Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (134534)	5/27/2004 9:10:25 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

BUSH CONTINUES MISLEADING ON PRISON ABUSE SCANDAL In his speech before the U.S. Army War College this week, President Bush again tried to absolve himself and his Administration from any responsibility for the atrocities at Abu Ghraib prison. He said the abuse was "disgraceful conduct by a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values" [1]. But new reports show that the Administration - and President Bush himself - approved key documents that originally opened the door to the abuse. Since the scandal broke, the Administration has said that, in Iraq, it always insisted on following the Geneva Conventions on humane treatment for prisoners. However, in a letter to the Red Cross dated December 24, 2003, the Bush Administration asserted that detainees in Iraq "were not entitled to the full protections of the Geneva Convention" [2] This disregard for internationally-recognized human rights regulations was consistent with a January 2002 directive by the White House labeling the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and "obsolete" [3]. It is also consistent with a Newsweek report showing that "President Bush, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft signed off on a secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door to such methods" of abuse and torture as documented at Abu Ghraib [4]. Those secret orders were designed "to sidestep the historical safeguards of the Geneva Conventions." Instead of acknowledging these documents and upholding his pledge to "usher in an era of personal responsibility," [5] the Bush Administration is now assaulting those who brought the story to light. Sgt. Samuel Provance told the Associated Press he has "been disciplined by the military and stripped of his security clearance" after he publicly refuted the President's claims that the abuse was only the work of a few soldiers [6]. Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld banned "digital cameras, camcorders and cellphones with cameras" from all military installations in Iraq [7]. And, as MSNBC reports, the whole Administration is "lashing out at American journalists, adding their official voices to the chorus of talk radio, conservative Web site and newspaper columnists" who claim the media's coverage of the scandal and Iraq in general "is undermining support for the war" [8]. Sources: 1. President Outlines Steps to Help Iraq Achieve Democracy and Freedom, 05/24/2004, daily.misleader.org. 2. "Commander in Iraq to Be Replaced", Los Angeles Times, 05/25/2004, daily.misleader.org. 3. "White House memo criticized", USA Today, 05/26/2004, daily.misleader.org. 4. "The Roots of Torture", Newsweek, May 24, 2004, daily.misleader.org. 5. President Bush Discusses Progress in Education in St. Louis, 01/05/2004, daily.misleader.org. 6. "Soldier Who Spoke Out About Prisoner Abuse Disciplined", WXII12.com, 05/26/2004, daily.misleader.org. 7. "Rumsfeld Bans Camera Phones in Iraq: Report", Agence France Passe, 05/23/2004, daily.misleader.org. 8. "Media takes heat from administration over Iraq", MSNBC, 05/25/2004, daily.misleader.org.

To: JohnM who wrote (134534)	5/27/2004 11:13:51 PM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (7) \| Respond to of 281500

what's there to comment on? seems like a brilliant piece of analysis to me... :0) tb@cassandra.com

To: JohnM who wrote (134534)	11/17/2004 11:15:22 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Web of Influence _____________________ foreignpolicy.com "Every day, millions of online diarists, or “bloggers,” share their opinions with a global audience. Drawing upon the content of the international media and the World Wide Web, they weave together an elaborate network with agenda-setting power on issues ranging from human rights in China to the U.S. occupation of Iraq. What began as a hobby is evolving into a new medium that is changing the landscape for journalists and policymakers alike."

