Northman's Fury

I have to admit that I never followed the Padilla case too closely. Beyond the fact that it I believe it is inherently wrong and very troubling for the government to be able to take one of citizens and lock them away for years without trial, and that the crimes for which he was accused kept changing and ultimately had nothing to do with what he was convicted of, I never paid it much attention. I never paid too much attention to how he was treated, but as I was going through the coverage of the verdict, I found this:

He [Padilla] had developed really a tremendous identification with the goals and interests of the government. I really considered a diagnosis of Stockholm syndrome. For example, at one point in the proceedings, his attorneys had, you know, done well at cross-examining an FBI agent, and instead of feeling happy about it like all the other defendants I’ve seen over the years, he was actually very angry with them. He was very angry that the civil proceedings were “unfair to the commander-in-chief,” quote/unquote. And in fact, one of the things that happened that disturbed me particularly was when he saw his mother. He wanted her to contact President Bush to help him, help him out of his dilemma. He expected that the government might help him, if he was “good,” quote/unquote.

The second thing was his absolute state of terror, terror alternating with numbness…It was as though the interrogators were in the room with us. He was like…a trauma victim who knew that they were going to be sent back to the person who hurt them and that he …would subsequently pay a price if he revealed what happened…

In this very small cell, he was monitored twenty-four hours a day, and the doors were managed electronically….He had no way of knowing the time. The light was always artificial. The windows were blackened. He had no calendar or time, as you mentioned earlier. He really didn’t see people, especially in the beginning. He only had contact with his interrogators. (LZK Note: Padilla had to be charged with a crime. He was experiencing this as a presumed innocent man.)

AMY GOODMAN: Did you conclude he had been tortured?

DR. ANGELA HEGARTY: Well, “torture,” of course, is a legal term. However, as a clinician, I have worked with torture victims and, of course, abuse victims for a few decades now, actually. I think, from a clinical point of view, he was tortured.

This was the first time I ever met anybody who had been isolated for such an extraordinarily long period of time. I mean, the sensory deprivation studies, for example, tell us that without sleep, especially, people will develop psychotic symptoms, hallucinations, panic attacks, depression, suicidality within days. And here we had a man who had been in this situation, utterly dependent on his interrogators, who didn’t treat him all that nicely, for years. And apart from — the only people I ever met who had such a protracted experience were people who were in detention camps overseas, that would come close, but even then they weren’t subjected to the sensory deprivation. So, yes, he was somewhat of a unique case in that regard.

AMY GOODMAN: How afraid was Jose Padilla?

DR. ANGELA HEGARTY: How to capture that in an apt metaphor? He was terrified. For him, the government was all-powerful. The government knew everything. The government knew everything that he was doing. His interrogators would find out every little detail that he revealed. And he would be punished for it.

He was convinced that — I mean, I think in words he endorsed — even if he won his case, he lost, because he was going back to the brig if he managed to prevail at trial. And essentially, if hypothetically one were to offer him a really long prison sentence versus — with a guarantee that he wouldn’t go back to the brig — versus risking going back to the brig, the chance that he might go back to the brig, he would take the prison sentence for a very long period of time. I think he would take almost anything rather than go back to that brig.

AMY GOODMAN: What happened in the brig?

DR. ANGELA HEGARTY: What happened at the brig was essentially the destruction of a human being’s mind. That’s what happened at the brig. His personality was deconstructed and reformed.

One of the things that came out in the course of my evaluation was, he was required to sign his name John Doe. This kind of thing and the whole notion of dependency and the cultivation of dependency, the impact of sleep deprivation, stress positions, all of that was so coordinated it’s impossible for me to imagine that at least at some phase there wasn’t some mental health professionals involved.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And what was the reason for wanting to have him sign his name John Doe?

DR. ANGELA HEGARTY: He’s no longer a person. He’s no longer an individual. There will be no record that he was ever there, that the interrogators — this is from my knowledge of torture around the world — that the interrogators essentially will be absolutely immune to any accountability.

I've heard others describe Padilla as the character Winston Smith at the end of 1984. Broken and loving the government who broke him. From the above, that's no exaggeration, in any of the particulars. Is that the kind of world you want to live in?

John Cole on the Padilla case.

Back in June, I posted a short note by Chet Richards of D-N-I.net, where he more or less complained that use of the term terrorism was a form of "mental laziness". He also noted that uniformed state military organizations also kill civilians, sometimes accidently or as "collateral damage", but also at times on purpose such as the strategic bombing campaign against Germany and Japan that culminated in the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Despite this, state militaries aren't called terror organizations by very many people.

