Posts Tagged ‘Glenn Greenwald’

Wikileaks just released 90,000 pages of classified documents from the Afghanistan War that chronicle six years (for more information on Wikileaks and this specific leak, click here. The documents were sent to The New York Times, the British newspaper The Guardian and the German magazine Der Spiegel, likely for maximum exposure. The documents show that we have been mislead (click this link for loads of information and pieces of the leaks) about the progress being made, which is no surprise. From the New York Times:

The documents — some 92,000 reports spanning parts of two administrations from January 2004 through December 2009 — illustrate in mosaic detail why, after the United States has spent almost $300 billion on the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban are stronger than at any time since 2001.

As the new American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David H. Petraeus, tries to reverse the lagging war effort, the documents sketch a war hamstrung by an Afghan government, police force and army of questionable loyalty and competence, and by a Pakistani military that appears at best uncooperative and at worst to work from the shadows as an unspoken ally of the very insurgent forces the American-led coalition is trying to defeat.

The fact that Pakistan is suspected (more…)

Canadian and Syrian citizen Maher Arar was in the U.S. on his way home from a vacation in 2003. The U.S. was acting on bad intelligence given to them by Canada. Arar was treated harshly while in U.S. custody, lied to about what would happen to him, his attorney was lied to, and he was eventually transferred to Syria, which he pleaded against because he believed he would be tortured.

Turns out he was right. For ten months he suffered (read bottom of link for details, many of the links from Glenn Greenwald’s article) in horrible conditions and was tortured.

After ten months, the Syrians finally figured out he had no connection to terrorism and returned him to Canada. Canada had a government commission review the case and found both the Canadian and American governments were clearly in the wrong. Canada’s Prime Minister personally and publicly apologized and Arar received about $9 million for what he endured. Though a few lawmakers have apologized, America’s government has not.

I bring this up because Arar’s suit against the U.S. government has died. The Supreme Court has refused to hear his appeal of a lower court’s decision that he has no grounds to sue. Extraordinary rendition, woo, I guess.

Both the Bush and Obama administrations have argued they cannot be held accountable for our actions because of state secrets, or some such garbage. It is no secret that this innocent man was detained, sent to Syria, and tortured.

So the message here is that the United States government can just snag whoever they want, have them tortured for months, and there are no consequences for their actions and no remedy for the victims. When you make a decision to do horrible things like this, the least you could do is commit to at least trying to make things right when you f up so bad.

Imagine you are not at all involved in terrorism, are detained, lied to, sent to Syria, tortured for months, probably think you’re going to die, nearly do from being malnourished and mistreated, finally return home, have public knowledge that you have done no wrong, then the government that did this to you accepts no responsibility and takes no action, doesn’t even apologize. Actually imagine that. Absolutely ridiculous.

So many people talk about accountability for actions in this country. It’s often used as a way to justify cutting social programs. But when it comes to torturing an innocent dude, all that accountability talk goes out the window.

What’s ever going to stop things like this from happening if there are never consequences?

Enjoy you rights, which only apply when it’s convenient.

Adam Feser

Glenn Greenwald yet again has a solid article. This one is about the game some Democrats are playing.

The example he uses is provided by Jay Rockefeller. Rockefeller said in the past that he would fight for a public option because it is the right thing. “I will not relent on that. That’s the only way to go.” He said that.

But he said this when it passing the public option seemed impossible. It was a way for him to appease liberals while not actually doing anything.

Now there is a chance to do something. Through reconciliation Democrats could avoid a filibuster and pass reform with a public option. Guess what Rockefeller says now: “I don’t think the timing of it is very good. I’m probably not going to vote for that.”

Greenwald has an imaginary conversation that sort of sums up what is frustrating about the whole deal:

Progressives: We want a public option!

Democrats/WH: We agree with you totally! Unfortunately, while we have 50 votes for it, we just don’t have 60, so we can’t have it. Gosh darn that filibuster rule.

Progressives: But you can use reconciliation like Bush did so often, and then you only need 50 votes.

Filbuster reform advocates/Obama loyalists: Hey progressives, don’t be stupid! Be pragmatic. It’s not realistic or Serious to use reconciliation to pass health care reform. None of this their fault. It’s the fault of the filibuster. The White House wishes so badly that it could pass all these great progressive bills, but they’re powerless, and they just can’t get 60 votes to do it.

[Month later]

Progressives: Hey, great! Now that you’re going to pass the bill through reconciliation after all, you can include the public option that both you and we love, because you only need 50 votes, and you’ve said all year you have that!

Democrats/WH: No. We don’t have 50 votes for that (look at Jay Rockefeller). Besides, it’s not the right time for the public option. The public option only polls at 65%, so it might make our health care bill — which polls at 35% — unpopular. Also, the public option and reconciliation are too partisan, so we’re going to go ahead and pass our industry-approved bill instead . . . on a strict party line vote.

So when Dr asks why the polls are so low, I think this helps explain it. Liberal voters are starting to realize the game. We finally won and the winners promised to make a difference. We’ve gotten nothing but excuses in return.

Enjoy American hockey’s continued domination.

Adam Feser

Glenn Greenwald has an interesting article about how many on the right have a double standard regarding human rights depending on whose rights are in question.

