When in doubt, blame the Jews

The comments to this blog posting about Obama reminded me of an old Jewish joke that elaborates on the title's idea:

"After the assassination of Tsar Alexander II of Russia, a government official in Ukraine menacingly addressed the local rabbi, "I suppose you know in full detail who was behind it."
"Ach," the rabbi replied, "I have no idea, but the government's conclusion will be the same as always: they will blame the Jews and the chimneysweeps."
"Why the chimneysweeps?" asked the befuddled official.
"Why the Jews?" responded the rabbi. " (From Wikipedia)

I recognise that the author is some kind of right-wing nut, the very kind who clings to his guns and religion because he's afraid of the outside world. Or just jealous of the Jews, because while he was failing out of school, getting drunk with his friends and impregnating anything in sight, leading to his being a failure in life, *those damn Jews* were learning and making something of themselves. Go back to your moonshine and pickup truck, hillbilly.

But this Reverend is one of the reasons I'm not voting for Obama. I simply don't trust him enough to *really* distance himself from this crackpot. I suspect very strongly that, should be become president, god forbid, that he'd act like an African dictator, handing out spoils to all of his cronies (on a scale that would make even scandal-prone Washington cringe). That's simply what these people do. And, he'd be sure to funnel a large portion of the pork and patronage to his church buddies. Do we need this crackpot Reverend as a cabinent Secretary??

Think people. If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Or elect him, and blame the Jews when everything goes to shit.

"Don't say 'what,' say 'pardon', dear"

The SFGate reports that the Bush Administration has been advised to be careful when referring to Al-Qaeda and other extremist movements of an Islamic bent. They've finally figured out that using words like 'jihad', 'mujahideen,' 'jidadist,' etc might accidentally give legitimacy to these movements that plan horrible things against civilians by engaging them on their terms.

Well shucks. They just figured this out??

On the list of 'banned' words for official use is the stupid term "Islamo-fascism"-- did anyone ever think to ask what that was supposed to mean before they just accepted the term like sheep? It's a propaganda term, nothing more, nothing less.

Since this is one of my personal words of ire that these clowns have coined, let's discuss it a bit.

If we break the word into its parts, we get Islamo- and fascism. The first part is easy: it's a prefix that shows a connection to Islamic culture or faith. It has the same meaning as Islamic, and could be used in contexts like, Islamic art, Islamic jurisprudence, but when a noun is being created, so maybe someone would come up with Islamo-art for an exhibition... (oh the joys of language!) Fair enuff.

Fascism. More tricky. It's a type of political system, that came to be famous in the 1920s and 1930s in Europe, eventually leading to the European part of World War II. Its philosophy can be described as embracing "anti-rationalism, struggle, leadership and elitism, socialism and militant nationalism." (Heywood 1992, 216) Think Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Horthy's Hungary and you've got (various kinds and degrees of) fascism.

How the hell does that describe Al-Qaeda? AQ might have some elements of fascism, but it is primarily a fascist organization? Is it motivated by militant nationalism? I think not.

AQ is a violent religious extremist group with geopolitical goals. They take aim at the west for supporting (often dictatorial) regimes in the Muslim world, wanting to remake those societies along Islamic lines, albeit a very severe strand of Islam. In some ways, they make valid criticisms of these countries; their downfall is in their extreme violence and brutality. If they were a political party and advocated peaceful change, no one would pay them much mind. (But, oops, in those countries, there are no/few independent political parties so there's no way for potential AQ-types to promote peaceful change... maybe that's the real way to defeat them...)

Islamo-fascism is, at best, a spin on the popular meaning of fascism, merely an ill-liberal worldview. At its worst, it's cheap propaganda for fear-mongering and making the unthinking, blindly-following masses afraid and, therefore, rally around you to "protect" them. We've been had, fellow Americans. Well, most of us have, anyway.

What would Judge Judy Do?

OMG. This is seriously the funniest collection of Judge Judy clips. They make me want to become a judge when I grow up, so I can tell off stupid people.

(and this is what I do instead of going to bed at a decent hour. srsly??)

Oh, the irony...

"The U.S. military will televise the Guantanamo trial of accused September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and five other suspects so relatives of those killed in the attacks can watch on the U.S. mainland," so reports Reuters.

Not only is this a disgusting spectacle that uses the image of 9/11 to cast doubt over the defendants’' allegedly presumed innocence, it is a self-fulfilling political statement that seeks to justify the farsical "war on terror". (Whatever happened to the American principle of "innocent until proven guilty?" ...which was developed from precisely these sorts of show trials that colonists were subjected to by the Crown before independence...)

The bit I find amusing is the part where the military cites the Geneva Conventions' prohibition on subjecting prisoners to "insults and public curiosity" (GCIII, Art. 13) in its disapproval of taking photos of them, yet those pesky GC provisions on things like torture and degrading treatment are somehow not applicable.

The military seems to have forgotten that GCIII applies to POWs... but the Guantánamo detainees are not POWs, right? So they can be tortured and humiliated and degraded since they're not POWs subject to the GC, but no photos can be taken of them because the 3rd GC prohibits public humiliation of POWs? Hmm.

Maybe the real reason the military doesn't want anyone to see the detainees is to prevent the outside world from learning of their health and treatment.

I agree with the 9/11 relative that this process should be about justice, not vengeance. Closed show trials held for quasi-political purposes are the practice of non-democratic countries. We, as a democracy, as the self-appointed 'city on a hill', can do better: open trials in real courts, with real evidence not manufactured or derived from years of degrading treatment and physical violence.

Sorry for the strong, undiplomatic tone, I'm tired and seriously cranky.

Someone actually won something they wanted on ebay? what?

Wired.com reports that the GAO made an undercover investigation to see if controlled defence-related items could be bought on the intertubes. They found that it was possible to buy sensitive and/or controlled items, including random parts for the retired F-14 airplane, still used by Iran, on ebay and craigslist.

Well, heck. Almost everytime I try to bid on something on ebay, I get outbid 3 minutes before the auction finishes or I end up spending WAY too much on whatever thing I'm impluse buying because I *HAD* to win that auction. (it's a guy thing, ps) This happened to me just last week in my attempt to impulse buy a random article of vintage-ish clothing.

And as for craigslist... having sold furniture on CL before, I can tell you that it's nothing short of a miracle that someone 1) responded to the ad with full sentences and complete contact details, 2) answered my response to them, either by email or phone, 3) came to look at the item for sale, 4) didn't reject it as being beneath them (like these bitchy old people who turned their nose up at my lovely Ikea bookcase that was a SONG at $20) and 5) turned over money for the furniture and took it away. It's some kind of a record-- the GAO found the only non-flakey, non-drunk, non-Nigerian/African-in-Britain-scammer selling stuff.

Another question is, however, what kind of idiot sells things he shouldn't (possibly controlled, possibly stolen) on ebay or craigslist? Ebay can be oddly prudish about random things (cornflakes that look like Jesus and/or states are forbidden) and on craigslist, for all of its sinful ad-space, one is subject to the ruthlessness of fellow CLers who can veto ads they don't like. (too pretty? too expensive? too much skin/ikea showing? buh-bye!)

This is mildly ROW-related, in that there are international compacts on export controls that countries are supposed to follow, both as exporters and importers. One such example is the Wassenaar Arrangement, dealing with conventional arms and the grey area of dual-use goods. The presence or absence of these kinds of arrangements/agreements (they were stronger during the Cold War) can mean the adherence to or deviation from the Hague regime on the methods of warfare.