To: JohnM who wrote (134534)	5/13/2005 6:19:35 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Plenty of Harm, Lots of Fouls ______________________________ Lead Editorial The New York Times May 13, 2005 nytimes.com Many passionate arguments were offered yesterday in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee against the nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations, but Paul Sarbanes, Democrat of Maryland, made one of the most dramatic by simply reading the names of those who have held the post. Among them are Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., Adlai Stevenson, Arthur Goldberg, George Ball, George H. W. Bush, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, William Scranton, Andrew Young, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Vernon Walters, Madeleine Albright, Richard Holbrooke and John Danforth. Mr. Bolton does not belong in this distinguished company of Republicans and Democrats, and the issue is not his "interpersonal style," as his supporters would like Americans to believe. Senator George Allen, a Republican, sneeringly suggested that the U.N. ambassador should not be one of those diplomats who are happy "drinking tea with their pinkies up." That was hardly a description of Mr. Moynihan and Ms. Kirkpatrick. The post of U.N. ambassador is, as Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican, put it, "one of the most important jobs in our government." After the president, the vice president and the secretary of state, that official is the face of the United States to the rest of the world. The job should not go to a man who has repeatedly demonstrated his contempt for the United Nations. In 1999, for example, Mr. Bolton ridiculed the notion that the Security Council is the only body that can legitimize one country's use of force against another when it has not been attacked, which, of course, the Council is. He derided as wishful thinking the idea that "force is no longer a serious option for responsible nations, except to swat the occasional dictator and prevent human rights abuses." Those are, of course, the only remaining justifications for invading Iraq. The Senate committee hearings have also exhaustively documented Mr. Bolton's habit of trying to force intelligence analysts to conform to his ideological preconceptions and then trying to punish them when they refuse to comply. That Mr. Bolton did not succeed in taking revenge is no comfort - only a sign that he did not wield as much power as other officials who did manage to skew intelligence reports to suit an ideological agenda. His Republican supporters want us to accept the "no harm, no foul" argument - a hollow theory in any case, but one that doesn't apply here. Mr. Bolton did cause harm. Several Bush administration officials testified that his assault on the intelligence analysts who disagreed with him had a serious chilling effect. Mr. Bolton was such a loose cannon that Colin Powell had his chief of staff keep an eye on him. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage eventually said Mr. Bolton could not testify in Congress or make a speech unless he had personally cleared it. If North Korea tests a nuclear bomb on Mr. Bush's watch, no American will bear a larger share of responsibility than Mr. Bolton. His irresponsible public comments and advocacy of the disastrous policy of refusing to engage in serious bargaining with North Korea were major factors in scuttling efforts to stop that country's nuclear efforts. It's not hard to imagine that the next U.N. ambassador will be called upon to defend American policy on Iran and North Korea and to present the United States' intelligence on their nuclear programs to a highly skeptical world. It is hard to imagine a worse choice for that than Mr. Bolton. Senator George Voinovich said yesterday that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had assured him that Mr. Bolton would be closely supervised at the U.N. Ms. Rice's eagerness to get Mr. Bolton out of town is understandable, but, as Mr. Voinovich put it so well, "Why in the world would you want to send somebody up to the U.N. that has to be supervised?" Like Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Hagel dismissed as "nonsense" his fellow Republicans' argument that opposing Mr. Bolton would mean opposing U.N. reform. Unlike Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Hagel said he was supporting the Bolton nomination. We agreed strongly when he said this issue should not be partisan. But Mr. Hagel couldn't come up with much to explain his decision beyond a partisan desire to support his president. Another Republican, Norm Coleman, said bluntly that Mr. Bolton should be confirmed simply because Mr. Bush won the election. That's the weak argument that has already led to the promotion of too many administration officials whose efforts to make reality conform to the White House's policy preferences have caused untold harm to American interests. Now that the Foreign Relations Committee has forwarded the Bolton nomination to the Senate floor without any recommendation, we hope that enough Republicans care enough about America's image and national security to refuse to go down that road again.

