Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThere are two ways to read this, from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates:
"I am confident that we will be spending a lot of time in the situation room over the next few weeks trying to figure out what in the world to do about this problem."
By "this problem," Gates was referring to piracy on the high seas off the coast of Somalia. I don't know about you, but I'd put it like this: the recent death of eight-year-old Sandra Cantu in a small town in northern California was a horrific tragedy, and like the dozens of other stories like that -- say, the murder of the little beauty queen in Colorado a few years back -- the story riveted media attention for days. In the big picture, however, such stories are unimportant and, like the O.J. Simpson case, are sensationalized by the media (especially cable news channels) for their obvious value in attracting mindless viewers who want to cluck-cluck about the latest atrocity.
So, too, the "saga" of the ship's captain held by pirates. My response: Give me a break!
In the grand scheme of things, I hope that the situation rooms at the Pentagon and the White House are devoted to the real problems in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and elsewhere, and not to petty piracy conducted by 17-year-old swashbucklers.
But no. President Obama himself said: "We are resolved to halt the rise of piracy in that region." I'd like to think that he said that because of the media attention to the dramatic sniper attack and rescue of the captain, but I wonder. I really hope he's not planning to do anything about it. At least, not much.
Already, Admiral Gorney, who's in charge of the US Middle East fleet, is making noises about going into Somalia. "The ultimate solution for piracy is on land."
Right-wing bloviators, Fox News pundits, and overweight conservatives such as Newt Gingrich spent the weekend excoriating President Obama for the seeming inability of the United States to rescue Captain Phillips. Then, when three snipers killed the three pirates, liberal and left-wing commentators made a big deal of it, as if it means something in the real world. Personally, I was disgusted with both sides who sought to politicize this tempest-in-an-Indian Ocean-teapot. Let's drop the subject.
Worryingly, an editorial in the Washington Post is already huffing and puffing about nation-building in Somalia. Called "A Solution for Somalia," the paper says:
"A coordinated international effort to build up a Somali government and security forces would cost many billions of dollars and take many years to pay off. It would consume U.S. diplomatic capital and be domestically controversial -- like the nation-building missions underway, at last, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is also the only way to end the threats of piracy and terrorism from the Horn of Africa."
The editorial admits that it's super-complicated, noting that various Islamist factions, tribes, and clans are feuding over Somalia, but it concludes: "The government needs massive economic aid, training and equipment for an army and coast guard, and help in brokering political deals." Speaking for myself, I'm not for training and equipping the Somali armed forces. We're not even doing too well with the Iraqi and Afghan ones, yet.
The Wall Street Journal notes today that US intelligence on the pirates is extremely thin and that it "would be difficult to strike surgically at pirate camps that are intermingled with the general population."
So far, at least, there's little or no evidence at all that piracy is a political problem or that the pirates are somehow an extension of the pro-Al Qaeda Islamist groups that have some influence in Somalia. Sometimes, pirates are just, well, pirates.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Mr Dreyfuss,
Complaining that "The Media and people aren't focusing on what I want them to focus on"....is pretty lame.
And politically, this further undercuts the Right's attacks on Obama's foreign policy, since (as you noted with Gingrich) it blew up in their faces yesterday and showed them to just be partisan hacks.
Which could be useful later on, for those "other things" you're more interested in.
Posted by Mask at 04/14/2009 @ 11:48am
1: On to News stories about Bo.
2: Interesting that the privatly held shipping companies, and many right wingers, want to see a government solution to the issue of piracy. grrr, kill.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/14/2009 @ 11:49am
Mask, the media is part of the problem. But I'm far more concerned that Gates and Obama are focusing on the wrong thing.
Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 04/14/2009 @ 11:55am
Posted by crabwalk at 04/14/2009 @ 11:49am
Well, there's always Bo or American Idol. Take your pick.
Posted by ACook at 04/14/2009 @ 11:57am
"And politically, this further undercuts the Right's attacks on Obama's foreign policy, since (as you noted with Gingrich) it blew up in their faces yesterday and showed them to just be partisan hacks."
Posted by Mask at 04/14/2009 @ 11:48am
No Mask, Obama's FP has a long way to go. This one small incident proves absolutely nothing.
Posted by ACook at 04/14/2009 @ 12:04pm
The Captain is a hero. And he and the Seals, his crew and his family's joy made us all happy.
As for the pirates, I'd much rather worry about them than the murderous Mr. Cheney, who appears to be shriveling before our eyes.