Dual-use goods pose an especially difficult problem, because they're items with both military and civilian potential. For example, industrial incubators can be used to produce vaccines and medicines (hurrah) or biological agents for weapons (boo). Chemical production equipment and precursors can be used for pesticides and civilian industry.. or chemical weapons. (Iraq was notorious for exploiting this area of goods during the Iran-Iraq War, even though everyone knew what was going on...) Ditto for satellite technology (and the rockets used for launching them) and a long list of other things. (This is one of the problems with Iran's nuclear interests-- it's not quite clear if they want a whole program that's mostly dual-use for civilian electricity and research or for nuclear weapons...)

What to do about the diversion of sensitive, dual-use equipment? It's difficult, to say the least. (I was going to write my capstone paper on this but I had to jettison that idea after reading my professor's 1991 book about the same thing...) One way of looking at it is as a commons-problem: how to best police ourselves and each other for the common good. (remember the grazing of the sheeps and cowses on the common lands?)

And aren't night-vision goggles a bit unsportsman-like for hunting? I'm just saying... if you want to hunt deer at night, do it with your car like the rest of us.

when alcohol companies make maps...

It would seem that Absolut vodka has po'd a number of people (again) with this cheeky advert. This time, an ad designed for the Mexican market that shows Mexico's borders with the US before the Gasden Purchase of 1838 and Mexican-American War of 1848 has offended American sensibilities in the southwest and has "patriots" pouring Absolut vodka down the drain.

Wow.

This is merely an expression of people's unease with the fact that Mexicans and Central and South Americans are drawn to the US for our high standard of living, political and social stability and, until recently, an economy that had lots of work, formal and informal.
And we need these workers as much as they need us. We have lots of work to be done that natives are not queuing up to do, an ageing population that will require lots of younger workers to pay all of those Social Security and Medicare taxes and an open, mixing-pot culture that invites new foods, music and people (if not ideas) in.

However, in the Southwest, many people seem to feel that they're being "overrun" by dangerous Mexicans who are all some form of terrorist, waiting to strike at the heart of America (Kansas?) on behalf of Al-Qaeda.

Please.

The drug trade is a problem in that region, and further measures on both sides of the border would be welcome to stop the flow and the associated gang violence. But do we *really* need a 3000-mile wall to keep out aspiring nannies, gardeners, construction workers and kitchen staff? Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to just grant them non-immigrant work visas (either in the existing H-2b category or a new category), let them come with their tasty recipes, work to send money home then leave when they're ready in a couple of years?

Second. What's with these idiots who do silly things under the banner of "patriotism"? Does it mean that I love my country and culture less than the "patriots" who are staging mini-Houston Vodka Parties? They're just stupid and wasteful. I enjoy my Absolut, and am reminded that even my duty-free bottle from my lolToronto trip and lolNigara crossing production was 18 bucks. Howzabout this. They can send me their "unpatriotic" vodka and clear their minds. I'll be sure to serve it on Cinco de mayo. In a margarita.

Octopuses (octopi?) in an interesting, night-time telly kind of way...

Apparently octopuses (or is it octopi?) are jealous lovers and favour plumper partners.
Maybe we people aren't so unlike the rest of the world's creatures. (except we don't taste very nice as calamari with lemon)

There's not really a ROW connection here, except that violent and horny octopuses amuse me and take away the pallor of Monday's film about the horrible, dreadful things people do to each other.

Maybe the key to international peace is a greater appreciation for nature and more tasty snacks. Calamari with lemon, even.

Is _____ a State party to the Rome Statute of 1998, founding the ICC?

Is North Korea a State party to the Rome Statute and therefore a member of the ICC?

No, it is not.

(shocking, I know)

Here's a list of the States parties.

Also, North Korea has not submitted to the jurisdiction of the UN's International Court of Justice. (This is the forum where states can sue each other. States have the option to accept or reject the Court's jurisdiction in a particular matter. If a state rejects the Court's jurisdiction, there's nothing anyone can do about it, but it looks bad.)

so you want feedback, eh?

see more crazy cat pics

Some thoughts on "apples"

(sorry guys, I tried to fix the weird spacing and ended up deleting y'all's comments! I fail.)

In discussing the events at the Abu Ghraib prison, we've been dealing with the question of whether this was an isolated incident, propogated by a handful of errant, sick, cruel MPs (the "bad apples"), or if this was one incident in a string of many incidents that share the same basic fact pattern and environmental/cultural conditions (the "bad barrel"). Most of us have handled this division in our blogs, and I had a few thoughts on some of the related issues.

The Administration has said from the very beginning that the disgrace that was the AGP events esd the result of a few "bad apples" misbehaving and taking serious liberties with their positions. It was represented to the American people that these kind of things were not policy, were one-off abuses by a bunch of yahoos and that those involved would be severely punished, as well as the commanders who were responsible for their subordinates and should have maintained tighter discipline. Case closed.

At first, it would seem that the public believed this reasoning, for a number of reasons. We're taught to believe our leaders, to trust their judgement and wisedom. We're also more inclinded to believe what we're told by the people who are in charge, especially when it doesn't involve us directly. (Think the Stanley Milgram experiement on obdience to authority.)

I would argue also that we lay people, who are not military people or have no special expertise, really want to believe that the AGP events really are one-off abuses, that the whole system is not structured to encourage/condone/produce such monstrosities. We're Americans, after all, and we don't abuse, torture, humiliate, degrade or chew with our mouths open. This is what makes us better than those 'A-rab and Al-Qaeda heathens, an' don't you forgit it!'

However, the evidence suggests otherwise:

· *We have a number of public documents that indicate that harsh treatment (oddly similiar to practices the US has condemmed as torture when used by other nations) has been authorized for use "when appropriate."
· *We have a military fighting an insurgency, which historically does not bring out the solider's most kindly responses.
· *We have an atmosphere of 'do what needs to be done, at any cost."
· *We have a group of soldiers who are not trained for the job they've been told to do.
· *We have a group of soldiers who are quite young and inexperienced.
· *We have weak oversight from the General in charge of the area
· *We have a higher General with a reputation for setting up facilities that "get results" coming into the theatre and making sweeping administrative changes, namely putting Military Intelligence in effective (though not formal) control of AGP.
· *We have the influence of agents from "OGAs" ("Other Government Agencies") who don't seem to be bound to any sort of pesky rules and regulations on what they may or may not do to detainees.
· *We have a continued campaign from the highest levels that has branded all Iraqis who are suspected of misdeeds, often on little more than rumours or denounciations, as dangerous "terrorists" who are so wicked and evil that they're not really people.
· *We have a group of "bad apples" who, despite being vilified in the open, most of whom get relatively light punishments for minor offences. Only the supposed ring leader of the group gets a harsh punishment for a serious offence, and even that seems odd somehow.

Doesn't this sound much more like a "bad barrel," into which these otherwise good soliders were thrown? Who created these conditons for the perfect storm? Perhaps only Graner, the former prison guard, was really a bad apple, in that he enjoyed behaving cruelly towards his charges. But the others? How did they go along with something so disgraceful and un-American? Why did they participate, if only to laugh and point and take photos? Why did they not step up and say something?

(And when someone did speak out, the guy who reported the shameful photos, he was 'outed' by Rumsfeld as an example of valour... and was later afraid to leave his parents' house in Frederick, MD, for the death threats against him... why was he treated this way?)

These are not new questions. (Dr Nolan's course, "Ethics and National Security," addresses a lot of these questions about why people act/don't act for the public/moral good in an organziational context. I highly recommend it.)