The Bush administration has just watered down the term further by labeling the entire 125,000 man Iranian Revolutionary Guards a "terrorist". While I have little illusion that the Guards are a less than savoury force, calling them a terrorist organization goes beyond laziness. Its now just a short hand term for opponents of the US. "Terrorists are bad, and all our enemies are terrorists, (because we say so). Therefore we can do whatever we please to oppose them and anyone who criticizes us is supporting terrorism."

Really not too different to the story-line to date, but they've now managed to make it official.

Shorter Stu Bykofsky:

Because Americans are tired of seeing soldiers die in Iraq, we need to have a few thousand of them killed so the rest will be too mad to remember what a screw-up the war is."

More than half of Americans say US news organizations are politically biased, inaccurate, and don't care about the people they report on, a poll published Thursday showed.

And poll respondents who use the Internet as their main source of news -- roughly one quarter of all Americans -- were even harsher with their criticism, the poll conducted by the Pew Research Center said.

More than two-thirds of the Internet users said they felt that news organizations don't care about the people they report on; 59 percent said their reporting was inaccurate; and 64 percent they were politically biased.

The only surprise for me is that so many people apparently still trust the news media, and I can see why internet users would be more likely to feel that it's biased. After all, people on the internet tend to both access media outside the US, and to access the on-line Op-Ed industry that are political blogs.

Of course, the real issue is determining what the media bias actually is. Right-wingers claim liberal bias, and left-wingers claim some combination of corporate or government right-wing leanings, and as this poll is worded, both sides can use it to reinforce their beliefs. People only ever point out bias in articles they disagree with, never when they reinforce their own opinions.

Personally, I feel that all media is biased. Which way depends on the source and the issue. It's one of the reasons I try to read my news and opinions from a wide variety of sources, though of course I'm forced to admit that I enjoy reading people who agree with me a lot more.

It's nice to see that Bush has finally decided that fiscal responsibility is a virtue. I wonder if Congress would have his support if they decided to treat bridge repair like Iraq's reconstruction? Give out no-bid contracts to friendly contractors without pesky oversight to see if the jobs are actually getting done properly. They always seem to find money for that.

The situation on Iraq's northern border remains tense, and the reported warning delivered to Iraq by Turkey is in some sense, just more of the same of what has been coming out of Ankara for, really, the past four years. What caught my eye, though, was this point:

Baran and some others expect U.S. forces to join in if Turkey does act against the rebels in northern Iraq. The scenario most often cited is an operation involving U.S. and Turkish special forces already in northern Iraq.

"I do believe that the Americans . . . are probably getting ready to do something jointly with Turkey, but they really don't want the Turks to go on their own," Baran said.

It has always been something of a given that if Turkey was to launch a full-scale attack across the border, that the US would get dragged into the conflict, but this is the first time I've heard plans for the US to help start the ball rolling. Given the potential can of worms such a conflict would open for the Americans, I have a hard time believing that they would want to start conducting military operations in the area.

On the other hand, given their record, and the whole, "if all you have is a (military) hammer, every problem looks like a (bombing target) nail" approach to foreign policy problems, this has the ring of possibility.

Updated below

Take it from this old KGB hand: The left is abetting America's enemies with its intemperate attacks on President Bush.

Well, this certainly sounds like it should be a treat to read.

My father spent most of his life working for General Motors in Romania and had a picture of President Truman in our house in Bucharest. While "America" was a vague place somewhere thousands of miles away, he was her tangible symbol. For us, it was he who had helped save civilization from the Nazi barbarians, and it was he who helped restore our freedom after the war--if only for a brief while. We learned that America loved Truman, and we loved America. It was as simple as that.

Now, not to be a nitpicker, but I thought the reason that Bush kept comparing himself to Truman is because America at the time hated him, but history has over time turned him into a great President. The guy has barely started his article and he's already destroyed his premise. If America's reputation was really tied to how Americans felt about Truman, it would have started out the Cold War in a much worse position.

For communists, only the leader counted, no matter the country, friend or foe. At home, they deified their own ruler--as to a certain extent still holds true in Russia. Abroad, they asserted that a fish starts smelling from the head, and they did everything in their power to make the head of the Free World stink.

. . .

For once, the communists got it right. It is America's leader that counts. Let's return to the traditions of presidents who accepted nothing short of unconditional surrender from our deadly enemies.

