowed themselves to think it!"

So: use your common sense.  Is that entrapment? It sure looks that way to me. As a judge once famously said of pornography, "I know it when I see it!"

Which brings us to another magic word: "jury nullification." It is within the power of U.S. juries to bring a "not guilty" verdict as a way of indicating that they find the law(s) under which the charges are brought to be unacceptable.  Their finding of "not guilty," in effect, serves to "nullify" the offending law.  (A big topic -- for starters see the article on "jury nullification" on Wikipedia.)

The jury in the NATO3 case should nullify the senseless laws and procedures under which these young men are being prosecuted for their behavior and thoughts in the context of entrapment (common sense meaning) by law enforcement.

And then we need to get to work freeing all the other people who have been entrapped by U.S. law enforcement, with special emphasis on all the Muslim men who have been thrown in prison following cooked-up FBI plots.

Related posts

Far from bringing to light any kind of threat to public order, the prosecution of three young men in Cook County court is illustrating just how bad the surveillance and persecution state we live in has become.  Frankly, it's a mystery to me why State's Attorney Anita Alvarez -- or, if not her, at least someone she answers to -- didn't pull the plug on this embarrassing proceeding before it got this far.

(See NATO3 in 6 words: "Those 3 guys are getting railroaded.")

I think the U.S. is in the midst of a big shift.  I think that for over a decade following 9/11 people have been so enmeshed in fear that their instincts weren't working properly. I think that we are in the midst of a slow process of awakening: people are emerging from the shadow of fear to a wider range of sensibility -- and they are realizing there are some things that are out of joint.

(See Too Much State Power? (Asymmetric Warfare and Asymmetric Policing))

 "He could not help feeling a twinge of panic. It was absurd, since the writing of those particular words was not more dangerous than the initial act of opening the diary." (George Orwell, 1984 - p. 16) Luckily, we don't have to experience this kind of fear and paranoia and self-censoring in America! (or do we??)

(See Building Metropolises of Self-Censorship)

US to its Humans Rights Violations Victims: "Shut up and take what you're given!"

Cliff Sloan

I just got done watching the News Hour segment on the December releases of 9 detainees from Guantanamo, and I came away with the nagging feeling that I've heard this before.

The very presentable, placid, diplomatic, earnest Cliff Sloan -- special State Department envoy working on the closure of Guantanamo -- was on the show and was a paragon of hope and change.  "A new era is possible," said Sloan.  Let's just keep looking forward, and not look back, he said.

* He said he is "absolutely convinced" that "we are going to close Guantanamo," though he refused absolutely to predict when that might happen.

* He deftly side-stepped the question about the process, invoking the mantra of "subject to appropriate security and humane treatment."

* 155 men remain in detention, 76 of whom were long ago cleared for immediate release. Sloan also deftly sidestepped the observation that only eight -- eight? -- eight! -- of the men at Guantanamo have ever been charged with a crime.

Cliff Sloan was so . . . reasonable.

Gee, I thought, one could continue to point out all the unjust things about this situation, but what would be the point?  We're just lucky these guys -- at least some of these guys -- are finally being released.

(Where have I heard this before?)

"Take what you're offered. If you make a fuss you'll just piss them off. They're in complete control. We can't make them do anything."

(Where have I heard this before?)

The China Syndrome

John Kamm

And then it came to me: this reminds me of the '80s, when I was deeply involved in China trade, and the issue of Chinese dissidents and political prisoners was a constant concern.  There was a man named John Kamm who said, in effect, look, if we apply ourselves to getting individual political prisoners released, we can make progress; someone just needs to go to Beijing and talk to the authorities the way they want to be talked to. Kamm had a remarkable track record of getting people released.

However, there was always something troubling about this approach -- namely, it completely ignored the need for systemic reform. In fact, it played right into the desire of the government to put its embarrassments as far away as possible, with minimum fuss.

The U.S. approach to the victims of its own human rights violations is remarkably similar to the way China does it:  "Shut up and take what you're given!"

Is this really the way we rectify our mistakes?

These releases couldn't be better timed to deflect the annual protests that will occur next week to underline the twelfth (!) anniversary of the opening of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center. The obvious rebuttal to protesters is, "Hey, we're making progress! . . . We are going to close Guantanamo . . . humane treatment . . . Let's just keep looking forward, and not look back . . . . "

But what do these releases really mean? Even if this current approach were to succeed in bringing about the release of everyone at Guantanamo (see note), it would not have begun to address the wrong that has been committed.

Therefore, following the example of the very articulate, very "on-message" Mr. Sloan, I volunteer the following talking points for advocates of rule of law, human rights, and civil liberties in the days ahead:

* RELEASES? Yes, we acknowledge that the releases of Guantanamo detainees are happening; though this is not fast enough nor fully just.

* SURVIVORS, NOT VICTIMS. The detainees of Guantanamo now enter history similar to others who have been subjected to torture, disappearance, and detention by illegitimate regimes:  we recognize them as "survivors" not "victims," and we continue to advocate for justice and healing for them.

* FULL JUSTICE AND HEALING.  Full justice and healing goes beyond just "release."  It includes at least 5 components:

- release
- restoration of civil rights
- recuperation and treatment
- review (legal remedies against perpetrators of illegal detention and torture)
- re-entry:  the ultimate conclusion must be that these people are able to re-enter the U.S. with full rights (which will only happen when the US recognizes that it is WE that have harmed THEM, and not the other way around).  THEY are vital to OUR need to fix our corrupted legal system -- as trial witnesses, as speakers, as activists.