Posted by wminot at 04/14/2009 @ 12:14pm
Then there's the story in Huffington Post about how countries are dumping nuclear waste in the waters off Somalia. And other countries are sending fishing trawlers to harvest vast quantities of fish in other areas of Somalias coastline.
At first I thought that shooting the pirates whenever they appeared was the solution. Bad pirates. Now I see that the story is much more complicated. If their country was a calm organized place would they really take up piracy as their first livelihood? Doubtful.
So, while hostages definitely need to be rescued from kidnappers, the story, like many in our strange world, is a lot deeper than one might first conclude.
So, no. I think this story bears much more attention because of the other factors. It's a nasty example of societies gone mad and feeding off of each other. Mr. Dreyfuss is wrong to suggest dropping this story. It's actually one of the biggest stories right now.
Right wingers on AM talk radio are spending a lot of saved up bile saying that Obama should have ordered them to be shot sooner. Arm chair warriors. From my perspective it was handled perfectly, at night, by snipers with infrared scopes, without excess loss of life.
Posted by ficheye at 04/14/2009 @ 12:16pm
Agreed. The only concern I have and had on this ordeal is that our navy is being used to protect shipping lanes for foreign trade. That may very well have been a U.S. flagship, but the ship itself was not an American ship nor are it's owners.
We do have more important things to take care of now than protecting foreign countries' shipping lanes at U.S. tax payer expense.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/14/2009 @ 12:20pm
"This one small incident proves absolutely nothing"
you obviously have not been paying too much attention to what many right wingers were saying throughout the hostage crisis: that this incident *was* in fact something quite significant. bolton, gingrich, limbaugh, beck, all of them. and it blew up in their faces.
meanwhile, on the left wing, nobody really cared, except from a 'boy this would make a great screenplay' standpoint.
that's the point.
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 12:23pm
acook, nobody on the left was arguing that the hostage rescue proved anything.
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 12:24pm
GWOP - Global War on Pirates
Posted by OneVote at 04/14/2009 @ 12:24pm
Perhaps Mr Dreyfuss, a reminder of our constitution is in order for you and those who are in agreement with you.
Article 1, Section 8 of the constition includes the following enumerated power.
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;"
It appears that this is entirely in keeping with the powers granted to our govt and was both anticipated and provided for.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 12:33pm
The absence of any coverage by "The Nation" on the Pirate/SEAL incident is very telling of the true sentiments of the staff of this periodical. Our President showed decisiveness in the face of evil, and American frogmen executed the operation impeccably, with no loss of innocent life or destruction to civilian property. If there had been loss of innocent life, or destruction of civilian property, it would have been on the top shelf of coverage. Instead, it is a tale with a happy ending, in which pinpoint US military power was used to save an American citizen and promote peaceful world commerce. How atrocious!
Posted by JoshKeagle at 04/14/2009 @ 12:35pm
The US is exercising a core function and responsibility when it ensures the safety of US-related shipping through international waters. 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson had the US navy launch military action against African pirates. Why shouldn't Obama undertake similar military action. Or should we wait until the number of American hostages and perhaps corpses increase significantly to satisfy your standards of importance. Of course, if the media never reports on the issue, then we can ignore it. Rescuing an American who was willing to place his life in danger to protect his crew is a wonderful and meaningful story of significance, real values and a role model to a nation of self-interested and risk-adverse consumers.
Posted by gren at 04/14/2009 @ 12:39pm
If these pirates didn't exist, the Pentagon would produce them. See the film, "Wag the Dog." All too relevant.
Posted by sloper at 04/14/2009 @ 12:39pm
"It appears that this is entirely in keeping with the powers granted to our govt and was both anticipated and provided for."
so i guess obama fulfilled his obligations, then?
btw, anti, since you are obviously so concerned with the rule of law, i suppose you support spain fulfilling its treaty obligations in its prosecutions of bush's DOJ, since the united states (and obama) won't do so?
and if you disagree with spain's decision, then i guess you aren't really concerned with the rule of law (unless of course it entails the prosecution of democrats).
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 12:48pm
Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 04/14/2009 @ 11:55am
It's a MOMENTARY thing, Mr Dreyfuss. I'm sure it won't distract from those little "incidents" going on in Afghanistan or Iraq or Iran.
Calmez-vous, mon ami.
Posted by Mask at 04/14/2009 @ 12:55pm
Posted by ACook at 04/14/2009 @ 12:04pm
Actually ACOOK, less about Obama, than a flailing-about American Right.
