American hypocrisy on extradition

By Frank Moraes 

Glenn Greenwald wrote a very insightful article the other day on the hypocrisy of the United States government and and media. It circled around this business of Obama calling off the summit with Vladimir Putin. The White House gave a number of reasons for this including the fact that Russia is persecuting homosexuals. But everyone excepts the fact that it is just that Russia was given Edward Snowden temporary asylum.

Since when did the United States government give a flying fuck about the treatment of the powerless anywhere, even in the United States. After all, it was only last year that Obama "evolved" on the issue of gay marriage. As it is, Obama is perfectly fine with locking up cannabis and cocaine users for decades at a time -- even though he has quite publicly admitting to doing the same thing himself. So it's all about Snowden, because if there is one thing that the administration does care about, it is punishing whistleblowers, or as Obama calls them, "people involved in espionage."

Greenwald noted that the United States and Russian do not have an extradition treaty. So Putin isn't doing anything unusual, much less illegal. But guess who the United States does have an extradition treaty with? Italy. And yet, our great nation of laws broke its treaty when the Italian government asked for the extradition of Robert Lady and other CIA operatives who were convicted in absentia of kidnapping for the purpose of torture. And last year, the United States refused to extradite Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada to face genocide charges in Bolivia. And a couple of years before that, we wouldn't extradite terrorist Luis Posada Carriles to Venezuela.

But we need to have our priorities. These three examples are only kidnapping for the purpose of torture, genocide, and terrorism. Snowden is accused to leaking potentially embarrassing documents. And let us not forget, these three men only harmed poor and weak people. Snowden annoyed some very powerful people. That's the kind of crime that must be punished!

Meanwhile, the press is right there to stoke anger at Russia without providing any context. Even last night's The Daily Show was on it. But more generally, the media have gone out of their way to attack Snowden and put what he's done in the worst possible light. Check out this great argument between Greenwald and James Risen against the entirely typical mainstream apologetics of Jeffrey Toobin. Note how Toobin's arguments devolve into, "You gotta be kidding me!" Because all right-thinking journalists know that the government is always right. And notice also that Piers Morgan is only one tiny step more reasonable than Toobin:


So we continue on with the United States government acting like the corrupt super power that it is. Meanwhile the media spew out their usual happy talk about how we are all good and the evil Russian government just won't follow the law. I grew up during the Cold War. One of the things that we celebrated was that we had a free press whereas the Soviet Union had the government run Pravda. But even then, our press provided one-sided news that rarely came close to the truth. It is the same now -- at least if you get your "news" from the television. 

Afterword 

Jeffrey Toobin's claim is that it is great that we are talking about all of this stuff. Additionally, he admits that we are only discussing this stuff because of Edward Snowden. But he thinks that Snowden is a criminal who shouldn't have leaked the documents. James Risen counted him (and most in the mainstream press), "That's the thing I don't understand about the climate in Washington these days. People want to have debates on television and elsewhere. But then you want to throw the people who start the debates in jail." Morgan bails out Toobin by immediately pushing a straw man, "Is there no limit?!"

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Read More

The adult in the room

By Carl 

The interesting dynamic that is the relationship between Obama and Putin has a new twist, and it's one we should welcome: 

On Wednesday evening, when U.S. President Obama cancelled his upcoming visit to Moscow, the Russian reaction was perhaps most clear in the way that Vesti, the state's main propaganda TV channel, conveyed it on the channel’s website. Buried about half way down on the page, underneath a story about Russian tourists in Turkey, Vesti announced: "The invitation for Obama stands." Beside that was the somewhat diversionary headline: "Barack Obama will travel to St. Petersburg for the G20 summit." The actual news — that Obama had decided not to meet with his Russian counterpart before, after or during the G20 summit in St. Petersburg next month — was clearly not something the official spin doctors wanted to advertise.

After a year spent honing their anti-American rhetoric — on issues ranging from the adoption of Russian children to missile defense in Europe and the civil war in Syria — the Kremlin message makers were suddenly eager to claim that President Vladimir Putin didn't really mean for things to go this far. "Sure, Putin uses this rhetoric, but it's not so much anti-American as anti-Euro-Atlantic," says Evgeny Minchenko, a Kremlin-connected political strategist. "And keep in mind that he has tried to stop short of a head-on collision."

So, shorter Kremlin: Holy fuck, he's not that idiot Bushy BooshBoosh! 

Indeed, he is not. And he's not going to kowtow to the likes of a tin-plated moron who trades offices like a Southern governor.

Putin has played the U.S. since at least 9/11, using our War on Terror as cover for all kinds of sins in Georgia and Chechnya, and let's not forget the 130 Russians who died in a terrorist standoff in a Moscow theater.