Sometimes you just can't get away from your upbringing. Deifying your leader is the way of totalitarian governments the world over. America's great strength has ever been the ability to tear down leaders who were found wanting. The American President was never as important to his country as his Communist counterparts were to theirs. Back in the day when the US Constitution was still thought of as more than an obstruction to Executive Power, he was even supposed to be constantly checked by the other branches of government. Sometimes the head of the Free World did stink, but America remained strong because everyone knew he didn't count for everything; that he could be checked and balanced and ultimately replaced.

All of the Presidents the author lists were slammed and opposed on policies at home. None had the blank cheque those who continue to support Bush demand he should get. That oversight, that ability to recognize mistakes in time to correct them, the give and take and raucous debate, are what makes democracies so much better at governing.

When only the leader counts, you wind up where this ex-KGB employer's do, in the dustbin of history.

UPDATE:

One more point to this story. One of the reasons the, "criticizing the leader helps the enemy" meme continues to have such strength, is that it is at least partly true. If the people of a country doesn't support their leadership enough to follow it into battle, then defeat becomes far more likely. (Interestingly, it is that same point that gives weight to the "chikenhawk" meme, as in, if it's so damned important, why aren't you fighting for it?)

The difference between myself and the author above is that when the people's support isn't forthcoming, he blames the people for not following their "glorious leader", while I blame the leader for not providing sufficient reason to earn the following.

Back in April, Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling wrote:

The general is responsible for estimating the likelihood of success in applying force to achieve the aims of policy. The general describes both the means necessary for the successful prosecution of war and the ways in which the nation will employ those means. If the policymaker desires ends for which the means he provides are insufficient, the general is responsible for advising the statesman of this incongruence. The statesman must then scale back the ends of policy or mobilize popular passions to provide greater means. If the general remains silent while the statesman commits a nation to war with insufficient means, he shares culpability for the results.

Bush has neither scaled back his desired ends, nor has he mobilized popular passion to provide greater means. While others at the top may share culpability, the responsibility lies wholly with the nation's leadership, not its public. To try and shift the blame to others in simply excuse-making of the worst kind.

I still hold to the conservative principal that people should take responsibility for their actions. It is shameful that the current leaders seem to have forgotten that.

The news that Guiliani’s daughter doesn’t think enough of her Dad to vote for him causes me to do my best Nelson Muntz impression and give a good “HAW Haw!” It’s not really a surprise after all that Rudy’s kids hate him. Otherwise, it isn't a terribly important piece of news.

It does bring to mind a post by Michael van der Galien where he wishes for more substance in the US electoral campaign. Given that so far, the major news of the campaign seems to be Obama's skin colour and what kind of school he attended when he was five, Edward’s haircuts, Romney’s facials and how he treated the family dog, Hillary’s cleavage, Fred Thompson’s wife, and now Guiliani's daughter's Facebook page, I think he, and everyone else, may be wishing in vain.

The major media organizations are now mostly in an entertainment mode, and stories like those above are far more entertaining than what candidates actually plan to do once they’re in office. Outside of that small minority of us in the blogosphere that actually pay close attention to what candidates say about their policies, most people don’t have enough information to get beyond the, “who would I like to have a beer with?” stage.

It does explain why we all seem to have such trouble finding good leaders, though.

Yes, while this date is important for mushroom cloud-related reasons, it also turns out that it was six years today that somebody dropped off a briefing note for W titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US". This was apparently not important enough to interrupt Bush's vacation, but the consequences of ignoring it were enough to launch two wars, and somehow ensure the re-election of the guy who did the ignoring.

For more on the anniversary, you can read this post by Dave at TGB, or for a somewhat snarkier, but maybe even more potent posting, check out Bing's take at Happy Jihad's.

Poppy production in Afghanistan has increased yet again, now supplying 95% of the world's opium. The US continues to pursue a strategy of crop eradication, turning the region's farmers against them and their allies, meaning us, rather than taking the more realistic step of licensing the poppy crop for production of legal drugs like morphine.

You would think that with poppy production increasing every year since the US started their eradication campaign, they would want to try a different approach, but with the Bush Administration, to change strategy is a sign of weakness. One must continue to appear strong and resolute and hold to the original strategy regardless how ineffective it turns out to be. If it were actually true that willpower could trump stupidity, Bush would be a great President.

The State Department has a message for White House candidates wanting to expound on sensitive diplomatic issues: Shut up.

Apparently talking about what they may do once they're in office isn't helping diplomatic efforts overseas. When Obama ssaid that he would send troops into Pakistan with or without Musharraf's consent, I said that the domestic posturing of the US candidates may turn out to be the most dangerous threat of all to their foreign policy. It's kind of nice to know the US State Department agrees with me.