Posted by Mask at 04/14/2009 @ 12:55pm
This isn't brain surgery! Take these ships through hostile territory in convoys protected by all the navies that have an interest in trade.
Posted by pjcasey at 04/14/2009 @ 12:58pm
"Then, when three snipers killed the three pirates, liberal and left-wing commentators made a big deal of it, as if it means something in the real world. Personally, I was disgusted with both sides who sought to politicize this tempest-in-an-Indian Ocean-teapot. Let's drop the subject."
posted by Robert Dreyfuss on 04/14/2009 @ 11:36am
Give the Snipers the praise they are due. You cannot fathom the level of skill required to do what they did. They will receive little else.
Posted by Benchrest at 04/14/2009 @ 1:11pm
What if the pirates had hi-jacked a shipment of EnviroKidz Cereals?
Posted by gangpapist at 04/14/2009 @ 1:20pm
btw, anti, since you are obviously so concerned with the rule of law, i suppose you support spain fulfilling its treaty obligations in its prosecutions of bush's DOJ, since the united states (and obama) won't do so?
and if you disagree with spain's decision, then i guess you aren't really concerned with the rule of law (unless of course it entails the prosecution of democrats).
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 12:48pm
I'm not at all concerned about whether people in other countries abide by their laws. I'm concerned with how we abide by ours.
And there is no treaty obligation that authorizes Spain to indict or prosecute any Americans in this country.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 1:22pm
This isn't brain surgery! Take these ships through hostile territory in convoys protected by all the navies that have an interest in trade.
Posted by pjcasey at 04/14/2009 @ 12:58pm
It's even easier than that. Put 50 caliber machine guns on the decks of the vessels traveling in that area. Let them police themselves.....you know, it's a capitalistic venture. Now, when the pirates come up with their own navies with air craft carriers and the like, then we might consider patrolling the areas. Other than that, let natural business take it's course.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/14/2009 @ 1:24pm
If European govenments are allowing la cosa nostra to dump nuclear waste in Somali waters, that is a horrendous crime.
I predict that absolutely nothing will be done about it. The Somalis don't have a government. The French still think of Africa as their pissing grounds. The mafia is the mafia. And the US now looks to Europe as our moral betters.
Posted by gangpapist at 04/14/2009 @ 1:34pm
"And there is no treaty obligation that authorizes Spain to indict or prosecute any Americans in this country"
Yes there is! The basic provisions of the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture require the signatories to prosecute the criminals if the countries in which, or rather from which, crimes were commited do not prosecute themselves. If Obama goes after Bush's DOJ, then Spain will back off and not prosecute. But since Obama is refusing to prosecute, Spain will prosecute for him. It's really that simple.
read it for yourself:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm
now, if you think this document doesn't apply to the united states, then you have demonstrated total ignorance of the rule of law.
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 1:38pm
"I'm not at all concerned about whether people in other countries abide by their laws. I'm concerned with how we abide by ours."
i guess your ignorance is contained within this statement. my bad. you don't even need to say anything more....
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 1:39pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/14/2009 @ 1:24pm
Home run.
Posted by Benchrest at 04/14/2009 @ 1:49pm
The O. J. Simpson case itself might have been unimportant (except to the victims/victims' families and others directly affected), but the long-term impact of media coverage of it hasn't been, as noted in my book "Anatomy of a Trial (University of Missouri Press 2008). The public ended up with a skewed view of the judicial system and a number of the trial participants, including the judge. Many judges base public-access decisions on those skewed views and their own fear of being scrutinized. People's understanding of and confidence in the court system and respect for the news media has been greatly diminshed.
Posted by jrhayslett at 04/14/2009 @ 1:53pm
LINDSAY LOHAN IS A PIRATE!
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/14/2009 @ 2:00pm
LINDSAY LOHAN IS A PIRATE!---Posted by frosty zoom at 04/14/2009 @ 2:00pm
Actually was hoping she'd show up at a Tea Party!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 04/14/2009 @ 2:18pm
Whatsa matter, Bob. Little bit o' victory put a sour taste in your mouth?
If they'd screwed it up you can bet you'd be all over it like a successful suicide bomber on a virgin!
Posted by william.harry13 at 04/14/2009 @ 2:21pm
Whatsa matter, Bob. Little bit o' victory put a sour taste in your mouth?
If they'd screwed it up you can bet you'd be all over it like a successful suicide bomber on a virgin!
Posted by william.harry13 at 04/14/2009 @ 2:22pm
now, if you think this document doesn't apply to the united states, then you have demonstrated total ignorance of the rule of law.