[Hannah Arendt's book "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil" looks at Adolf Eichmann's 1963 trial in Israel for crimes against humanity and the Jewish people for his role as the "organizer" of the Nazi death-machinery. She argues that people always have the ability to make a moral choice, even in totalitarian systems. (We read this in Dr. Nolan's class and it was one of the best books I've read in graduate school.)]

"To be honest, the whole time I never really felt guilty because I was following orders and I was doing what I was supposed to do."

-Lynndie England, in an interview with German newsmagazine Stern.de, on her role in the maltreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib that became the international scandal.

This post is in the vein of the 3rd question from Dr. C's email:

"Based on the film, the class discussion and the readings, what specific policy changes to US military doctrine would decrease the levels of atrocity by US forces in conflict situations and in detention?"
..but with a slight diversion to include this really interesting interview

In trying to reduce the levels of mistreatment of protected persons in the Iraq conflict, it is important to recognize that the tone of the whole operation is set by the most senior personnel, in this case the President, Secretary of Defense, Theater Commander and on down the line, to the lowliest bottlewasher.

This is a point Wilmer makes, in looking at how the boundaries of "us" and "them" are formed and deliniated. The ICRC also makes this point in the executive summary we read, at least in a round-about way in its examination of why soliders do the inappropriate/wrong/wicked things they do. While the ICRC emphasizes that soliders need to be held accountable when they break the rules of war, the ICRC seemed to shy away from saying just what I said: the tone comes from the top, to use a management expression. (This is how diplomacy works-- reading between the lines for the unsaid.) I look at the role of 'tone' in the Abu Ghraib detention situation and then conflict situations.

Our film, "Ghosts of Abu Ghraib," made this point about tone. The film's take on how this shameful episode occured was basically that a reserve Military Police (MP) unit was assigned to run a detention centre at Saddam's infamous Abu Ghraib prison. When the MPs were allowed to run the prison in the conventional way, and there was a low inmate-to-staff ratio, things were fine, as prisons in war zones go.

According to the film, things at Abu Ghraib changed for the worse (for both staff and detainees) when several things occured:
1) more people were being picked up for alledged involvement with the growing insurgency and the population grew rapidly, while the number of staff did not,
2) Military Intelligence (MI) increased its presence in the prison, and detainees were seen as a resource for intelligence on the surgency,
3) the General who was in charge of setting up the Guantanamo facility was sent to make Abu Ghraib into a facility that produced more, and more useful intelligence. It was this General who transferred the running of the prison from the MPs to the MI staff,
4) One Charles Grener seems to have been given free rein to treat the prisoners as he wished, with a smile and a nod from the MI staff. The film noted that he came from the domestic US prison system-- I wonder if he behaved like that in his previous positions, especially with regard to the use of sexual humilitation, intimidation and violence. This raises serious questions about the treatment of prisoners in US facilities, which have further policy implications.

The film would have the viewer believe that the orders for the maltreatment of the detainees at Abu Ghraib came from on high. We have some evidence of efforts made in this direction, such as the memos that we read last week that reinterpret the official position on torture and hence military interrogation techniques. There also may be evidence in the language and rhetoric used by senior personalities in describing members of the insurgency, Al Qaeda in Iraq, etc. (This would be a good study, if only I knew how to do such a thing-- blending linguistics with IR, delicious!!) It is here that we're fortunant to see that Lynndie England, one of the ladies at Abu Ghraib who seemed to enjoy her role in humiliating and degrading the prisoners there, gave an interview with Stern.de. Here are two questions and responses that tie into the issue of whether the leaders gave the authorization or wink-wink for MI to use physical maltreatment to get what interrogators wanted:

"Stern: The former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, called you and your colleagues the "rotten apples" of the military. Bush claimed to be ashamed of what you did.
England: Well, back then I thought: How can they say that when it was happening all over Iraq. The same thing is happening in Guantanamo now and other places. We knew that our officers knew about it and our sergeants. We thought if they know then somebody else knows. And I really do still think that Rumsfeld knew what was going on. I mean he had been there while I was there at that prison. And if he was there I know he knew what was going on. How could he have not known? And Bush? He's the headman."

S: Saying you were a puppet again makes you sound like a victim.
E: Okay, I do take responsibility. (...) But when you're in the military you automatically do what they say. It's always, "Yes Sir, No Sir." You don't question it. And now they're saying, "Well, you should have questioned it."

England is playing the 'I was just following orders" card and the "I was doing what was expected of me" card. We know that 'following orders' is not an acceptible excuse after Nuremberg, but I think she's onto something in explaining that the US military culture inside Abu Ghraib made such disgraceful behaviour "normal."-- this is Wilmer's very point. It would also be seized upon by those who study institutional and organizational cultures and how they operate.

The organizational culture of militaries that are engaged in counterinsurgency operations (COIN Ops) is also relevant here; I've run across some of this working on my policy paper but haven't focused on it. My guess is that it would deal with what happens when you have an organized military fighting an invisible insurgency, and how on earth this is done. Certain strategies are better than others, while the most effective ones in the short-term are usually the most brutal. (more further research for me)

So, policy changes to decrease atrocities against the population at large and detainees.

1) The tone from the top must change. The Administration has been calling anyone who opposes US policy in Iraq 'terrorists'. Some of them are. But many are not. They just want to 1) run their country their way, 2) evict the people who screwed up their country for their own half-assed reasons and based on their unrealistic neo-con world-view, and 3) make sure their own group (ethnic, religious, tribal, clan, whatever) doesn't get screwed by any of the other groups. (This really is the world the Hobbes described)
By calling all of these people 'terrorists' (and probably not just the violent ones), these people are being labeled in such a way as to deny their genuine and bona fide aspirations, positions, methods etc. And when that's done, it's easier to group them together and assign characteristics. And these characteristics are not flattering, so the dehumanization, scapegoating etc begin.
When an 18 year old from a village in Kansas hears this rhetoric, about 'savage, rag-head terrorists', how does one expect him/her to see the Iraqis s/he interacts with, especially if his/her duties are to look for bona fide terrorists and murderers? What happens when a prison guard who is already accustomed to brutality is put in a position of virtually unlimited power over his charges, who are not seen as people worthy of respect because they're "terrorists"?
Also, cultural awareness training of individual troops can only do so much if one thinks of the Iraqis as "terrorists" before you even have reason to believe them as such.

The tone at the top is everything. In the business world, it plays a great role in worker morale and all of the good that flows from good energy in an enterprise. (In the 1980s American corporations were very keen to emulate Japanese morale and tone practices, trying to achieve the same level of productivity.) There is a reason the publisher of the Nazi propaganda newspaper Der Stürmer, Julius Streicher, was hanged at Nuremburg in 1946.

2. Other COIN methods must be used, that do not create witch-hunts and generate more resentment against the US and US forces for ruining and occupying their country. The Administration realised this a few years ago, hence the campaign to both win hearts and minds, and to understand Iraqi political and tribal culture in order to build the necessary alliances to stop Al Qaeda types and rely on traditional justice schemes to keep ordinary crime in check. I would argue that continuing to help improving the economic situation in Iraq will keep people from being idle and/or being tempted to turn to crime or terrorism as a way to supporting themselves and families. Clearly this is difficut, given the differences in culture, the fact that Iraq is still in a feudal stage of development culturally and the troop-to-population ratio. But these efforts have been successful and must continue.

