The Lex Gabinia

Can we avoid making the same mistakes, or is it too late already?:

Pirates of the Mediterranean, by Robert Harris, Commentary, NY Times: In the autumn of 68 B.C. the world’s only military superpower was dealt a profound psychological blow by a daring terrorist attack on its very heart. Rome’s port at Ostia was set on fire, the consular war fleet destroyed, and two prominent senators, together with their bodyguards and staff, kidnapped. ... [I]n the panicky aftermath of the attack, the Roman people made decisions that set them on the path to the destruction of their Constitution, their democracy and their liberty. One cannot help wondering if history is repeating itself.

Consider the parallels. The perpetrators of this spectacular assault were not in the pay of any foreign power: no nation would have dared to attack Rome so provocatively. They were, rather, the disaffected of the earth: “The ruined men of all nations,” in the words of the great 19th-century German historian Theodor Mommsen, “a piratical state with a peculiar esprit de corps.”

Like Al Qaeda, these pirates were loosely organized, but able to spread a disproportionate amount of fear among citizens who had believed themselves immune from attack. To quote Mommsen again: “The Latin husbandman, the traveler on the Appian highway, the genteel bathing visitor at the terrestrial paradise of Baiae were no longer secure of their property or their life for a single moment.”

What was to be done? Over the preceding centuries, the Constitution of ancient Rome had developed an intricate series of checks and balances intended to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual. The consulship, elected annually, was jointly held by two men. Military commands were of limited duration and subject to regular renewal. Ordinary citizens were accustomed to a remarkable degree of liberty: the cry of “Civis Romanus sum” — “I am a Roman citizen” — was a guarantee of safety throughout the world.

But such was the panic that ensued after Ostia that the people were willing to compromise these rights. The greatest soldier in Rome, the 38-year-old Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (better known to posterity as Pompey the Great) arranged for a lieutenant of his, the tribune Aulus Gabinius, to rise in the Roman Forum and propose an astonishing new law.

“Pompey was to be given not only the supreme naval command but what amounted in fact to an absolute authority and uncontrolled power over everyone,” the Greek historian Plutarch wrote. “There were not many places in the Roman world that were not included within these limits.”

Pompey eventually received almost the entire contents of the Roman Treasury — 144 million sesterces — to pay for his “war on terror,” which included building a fleet of 500 ships and raising an army of 120,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry. Such an accumulation of power was unprecedented, and there was literally a riot in the Senate when the bill was debated.

Nevertheless, at a tumultuous mass meeting in the center of Rome, Pompey’s opponents were cowed into submission, the Lex Gabinia passed (illegally), and he was given his power. In the end, once he put to sea, it took less than three months to sweep the pirates from the entire Mediterranean. Even allowing for Pompey’s genius as a military strategist, the suspicion arises that if the pirates could be defeated so swiftly, they could hardly have been such a grievous threat in the first place.

But it was too late to raise such questions. By the oldest trick in the political book — the whipping up of a panic, in which any dissenting voice could be dismissed as “soft” or even “traitorous” — powers had been ceded by the people that would never be returned. Pompey stayed in the Middle East for six years, establishing puppet regimes throughout the region, and turning himself into the richest man in the empire.

Those of us who are not Americans can only look on in wonder at the similar ease with which the ancient rights and liberties of the individual are being surrendered in the United States in the wake of 9/11. The vote by the Senate on Thursday to suspend the right of habeas corpus for terrorism detainees, denying them their right to challenge their detention in court; the careful wording about torture...; the admissibility of evidence obtained in the United States without a search warrant; the licensing of the president to declare a legal resident of the United States an enemy combatant — all this represents an historic shift in the balance of power between the citizen and the executive.

An intelligent, skeptical American would no doubt scoff at the thought that what has happened since 9/11 could presage the destruction of a centuries-old constitution; but then, I suppose, an intelligent, skeptical Roman in 68 B.C. might well have done the same.

In truth, however, the Lex Gabinia was the beginning of the end of the Roman republic. It set a precedent. Less than a decade later, Julius Caesar — the only man, according to Plutarch, who spoke out in favor of Pompey’s special command during the Senate debate — was awarded similar, extended military sovereignty in Gaul. Previously, the state, through the Senate, largely had direction of its armed forces; now the armed forces began to assume direction of the state.

It also brought a flood of money into an electoral system that had been designed for a simpler, non-imperial era. Caesar, like Pompey, with all the resources of Gaul at his disposal, became immensely wealthy, and used his treasure to fund his own political faction. Henceforth, the result of elections was determined largely by which candidate had the most money to bribe the electorate. In 49 B.C., the system collapsed completely, Caesar crossed the Rubicon — and the rest, as they say, is ancient history.

It may be that the Roman republic was doomed in any case. But the disproportionate reaction to the raid on Ostia unquestionably hastened the process, weakening the restraints on military adventurism and corrupting the political process. It was to be more than 1,800 years before anything remotely comparable to Rome’s democracy — imperfect though it was — rose again.

The Lex Gabinia was a classic illustration of the law of unintended consequences: it fatally subverted the institution it was supposed to protect. Let us hope that vote in the United States Senate does not have the same result.

Comments

[bob mcmanus]

It has crossed my mind to wonder whether America is indeed, to the extent historical parallels are useful, at the End of the Republic...with centuries of brutal empire in front of us. One might assume the other nuclear powers might resist, but allowed a pretty high level of prosperity in a free trade world, and non-interference in their internal politics, a tribute of 1-2% of GDP paid in T-Bill purchases would not be so unbearable as to force nuclear confrontation.

Or we could be somewhere around Diocletian or Constantine, about to retrench and pull back to a defensible position.

[Bruce Wilder]

Sulla was the first to march on Rome (twice!); it was Sulla, at the head of the reactionary Optimates, who fatally wounded the Republic.

The American Republic is at its end. The handing of what amounts to absolute authority to the Executive is a mortal blow to the Constitution.

But, reactionaries, for all their crude ambition and ruthless stupidity, are not capable of making a lasting Empire. Sulla may have condemned the Republic, but he could not have engineered an Empire. Caesar, a visionary, did that.

I don't see any Caesar among the Democrats. I expect the American Empire, resting on a thoroughly rotten foundation of lies and corruption and greed, will have a remarkably short life.

Best to start learning Chinese.

[wcw]

Spanish, maybe Hindi. Maybe.

China has its own problems.

[nedlink]

No doubt the US is well along on the road to fascism. What is amazing, however, is the passivity of the population, uncomprehending it would seem, as well as the "opposition" that opposes very little. Hitler wiped out German democracy easily, but in Germany, in contrast to the USA, democracy was a fragile flower only a decade or so old. And it has been done on the basis of fear and paranoia, so easily used to destroy liberties. Bin Laden has already won. By setting in motion the process by which Americans themselves have destroyed American liberty he has destroyed America. Clever man for whom we are no match.

[calmo]

Ok, I got as far as the entire 1st paragraph before I was overcome by an urge to pick up Larson (the barbarian). It was the last sentenceOne cannot help wondering if history is repeating itself. I'm sure there's a Far Side caption where the sabre toothed tigers are repeating history.
Since going back only to Rome is not working people we need to go back further.
Let's face it: With Larson you can quit wondering if history is repeating itself.

[Movie Guy]

Europe will face the march of radical islam-based power moves long before the USA is threatend in a serious manner.

As that unfolds...and it will, softie left wing Americans will stop whimpering and get prepared for the larger battle or pray that some conservative Americans step up and save them.

Meanwhile, we will likely elect a marshmallow president in November 2008 who will set the U.S. on a retreat course fully supported by endless appeasement measures. This, of course, will not work.

Look to Europe to determine what you are willing to stand and fight for in the future. But in the meantime you can keep whimpering.

