An interesting read -- he attended the trail of the pirates we caught and took to Kenya
Nairobi, Kenya -- It is easy to blame "anarchy" in Somalia for piracy off its coast, as Robert Kaplan recently did in a New York Times op-ed. Of course, were Somalia ever able to reunify and muster the trappings of a modern state -- including a coast guard, a police force, and a prisons service -- then piracy might not be a problem.
Yet to treat Somalia as if it is somehow in an abnormal phase of existence is misleading. The place we call "Somalia" has almost never had a central government. Despite speaking the same language and sharing customs, Somalis have been riven by clan divisions since Europeans first witnessed and started writing about them. Only colonialism forced Somalis together, and then only for a brief interlude wholly within the confines of the 20th century.
Where Kaplan sees the anarchy of post-Cold War geopolitics, it is probably more accurate to say that Somalis are merely returning to their historical norm.
Even ethnic Somalis who live outside of Somalia itself are organized in clans. Eastleigh, a bustling suburb of Nairobi, is almost entirely given over to Somali immigrants or Kenyan citizens of Somali background. But even here in Kenya, a state with a functioning (if corrupt) government, ethnic Somalis prefer to rely on familial and clan bonds to settle disputes and to arrange commercial transactions.
Clan is not necessarily a resort to which one flocks when government isn't functioning. Rather, in many ways, clan and tribe in Africa are logical and organized systems that are highly efficient when compared with the artificial, banana-republic institutions of state. Somalis have every reason to keep clan, even if a more workable national state was introduced.
Clan's usefulness became obvious to me last November, when I went to Mombasa, Kenya's coastal port city, to attend the trial of eight Somali pirates who had been dumped there by the U.S. navy for prosecution. Sitting in the courtroom, waiting for the pirates to be brought forward, I watched as Kenyan after Kenyan was called to the dock to have read charges against him. Each defendant, whether on trial for murder or armed assault or simple theft, lacked defense counsel. Then came the Somalis and, as their case number was read, a figure in black robe and white wig leapt forward: the pirates' attorney, one of Mombasa's best, who later told me he was being paid from a Dubai account to the tune of thousands of dollars. Clan had come through for these pirates.
All of this is to say that the root problem with piracy is not really Somalia's "anarchy." Indeed, it is in some ways the opposite of "anarchy": well-organized regional clans with an eye for easy profits.
The root problem with piracy is -- to put it simply -- piracy. Clans have been encouraged in their piratical entrepreneurship by sustained, pliant, million-dollar hauls. A number of European navies, who have captured pirates only to dump them back on Somali soil after determining they have no jurisdiction, have not helped this matter.
Rather than obsessing about how we can push and pull at geopolitical and cultural levers to co-opt clan in our fight against piracy, the shipping nations would do well to take the more efficacious approach the U.S. Navy used over the last weekend to solve the Capt. Phillips hostage situation.
Stop negotiating with pirates. And stop worrying about Somalia's internal dynamic. Confront this crime as and when it occurs, with as much force directed towards the assailants as possible. It would make a world of difference if shipping crews were allowed to carry weapons, which many port rules currently prohibit. There are also currently projects in the works, including by the New York-based maritime security firm Unitel, to outfit smaller boats with firepower and private-security personnel sufficient to escort large cargo vessels in their Indian Ocean transit.
These would be important practical steps to deal with these pirates, and a necessary antidote to imagining these rag-tag Somalis, shackled to their own quirky history, to be more romantic and important a threat than they really are.
#1
Greedy bastards. They already sell orphans like so many pairs of shoes, organs are a logical progression. Orphans, Organs, whichever brings money, they dont care.
China is the equivalent of a 90 pound large fibroid tumor attached to U.S.'s back, making us bedridden and stealing our blood supply, someday its going to have to be lanced, before it kills us (its host). When the removal happens, were going to lose a bloodbank worth of blood and many pounds of flesh, but we'll survive (just barely) as a country. BOYCOTT CHINESE PRODUCTS!!