For detainees, they must not be brutalized and forced to give confessions. Those are the tactics of the Spanish Inquisition, not the US. There are other, humane, effective methods of interrogation. What was done in the past, for example?

How best to teach math to kids, pt. 2

Y'all might remember my posting from some weeks ago where a noted mathematics professor advocated that kids not be taught fractions in elementary school. Here's a story with the findings of a presidential panel on math education.

The panel found that kids should not only be taught fractions but they should be taught better and more strongly, along with basic math and geometry, to provide a solid base for algebra and higher math.

My beef is not with the's panel's recommendation-- I agree that strong basic math skills are essential to being able to do algebra and other higher math. My beef is that 1) math was taught to me as torturously as possible, 2) I had enough mean, bad or otherwise ineffecive teachers to last a lifetime and 3) I see now that I've struggled all the way up needlessly-- I just wasn't being taught right. (Except for trig and calculus-- notoriously dificult for most but simple for me since I had a phenominal teacher, and even chemistry wasn't too horrible is something I used to know how to do, because I had a good teacher.)

Maybe math education would be better if they didn't make us cram so many topics in together and focused on the more important of the algebraic topics, since a lot of the stuff they tortured us with in Algebra II, for example, I've never since used and no long remember how to do (along with trig, calc and chemistry--- oh well)

Or maybe I'm just biased and bitter, based on years of soul-crushing, discouraging failures in math-land. Maybe I just don't think that way and just don't get the "logic" of it (ok, I don't.) But I really hope some other kid doesn't go through what I did, and having it be largely for naught...

"Keep your old love letters. Throw away your old bank statements."

PeaceTurkey's recent posting on graduation songs reminded me of this one. It was popular when I was in high school (not my year though) and I've thought about some of its lines over the years.

So, even though I'm not graduating just yet, here it is (with Spanish subtitles none the less-- that would have pleased me even more in high school)

"In 1792 Columbus something something-ed..."

The NY Times tells us that:

"Fewer than half of American teenagers who were asked basic history and literature questions in a phone survey knew when the Civil War was fought, and one in four said Columbus sailed to the New World some time after 1750, not in 1492."

Somehow this is not surprising. I went to a good public high school and while I was lucky enough to have good history teachers (partly because I really liked history and "social studies"-type sybjects), we had a crappy English curriculum (which I liked much, much less-- I don't do boring 19th century sappy English novels), with boring, irrelevent books and insipid worksheets asking you to "discuss the symbolism of the lampposts and doorhandles"-- when your flesh and blood teacher never explained how to 'get' things like symbolism and those other bullshitty things lit people go one about. I'd also like to point out that we had a less-than-ideal writing program-- and I never had to learn to write an actual research paper, partly because my nasty, useless Advanced Composition teacher just gave us stupid worksheets, then criticised us harshly for how we filled them out.

So how to generalise my mixed experience? History is hard to teach, and English lit and writing even more so. And it's even harder to teach kids who aren't interested. I can't imagine being in high school today-- when I was there, the internet was still kind of novel. There was no (get ready for it) Wikipedia (gasp)--- there was no Wiki- anything, come to think of it. There was no facebook or myspace-- and even IMing was a newish thing. We had to gossip on the house landline (oh the horror!!)-- no one had mobiles then. Etc etc etc.

That said, I don't know enough about No Child Left Behind to be able to comment on its role in the shocking ill-knowledge about history and literature. I do know that bumpersticker wags like to say things like 'No School Left Standing'. Maybe I should Wikipedia it....

We're in the wrong business, friends...

Maybe we should have all gone to become MPHs?

(but Prof. Mookerjee was also wrong-- an MBA would be even more useless than usual):

"Global terrorism was a real threat but posed far less risk than obesity, diabetes and smoking-related illnesses, prominent US professor of health law Lawrence Gostin said at the Oxford Health Alliance Summit here.

"Ever since September 11, we've been lurching from one crisis to the next, which has really frightened the public," Gostin told AFP later.

"While we've been focusing so much attention on that, we've had this silent epidemic of obesity that's killing millions of people around the world, and we're devoting very little attention to it and a negligible amount of money.""

...sayeth Yahoo! News

It's something to think about. One's chances in the US of dying of a heart attack are greater than your chances of dying in a terror attack. (As I well know.) But we all focus on terrorism. Maybe because it's big, dramatic and scary? Because we have no control over it, unlike those demises organized one french fry or cookie of death at a time?

Maybe my next degree will indeed be an MPH, rather than a JD.... (since hemorrhagic diseases are much more entertaining than contracts, or so I'm told by a soon-to-be-MPH...)

Remember kids...

...if you're ever President, don't let the press-corps take lots of photos of you on holiday, because someone will put them on their blog and make smart-allecky remarks about you. kthxbai!"

I have to love the comments even more than the snarcky captions.

kthxbai!

Never again?

I got curious about the issues presented in our reading for this coming Monday from the PBS Frontline program, did a bit of Wikipedia-ing and stumbled across this Human Rights Watch report on the Rwandan genocide of 1994. Wow.

I'm utterly stunned. How could any one person (or small group of people for that matter) plan such a barbaric orgy of unrelenting violence? It's just unimaginable. Even on already violent continent. Wow.

I can has bobaraba?

Enough with the serious posts. I found this article on BBC World about Ivory Coast's "big bottom craze." There's a pop song craze that celebrates ladies' plump bums, so now everyone wants one! Many ladies who feel that their bums are lacking in size are turning to "treatments" to plump up. These are likely just quackery-- if anyone knows of a cream that really will make your bum bigger, there's money to be made! I'd suggest to those who find their bottoms to be lacking in size should save their pennies/centimes and come to Pgh for the Primanti's...

I find this amusing. I wonder if this song would be a hit in Pgh since, well... everyone is plumper here... (see aforementioned Primanti's, warshed down with an Ahr'n City beer 'n'at)

(And I'm not posting this to be vulgar-- I'm genuinely amused.)

protection of "cultural property" in war

A question was raised by Lt. Col. Marttala's presentation as to why cultural sights and landmarks are forbidden as targets in armed conflict for US forces. Mention was made of a 1950s treaty dealing with this subject. I'd like to discuss the treaty and to link to a news article on artistic works looted in World War II by Nazi forces.

First, the Treaty.

The 1954 Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict defines the following categories of items and places as being protected in armed conflict:

"...(a) movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular; archaeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic interest; works of art; manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archaeological interest; as well as scientific collections and important collections of books or archives or of reproductions of the property defined above;
-(b) buildings whose main and effective purpose is to preserve or exhibit the movable cultural property defined in sub-paragraph (a) such as museums, large libraries and depositories of archives, and refuges intended to shelter, in the event of armed conflict, the movable cultural property defined in subparagraph (a);
-(c) centres containing a large amount of cultural property as defined in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), to be known as "centres containing monuments". " (Art. 1)

In terms of the actions forbidden against such objects and places, cultural property (CP) may not be subject to military danger (Art. 4(1)), theft, vandalism or requisitioning (4(3)), reprisals (4(4)). CP is to be granted immunity from military action (Art. 9) . CP may be transported by a contracting party; such transports are to be protected (Art 12). CP may not be captured (Art. 14(1)), and CP has a distinctive emblem that is to be respected. (Art. 16) And these rules apply in both international and non-international conflicts-- a big step for 1954. (Arts. 18, 19)

These rules sound very much like the rules against targeting hospitals and other medical facilities, especially the provisions on how immunity against attack can be waved if the cultural centres are used for military purposes. Further, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) may be called upon to provide neutral technical assistance in protecting the CP. (Art. 23)

One interesting fact. While 118 states have ratified/aceeded to the Convention, 6 have only signed it: Andorra, Ireland, New Zealand, Philippines, UK and the US. At least we're not in the company of dictators as we sometimes are in these sorts of Conventions and Treaties. I'm glad to see that the US takes the protection of cultural patrimony seriously in its operations, even if not technically 100% bound to do so under international law.