To: JohnM who wrote (134534)	11/8/2005 3:51:08 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

No More Blank-Check Wars ________________________________________________________ By Leslie H. Gelb and Anne-Marie Slaughter washingtonpost.com Tuesday, November 8, 2005 washingtonpost.com Most wars overflow with mistakes and surprises. Still, in Iraq, much that has gone wrong could have been foreseen -- and was. For example, most experts knew that 100,000 U.S. troops couldn't begin to provide essential security and that Iraqi oil revenue wouldn't dent war costs. But none of this was nailed down beforehand in any disciplined review. And Iraq, whether justified or not, is only the latest in a long line of ill-considered and ill-planned U.S. military adventures. Time and again in recent decades the United States has made military commitments after little real debate, with hazy goals and no appetite for the inevitable setbacks. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson plunged us into the Vietnam War with little sense of the region's history or culture. Ronald Reagan dispatched Marines to Lebanon, saying that stability there was a "vital interest," only to yank them out 16 months later after a deadly terrorist attack on Marine barracks. Bill Clinton, having inherited a mission in Somalia to feed the starving, ended up hunting tribal leaders and trying to build a nation. Too often our leaders have entered wars with unclear and unfixed aims, tossing away American lives, power and credibility before figuring out what they were doing and what could be done. Congress saw the problem after the Vietnam War and tried to fix it with the War Powers Act. It states that troops sent into combat by the president must be withdrawn within 60 days unless Congress approves an extension. But presidents from Richard Nixon on never recognized the validity of this legislation against their powers as commander in chief. Nor did Congress ever assert its rights and take political responsibility. Since the Korean War, the process has consisted at most of a presidential request for a congressional resolution, a few serious speeches and authorization for the president to do whatever he wants. Odds are against changing these "political realities." But impaled as we are on the costs and carelessness of so many of our recent wars, it is worth trying to find a better way. As often happens, an answer can be found with the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. They could not have foreseen the present age of nuclear missiles and cataclysmic terrorism. But they understood political accountability, and they knew that sending Americans to war required careful reflection and vigorous debate. Their answer survives in Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, which gives Congress -- and only Congress -- the power to declare war. That power, exercised only a few times in our history, and not at all since World War II, needs to be reestablished and reinforced by new legislation. This legislation would fix guidelines for exercising the provision jointly between the White House and Congress. It would restore the Framers' intent by requiring a congressional declaration of war in advance of any commitment of troops that promises sustained combat. Requiring Congress to declare war, rather than just approve or authorize the president's decision to take troops into combat, would make it much harder for Congress to duck its responsibilities. The president would be required to give Congress an analysis of the threat, specific war aims with their rationale and feasibility, general strategy and potential costs. Congress would hold hearings, examine the information and conclude with a full floor debate and solemn vote. In case of a sudden attack on the United States or Americans abroad, the president would retain his power to repel that attack and strike back without a congressional declaration. But any sustained operations would trigger the declaration process. In other words, the president could send troops into Afghanistan to hunt down al Qaeda and punish the Taliban in response to the Sept. 11 attacks. But if he planned to keep the troops there to topple the government and transform the country, he would need a congressional declaration. Without one, funding would be restricted to bringing the troops home soon and safely. This declaration process should appeal to conservatives and even neocons. It meets their valid concern that the United States often loses diplomatic showdowns and wars not on the battlefield but at home. It adds credibility to presidential threats and staying power to our military commitments. Binding Congress far more closely to war, for instance, might have convinced Saddam Hussein of Washington's resolve to fight him in both gulf wars; today it would help convince insurgents in Iraq of America's long-term commitment to make Iraq secure. Liberals and moderates, always rightly complaining about a rush to war, would welcome the restored declaration. Not least, the attractiveness of this approach would be aided by the political power of the Constitution itself. Nor would the process proposed here diminish a president's leadership or stature as commander in chief as he makes his case to Congress. If, even with these advantages, his arguments fail, then the case cannot be very compelling. Today Congress deliberates on transportation bills more carefully than it does on war resolutions. Our Founding Fathers wanted the declaration of war to concentrate minds. Returning to the Constitution's text and making it work through legislation requiring joint deliberate action may be the only way to give the decision to make war the care it deserves. ______________________________________ Leslie H. Gelb is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. Anne-Marie Slaughter is the dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of International and Public Affairs. This piece is drawn from a longer version in the November issue of the Atlantic Monthly. © 2005 The Washington Post Company