Total number of comments: 251 (since 2010-10-06 04:27:13)
irishmoses
I'm a semi-retired attorney whose interest in the Israel-Palestine issue came from my father's involvement flying Jewish refugees from around the world to the new state of Israel in 1948-49. David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister called my father "the Irish Moses" because of his exploits, hence the name of my blog site.
Website: http://www.irishmoses.com
RoHa says:
May 19, 2012 at 9:37 pm
“which is flaunting and violating modern international laws it agreed to abide by. Ironically, Israel flaunts and violates international laws ”
I don’t see Israel flaunting international laws, but it certainbly flouts them often enough.
1. FLAUNT
- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flaunt
to display or obtrude oneself to public notice . 2. : to wave or flutter showily ...
2. FLOUT–
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/floutCached - Similar
to treat with contemptuous disregard : scorn . intransitive verb. : to indulge in scornful behavior. See Usage Discussion at flaunt. — flout•er ...
3. FUCK –
As in Dumb: Person clueless about the Queen’s English but who likes to flaunt his impressive vocabulary.
I've only been using flaunt for flout for about 30 years. Live and learn. The wonders of Mondoweiss.
Thanks for the attempted defense eljay, but his was an inadvertent typing error, while mine was lazymindedness.
Please, enough of the guilt for the acts of our forefathers.
Slavery was legal at one time. Pushing indiginous people out of the way of modern "progress" was acceptable back then (though not to everyone). Does the logic of "others did it before so we can do it too" provide justification for Israelis to subject Palestinians to a holocaust, to slavery, or to a future mass ethnic cleansing?
Of course not.
More importantly, as a direct result of what happened to the Jews and others during and prior to WWII, a set of international laws were set down in writing to prevent such actions in the future: the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which were signed by Israel but violated repeatedly since.
What is being judged here are the actions of a modern nation, created by the United Nations, which is flaunting and violating modern international laws it agreed to abide by. Ironically, Israel flaunts and violates international laws created because of the oppression of Jews and intended to prevent future oppression of Jews and others who might be subject to oppression (like the Palestinians).
Whoa,
This guy is outstanding. Former republican who has all the major issues, including I-P, absolutely nailed. I would vote for and support him in a second. Where did he come from and why haven't we heard about him before? Stupid question.
Donald,
I too was a bit put off by your original post as it seemed far too broad a brush for MW which I find pretty temperate compared to most blogs. I think the existing moderator/censor system works pretty well as it stops the way over the top comments by those whoseviews are extreme, or whose emotions are getting away from them. Even so, once in awhile comments venture into the cringe factor zone, even a couple on this thread, so I know what you mean. The problem is where do you draw the line. Some of the examples you cite demonstrate that problem:
You want to exclude comments about attacking Israel militarily yet Zbiginew Brezenski (sp?) said that the US had the right to shoot down Israeli aircraft that were en route to attacking Iran. He was criticized and he recanted a bit, but his point was well-taken. If the US thought an Israeli attack on Iran would create a monumental mess against US vital national security interests, it, hypothetically could take such an action. The same could hold true for Israel's Samson option. It might also hold true if an extreme far right Israeli government decided to use force to evict every Palestinian from Israel and the territories. So, why would you want to ban that topic?
I also think some of your subsequent criticisms of American's explanation for his comments regarding the hypothetical ability of one American boomer submarine to successfully attack Israel were unfair and taken out of context. Some of our MW commenters are edgier than others; American's comments tend to be pretty edgy at times but are also thought provoking.
I also take issue with your anti-Semitism limits. That charge has been so misused and overused that we should be very hesitant to employ it ourselves. Much of the time loose language is the problem (e.g. using Jew instead of Zionist, etc.). I commented recently on that problem and was critical of Phil and someone else for their use of loose language with regard to American Jews and Zionism. Again, some of the thread discussions do get into the cringe factor zone but weak comments get hammered and the blatant ones censored.
My main complaint has to do with important threads getting hijacked by extraneous comments (like attacks on our Hasbara trolls, or 9-11 diversions). I know it is necessary to contest Hasbara nonesense, and I know the 9-11 subject is entitled to be heard, but good, important threads often get destroyed by the diversions. I wish I had a solution. I no longer think censorship should apply for either of the above.
Finally, I agree that as Mondoweiss becomes more mainstream it is important to protect its image and prevent attacks against it based on over-the-top comments. Phil, Adam and most of us want Mondoweiss to be influential so protecting its image is critical to gaining greater influence. But again, where to draw the line is the problem. I personally don't feel that the current comment screening guidelines need to be changed. At most, the screeners might be directed to issue warnings and require comment rewrites for ad hominem attacks, and require more civility for those who tend to excess.
This particular thread (now over 250 comments!) is a good case in point. It was a very good read with lots of valuable discussion. I wouldn't censor a word from it even though a few of the comments made me cringe a bit.
Donald, while I didn't agree with your article, I admire your courage in posting it and hanging in there to do battle to the end, and even modifying your beliefs along the way. Most important, your article allowed us to thoroughly address a very important topic.
Gil Maguire
I'm sorry, but I wouldn't dignify what happened in Gaza as 'war'. What happened in Gaza was more akin to genocide than war. What happened in Gaza, as reported by Judge Goldstone, was the wanton massive destruction of civilian infrastructure, and mass killing of civilians with virtually no opposition. It was not war in any justifiable sense, but an example of wanton violation of the laws of war. It was not in any sense a proportional response to desultory and largely ineffective rocket attacks by militia groups, but instead was a deliberate attempt to use massive force against Gazan civilians to teach the entirely of Gazans a lesson. In short, in revenge for ineffective resistence by a few Gazan militia groups, all of Gaza's Palestinians needed to pay a severe price. Collective punishment of civilians is a violation of the Geneva Conventions and a war crime. It continues to this day.
"Mr. Santorum, Hitler conquered France, Belgium, Netherlands, and Norway. Are you saying Britain and the US should have minded their own business because 'might makes right'?"
Or, "Mr. Santorum, since you apparently are unconcerned about the oppression of Palestinians by the Israelis as that is just an internal matter for Israelis, does that mean German oppression of the Jews, including their near extermination in the holocaust was also just an internal matter for the Germans?" "Mr. Santorum, doesn't your argument of 'might makes right' justify the holocaust?"
Or, "Mr. Santorum, since you apparently believe Israel has the right to conquer neighboring states, would you extend that right to Russia and China? Should we just stand by if Russian decides to reconquer and reclaim the various countries now independent from the old Soviet Union?"
Or, "Mr. Santorum, do you believe Muslims, Arabs and Palestinians are somehow inferior and unworthy of states of their own, and therefore can be justifiably conquered by Christian and Jewish countries?"
Or, "Mr. Santorum, you and many American Jews believe they have a right to take Arab land because of their claim that Israel is the ancient homeland of the Jews. Does that mean you believe that Italian Americans have a right to claim part of Italy as their ancient homeland? What about Irish Americans?"
Obviously these responses need honing, but hopefully, in the coming debates, moderators and other participants will be prepared to better respond to Mr. Santorum's simplistic but very effective argument.
Avi,
Why is it you are always so quick with the ad hominems? On MW ad hominem argument is rarely seen, except by you, and frequently by you. Are you insecure? I suggest you count the ad hominems you have tossed out on just this thread alone.