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 1:38pm
I suggest Darla that you become acquainted with the decision of SCOTUS in Reid v Covert which affirmed that the US Constitition and specifically article VI, the Supremacy Clause supersedes any US treaties or conventions.
"Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), is a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty," although the case itself was with regard to an executive agreement and the treaty has never been ruled unconstitutional."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert
re's what Thomas Jefferson said on the right to renounce treaties:
"Compacts then, between a nation and a nation, are obligatory on them as by the same moral law which obliges individuals to observe their compacts. There are circumstances, however, which sometimes excuse the non-performance of contracts between man and man; so are there also between nation and nation. When performance, for instance, becomes impossible, non-performance is not immoral; so if performance becomes self-destructive to the party, the law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others".
Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 2:22pm
This isn't brain surgery! Take these ships through hostile territory in convoys protected by all the navies that have an interest in trade.
Posted by pjcasey at 04/14/2009 @ 12:58pm
Good read on this very notion from USNI blogs.
http://blog.usni.org/?p=2125
Posted by OneVote at 04/14/2009 @ 2:33pm
anti,
that's funny, because this is what the bush DOJ said two years ago:
"A recent Justice Department court filing describes torture - which the U.S. has been accused of in the war on terror - as a "flagrant and pernicious abuse of power and authority" that warrants severe punishment of Taylor (Liberia)
"It undermines respect for and trust in authority, government and a rule of law," wrote Assistant U.S. Attorney Caroline Heck Miller in last week's filing. "The gravity of the offense of torture is beyond dispute."
so, clearly, our stance towards mr. taylor lies in stark contrast to your position here.
so, either you are a massive hypocrite, or total ingrate.
anyways, your ignorance of the constition is stunning....here is article VI:
"All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 2:34pm
anti,
if you object to spain's legal wishes, then you are, in short, an apologist for torture.
and as an apologist for toture, you are therefore:
a) a traitor
b) a fraud (since you claim to be christian)
c) a coward (for not admitting your faults before God)
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 2:36pm
Regardless of the origin of the ship and its crew, if it was a friend or family member on board, including the captain then the story would have been important to those not thinking it noteworthy. A pirate sympathizer said basically its the worlds fault for their piracy. They only do it because the ocean nearby has been overfished by nations from all over, leaving them without a livlyhood. Two wrongs don't make it right.
Posted by boomergirl at 04/14/2009 @ 2:50pm
89-year-old Sobibor death camp guard Demanjuk today deported again by US ...
... while war criminals Cheney, Rumsfeld et al strut free. Impunity, thy name is Big Bucks.
Posted by sloper at 04/14/2009 @ 3:02pm
Posted by sloper at 04/14/2009 @ 3:02pm
History will be their prison, sloper.
Dubya doesn't even have the cover of civil rights legislation, as Johnson did...and Rumsfeld will never make a "McNamara apology tour"...and with a 2nd term ending in a massive recession, none of them will ever be "redeemed by history".
George will go down as the first guy to combine Hoover and LBJ with a dash of Nixon. And for older men, that judgement of history is more devastating than any jail cell or condemnation by court or jury.
Posted by Mask at 04/14/2009 @ 3:08pm
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 2:34pm
Darla, I am on record as opposing Bush on an number of issues. I have no hypocrisy on this.
Nor am I ignorant of the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause makes it clear that the US is a nation of laws and that our laws are the supreme rule for our citizens.
Reid v Covert was the Supreme Courts validation that no international law or treaty supersedes US constitutional law.
You may not like the constitution and prefer other govts ruling over us, but you are wrong.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 3:25pm
And for older men, that judgement of history is more devastating than any jail cell or condemnation by court or jury.
Posted by Mask at 04/14/2009 @ 3:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Pretty amazing take on the standard of justice - the prison of their conscience (assuming they have one)and public opinion polls. Nice cover for lack of prosecution....and so convenient.
More kool-aid anyone?
Posted by OneVote at 04/14/2009 @ 3:36pm
anti,
if you object to spain's legal wishes, then you are, in short, an apologist for torture.
and as an apologist for toture, you are therefore:
a) a traitor
b) a fraud (since you claim to be christian)
c) a coward (for not admitting your faults before God)
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 2:36pm
Darla,
I need to back off and take a more tolerant position of responses to you. Obviously you are laboring to appear coherent and in possession of your mental faculties. I promise to stop being so harsh given your condition.
Let's get the facts at least correct.
Spain is not charging these people with torturing. their accusation is that they gave legal opinions to the Administration which they (the Spanish) claim resulted in torture.
