Actually Michael, you couldn't change my mind on this issue because I don't yet know what my mind is on it. But I do know that the issue is a very big and important one. When running an empire, the emperor needs to be careful lest the Palace gets blown up by disaffected and cruelly-treated aliens.
There is a tendency for the powerful to become too enamored with their power, which then leads to their demise. It's a fascinating business which goes right back to the evolutionary jungle of our chimp-like forebears where alpha male rules were the order of the day.
The USA is not yet so big and tough that it does rule the world and a military tribunal might be the best way to handle the prisoners resulting from the attack on Afghanistan, the Taleban and Osama's crew, given that there are thousands of them.
But really, how many prisoners will there be? Would that many really be better handled on the battlefield than in the quiet judgement of a civil court? I'm not convinced, especially since it's not really a war. If it's a war, then Osama and Omar aren't terrorists, they are leaders of a competing national power. Sure, they destroyed the WTC and lots of civilians, but war crimes are a fantasy created by the victors, or a superior power [such as the UN might become]. There are a lot of semantic games clouding the business and what it's really about is raw power and who's the boss. Civilisation is the creation of voluntary association, property rights, contracts and security against alien inroads.
Whether it's a war, terrorism, crime or whatever seems a bit academic to me. The toughest guys win and it seems that Osama and Co were not the toughest guys, though we might see Osama's Last Stand and Osama's Last Laugh on the same day. They have had a LOT of time and latitude for preparation. My bet is that it's all over bar the shouting and chest-beating and he's had his day and there won't be a last laugh. As wars go, it's a pretty trivial business. One American killed in action and not very many enemy. It's certainly not like the battle of Ypres and the German invasian of USSR in WWII.
I was very sorry to read about Mike Spann who died in an attempt to impose civilisation. I am grateful for his efforts. It is very thought-provoking that the last news of him was in confrontation with an American who had become a Taleban supporter. This shows how intertwined the world is becoming. The Carlyle Group is another indication of the intertwined world. So is SI and my investment in QUALCOMM, which invests in China, which gets investment from Japan and technology from Korea to make CDMA phones to sell to NZ.
Mike Spann was trying to separate John Walker from the aliens and do right by him. Why separate them? Universal human rights would say that all Taleban should be treated equally unless they had done particular things to separate them out from the run of the mill Taleban [such as particular crimes].
John Walker reminds me of the disaffected mass-murdering school students. He's found acceptance with a very nasty crowd and has supported lashing out at his school, or in this case, his country, saying the attack on the Cole was justified because berthing in Yemen was an act of war in his mind.
Peter Blake was murdered trying to defend his boat and crew against 8 pirates [who have now been captured] in Brazil while trying to bring civilisation in the sense of environmental protection to the world.
Heroes like Mike Spann and Peter Blake represent the good in the world. I'd far prefer they succeeded in their aims rather than be killed in action, but with courage they faced the destroyers of the world and that made them heroes. People like the Taleban, Osama and John Walker represent the bad, out to destroy, dominate, confiscate and repress.
It is important that the USA not morph into a global Taleban. Universal human rights are an important part of that. Democracy is the best way of establishing laws that I'm aware of [though it's basically mob rule]. Nobody expects anything much from people like the rulers in Rwanda, Afghanistan, China, and places like Germany, Britain and Canada are too small to lead the way. The USA needs to show the highest standards, which are what attract so many people and their investments from all around the world.
If China continues tidying up their act, they will soon be a strategic competitor of the USA. The ignorant would think that is a military matter. It's not. It's a matter of the mind. The USA military can grunt and huff and puff all it likes, introduce compulsory military service and send soldiers to arrest me, but they can't change my mind. Trying to use force in such matters is like trying to use force in a marriage; that's more the Taleban approach and I'm sure Americans don't want to end up wearing black turbans.
That's the difference between chimps and humans. Chimps know only emotion and power with very limited cognition. Humans have a mind. Old-style rulers didn't bother much with minds. The USA is based on freedom of the mind, private property and that good stuff. To extend the empire, the USA needs to extend that good stuff. They can't do it by making the rest of the world into alien slaves to be disposed of by military tribunal.
Meanwhile, there's a much bigger strategic threat than China. $ill Gates nearly missed it. The USA is fiddling with encryption rules and demanding monitoring rights, but they are already fighting a rearguard action because it's not terrorism that is the greatest threat, but free minds and association. The USA will become an anachronism, a bit like Britain provided the mould for New Zealand, but is now almost irrelevant.
Initially, the new strategic power will be hundreds of millions of on-line people, but that will gradually change to cyberspace itself becoming the new central power, with people as symbiotic nodes which are hopefully useful in some aspects of the 3D world where we are still somewhat effective.
It's surreal to see medieval humans fighting in the dirt in Afghanistan, juxtaposed with USS Enterprise flying all sorts of stuff into the conflict, with cyberspace looming over the lot; a far greater threat - Ted Kaczynski saw what was happening, but they locked him up, while the Internet and I are still on the loose.
It's like the film of the two male seals fighting on the shore. One runs. The other thinks he's on a winner but before he can beat his chest in victory, [I suppose they do that with their flippers or maybe they just oink] a killer whale swoops out of the water and grabs him, pulling him back in as a tasty snack. The first was running because he saw the killer whale coming - in a way, he wins because his opposition gets eaten.
The Great Game [GG] continues.
I think that's what I think, but I reserve the right to change my mind.
Mqurice |