Why do you waste your obvious fine intellect in creating tortured "mental exercises" to criticize me which, I think not coincidentally ended with a scurilous accusation of antisemitism (you could have called me a closet Neocon or a mental midget)?
Should I call you a bozo or a hack for your describing the NORAD deployment to Alaska incorrectly as Operation Able Danger? I suppose I could but it probably was just an honest mistake so I let it pass. If I had chosen to respond it would have been with the correct name of the operation and a link.
Why do you feel a compulsion to destroy with ad hominems anyone on MW who makes a weak argument or, god forbid, has the termerity to disagree with you? Do you think it enhances your stature?
It doesn't. Lighten up for god's sake.
American,
My main problem is I don't like to see important threads hijacked by 9-11. It's like an off-topic diversion that frequently replaces the subject the original thread was about. I have no objection to separate threads in which the entirety of 9-11 can be discussed. I thought I had made that clear in my 5:56pm comment above: "I think the MW screeners should be directed to block comments concerning 9-11 conspiracies unless directly related to a particular thread on that subject. " So, I am not trying to ban the topic, just prevent thread hijacking. Fortunately, this particular thread has managed to keep going (whether Zionist Neocons caused the war in Iraq). That's not usually the case.
I'm not sure what you are getting at when you say "what does it do for me..." I think what happened was pretty clear and we all saw it; Two planes crashed into WTC 1&2, both buildings burned for awhile, then each collapsed starting from the upper floors and proceeding downward. The original explanations seemed valid to me but when I saw there was some controversy, I again became interested. I've read government reports, several detailed articles about the various theories, listened to some of the transcripts, etc. I've discussed most of this in great detail in earlier threads where the 9-11 issue arose.
I hold no brief for the government in this; there were a lot of mistakes made leading up to 9-11 that were avoidable. I also don't think all the billions spent since have made us safer. Instead, we've given up some key civil rights on the altar of homeland security. That is a huge loss.
I accept the results of the 9-11 investigation, including the NIST reports on WTC1-2 and WTC7 because they seem plausible and were done by both government structural engineers as well as a team of very distinguished engineering consultants. I've looked at the counterarguments and I haven't been impressed. For instance, people typically say that WTC 7 suffered no damage and had only a small fire so it shouldn't have come down. That's not true. WTC7 suffered massive lower floor damage from debris from the WTC collapse closest to it (about 100 feet away). The small fires that initially started grew much larger and burned most of the day unfought due to the lack of water pressure and the fact that the building had been totally evacuated. The collapse was predicted by one of the fire chiefs on site. A major US engineering magazine published a long article describing why the building collapsed. NIST published a full study of the collapse of WTC7 including an analysis of whether it could have been brought down by controlled demolition. These explanations (and there are more from a variety of credible sources, including the private sector) seem genuine and valid to me.
Now compare that with the alternative explanations, the government conspiracy theories. I would have to believe that a major portion of the US government, including the executive branch, the FAA, Norad, the CIA and even the Israelis (let along private controlled demolition companies, the NYPD, and countless others) somehow concocted a monumental false flag operation to bring down the towers to justify an invasion of Iraq. To accomplish this they would have had to send huge teams of controlled demolition guys into all three buildings over several weeks in which they wired hundreds of floors, opened up huge sections of drywall to gain access to beams that need cutting and weakening, placed massive amounts of demolitions, etc. -- all without the knowedge of the thousands of people working in and using these buildings which are occupied 24-7. Miraculously, not one of these thousands, many or most of whom survived, has come forward expressing their concern about all the work being done in the 10 years since the 9-11. Nor have any of the thousands of government workers in a wide variety of agencies come forward to reveal this conspiracy.
I could go on and on as I have in previous threads you can review. It simply doesn't add up. This becomes immediately obvious if you attempt to create a complete factual scenario for the conspiracy. I urge you to try it. You will end up with a scenario so bizarre that even Hollywood wouldn't touch it. The problem is nobody on the conspiracy side wants to do that. Instead they pick and choose different events and offer a counter-factual explanation: Like WT7, NORAD, free fall, no steel buildings ever destroyed by fire, etc. When plausible, factually consistent explanations for each of these is offered, the explanations are ignored, or ridiculed and then the same lame argument are repeated, again and again. Again, its like arguing religion.
Another example (my last): Ari and others allege that NORAD was intentionally weakened on 9-11 by an exercise that transferred most of our interceptor aircraft to Canada and Alaska. In fact, it was not an exercise but a deployment in response to a Russian long range bomber exercise being conducted in the arctic area. The deployment was immediately cancelled once 9-11 started and even the Russians cancelled their own excercise as well.
The aircraft tranferred were not ones used for NORAD US air defense. Pre 9-11 NORAD kept 14 aircraft (F16s, I believe) in ready status to protect the entire US. None of these were sent north and all were available on 9-11 (they are manned by air force active reserve units). More importantly, finding and shooting down the 4 hijacked airliners was a near impossible task for a variety of reasons. First, there was very little warning. second, the plane transponders were turned off making identification by ATC almost impossible. Finally, it takes quite awhile from the time an emergency is identified to notify FAA, who notifies the military, who then scrambles the jet which then has to find the aircraft in question. A good example in the Payne Stewart incident in which his plane lost oxygen, killing all aboard, but the plane continued on autopilot until the fuel ran out. This plane had its transponder on yet the first interception didn't occur for well over an hour.
All of this is readily available in various government reports and transcripts. Its no mystery and there was no NORAD conspiracy to divert intercceptor aircraft away from the US.
So, I hope this helps explain my position as well as my frustration and anger when forced to readdress issues or claims that have previously been dealt with. This is not an example of two competing scientific claims. Instead, it is more akin to attempting to defend evolution in the face of claims by creationists. You can never win the argument because it is a religion to them.
I made it clear at the beginning of this 9-11 discussion that I was not going to repeat all the 9-11 arguments I had made in prior 9-11 threads and I referred people to those threads which are easy to search. Yet, I venture to say none of those who have expressed their anger at me for my views have actually done that. Instead, I've been labeled arrogant, condescending and, incredibly, even anti-Semitic! Anti-Semitic? Incredible!
So there you have it. Earlier in this thread I offered to continue the dialogue but only if I was first presented with a complete alternative theory of what happened, including all the evidence in support of that theory. I believe anonymous is taking me up on that offer. Feel free to join in. I will respond as time permits.
Gil Maguire
Pulling out the old anti-semite card eh Avi? You're a real class act.
Avi_G, Shingo, Chauncy and Anonymouscomments:
See my response to MRW and others above at Jan.2, 1:51am. In any trial, both sides are required to provide their full version of the truth and all the evidence in support of their version. The jury then gets to weigh the evidence and decide which version is "the truth".
We have the government version of the 9-11 truth and all their evidence. What we don't have is your full version of what happened on 9-11 and all the evidence you think supports your version.
It's time to lay it all out for us; start to finish. Enough of the sniping and nit picking. If you think you got a conspiracy, tell us the whole story and give us all the details on how it works.
