« Grinch Jobs | Main | alert the media »
How can you run when you know
by anna at 07:36 PM on December 23, 2003
This is perfect. If no one comments I can blame the holiday lull.
Saddam is so sad. No longer can he tool around the Sunni Triangle in his battered taxi, scowling at passengers who stiff him on the tip. Seems he'll be tried in American Iraq, convicted and summarily executed.
Another equally sadistic dictator is being tried in The Hague. Serbians ousted Slobo Dan after the war. Soon enough they made him available to world cops, who threw him in a global paddy wagon and whisked him off to stand trial for sundry crimes against humanity. His trial is expected to last until the Clinton Menace regains power in 2008. He too will be convicted but sentenced only to life in world prison. (And here you thought you enjoyed the protections once afforded to citizens of sovereign nations. Ha!)
You can follow his ordeal here. It's quite entertaining if you can navigate the maze of the website. Dan has chosen to represent himself while denying that the court has jurisdiction over him. For every minute the prosecutors spend badgering witnesses, he gets equal time.
Witness: Slobo Dan's henchmen swarmed the town, raping young ladies, pillaging and burying menfolk alive.
Dan: How do you know they were my men?
Witness: Well, they were wearing Serbian uniforms.
Dan: What color?
Witness: Green.
Dan: Olive green or more like lavender?
Witness: Green. I'm a guy. I only recognize primary colors.
Dan: Could you spell my name if your life depended on it?
Witness: No.
Where is the fairness in that? How come Saddam must die while Slobo Dan gets to live out his numbered days in a cushy global jail?
And it gets worse. It's important to know that at any given moment, George W. Bush's lackeys might storm your hovel and haul you away. Should he decide to designate you as an enemy combatant, you're fucked. All your civil rights will disappear. You'll have no right to remain silent. You'll have no right to an attorney. You can't dispute the charges. Forget due process, you'll get no process. You're presumed guilty and will never be proven innocent. You'll be disappeared. Hey, it happens. Only now you have no recourse.
Just ask Jose Padilla. Bushmen apprehended him and he's languished in solitary confinement ever since. Oh sure, he's killed people but a thorough search of his bodily crevasses turned up no WMD. So a lawyer took up his lost cause and a federal court has ordered him freed within 30 days unless charges are brought. Fat chance. Endless appeals are inevitable.
This decision didn't stem from the fact that Padilla is a US citizen. Rather, it's because he got collared on US soil. Had this happened abroad as it did to Mr. Hamdi and John Walker Lindh, Bush would still have every right to slap the EC label on him and toss him down the legal black hole forever.
But it depends on your circumstances. If you're rich, white, well-connected and clean up well like Walker Lindh, you get to cop a cozy plea bargain in the regular court system. If you're downtrodden and Arab-looking like Lousisiana's own Mr. Hamdi, so sorry. Walker Lindh will serve 12 years tops in a min-sec resort while Hamdi will die alone in a military brig. Welcome to the brave new world Osama wrought. You can bet he won't be given the chance to surrender peaceably like the sissy Saddam.
comments (15)
Mildly amusing at best. Interesting to know that my friends and brother who are risking their lives in Iraq at the moment are to be considered "Bush's lackeys".
They will tell you that they are fighting for the USA, and everyone here, including those who would call them lackeys.
by Bob at December 27, 2003 2:43 PM
Well of course they're fighting for the USA and everyone here. I wouldn't dispute that. The army must carry out the wishes of the president, and the president claims to be acting "to save American lives". However, when the reasons for going over there leave people so conflicted (i.e. hours of debate among intelligent, well-informed people on either side of the issue produces no agreement and entire nations such as Germany and France do not agree with us) we're faced with a choice: we either have faith that the pres knows what he's doing, or we examine the evidence and make up our own minds. I for one, don't get it. I've listened to all the pres's speeches. They're vacuous and dogmatic. I throw up my hands. Ok, Saddam and Iraq are a threat because the pres says thay are. Either way, the beef isn't with your brother or your friends fighting in Iraq, and the term lackey simply means someone who carries out the will of someone else. If, for example, they were fighting off an enemy invasion - Anna might not have used the term lackey, because the reason and the will to fight are immediately apparent in addition to their duty. But in a case where the moral imperative is "indirect" at best, the "self-interest" quotient which would invalidate the lackey moniker falls short for many.
by chris at December 27, 2003 9:07 PM
Germany and France disagree with us? Since when does that matter? Maybe Germany's still miffed about us shutting down that 3rd Reich thing. When did France ever matter?
Thank god the country is not being governed by a bunch of hand-wringing consensus-seekers.
The easy choice would have been to do nothing.
by Bob at December 27, 2003 10:22 PM
Yes well there is the viewpoint that there is no other nation besides us whose opinion matters. We're the biggest kid on the block so we can afford not to care. The point was to offer evidence that our cause is not completely self evident. In other words, other industrialized nations with interests similar to ours see things differently. However, other nations are beside the point, and so is consensus. The rationale behind the war was built for the public on a house of cards. Bush explicitly stated a connection between 9/11 and Iraq where none exists, and made the case that we were in grave danger from WMD in Iraq. Many people were and still are unconvinced by evidence offered up by Blair or Bush to support their cause. It's not about consensus, it's about understanding the evidence. Or not; at the end of the day Bush does what he wants for his own reasons, whether he makes them clear to us or not.
"Doing nothing" is not the alternative to war. War is an easy choice, if only for it's obviousness.
by Chris at December 28, 2003 2:05 AM
Wait a cotton-pickin' minute. I think I referred to Bush's "lackeys" in the context of law enforcement i.e. John Asscroft et al. They are the ones that arrested Padilla at an American airport. Now granted, soldiers collared rich-boy Walker Lindh and Mr. Hamdi but I wasn't arguing against Hamdi's designation as an enemy combatant because the circumstances of his capture make that a self-evident fact.