(This issue of protection for CP has been an issue in the 2003 Iraq War, where the Iraqi National Museum was looted during the lawlessness of the initial period of the military action. There are many reasons this occured-- I do not point fingers-- but it is certainly unfortunant and a loss for all of humanity. I hope the US government, allied governments, UNESCO and/or other international organizations can assist the Iraqi government in rounding up the looted items and those involved.)

Second, the news article.

"Israel's national museum opened two new exhibits Monday of paintings with a tragic history: They were stolen from museums and salons by the Nazis and never reclaimed because many of the rightful owners perished during World War II. "

The subject of returning stolen/looted works to their rightful owners or heirs from the Nazi occupation of Europe has been a long contentious issue. As the article points out, after 60 years, it's increasingly unlikely that these works will be claimed by the survivors or their families. Many in the international community have pointed out the difficulties presented in helping reunite stolen works and goods with rightful owners/heirs because of the facts from the war years: people were driven from their homes with no documents and/or necessary documents were taken from them by the Nazis, making it extremely difficult to prove ownership. This is as much the case with artwork as it is with land, bank accounts, life insurance policies, stocks/bonds and other non-cash commodities. And let us not forget that entire families were murdered, so there are no heirs left to claim the stolen property.

There's also a tremendous difficulty in deciding what is the appropriate course of action when faced with the desire to return cultural or religious objects stolen from communities (synagogues, churches, museums even) when those communities or institutions no longer exist; vast numbers of Jewish communities were wiped off the face of the map by the Nazis and their sacred objects stolen. In such cases, perhaps the best solution is a museum (more or less) dedicated to their preservation and care, and to the story of the museum's acquisition of these objects.

"...Being convinced that damage to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind, since each people makes its contribution to the culture of the world;..." (Convention, Preamble)

Protection of Diplomats and Diplomatic facilities: a receiving state's responsibility

Lt. Col. Marttala's presentation on the rules of tactical engagement to our class today brought up the issue of a US military installation receiving potentially harassing small-arms fire from some apartment blocks just outside of the compound. I asked if host countries for military forces have the same obligation under international law to protect the 'guest' forces, as is the case for diplomatic facilities and personnel. Lt. Col. Marttala responded that this depends on the type of agreement between the US and host governments. I'd like to comment more fully on the obligations of receiving states with regard to foreign diplomats and diplomatic facilities (embassies, consulates, etc), since it's really interesting and seldom discussed.

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 provides that receiving states have the responsibility to protect diplomats and missions from all forms of "intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission orimpairment of its dignity." (Art. 22(2)) In the United States, Missions are protected by the US Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, as are International Organizations. (like the World Bank, IMF, UN, OAS, IADB, etc)

The history of diplomatic immunity is fairly interesting, but the gist of it is to allow states to conduct relations in an unimpeded fashion. (Vienna Convention, Preamble, 'Believing')

These rules are rarely violated by states, even in the case of war and other inter-state unpleasantness: diplomats are asked to shutter their gates and leave. However, the 1979 seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran during the Iranian Revolution was a notable exception. More than 60 US diplomats and staff were held for 444 days by the new Iranian regime. (A few people were released for political and medical reasons.) In late 1979, during what we now call the Hostage Crisis, the US filed a complaint with the International Court of Justice against Iran for having violated the Vienna Convention and other international instruments and customs. The ICJ ruled in favour of the US and ordered Iran to pay reparations. (The decision is available here.) Needless to say, all States were shocked by this action on the part of the Iranian government, and it cost the Iranians serious credibility-- no one will do business with you if you don't play by the rules that you also benefit from. (I'd venture to guess that Iranian diplomats to the US were withdrawn by Iran at the time of the Revolution, or were simply asked to leave by the US government- this is allowed under the Convention and is the proper course of action.)

"Could I have my vente torture-ccino made with soymilk? kthx."

I ran across this article last night and thought I'd share it with you. In it, a former(?) Gitmo interrogator asserts that they don't torture detainees: they get to them to talk in much more contentional, less sexy ways: they chat with them. The interrogator says further that all of this torture business is a collection of myths spread by former detainees, trying to make the US look bad. He felt it was his responsibility to set the record straight and let it be known that the US doesn't need to torture, since conventional interview/interrogation tactics are so effective.

Hmm. I'm not quite sure what to make out of this. Some thoughts:

1) This is propaganda, full stop. The Administration finds someone with the knowledge and authority to speak on the matter, who goes to the press and says that Gitmo interviewers just need to chat with their subjects to find out very important things, and the subjects are just *bursting* to share. So Al-Qaeda is undone, piece by piece, with the help of some Folgers and Marlboros. The bad guys look like wimps and the US authorities are automatically off the hook, since they'd have no need to waterboard/"coerce"/torture anyone.

2) This is half truth, half propaganda. The Folgers-Marlboro method of interviewing probably does work nicely, sometimes. So these cases are made famous, in the hopes of sequelching the more infamous "difficult" cases, that require more "coercisve" methods.

3) This is all true. It wouldn't be unimaginable that these 2 former detainees have invented all sorts of things to make the US look bad on the international stage-- shame is shockingly effective and not just for dinky poor countries. Nor would it be unheard of that the detainees' counsel "enhance" certain elements of their clients' detention, both to win the sympathy of the world (and thereby for the clients) as well as to further their own careers once this Gitmo business is sorted. (Think about the things that defence attorneys say on the courthouse steps with regard to their clients during domestic proceedings.) And it's not unreasonable to think that certain peacenik NGOs have been using this Gitmo thing as a way of bashing the US, a pasttime for them.
But these doubts are a bit of a stretch, no? The stories coming from Gitmo, from a variety of governmental, non-governmental and private sources, are oddly similar. They tell of harsh treatment, limited and seemingly arbitrary processes and a number of other things that are not supposed to happen at the hands of Americans. (Did no one read the Declaration of Independence? That's a list of the sorts of injustices (as perceived by the Colonists) that are not supposed to happen in this 'country on a hill'.)

Am I convinced by this guy's sudden revelations? Not entirely. I do believe that the Gitmo administrators and staff probably don't break out the waterboarding kit staight away, perferring the coffee and cigarettes approach initially. That's common sense, and one hopes, good conscience. But do I believe that "coersion" with shocking similarities to torture occurs? More so than not.

The Geneva regime as a social good

“Previous administrations at least paid lip-service to the existence of normative constraints by concealing and denying their covert operations. The Bush Administration… lets the mask slip, to the discredit of the nation and… at the peril of the soldiers whom so many of the rules are designed to protect.” – Byers, p. 135

Byers makes 4 very good points that touch the heart of what we've been calling the Rules of War in this quote:

1. norms are fragile and can be undone much more easily than they are made
2. when norms weaken, the conditions they were created to ameliorate can return
3. the "old days" of warfare were really quite unpleasant
4. norms have a strong element of reciprocity built in

I'd like to discuss these points.