[nedlink]

Americans have made the stupid mistake of thinking the primary threat from radical Islam is material. But in reality what it has done is to panic us into destroying ourselves "spiritually" by pushing us into trashing our constitution and go down the road to fascism. In fact the US could, at least some time ago, have solved the problem by simply getting OUT of Muslim lands and leaving them alone, but the Israel attachment made that impossible. So instead the US has compounded the problem by embarking on a neo-colonial exercise of trying to occupy and dominate any Muslim nation that is not our puppet. Ignorant Americans used to say that radical Islam "hated" us for our freedoms. What it hated us for was putting our military in their lands where they had no business being. But in another sense the idea is true. And radical Islam has found an excellent way to get us to destroy those freedoms, now a thing of the past, and probably not recoverable.
Those, like Bush & Co., who cry "appeasement" and call sensible people "softies", and who advocate simple minded warfare (that obviously isn't working as Iraq makes clear) simply play into the hands of those who would destroy us. And in the future when our economy tanks, as it will, from the costs of this stupid "war", we will be left without empire and without a democracy, leaving Bin Laden triumphant.

[anne]

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/09/neighbor_how_st.html

September 28, 2006

"Neighbor, How Stands the Union?"
By Brad DeLong

This is bad. Very bad. I can't underscore how bad this is. This is our Fugitive Slave Act, our Sedition Act, our Korematsu. This is a danger to our domestic liberties and a terrifying threat to our national security--for its impact on our international standing and on our alliances may be terrible indeed.

The sixteen-year-old is reading about another Daniel: "The Devil and Daniel Webster" is assigned for his English class:

Steven Vincent Benet, "The Devil and Daniel Webster": It's a story they tell in the border country, where Massachusetts joins Vermont and New Hampshire. Yes, Dan'l Webster's dead--or, at least, they buried him. But every time there's a thunderstorm around Marshfield, they say you can hear his rolling voice in the hollows of the sky. And they say that if you go to his grave and speak loud and clear, "Dan'l Webster--Dan'l Webster!" the ground'll begin to shiver and the trees begin to shake. And after a while you'll hear a deep voice saying, "Neighbor, how stands the Union?" Then you better answer the Union stands as she stood, rock-bottomed and copper-sheathed, one and indivisible, or he's liable to rear right out of the ground...

Daniel Webster will certainly walk tonight, for nobody today can say that the Republic is rock-bottomed and copper-sheathed.

But she nevertheless does stand as she stood. Things have been just as bad, and things have been almost as bad in the memory of men yet living...

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/opinion/28thu1.html?ex=1317096000&en=3eb3ba3410944ff9&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

September 28, 2006

Rushing Off a Cliff

Here's what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless politics of a midterm election: The Bush administration uses Republicans' fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws — while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser.

Republicans say Congress must act right now to create procedures for charging and trying terrorists — because the men accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks are available for trial. That's pure propaganda. Those men could have been tried and convicted long ago, but President Bush chose not to. He held them in illegal detention, had them questioned in ways that will make real trials very hard, and invented a transparently illegal system of kangaroo courts to convict them.

It was only after the Supreme Court issued the inevitable ruling striking down Mr. Bush's shadow penal system that he adopted his tone of urgency. It serves a cynical goal: Republican strategists think they can win this fall, not by passing a good law but by forcing Democrats to vote against a bad one so they could be made to look soft on terrorism.

Last week, the White House and three Republican senators announced a terrible deal on this legislation that gave Mr. Bush most of what he wanted, including a blanket waiver for crimes Americans may have committed in the service of his antiterrorism policies. Then Vice President Dick Cheney and his willing lawmakers rewrote the rest of the measure so that it would give Mr. Bush the power to jail pretty much anyone he wants for as long as he wants without charging them, to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, to authorize what normal people consider torture, and to deny justice to hundreds of men captured in error....

There is not enough time to fix these bills, especially since the few Republicans who call themselves moderates have been whipped into line, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate seems to have misplaced its spine. If there was ever a moment for a filibuster, this was it.

We don't blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they'll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won't remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration....

[anne]

What I would have wished was for even a lone Senator to think to filibuster, but I suppose there is too much to fear. Yes; I know the Democratic leadership agreed to no filibuster, so what? When a Senator speaks too long against such a bill, is the Senator, say, really really really given a stern talking to? I wonder. Imagine, a lone Senator speaking a little too long against such law.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/opinion/l29detain.html

Trampling Rights to Fight Terrorism

To the Editor:

The day the detainee bill is signed will be a day that will live in dishonor in our history. The practices that appalled us in the past when used by sleazy regimes will be incorporated into our legal heritage.

If we do not reject the responsible party in power, we will indict ourselves as accomplices before decent world opinion.

(Rev.) Connell J. Maguire
Riviera Beach, Fla., Sept. 28, 2006
The writer is a retired Navy captain.

[anne]

The vote, by the way, was 65 to 34; with Lincoln Chafee voting with 33 Democrats standing against the bill. Could the Democratic leadership in the Senate have stood against the rule limiting debate before debate? I am pleased that 34 Senators voted against the bill, but I still wonder, even foolishly, why more of an opposition was not possible.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/opinion/l29detain.html

Trampling Rights to Fight Terrorism

To the Editor:

You say that the “Bush administration uses Republicans’ fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws.” This is correct, but incomplete.

This administration seeks to strike fear in the hearts of all Americans so it can maintain total control. It uses the issue of security to create insecurity, while Democrats remain silent.

In 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt said that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” The contrast is striking with today, when we seem to fear everything and reward the political opportunists who thrive on it.

Morris Roth
Fort Lee, N.J., Sept. 28, 2006

[anne]

There should have and could have been a filibuster, no matter that the filibuster would have been voted away. There should have and could have been a lone Senator who would not be silenced by a leadership agreement on limiting time to speak against the bill. A lone Senator should have and could have spoken beyond the time limit, simply in sadness of a turn against hard won American tradition.

[Wimpy]

I'm not ready to give up on the American Republic just yet, but things are looking grim. Before now, I've never considered leaving my country. But I consider it today.

I'm at a loss to explain why there is no true opposition to be found in the halls of Congress. But since 9/11 Americans have consistently chosen the Conservatives' pseudo-strength and pseudo-decisiveness over real diplomacy and subtlety of thought. I am truly embarrassed to be an American.

At some point we need to stop blaming politicians and start blaming our fellow citizens who consistently desire comfortable half-truths and cheap consumer goods to the hard effort required to produce a great and free Republic.

Oh my! Where is our Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR or ML King? Do the ideas of liberty, justice and equality no longer excite men to revolt against the tyrannies of abusive power?

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/us/30detain.html

September 30, 2006

Detainee Bill Shifts Power to President
By SCOTT SHANE and ADAM LIPTAK

WASHINGTON — With the final passage through Congress of the detainee treatment bill, President Bush on Friday achieved a signal victory, shoring up with legislation his determined conduct of the campaign against terrorism in the face of challenges from critics and the courts.

Rather than reining in the formidable presidential powers Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have asserted since Sept. 11, 2001, the law gives some of those powers a solid statutory foundation. In effect it allows the president to identify enemies, imprison them indefinitely and interrogate them — albeit with a ban on the harshest treatment — beyond the reach of the full court reviews traditionally afforded criminal defendants and ordinary prisoners.

Taken as a whole, the law will give the president more power over terrorism suspects than he had before the Supreme Court decision this summer in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that undercut more than four years of White House policy. It does, however, grant detainees brought before military commissions limited protections initially opposed by the White House. The bill, which cleared a final procedural hurdle in the House on Friday and is likely to be signed into law next week by Mr. Bush, does not just allow the president to determine the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions; it also strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges to his interpretation.

And it broadens the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" to include not only those who fight the United States but also those who have "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." The latter group could include those accused of providing financial or other indirect support to terrorists, human rights groups say. The designation can be made by any "competent tribunal" created by the president or secretary of defense.

In very specific ways, the bill is a rejoinder to the Hamdan ruling, in which several justices said the absence of Congressional authorization was a central flaw in the administration's approach. The new bill solves that problem, legal experts said.

"The president should feel he has better authority and direction now," said Douglas W. Kmiec, a conservative legal scholar at the Pepperdine University School of Law. "I think he can reasonably be confident that this statute answers the Supreme Court and puts him back in a position to prevent another attack, which is the goal of interrogation."

