SEN. BIDEN PROPOSES NEW FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS PAKISTAN

Sen. Joe Biden has released his new policy towards Pakistan. What I like about it is that it avoids helping Pakistan militarize, and instead it concentrates on non-military aid to help the people of Pakistan in their everyday needs. It is not a Musharraf policy but a Pakistan policy. It is focused on the people, not merely on its leader.

For purposes of disclosure, I have contributed to Sen. Biden's campaign, as well as to that of Sen. Obama, Dodd and Edwards.

Sen. Biden describes the elements of his plan:

"Here are the four elements of this new strategy.

"First, triple non-security aid, to $1.5 billion annually. For at least a decade. This aid would be unconditioned: it's our pledge to the Pakistani people. Instead of funding military hardware, it would build schools, clinics, and roads.

"Second, condition security aid on performance. We should base our security aid on clear results. We're now spending well over $1 billion annually, and it's not clear we're getting our money's worth. I'd spend more if we get better returns--and less if we don't.

"Third, help Pakistan enjoy a "democracy dividend." The first year of democratic rule should bring an additional $1 billion -- above the $1.5 billion non-security aid baseline. And I would tie future non-security aid -- again, above the guaranteed baseline -- to Pakistan's progress in developing democratic institutions and meeting good-governance norms.

"Fourth, engage the Pakistani people, not just their rulers. This will involve everything from improved public diplomacy and educational exchanges to high impact projects that actually change people's lives."

What I like is the emphasis on schools, clinics and roads. Also educational exchanges and high impact projects that change people's lives.

Instead of more Bush/Cheney militarism and threats of bombs and missiles, Biden has come up with an alternative using friendship and diplomacy.

AMERICAN DIPLOMACY NEEDS TO ESCAPE NARCISSISM

I would like to point my readers to The Nation magazine for the current issue (November 19, 2007) devoted to American foreign policy, especially to the article by Anatol Lieven, "Relearning the Art of Diplomacy."

Lieven looks at American "diplomacy" and finds it sophomoric and narcissistic. As if diplomacy meant just dictating your ideas to the other side, and they better accept it or else! Lieven quotes John Edwards in his essay in the September/October Foreign Affairs.

"We must reengage with our history of courage, liberty and generosity. We must reengage with our tradition of moral leadership on issues ranging from the killings in Darfur to global poverty and climate change. We must reengage with our allies on critical security issues, including terrorism, the Middle East, and nuclear proliferation. With confidence and resolve, we must reengage with those who pose a security threat to us, from Iran to North Korea. And our government must reengage with the American people to restore our nation's reputation as a moral beacon to the world, tapping into our fundamental hope and optimism and calling on our citizens' commitment and courage to make this possible. We must lead the world by demonstrating the power of our ideals, not by stoking fear about those who do not share them."

The Lieven gives his stinging observation:

"It is only at a second reading--by someone outside the mainstream US discourse--that the intense narcissism of Edwards' intellectual approach becomes apparent. The talk is all of re-engaging with our history, our hope and optimism and our courage. Once the United States has done so, it is taken for granted that first US allies, and then the rest of the world, will once again admire America as a "moral beacon" and accept America's leadership of the world."

For purposes of full disclosure, I have contributed to the John Edwards campaign, as well as to that of Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and Barack Obama.

But I must agree with Anatol Lieven that the comments of Edwards are juvenile and egocentric, concerned with only our side. Like some eight year old arguing about which baseball team is better. Has America ever considered that there are other countries in the world who have aspirations and goals that may not coincide exactly with its own? Our diplomacy illustrates Americans' narrow-mindedness and lack of tolerance for the other. This is perfectly illustrated by George Bush who constantly is preaching to other countries on what they should or should not do. The sad conclusion is that the Democratic candidates are hardly any better when it comes to putting away American exceptionalism and engaging in true and open debate even with those countries or entities that publicly criticize the U.S., for example, Iran or even Hamas.

