I just got through watching the Showtime documentary The world according to Dick Cheney. It reaffirmed every bad thing that I ever thought about him. He really was a Svengali, leading the hapless Bush around by the nose for his entire first term. But what is worse is, he remains happy in the damage he inflicted upon the United States.
He fundamentally changed this country from one where the rule of law mattered, to one where only expediency matters. It know longer matters whether we are the good guys or the bad guys, as long as we win, within his warped definition of winning. That Iran has become the major power in the region as a result of our crippling the only nation strong enough to counter them? When asked about regrets, he said he would do it all over again. While that was never addressed in the interviews, I am sure his solution would be still another war.
That he squandered all the sympathy and good will we had acquired after the September 11th attacks, creating a whole new generation of enemies? Apparently no regrets there either. He turned the United States from the beacon of hope we have tried to represent to the world to the school bully shaking down the other kids for their lunch money. The concept that his actions created more danger in the world, not less, is beyond his understanding.
He set a standard, a tone, that still exists. Laws are for the little people to follow, the lash that keeps them behind the plow, while the powerful may ignore them with impunity. That is true in this country which has become a Security State, and it is true in how this country behaves in relation to it's international obligations.
He argued with Bush for Scooter Libby to be pardoned, but he would never come clean, that Libby was only trying to protect him. His loyalty only goes so far. A Chicken Hawk to the end.
While the program presented some opposing thoughts to a number of Cheney's views, there were very few tough questions asked, and few challenges to his assertions. Yet despite the kid gloves with which the former vice president was handled, he still came off as an soulless ideologue who was uninterested in any fact which might conflict with what he had made up his mind he wanted to do.
It appears to me that in many ways he accomplished his main goal, which was to mold the United States into his own image. He removed morality and justice from the equation, making us mirror images of the evil we found ourselves confronted with back on September 11th. Will we ever recover?
Tweet
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Friday, March 15, 2013
Friday, March 16, 2012
Prisoners of War
I had the opportunity to visit Andersonville, the site of the infamous prisoner of war camp run by the confederacy during the civil war. Also there is the national Prisoner of War Museum.
The museum exhibits spoke in generalities, the history of how prisoners of war have been treated, and it also spoke personally, stories of individuals and their experience as prisoners of war. And it talked about all the different flavors of prisoner.
The Japanese-Americans who were shipped to camps during the second world war, they were, in a way prisoners of war. They had committed no crime, not taken up arms against this nation, and yet they were treated as hostile foreigners. Their treatment was similar to civilians who were living in hostile or occupied countries when war broke out, interned for the duration.
But as I walked through the museum, reading the stories of men and women who had endured capture and sometimes torture, I could not help be be reminded of what a stain on our national soul is Guantanamo.
Someone in the Bush administration made up the term 'illegal combatants' to justify what would otherwise be illegal treatment of captives. In 10+ years, how many of these men (and sometimes children) have been charged with any crime? I still maintain that they must be treated as prisoners of war, or charged with some sort of crime.
We do not defeat terrorism by becoming terrorists. Terrorism is a tactic used by the powerless against the powerful. It is not an end unto itself. As long as people feel oppressed, that their hopes and dreams are being ignored or actively suppressed, there will be terrorists. You defeat that by attacking the root cause, and yet we continue to be the root cause instead.
As long as places like Guantanamo exist, there will continue to be more and more people who come to the conclusion that we are their enemy. And how do you strike out an an enemy so large and powerful as the United States? With acts of terrorism.
By our refusal to follow international convention, or even our own laws, we have become our own worst enemy.
The museum exhibits spoke in generalities, the history of how prisoners of war have been treated, and it also spoke personally, stories of individuals and their experience as prisoners of war. And it talked about all the different flavors of prisoner.
The Japanese-Americans who were shipped to camps during the second world war, they were, in a way prisoners of war. They had committed no crime, not taken up arms against this nation, and yet they were treated as hostile foreigners. Their treatment was similar to civilians who were living in hostile or occupied countries when war broke out, interned for the duration.
But as I walked through the museum, reading the stories of men and women who had endured capture and sometimes torture, I could not help be be reminded of what a stain on our national soul is Guantanamo.
Someone in the Bush administration made up the term 'illegal combatants' to justify what would otherwise be illegal treatment of captives. In 10+ years, how many of these men (and sometimes children) have been charged with any crime? I still maintain that they must be treated as prisoners of war, or charged with some sort of crime.
We do not defeat terrorism by becoming terrorists. Terrorism is a tactic used by the powerless against the powerful. It is not an end unto itself. As long as people feel oppressed, that their hopes and dreams are being ignored or actively suppressed, there will be terrorists. You defeat that by attacking the root cause, and yet we continue to be the root cause instead.
As long as places like Guantanamo exist, there will continue to be more and more people who come to the conclusion that we are their enemy. And how do you strike out an an enemy so large and powerful as the United States? With acts of terrorism.
By our refusal to follow international convention, or even our own laws, we have become our own worst enemy.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
The other September 11th
If you live in Latin America, then September 11th has a very different meaning than it does to those of us living in the United States.