Will we do our part to starve them economically? Probably not so they will continue to slowly suck the life out of our country and someday might own us. But Washington will never wake up. Will they? Its on us to make our public officials accountable.
#3
Thanks. And I walk the talk about Boycotting Chinese goods because it just feels better somehow. Sometimes I order stuff online that turns out to be made in China, and I return it.
When at all possible, I buy clothes made in USA (a refreshing discovery that there is any still made here thank god) and shoes made in E.U., furniture made locally, and never never buy edibles or household goods from China, etc. Actually, some of my recent kitchenware has been made in place besides China, which took some planning. It feels much better to me personally to know Im not supporting the Fibroid Tumor that is China. They absolutely nauseate me.
#4
There are still many excellent clothing, cutlery, children's toys made in the USA. For really just a few pence more we get long lasting clothes, knives and forks which don't rust in 6 months hold an edge and don't taste like old moped, and toys I don't have to check up on for recalls. An extra 10% for at least twice as long usage is a no-brainer for us.
#5
swksvolff, your little one is just the right age for HannaAndersson.com clothing. I've bought her stuff at garage sales, clad each trailing daughter in the pieces in turn, and at the end they still looked almost brand new. I believe her clothes are made in Sweden and the U.S., of Swedish fabrics. There is indeed a great variety of quality goods made outside of China, well worth spending a little extra to acquire, even if it means fewer items altogether. Even WalMart carries an awful lot of made-in America brands.
Separately, and continuing off topic, I've read recently that the Chinese government has significantly reduced their holdings of U.S. Treasuries since the beginning of the year, but that we haven't really seen a large change in prices because the international private sector has picked up the slack, concerned about the safety of their own currencies and economies.
I'll go read the article now. Perhaps I'll find something intelligent to say on-topic, after.
#6
The sad thing is, Pappy made a comment about this a while back. And he meant it as a joke.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
04/14/2009 22:31 Comments ||
Top||
#7
ION WORLD MIL FORUM > IIUC INDIA, BRAZIL AND SOUTH AFRICA WORK IN QUASI-ALLIANCE TO DAMAGE CHINA; + VIETNAM FEARS CHINA WILL USE ITS NEW HAINAN ISLAND BASE FOR FUTURE EXPANSION INTO SOUTH, SOUTHEAST ASIA VIA ITS CENTRAL HIGHLANDS STRATEGIC CORRIDOR.
I know this is from another blog (Macsmind) but the story will undoubtedly not be carried by the MSM.
Nevertheless, about that surprise visit.
It wasnt. The visit was communicated a full 24 hours in advance and a small contingent of soldiers - not screaming hoards - were rustled into a meeting place at Camp Victory.
Got this email from a sergeant that was there.
We were pre-screened, asked by officials Who voted for Obama?, and then those who raised their hands were shuffled to the front of the receiving line. They even handed out digital cameras and asked them to hold them up.
If true, 0 doesn't really understand the internet. Or the troops.
#1
You mean my wife was correct when she said it looked like the super bowl halftime show?
Look, I know that all people are in the Armed Forces and would be excited about their Commander in Chief visiting them in a hostile environment. I mean no offense but they did not act like front line troops (the ones I know have a certain swagger and attitude about them).
#2
Did they have to give the cameras back afterword?
Posted by: Kelly ||
04/14/2009 12:12 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I have no problem with this. If you want to take care of your troops, you dole out good deals to the deserving whenever you are presented the opportunity.
Take a pre-screened group that deserves a good deal. Find the ones that love the president. Let them meet him. Just like if Crystal Gayle was visiting your ship.
#4
Penguin, you may be right but I suspect that Bush didn't have to work as hard to get appreciative military audiences. Anyone here have some first hand experience on that?