In one specific case that I cited, one individual offered precisely opposite the opinion that he is charged with by the Spanish.
Additionally, I've said before that I don't necessarily think that waterboarding is torture. Subsequently we have now banned it years after these 3 individuals were interrogated using this technique.
A traitor for your information is someone who seeks the overthrow of the govt, or gives aid and comfort to the enemy who is trying to overthrow the govt.
I'm not aware of any time in which you have been present with me daily during my prayer time with the Lord. therefore is seems quite pretentious on your part that you know what I confess before the Lord.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 3:41pm
Jonathan Turley: Obama a War Criminal For Blocking Cheney Prosecution
Aly Mohamed
Published 03/26/2009 - 2:31 a.m. CST
Aly Mohamed
President Obama's irate response (appearing on CBS 60 minutes) to comments by former Vice President Dick Cheney regarding the necessity of harsh treatment and torture of prisoners is quite revealing, according to Jonathan Turley, constitutional scholar and George Washington University professor.
"The reason Obama seems very irritated by it is that he is responsible for the conversation," said Turley. "Because he's the one that is blocking a criminal investigation of Vice President Cheney and President Bush and other Bush officials. It is like a bank robber calling up and asking him to debate bank robbery."
Obama described the policies which guided the handling and treatment of prisoners captured during the Bush administration as "unsustainable," having caused "incredible damage to our image and position in the world." But according to Turley, the President's verbal rebuke is no substitute for legal proceedings against the former administrations war crimes, and, in fact, deals him a hand in complicity.
"[Obama] should be saying, 'What you are describing is a crime.' And if he would allow an investigation to well-defined war crimes, Dick Cheney would not be making public statements. He would be surrounded by criminal defense counsel."
"Let's be honest here. It is just as bad to prevent the investigation and prosecution of a war crime as its commission because you become part of it. There's no question about a war crime [being committed] here."
Note - the key words here - "our image" and not that of Bush and Cheney. To restore "our image" is what matters.
Posted by OneVote at 04/14/2009 @ 3:46pm
18. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I. CRIMES CHAPTER 118. CRIMES
18 U.S.C. §2441
§ 2441. War Crimes
(a) Offense. Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances. The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition. As used in this section the term "war crime" means any conduct--
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.
Posted by OneVote at 04/14/2009 @ 3:53pm
(d) Common Article 3 violations.
(1) Prohibited conduct. In subsection (c)(3), the term "grave breach of common Article 3" means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:
(A) Torture. The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
(B) Cruel or inhuman treatment. The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control.
Posted by OneVote at 04/14/2009 @ 3:54pm
Obviously, Somalia has to be put back together again. Putting the US in charge of this is another story--it would be like asking Micheal Jackson to babysit your 8- year old.
Sure, everyone stole their coastal fish -catch and dumped radioactive waste on their waters--would Larry Summers think this is wrong? Here's the solution --give them whatever they take in on piracy--with the proviso that they have to start building up some legit economy. After a few years they might have something going. Heck, do this with Haiti as well. Moldova would be good too.
Slogans from the war front:
"Why are you a pirate?" "That's where the money is," said the young Somali native.
"Why do you turn toxic sub-prime mortgages into AAA rated securities?" That's where the money is, answered the young Wall Streeter.
From Dr Wu's latest book: "Your Pirates and Mine"
Posted by hkaplan at 04/14/2009 @ 4:09pm
"You may not like the constitution and prefer other govts ruling over us, but you are wrong."
again, you have no clue what you are talking about. this is a complete mischaracterization of the CAT, as well as the GC, and the supreme court case you cite has no bearing on this. and again, it is completely obvious that you have read neither the CAT or the GC.
"Spain is not charging these people with torturing. their accusation is that they gave legal opinions to the Administration which they (the Spanish) claim resulted in torture."
again, you have *no clue* where you are going with this, and i implore you to *read* the CAT.
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 4:17pm
Posted by OneVote at 04/14/2009 @ 3:36pm
Not enough by a long shot, true.
But what Mask said, is also "true," in that it has nothing to do with having a conscious ( I would even say consciousness, lol) per se.
As what would be in play is "self image," and the fantasy upkeep of its construction is much, much harder to protect and project when the one, despite overwhelming evidence (and the memory of ones actions) to the contrary... you have to convince in the cold late hours of the night is yourself.
So yeah, such as it is, it doth a prison of a kind make.
But no, it is not enough, if on balance and in principle... one believes in lady justice.