1) Norms are fragile. We have to look at the definition of a 'norm'-- a standard of behaviour in the international community. They are formed by state practice, and gain strength on the basis of their universality and adherence by powerful states. We take many norms for granted, but we've seen how difficult it is to build them in the first place. How many years were required for the norm of landmine non-usage to take root, before it could grow further? True, there are a handful of norms that developed before the banned conduct (the norm against chemical weapons, for example), but on the whole, norms are fragile. Economists would call them 'social goods': they exist only because society/people recognise them as goods.

Norms exist and have force because states act in deference to them and allow themselves to be constrained by them. When norms are not in a state's interest, states do what they want but still try to respect the norm. This is partly out of self-interest (you don't cut your nose off to spite your face) but it is also to avoid shame and condemnation, in my opinion. (The Soviet Union was a master at this dance.)

So the danger of the Bush Administration's proud violation of norms on detainee treatment is much greater than that this bunch of detainees may treated poorly. The real danger is that in the future, all detainees may be treated in such a cavalier manner, including Americans. If enough states do this (or if enough powerful states do this), the Geneva regime would be seriously weakened, perhaps to the point of irrelevence. (Some already fear that this is happening to the nuclear non-proliferation regime, as more states gain nuclear weapons while bristling at the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.)

2 & 3) Without the Geneva regime, the ugly old days of warfare could return. Let us remember the origins of the Geneva Conventions: after a battle during this Crimean War, in which the injured and marooned were abandoned to die. I don't know the specifics on the treatment of prisoners of battle at that time, but I'd venture to guess that the conditions were pretty grim. (Interestingly, there were customs amongst Europeans about prisoners even before the Geneva regime: the GC built on these elements of what we'd call customary international law.) And while it's easy to imagine voluntary compliance amongst European and North American powers in a war without a strong Geneva regime, given a common cultural reference and concepts of morality, what would happen in a war between Europeans and non-Europeans? Or amongst non-Europeans? This is point no. 4.

4)If nothing else, following the Geneva regime and helping to keep it strong is good tactical sense: reciprocity will protect your own troops. Reciprocity has a VERY long history in international law and relations, and is often the basis for clever solutions to mutual problems. So in a war between peoples of different cultures, where war has different conceptualizations, the GR helps keep your troops safe, since you're also following the rules on handling the enemy's troops. I'm convinced that this might be less important amongst Europeans (remember the Falklands War?) but is of the utmost importance in dealing with non-Europeans.

Take the US's conflict in Iraq. Why encourage a population with an already aggressive culture to be more violent? Clearly they will commit acts of barbarism, but we are to know better and to follow the GR carefully. Our adherence of the GR is both a good example and can help prevent the sowing of grivances for future atrocities.

Having said this, I agree whole-heartedly with Byers. Openly violating the GR is much worse than quiet violations, since blatent violations challenge the legitimacy of the regime and work to erode it. The Geneva regime is only as strong as states believe it to be.

Next stop: Norms. With connecting service to Denver and Salt Lake City.

This week's assignment is to discuss how one's everyday behaviour is governed by norms, rather than persuing one's own interests in a rational manner, using an example from daily life.

I'd like to discuss the norm of queuing. This comes to my mind as I made a short trip by plane in the last couple of days, and we all know the production that flying is anymore. And it's an experience that is governed by both written rules (those of the government) and ad hoc social conventions. I'll discuss both.

Flying got a lot less fun since 9/11. Every few months there's some kind of terror threat that causes the rules and procedures of flying to be revised slightly. Some bastard tries to blow up a plane by lighting explosives in his shoes, so all shoes must be x-rayed and lighters are banned in both carry-on and checked luggage. Someone tries to do something else dastardly with toiletries, so now they may only be carried on board in less than 3 oz/100 mL quantities, in clear bags that must be examined separately. (you'd think the screeners'd never seen cocoa butter or shaving gel before)

These security-related changes are on top of those implimented by the airlines for reasons of economy, efficiency and style. There are hardly any agents anymore, one checks in at a kiosk while one agent overlooks to help with baggage and make sure everyone is helped. This is great when there are a few people who know what they're doing and the computers are working. But when there's a slow system day and a convention of grandmas from Kansas, the old fashioned way of an agent using the computer looks oddly appealing. ("I cain't figger this dang thang out! I don't know what mah con-fir-mation number is! Where the heyell is mah con-fir-mation number on this dang e-mail thang I got!")

And then there's weather. When it's good, it's great. When it's bad, you're going to be stuck sleeping on the floor in the airport. Or worse, trapped in a plane on the runway. Not much can be done about it, but it's a real source of trouble.

So, considering these issues, when you're in the airport, running desparately behind, and (critically) not sure how long it will take to get to your gate from the outside, why do you tolerate long queues behind grandmas with no computer skills, clueless people who haven't traveled since 1975 and security screeners who want you to practically strip naked, when storming the counter to get your ticket, queue-jumping at security and running like a maniac to the gate are much more efficient, rational ways to act. (They get you want you want with much less mental effort, if increased physical effort.) (oh, and if you knew the number of times I've almost lost my pants at a security checkpoint because I had to take my belt off....)

I think a major-part of not queue-jumping is the fact that we, in the US, are socialized to wait nicely in the queue (as our plane takes off without us on it) until our turn at the desk, checkpoint, whatever, has come. If you question this, take a packed 500 or 71D bus on Fifth Avenue some morning and watch the pushing and shoving and non-queuing of the Chinese and Indian students at CMU (and they're all Chinese or Indian)-- in their countries, they don't queue. If we in the US do queue-jump, that makes us rude and in the social wrong, even if you managed to get where you were going. So there's a social penalty for doing what's rational. Even your friends would chastize you for queue-jumping. (Not to mention being arrested by TSA at a security checkpoint for causing a distrubance, but that's a side point.)

This queueing business applies elsewhere: getting on/off buses, the frustrating experience of trying to get a coffee at Einstein's in less than 25 minutes at a class break, in stores (if you've ever been stuck at WalMart in line for two or three hours, you know what I'm talking about, while the cashiers gossip with each other and not pay any attention at all...) In many places elsewhere in the world (China, India, Africa), people really aren't fussed by queuing-- it's just a free-for-all til you get what you want. Maybe it's cultural, maybe it's because there are so many people in so little space, whatever, but that's how it is.

See, I promised you a RoW-related posting, hon. And yinz doubted me n'at.

If you have 1/2 of an apple and 2/3 of a pear, how much fruit do you have?

Who ever would have thought that a math professor would be advocating that fractions not be taught in schools to young children anymore? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-01-23-fractions_N.htm)

There are many good reasons for teaching fractions:

1. We don't use the metric system, so if you want to do anything involving any sort of distance, volume, quantity in the imperial system, you need fractions. (We'll not discuss how I'm still a bit uncertain at reading a f-ing inch-demoninated ruler, and VASTLY prefer centimeters)
2. The right of passage that is suffering through years of being forced to learn how to add, subtract, multiply and divide fractions by hand. (I vaguely remember how to do these tasks, but maybe that's because it's almost second nature and I don't have to think about it?)
3. The joys that those mean bitches who get jobs as elementary school teachers get from torturing their innocent students with endless fractions-problems. (Guess what Mrs. Mean 4th Grade Teacher From Hell, I still don't do math fast-- if I ever was on a bus that would blow up if I didn't add/subtract fractions quick enough, we'd all be toast)
4. Surely there's another.... oh, yes. The conceptualization of partial units. Seriously, when was the last time you had a subtract fractions? (I'm not sure that I even know how to do it, now that I think about it) But when was the last time you dealt with the concept of a part of a whole? My point exactly.