The Obama administration has come under intense criticism for replacing the term "war on terror" with the emaciated euphemism "overseas contingency operations," and for referring to individual acts of terror as "man-caused disasters."
This semi-official attempt to disassociate the administration from the fierce rhetoric favored by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney has enraged Americans on both the right and left. Many feel that such vaporous bureaucratese is a self-emasculating action that plunges us into an Orwellian world where words have no emotional connection with the horrors they purport to describe.
Yet, if the intention of the Obama administration is to tone down the confrontational rhetoric being used by our enemies, the effort is already reaping results. This week, in a pronounced shift from its usual theatrical style, the Taliban announced that it will no longer refer to its favorite method of murder as "beheadings," but will henceforth employ the expression "cephalic attrition." "Flayings" -- a barbarously exotic style of execution that has been popular in this part of the world since before the time of Alexander -- will now be described as "unsolicited epidermal reconfigurations." In a similar vein, lopping off captives' arms will now be referred to as "appendage furloughing," while public floggings of teenaged girls will from here on out be spoken of as "metajudicial interfacing."
A Taliban spokesman reached in Pakistan said that the new phrasing was being implemented as a way of eliminating the negative associations triggered by more graphic terminology. "The term 'beheading' has a quasi-medieval undertone that we're trying to get away from," he explained. "The term 'cephalic attrition' brings the Taliban into the 21st century. It's not that we disapprove of beheadings; it's just that the word no longer meshes with the zeitgeist of the era. This is the same reason we have replaced the term 'jihad' with 'booka-bonga-bippo,' which has a more zesty, urban, youthful, 'now' feel. When you're recruiting teenagers to your movement, you don't want them to feel that going on jihad won't leave any time for youthful hijinks." Rest at link
Posted by: ed ||
04/14/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Route 50, cross the TR Mem bridge, take a left on 23rd St. proceed North approx 5 blocks to G Street at Foggy Bottom and make a right. Proceed approx 7 blocks and look for parking. You have arrived at home of the ultimate "man-caused disaster."
#6
Queenan is a funny guy. Wrote a book of essays called "Red Lobster, White Trash." It has significance for those of us old enough to remember "Blue Water, White Death."
Sir, let me begin by recounting that old army quip that did the rounds in the immediate aftermath of World war II: To guarantee victory, an army should ideally have German generals, British officers, Indian soldiers, American equipment and Italian enemies.
A Pakistani soldier that I met in Iraq in 2004 lamented the fact that the Pakistani soldier in Kargil had been badly let down firstly by Nawaz Sharif and then by the Pakistani officers' cadre. Pakistani soldiers led by Indian officers, , he believed, would be the most fearsome combination possible. Pakistani officers, he went on to say, were more into real estate, defence housing colonies and the like.
As I look at two photographs of surrender that lie before me, I can't help recalling his words. The first is the celebrated event at Dhaka on Dec 16, 1971, which now adorns most Army messes in Delhi and Calcutta. The second, sir, is the video of a teenage girl being flogged by the Taliban in Swat -- not far, I am sure, from one of your Army check posts.
The surrender by any Army is always a sad and humiliating event. Gen Niazi surrendered in Dhaka to a professional army that had outnumbered and outfought him. No Pakistani has been able to get over that humiliation, and 16th December is remembered as a black day by the Pakistani Army and the Pakistani state. But battles are won and lost -- armies know this, and having learnt their lessons, they move on.
But much more sadly, the video of the teenager being flogged represents an even more abject surrender by the Pakistani Army. The surrender in 1971, though humiliating, was not disgraceful. This time around, sir, what happened on your watch was something no Army commander should have to live through. The girl could have been your own daughter, or mine.
I have been a signaller, and it beats me how my counterparts in your Signal Corps could not locate or even jam a normal FM radio station broadcasting on a fixed frequency at fixed timings. Is there more than meets the eye?