Between 1932 and 1973, the Republic of Chile had a vigorous democracy. They had a well informed electorate, and turnouts of 80% of the registered voters. That all changed on September 11th, 1973. On that day, a military coup, led by General Augusto Pinochet led to somewhere between 2,000 and 4,000 being killed, and up to 40,000 being detained, many of them tortured. A reign of terror that was to last for many years fell over what had been one of the few stable democracies of Latin America.
In 1970, Salvadore Allende, a Marxist, had been elected president of Chile in a three way race, despite U.S. attempts to defeat him by providing financial support to the opposition candidates. When they were unable to defeat him, the U.S. resolved to have him overthrown in a military coup. One major obstacle in their way was the Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean army, General René Schneider.
General Schneider had publicly reassured the nation that it was not the role of the army to overturn legal elections. He stated that "the armed forces are not a road to political power nor an alternative to that power. They exist to guarantee the regular work of the political system and the use of force for any other purpose than its defense constitute high treason". He also said "there were no options that would invite the armed forces to undo what the politicians had wrought in Chile", adding "the only limitation is in the case that the State stopped acting within their own legality. In that case the armed forces have a higher loyalty to the people and are free to decide an abnormal situation beyond the framework of the law".
Needless to say, having man in charge of the Chilean military who believed in the rule of law did not sit well with the Nixon administration. On October 22, 1970, General Schneider's car was attacked by men who had been armed and paid by the CIA. Their goal was to kidnap him (this was their third attempt) but he drew his own gun and attempted to resist. He was shot, dying in the hospital three days later.
He was replaced as the commander of the Chilean military by General Carlos Prats. General Prats was later replaced by General Augusto Pinochet, and we all know where that led.
In order to protect the interests of Anaconda and Kennecott Copper companies, and ITT (International Telephone and Telegraph), the United States destroyed a democracy, condemned thousands to torture and death. Yes, we had some serious disagreements with many of his policies, including his recognition of Cuba, and his improving relations with China and the Soviet Union. All of those are legitimate reasons to for the United States to have serious disagreements with the the government of Chile.
At the time, the Chilean constitution limited a president to a single 6 year term. So although he could seriously impact US commercial interests in the country in that time frame, any long term changes to the countries foreign policy would require the continued consent of the Chilean population. So essentially, he was no long term threat.
Chilean presidents had been trying to extract a larger percentage of the profits from the foreign corporations that controlled the majority of Chile's natural resources for a generation. Finally one was succeeding. That could not be allowed to happen. This was US and multinational businesses exerting the kind of pressure on our government that they have been asserting for over a hundred years. Thousands of people had to die so a few companies could continue to extract wealth from Chile unimpeded by a government that was looking out for the interest of its people.
This view is of our actions against the Chilean government is not confined to some radical few. The main architect of the US involvement of the overthrow of Salvadore Allende, Henry Kissenger, can no longer travel freely throughout the world. He must consult with an attorney, to determine if he risks being arrested before making his travel plans, as there is a warrant against him for crimes against humanity in a number of countries.
When the jetliners crashed into the World Trade Center, there was an outpouring of sympathy from around the world. We had an enormous amount of international good will at that time. And we had a president who willingly just pissed it all away with a senseless invasion of Iraq, and a network of secret prisons around the world, where suspects could be tortured free from the prying eyes of those who believe in the rule of law.
We did not become a world leader on the basis of our military and economic might. Oppressed people around the world did not look to the United States because we were powerful. They looked to us because they thought we stood for something. Standing for something, that is what matters.
So every now and then, we need to acknowledge our dark side, how we have allowed truly evil things to be done in our name. Then we have to remember what it is we stand for, and resolve to be more vigilant about what we do allow to be done in our name.
Between 1932 and 1973, the Republic of Chile had a vigorous democracy. They had a well informed electorate, and turnouts of 80% of the registered voters. That all changed on September 11th, 1973. On that day, a military coup, led by General Augusto Pinochet led to somewhere between 2,000 and 4,000 being killed, and up to 40,000 being detained, many of them tortured. A reign of terror that was to last for many years fell over what had been one of the few stable democracies of Latin America.
In 1970, Salvadore Allende, a Marxist, had been elected president of Chile in a three way race, despite U.S. attempts to defeat him by providing financial support to the opposition candidates. When they were unable to defeat him, the U.S. resolved to have him overthrown in a military coup. One major obstacle in their way was the Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean army, General René Schneider.
General Schneider had publicly reassured the nation that it was not the role of the army to overturn legal elections. He stated that "the armed forces are not a road to political power nor an alternative to that power. They exist to guarantee the regular work of the political system and the use of force for any other purpose than its defense constitute high treason". He also said "there were no options that would invite the armed forces to undo what the politicians had wrought in Chile", adding "the only limitation is in the case that the State stopped acting within their own legality. In that case the armed forces have a higher loyalty to the people and are free to decide an abnormal situation beyond the framework of the law".
Needless to say, having man in charge of the Chilean military who believed in the rule of law did not sit well with the Nixon administration. On October 22, 1970, General Schneider's car was attacked by men who had been armed and paid by the CIA. Their goal was to kidnap him (this was their third attempt) but he drew his own gun and attempted to resist. He was shot, dying in the hospital three days later.