But lawsuits challenging the bill are inevitable, and critics say substantial parts of it may well be rejected by the Supreme Court.

Over all, the legislation reallocates power among the three branches of government, taking authority away from the judiciary and handing it to the president....

[anne]

"The president should feel he has better authority and direction now," said Douglas W. Kmiec, a conservative legal scholar at the Pepperdine University School of Law. "I think he can reasonably be confident that this statute answers the Supreme Court and puts him back in a position to prevent another attack, which is the goal of interrogation."

[Notice how fear insinuates and carries all reason away.]

[anne]

Where was there a lone Senator who would set the leadership agreement to limit debate aside to speak till removed against this bill?

[calmo]

Such eloquence Wimpy. (Time to jettison that tag for something a tad more robust I say.)

[nedlink]

Compared to the relative pin-prick of 9/11 (in a global and historical context) what we have done to ourselves in the resulting paranoia and panic is many thousands of times more destructive. We can easily part with a few buildings. We cannot part with our freedoms and our Constitution. But that is what we seem to be doing. Have we no sense at all of priorities or proportion? Apparently not.

[calmo]

Would that your post mentioned a human life or 2 nedlink, but otherwise I share your perspective entirely.

[Bruce Webb]

January 2009 is not that far away. God knows I have hated living in George Bush's America for the last six years but realistically can they replicate the model? And perpetuate it past the next two years?

While we may agree that Bush is Lenin is there really a Stalin to back him up? George Allen? Bill Frist? Be serious. I can despair like the best of you all. Lord knows I was Bucking Fush when Bucking Fush wasn't cool. But this too will pass. And in the scheme of things relatively soon, and in all likelyhood buffered by a Democratic House of Representatives, we will be back to an America we all recognize. Sure the Army will be destroyed and we are looking at a whole new generation of Iraqi War Vets that are suffering decades beyond the actual battle. And yes that sucks. I didn't like it the first time around. But I just don't see a mechanism that allows this particular phase of Caeserism to be passed forward. I get the whole Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar thing and for that matter the Gracchi brothers before. But I just don't see a mechanism that would allow for the current clown posse to retain control past 2008.

Who? Gingrich? Reed? Cross dressing Giuliani? Pataki? McCain? Can you visualize any of those guys taking up the bundle of rods and axes that made ups the literal fasces? People who months ago were promoted as potential Presidents are lagging behind in polls for their own Senate seats. President Santorum? President Allen? President Kitty Kevorkian Frist?

Man it sucks to live in George Bush's America. I would argue that the anger and bitterness that brewed up is what cost me my last job (but landed me in a way better job so go figure) but then again I remember holding my nephew's heels and bouncing his head off the ground and him laughing and laughing. Well now he is 6'8" tall. This too will pass. Just don't forget the lessons.

No you don't want to hand the President unconstitutional powers. But are we really at risk of a post Bush President trampling the Constitution like the current crew? I just don't see it. Who is Bush's Hess?

[Wimpy]

Nicely and positively said Bruce, but it is the American people who I begin to fear, not just her plutocrats.

I can take heart only in the division between the two parties the last few elections. But I wonder if the other side is not steadily gaining (by whatever means). We will see soon enough I suppose.

[Emmanuel]

Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to Bush what is Bush's--your future straight down the drain. Hail Bushy!

[slink/js paine]

we got a peace time unitary prez process
that started with a war
started by pearl harbor
but not stopped by peace
the old kold war name for it
was the national security state

but this dabble
in roman republican history
sheds no light

the hollowing out
of the republic started long before
this colorful ostian pirates gig

marius and sulla the grachii

the burdens of a de facto empire
are themselves the royal road to an emperor

this column is nothing
but pretentious unscholarly
euro centric hog wash
by a "fiction" writer

next!!!!

[Movie Guy]

How many of you have actually read the text of the legislation that was passed by the U.S. Senate on Thursday night, and approved on Fridy to be forwarded to the White House?

Do you even the bill number and name?

It would help to read the bill as opposed to playing the sky is falling routine.

Besides, if the Dems take the Congress in November 06 and presidency in 08, any of the legislation that the majority of the Dems disapprove can be overturned.

That's hardly the scenario that some of the posters above have painted.

I doubt that very many people have read the actual legislation since Thursday night.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/opinion/l29detain.html

Trampling Rights to Fight Terrorism

To the Editor:

You say that the broad definition of "illegal enemy combatant" in the antiterrorism bill railroaded through Congress could subject legal residents of the United States "to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal" and that "the president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted."

Detainees would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment, and anyone could be locked up forever, with no reason given and no notification to friends and family.

Many of us are bitterly opposed to the current administration and have angered those who support the disaster in Iraq. What is to prevent letters, lies and innuendoes from being sent to the authorities accusing us of being illegal enemy combatants and a danger to the country?

What redress would we have? I tell myself that this could never happen here, but I fear we are on a very slippery slope.

Mabel J. Dudeney
Norwalk, Conn., Sept. 28, 2006

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/opinion/l29detain.html

Trampling Rights to Fight Terrorism

To the Editor:

Terrorism poses a grave and different kind of threat to the Republic. Yet it is no more grave than, say, Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

No one has explained how it is different in ways that justify condoning torture, rewriting international law, discarding principles of due process and human decency, ceding judicial authority to the president, and putting our troops and reputation in further jeopardy.

The president's pre-election antiterrorism legislation will do these things. It is a measure of cravenness that members of both parties would vote for this bill for political expediency.

Christopher J. Mugel
Richmond, Va., Sept. 28, 2006

[Mark Thoma]

MG:

How much freedom will you trade to catch a terrorist?

I suspect we differ greatly there, because of different preferences, and because of a different evaluation of the costs and benefits of such a trade. You can continue to insist that we do it your way or go to hell in a handbasket, but I do not share your (i) optimism in the ability of the military to produce a success, particularly following its present course of action, so the benefits are low and perhaps, quite unfortunately, even negative, (ii) to me the costs of any loss of freedom are extraordinarily high and can only be given up in the most extraordinary circumstances. These are not such circumstances. Finally, (iii) I think we have different fundamental preferences - not right, not wrong - just different, and that extends into a lot of debates, e.g. immigration, free trade, etc.

A final way we differ, perhaps, is if we have given up freedom. I suspect you will deny that. I think that point's pretty obvious.

So you can continue to try, but we are not going to see eye to eye...

[nedlink]

MG: I don't think we need to read the whole text of the bill to know very well what it in it; others have made that very clear. If you are eager to see a fascist America, please say so. Why beat around the bush (no pun intended)? Past posts of yours have made it clear you are a warmonger. Fascism dovetails into that very well.

[Movie Guy]

Mark,

You have a strange way of communicating. First, you ask me a question (a rare event) and then you prejudge me in the remainder of the post, concluding - "So you can continue to try, but we are not going to see eye to eye..."

Why don't you hold your tongue until you read my answer? You can follow up with your accusatory remarks later, after you read my answer to your personal question.

Your question: "How much freedom will you trade to catch a terrorist?"

My answer is not black and white because the issue isn't quite that simple in my opinion. It depends on the nature, severity, and proximity of the terrorist organizations threats, which was one of the points that I made in my earlier post. Going forward, Europe will have more on the ground problems first based on demographics and employment conditions.

What I try to do is analyze the threat from a macro to a micro perspective, studying positions taken by various governments and interests. To do otherwise is to be a fool or a looney nutcase in my judgment.

If the threat is immediate and significant (meaning that a group of terrorists are operating in proximity) I may be willing to concede certain perceived and known liberties in the short term. Or I may be unwilling to subject myself to such search and seizure requirements as a condition of movement in the public domain.

For example, I realize that I am already subject to some level of inspections by transportation carriers with or without a pending terrorist threat. In other words, I couldn't board a jet airliner prior to 9/11 carrying a loaded shotgun and 24 inch knife with my left hand and an open bottle of wine or beer in my right hand. The carrier wouldn't allow it. I couldn't drive down a highway doing the same thing if stopped by the highway patrol. Certain rules already existed. Those rules were the rules applied for using public domain transportation conveyances - carriers or highways.