In a sentence:

For Guantanamo Survivors: 

More Than Just Release . . . JUSTICE!

Note: I expect this pattern to continue for the next two years.  (At 4 detainees a month, at the end of 24 months, the Obama administration could conceivably have released 96 detainees.)  Every "batch" will probably be more complicated than the last ... and every release probably carries the risk of some kind of political attack that will make the process freeze right up.  So we could easily find ourselves soon in a position where quite a few -- dozens? --  have been released ... but it also seems possible that he will never hit 50 ... and almost certainly never 100. (Return to text)


Related posts

It is clearly the time for an annual dose of stealth maneuvering by our government's "national security" apparatus, led by the President.  They're hoping that they can make it look like Guantanamo is "going away." According to the Administration's script, Americans are supposed to yawn and go back to sleep. Instead, we need to be saying: how do we take responsibility for the injury we have caused?

(See A Modest Proposal: Resettle the Guantanamo Detainees in Chicago)


For the next three months, people will be talking about the film 12 Years a Slave and its Oscar prospects. And well they should. The film is about the experiences of the free man, Solomon Northrup, who was seized and enslaved for twelve years, and it may be the best thing ever to come along for enabling us to confront the true meaning of our history of oppression and racism in America. But it's not just about history.

(See 12 Years a Detainee)

It is perhaps the signal achievement of the film "Beneath the Blindfold" that it portrays four different survivors, each of whose experience of torture was distinct from that of any of the others, and each of whom has an otherwise unique personality, and yet each makes clear that they share a long-lasting trauma. One leaves the film with a deeply-felt sense of the lasting trauma caused by torture of any kind.

(See The Revelations of "Beneath the Blindfold" )

12 Years a Detainee

For the next three months, people will be talking about the film 12 Years a Slave and its Oscar prospects. And well they should.

The film is about the experiences of the free man, Solomon Northrup, who was seized and enslaved for twelve years, and it may be the best thing ever to come along for enabling us to confront the true meaning of our history of oppression and racism in America.

But it's not just about history. How many viewers of the film will gasp and realize that the kind of kidnapping and living entombment depicted in the film isn't just limited to the America of our forebears?

Extraordinary Rendition

One minute he is with his family, and the next minute he is in chains.

Of course, this is the reality of every victim of American slavery. The peculiar hell of the protagonist of 12 Years a Slave, Solomon Northrup, is that he thinks he lives in a time and place where it can't happen to him.

The portrayal of the kidnapping of Solomon Northrup matches the practice of "extraordinary rendition" by which the U.S. government has snatched people in countries all over the world and carried them outside the reach of help, or of the law. Many of those people still languish in Guantanamo.

Dehumanization

12 Years a Slave is as much about the captors as the captured.

Everyone is dehumanized.

The most over-the-top character is the crazed slaveholder Epps. Perhaps the most calculatingly evil is the slave dealer Theophilus Freeman; slaveholder William Ford the most pathetic, carpenter John Tibeats the most despicable.  But the character that I found most compelling was the overseer who saves Northrup from lynching one minute, and yet the next has walked away leaving him dangling on the edge of suffocation. What is going on?

Everyone is embedded in the cruelty; everyone is complicit. ("Just doing my job.")

How many Americans -- at all levels -- have been dehumanized by their complicity -- directly and indirectly -- in the renditions, detentions, torture, killings, and other acts carried out by the U.S. government in our name in the "global war on terror" since 9/11?

Can We Act?

Brad Pitt plays a humane, indepdendent, and -- ultimately -- courageous white (Canadian) laborer, Samuel Bass. He has the two best lines in the film.

The first is when Bass tells the menacing Epps, "The law can't make a person a slave. The law could change tomorrow and make you a slave. That wouldn't mean that it was true."

The second is Bass' response to Northrup's request for help. "I'm afraid."

It is that second line that I can't get out of my mind. Is it possible that even heroes come to the rescue only after facing down their own fear?

Who is willing to stand up in America today and say,  "The law can't make a person an indefinite detainee. The law could change tomorrow and say you should be an indefinite detainee. That wouldn't mean that it was true" ?


The 2014 Oscar season, during which so many people will be talking about 12 Years a Slave, coincides with the 12th anniversary of the establishment of Guantanamo Bay Detention Center: the place America uses to demonstrate that even today it can seize anybody it chooses and pack them away indefinitely, dangling between life and death.

I can't help believing that the producers of 12 Years a Slave are sending us a message: "This is about today. Act."


Related posts

My most prominent memory of my first viewing of the Guantanamo film, The Response, is of one of the stars of the film -- Kate Mulgrew of Star Trek fame -- participating in a panel after the screening. I was blown away when she said, "I did this because our civil liberties in our country have been gravely damaged and we all need to contribute to repairing them."

(See Understanding What Guantanamo Means)

We all wish to be judged by our good intentions. But the way people know us is through our actions. So ... what do people in the Muslim world know about us here in the United States?

(See They'll Know Us By Our Actions)

Make no mistake: the powers that be have know that they have cowed most of the public into being afraid to talk about Guantanamo, and that suits them just fine. Our power to act starts with talking widely -- beyond just our usual circles -- about the way in which we're being scared ... and why a government would possibly want to scare its own people.

(See Pentecost, Guantanamo, and the Moment When Talk Becomes Priceless)