Gil Maguire
MRW (Avi and others):
I've posted quite a bit on the 9-11 conspiracy theories on prior threads, and spent a lot of time researching the various claims. While many of the claims sound valid at first glance, they all fall apart on detailed scrutiny of the various reports and investigation of 9-11. In other words, there are reasonable explanations given by trained investigators, structural engineers, etc. for each of the apparent anomalies.
If you want to see more detail about why I don't buy the conspiracies you'll need to check my prior postings. I'm too exhausted by this topic to discuss it any further as I've found that any report or site I provide as evidence for my belief is immediately ridiculed as flawed or tainted by the conspirators. In essence, there really isn't any useful dialogue between the two sides. That's why I see it as similar to trying to argue religion, and why I no longer will participate in the futile exercise of trading sources.
I think the main problem in the debate is that the 9-11 investigation, which included highly detailed reports on every aspect by NIST engineers and many outside consultants, provides an explanation that the conspiracy theories can snipe selectively at. No amount of factual rebuttal seems to stick. The same bogus claims about WT7, NORAD, etc. keep coming back, as they have in this thread.
I place the onus on those who claim conspiracy to offer their own full explanation and timeline of what they think really happened. Not something vague like a 'false flag' operation, but something detailed that provides counter explanations for each of the parts or events of 9-11 they dispute.
For instance, try to explain in detail how all three buildings could have been torn apart and wired for 'controlled demolition' without anybody's knowledge. Try to explain how the conspirators managed to crash two planes into the buildings without screwing up the controlled demolition wiring job and charges. When you actually make the effort to lay out the details necessary to make the conspiracy work, it is mind boggling in its complexity and sheer fantasy in terms of explanation.
So, if you want to make the effort to provide your complete theory of how it all came down (pun intended) on 9-11, from start to finish, have at it. I promise to review it with a neutral and careful eye so long as you first provide me with your complete version of the 9-11 event, and all the evidence that supports your version.
Gil Maguire
p.s. The usual response to my suggestion is: "No, no, we don't know what really happened; all we want is a new investigation." That, of course, is nothing more than a convenient cop out. If you are claiming conspiracy the onus is on you to provide a complete version and all the evidence that supports your claim.
Well, the obvious reason would be that since the fires only engulfed a few floors but the entire buildings collapsed, all the paper from those unburned floors would be present throughout the debris. That analysis required no research and less than 2 seconds of brainpower, diminished though it might be.
MRW, you are a bright guy whose comments and opinions on IP issues I greatly admire. Why is it that you couldn't immediately see the flaw in your paper debris question? Answer: cognitive dissonance. You want so desperately to believe in a 9-11 conspiracy that your brain is closed to the obvious flaws in your own reasoning.
Avi_G and others, whose opinions on MW IP issues I genuinely respect, have, to my horror, also quafted deeply from the Kool Aid in the 9-11 conspiracy chalice. What is with you guys? It is garbage, pure and simple. You can easily find the flaws and reasonable responses to all the 9-11 conspiracy claims on the web at a wide variety of websites, government and non. But, you must be willing to start your inquiry with an open mind and read both sides' claims with balance.
Would that you would do so my friend. It distresses me deeply to see good minds burying themselves in the endless machinations of the 9-11 conspiracy theorists. We at MW have far more important fish to fry.
teta mother me: "The fact that one of Rumsfeld’s first political tasks involved writing a letter to Robert Kennedy’s DoJ Foreign Agents Registration Act group on behalf of “valued constituents” questioning published statements about the basis for determining whether American Zionist Committee would be required to register as foreign agent, suggests Rumsfeld has long had close connection to Jewish constituents.
He attended a seminar of Milton Friedman’s and was influenced by Friedman — and also Wohlstetter and Wolfowitz, as noted above."
The Rumsfeld letter to RFK could be read either way. It looks to me like he is questioning whether DOJ is about to bend to pressure from Jewish groups not to require FARA registration. Remember, this was 1963 when anti-Semitism was much more mainstream and overt, particularly among WASPs like Rumsfeld.
I also don't think Rumsfeld's prior connections to Friedman, Wohlstetter and Wolfowitz are unusual or nefarious in themselves. Rumsfeld is a Republican conservative who would be expected to have connections to these guys.
Because someone has connections to Jews having influence does not necessarily mean that he or she is under their influence or control. Moreover, even if Rumsfeld was influenced by the economic teachings of Friedman, so what? Friedman may have been Jewish but that had nothing to do with his economic theories. Friedman was a very accomplished economist, period.
I think it is important to be careful of how we frame these issues. It is very easy to slip from attempting to find a connection between Zionist Neocons (or 'Greater Israel' Neocons) and US foreign policy, to finding "connections" between US Jews and US foreign policy. The former is a valid inquiry; the latter crosses the line and can bring on justifiable claims of bordeline anti-semitism.
I think this usually happens inadvertently. For instance in teta mother me's comment he sees relevance in Rumsfeld's connection to Wohlstetter and Friedman. Even Phil, in his earlier comment, saw relevance in Cheney's connection to AEI and Bernard Lewis. Yet, I don't see how any of these "Jewish" connections are anything more than coincidental and normal considering how accomplished and prevalent Jews are in many professions.
If our tentative working hypothesis is that the power and influence of Zionist Neocons may have caused the US to invade Iraq to further the interests of Israel even though it was clearly against US vital interests to do so, then we should limit our inquiry to Zionist Neocons, not Jewish economists, Jewish nuclear weapons experts, Jews on Team B, Jews on First, or Jews in general.
There was an interview of someone who wrote a book about Chalabi's influence on Bob Edwards weekend on NPR yesterday. He claims Chalabi was the guy that convinced the Bush administration to invade Iraq. Interesting interview. He claims Chalabi told the Bushies to invade but not occupy and that he would be able handle the rest using the existing Iraqi army.
Phil,
This confuses me. I think of AEI as a conservative think tank that has strong connections to the neocons, but not as one directly connected to AIPAC and Israel as say W.... (I can't remember the full acronym--WIMEA or something). I would expect Cheney and Rumsfeld to be adherents of AEI and Bernard Lewis, but none of this makes the connection to PNAC or a desire on the part of Cheney and Rumsfeld (and Bush) to start wars to enhance Israel's interests.
I guess my point is that Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush may have just been US foreign policy GOP hardliners who, still basking in the easy victory in Kuwait, decided to push US power and influence into the middle east militarily. That's Pillar's view. Still, the heavy presence of Zionist Neocons in the Bush administration suggests they may have had a major, influential role in guiding that policy. I'd like to know why and how they were given that role, and by whom.
I think you are spot on about the role of money plays in this mess, but I'm doubtful money bought the support of Cheney and Rumsfeld. Why did they ally themselves so closely with Wolfowitz/Feith/Wurmser/et al? Why did they buy into such a risky move as destroying Iraq when it was clear that tribal chaos would follow and the Shia would likely triumph. Saddam was a bulwark against Iran. Both Cheney and Rumsfeld supported elder Bush's decision not to invade Iraq after Kuwait for those very reasons. Why the total conversion in just 10 years.?
Then, after the total disaster of Iraq, the new Obama administration is salted with the same neoconish true believers and anyone with a valid independent view (such as Chas Freeman) is kept out. Why, after that disaster do they still have any influence, let alone the ability to draw us into a new war?
Truly baffling.