Q&A:

1. Do I agree with everything the U.S. Government has done since or before 9/11, dating back to 1993? No.

2. Do I agree with all provisions in the Patriot Act? No.

3. Do I agree with the use of secret courts in the USA? No.

4. Do I agree with all provisions of the Bush Doctrine? No, but I support some of them. Chasing down the finances of the transnational terrorists groups makes sense. I don't want those programs eliminated in 2009, rather I want them improved.

5. Did I personally support the invasion of Afghanistan? No. But I understood why the U.S. Government did it. I expect, though, that the effort will ultimately fail due to a lack of will by the U.S. and European nations, meaning lack of will by their populations.

6. Did I personally support the invasion of Iraq? No. Never did I support that. The risks of ultimate failure were too great. But once the invasion occurred it was my judgment that we ran the risk of losing relations in the entire Middle East if the nation building and occupation were not conducted very carefully. Similarly, I do not support an immediate withdrawal unless the U.S. Government is willing to abandon relations and supporting defense agreements with most if not all nations in the Middle East. If the ramifications of that is understood, then we can withdraw now. Otherwise, we are in very difficult position. Ultimately, it is likely in my opinion that we will fail to achieve whatever goals were intended for Iraq; will withdraw under pressure; and the other Middle East nations that we maintain favorable relations with will come under increasing pressure from opposition groups and terrorist organizations. And it is possible if not likely that we will cut and run on them as well.

7. Did I read the entire contents of the most recent Congressional legislation passed on Thursday night? Yes.

8. Do I agree with all provisions of the most recent Congressional legislation regarding terrorist detention and judicial processing? No.

9. Am I willing to sacrifice the majority of my personal freedoms to eliminate transnational organizations demonstrating and stating the aims of attacking Americans abroad or in the USA? No. Not voluntarily. Am I willing to sacrifice specific so-called personal freedoms to support such goals? Perhaps, but I would like to know which of these freedoms existed unimpeded in the real world prior to the demanded or legal sacrifice imposed as a condition for tracking and capturing/elimination terrorist threats on the USA.

The level of so-called personal freedoms I am willing to consider sacrificing temporarily on a voluntary basis will depend on the nature, severity, and proximity of the terrorist organizations threats. If forced to sacrifice them, I will consider legal remedy if deemed appropriate.

Now, here is a question from me.

If the following U.S. map represented reality, say 15 years in the future, would we not view the the terrorist threats somewhat differently? I believe that we might. But I can only speak for myself.

U.S. Map - Islamic Activists/Terrorism Influence Scenario (simulation)
Link here

Map codes:

Green - lost control to terrorism/Islamic activists
Pink - under immediate threat; pending collapse
Red - severe challenges held in check
Darkest red - minor threats
Blue - not threatened

[bob mcmanus]

"If the following U.S. map represented reality, say 15 years in..."

There is some serious crazy floating in the air. California in total Sharia, with Hollywood in burquas in 15 years.
Yes, I must sit and discuss this dire threat. Tomorrow may be too late.

[nedlink]

I think we all know where MG is coming from. And that he is a kind of hybrid of Rummy+Cheney+Wolfie+Libby+Feith+Kristol+several more warmongers cum torture advocates who are happy to trash the Consitution and Bill of Rights.

[Bruce Webb]

MovieGuy is not a cardboard figure. It is exactly because I do not "know where MG is coming from" that I value his input. And like him or loathe him God knows he provides links. Which puts him light years ahead of the rightest lumpencommentariot.

(And yes skip I just coined that term! At least Google reported back the best message ever!! "Your search - lumpencommentariot - did not match any documents. " Go-ooaal!)

[Bruce Webb]

"Nicely and positively said Bruce, but it is the American people who I begin to fear, not just her plutocrats."

Call me Rebecca and put me in Sunnybrook Farm, but I was selling this same exact message when Bush was sitting in the 70% approval range. Gloom and doomers have been selling the American public way short for a long time. You can argue whether the Main Stream Media is directing or following the public but the conclusion that you can't change the channel (river or TV) is defeatism.

Rage Against the Machine. Crash the Gate. People who despaired because the American People "Just don't get it" themselves just don't get it. I have both a mousepad and a sweatshirt that bear this logo: Bush Approval in 15 National Polls. You can focus narrowly and see the Bush trendline as pointing up in recent months and pushing 40% or you can lay a rule along the whole trendline and seeing a 50 point loss.

Americans by and large are arguably ignorant, but ignorant does not translate to stupid. That is a category mistake that urban elites have been making forever.

[Wimpy]

Good point Bruce Webb. The polls also give me hope, although I fear that they reflect growing discouragement over the Iraq war as opposed to the President's anti-terror policies.

Simply put, the actions of our politicians speak more powerfully then any of these polls. Bush and company continue to push further down the road leading away from a liberal republic in spite of what these polls might show. And where is the opposition in the Congress? Where are the crowds converging on Washington to demand their liberties?

One thing history teaches us is that it rarely takes a majority to enforce tyranny. It only takes a small, dedicated group of idiots, of which we apparently have no shortage, coupled with the apathy of the majority. This seems an apt description of America today. America the apathetic.

Armed with polling evidence, you seem to think the danger is over. I hope so, but it is also possible that the real danger is just now beginning. Six years of George W. has done serious damage to the structure of our Republic. While I remain hopeful for the November elections, I remain concerned that current polling might not translate into positive results.

[jimboy]

MG is by no means a cardboard figure. But he comes direct from the Zionist Lobby and loyalty to Israel above all. Surprised you couldn't figure that out. And God! does he provide links, a plethora of links, as if "links" solve all problems and refute all opponents. They don't and he doesn't. From his posts it seems clear he is all for the Iraq war, for trashing the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, for goading the US into an endless war vs Islam for the purposes of Israel, and so on to a disgusting infinitum. If you "value" that, fine. I don't. But it is interesting to have him here, giving us the word from the Zionist lobby, etc.

[calmo]

Calling Rebecca on Sunnybrook Farm
Your attention madam as members of your court wish to announce that they have spotted "lumpencommentariots" and know it means them. [They are beyond Google.]
Tis a goal, tis.
And now, the post game review:
I think I saw even higher published numbers than the 70% you posted, but I also saw the election participation rate too. The polls don't let us know how many of those random (ok, you pollsters out there, it is not purely random is it?) contacts decline the offer. Nor how many might have been abusive. ('Your call is being monitored for godknowswhat' is a growing element of telephone services and solicitations, yes?) [Why are they so unhappy people?] The official approval rates are of the people happy enough to participate in the poll, yes?

But this is largeIt is exactly because I do not "know where MG is coming from" that I value his input.and I think I'll tether myself to this bit rather than go visit bob and test out those bed sheets for fit. (Such self control. Lawrence of Arabia could be in the air, bob. Where *are* my sandals? A couple of bed sheets and it's Calmo of California. Camels? Ok, let's go with the coconuts and Pythonize it.)[nearly such self cotrol]
We (not just 'me') need to suppress opinions different from our own (not 'my own') by stuffing them in the To BE Suppressed box. It does remind me of that scene where a new calf is introduced to the herd (this is you bob) and, for all you non-cowboys out there, it is quite a sniffarama by the rest of the herd (the dogs sniffing out each other is merely a shadow of this phenomena). [What do I know about the sociology of knowledge? Not much more than those cows I'm afraid.]
'Where are you coming from?' doesn't have to be taken literally. Or simplistically (Dem or Rep?). Or casually/colloquially (What is your view/position?).
nedlink is able to make the claim 'We know where he is coming from.' because there is a trail of comments and because nedlink (like us other cows people) doesn't want to say anything about what he knows, but about what we should sniff. [apologies to all you sociologists out there who understand this sniffing so much better than I do.]
Why I post here: to have a good sniff.

[bob mcmanus]

I have seen MG around, and read him without crossing myself. That map on the other hand...

And I said there is serious crazy floating around. It is not exclusive to the right side of the aisle. I have reached and grabbed some myself.

