Politics

The doctrine of noninterference

The doctrine of noninterference turned into a charter for all around interference for one reason: the occupying power gave itself the prerogative to define the boundaries of that in which it will not interfere, and then to define the content of the authentic religion with which there was to be no interference, and finally, to acknowledge the authentic authority that would define and safeguard religion in its pure form—without external interference. The prerogative to define the boundary, the substance and the authority of the “customary,” gave vast scope to the powers of the occupying authority. But the exercise of this power, the list of those to be “protected,” was politically determined—and it grew as time passed.

Mamdani, Define and Rule

Intelligence Gathering

Two stories about intelligence reports from the CIA and the war in Iraq. In the first one, on WMDs, the CIA got the story wrong because they fit the facts into their own preconceived narrative rather than trying to understand Iraqi behavior in its own terms:

In other words, the CIA was right to identify evidence of deception, but wrong in its analysis of why Iraq was being deceptive: not to hide WMDs, but to protect its own sovereignty and to provide ambiguous signals to its principal threats (Iran and Israel).

In the second one, on 9-11, the CIA got it right, but the neocons refused to believe the warnings because it didn’t fit with their own preconceived narrative:

the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.

If you expect our government (CIA, neocons… or Obama) to learn from their mistakes, you haven’t been paying attention. And a very good argument against having something like a “kill list”…

Obama != Romney

Below are my thoughts on a recent Truth-Out post entitled: Closer Than You Think: Top 15 Things Romney and Obama Agree On.

On foreign policy and the security state this is largely accurate, however on domestic policy I think it conflates political pragmatism with ideology in a way that is rather deceptive. It is one thing to say that they both agree on the use of drones, it is another to say that they both agree on the minimum wage or card check. Without a super-majority there is no way in hell that Obama could get this, especially when it is opposed by a significant minority within the Democrats as well. But I think he does support such policies and doesn’t agree with Romney on them. Yes, it is true he is a lot more to the center on a lot of issues than many of his supporters would like him to be, but the Republicans really are much, much, farther still to the right on these issues.

Moreover, I think the nature of the list hides the importance of these differences for America’s working poor: (1) While the stimulus was far less than it should have been, it is arguable that millions more would have been trapped in poverty without it. And (2) many existing policies, like labor laws, safety laws, and environmental laws were not enforced under Bush but have been enforced under Obama. This last point I think especially deserves much more attention than it has gotten, as the non-enforcement of these laws is essentially a huge policy shift away from the national consensus (i.e. “the center”).

A lot of people on the left seem to want to punish Obama for not being more to the left, but a Romney win would probably just punish the poor and move the Democratic Party even further to the right. I wrote before the 2008 election that we need a grassroots movement to push the Dems further to the left. But I worry when occupying Wall Street means abandoning electoral politics and turning over the keys to the White House to Romney.

要怎樣讓美國不再特別：基礎篇

Translated from Unexceptionalism: A Primer, By E. L. Doctorow. Thanks to the anonymous translator.

要怎樣讓美國不再特別呢。就是說，在政治理念上，要怎麼讓美國跟世界上其他貧窮、歷史上不民主、殘暴、野蠻的國家沒有兩樣。只要照以下方法就可以：

第一步

如果你是最高法院的法官，那就跳過民主國家最神聖的事情，暫停總統大選的〔重新〕計票。宣布你屬意的人馬當選總統。

如果你是新當選的總統，那就在恐怖攻擊發生後，去侵略一個非恐怖主義國家。就算要損傷無數民眾的性命，還是繼續打下去，讓戰爭綿綿無期。

然後利用國家處於戰爭狀態為理由，對美國人民進行秘密情蒐，監聽人民電話、截收電子郵件，命令商業活動、醫療以及公立圖書館的來往紀錄都要提供給政府機關，不需法院搜索令就可以進入私宅和辦公室搜查。

至於恐怖份子的嫌疑犯，不管在國內或國外，一律施以刑求，來違反《憲法》第八修正案，該修正案禁止對人施處殘酷、不尋常的懲罰。單方面撕毀《禁止刑求公約》以及《日內瓦公約》裡面對於戰犯的處置規定。對你認定是敵方的人，則無限期拘禁下去，不給予法院審理的機會。這樣下去，相信不用多久，國會那些支持者就會將這個政策也一樣施行於美國公民身上。

停掉累進稅率，這樣最富有的一群人所需負擔的稅率，相對於他們的財富，要比中產階級還要少。用這樣來確保美國的財富，都跑到一小群人身上，好讓貧富差距爆炸性擴大。

一邊減稅，一邊增加戰爭支出，這樣耗損國庫，讓國會、州政府、市政府必須削減內政支出，這樣可以確保年輕人的教育、政府的健保計畫、退撫支出、道路橋樑修繕、公立圖書館等項目需要的經費，都必須減少。

鬆綁對銀行業的規範，這樣就可以促成嚴重衰退，好讓大批民眾丟掉工作、丟掉自家房產。

然後在你卸任總統前，再任命幾個跟當初賜予你總統職位的人一樣的最高法院大法官。

Read More

Load More