Yes, this is the guy Edward Snowden wants protecting him, but won't give up secrets to. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Keep in mind that, as Bush pursued a unilateral American foreign policy with healthy servings of imperial aggression, without engagement or advisement from what could have been its strongest ally in fighting terrorists, Putin took both offense and advantage of Bush's narrowed focus to become an active player in the Arab and Muslim world, particularly as the development of the Russian natural gas industry saw Russia become a major player in the energy field that previously had been dominated by the OPEC nations.


Putin began to develop ties to Venezuela, Syria, and North Korea, partly to further their own energy markets but also to assist them, it seems, in keeping America occupied. Our response?

To place a ballistic missile system in 2007 along the Polish border, nominally to protect against, errrr, Iranian and North Korean missiles.

This provocative move came a few short years after Bush removed us, again, unilaterally, from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaties in 2002.

While I cannot and will not defend Putin's responses to any of these actions, in hindsight his motivation becomes clear: he saw a new Cold War starting up. I'm not sure that was an unjustified position to take. 

So here comes Obama, tasked with both maintaining the façade of those missiles being vital to American security, while having to defuse Russian imperial ambition and coax (or bully) them on board with regards to Syria and Iran, and possibly North Korea.

Is ignoring a summit opportunity the way to go? Keep in mind that both Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel will still be meeting with their Russian counterparts as part of the G-20 Summit and that both Obama and Putin will have opportunities to communicate, possibly even privately, while in St. Petersburg. So it ain't over yet. The message is sent. Let's see how Russia responds. As indicated by the Time magazine article, the signs are hopeful.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Read More

Bush 2.0

By Frank Moraes 

(Ed. note: For my take on Obama's "end of the war on terror" speech, see here. I thought it was, in general, a thoughtful, intelligent speech that addressed, without entirely disregarding, my progressive concerns, and I applaud him for presenting a serious understanding of the complexities of the world and America's place in it, as well as for encouraging a broad discussion of national security, but he's got an awful lot to prove after more than four years of continuing, and in some cases worsening, the Bush-Cheney national security state. The rhetoric was there, but, then, the rhetoric's often there with him. The question is where he actually goes from here and whether there will actually be meaningful change, and of course whether that change actually puts an end to endless war and largely unlimited executive power. -- MJWS)

In general, I like caveats. The world is not a simple place. But that can be taken to extremes, especially by supposedly liberal politicians. The best description I've ever heard of Obama is by Roger Hodge in The Mendacity of Hope, "Obama presents a dizzying series of hands -- on the one and then the other, repeatedly, like some hyper-discursive blue-skinned Hindu deity -- in which he discusses the Bill Clinton wing of the Democratic Party (the wing to which he belongs, but he doesn't really come out and tell us that), which embraces the new economy of advancing pools, even though 'a sizable chuck' of the Democratic base resists the agenda." In other words, Obama is a conservative Democrat but he respects the rest of us who aren't.

After President Obama's speech last week, I didn't know what to make of it. As usual, it sounded very nice. He got all the stuff that I didn't like out of the way at first so he could provide me with a soft landing. But I've been hearing pretty words from Obama for five years and I've been disappointed in his actions for four. On economics, I feel more qualified to cut through his bullshit, but I'm none too clear on the War on Terror, regardless of what the current administration wants to call it. So I have to depend upon more knowledgeable people like Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald to clarify what the truth actually is. So I was very eager to hear what Greenwald had to say, especially given his tardiness in weighing in. Finally, yesterday morning he published "Obama's Terrorism Speech: Seeing What You Want to See."

He started out saying what I've long known, although in this case specific to Obama's speech on Thursday:

If one longed to hear that the end of the "war on terror" is imminent, there are several good passages that will be quite satisfactory. If one wanted to hear that the war will continue indefinitely, perhaps even in expanded form, one could easily have found that. And if one wanted to know that the president who has spent almost five years killing people in multiple countries around the world feels personal "anguish" and moral conflict as he does it, because these issues are so very complicated, this speech will be like a gourmet meal.

He then went on to point out the fundamental purpose of the speech was to calm progressives.

I'm a little more positive than Greenwald. I think it is progress that Obama cares enough to shore up his left flank. Most of his presidency was marked by a total disregard (Or worse!) for his base. Remember Rahm Emanuel calling us "fucking retarded"? That was Obama's chief of staff telling us we were evil and stupid.