[Bruce Webb]

Some people explain that you can't spell Calmo without 'calm', Those people have obviously never met Calmo.

And yes Georgie's numbers hit the lower 90's before starting their steady slide to sub 40. Sic transit gloria.

[Movie Guy]

bob mcmanus - That map on the other hand...

Bob,

The map is just a point of illustration, not a factual representation of a potential threat. I said that it was a simulation.

It is very easy for those of us in the United States to readily blow off most global transnational terrorism threats. If we lived in Western Europe, we would have a different perspective due to population demographics and ongoing unrest as evidenced in a number of countries.

For anyone who has lived in Europe in the last three decades, the problems and concerns are obvious. I have already lived through those experiences.

[Movie Guy]

I mentioned some time back that a forthcoming study on Islamic activism was to be translated and released by the government of the Netherlands. That study was presented in Brussels on 12 September and the English translation was released. Here it is, followed by other sources of information ranging from very liberal to neutral to very conservative.

The Netherlands approach is the one that I expect will be adopted in Western Europe as a means for dealing with their growing problems. It is likely that the United States will change course in 2009 and attempt to undertake similar courses of action on a broader global foreign policy scale.

The first report, a liberal presentation from the WRR in the Netherlands, is an effective counter to the neo-con presentation in the last reference. I expect that the best approach is somewhere in the middle, and, to that end, Report No. 69 (below) offers an account of how Turkey is dealing with Islamic radical elements.

I believe that Report No. 73 offers considerable insight for anyone willing to examine the issues associated with Islamic activism. It is perhaps one of the best papers of its kind at the present time. It's a good policy think piece.

Dynamism in Islamic Activism
Report No. 73
WETENSCHAPPELIJKE RAAD VOOR HET REGERINGSBELEID (WRR)
[NETHERLANDS SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL FOR GOVERNMENT POLICY]
The Netherlands
Translation made available in September 2006
Link here; Link here for full report

This report was presented to the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ben Bot, on behalf of the Dutch government on 12 April 2006. The report was presented in Brussels, Belgium in September at which time an English translation was provided. The second link above is the translation of the full report. Be aware that it may take a moment or two for the report to download.

Complete 9/11 Timeline - beginning in 1979
Link here

Islamic Fundamentalists’ Global Network - Modus Operandi - Model Bosnia
DOCUMENTATION CENTRE OF REPUBLIC OF SRPSKA
BUREAU OF GOVERNMENT OF RS FOR RELATION WITH ICTY
Republic of Srpska
September 2002
Link here

The European Union,Turkey and Islam
Report No. 69
WETENSCHAPPELIJKE RAAD VOOR HET REGERINGSBELEID (WRR)
[NETHERLANDS SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL FOR GOVERNMENT POLICY]
The Netherlands
June 2004; translated in English August 2004
Link here; Link here for full report

World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win
September 2004
Link here

[Movie Guy]

The main post asked a question: "Can we avoid making the same mistakes, or is it too late already?"

Perhaps there should be an understanding of how part of this mess began. Note the quotes.

Events:

1977-1981: The Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union In 1977

"Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter’s National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded as prime targets. Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts that with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will “explode into genocidal fury” against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a former CIA official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski favored a “de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran.” [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241, 251 - 256]"

December 26, 1979: Soviet Forces, Lured in by the CIA, Invade Afghanistan

"The Soviet Union invades Afghanistan. They will withdraw in 1989 after a brutal 10-year war. It has been commonly believed that the invasion was unprovoked. However, in a 1998 interview, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser, will reveal that the CIA began destabilizing the pro-Soviet Afghan government six months earlier in a deliberate attempt to get the Soviets to invade and have their own Vietnam-type costly war (see July 1979). Brzezinski rhetorically asks, “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?” [Le Nouvel Observateur (Paris), 1/1998; Mirror, 1/29/2002] The US and Saudi Arabia give a huge amount of money (estimates range up to $40 billion total for the war) to support the mujahedeen guerrilla fighters opposing the Russians. Most of the money is managed by the ISI, Pakistan’s intelligence agency. [Nation, 2/15/1999]"

Source: Complete 9/11 Timeline - beginning in 1979 Link here
* First and third references of 2295 events.

[calmo]

bob has my good ear this time.
hello...HELLO...
HELLOAnd I said there is serious crazy floating around. It is not exclusive to the right side of the aisle. I have reached and grabbed some myselfAnd with these few strokes Robert What's-His-Face at the NYT looks like such a pipsqueak and mcmanus, the giant.
U B right sir and far from my place
to touch this sentiment in any way.

[anne]

What so many fail to understand though more are understanding is that our leadership has cultivated fear rather than relieving fear and anxiety, and many have rather enjoyed playing at being afraid, as children play with masks. There is no game however in the play at fear, for fear allows us to make decisions and act in ways that would be otherwise largely or completely unthinkable. We have been and are a country strong and realistically secure beyond historical comparison, yet fear has been cultivated and we are losing our hard won heritage in acceeding to fear. The time has come to set aside fear, no matter our leadership. Enough, for look what we have been responsible for these last years, look at what we are giving away of our heritage. Enough.

[anne]

We have increasingly begun to use perjorative illusion to the Muslims, of whom there are beyond a billion. As with Christians or Jews or Buddhists people who would consider themselves as Muslim range beyond limit in culture and personal philosophy. I deeply regret any reference to Muslims in any collective sense that I find that is perjorative. We must never tolerate religious intolerance. Enough.

[anne]

Now, here is a fear of freedom we should cultivate:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/education/30teacher.html?ex=1317268800&en=72efd1846b3947bd&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

September 30, 2006

Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL

FRISCO, Tex. — “Keep the ‘Art’ in ‘Smart’ and ‘Heart,’ ” Sydney McGee had posted on her Web site at Wilma Fisher Elementary School in this moneyed boomtown that is gobbling up the farm fields north of Dallas.

But Ms. McGee, 51, a popular art teacher with 28 years in the classroom, is out of a job after leading her fifth-grade classes last April through the Dallas Museum of Art. One of her students saw nude art in the museum, and after the child’s parent complained, the teacher was suspended.

Although the tour had been approved by the principal, and the 89 students were accompanied by 4 other teachers, at least 12 parents and a museum docent, Ms. McGee said, she was called to the principal the next day and “bashed.”

She later received a memorandum in which the principal, Nancy Lawson, wrote: “During a study trip that you planned for fifth graders, students were exposed to nude statues and other nude art representations.” It cited additional complaints, which Ms. McGee has challenged.

The school board suspended her with pay on Sept. 22.

In a newsletter e-mailed to parents this week, the principal and Rick Reedy, superintendent of the Frisco Independent School District, said that Ms. McGee had been denied transfer to another school in the district, that her annual contract would not be renewed and that a replacement had been interviewed.

The episode has dumbfounded and exasperated many in and out of this mushrooming exurb, where nearly two dozen new schools have been built in the last decade and computers outnumber students three to one.

A representative of the Texas State Teachers Association, which has sprung to Ms. McGee’s defense, calls it “the first ‘nudity-in-a-museum case’ we have seen.” ...

[anne]

Why am I reminded of Attorney General John Ashcroft thinking it most important to modestly drape the statue of Justice so that we might better be able to think of what justice was to John Ascroft? No matter, we are entirely mad; mad as hatters.

[gordon]

I hate to burst Bruce Webb's bubble, but "lumpencommentariat" got 3 hits on Yahoo, one from 2003. I fear that the spelling with an "a" is a better analogy with Marx than the spelling with an "o". Nice try, though, and maintain the rage.

[anne]

We are really gone quite mad. When I think in my strange way of Attorney General John Ashcroft being nutty enough to cover the statue of justice, lest it, well, lest it whatever it might other do when we noticed it, save the kiddies, well, I was amazed then. Then, I found this article of a public school field trip to the Dallas Museum of Art. We are entirely nutty, nutty as can be.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/education/30teacher.html?ex=1317268800&en=72efd1846b3947bd&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing

John R. Lane, director of the museum, said he had no information on why Ms. McGee had been disciplined.