Of course, Obama's statement is the tamest of the current round of rhetoric. Hillary's refusal to rule out nuking Afghanistan or Pakistan is worse, and both pale to near irrelevance compared to Tancredo's threatening to wipe out Mecca and Medina, a long expressed wish of the nut-roots, and quite appropriately nuts. I'm sure that little speech is going to be very popular on the jihadist's version of YouTube for propaganda purposes.

But the warning is clear, all Presidential candidates should stop telling anyone what it is they plan to do about terrorism, how they will conduct diplomatic negotiations, or otherwise give any indication of what they will do internationally once they are elected to the most powerful political position on the planet. Apparently knowing these kinds of things could adversely affect the fine job the Bush Administration has been doing the last six and a half years.

From now on, all stupid and threatening comments about international affairs will be confined to their proper place, the Vice President's Office. Thank-you for your attention.

I know I criticized Obama’s threat to launch an attack into Pakistan, but Hillary’s criticism of his refusal to consider nuclear weapons is a good illustration of why he’s still my favourite candidate.

Asked about Obama's speech and his comments about nuclear weapons, Clinton chided her fellow senator about addressing hypotheticals.

"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. ... I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons," Clinton said.

Asked about the notion of unilateral U.S. military action in Pakistan to get al-Qaida leadership: "How we do it should not be telegraphed or discussed for obvious reasons."

As John Dickerson said in Slate, Obama isn’t afraid to answer the hypothetical; to give answers to questions that the President will likely have to face and to allow voters to get a clear picture of the candidate they will be asked to trust with making those decisions.

Look at Hillary’s response to the same questions. A non-answer about whether or not she may launch nuclear missiles against a current ally, no discussion of what she may or may not do in the case of actionable intelligence on al Qaeda leadership.  It reminds me of the confirmation hearing for Alito and Roberts; avoid every question that might pin down your position by claiming them to be hypothetical and therefore something you can’t address.

In short, they are not really terrible answers; they are not even answers at all.  They are just words to avoid having to respond to the questions.  All you get from Hillary and the other candidates is guesswork about how they will respond to crises that have every chance of coming to pass.  Under such circumstances, it is little wonder that few people are willing to vote or that the choices tend to be less than inspiring.

But all of the important questions are hypothetical, and the decisions that voters are asked to make at the booth are based on what they think the candidates responses will be to those hypothetical scenarios.  Giving straight answers to tough questions was one of the reason John McCain was able to do as well as he did back in 2000.  Now it’s Obama who isn’t afraid to give people answers to the important questions.  And wouldn’t it be nice if you could vote for someone whose views you were actually aware of and not guessing at?

It’s little wonder the other candidates are moving against Obama on this.  If he keeps answering the tough questions, the press could get used to it and may stop allowing the others to get away with their avoidance techniques.  Of course, that’s probably too much to hope for.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

To paraphrase a saying: It is better to stay silent and be thought naive, then to open your mouth and prove it.

Now, in the context of his entire speech, this was a pretty minor point, but it is still the one that everybody has seized upon. One hopes it was just rhetoric; a way to appear tough. Because right now, Musharraf is hanging on by a thread. His support amongst the people of Pakistan is nearly as low as Bush's is in the US and his legitimacy weakens with every aggressive statement or action by the US towards Pakistan that he doesn't counter.

I like Obama. Currently he's my favourite candidate of those running for the US Presidency. But January, 2009 is still a long ways off. One of the worst aspects of the US election system is that it is forcing candidates to commit to positions this far in advance of their taking power. The circumstances will have undoubtedly changed by the time the actual election rolls around. There's every chance the Bush Administration will launch the attacks on Pakistan themselves, clumsily and with excessive "collateral damage" given their record, and given how bad an idea it is, I would expect them to do just that, along with launching attacks on Iran.

Obama made no mention of widening the Iraq war to Iran, but widening the Afghan war to include Pakistan would be just as disastrous, if not more so. I do find Obama's promise to focus on the actual people who attacked the US to be laudable, and the strategy he laid out in his speech is a good one on nearly all of its points except this one. Nobody wants there to be safe havens for terrorists, but the real challenge of foreign policy is that sometimes you have to pick the least bad option; to risk the occasional sting to avoid kicking open a hornet's nest.

Naiveté is dangerous, but the posturing required of US domestic politics may yet prove to be the most dangerous aspect of US foreign policy there is.