MUSHARRAF AFRAID OF PAKISTAN SUPREME COURT AND PAKISTANI LAWYERS

This whole Musharraf affair aims squarely at overturning the judiciary and negating the lawyers of Pakistan. Musharraf claims he had to declare martial law and suspend the Pakistan Constitution because of the threat of terrorism. That's transparently false. He has just wanted to avoid an adverse decision of the Pakistan Supreme Court barring him from holding the presidency at the same time as he is the head of the Army. Musharraf fears the judiciary and lawyers of Pakistan.

However, to hear George Bush dictate to another country what it must and must not do is sickening. Bush tells Musharraf to restore constitutional rights, yet Bush himself has violated the U.S. Constitution continuously during his presidency. (Thanks to Think Progress. org for initially pointing out the hypocrisies.) Consider the Bush violations of: the Fourth Amendment by stealing telephone records and by eavesdropping without a valid warrant issued by an independent judge or magistrate; the Eighth Amendment by inflicting torture and other cruel punishments on prisoners suspected of being terrorists; the Fifth Amendment by denying due process to the prisoners at Guantanamo and others. Bush loves to dictate to others but as for himself he should be brought up on criminal charges for the constitutional violations he has committed.

WHERE IS EVIDENCE TO BACK UP CHARGES THAT IRAN IS SUPPLYING IEDS?

In today's The Washington Post, Robin Wright reports that the U.S. will free nine Iranians captured in Iraq and accused of fomenting trouble on what seems trumped-up charges.

"The status of the captured Iranians is so sensitive -- both diplomatically and militarily -- that their status has been reviewed all the way up to the White House. The decision to release nine Iranians reflects a shift in position. Last month, Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the top commander of day-to-day operations in Iraq, said he would recommend that the five Iranians captured in Irbil not be released.

"Militarily, we should hold on to them," he told reporters and editors at The Washington Post on Oct. 5. But last week, Odierno said there had been a sharp decline in one type of the roadside bombs, the so-called explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs. The heavy metal projectile that makes up the penetrator strikes with speed and power to shatter through the steel of armored Humvees."

We all know that the detention of the Iranians is just political shenanigans originating from the Bush/Cheney antipathy towards Iran. There has been no proof that these Iranian captives did anything wrong in Iraq. Most of them are diplomats invited into Iraq by Iraqi Premier Al-Maliki. Yet the United States went out of its way to grab them in January and hold them for more than nine months.

Writes Robin Wright:

"But the announcement also came as officials announced that five U.S. troops were killed by roadside bombs believed to have originated in Iran (emphasis added), which raised the U.S. combat death toll this year to 851 2 -- making it the deadliest year yet for the U.S. military, according to the Web site icasualties.org, which tracks military casualties. In 2004, 849 U.S. troops were killed."

I object to Robin Wright's unfounded assertions in her report that it is commonly believed that Iran is supplying IEDs and EFPs. Robin Wright is too ready to put credence in unsubstantiated claims of Bush/Cheney and the U.S. generals that Iran is supplying roadside bombs. She writes in today's story.


I ask on what basis the generals believe the bombs originated in Iran and were provided by Iran? Where is the evidence for the world to see? So far there has been no believable evidence. This campaign is just trying to lay blame on Iran for screw-ups of Bush in his unjustified war against Iraq. Anyone can fashion these explosive devices. All that is needed is some modern tool and die. There are probably thousands of workshops in Baghdad that can fashion them and supply them to insurgents.

Bush is trying to salvage his tattered reputation by blaming outsiders for the mess he has made.
I object to Robin Wright mouthing and repeating the talking points that Iran is to blame.

MUKASEY AFFAIRE SHOWS THAT SOME SENATORS CONDONE WATERBOARDING

I received this e-mail today from a friend on the Mukasey affaire. The author has given me permission to share it with my blog readers:

"Bush's nominee for Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, has refused to say whether waterboarding is torture. This guy was a federal judge (a life time appointment) and he says he doesn't know what waterboarding is and therefore he can't say whether it's torture or not. If we assume that he is being honest, i.e., he doesn't know what waterboarding, that leaves a lot to be desired in a "jurist." Even a high school student, without the benefit of knowledge of history, who has watched TV or read any newspapers over the past few years, is very likely to know what waterboarding is. And if Mukasey doesn't know that, then should we have an Attorney General who is that ignorant of the current issues.