"I think you can walk into the Dallas Museum of Art and see nothing that would cause concern," Mr. Lane said.

Over the past decade, more than half a million students, including about a thousand from other Frisco schools, have toured the museum's collection of 26,000 works spanning 5,000 years, he said, "without a single complaint." One school recently did cancel a scheduled visit, he said. He did not have its name.

The uproar has swamped Frisco school switchboards and prompted some Dallas-area television stations to broadcast images of statues from the museum with areas of the anatomy blacked out....

[anne]

How contagious is nuttiness anyway, because we had better be seriously worried. There are fears we really need to have just now:

"The uproar has swamped Frisco school switchboards and prompted some Dallas-area television stations to broadcast images of statues from the museum with areas of the anatomy blacked out...."

[What color was Dallas on that map above? Whew.]

[Paul Walter]

From the point of view of a disheartened Aussie, it has been good to see a bit angst in the cradle of democracy, since it means I no longer need to feel alone.
We have a neocon government in Australia, too- complete with think-tanks, Murdoch press and shockjocks. As with the US, in Australia an intricate and effective system of checks and balances; the separation of powers, has been effectively dismantled over the last decade and the same sort of concentration of power into a very few ( and very unworthy ) hands, has occured.
Like yourselves we have a timid opposition- your Democrats are our Labor party.
As to the essay concerning Pompey and Lex Gabinia, a interesting follow-up would be Cicero's description of his time as governor of Cilicia, nearly twenty years later. Cicero describes in fruitful detail the consequences of Lex Gabinia, in full swing.

[Bruce Webb]

"I hate to burst Bruce Webb's bubble, but "lumpencommentariat" got 3 hits on Yahoo, one from 2003"

Yes, and I clicked through and the guy spells his own name as 'Tayler'. Looks like Mr. Tayler and Mr. Webb both need to be minding their 'p's and 'q's. Or their 'a's and 'e's or 'o's.

I am having fun and I daresay drinking liberally, because on all kind of levels you can't but view the Foley Follies without a sense of profound astonishment. Lex Gabinia vs Pederasty. Who says we wasted time getting degrees in Latin and Classical history?

[Bruce Webb]

'teat' is descriptive, 'tit' is vulgar, and 'Tetons' is geographic.

I had a brilliant English professor who explicated what the root meaning that joined 'country', 'county' and 'queen' together. Yes indeed they all well from the same root word and concept.

Lets just be Latin and call it "fertilitas".

[reason]

Paul Walter,
I'm an ex-pat aussie and I can tell you, what is going on down under is chicken feed compared to the US. Absolute chicken feed. The government in Australia may have elements of populism in it, but it isn't anti-science and it is at least basically competent. And the Australian system is simply better. If the labour party ever gets its act together all change overnight. And it least Australia still has the fairfax press.

[reason]

Paul Walter,
and the government in Australia is not neo-conservative (in the sense used in the US). They are neo-liberal populist opportunists. More Gingridge than Cheney. They suck up to Bush, but don't seriously imitate him.

[Paul Walter]

Hey reason, I don't think we are that far apart. Still, you have to admit neither Howard or Bush is what you'd call the most desirable outcome or representative of world's best practice. And yes, Labor is coming. Just like Armageddon and about thirty-five years after it.
Actually am horrified that you reckon the US is THAT much worse than OZ!
Am on prozac enough, just living in OZ under Howard.
By the way, do you notice how quiet their blog site has gone, since we turned up?

[anne]

Paul, the more sense we gain of Australia the better both for the interest in Australia as such and for the implicit or explicit comparison. Coninue :)

[anne]

"Continue" would have actually made sense, I suppose. Australia is a physically glorious land.

[gordon]

Why does Paul Walter imply that the US is the "cradle of democracy"?

[Movie Guy]

The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser
Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

Link here
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Translated from the French by Bill Blum

[Movie Guy]

The Carter Doctrine
approved January 15, 1981
Link here

The Carter Doctrine was approved just days before the Carter Administration ended. The following is a retype of the scanned copy of the directive; original copy available for review at the link above.

---- Directive follows ----

SECRET

The White House
Washington

January 15, 1981

Presidential Directive/NSC-63

To:
The Vice President
The Secretary of State
The Secretary of The Treasury
The Secretary of Defense
The Secretary of Commerce
The Secretary of Energy
The Director, Office of Management & Budget
The Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
The Director of Central Intelligence

[approving release signature of President Jimmy Carter applied on the original and scan copy]

Subject: Persian Gulf Security Framework (U)

In my State of the Union Address to the Congress in January 1980, I called special attention to our interests in the Southwest Asia and Persian Gulf region. Furthermore, in light of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, I declared that:

"An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States. It will be repelled by the use of any means necessary, including military force." (U)

Subsequently, I have directed action to protect the Strait of Hormuz and strengthen our key friends in the region in the face of risks stemming from the Iran/Iraq was. It is U.S. strategy to meet these commitments and to defend our vital interests in the region as a whole by:

-- building up our own capabilities to project force into the region while maintaining a credible presence there;

-- developing a broad range of military and related response options in and outside the region against the Soviet Union, including U.S. force projection into the region, to compensate for the current Soviet regional advantage in conventional forces;

-- making the Soviet Union aware that it will also face a wide range of economic and diplomatic sanctions on a worldwide basis if it intervenes in the region;

-- assisting countries in the region: to deter and diminish internal and external threats to stability; and to contribute to deterring and resisting Soviet penetration -- political, economic, or military;

-- diminishing radical influences in the region and enhancing US security by working for progress toward a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace settlement;

-- improving access to facilities in the region while remaining sensitive to the special historical experience of the region and not placing in jeopardy our relationships or the internal stability of the countries concerned by insisting on formal basing arrangements;

-- taking a regional approach to securing our economic and political interests rather than basing their defense wholly on drawing a line to protect specific countries in the region (S)

There has been consideration progress in improving our security posture in the region and in shaping an effective security framework. To ensure that this trend continues, I direct that the Persian Gulf Security Framework be pursued as follows:

I. The Military Component

The Department of Defense has principal responsibility for initiatives in this area consistent with the responsibility of the Department of State. This component will include greater effort in the following areas:

A. U.S. Force Capabilities, including forces, lift, facilities access, overbuilding and prepositioning of supplies, exercises, and presence in the region. (S)

B. Local Defense Capabilities, improved through security assistance, advisory programs and enhancement of local facilities and military capabilities in order to support U.S. force projection and local defense developed by joint planning, combined exercises, consultation, and other appropriate means. (S)

C. Getting our Allies to Carry More of the Burden of coalition deterrence/defense in Europe and Northeast Asia, as part of a rational division of labor, to offset greater allocation of U.S. resources to the security of the Persian Gulf. (S)

II. The Foreign Policy Component

The Department of State has principal responsibility for this component, which will be carried out in terms of:

A. The Middle East Peace Process in which progress must be achieved as rapidly as feasible. (S)

B. Turkey and Pakistan with which improved security relations are the objective. (S)

C. The Arabian Peninsula in which we will assist the countries concerned to enhance their internal stability and counter Soviet influence. (S)

D. The Horn of Africa, where we seek improved ties with Somalia and Djibouti and, when possible, with Ethiopia. (S)

E. The Allies, in Europe and Asia, from whom we seek diplomatic, military, economic, and political assistance in meeting our mutual security objectives in the Persian Gulf region. An early focus of effort with these Allies and with regional powers will be establishing relationships to help assure quick and positive processing of overflight, refueling and sustain forces in Southwest Asia. (S)

III. Economic Issues

The Department of Treasury, State, and Energy will share responsibility in this area. Economic subcomponents are:

A. Oil Policy, to ensure availability of oil at reasonable prices and to reduce Western dependence on Gulf oil. (S)

B. Western Economic Assistance, in which our goal will be to help address economic problems in the region through multilateral and unilateral efforts. (S)

C. Saudi and Other Gulf States Cooperation in Financing of Regional Security Needs in which we seek a more comprehensive, region-wide use of Saudi and other peninsular capabilities to meet regional security needs. (S)

D. Economic Stability which is crucial to both the internal and external security and to the political stability of states in the region. It should be an integral component of the security review process and taken into account in any U.S. decisions concerning military and/or economic assistance. (S)

IV. Intelligence Issues

The Director of Central Intelligence has the principal responsibility for developing an effective regionally integrated intelligence military, diplomatic, and economic components. (S)

Resources Considerations

Each agency will be responsible for and will identify the programs in its area which are required to implementing this directive. In addition, each agency will propose appropriate priority for these programs. (C)

The Office of Management and Budget will monitor agency programs in support of this directive, will insure that such programs are identifiable, and will insure that they are receiving an appropriately high priority in all agencies. (C)

Coordination

Interagency coordination for the security framework shall continue to be accomplished by the Special Coordination Committee. (C)

[signed]
Zbigniew Brzezinski

-- In light of the above, analyze policy options for future U.S. forces in Korea, assuring ROK security and reducing tension on the peninsula.