MRW,
Have the engineers that conducted these tests now concluded that WTC 1-3 came down for reasons unrelated to fire and impact? There are real world examples of other steel frame buildings that have collapsed due to fire. See the link I provided in a subsequent comment on this thread. There's a whole section devoted to that subject.
Once again we have a great debate about an important IP issue hijacked by the 9-11 conspiracy crowd. While I don't begrudge these folks' right to believe in this nonsense, I do object to their ruining the debate concerning the thread IP topic at hand. Typically, once the 9-11 conspiracy talk starts, most of those engaged in the thread's IP topic leave in disgust.
I think the MW screeners should be directed to block comments concerning 9-11 conspiracies unless directly related to a particular thread on that subject. There are loads of sites concerning the alleged 9-11 conspiracy--both pro and con. The proper place for that debate is on those sites, not MW which was created to discuss IP topics.
Don't waste your time responding to this post with all the bogus arguments about why there was a conspiracy. I've addressed those at great length as have others more competent than me. See my MW comment history for examples of my own and others' responses.
A good website to review if you are interested in getting up to speed on this topic is:
link to debunking911.com
However, I warn you that no amount of debate will dissuade the 9-11 conspiracy true believers who carry their torch with true religious fervor. Read my comments on this topic in prior threads and you will quickly see the problem.
I think you are conflating two different issues: The threat of Iraqi WMD was used and promoted to sell the American public (and Congress) on the Iraq war but it was not the motive for the war. The separate and key question/issue in my mind is why Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush bought into the Iraq war concept; what was their motive? I suspect 'imposing democracy on Iraq to save/reform the ME' was likely the motive they believed in but I also think they may have been sold on that motive by the Neocons as a ruse to hide a more questionable motive of getting the US to take out Iraq to enhance Israel's interests. Admittedly, I don't have any direct evidence of that and I may well be wrong, but I would at least like to see that possibility explored and discussed.
As to the Iraq national Congress/Chalabi connection, as you yourself say, it also grew out of the PNAC Perle/Wolfowitz connection and was really just another neocon tool used to sell the public and congress on the need for an Iraq invasion.
The real question in my mind is how did Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush get sold on an idea that was so clearly contrary to US vital interests, and who did the selling? It may well have been nothing more than a continuation of a century or more of the American ideal of 'saving the world for democracy' (Pillar's ‘assertive nationalists’ view of Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush) but I suspect the same phenomenal neocon skills and efforts aimed at selling the war to the American public and Congress, were also first used to sell the war to the key US political players who would have to make the final calls.
Interesting debate except for Mr. Kampeas' assertion that the debate itself is anti-semitic because it enhances or furthers 'toxic myths attached to the Jews'. Since this debate is not about 'the Jews' but rather about a very small subset of Israeli and American Zionist Jews, perhaps best described by Andrew Sullivan as the 'Greater Israel' crowd, it would be nice if Mr. Kampeas acknowledged that the debate is not between just him and the antisemites, but perhaps also between people of good faith some of whom disagree with him.
I and most of the commenters at MW are neither antisemites nor 'fellow travelers' of antisemites. While the likes of the David Dukes of this world may gleefully adopt or latch onto the questions I and others raise, that does not mean that all those who raise these questions are motivated by antisemitism. Mr. Kampeas is too bright a guy not to know the difference.
P. Weiss: "... and in this instance, the idea that was relentlessly promoted by the neoconservatives was the claim that by imposing democracy by force on an Arab nation of importance, democracy would take hold across the region. This was a very powerful and very stupid idea. It held sway."
This 'mposing democracy' argument could also have been a ruse to conceal the less palatable motive of getting the US to take out a major enemy of Israel. Certainly the Zionist Neocons knew that Cheney/Rumsfeld and Bush as well as the non-Zionist Neocons couldn't be sold on the latter argument so perhaps they crafted and promoted the 'imposing democracy' argument or motive as it better fed into the egos of the hard-line Republicans and Scoop Jackson Democrats.
I think it is important to remember that the 'take out Iraq' concept grew out of the 1996 "Clean Break" strategy which was devised by the Zionist Neocons to 'secure the realm' of ISRAEL, not protect the US. That this strategy then morphed into US policy and that the major designers of 'Clean Break' ended up in key positions in the Bush administration helping to influence and instigate this policy is no mere coincidence in my mind.
The following is excerpted from my comment in the earlier thread on this topic, "You don’t write, you don’t call (Ron Kampeas version)":
Paul Pillar, in his new book, Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy, does a pretty thorough analysis of the motivations behind the Iraq war. He shows how the Bush administration was looking for a reason to invade Iraq from day 1 in its first staff meetings. He also shows how neocons use faulty intelligence on WMD as a smokescreen for their true motives which preceded the whole intelligence stove piping games. In other words, the motive for the war was never based on the supposed existance and threat of Iraqi WMD, but instead was aimed at recreating Iraq as a democratic show horse to undermine ME totalitarianism, and to assert and demonstrate US power to potential adversaries (according to Pillar). Or, if you follow the trail from 'Clean Break', the motive may have been to protect Israel and enhance its interests.
Pillar thoroughly covers the Zionist Neocon connections: Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser, Perle, Kristol, et al, from PNAC through the Bush administration, but then fails to connect the dots and concludes:
“Sympathy for Israeli interests probably was not the principal motivator in the decision to launch the Iraq War, but it did play an important supporting role. Images of a foreign problem such as Iraq that are most important to U.S. interests are not necessarily those most important to the interests of Israel or any other foreign state. Thus, some policymakers probably gave less attention or weight than U.S. interests warranted to, say, the American human and material resources required for the postinvasion occupation of Iraq because they had Israeli interests (or their particular conception of those interests) and not just U.S. interests at heart.” (p. 24; Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition).
Pillar seems to feel that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush came up with the Iraq invasion on their own and that the Zionist Neocons had little direct influence:
“But the concept did not solely belong to the neocons. It probably was a major motivation for Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, who are best labeled not as neoconservatives, but instead, according to one study of policymaking in the Bush administration, as ‘assertive nationalists’.” (p. 19).
I suspect Pillar is covering his bets here and shrouding his beliefs behind some well-crafted weasel words. This seems to be a common CYA position, that the Israel connection to the Iraq war is only indirect and that the Zionist Neocon influence is overstated.
There are several problems with this position: The first is that the Iraq war concept came initially from the Zionist Neocons (via the 'Clean Break' strategy letter in 1996) who were then joined by the rest of the Neocons (1998). The pressure for an invasion then grew by leaps and bounds.
The second problem is that the key drafters of the original Iraq war policy documents were Zionist Neocons who then were awarded positions of high influence in the Bush administration (Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser, etc.). To suggest this is coincidental seems quite a stretch.
I think the key to this puzzle can be found in finding who influenced and convinced Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush on the need for an Iraq war. I suspect it must have been a very heavy effort on the part of the Neocons, and particularly those who were promoting the war primarily or even secondarily for Israel’s sake, but I have not encountered any discussion of this in my readings. This, to me, is the one remaining big mystery. Maybe there is no connection and the war was a Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush gambit, but I remain a sceptic. I hope others, more informed than me, will continue this discussion.