And Bob, your brother is a brave man who should be commended by all regardless of their political views.
As for Iraq, Saddam signed his own death warrant when he tried to kill George Bush I and failed.
by anna at December 28, 2003 9:38 AM
Bob, god speed to your friends and brother. I hope they come home safe. I too have have served so I know what they are facing now.
To begin to think that we don't need France, Germany, Russia or any other foreign country's help is the first step toward suicide for our country. I too took your view when those countries left us to fight this "war on terror" alone. I do believe we had time to find another solution though. I have no problem with removing Hussein; It needed to be done. The only problem I have is the "fuck the world" mentality Bush chose to adopt. Our military, while still the most technologically advanced in the world, can't do this job alone. We simply don't have the people in uniform to pull it off. We're already relying too heavily on reserve troops for my liking. Nothing against reservists but they just aren't as highly trained as regular troops. They go to drills once a month as opposed to living as a soldier and training day in and day out. Whether we like it or not we rely on the rest of the world to supply troops and funding for our military endeavors. It also sends a much clearer message when you have a large multinational force to send into battle instead of the US, British, and a couple of other countries. I would have much rather seen Bush let the diplomats in the UN do their work and go after, say, North Korea who already has nuclear weapons. To me, someone who is a few years away from producing a WMD, such as Iraq, is much less dangerous than someone who already has them, ie North Korea, Pakistan, India et. al. We absolutely need the rest of the world to be involved in this battle, even France. I am torn on letting the other countries who didn't send troops have contracts for Iraq's rebuilding. I would say send troops and funding then we can talk about it. I just don't agree that they should get something for nothing.
by Ezy at December 28, 2003 2:50 PM
Funny you'd mention N Korea. I was going to turn it into a post but here's the abbreviated version: We know for a fact that they have nukes and that they intend to use 'em on us (their leader has said so.) Why then haven't we set upon them? Well, they've got 2 million soldiers under arms, lots of artillery and of course those pesky nukes. Could W be a tad afraid to tangle with these guys? Nah.
by anna at December 28, 2003 3:07 PM
Oh, and the supposed link between al Quaeda and Saddam is absurd. I have spent a lot of time reading Osama's speeches and writings. Saddam is two things he despises: A socialist and a secular Arab ruler. Osama wants to establish an extremist Islamic state throughout the Arab world. Standing in his way are the royal House of Saud, Mubarek of Egypt, the Kuwaiti emir etc. When we invaded Iraq, he made a point of expressing solidarity with the Iraqi people while omitting any mention of the corrupt Baathist (socialist) regime.
by anna at December 28, 2003 3:27 PM
Wow, you know a lot.
And the way you repeat these theories as if they're your own is impressive.
by Bob at December 28, 2003 10:40 PM
There is an excellent article on North Korea at the London Review of Books website: http://lrb.co.uk/v25/n23/cumi01_.html It's written by a well-regarded Korea scholar. It's pretty compelling. North Korea can't have more than a few nuclear devices. They're only talking tough because we've backed them against a wall. They know full well that if they ever made a move against the US we could have the whole country irradiated without blinking. I don't think they will be a threat until we convince them that they have nothing to lose.
by jean at December 29, 2003 1:44 AM
Yeah, Bob. Those aren't original ideas by any means. And I agree the N Koreans can't possibly be serious about fucking with us. But the Japanese aren't real happy about them test-firing missiles near their country. And they could overrun S Korea pretty quickly if they were in a suicidal mood. The only reason I worry about them is that their leader is such an eccentric creep, on a par with Michael Jackson.
by anna at December 29, 2003 8:31 AM
To follow up on what Chris said about the US being the biggest kid on the block, my son and I have a running debate about whether we could take on the combined armies of the world i.e US-Britain vs. France, Israel, Russia, China and the rest. I say we'd win. (Then again, you could argue that Vietnam is the biggest kid by virtue of having defeated us so soundly.) What do you think?
by anna at December 29, 2003 2:18 PM
If I remember the LRB article correctly, Japan actually tried to talk to North Korea this year, but then we found out and told them not to. I guess nobody gets to play if America doesn't get to play.
I think we could take Britain and France, both separately and combined. Israel of course would never make a move against us because they're practically a wholly-owned subsidiary of the military-industrial complex. Anyways, they don't have enough troops. Russia and China are iffy, because they've got large populations from which to draw troops, and established nuclear programs. Well, Russia less so, what with losing the other chunks of the USSR. They might have problems with logistics (not equipped to stage an invasion?), but we should be careful, especially if we give them a decade or so to maybe nurse a grudge in secret. The Vietnamese that fought us did very well defending their own turf, but that's not the same as taking the offensive and actually attacking the U.S.
India has nukes and a massive population, but no real sea or air capability, right? So we could probably beat them. Besides, they would lose all our nice customer-service and remote accounting contracts.
Of course, that's just my opinion. I firmly believe that since I lack the Y chromosome, I also lack the "ability to understand war" chromosome. My world history teacher used to go on and on about fronts, supply lines, and flanks. Made no sense to me!
by jean at December 31, 2003 10:34 PM
But there's always the intangible factor that makes Israel such a formidable foe. Sure they've got all that modern weaponry, but in the end it comes down to toughness and tenacity and they've got that big-time.
by anna at January 1, 2004 10:51 AM
Update: Hamdi's self-appointed lawyer now claims the Padilla ruling should apply to his "client." He is barking up the wrong tree. Since both were captured fighting against the US in Afghanistan, the better comparison would be to Walker Lindh. If it's not racism, connections and money, then what does account for the differential treatment?
by anna at January 6, 2004 7:47 AM