The review is to be completed by March 31.

[signed by]
Zbigniew Brzezinski

SECRET

[Note: declassified on 6/23/99 or later; public release after January 14, 2001]

[Paul Walter]

Anne, what what would you have had me call your beautiful but delinquent land?
No, the US and Australia are works in progress. Unfortunately, both have kicked out at the hard work of our betters who tried to make sense of life and build a rational basis for its existence. What I fear is, we stumble down the same route as that of the Classical Athens that fell away to anonymous mediocrity after a brief historical moment of glory, through hubris.
Will give you a little example that am sure you will grasp the significance of; a parallel and shared cultural moment.
Our top university, of Melbourne, has just had several books written by the spiritual founder of Islamic extremism hoisted off its shelves for fear of offending the new sedition legislation. But local academics are, of course, baffled!
If "terrorism" is such a looming threat, as many intelligent people as possible should be reading as much relevant material as possible, the quicker to understand it?
You know, 9/11, Bali, all that sort of thing?
Yes, you'd think that, wouldn't you?
Not in this crazy part of the western world!

[anne]

Cultivating fear as we have done has fearsome social consequences.

[Movie Guy]

anne - "What so many fail to understand though more are understanding is that our leadership has cultivated fear rather than relieving fear and anxiety, and many have rather enjoyed playing at being afraid, as children play with masks."

Trying telling that to the families and friends of those who died on September 11, 2001 and those who died since mid-1979 once President Carter and National Security Advisor Brzezinski launched their lunatic secret operation in Afghanistan designed to create an Islamic explosion against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and elsewhere - the very operation that sponsored the creation of the Taliban and al Qaeda, armed and funded via the Pakistan ISI by the Carter Administration. And once launched, once the U.S. was committed, once the flames of Islamic fundamentalism violent jihad and armed conflict were created, further supported with additional arms and more billions in funding by the Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton Administrations.

Try telling that to the families and friends of those who died in the al Qaeda bombings of the Embassies of the United States at Nairobi, Kenya and Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.

Try telling that to the families and friends of those died on the USS Cole in 2000.

Try telling that to any of the family members and friends of those who have died as a result of domestic and transnational terrorism since 1979.

While you're at it, try denying any of this:

Country Reports on Terrorism

Al Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology 1994-2006
Congressional Research Service
January 26, 2006

----

In February 1998, al-Qaeda issued a statement, "The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders", saying it was the duty of all Muslims to kill US citizens—civilian or military—and their allies everywhere. Al-Qaeda would merge with Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Al-Jihad) of Ayman al-Zawahiri in June 2001.

In an al-Qaeda house in Afghanistan, New York Times reporters found a brief statement of the “Goals and Objectives of Jihad”:

- Establishing the rule of God on earth
- Attaining martyrdom in the cause of God
- Purification of the ranks of Islam from the elements of depravity

In 1998, several al-Qaeda leaders issued a declaration calling on Muslims to kill Americans—including civilians—as well as “those who are allied with them from among the helpers of Satan.”

GlobalSecurity.org

----

From the terrorist manual found in an apartment in Manchester, England:

"The main mission for which the Military Organization is responsible is:

The overthrow of the godless regimes and their replacement with an Islamic regime.

Other missions consist of the following:

1. Gathering information about the enemy, the land, the installations, and the neighbors.
2. Kidnaping enemy personnel, documents, secrets, and arms.
3. Assassinating enemy personnel as well as foreign tourists.
4. Freeing the brothers who are captured by the enemy.
5. Spreading rumors and writing statements that instigate people against the enemy.
6. Blasting and destroying the places of amusement, immorality, and sin; not a vital target.
7. Blasting and destroying the embassies and attacking vital economic centers.
8. Blasting and destroying bridges leading into and out of the cities."

-----

[from Bosnia] The following five main political objectives of the Al-Qaeda terrorist network, can be
summed up as:

1. Creating an ethnically pure Islamic religious fundamentalist state globally with an Islamic fundamentalist governmental regime exists making it possible for the expansion of Al-Qaeda to be undertaken as it was in prior Afghanistan with in state terrorist training camps can be established to work towards expanding Al-Qaeda’s current sphere of political influence worldwide;

2. To establish a base of operation somewhere in which Rule of Law and Democratic governance is still in its infant stages such as Iraq and/or Somalia where Al-Qaeda can setup recruit, train and equip new Islamic fundamentalists for future terrorist activities against the United States and other Western States and American allies;

3. For Al-Qaeda to both be able to abuse, misuse and also misinterpreting true Islamic doctrines in order to pervert Islam, one of the world’s largest proselytizing religions for the use of merely expanding terrorist activities alone;

4. For Al-Qaeda to continue its advocating destruction of Western democratic governmental standards currently espoused within Western and Western European modern civilization. These are perceived by Al-Qaeda as the largest obstacles blocking
their overall Islamicist goals;

5. Supporting Muslim fundamentalism globally

-----

anne, you're living in a state of denial.

For you to say that "many have rather enjoyed playing at being afraid, as children play with masks" is the ultimate disdain and disrespect for the victims and the families and friends who loved those who lost their lives at the hands of terrorists.

While you may hate the Bush Administration, let us be clear that it was this Administration that sought to fully disable if not destroy the Islamic fundamentalist monster creations of the Carter Administration - the Taliban and al Qaeda. Granted, the job is not finished and has not been pursued as thoroughly as I would prefer, but the effort is one helluva start at destroying the insane creations of Carter and Brzezinski. Moreover, Carter's personal support of the Iranian revolution has led to the creation of at least 27 terrorist training camps, and funding and arming of many terrorist organizations including the Iranian group that professes to have 55,000 suicide bombers ready to be deployed.

As late as 1998 during an interview in Paris, France, Carter's National Security Advisor Brzezinski expressed the arrogant opinion: "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"

And look to the Carter Doctrine (posted above) based on the secret Afghanistan operation for further understanding the presence of the U.S. in the Middle East. Do read it carefully.

Yes, we can thank Carter and Brzezinski for their lunatic actions in encouraging and sponsoring the Islamic fundamentalism terrorists global upheaval, the fires of which will be exceedingly difficult to extinguish.

[Movie Guy]

In order to extinguish the global fires of Islamic fundamentalism and al Qaeda/Taliban/transnational Islamic activist terrorism, it will likely take a combination of initiatives and actions as outlined in this document:

Dynamism in Islamic Activism
Report No. 73
WETENSCHAPPELIJKE RAAD VOOR HET REGERINGSBELEID (WRR)
[NETHERLANDS SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL FOR GOVERNMENT POLICY]
The Netherlands
Translation made available in September 2006
Link here; Link here for full report

Unless we stay on this course:

World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win
September 2004
Link here

It should be obvious, though, with the advent of the Presidency of Carter II, likely to begin in 2009, that the Dutch options will be embraced as potentially viable solutions. We can also expect that further appeasements and concessions will be provided to global elements of Islamic fundamentalism activist groups and transnational terrorist supporters in efforts to cool the flames of the creations of Carter I, Brzezinski, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

[Movie Guy]

While the voices on this blog are notably quiet on the subject of Carter and Brzezinski, and the course that they set ablaze in Afghanistan and elsewhere by creating and funding what became the Taliban and al Qaeda, one email this evening sums it up:

"Holy shit! You mean we started the whole thing?