But that's a small advance. There is a fundamental problem with all the plaudits Obama got for claiming the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) should be scaled back and eventually repealed. I don't read this as, "Obama wants to repeal the AUMF." I read it as, "Obama wants to tinker with the AUMF while he's in office and then he'll be for repeal after it isn't his to use." He also said, "Unless we discipline our thinking and our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don't need to fight, or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states." As far as I can tell, he's the one with that power and he's the one who chose to use it so intensely.

And let me be very clear: the attempt to mollify liberals with the speech was offensive. To begin with, it was fundamentally the usual (very successful) appeal that, unlike George W. Bush, we can trust Obama. He only kills innocents all over the world after thinking about all of the complexities. What's more, he said, "For me, and those in my chain of command, those deaths will haunt us as long as we live." That's pure horseshit. Unlike Ray "Boom Boom" Mancini, I do not believe that this or any other president loses a moment of sleep over all the killing they do. What's more, as Norman Solomon writes in War Made Easy, presidents always claim to be very concerned about going to war; it is the last thing they ever want to do. The fact that they don't end up killing themselves is either a miracle or an indication that they are lying. Which do you think it is?

Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, and Michael Hastings all agree on one thing: Obama's speech put nice sounding words on top of what is George W. Bush 2.0. And so do I.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Read More

(Not President) McCain goes to Syria (and undermines U.S. policy)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Obviously, the situation in Syria is awful. According to French newspaper Le Monde, a "merciless war" is being waged on the outskirts of Damascus, with the Assad regime using chemical weapons against the rebels.

And, in general, I'm with the rebels. I'd love to see the Assad regime fall and for the Syrian people to be freed from the shackles of that brutal tyranny.

But the question isn't really which side you're on, because obviously most good and decent people want Assad to go, it's how you most appopriately respond to the current situation with the intent of supporting the rebels' goals.

The first question is easy. The second, not so much.

For warmongering conservatives like John McCain, however, it's always all so simple: Where there's a problem, as in Syria, war is the solution, and when some war isn't enough, more, ever more, is always the answer.

When they're in power, war is what we get. And when they're not, like now, they just won't shut up about it.

Yes, McCain has been leading the charge, directed with vengeful venom against the man who beat him for the presidency in 2008, for the U.S. to step up its support for the Syrian rebels as well as to get more directly involved in the conflict. He even made his way to Syria yesterday, meeting with General Salem Idris, the leader of the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army, as well as with other rebel leaders.

On the ground yesterday, he was the United States. Or least he and others wanted it to appear that way. "The visit of Senator McCain to Syria is very important and very useful especially at this time," said Idris. "We need American help to have change on the ground; we are now in a very critical situation."

Yes, of course you are, but here's the thing. John McCain is not the president of the United States. And while you may be upset with what you see as lack of support from President Obama, McCain's self-aggrandizing globe-strutting isn't going to help.

In the end, the rebels may get most of what they want from Obama -- heavy weaponry, a no-fly zone, maybe some strategic airstrikes on Assad's forces, And it may be most of what McCain wants as well, though of course he'll continue to criticize the president no matter what -- you know, because of 2008, and because he thinks he knows better than everyone else.

But the situation in Syria isn't just awful, not least in humanitarian terms, it's incredibly difficult from the perspective of U.S. foreign policy circa 2013, and there's a lot that the president needs to weigh, not least the risk of the U.S. getting embroiled in yet another prolonged conflict in the Middle East.

Obama is the president, after all. He has certain responsibilities. What he does matters. Not so much with McCain, who can go and stand with the rebels and make it seem as if it's all so easy, if only he were president.

And is it not irresponsible, to the say the least, for someone like McCain, a leading opposition figure, to go to Syria instead of, say, Secretary of State John Kerry or Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel? Does it not undermine the U.S. government, with Obama at its head, as well as its policies and objectives, at a time when it is obviously trying to work out the most appropriate response, for McCain to meet with the Syrian rebels?

I'm not saying McCain should not be free to speak his mind, or even to travel internationally. But he does not speak for the U.S. government, and everyone, presumably including the rebels, knows he's one of loudest critics of the Obama Administration's Syria policy. To me, he should keep his criticism to the homefront. If he wants to go on Meet the Press and criticize the president, fine. But taking his criticism on the road to Turkey and Syria? How is that supposed to play internationally? And especially in Syria itself? How are the rebels supposed to take that? Do they think he speaks for the U.S.? If not, do they expect him go back and fight for their interests against Obama, or to sit down with Obama to work things out? Has his visit raised their expectations? Has it lowered their opinion of Obama? Going forward, has he weakened the Obama Administration's position either internationally (say, at the U.N.) or with the rebels?

These are fair questions.

Simply put, John McCain should not have gone to Syria. It's bad enough to be a pompous windbag on the Sunday morning talk shows, quite another to challenge the leadership of the president of the United States, and therefore of the United States itself, in the middle of a crisis beyond America's borders.