I have always maintained that the Pakistani Army, like its Indian counterpart, is a thoroughly professional outfit. It has fought valiantly in the three wars against India, and also accredited itself well in its UN missions abroad. It is, therefore, by no means a pushover. The instance of an Infantry unit, led by a lieutenant colonel, meekly laying down arms before 20-odd militants should have been an aberration. But this capitulation in Swat, that too so soon after your own visit to the area, is an assault on the sensibilities of any soldier. What did you tell your soldiers? What great inspirational speech did you make that made your troops back off without a murmur? Sir, I have fought insurgency in Kashmir as well as the North-East, but despite the occasional losses suffered (as is bound to be the case in counter-insurgency operations), such total surrender is unthinkable.
I have been a signaller, and it beats me how my counterparts in your Signal Corps could not locate or even jam a normal FM radio station broadcasting on a fixed frequency at fixed timings. Is there more than meets the eye? Sticks out like a sore thumb, dunnit? The only reason you couldn't would be because you don't want to.
I am told that it is difficult for your troops to "fight their own people." But you never had that problem in East Pakistan in 1971, where the atrocities committed by your own troops are well documented in the Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report. Or is it that the Bengalis were never considered "your own" people, influenced as they were by the Hindus across the border? Or is that your troops are terrified by the ruthless barbarians of the Taliban?
Sir, it is imperative that we recognise our enemy without any delay. I use the word "our" advisedly -- for the Taliban threat is not far from India's borders. And the only force that can stop them from dragging Pakistan back into the Stone Age is the force that you command. In this historic moment, providence has placed a tremendous responsibility in your hands. Indeed, the fate of your nation, the future of humankind in the subcontinent rests with you. It doesn't matter if it is "my war" or "your war" -- it is a war that has to be won. A desperate Swati citizen's desperate lament says it all -- "Please drop an atom bomb on us and put us out of our misery!" Do not fail him, sir.
But in the gloom and the ignominy, the average Pakistani citizen has shown us that there is hope yet. The lawyers, the media, have all refused to buckle even under direct threats. It took the Taliban no less than 32 bullets to still the voice of a brave journalist. Yes, there is hope -- but why don't we hear the same language from you? Look to these brave hearts, sir -- and maybe we shall see the tide turn. Our prayers are with you, and the hapless people of Swat.
The New York Times predicts that Pakistan will collapse in six months. Do you want to go down in history as the man who allowed that to happen?
The writer is a retired colonel of the Indian army who lives in Pune
Posted by: john frum ||
04/14/2009 10:27 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[13 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in Pakistan
#1
have been a signaller, and it beats me how my counterparts in your Signal Corps could not locate or even jam a normal FM radio station broadcasting on a fixed frequency at fixed timings. Is there more than meets the eye?
Maybe Perv and Co want the Taliban to run the country so India/West fears Pak more and the cqs keep rolling in!!!!
Egypt's recent actions against Hizbullah operatives are a watershed event for understanding the nature of the threat that Iran constitutes for both regional and global security. For many Israelis, Egypt's actions came as a surprise. For years this country has been appealing to Egypt to take action against Hizbullah operatives in its territory. With minor exceptions, it has refused. Believing that its operatives threatened only us, the Mubarak regime preferred to turn a blind eye.
Then too, now seems a strange time for Egypt to be proving Israel correct. Senior ministers in the new Netanyahu government have for years been outspoken critics of Egypt for its refusal to act against Hizbullah and for its support for the Hizbullah/Iran-sponsored Hamas terror group. By going after Hizbullah now, Egypt is legitimizing both their criticism and the Netanyahu government itself. This in turn seems to go against Egypt's basic interest of weakening Israel politically in general, and weakening rightist Israeli governments in particular.
But none of this seemed to interest Egyptian officials last week when they announced the arrest of 49 Hizbullah operatives and pointed a finger at Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah and his bosses in Teheran, openly accusing them of seeking to undermine Egypt's national security.
The question is what caused Egypt to suddenly act?