"Of course, it's hard for me to believe that Mukasey doesn't know, it is more likely that he is covering for the Bush team who is perhaps afraid that this legal minutiae could at a later date save them from criminal prosecutions. Whatever his motives, it doesn't bode well for our society when have a nominee for Attorney General who doesn't know anything to replace an Attorney General who just couldn't remember anything.

"However, what is even more alarming than Bush nominating Mukasey is that democratic Senators Schumer and Feinstein have thrown their weight behind his confirmation. Senator Schumer said, "the best we can hope for is someone who will rebuild the Justice Department and remain independent, even when pressured by this Administration." Rebuild the Justice Department to do what?—Condone waterboarding, so we can now tell the world that our highest law enforcement official doesn't think waterboarding is torture and thus sending a signal to the torturers that it is not illegal, at least, not under his leadership at the Justice Department.

"Senator Schumer has put his own ego (he had suggested Mukasey to Bush) and in a face saving exercise condoned waterboarding. So much for checks from democrats on Executive power, and so much for standing up for what is right.

"Let's all tell Senators Schumer and Feinstein that waterboarding is torture, and torture is not an American or human value. Phone numbers for the Senators are: Feinstein: (202) 224-3841 and Schumer (202) 224-8542."

GEN. MUSHARRAF DISMISSES CHIEF JUSTICE, IMPOSES MARTIAL LAW

Gen. Pervaez Musharraf finally beat the Pakistani Supreme Court. Dismissing Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, the Chief Justice, before the court could rule that Musharraf could not be both president and head of the army under the Pakistani Constitution, Musharraf declared martial rule and appointed his own people to be justices on the Supreme Court.

The BBC reports:

" . . . [R]esentment is brewing among the judges of the higher judiciary. More than 60 judges, out of a total of 97, have declined to take oath under the new Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO).

"Their homes have been placed under strict security, presumably to prevent them from going to the courts on Monday, as some of them plan to do.

"In a hurriedly-called sitting on Saturday evening, seven Supreme Court judges issued an order barring the government from proclaiming emergency rule, and advising the state functionaries not to carry out emergency orders, if issued."

No wonder lawyers have taken to the street to resist Musharraf's destruction of the rule of law in Pakistan. Because Musharraf did not like the decision that he feared from the Supreme Court, he simply dismissed the justices and appointed those he knows would rule in his favor.

Writes the BBC:

"This order is likely to be used by the leaders of the lawyers' movement to mobilise agitation against the government. An act of defiance by the judges could further exacerbate the situation.
"The lawyers' movement emerged in March when Gen Musharraf tried to remove the country's Chief Justice, Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, from his post."

U.S. COURTS FIND WATERBOARDING "TORTURE"

Evan Wallach writes in today's The Washington Post on waterboarding. This is a must read article. Wallach is a judge on the U.S. Court of International Trade and a former JAG in the Nevada National Guard.

Wallach writes on the history of waterboarding as practiced on and by U.S. troops and the judgment of U.S. courts on those who practiced it. Writes Wallach:

"Here's the testimony of two Americans imprisoned by the Japanese:

""They would lash me to a stretcher then prop me up against a table with my head down. They would then pour about two gallons of water from a pitcher into my nose and mouth until I lost consciousness.

"And from the second prisoner:

""They laid me out on a stretcher and strapped me on. The stretcher was then stood on end with my head almost touching the floor and my feet in the air. . . . They then began pouring water over my face and at times it was almost impossible for me to breathe without sucking in water.

"As a result of such accounts, a number of Japanese prison-camp officers and guards were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war. They were not the only defendants convicted in such cases. As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the "water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas."