Posted by V at 04/14/2009 @ 5:01pm
U.S. Navy a liar -- Three pirates executed in cold blood
Look at the facts:
(1) Tribal leaders in Somalia proposed that both captain and pirates be released without a ransom, the pirates were in agreement but the Navy refused to let the pirates go.
(2) Navy knew that the enclosed metal boat was a torture chamber in the hot sun and rough sea, and that after five days of this the pirates were very passive and most eager to any agreement that would gain them freedom.
(3) The Navy lied when it said that they decided to shoot when the pirates started to point a gun at the captain, as the pirates for five days most of the time had at least one gun pointed at the captain.
(4) With the boat bobbing up and down, only if NONE of the pirates were pointing a gun at the captain would the Navy had dared to shoot. And only if they could somehow fool the pirates into setting down their guns, only then would it be perfectly safe to execute them in cold blood.
Now, even if western media refuses to state the facts, news media throughout the Southern Hemisphere is stating all the facts, and asking many damaging questions. Another example of Obama mania, which in many is just as insane as that of the maniac dictator from Texas.
Posted by Alabama.John at 04/14/2009 @ 5:06pm
alabama john, you are sort of proving the author's point....
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 5:17pm
What's a pirates favorite vegetable?
Ahrrr tichokes.
What's a pirates favorite sock pattern?
Ahrrrgyle.
What's a pirates favorite letter?
P. Looks like an 'R', but it only has one leg.
Posted by ficheye at 04/14/2009 @ 5:53pm
Posted by V at 04/14/2009 @ 5:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person
If I ever stand trial on a serious charge, I hope you and Mask are on the jury panel!
If a guilty conscience were sufficient penance, we wouldn't have prisons.....and I venture to say, in time, we would be de facto a lawless society.
Posted by OneVote at 04/14/2009 @ 5:54pm
Posted by Alabama.John at 04/14/2009 @ 5:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You mean you don't believe the HALO jump from 30,000 feet and that the pirates were dumb enough to come alongside at a distance of 30 meters while still in hostile mode? My goodness.
Posted by OneVote at 04/14/2009 @ 5:57pm
What a tired rap. We should be happy that they devoted those resources to save one person in a decade where life, justice, and solidarity have been severely devalued. If it was your son or daughter you wouldn't complain for a second. Dreyfuss your position comes off as the crass and jaded opining of someone who has led a very unhappy and dismal life with few people to care about, or be cared for by. If those people do exist they ought to let you have it. I hope a lot more attention is payed in the future to Americans in trouble overseas. There's nothing wrong with taking care of your own people. Hell even the Russians understand that.
Posted by Milhaus at 04/14/2009 @ 5:59pm
Yes the media, especially cable news stations, wastes our time with sensationalist trivialities, but piracy in the Indian Ocean is not trivial. Dozens of ships have been siezed and ransomed in recent months. Rescuing a hostaged ship's captain and killing a few desperados might be a fine start, but it doesn't come near to solving the problem. The answer lies in building a functioning nation in Somalia, which is not fun but absolutely necessary.
Posted by mickyboy212 at 04/14/2009 @ 6:18pm
Looks like Obama is going to invade Somalia to root out the pirates and bring Democracy to that country.
Posted by abell12ct at 04/14/2009 @ 7:11pm
Give the Snipers the praise they are due. You cannot fathom the level of skill required to do what they did. They will receive little else.
Posted by Benchrest at 04/14/2009 @ 1:11pm
I have to agree. That's a tough shot. Both boats moving up and down and left and right. The wind blowing. That's a hard one. They are very very well trained.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/14/2009 @ 7:17pm
Dreyfuss missed the significance of this--Bush's wars were supposed to prevent failed states from becoming a haven that evildoers could use as a base to attack us. Nevermind that this idea--put an end to anarchy everywhere--was totally cracked. The argument now goes like this: Obama, by signaling that he plans to wind down the Bush wars, has emboldened the Pirates to attack US interests. Remember what a mess Somalia was for Clinton? He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Obama faces the same dilemma, where everytime someone lobs a tomato at a US citizen, it shows that the dems are weak on national security, and if we actually apprehend a tomato-tosser and send him to jail, it shows the dems are weak on national security. It's a game Obama can't win, and Dreyfus is right that he shouldn't stoop to playing it.
Posted by vanlesson at 04/14/2009 @ 8:28pm
<sarcasm>I think it is interesting that, with extensive grueling training that includes skills such as silent killing, blending into surroundings with various forms of camouflage, carrying out operations at night, and maximizing the effect of surprise, US Navy SEALs are probably the closest thing the US has to a ninja.