Fear.
It appears that two things are motivating the Mubarak regime. First, there is the nature of the Hizbullah network it uncovered. According to the Egyptian Justice Ministry's statements, the arrested operatives were not confining their operations to weapons smuggling to Gaza. They were also targeting Egypt. Surprise...Surprise. Your neighbors are not your friends.
The Egyptian state prosecution alleges that while operating as Iranian agents, they were scouting targets along the Suez Canal. That is, they were planning strategic strikes against Egypt's economic lifeline. Well, that puts this in another light!
The second aspect of the network that clearly concerned Egyptian authorities was what it showed about the breadth of cooperation between the regime's primary opponent - the Muslim Brotherhood - and the Iranian regime. Forty-one of the suspects arrested are Egyptian citizens, apparently aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. This alignment is signaled by two things. First, many of them have hired Muslim Brotherhood activist Muntaser al-Zayat as their defense attorney. And second, Muslim Brotherhood spokesmen have decried the arrests.
For instance, in an interview with Gulf News last Thursday, Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Issam el-Erian defended Hizbullah (and Iran) against his own government, claiming that Nasrallah and the Iranian ayatollahs are right to accuse President Hosni Mubarak of being little more than an Israeli stooge. Them's fightin' words, Issam!
In his words, "The Egyptian government must redraw its national security policies to include Israeli threats against Arab counties like Syria and Lebanon and to consider threats against Palestinians by Israelis as a threat against its national security."
In a nutshell then, both the Hizbullah network's targets and its relationship to Egypt's Sunni Islamist opposition expose clearly the danger the Iranian regime constitutes to Egypt. Iran seeks to undermine and defeat opponents throughout the world through both direct military/terrorist/sabotage operations and through ideological subversion. It is the confluence of both of these aspects of Iran's revolutionary ambitions that forced Egypt to act now, regardless of the impact of its actions on the political fortunes of the Netanyahu government. And it is not a bit surprising that Egypt was forced to act at such a politically inopportune time. When they are going for your throat, you need to act.
THROUGHOUT the region and indeed throughout much of the world, Iran's star is on the rise. Its burgeoning nuclear program acts as a second arm of a pincer-like campaign against its opponents. The asymmetric and ideological warfare it wages through its terror and state proxies are the campaign's first arm. Together, these two strategic arms are raising the stakes of Iran's challenge to its neighbors and to the West to unprecedented and unacceptable heights. Morocco is so concerned about Iranian subversion of its Sunni population that last month it cut off diplomatic ties with Teheran. Welcome to the club, Morocco.
Iran's great leap forward has been exposed by recent events. Last month's Arab League summit in Doha exemplified how Iran has successfully split the Arab world between its proxies and its opponents. For the past three years, and particularly since the 2006 war between Israel and Iran's Hizbullah in Lebanon, Arab League states have been increasingly polarized around the issue of Iran. The country has used its satellite states of Syria, Sudan and Qatar, as well as its burgeoning alliances with Muslim Brotherhood branches in Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority and elsewhere, to legitimize its rapidly escalating assaults on Sunni regimes throughout the region. The Big O will get dialog going, right? Hello! Hello! Anybody there????!
Although Egypt and Saudi Arabia successfully blocked Qatar from inviting Iran and Hamas to the summit, by using the good offices of Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Thani and Syrian President Bashar Assad, the Iranians were able to get their anti-Saudi/Egyptian platform passed. As the Middle East Media Research Institute chronicled in a report on the proceedings, Assad successfully abrogated the so-called Saudi peace plan that the Arab League adopted in 2002. According to a new Syrian-backed resolution, any Arab rapprochement with Israel would be contingent on Israel first destroying itself by withdrawing into indefensible borders and being overwhelmed by millions of hostile foreign Arab immigrants. If you commit national suicide, we will consider being your friend.