Kids need fractions, calculators or not. Metric system or not. And as much as I hate to say it, Mrs. Loud, Fat Shrew With Stirrup Tights (evil 3rd grade teacher) might have done me a favour, when she wasn't breaking my spirit.

Yet again, not RoW material. I promise a RoW posting very shortly.

Yinz can learn about Pittsburghese on da inter-webs, hon!

Since I'm a huge dork and was once upon a time a linguist (sorta, kinda ), I thought I'd share this finding about online lessons in Pittsburghese with y'all. So anytime it's slippy outsahd, you can stay insahd and listen t'the podcasts, hon, and not have t' go oooover dayre...

Enjoy!

http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=41403

I'll be posting a norms-related rant very shortly, I promise. Stay tuned, hon.

Marky Mark, George Clooney, the obligatory 2 hicks and the other soldier guy who's in every war movie

So we had to watch "Three Kings" and observe the violations of IHL, and blog them from coast to coast. So I did, having returned from a most bizzare weekend in Maryland: best friend's birthday with concurrent family emergency. Before I enbark on listing some 20-odd items, I just want to share some impressions.

1) War is complicated. And so, even with the best of intentions (or at least not atrociously dishonourable intentions), bad things happen. So I understand how IHL gets broken even by (mostly) upstanding world citizens: the rules sound straight forward and obvious, but applying them to real-world situations is tricky. When is it correct to bazooka a fortified compound? What are the ramifications of self-exploding cattle? Further, military action is situationally complex-- lots is going on and little is clear at any one time, but you have to decide and act in the meantime. (This is why I no longer work in catering, except in war there's no recouperation period while the bride and groom give toasts)

2) Why are more reporters not used for target practice? Lord have mercy, they're an irritating bunch, inventing things to be excited about and calling it "news." Seriously, who thinks it necessary that reporters be "embedded" with troops in the field? They're dead weight and a security risk, giving out important information as to troop movements and such. One lesson from the Gulf War was that Saddam Hussein was watching CNN too. "Loose lips sink ships"-- it's not just a WW2 slogan.

(Saddam watching CNN goes something like this:
Embedded reporter: "Good morning Chet. I'm reporting with Coalition troops about 2km north of Axmaxaxaxaxax, in the eastern province. We're staying in the green tents and have cleverly hidden our gate between some scruby hills.... oh ****, there's a SCUD missle coming our way!! How did they know!?!?!?!?!?! "
*static*)

(I also feel this way about reporters and "news" programs domestically-- the media is creating an economic mess as we speak now, by creating panic over a stock market hiccup. Maybe countries in poorer stages of devlopment have it right in limiting panic-inducing reporting on the economy. Just a thought.)

3) At the very end, I almost got all teary about how George Clooney was like an Oscar Schindler in the desert, leading his people away from the wicked, murderous regime. *sniff* (Oh right. I don't cry at movies. But if I did... um... no. still, no.)

Moving on. Here's my list of things I believe are or may be violations of IHL.

1. Not aiding a wounded enemy soldier but taking a photo instead.
2. Screaming and yelling at POWs in English. Ok, so POW camp is not the Hilton and one doesn't need to be polite to them, but trying to communicate with them in their own language might help calm them down and make them do what you want. It might not be a violation of IHL but it's frustrating and counter-productive, and could lead to (more serious) violations.
3. plotting to steal plundered gold and goods that may have been the subject of reparations agreements (granted, the plot of the movie, but that doesn't make it right!)
4. Not repatriating/properly and respectfully disposing of the dead
5. destroying livestock (though I think the cow stepped on something and went boom)
6. breaking into houses to look for treasure. I don't think there are 4th amendment protections in IHL but it makes the locals hate you
7. Iraqi soldiers taking provisions from children and civilians
8. Iraq set the Kuwaiti oil wells on fire as they retreated. Some people might consider this an environmental crime--- the oil still pollutes the environment 15 years later. (I remember watching the burning wells on TV after the liberation)
9. The American 4-some entering Iraq without authorization. I'm sure there's some kind of procedure for that.
10. Iraqi torture of prisoners/civilians (Shiite rebels?)
11. the Iraqis' fondness for looting from Kuwait
12. Arbitrary killing of civilians by Iraqis
13. Perhaps the use of tear gas, though that depends on who is asked
14. The Iraqis want to shoot Marky Mark when they capture him
15. the Americans for aiding an insurgency?
16. Electrotorture of Marky Mark
17. the Iraqi interrogator of Marky Mark torturing him in revenge for the war damage?
18. Forcing Marky Mark to swallow oil
19. pretending to be a head of state in order to take a compound
20. the near refoulement of refugees at Iranian border, until George saves the day and Marky Mark.

Enjoy!

I just want a normal coffee!!

While my Hebrew is very, very limited (I can communicate by prayer), I get the jist of this HYSTERICAL video. If anyone actually speaks Hebrew well, please let me know what they say!! (I do know that the redhead is speaking with a heavy Arabic accent-- listen for the glottal stops everywhere)

Ok, this isn't RoW-related, but it cracks me up and everyone needs to know about it. ;)

Lt. Watada: dissenter or disobdient?

We've been assigned to read a short op-ed about Lt. Watada, an Army officer who has refused to be deployed to Iraq based on his understanding that the Iraq war is an illegal one under international law. As of January 2007 he was facing a court-martial for this stance, with the possibility of prison and a near-certainty of a tarished career.

It's difficult for me to evaluate this situation comprehensively based on this one article. It is an op-ed piece, from a website that would appear to support him personally. But there are issues raised that I can comment on, drawing on this article and what I learned in Dr. Nolan's "Ethics and National Security" class. Still, it is difficult to comment coprehensively, as I'm unfamiliar with the applicable Military Code and the law.

From the standpoint of the US Army, it is easy to see Lt. Watada as a disobdient solider. He was given orders (to deploy) and he has refused those orders on grounds that are not crystal clear at his level of the organization. Therefore he must be brought into compliance, and failing that, punished. Afterall, the Army is a strongly hierarchical organization, and chaos would errupt if everyone declined to do what they don't 100% agree with.

Further, Lt. Watada joined the military of his own free will. He recognized that when he signed that contract, he was giving up a certain level of personal autonomy; he agreed to take orders: to do and go as instructed without question in the vast majority of the things that would required of him.

Additionally, even if the Iraq war is indeed illegal under international law (which it may or may not be-- I do not evaluate that here), it is not Lt. Watada's place to decline to participate. Participation in a potentially internationally illegal war is not necessarily on the same level as commiting more "typical" crimes of war, for example, killing or injuring civilians without cause. If Lt. Watada was concerned that he might be tried with war crimes for having merely participated in the war, he should be able to take solace in the fact that, if the Iraq war is later determined to have been illegal, it is unlikely that he persoanlly would take responsibility-- the government of the United States would, should it be sued in the International Court of Justice by the Government of Iraq, for example. (There is some support to this: soldiers who have been implicated in serious offenses against civilians and prisoners, much higher up on the mens rea foodchain, have gotten little more than smacks on the wrist)

From the perspective of Lt. Watada, as he deeply felt that what he was being ordered to do was illegal, he should not be prosecuted for speaking up. This is the principle that is taught to soldiers in how to avoid committing atrocities in the field: soldiers have the duty to refuse orders they legitimately believe to be contrary to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and they have the right to bring the situation to the attention of higher authorities as tactical conditions allow. (Remember Goldie's "TAKE THE HILL!" film?)