The piece starts by looking at the situation of the Baptists that tried sneaking a bunch of children out of Haiti. What they were doing was obviously illegal, and they knew it. Though it is assumed they were just trying to help some children, some of those children had living parents. There is also the possibility that their act was more heinous, involving child trafficking. It could also be they just thought they would save some kids by making them Christians. But it was illegal.

What Greenwald finds interesting is that Kathryn Jean Lopez of the National Review wrote an article bemoaning the conditions of one of the detained. The article even cites the Human Rights Watch’s description of the conditions. The same author and magazine have repeatedly badmouthed the Human Rights Watch for its reports on all of the abuses committed by the U.S. in its prosecution of the War on Terror, often questioning its credibility.

Greenwald then brings up three Christian terrorist who were defended by pro-torture, anti-human rights writers who suddenly found a conscience. Michelle Malkin discusses fair trials and and international human rights convention as though she were a liberal nut job. She had previously claimed a concern for the due process of terrorists actually makes you pro-terrorist, so I guess she became pro-terrorist?

As Glenn puts it:

The very same people who have been demanding for years that Muslims be imprisoned for life, tortured and killed with no trials or charges of any kind suddenly become extremely sensitive to the nuances of due process and humane detention conditions — they start sounding like Amnesty International civil liberties extremists — the minute it’s a Christian, rather than a Muslim, who is subjected to such treatment.

I don’t have a problem with anyone sticking up for the human rights of the Baptists. I hope they receive a fair trial. I don’t have a problem with anyone questioning the fairness of a trial for suspected terrorists. But I do have a problem when human rights are only considered when it’s someone of the same religion or country. At this point they cease being human rights.

If someone truly believes human rights are only applicable to their preferred group, it dehumanizes all of us. If you’re going to support fair trials for suspected terrorists, you should do that no matter what the circumstances. If you’re going to make a plea for detention conditions in line with human rights, do it across the board. You can’t be okay with this but consider a detainee only being allowed one call to his wife a huge abuse.

There is nothing more un-American than applying freedoms and rights based on color and creed.

Enjoy the Winter Olympics (yawn).

Adam Feser

This could be the real significance of last week’s invitation. What’s being interpreted, for now, as an intra-Christian skirmish may eventually be remembered as the first step toward a united Anglican-Catholic front — not against liberalism or atheism, but against Christianity’s most enduring and impressive foe.

I need to put that quote from Douthat’s most recent op-ed in the New York Times in context so it makes sense. Douthat sees Pope Benedict’s move to bring Anglicans in England back to the Catholic Church not as an attempt at Christian unity or an effort to increase the size of the Catholic Church. Douthat believes it was done so that Christianity is better equipped to stand against “Christianity’s most enduring and impressive foe,” which is Islam.

“Wait,” you say. “I don’t get it. I thought you were going to put that quote into context so it would make sense, but that makes absolutely no sense.” I agree. That makes no sense to me.

Part of the evidence he uses to support this claim is that the Pope said, three years ago, that Islam may not be compatible with the Western way of reason. So non-Catholics that want to take an active role against 1.5 billion of the world’s population will join the Catholic Church for holy war.

Seriously? Glenn Greenwald has a response to this op-ed. He points out how ridiculous it is to turn to a group that believes in papal infallibility, tries to keep birth control out of areas of poverty, AIDS, and overpopulation. The main point is that religious extremism in general isn’t in line with Western reason. Greenwald points out that the Texas GOP wishes to criminalize all sex between homosexual adults (among several other things). Also, are torture, rendition, and non-prosecution in line with Western reason?

Then you have to wonder just how Douthat thinks Christians will meet this “challenge.” What exactly is he advocating? Kicking them out of Europe? Making their religion illegal? It seems like anything he would be advocating would go against Western reason.

Enjoy holy war, I guess.

Adam Feser

You may remember the story of David Rohde, an author and investigative journalist. He, his driver, and his translator were taken captive by the Taliban while doing research for a book Rohde was to write. They were eventually able to escape. He is now writing about the experience, with parts 1 and 2 being printed. There will eventually be 5 parts, and I will post them all.

His account of their time in captivity is horrifying and enlightening. He decided to interview a member of the Taliban in order to have their perspective as information for his book. He found a willing leader that was widely trusted. The kidnapping and fears associated with it are terrifying. Then he tells about his attempts ensure their survival and how he often doubted it. It shapes up to be a big roller-coaster. There are Taliban guards that seem more moderate and others that seem far gone. He needed to get promises from the moderate to protect against the others. Part 1 covers that kidnapping and immediate time after. Part 2 discusses transfers to various places (Afghanistan to Pakistan and moves in between) and more of their interplay with the guards.

Part 1
Part 2

There is a lot of interesting dialogue with the guards. There seems to be the part of them that is governed by reason, which is illustrated by their arguments against the West that are factual, then the part that is completely crazy, shown by their conspiracy theories. I wonder how many recruits to groups such as the Taliban originally join due to facts then become indoctrinated.

Rohde has an interesting insight on the factual portion of their arguments:

To Americans, these episodes were aberrations. To my captors, they were proof that the United States was a hypocritical and duplicitous power that flouted international law.

This quote can sort of sum up how we view things differently than much of the rest of the world. Glenn Greenwald has an article about Rohde’s series and about the question of perspective.

I thought I should share this because this story is amazing. Knowing he escaped makes this look inside captivity by radicals easier to take, though we know many captives haven’t been so lucky.

Enjoy the story.

Adam Feser