Sensing what awaited him at the summit, Mubarak chose to stay home and send a junior emissary in his place. Saudi King Abdullah said nothing throughout the two-day Arab love-fest with Iran. Both leaders emerged weakened and humiliated.
In recent years, Iran has expanded its sphere of influence to strategic points around the region. Two recent additions to Iran's axis are Eritrea and Somalia. Iran and Eritrea signed a strategic alliance last year that grants Iranian Revolutionary Guard units basing rights in the strategically vital Bab al-Mandab strait that controls the chokepoint connecting the Indian Ocean with the Red Sea. As for Somalia - whose position along the Gulf of Aden provides it a similarly critical maritime posture - Iran has been exploiting its condition as a failed state for several years.
In 2006, the UN reported that some 720 Somali jihadists aligned with al-Qaida fought with Hizbullah in Lebanon during its war against Israel. According to an analysis of Iran's coopting of Somali jihadists published in November 2006 by the on-line Long War Journal, in exchange for the Somali operatives' assistance, Iran and Syria provided advanced military training to the Somalis who had just established the al-Qaida-affiliated Islamic Courts Union regime in the country. Teheran equipped the ICU with anti-aircraft missiles, grenade launchers, machine guns, ammunition, medicine, uniforms and other supplies both before and after it took control of Somalia.
The UN report also linked the ICU to Iran's nuclear program. Its alleged that Iranian agents were operating in ICU chief Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys's hometown of Dusa Mareb, where they sought to buy uranium.
Beyond the Horn of Africa, of course, Iran has been consistently expanding its influence in Iraq and Afghanistan. In both countries the mullahs simultaneously sponsor the insurgencies and offer themselves as the US's indispensible partner for stabilizing the countries they are destabilizing. There is a sucker born every minute, the Ayatollah Khomeini used to say.
What is perhaps most jarring about Iran's ever-expanding influence is the disparate responses it elicits from Israel and Sunni regimes like Egypt and Saudi Arabia on the one hand, and the West on the other. Whereas Israel and the Sunni Arab states warn about Iran daily, far from acknowledging or confronting this ever-expanding Iranian menace, the US and the Europeans have been alternatively ignoring it and appeasing it. If the US were taking the Iranian threat seriously, the Obama administration would not be begging Iran to negotiate with it after Teheran demonstrated that it has complete control over the nuclear fuel cycle.
If the US were interested in contending with the danger Iran constitutes to global security, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would not be absurdly arguing that the US cannot verify whether Iran's announcement that it is now operating 7,000 centrifuges and its opening of another nuclear site signify an increase in its nuclear capacity. The Iranians see a weak woman talking, as a representative of the US, a gift in their lap, so to speak......the imagery is very disconcerting, on so many levels.
Were the US taking Iran seriously, it would not be asking Iran to help out in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would not be treating Somali piracy as a strategically insignificant nuisance. It would not be ignoring Eritrea's newfound subservience to Iran. It would not be maintaining the Central Command's headquarters in Qatar. And, of course, it would not be permitting Iran to move forward with its nuclear weapons program.
THEN there is Britain. Last week Michael Ledeen from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies reported that Britain's decision to recognize Hizbullah is part of a deal it struck with Iran and Hizbullah in exchange for five Britons who have been held hostage in Iraq by Hizbullah/Iran-affiliated terrorists for two years. According to the deal, in exchange for the British hostages, London agreed to recognize Hizbullah and the US agreed to release a number of Shi'ite terrorists its forces in Iraq have captured. Britain has made the Hizzies into a legitimate partner by negotiating with them. This is very disconcerting, as well as our decision to release the Shi'ite terrorists. Like Elrond said to Gandalf, "Our list of allies grows thin."
As Tariq Alhomayed, the editor of Asharq al-Awsat, noted in response to the news, the deal puts paid Nasrallah's contention that Hizbullah does not operate outside Lebanon except to wage war against Israel. But it also points to a severe problem with the West.