Did the terms of his contract with the Army negate his ability to contientously object to certain missions? (we'd have to see the text of this contract and compare it against the regs on objection to say more definitively) From a practical standpoint, isn't the Army being a tad bit malicious in not allowing him to serve in Afghanistan (which he requested) as a way of navigating his objections? Certainly the Army cannot set a precident for anyone who just doesn't want to go to Iraq to get out of it by claiming a slightly nebulously-grounded objection-- who *wants* to go to Iraq to be shot at, place life and limb at risk and, at the very least, suffer the privations of being 10,000 miles away from family and friends? But are there not internal rules that govern when service members may and may not object? In a similar vein, is the Army's quest to make an example of Lt. Watada (which seems clear enough) an abuse of his due process rights? (granted the UCMJ works differently from civilian law, but it's a valid question)

(The treat to limb is very, very real-- I used to live outside of Washington and used to see regularly around town young men (often no older than 19 or 20 years) missing legs, arms, hands, eyes. A guy roughly my age lived a couple of buildings up from me and I used to see him struggle to get in his truck with a crutch in place of his right leg. A friend of mine who moonlights as a waitress once told me about a customer of hers who had such devestating brain damage that he could not speak or feed himself. And we mustn't forget those who come home physically intact but psychologically injured.)

So, I take a balanced view of Lt. Watada's unfortunant situation: he's acting in accordance with his beliefs and is seemingly being punished for it, while the Army is holding him to his contractual obligations and trying to contain what might be a wildfire. But what are the costs of their actions? Lt. Watada may be setting an example for anyone who is considering joining up, but he might be waging his campaign in thw wrong forum. Army might be protecting itself (as organizations are wont to do) but it might be embarrassing itself and acting needlessly heavy-handedly with Lt. Watada. I do wonder what will happen to him.

(I'd also like to point out that service members who have challenged the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on LGBT people serving openly have often faced the same set dilemmas, but they usually get witch-hunted and booted out with much less fanfare. If you're gay and in the military, silence and discretion are your friends and saviours.)

RoW as a Western conception?

While reading ch 1 in Johnson last night, about the philosophical origins of the Rules of War, I had flashbacks to my undergrad class on international human rights. Both concepts, HR and RoW, have their philosophical underpinnings in Judeo-Christian morality and ethics, as advanced over the centuries by Christian thinkers such as St. Augustine (of Hippo) and Thomas Aquinas, and Reformation-era thinkers such as Grotius. These concepts later developed into "natural rights," based on God's divinity and creation of people; 'natural rights' are something that are vaguely familiar to us in the form of 'proto-rights.' Johnson talks a bit about this progression in terms of RoW through the centuries to the modern era. Rightly so, as our focus is not on the past but on the present and future.

Having said all of this, there remains the fact that HR and RoW derive from a Judeo-Christian, and later Western, tradition. And unfashionable as it may be, is there not the same tension in the world of RoW as there is in the realm of HR about exactly how universal these principals are?

(This is the part where I remind my dear readers that I believe in the need for respect of RoW and HR, so don't leave me obnoxious posts calling me a fascist and such, cuz I'll delete them. I'm engaging in a thought-exercise-- nothing more, northing less. If your bleeding heart is offended, quit reading.)

In the various debates on the universality of HR, some countries have asserted that "western" HR standards don't apply to them, as they are non-Western cultures. While the motives of the questioning countries must be carefully considered (Burma, China, Iran anyone?), is it not possible that they just might have a point?

Different countries have different cultures and mores. Different things are considered appropriate in different places: in the US it is appropriate for females not to cover their hair when in public, while in religious neighbourhoods in Israel, it is inappropriate for females not to cover their hair in public. Of course, there is a major distinction: what is socially appropriate and what is legally required. If a lady does not cover her hair in a religious neighbourhood in Israel (say she's a visitor), she may be asked politely to cover herself, or perhaps jeered at by the inhabitants. But it's *highly* unlikely she would be subject to arrest (or worse) by the police. Not so in a place like Saudi Arabia, where she could be fined and whipped publically, or in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, where she could be fined, whipped, gang raped or executed for such a "crime." (Or in certain areas of Iraq under the control of religious extremists, where women are routinely murdered for visiting the hairdresser and wearing make-up) (I also have plenty to say about the barbarity that is Shari'a, but that will have to wait for another time)

In a similar vein, countries that have cultures that are more group-focused than individual-focused have different conceptions on what is appropriate treatment for individuals. Some countries with Confusian cultures have made this argument (Burma, China). Assuming that these states are not merely covering up or explaining away their own poor behaviour towards their citizens (a tall order indeed), isn't this a legitimate claim? We Westerners do things our way, they Chinese do things their way. In their culture, what we call "the rights of the individual" are not as strongly emphasised as in ours. So, in their context, it's not improper to treat citizens in a manner that appears more brutesque than in our culture. Why can't HR be relative? And further, what right do we Westerners have to impose our philiosophy on the non-Westerners?

I have to say that these arguments do have a certain ring about them. However, I'm less inclinded to believe them since they appear as a way of brushing off international criticism over how certain governments treat their citizens. I'm not sure that all HR are relative; some might be, especially economic-social ones. But I, personally, believe that all people have a set of fundamental rights, such that they are able to live in peace and with physical security, and not fear mistreatment at the hands of their government (from both what gov'ts do and don't do).

Taking this same concept and applying it to RoW, is it not possible that different societies have vastly different views on appropriate conduct in wartime? Are some of the things that we Westerners find so appalling and repulsive merely a part of another culture's pattern of warfare? Are there certain things that are now banned by the RoW regime a result of modernization of Western warfare, but still are practiced by less advanced militaries (for example pilage for the purpose of supply)? And again, who gave Westerners the perrogative to establish what is appropriate and not?

Hopefully I'll have some ideas on how to answer these questions by the end of the term.

Initial thoughts

So something occurred to me today in class after Dr C handed out the additional readings she'd had copied for us. I started flicking through one of them and the introductory paragraphs caught my eye. They described, in gory detail, just one of the war crimes/crimes against humanity from the Yugoslavian war, Rwanda, and the Holocaust. And they described some infamous hate crimes from the 1990s in the US: James Byrd Jr, who was drug to his death by skinheads; Matthew Shepard, who was robbed, beaten and left for dead in a homophobic attack. (I remember reading these stories in the newspaper and feeling the revulsion at not only those who could do such things, but at those who essentially advocate such actions. But I digress.)

And this made my blood run cold for a minute. I mean, I'm well used to discussing every kind of man-made disaster in terms of high politics: "Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939.", "Napoleon's armies marched across Europe..." But the small details catch your eye and attention, and they stick with you.

It then occurred to me. I spent 4 years in undergrad studying the best of the human mind and capabilities: the elegance and wonder that is language. This one feature is what makes us human, in my opinion, and is what allows us to express ourselves and communicate with others so efficiently and elegantly. If you were to look at a morpheme-by-morpheme deconstruction of a sentence, you'd see the brainpower it takes just to put together a two-clause sentence. (If you have no idea what I'm talking about, I refer to how linguists take sentences and words apart to understand their structures and relationships. It's like looking at a piece of furniture and examining how it's built.)

And now, I have a grisly, front-row seat to the worst of the human mind and character: wanton violence, the infliction of torture and suffering on others, the use of destruction and death as a tool. This is the nature of the IR beast: not everything can always be couched in the delicate terminology of diplomacy. But it's shocking when you've been away from it for a while.