Read More

Barack Obama and the end of the War on Terror

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There's a lot to dislike about the way President Obama has handled the so-called war on terror -- the continuation of much of the Bush-Cheney national security state; the kill list and the drone war -- but he showed yesterday in his thoughtful speech at the National Defense University that he understands the nature of the problem -- that is, both the threat to America and the way America responds to that threat -- and recognizes the need for change.

Indeed, as is so often the case with him, what was truly remarkable was not just his intellectual grasp of the enormously complex world beyond America's borders but the maturity with which he was able to explain that complexity to an audience, the broader American and global audience as well as those in attendance, that is demanding answers without really understanding the questions, that is often at odds with itself, and that often wants simplistic solutions. And he laid out a plan for further action that was at once nuanced and crystal clear.

Now, that doesn't mean I agree with all of it. His strenuous defense of the use of drone strikes -- they are effective; they are legal; they save lives -- hardly resolves the matter. The U.S. may be going after terrorists, and Obama may be exercising caution in the use of drones, but the drone war still kills and terrorizes not just those who wish to do America harm but innocents as well, and, of course, there is still the matter of the astonishing amount of power, including over life and death for many -- that has been vested in the office of the president and that Obama has at his disposal. He is certainly right that "[t]o say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance," and that sort of self-reflection is welcome, but it is not clear that the much-ballyhooed "framework" is enough to prevent abuse.

But, look, like this or not, and obviously many on the left do not, Obama said what needed to be said:

America does not take strikes to punish individuals; we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat.  And before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured — the highest standard we can set.

Now, this last point is critical, because much of the criticism about drone strikes — both here at home and abroad — understandably centers on reports of civilian casualties. There's a wide gap between U.S. assessments of such casualties and nongovernmental reports. Nevertheless, it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in every war. And for the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, those deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred throughout conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But as Commander-in-Chief, I must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives. To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties — not just in our cities at home and our facilities abroad, but also in the very places like Sana'a and Kabul and Mogadishu where terrorists seek a foothold. Remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes. So doing nothing is not an option. 

Again, I'm not saying that this is the end of it, that we should just take him at his word, or that it's all good now. Far from it. But this... this is leadership. Like it or not. Agree with him or not. The world is a crazy place and he's the president of the world's most powerful country. The choices aren't always clear, and there's rarely a clear good and a clear evil. Those who criticize him, as I myself have done, should consider what they would do were they burdened with those reponsibilities -- doing what needs to be done to protect the country and its people, and providing leadership both at home and around the world, while also operating within a democratic system at home that is anything but easy to navigate -- what they would do were they sitting in the Oval Office with the final say on what is done.

Of course, huge questions remain: What will come of this "larger discussion we need to have about a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy"? What about these "proposals to extend oversight of lethal actions outside of warzones that go beyond our reporting to Congress"? How will he "[address] the underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism"? How will the U.S. "patiently [support] transitions to democracy in places like Egypt and Tunisia and Libya"? How will he address "the daunting challenge of terrorism from within our borders"? What about the drone war? What about Gitmo? What about the paralysis of hyper-partisanship, mostly from Republicans, in Capitol Hill?

The problem with Obama has always been the gap the separates rhetoric from reality, from action. He talks big, in other words, without always following through. The rhetoric was excellent yesterday. On the one hand, he laid out a plan of action to protect the country and advance its values and objectives while also ending the era of "perpetual war" that continues to plague the country. On the other hand, it was an extremely self-defensive, if also self-aware, speech, and the concern is that it's just a new spin on the same old policies. We shall see.

There's good reason to be cynical when you pay attention to U.S. politics, and maybe I'm just not in the mood for such cynicism. Certainly I have often given Obama the benefit of the doubt throughout his presidency, and maybe I still want to have hope, to believe that meaningful change is possible. But there's no denying that what he brings to the job is mature, thoughtful leadership -- and, yes, you can lead by giving speeches, by trying to influence public opinion through rhetoric.

Disagree with him, if you want. Yes, by all means, disagree with him -- we should, we must, have a larger discussion about where we go from here. And hold him accountable. Yes, make sure what he says isn't just empty rhetoric. But imagine if it were Romney giving this speech, or McCain, or those many others who think that chanting "U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" amounts to a foreign policy. President Obama is not saying America is the best and leaving it at that. He's not saber-rattling. He's not hiding behind the flag. He's inviting us to think about what it means to be America, and to express American power, in this complicated age. And when you think about it, that's pretty amazing, like what he had to say or not.

Read More