If Britain was willing to acknowledge and contend with the grave threat Iran constitutes for global security, it would not accept the authority of Hizbullah or Iran to negotiate the release of British hostages in Iraq. Instead it would place responsibility for achieving the release of the British hostages on the sovereign Iraqi government and use all the means at its disposal to strengthen that government against agents of Iranian influence in the country.
So, too, rather than participate in the deal, the US would seek to destroy the Iranian-controlled operatives holding the hostages and discredit and defeat the Iraqi political forces operating under Iranian control. Certainly if the US were taking the Iranian threat seriously, it would announce that any withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq will be linked to the complete defeat of agents of Iranian influence in Iraq.
The West's refusal to contend with the burgeoning Iranian menace no doubt has something to do with the West's physical distance from Iran. Whereas Middle Eastern countries have no choice but to deal with Iran, the US and its European allies apparently believe that they can still pretend away the danger. But of course they cannot.
From the Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden to Hizbullah cells from Iraq to Canada; from Iranian agents in British universities to Hizbullah and Iranian military advisers in South and Central America, the West, like the Middle East, is being infiltrated and surrounded.
Egypt's open assault on Hizbullah is yet another warning that concerted action must be taken against the mullocracy. Unfortunately, the absence of Western resolve signals that this warning, too, will go unheeded.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
04/14/2009 12:58 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
So, after President Obama ordered sharpshooters to shoot four untrained, teenage Somali pirates who had been drifting in a lifeboat for four days, the press declares it a success. AP says it was a big win for Obama. UPI says he passed his first test as Command in Chief.
Now lets imagine that this took place six months ago under President Bush. Here are the headlines wed be reading:
1. The War on Terrors Fresh, New Face - NY Times
Somalia - Glassy-eyed from lack of sleep and food, the four Somali pirates were barely able to hold their weapons up as sharpshooters took aim at their amydylas. Some of those involved in the operation questioned the Presidents approach. They werent a threat to this ship one soldier said on condition of anonymity, I think we could have resolved this without firing on them.
2. Killing Pirates Only Adds to Their Ranks - Huffington Post
President Bush has never lacked for decisiveness, nor has he been shy about rattling sabers or in this case actually taking one out to execute seventeen and eighteen year-old pirates. But experts remain concerned that, however popular such decisive action may be with a narrow band of the Presidents supporters, they will likely prompt an equally impassioned reprisal. Already there is evidence that pirate ranks are swelling with newly embittered adversaries.
3. Number One with a Bullet - Maureen Dowd
Somewhere in an dark, undisclosed location Darth Cheney is laughing his ass off. This is what weve come to Bush-whacking is no longer a snarky sentiment bandied about Americas editorial pages, it is now official government policy.
4. Mother of 17 Year Old Pirate Wants Justice - LA Times
While Republicans in Congress were quick to lionize the Presidents decisive handling of the crisis, not everyone was rejoicing. Abdi Dalmar is the mother of one of the young men executed yesterday. Why would they do this?! My son loved America.
5. Sarah Palin Says Pirates Got What they Deserved - CBS News
In the latest possible misstep for her future political career, Sarah Palin indicated her support for President Bushs handling of the standoff. I think the President did what needed to be done in Somalia. We cant allow this sort of piracy to continue unchecked. But some members of Palins own party were questioning the move
6. Special Comment - Keith Olbermann
Is there no low to which you will not stoop? Its a rhetorical question and for Mr. Bush let me be clear thats a question we already know the answer to. In fact we know it all too well. You, sir, are now literally asking our military to shoot teenagers in the back of the skull as part of your policy of endless war. Were not even at war with Somalia! But I suppose this is the price of distracting America from your legion of failed policies. Fascist doesnt even begin to cover it! There are Nazi prison guards who would be reduced to tears by your unbridled brutality, sir!