Thank you for clearing that up with documentation and direct quotes. I have since verified your sources with other links and telephone calls to a few foreign policy experts.

Carter received the Nobel Prize for Peace? Bullshit. He should be held accountable."

- Ed

I agree.

[daveyjones]

I am digging all the uproar about the Detainee Bill but why doesn't anyone ever mention the BILL NUMBER? I am trying to refer to this thing and if you haven't luckly seen it posted somewhere by some thorough soul then you'll never find it in the maze. Any good sites for locating a bill number by some description? thanx...

[anne]

The House resolution number is HR 6166.
The Senate bill number is S 3930.

The Detainee Bill....

[Movie Guy]

daveyjones,

What you are really looking for is the following legislation, available from the Library of Congress, Thomas:

Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
S.3930.ENR
Link here

Click on "Text of Legislation" and then click on S.3930.ENR. You can open up the Pdf version or use the "Beginning" to view the legislation in its entirely, or you can work through each section of the bill.

The related House bills no longer matter, nor do the previous versions of Senate bill S.3930 and other related Senate bills submitted previously.

Clicking on "Bill Summary & Status file" once you have opened up S.3930.ENR and then clicking on "All Information" will provide the history of the bill.

And, no, it's not called the "Detainee Bill".

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 was cleared to go to the White House on 29 September 2006.

[PKD]

Robert Harris? Phillip K Dick called (from the dead) and said he wanted the idea for "Fatherland" back (High Castle was sooooo much better,)

[immrlizard]

Short of nuclear war, the USA will never be defeated by outside forces. There are enough forces destroying it from the inside that all that needs to happen is for people to wait.

Greed and stupidity will do the work for them. It is surely working as we type.

[Thomas Meyer]

The Romans never had a democracy in the modern sense of the word. It was more or less a aristocracy/plutocracy with some democratic elements, only those who had money or were of noble ancestory could make a political career. The political power of the majority was marginal before and after the lex gambia. The only thing that was eventually destroyed in the following years was the power of the senat. But that had not been a chamber, whose members were elected by the people, but an exclusive circle of aristocrates and their power eroded not right after that law, but gradually as the number of senators grew and people like Ceasar and Augustus came to power.
So your argument has only the act of "terrorism" as point that could be compared. But as I tried to point out the situation does not have really much more in common.

[Bruce Dearborn Walker]

Your understanding of Roman history is severely fact-impaired and betrays both your lack of knowledge and your misunderstanding of current events. This is ridiculous, and I will not waste hours of my time fisking your foolishness.

I will, however, state that your fears are what our second amendment is about. Armed citizens such as myself are your assurance that your freedoms will remain inviolate. Woe unto Caesar when he crosses OUR Rubicon.

[Oh boy!]

Who are destroying America? Osama is just a servant of the big guys. The real enemy is inside.

http://www.erichufschmid.net/index.html

[Socrtwo]

Socrates/Plato predicted that all Democracies fall to Tyrannies eventually. The cycle go as follows:

1. Meritocracy - rule of the best where the good of all is the value. This corresponds to the "Dark Ages" where the priests who could still marry until 800 AD, were the rulers of towns and ruling was decentralized. Ruling was/is actually done against the will but as a sacred duty and is based on personal merit - 476 AD - ~909 AD.

2. Timocracy/Hereditary Aristocracy - rule of the few where personal and national honor is the chief value. This corresponds to the Middle Age/Age of Chivalry ~910 AD - ~1343 AD.

3. Oligarchy - rule of those who have money, where personal and national wealth is the chief value. This corresponds to the "Renaissance"/The Medicis - ~1344 AD - ~1775 AD.

4. Democracy - rule of those who promote personal freedom and who act in the most free way, i.e. Politicians, Rock Stars, Actors and Celebrities - ~1776 AD - ~2209 AD.

5. Tyranny - rule of those who promote obedience to the state. "From an excess of freedom comes an excess of slavery." ~2210 AD - ~2653 AD

The genesis of this state is madness. This madness is produce with increasing force in Democracies by the dispossessed children of the Oligarchs. The children of the Oligarchs produce a popular culture which they cynically manipulate the children of Democrats. This is the culture of the deification of romantic love and sex in Democracy. Because this ideal is simply unattainable, the more a child of a Democrat buys into the cult, the more frustrated and insane he becomes. Madness becomes an increasing problem in Democracies.

Democracy has the appearance of being the best society but this is superficial it is in reality the Meritocracy where this is true. Democracy is also the prelude to the worst society. There are all types of persons in democracies, Meritocrats (sincerely religious, humble and/or ethical), Timocrats (usually soldier or athlete types), Oligarchs (money lenders/predatory usurers, corporate climbers), Democrats (ordinary working class), Tyrants (the insane and criminals).

The Oligarchs prey on the Democrats with their false ideology. The infected now mad Democrats now transform into Tyrants and now rightly blame their problems on the rich and the idle children of them and partly use this as a springboard to get political power, when they sense their numerical superiority in the society.

At any rate. I don't see the full transition to Tyranny for another 200 years. Tyrants aren't all bad, their societies contain the seeds of new life (see the rise of Christianity) and they are great organizers and builders.

[Gil]

Bleh? Strange article, the end of Rome as we know it? Western Rome lasted some 500 years after this terrorist attack and Eastern Rome lingered on for another 1000 or so years. Talk about being careful as to remembering where you buried your gold coins!

Actually, Thomas Meyer, from most peoples' belief on what Democracy is supposed to look like, most Western nations weren't democratic until the last 50-100 years.

Actually, Socrtwo, I prefer to believe in the Iron Law of Oligarchy. After all, as far as I'm concerned a Dictatorship is a Dictatorship, regardless of where and how the elite justify their power. The powerful rule, period. But your timeline seems optimistic I personally believed, even before Sep. 11, that by 2050AD Democracy would have withered away even though the leaders would still call themselves 'democratic'. By 2100AD rulers would admit to being fascists and couldn't care for Democracy. Then by 2200AD after 100 years of hereditary ruling and wealth the leaders declare themselves to be Monarchs with pomp and ceremony and some sort of Divine Right. And this is assuming that there aren't any substantial natural or artificial disasters!

[DoktorJeep]

The elites of Rome and the remnants of it's oligarchy founded the Catholic Church with the intention of doing exactly - keeping "Rome" and all that it serves (a ruling class of elites and exploiters) afloat.

Let's face it.

American Democracy is a failure for the same reason any other system failed.

When you centralize power, no matter what the system, it get corrupted. The secret to liberty is decentralized power.

Yes it's administrative and bland. Yes it lacks a magic bullet of final epic battle solution. It's a plain truth. The human race cannot be trusted with too much power in one place under any circumstances. And here we see both right and left using fear to keep their machine going.

But people are catching on. We learn from our mistakes and the fall of the United States will teach us this lesson about power. The only thing left to fear is what the Leviathan state will do to survive on the way down, how much of the world and people it will destroy. Like at the end of WWI, when it was becoming obvious the people of Europe were going to grab their rifles and have a field day of their own on their ruling elites, and the US came in under Wilsonian Doctrine to prevent that and keep the "system" going, and another war after that run by one crowd to keep us all killing each other and making money for "them". It goes on and on.

[Robert Waldmann]

Harris writes well but he knows his case is weak. In fact he doesn't really believe his implicit claim as is shown by the sentence at the end "It may be that the Roman republic was doomed in any case." Well before the special command against the pirates, the Roman law had been sacrificed with a long lasting dictatorship and extrajudicial killing of Roman citizens in Rome via the Syllan proscriptions. There really wasn't much left to sacrifice.

[bertan]

hehehe…just got this cool comment from a ChillNite sohbet bu bir commenttir hiiii timem heyran

[godzilla]

kral oyun
kral oyun
emo resimleri
yemek tarifi

[godzilla]

Macera Oyunları
beceri Oyunları
Çocuk Oyunları
Zeka Oyunları
a>