The real story is has anybody in the White House recently gotten into an Internet argument over which is superior, pirates or ninjas? The result could provide damning insight as to whether this whole incident was precipitated to validate somebody's opinion on the subject. </sarcasm>
Posted by aglasnostic at 04/15/2009 @ 03:26am
Piracy certainly is not trivial. I really can't see the difference in saying that bank robbers and kidnappers are trivial. You really missed the mark on this one.
Posted by jimhodges at 04/15/2009 @ 06:35am
Reid v Covert was the Supreme Courts validation that no international law or treaty supersedes US constitutional law.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 3:25pm
You've made this point repeatedly here, but you've failed to identify any area where prosecution of U.S. officials by a Spanish court would conflict with the Constitution. The Reid v Covert ruling would be applicable only if such a conflict were present. Exactly what conflict with constitutional law do you see here?
Posted by richcarl at 04/15/2009 @ 07:02am
Posted by abell12ct at 04/14/2009 @ 7:11pm
Nope....oddly, he JUST went after the guys who attacked Americans.
And interestingly, because they were Somalis, he didn't then use that as an excuse to invade ...
Tanzania, claiming that Jakaya Kikwete had "reconstituted his nuclear program"!
Kinda of a switch from The Last Guy, huh?
Posted by Mask at 04/15/2009 @ 08:20am
Posted by OneVote at 04/14/2009 @ 3:54pm
OneVote, Thanks for the post. That should keep Liver quiet for a while. For those of us who can read, his arguements for torture and also pre-emptively attacking another country are clearly in violation
"A) Torture. The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
(B) Cruel or inhuman treatment. The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control."
and for the pre-emptive attack mode we have the war powers act (note that we had no evidence of an imminent attack, only cooked up bullshit in our lead up to attacking Iraq. Other than an imminent attack, we had no business attacking Iraq...
"(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/15/2009 @ 09:10am
Goodbye "Republic of the Seize". Employ your "coast guard" in policing your waters of foreign fishers. Declare a 300 mile limit & tax shipping. Do something creative. Good luck.
Posted by Sorelish at 04/15/2009 @ 10:48am
That should keep Liver quiet for a while. For those of us who can read, his arguements for torture and also pre-emptively attacking another country are clearly in violation
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/15/2009 @ 09:10am | ignore this person | warn this person
I can just imagine Liver paging through his Pentecostal bible right now trying to find the applicable scripture --
"when there be conflict between G-d's Law and the Law of Mortal Men, G-d's Law doust rule"............
Posted by OneVote at 04/15/2009 @ 2:00pm
Not pirates...
They are Maritime Economic Redistribution Activists.
Posted by sntauri at 04/15/2009 @ 4:59pm
"(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization...."
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/15/2009 @ 09:10am
Try these for size Wolfie:
(The legality of the Iraq War is a matter both of international law and U.S. Constitutional Law).
1. "From a legal perspective, it is also important to understand the 1991 cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States. Saddam Hussein clearly violated this cease-fire agreement, and thus the 2003 invasion of Iraq can be legally considered a continuation of the war that started in 1991. "
2. "The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002) is a joint resolution (i.e. a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War."
Posted by lrjones4 at 04/15/2009 @ 9:33pm
This piracy business is on the same scale as armed robberies of 7-11 stores. It is a police matter and not the stuff of international crisis. I think that this is just another excuse to get hands on Somalia; armed invasion by Ethiopia having failed. Somalia is a major irritant to international goverance because they have the cheek to not have a central government. It amounts to a functioning anarchy - which is a existentional threat to all other central governments. They cannot abide a group of people functioning without a central government. A central government capable of making deals with international corporations, the IMF, etc. So expect to see a lot of hoopla about this "piracy threat", but be aware that the real threat is the possibility that a country can operate without a strong centralized government. Somali, in so many words, has no reigning criminal franchise, with which to cut deals with.
Posted by rvajs at 04/16/2009 @ 07:29am
Posted by rvajs at 04/16/2009 @ 07:29am
Wow! We should study the Somalia model of non-government. The people there seem to be doing so well.
Is there anything that is off-limits to idiotic conspiracy theories?
Posted by gangpapist at 04/16/2009 @ 10:24am
gangpapist, I am not offering a "idiotic conspiracy theory"; I am making an observation of facts. I dare say Somalia is getting along swimmingly without a central government compared to other African countries blessed with a strong central government e.g. Zimbabwe, Sudan, etc.