He was replaced as the commander of the Chilean military by General Carlos Prats. General Prats was later replaced by General Augusto Pinochet, and we all know where that led.
In order to protect the interests of Anaconda and Kennecott Copper companies, and ITT (International Telephone and Telegraph), the United States destroyed a democracy, condemned thousands to torture and death. Yes, we had some serious disagreements with many of his policies, including his recognition of Cuba, and his improving relations with China and the Soviet Union. All of those are legitimate reasons to for the United States to have serious disagreements with the the government of Chile.
At the time, the Chilean constitution limited a president to a single 6 year term. So although he could seriously impact US commercial interests in the country in that time frame, any long term changes to the countries foreign policy would require the continued consent of the Chilean population. So essentially, he was no long term threat.
Chilean presidents had been trying to extract a larger percentage of the profits from the foreign corporations that controlled the majority of Chile's natural resources for a generation. Finally one was succeeding. That could not be allowed to happen. This was US and multinational businesses exerting the kind of pressure on our government that they have been asserting for over a hundred years. Thousands of people had to die so a few companies could continue to extract wealth from Chile unimpeded by a government that was looking out for the interest of its people.
This view is of our actions against the Chilean government is not confined to some radical few. The main architect of the US involvement of the overthrow of Salvadore Allende, Henry Kissenger, can no longer travel freely throughout the world. He must consult with an attorney, to determine if he risks being arrested before making his travel plans, as there is a warrant against him for crimes against humanity in a number of countries.
When the jetliners crashed into the World Trade Center, there was an outpouring of sympathy from around the world. We had an enormous amount of international good will at that time. And we had a president who willingly just pissed it all away with a senseless invasion of Iraq, and a network of secret prisons around the world, where suspects could be tortured free from the prying eyes of those who believe in the rule of law.
We did not become a world leader on the basis of our military and economic might. Oppressed people around the world did not look to the United States because we were powerful. They looked to us because they thought we stood for something. Standing for something, that is what matters.
So every now and then, we need to acknowledge our dark side, how we have allowed truly evil things to be done in our name. Then we have to remember what it is we stand for, and resolve to be more vigilant about what we do allow to be done in our name.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Sending our children off to war
Last Sunday, my wife's younger son left his new wife to go off to training. A few months training, followed by deployment in Iraq.
This by itself is not all that unusual, military families have been dealing with this for quite a while now. My wife has too, has had to deal with this. This will be his third tour. He is not regular army, he is in the National Guard. He continues to stay in the guard because they are helping pay his way through nursing school.
I wonder, would this still be going on, this perpetual state of war, if we had a draft? If everyone's (and I mean the children of the rich and powerful, the children of our elected officials, everyone) children were exposed to a draft, could be taken from their lives and families and sent off to war, would it be so easy to tolerate?
Of course, men and women putting their lives at risk is not the only consequence of these wars we fight. The combination of letting the rich pay less in taxes, encouraging US companies to export their jobs (and the accompanying payroll taxes) to other countries while spending money we did not have on our military is a big part of our ruined economy. Of course those on the right choose to ignore that part focusing instead on the fact that Obama has not undone the damage of 8 years.
I was drafted, and did not find it a happy experience. All in all, for me at least, there were no negative consequences. Nobody shot at me and I got an education on the GI Bill when I got out. But I am not saying that a draft is a good thing. Quite the contrary. But it is a bad thing that, if everyone experienced it, would provide the impetuous to keep us out of some of these really stupid mistakes presidents with a desire to enhance their image in the history books are prone to.
If the children of the senators and congressmen were subject to a draft, perhaps the vote on Iraq would have been a little more carefully considered.
This by itself is not all that unusual, military families have been dealing with this for quite a while now. My wife has too, has had to deal with this. This will be his third tour. He is not regular army, he is in the National Guard. He continues to stay in the guard because they are helping pay his way through nursing school.
I wonder, would this still be going on, this perpetual state of war, if we had a draft? If everyone's (and I mean the children of the rich and powerful, the children of our elected officials, everyone) children were exposed to a draft, could be taken from their lives and families and sent off to war, would it be so easy to tolerate?
Of course, men and women putting their lives at risk is not the only consequence of these wars we fight. The combination of letting the rich pay less in taxes, encouraging US companies to export their jobs (and the accompanying payroll taxes) to other countries while spending money we did not have on our military is a big part of our ruined economy. Of course those on the right choose to ignore that part focusing instead on the fact that Obama has not undone the damage of 8 years.
I was drafted, and did not find it a happy experience. All in all, for me at least, there were no negative consequences. Nobody shot at me and I got an education on the GI Bill when I got out. But I am not saying that a draft is a good thing. Quite the contrary. But it is a bad thing that, if everyone experienced it, would provide the impetuous to keep us out of some of these really stupid mistakes presidents with a desire to enhance their image in the history books are prone to.
If the children of the senators and congressmen were subject to a draft, perhaps the vote on Iraq would have been a little more carefully considered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)