Concludes Wallach:

"We know that U.S. military tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they constituted torture. That's a lesson worth learning. The study of law is, after all, largely the study of history. The law of war is no different. This history should be of value to those who seek to understand what the law is -- as well as what it ought to be."

SCHUMER AND FEINSTEIN SUPPORT MUKASEY AS A.G.

It's hard to know where to begin on the sordid Mukasey/Schumer/Feinstein affaire. Mukasey refuses to say whether he believes waterboarding is torture. Yet Feinstein and Schumer announce their support for him as AG.

We might as well support the medieval church inquisitors and all the other torturers throughout the ages. I had thought that the French Enlightenment once and for all established the intellectual condemnation and prohibition of torture in all its cruel manifestations. I guess I was wrong.

And these torturers are not merely limited to George Bush, Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld. Read the statements of some of the Republican candidates, such as Giuliani, Romney and Thompson, supporting these methods of "interrogation" and in Romney's case, Guantanamo. We can gauge how medieval and thwarted their Republican attitude towards life and "democracy" really is.

Surely the Mukasey affaire is not one of America's finest hours.

DON'T FORCE STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES TO GO TO IRAQ

The State Department professionals who object being assigned to the embassy in Baghdad are putting the lie to the Bush/Petraeus spin that things are going swimmingly in Iraq. As one employee said, assignment to Iraq is like a death sentence.

Ambassador Ryan Crocker says it is the duty of State Department foreign service employees to put the nation's interest over their own personal safety. This sounds nice to say, but let's not forget, Ryan Crocker, qua ambassador, is accompanied wherever he goes by those Blackwater thugs. And he probably sleeps in a triply fortified bedroom in the embassy. Whereas the ordinary foreign service chump is subject to mortars and suicide bombers at every turn.

If the State Department insists on forcing unwilling employees to Iraq, then Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice should also do a turn of duty there. No trips alllowed back to the U.S. or to destinations outside Iraq for at least the first six months.

BUSH & CHENEY COULD FACE CHARGES OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY FOR ORDERING WATERBOARDING

Today's The New York Times has a story by Scott Shane and David Stout on the reluctance of Judge Michael Mukasey to admit what everyone else in the whole world already knows - that waterboarding is nothing else than torture and always has been since it was dreamt up to get information from captured enemy soldiers, spies, heretics et al.

Write Shane and Stout:

"Jack L. Goldsmith, who served in the Justice Department in 2003 and 2004, wrote in his recent memoir, “The Terror Presidency,” that the possibility of future prosecution for aggressive actions against terrorism was a constant worry inside the Bush administration.

"“I witnessed top officials and bureaucrats in the White House and throughout the administration openly worrying that investigators, acting with the benefit of hindsight in a different political environment, would impose criminal penalties on heat-of-battle judgment calls,” Mr. Goldsmith wrote."

So top officials and White House bureaucrats are worried that they may be subject to criminal prosecution for ordering waterboarding because it is clearly a form of torture? If they were so worried about future charges brought against them, they must have realized before they ordered agents to use waterboarding that it was illegal as well as reprehensible and immoral.

Shane and Stout write:

"Scott L. Silliman, an expert on national security law at Duke University School of Law, said any statement by Mr. Mukasey that waterboarding was illegal torture “would open up Pandora’s box,” even in the United States. Such a statement from an attorney general would override existing Justice Department legal opinions and create intense pressure from human rights groups to open a criminal investigation of interrogation practices, Mr. Silliman said.

"“You would ask not just who carried it out, but who specifically approved it,” said Mr. Silliman, director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke. “Theoretically, it could go all the way up to the president of the United States; that’s why he’ll never say it’s torture,” Mr. Silliman said of Mr. Mukasey."

We have a possibility here that even Mr. George Bush as well as Mr. Dick Cheney could be very well brought up on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. This is why they are so afraid of the new AG nominee saying what everyone else knows, that waterboarding is a form of torture. They live in fear that successive administrations and foreign countries will arrest them and make them face charges on their un-American actions.