Posted by rvajs at 04/16/2009 @ 10:58am
Wow! We should study the Somalia model of non-government. The people there seem to be doing so well.----Posted by gangpapist at 04/16/2009 @ 10:24am
gang, they simply took the Grover Norquist model and "drowned it in the bathtub".
Posted by Mask at 04/16/2009 @ 11:01am
Posted by gangpapist at 04/16/2009 @ 10:24am
Hey, the pirates have cell phones. Could this be participatory democracy? Are we witnessing the emergence of a society the world can be proud of?
Out west here some of our greatest ranch families started out by rustling a few cattle.(A capital offense at the time) Cut em a little slack, dude.
Posted by Sorelish at 04/16/2009 @ 11:03am
It's certainly alright with me, Robert, if you want to forget those Somali Pirates, but it's an entirely different and important matter that we remember and keep our eyes on the Private Equity Pirates (and their partners, the Hedge Fund Whores) --- since these are the pirates that can really 'keel haul' our whole world.
Somali pirates vs. Private Equity Pirates:
One can always tell when an issue has reached the height of absurdity, banality, and vacuousness -- when Glenn Beck gets involved.
To put the pirates to a useful task all we have to do is convince them to keel haul Beck and Rush-flab.
In all seriousness, the private equity pirates cause five orders of magnitude more harm to the world (and the ‘commonwealth' of our world's human economy) than these Somali pirates ever could.
If there is to be any ‘rope dancing' from the yard arm it should start with the ruling-elite ‘corporate financial Empire' that controls our country behind the facade of their two-party ‘Vichy' sham of democracy, aided by paid ‘Vichy' radical right wing-nut media, starting with Black-beard Murdoch, Rush-slush, and Beck the peck(er).
Most people don't seem to realize that the ruling-elite Empire is taking Jay Gould's advice ("I can hire half the working class to kill the other half") -- but now the elitist Empire saves money by just hiring a few peons and morons like Beck and Rush to incite half the impressionable American's to fight the other half, and blame it on the government, which is the only democratic instrument standing in the way of a total corporate take-over.
Alan MacDonald Sanford, Maine
Posted by amacd at 04/16/2009 @ 1:58pm
Democracynow.org, a real news network, interviewed an author who wrote a book about the two piracies - the first being the illegal shipping, fishing and waste dumping by European countries in the Somalian Sea.
The Somalian government has spoken out against and the UN has opiniated against the Euros for their piracy, but to no avail.
I agree that this is a so typical, lazy, US media frenzy. But, it would be appropriate to list all the pirates, not just those that are using piracy to defend their country.
Posted by LarryB at 04/16/2009 @ 3:27pm
Posted by amacd at 04/16/2009 @ 1:58pm
Another wingnut chimes in.
"The Somalian government has spoken out against and the UN has opiniated against the Euros for their piracy, but to no avail. I agree that this is a so typical, lazy, US media frenzy. But, it would be appropriate to list all the pirates, not just those that are using piracy to defend their country." Posted by LarryB at 04/16/2009 @ 3:27pm
I'm sorry, but how are the Euros pirates? Pirates take stuff. Do you mean they are litterbugs? Litterbugs leave stuff.
And, how are the pirates defending their country by attacking merchant ships steaming 200 miles offshore?
Posted by twillie at 04/16/2009 @ 10:17pm
So, who has the movie rights?
Posted by fwhite at 04/17/2009 @ 3:56pm
So, who has the movie rights<a hrtef="http://www.yahoo.com">.</a>
Posted by sommoP at 04/17/2009 @ 5:23pm
Both piracy and illegal ocean dumping are symptoms of a weak govermnent leading to anarchy and contempt for civilized behavior.
Posted by mickyboy212 at 04/17/2009 @ 6:10pm
Here are a couple of practical points some posters might keep in mind. First, treaties are made to be broken - always have been, always will be. Second, court rulings, whether equitable or legal, are worthless unless the court can enforce them. (Otherwise the Spanish courts could simply order the Somali pirates to stop pirating and the pirates would stop pirating. Or better, the couirt could just order Kim Jong Il to straighten up and fly right!) Third, it is only the losers who are hauled before the bar in international criminal matters and only after they have been rendered impotent anyway. It makes the winners feel good to get vengeance. The desire for vengeance is prompting some to see this as the time to go after Geo. Bush and members of his administration. They are out of power now and impotent.
Posted by jsens at 04/19/2009 @ 12:40pm