Gil Maguire
Paul Pillar, in his new book, Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy, does a pretty thorough analysis of the motivations behind the Iraq war. He shows how the Bush administration was looking for a reason to invade Iraq from day 1 in its first staff meetings. He also shows how neocons use faulty intelligence on WMD as a smokescreen for their true motives which preceded the whole intelligence stove piping games. In other words, their motive was never based on supposed WMD, but instead was aimed at recreating Iraq as a democratic show horse to undermine ME totalitarianism, and to assert and demonstrate US power to potential adversaries.
Pillar thoroughly covers the Zionist Neocon connections: Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser, Perle, Kristol, et al, from PNAC through the Bush administration, but then fails to connect the dots and concludes:
"Sympathy for Israeli interests probably was not the principal motivator in the decision to launch the Iraq War, but it did play an important supporting role. Images of a foreign problem such as Iraq that are most important to U.S. interests are not necessarily those most important to the interests of Israel or any other foreign state. Thus, some policymakers probably gave less attention or weight than U.S. interests warranted to, say, the American human and material resources required for the postinvasion occupation of Iraq because they had Israeli interests (or their particular conception of those interests) and not just U.S. interests at heart." (p. 24; Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition).
Pillar seems to feel that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush came up with the Iraq invasion on their own and that the Zionist Neocons had little direct influence:
"But the concept did not solely belong to the neocons. It probably was a major motivation for Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, who are best labeled not as neoconservatives, but instead, according to one study of policymaking in the Bush administration, as 'assertive nationalists'.” (p. 19).
I suspect Pillar is covering his bets here and shrouding his beliefs behind some well-crafted weasel words. This seems to be a common CYA position, that the Israel connection to the Iraq war is only indirect and that the Zionist Neocon influence is overstated. There are several problems with this position: The first is that the Iraq war concept came initially from the Zionist Neocons (in 1996) who were then joined by the rest of the Neocons (1998). The pressure for an invasion then grew by leaps and bounds.
The second problem is that the key drafters of the original Iraq war policy documents were Zionist Neocons who then were awarded positions of high influence in the Bush administration (Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser, etc.). To suggest this is coincidental seems quite a stretch.
I think the key to this puzzle can be found in finding who influenced and convinced Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush on the need for an Iraq war. I suspect it must have been a very heavy effort on the part of the Neocons, and particularly those who were promoting the war primarily or even secondarily for Israel's sake, but I have not encountered any discussion of this in my readings. That, to me, is the one remaining big mystery. Maybe there is no connection and the war was a Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush gambit, but I remain a sceptic. I hope others, more informed than me, will continue this discussion.
Gil Maguire
p.s. The Pillar book is a great and must read. It is available on Amazon. The Kindle version is about 9 bucks and can be downloaded to a Kindle, to a PC or iMac, to a tablet, and to a smart phone (both iPhone or Android versions). For the cost of one download you get the full book on all three (or more) devices. I am finding I can easily use my Android smart phone (a Samsung Galaxy IIs) as a reader which accompanies me everywhere, and is easy to use and very easy to read, and much lighter than a Kindle or Nook.
+10. Spot on, at least as to middle east issues.
He did have some causes that he supported bravely like the plight of the Kurds. He was also physically courageous. Hitch 22 is a great read except for the neocon bits.
I think his big mistake was in moving to the states. It seemed to have made him complacent and more accepting of our politics and leaders. I suspect his failure to really jump into the I-P issue (which he certainly saw and would have been brilliant on) was due to fear of intellectual and publishing isolation.
Too bad. Brilliant and fascinating guy. Despite his faults, I'll miss him. I suspect God will find him troublesome, always quarreling with the angels, claiming Saint Peter is a fraud, wanting God to stand for elections, questioning the paternity of Jesus... typical Hitch stuff.
Erskine Childers (of Riddle of the Sands fame - greatest spy novel ever written) was executed by the Brits in 1922. Must be the son you are referring to.
Dear Phil,
I was looking forward to the interview with enthusiasm after reading your article. Your hope and optimism was misplaced, and my time wasted. The actual interview was a vacuous joke. Blitzer was in Cain/Gingrich all-the-time mode. Nothing on something of real import and immediacy like Iran, and certainly nothing about Israel or the plight of the Palestinians. Blitzer was pushing ratings buttons. Honest, inciteful, dogged? Give me a break. Blitzer is an MSM hack.
Ron Paul really missed the opportunity to raise some hell and show some rightious anger. He should have been screaming tohigh heaven about being excluded from the debate by a lobby who advocates for a foreign government and why it is dangerous to allow a foreign government to interfere in our domestic politics and presidential elections. While Paul is on the right track on many issues, he just doesn't have the chops or presence to get anywhere.
I think there is a tendency among us to take glimmers of hope gleaned from very occasional and marginally favorable statements by media players and turn these into supposed major turning points in this struggle. I see these more as random blips emerging from the overall noise. I think the Zionist Greater Israel lobby is too observant and far too powerful to expect these blips to morph into an actual alternative voice.
Keep dreaming Phil. Wish it were otherwise.
There is also evidence of "Brown-Washing" efforts aimed at aligning Israel and American Jews with US Hispanics as fellow victims of oppression/discrimination:
link to jpost.com
link to forward.com
Chutzpah is an understatement. These folks are shameless but also very, very good at what they do. I would like to see a similar history of the development of the Fundamentalist Christian/Israeli/AIPAC alliance ("Christ-Washing"?). I suspect that alliance was also instigated and developed along the same lines.
These alliances are scary because once the target group has drunk the kool-aid
they become true believers for the entire program (greater Israel, etc.).
What Bernard meant to say was "Israel, that shitty little country that gives decent Jews a bad name."
I caught that and actually wrote something about it. The head of the 911 commission was asked about the omission in an interview and said they left it out because too many commission members felt that highlighting it in the report would cost Israel US funding and support. Unbelievable.
I think that is just another example of the influence the lobby has on US politics and agencies. I don't think that omission has anything to do with claims of a controlled demolition conspiracy related to 911.
Anonymouscomments (as well as Shingo and others),
Per my earlier postings on this thread's 9-11 subtopic, I come down squarely on Keith's side of this issue. I looked over the links you provided and found nothing compelling. They seemed more like straw man arguments in which apparant anomolies are selected out, usually mischaracterized, without any context or analysis of the rebutting arguments. These are then put together to create what appears to be a compelling presentation but really is a house of cards that soon collapses under its own weight (pardon the inadvertant pun) when subjected to any half-rigorous attempt at rebuttal.
Attempting to reengage on the details of this argument is clearly a futile exercise. Keith already did a good job on that and I won't attempt to top his last posting. Instead, I suggest you take a step back and look at the big picture and the implications of the controlled demolition conspiracy theory compared to the simplicity of what what we saw before our eyes on 911: 2 huge airplanes crashing into 2 huge structures; massive fires, and a collapse of the buildings. This is soon followed by a very detailed investigation and analysis that describes the history of the highjackers, what they did and what motivated them, as well as a detailed analysis of the cause of the building collapses by NIST.
As with any investigation of a huge, catastrophic event, there were some mistakes and some unanswered or unexplained anomolies. But, the conclusions seem reasonable and consistent with what we observed on 911.