7. Real Time monologue - Bill Maher
So, President Bush today renewed his opposition to the S-Chip program. He said that he will be proposing an alternative program to Congress shortly. Yeah, I think we saw that one in action in Somalia already Mr. President. Thats one way to balance the budget. Just shoot the sick kids.
I could go on, but you get the picture. Some Presidents are more equal than others.
There is a bizarre idea in leftist circles that U.S. judges should apply the standards of International Law. To U.S. cases. From the Jonathan Adler via Instapundit:
For example, Dean Harold Koh of Yale Law School, mentioned as a possible Kerry Supreme Court nominee, has supported the idea that U.S. courts should expansively apply international legal precedents without the authorization of the president and Congress.
There is one simple reason why this is contrary to everything America stands for. American political theory rest on the idea that all just law arises from the formally expressed will of the people. If at some stage of its development, the people did not vote on a law, the law has no validity. Even the Constitution itself was originally voted on and by design we can vote to amend it as we wish. How then, can a U.S. judge legitimately use a foreign concept for which the American voters have never cast ballots? By what legal theory are free people bound by the decisions of others in which they have no say? Arguing that judges can impose foreign standards against the will of America voters simply tosses overboard the founding justification for American justice that people should only be governed by law to which they consent.
Sadly, this is just another symptom of the American lefts progressive (pun intended) abandonment of American concept of governance in favor of the more authoritarian European model. Incapable of conceiving of their own capacity for error and utterly convinced of their own moral rectitude, they have no intellectual or moral issues with using any means necessary to impose their will upon their fellow citizens. They decide what they want and then manufacture a means of getting it. Evoking some vague international Standards let them them read the legal justification they want in the entrails of whatever monster of foreign law they want to slit open on that particular day. Its not international law they wish to adopt but rather the sole authority to choose to decided what international law means on any particular day or in any particular circumstance.
#1
Its not international law they wish to adopt but rather the sole authority to choose to decided what international law means on any particular day or in any particular circumstance.
That's known as 'emerging international law'.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/14/2009 15:01 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Here's some of the law of Mexico, how about applying it here - Article 33 of the Mexican Constitution:
"Article 33. Foreigners are those who do not possess the qualifications set forth in Article 30. They are entitled to the guarantees granted by Chapter I, Title I, of the present Constitution; but the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action.
Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country."
While linking to a Megan McArdle comment on a childish Matthew Yglesias post on bankers, Instapundit asks a question that reveals a void in our language and world-models:
DOES GREED MAKE YOU A BAD PERSON? What about greed for power, a trait exhibited by many of those who denounce greed for money? Which is worse?
Why does Instapundit have to use the cumbersome phrase greed for power to describe a very common human behavior? Why do we have to describe the lust for power in terms of the lust for money? . . . What does it tell us that English and every other Western language have a single word to describe the destructive lust for money but that they lack a single word to describe the destructive lust for political power?
After all, it is not as if we lack any experience with the destructive effects of the single-minded pursuit of power. From the very worst such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot down to some jackass on the city council, most of us have seen individuals cause real harm to others just to increase their own political power. Why then do we not have a word for such destructive behavior?
I think the answer simple. Historically, people who lust for power will kill you quicker and more surely than will those who lust for money. . . .
Go read it all. There's some good points in there, though I think he oversimplifies and pushes his argument a little too hard. He is right to point out that a lot of the people thundering righteously against "greed" are often guilty of a bit of a different greed themselves.
One more point I think should be emphasized:
. . . Communism and fascism both draw their moral authority from the idea that those who control the violent power of the state are inherently more virtuous than those who produce and trade. The Nazis in particular exploited the idea that the Jews, who had for centuries been the commercial specialists of Europe, were morally corrupt because they dealt with money and trade instead of being virtuous killers.
(This is not to suggest that those who criticize greed are Nazis or communists but rather that both ideologies exploit a preexisting and unquestioned cultural narrative complete with its own historical iconography. )
Posted by: Mike ||
04/14/2009 08:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