Contrast that with accepting your controlled demolition conspiracy explanation. For your "theory" to work and be a rational, reasonable, alternatiive explanation, a massive conspiracy on a scale unimaginable would have to have occurred. This conspiracy would need to include, at a very minimum, the following:
1. A very large, well-trained demolition team that worked for weeks inside the 3 buildings, ripping out drywall to gain access to beams to set shaped explosive charges, cut and weaken beams, lay massive amounts of wiring, hide all the evidence of their nighttime work before the start of the next working day, somehow avoid the security personnel and cameras and janitorial crews that are present 24/7. Yet, no one who survived who worked as a janitor or security guard, or even an employee working in an office late into the night or in the early morning hours has stepped forward to mention their knowledge of all the nighttime predemolition work (and noise) going on. Lots of the thousands of people that worked in the buildings were sick, or on vacation on 911 but none of them saw or heard anything fishy in the weeks prior to 911. Maybe they were silenced? Maybe they thought the teams working inside the walls making all the noise and mess were just doing routine maintenance? Or, maybe all of them too are part of the conspiracy?
2. The demolition team leaders must have known that on 911 these buildings would be hit by airliners and that they would need to set off their demolition charges some time after the impact of the planes and the resulting fires.
3. The highjackers could not have been al Queda, but must have been co-conspirators from the US government (or Israel, or the Tri-lateral commission) who were willing to commit suicide and kill their fellow Americans in the planes and buildings. Perhaps the crews of the airliners themselves were part of this conspiracy? Or, maybe the highjackers were trained CIA or Mossad agents willing to kill themselves for the cause (whatever that is)?
4. The NIST and 911 Commission investigations must have been rigged and their members part of the conspiracy. This would need to include not only the 200 structural engineers who performed the NIST investigation, but also all members and staff of the 911 Commission.
5. All the government agencies that participated in the investigation must have been part of the conspiracy since they provided the false evidence and testimony about the highjackers being mainly Saudis employed by al Qaeda. This would need to include the FBI and CIA as well as the US military who must have hidden the fact that they were capable of shooting down the hijacked planes but deliberately did not.
6. The President must have been involved as well as his cabinet.
Now, assuming all the above were part of this grand conspiracy to crash airplanes into buildings and then destroy them with controlled demolitions, you would think that someone out of the thousands who must have been involved in this grand conspiracy would have leaked, talked. Yet, 10 years later, there has been not a peep to be heard from any of the conspirators, any of the janitors, any of the building security personnel.
In your eloquent rebuttal of Keith's last entry you chide him for not being balanced, not being willing to keep an open mind, to accept the possibility that there might have been controlled demolitions of the buildings and that there might have been a huge conspiracy behind it all. In other words, Keith, me, and other conspiracy sceptics are failing to balance two alternative, reasonable theories or explanations, the NIST/911 Commission's or the Controlled Demolition theory, and failing to be intellectually honest in not admitting the possibility that it all could have been an "inside job" on the massive scale I described above.
Nah, sorry. I refuse to attribute reasonableness or logic to what amounts to a truly mind-bogglingly preposterous, outlandish fantasy. If you and your fellow team of 911 Truthers wish to piss away your valuable intellects on nonsense like this I can only shake my head in sorrow at the waste of such promising talent that could and should be devoted to truly important causes, like the IP issue. I can only hope you will stop, reconsider and take a long hard look at the fantasy world you have created and decide "No, I really don't belong among these folks and their wacky conspiracy theories."
Shingo,
Here are just couple of specific responses to your arguments:
1. Free Fall speeds: link to debunking911.com
2. WTC7. Here is a long explanation of what happened to WTC7 including the "pull" issue and the "fell vertically" argument. First, no one on the non-conspiracy side claims that the building was pulled down by cables. Second, as the photographs show, WTC7 did not collapse vertically but fell gradually in the direction of the massive damage to one of its sides caused by the falling columns from WTC1.
link to debunking911.com
3. First Time Steel Building ever collapsed due to fire claim:
This gives examples of other steel buildings collapsing after fires. link to debunking911.com
4. "There are more scientists and engineers rejecting the NIST explanation than those supporting it(1,400 to 200)."
There are over 1.5 million licensed engineers in the US, 300,000 of whom are civil/structural engineers. 200 of those were picked to do the NIST analysis of the WTC disaster. They concluded the buildings collapsed because of airliner and debris impact plus fire. The 1400 you mention are from a wide variety of engineering and scientific fields most of which are unrelated to civil/structural engineering. A better survey would be of the 300,000 licensed civil/stuctural engineers.
link to bls.gov
Shingo, I could go on and on but I'm trying to work on an IP article so I am going to call a halt to my further participation on this issue.
Anybody, including Pabelmont and Shingo, interesed in the WTC Truther issue should start with Andrew Cockburn's Counterpunch article on “9-11 Conspiracies and the Decline of the Left”. It is a must read for anyone considering conspiracy theories. He shows how much valuable energy by very bright folks can be pissed away in conspiracy garbage which deprives real issues and causes of their support, energy and brain power.
The link is at my Nov. 6, 2:31pm comment above. Please read that and the other links cited before jumping to conclusions that the 9/11 Truther Conspiracy theories are valid. Look carefully at links and evidence from both sides, including the NIST and 9/11 Commission reports. Finally, apply William of Ockham's famous "Occam's Razor" to your analysis.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Lysias,
I think you are spot on. Winning a war requires conquering, occupying and then changing the government.
The US was able to do that in WWII. Every attempt since (with the possible exceptions of Gulf War I, Grenada and Panama) have largely been failures (Korea--infinite stalemate; Vietnam--lost; Iraq--lost; Afghanistan--lost). No one in NATO has either the stomach or resources to invade and conquer Iran. That means we are left with air power which has proved to be a weak tool at best. Air power was largely a failure in Korea and Vietnam. While it seemed to be decisive in Gulf War I, the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts have both shown it has limited impact and is extremely expensive.
At best, an air attack on Iran will take out a few obvious sites, and maybe not even those since the Iranians have been digging deeper and hardening every likely target. Many potential targets are simply not known. So Israel, with its dinky little airforce that has NO strategic bombers, is going to try to attack a country a huge distance away in which its planes and fighter escorts will require multiple aerial refuelings, based on little if any real time intelligence. At best, it hopes the US will be drawn in to finish the job. But, I doubt the US has the capability to locate and take out all the known targets.
Iran, on the other hand, has a whole host of effective counters to an Israeli attack which I try to list here.
DBroncos, the bottom line is that air power really doesn't work all that well; there are too many effective countermeasures, and it certainly doesn't come close to winning wars.
I have thought this was a last ditch bluff to con the Iranians into stopping their nuke program, but based on what I've read in today's New Yorker, I think Netanyahu may be a meglomaniac with a Churchill complex who would actually be willing to start down that road.
Hope not. Very scary situation if he does.
Here is a link to NIST's very comprehensive FAQ section on the 9-11 WTC investigation. Also a must read for anyone genuinely interested in getting a balanced view on whether there was a conspiracy or alternative explanation for the collaspse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC 7.
link to nist.gov
Here is a link to Alexander Cockburn's article on "9-11 Conspiracies and the Decline of the Left". It is a must read for anyone considering conspiracy theories. He shows how much valuable energy by very bright folks can be pissed away in conspiracy garbage which deprives real issues and causes of their support, energy and brain power.
link to counterpunch.org
Here's a link to good website on debunking the 9-11 conspiracy claims. I spent a lot of time on this issue on a previous thread and looked at the 'evidence' the conspiracy folks offer. When you look at counter-non-conspiracy evidence, the conspiracy stuff just doesn't work.
Those that want to believe there is a conspiracy glom on to each bit of 'evidence' supporting each of their claims while refusing to look at careful descriptions of why that particular bit of evidence or claim has been refuted. There is no way in hell you will change their minds. Their belief is as religious as those of the birthers or intelligent designers. That said, I have great respect for several of those on MW who ascribe to the conspiracy theories. Their analysis of IP issues is well thought out and balanced. Yet, for some reason, when it comes to 9-11 conspiracy theories, they've lost it. This has also happened to at least one well known IP commentator (I forget his name) whose IP commentary is now tainted by his propounding of 9-11 conspiracy nonsense.
link to debunking911.com
ToivoS,
American carriers have smallish refueling tankers to extend the range of their fighter aircraft which can also be refueled by much larger Air Force tankers. In any case, as I mentioned, in any conflict with Iran, much more capable US aircraft would stage from several Saudi bases built specifically for the US for that purpose.
The F16 is not a Navy plane. It's an Air Force plane.
US aircraft carriers don't typically operate in the Persian Gulf. It's too restricted and dangerous plus they have the ability to stand off and allow their aircraft to do the dirty work. If air power was needed against Iran, it would stage from Saudi or Kuwaiti airbases. There would be no reason to risk a carrier or any other major navy assest anywhere near Iran.
Sinking an oil tanker might work but that would just close down the Gulf to oil traffic which would hurt Iran most of all.
If Israel tries this crazy stunt I think you would see a proxy war. I doubt Iran would want to go after the US, and I think the US would be reluctant to join in as well.
The reality is that Israel can't possibly do this on its own, so I think it is largely bluff hoping Iran can be coerced into stopping its nuke program.
In reviewing my earlier posting, my sarcasm may have escaped some readers. My sarcastic point was that 'separate but equal' is not a valid defense to acts of discrimination. A sign, policy, or word, even if not enforced, is still degrading and psychologically damaging to the individual and group the sign, policy or word is directed at. The whole point of the landmark US Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education was that 'separate but equal' black and white schools are not equal because they are psychologically harmful to black children for a wide variety of reasons.
So, to review, the idea that the sex-segregated buses might not be found to be discriminatory because the separation is not enforced, just requested, is ludicrous. My example of a restaurant with a sign saying “No Nigras or Jews Allowed” was offered, in sarcasm, as a way of making my point.
Asking (but not requiring) a woman to move to the other side of the bus so ultra-Othodox men won't be offended by their revolting presence is degrading to the woman and unacceptable. A public bus company that takes a neutral position on this issue is abetting gender discrimination and should lose its license.
"are said by one advocate to violate civil rights laws. Yet the details of how they are enforced may be crucial in assessing the practice’s legality."
Yeah, I can see how it probably is legal if you don't really enforce it. I mean, if a restaurant has a sign up that says "No Nigras or Jews Allowed" but would feed them anyway if they chose come in, what's the harm? How could that be illegal and a civil rights violation? Why would some silly woman be offended if she was asked to sit on the other side of the bus if they wouldn't stop her if she refused? What's the harm? I mean its being done among Jews so it can't be that wrong.
Donald,
Good comments. I can see the inaccuracy of some of my distinctions, particularly as to orthodox Jews and specifically as to Jerry Haber. Still, we are talking about generalizations and trying to narrow the overly broad ones, like “Jew”, which smack of anti-Semitism, to less broad ones that more accurately distinguish. Unfortunately, any generalization will by its very nature contain inaccuracy. e.g. Comparing people from New York to people from Los Angeles. All I am trying to do is to get us to narrow or focus our generalizations to limit claims that our motives are anti-Semitic.
Well American,
While you are correct that the Greater Israel Lobby is comprised of Jews and Zionists, since not all Jews and Zionists are believers and supporters of Greater Israel, blaming the IP problem on either the Jews or the Zionists would be inaccurate and unfair and would also open the door to a charge of anti-semitism. So you need something more specific like right wing Likudnik fuck, or moronic Greater Israel asshole. While either of these might be a tad offensive, neither can be called anti-semitic because only a specific category of Jew/Zionists are criticised, not a blanket all Jews and/or all Zionists.
I have also heard another effective way of describing the IP political split in Israel which is to discriminate between the Israel of Tel Aviv - high tech, modern, hip, liberal, generally anti-settlement - and the Israel of Jerusalem - backward, conservative, orthodox religious, avidly pro-settlement. I have found this distinction is effective when discussing IP with Jews who are still drinking the Hasbara Kool-Aid. It reduces their reflexive defensiveness to criticism of Israel or Israelis when you show them your problem is with Likudnik, Jerusalem Israel. They seem to relate well to that distinction as many Jews worry about Jewish religious extremism in Israel.
The labels we use in the IP debate are critical. We need to refine our labels.
I think we need a better definition regarding who the perpetrators are in the overall IP mess, including the Iraq War mess. It's not the really the Jews; it's not the really the Israelis; and it's not the really the Zionists. It is really the Greater Israel crowd which includes Likud and its allies in Israel, and the Greater Israel lobby in the US and other countries like Great Britain. I think the term "Greater Israel lobby" was recently coined by Andrew Sullivan in one of his Salon postings last week. I don't have the link handy, but that term is contained in the title and can easily be found by scrolling down his blog articles located on the right side of the Salon opening page.
It's very easy for Hophni and others to pull out the antisemitism card when this issue is mentioned. It is also easy to help feed that narrative by using imprecise words for the culprits/perpetrators of the IP/Iraq War mess. None of the first three: Jew, Israeli, Zionist, are precise enough because there are far too many exceptions under each of those labels. So, I think using some varient of Sullivan's Greater Israel Lobby term is a far better and more accurate way of placing blame. More importantly, it makes it far harder for Hophni and the gang to use their all purpose antisemite card.
Anyway, food for thought.
Hmmm, of the four , I prefer the James version.
Interesting points MH976,
I think the gloves first came off with regard to the importance of throttling even so-called non-combatant civilian adults in our own (US) civil war. Grant (and Sherman) realized the vital importance of depriving the South's armies of supplies and support and also realized the importance of convincing the people of the South that further resistance was futile and the price paid for it unacceptable. This resulted is Sherman's very destructive but highly effective March through Georgia and the middle of the South.This doctrine was extended in WWII with the bombing of cities on the theory that the destruction of factories contained a key to winning the war and a way to undermine civilian moral. Neither proved totally true and the millions of civilians killed was a horrific and largely unnecessary consequence.
The collateral killing of civilians during war has always been seen as an unfortunate byproduct of conducting a war. One of the ironic benefits of drones and highly accurate modern guided munitions is that the numbers of civilians killed collaterally has greatly diminished.
As to whether the 2 American citizens targeted are truly enemy combatants, I think there is little doubt that these folks took a very active and highly important role in AQ's war against us. It is perfectly legal to target key enemy players including political and military leaders, or other key players (e.g. Goebbels as a propaganda genius) even though they don't necessarily carry guns or even activily participate in combat. These were not just opinionated Americans who happened to be living in Yemen.
Well Annie, I share your cynicism as well as Seafoid's earlier view re our fucked up motivations for much of what we do and have done (Iraq being the best example), but that doesn't change my view, legal and otherwise, about how we can respond to attacks against us. These are really separate issues.
Seafoid,
An interesting political point that was first raised by the great warrior and allied general Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Mikeo,
The problem is that your current definition of war has been overtaken by history and the rise of non-state actors like al Queda. As to invading and bombing Dublin, that wouldn't be justified unless the IRA was created, supplied, directed and led by the Irish government, which is wasn't.
Hostage,
The issue here is not whether American citizens committed treason, but whether they were fighting a war as combatants on the side of the enemy. If they were, their killing was no more illegal than the killing a non-US citizen enemy. You don't get to hold up your US passport while fighting on the battlefield and thereby get a free pass from return fire or a trip to an arraignment before a US magistrate.
Nor is there some legal requirement that an American citizen must first be tried and convicted in US court for treason before he can be killed on the battlefield as an enemy combatant. Once captured, a US citizen enemy POW is entitled to GC IV rights and if charged with a crime is probably entitled to full US standard constitutional and criminal justice system protections, something sadly missing in the Jose Padilla case.
I also don't accept your claim that these were "summary executions" which implies they were not battlefield or war-related. I think they were battlefield killings just as were the killings of the Gestapo general in Poland and the shootdown of the unarmed transport plane of Admiral Yamamoto in WWII. I am using WWII incidents as examples not as legal precedents. Assuming GCIV modern day standards, and assuming both the above individuals were US citizens of German and Japanese descent who chose to fight on the side of the enemy, would either of those assasinations been illegal? I don't think so.
My point is that since specifically targeted assasinations of enemy key figures and leaders during war are not illegal, extrajudicial acts, the fact that a key enemy figure or leader is also a US citizen does not an exception make.
Hey bio, good to see you back.
Thanks for the factoid about Scheuer's invention of rendition although a source might be nice.
I do think your description of Scheuer's various hates is a tad overdone. He clearly has little sympathy for Israel's actions or with those Arabs who qualify as terrorists, but to equate him with Father Coughlin and label as a Jew hater/antisemite is a cheap shot unless you have quotes and other evidence to back it up.
It is not antisemitic to criticize Israel or its US lobby's actions nor is it anti Muslim/Arab bigotry to criticise actions of some Muslims or some Arabs.
Philip,
The article you cite is filled with overwrought argument. e.g.
Juan Cole: "do you really think it would be a good idea to give a President Michele Bachmann or a President Rick Perry the authority to kill American citizens at will and with no due process?"
The proposition the Yemen killings stand for is that American citizens who choose to join and fight against the US in an ongoing war are justifiable targets of war, not common criminals. Nothing in those killings is remotely precedential for a blanket authority for any president to "kill American citizens at will and with no due process."
Legal standards in war are different than legal standards in peacetime. Equating the killing of an enemy combatant with the murder of a bank clerk is absurd. The first is legal homicide under the terms and laws of war. The second is murder under criminal justice standards. The legal restraints and constitutional protections afforded US citizens, even criminals, are far stronger than the standards that apply to our own combatants and decision makers during wartime, particularly in exigent circumstances.
Whizdom,
I think you are conflating the criminal justice ("judicial") model with the war fighting model. Your questions would be essential to the CJ model but only optional in WF model. In the WF model, exingency of the circumstance likely made diplomatic efforts futile. In any case, the Yemeni government statement late today indicates they played a role in locating/identifying these targets. It also would not surprise me if we later learn of some Pakistani government involvement in the location and targeting of OBL.
Neither of your two examples, Cuba and Iran are similar in that there is no war situation involving Cuba and the US, and even the Iran example there is no active war between the two countries. The US action would be unacceptable in a country not directly involved in hostilities like say France or Britain although even there an exigent circumstance could justify a quick hit if major loss of life was imminent and time was fleeting.
Virtually all of these kinds of decisions are vetted through a legal team so there is some minimal legal review of the proposed action which is normally based on prior legal analysis of appropriate terms of engagement in a variety of hypothetical scenarios. It is not shoot from the hip kind of stuff although there is room for abuse as we saw in the Bush administration (Yoo, etc.).
As to our becoming what we hate, that didn't happen after our earlier wars although the domestic civil rights intrusions justified by the so-called WoT are pretty scary to me.
Wars are extreme situations. The primary goal is to win because losing is an unacceptable option. All other lesser priorities get sorted out after you've won. Wars also generate bad decisions that get lots of people killed unnecessarily. e.g. Pelilieu battle of WWII, as well as bombing of cities, and A bomb attacks on 2 Japanese cities in same war. Sometimes the bad decisions were just due to bad judgments or negligence, sometimes they were criminal in nature.
Give me a break.
I'm sorry, but this line of reasoning is putting form over substance. We are, after all, fighting a war against a foe who has extended the fight across borders, even across continents. The argument in this thread seems to be that extrajudicial killing would be lawful if done within the "war zone", but that Pakistan and Yemen somehow don't qualify. While killing and maiming the enemy during a war is extrajudicial, it is also legal. So, the real question here is whether one combatant can take the war to another combatant wherever that other combatant has chosen to wage it.
Suggesting that the extrajudical killings of OBL and these others in Yemen is somehow illegal and a crime of war is mind-boggling to me. An American citizen who chooses to fight on the side of the enemy is an enemy combatant, pure and simple, and is no more entitled to the protections of our criminal justice system than was the Gestapo general who was assasinated in Poland during World War II.
Granted, the niceties of diplomacy seem lacking in that the killings in question took place in Pakistan and Yemen. But, the fact remains, both of those countries are war zones in which war is being fought every day. Since the folks we are fighting have already shown the capability and willingness to bring the war to our own countries (US, Britain, Spain, etc.) it is not surprising that our government feels compelled to stop them where it finds them, particularly in war-torn countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia where asking the local judicial/criminal justice system to intervene would be problematic at best and most likely unwelcome to the host countries.
Even in our own criminal justice system, the police have the legal authority, in certain unusual circumstances to search without a warrant, even to shoot and kill a suspect without judicial approval. Some of those exception likely were applicable to these killings.
During a war the niceties of judicial approval and other constitutional protections are severely limited and conduct that would otherwise be judged barbaric and unacceptable is legal. While there are exceptions that deal with treatment prisoners of war, protection of civilian non-combatants, and the means used to wage war, but even these protections are very limited. Mr. Schuer's analysis is largely correct.
While certainly there has been a lot of conduct by the US that has been illegal, such as the Abu Graib (sp?) mess, the excesses of the Jose Padilla case, the Iraq war in general, etc., the killings of OBL and others was necessitated by the nature of the war we are fighting and are an unfortunate but reasonable reaction to the methods and means used by our enemy.
Fighting a war is not some sort of clean, antiseptic game with clearcut rules and noble opponents. It is a nasty business at best in which the basic rule is to kill them before they kill you. While there are rules at the margins intended to limit the extremes of barbarity, the essence of war never changes. It is about killing the enemy. Get used to it. Get a grip.