dponce80 said...
Maybe... maybe not. Either way, I can't wait to see Fahrenheit 9/11, and hear all about these connections. In the end though, I dont care and I'll tell you why.
I just came back from Dubai, two weeks ago. It was the second time I was there, my girlfriend was born there. Now, I can't even begin to explain just how gorgeous this place is, and how deserving it is of whatever comes its way, be it by the bin laden's or anyone else. This city makes New York seem like a third world shantytown, and I'm exagerating only a little.
Thing is, the bin laden's there are just like Donald Trump (yeah yeah, I know he's a developer and all that, but I cant think of a famous construction company right off the top of my head) over here. They had made a fortune in construction long before osama decided to take some of that cash and use it to crash planes into stuff. It's a business, and should it stop doing business just because one bearing their name decided to become a rebel? Or is it only the symbolism of the twin towers that bothers you?
I guess it's that. But let me ask you something. You have the opportunity (as a construction company owner) to bid on a multi-million dollar project, something which, when completed will bring even more business to your company. Do you abstain from bidding, just because it might be seen as wrong? Since when, in our capitalist planet (yes, I say planet) is that something we do? Morals? You must be kidding! ;)
7:31 AM
E.E.A. Eaton said...
I'm hoping for (and have been promising for some time) an expert guest post from a businessman here who used to work in Saudi Arabia.
He thought the Alternet article cited was "Yellow Dog Journalism" and "Demogoguery" and pretty much echoed your comments --- the bin Ladens are like the Rockerfellers here. "If a Rockerfeller became a terrorist, we wouldn't suspect the whole family."
(My argument was, they look like an organized crime family, with one wing 'the Enforcers.' Some mafia families work that way; part is legitimate, part is criminal, and they work together.)
Maybe. Although they've supposedly disowned him, there are still fiancial flows between the bin Ladens and Osama. Some of the family are still on speaking terms, although supposedly it's rare in the Arab world for a family to completely disown one of it's members.
I think the FBI (and everyone else) who take a really hard look at the Rockerfellers if one of them successfully plotted the deaths of thousands of Americans.
I guess that's my point --- they should have been investigated as the FBI wanted to, rather than given a special whisk out of the country after 911 by their key business partners, the Bush family.
12:25 PM
dponce80 said...
You make a good point... The thing is, as an investigator, with something of the magnitude of 9/11, it's hard to keep focused and objective. I'm not 100% certain the reason they were whisked out of the country so surrepticiously was an indication of any guilt, though. And I know that's not exactly what you're saying. You're saying they got preferrential treatment because of political connections...
Well, look what they do to some serial killers in prison. They get lynched. And these people kill 10, maybe 20, and they get killed that way. Now imagine with something of the scale of 9/11, with nearly 3000 dead. You think the average american is able to rationalise "Ah, Osama did this, it doesnt mean ALL the bin ladens are guilty" No no, can you imagine what would have been done to them had they stayed? Maybe they were whisked away for their own protection.
Now, perhaps they WERE interrogated, only the results of that interrogation kept secret. We just dont know, and this is pure speculation. The point is that, so far anyway (and this is perhaps subject to change in the somewhat not so distant future), in america you're still innocent until proven guilty.
Maybe there just was no obvious connection, other than the name, that warranted an investigation.
Now, keep in mind, we're talking very muddy waters, all this is speculative. We just dont know if there is a connection or not, and whether they got preferrential treatment is debatable. The only thing I agree with, is the possible symbolic insult to America of a family, ralted to Osama, behind the reconstruction of the very buildings one of "their own" contributed to destroy. But frankly, they're doing it in Dubai. Not New York. And what they do in their own backyard is their business.
Finally, just to adress one of your analogies, where you say the FBI would look at the Rockefellers closely if one bearing their name would plot the deaths of thousands of americans, I think you mean to say something else. For your example to work, you would have to say, the FBI would look closely at the Rockefellers if they plotted the deaths of thousands of Arabs... Now tell me honestly... do you really think they would?
3:57 PM
E.E.A. Eaton said...
Responding to your comments,
1. Secretly interrogated by the FBI. No, that wouldn't make sense. Everyone would expect the FBI or US gov't to try to contact them sooner or later. Keeping the results of the interrogation secret might make sense; keeping the interrogation itself secret doesn't make sense.
You’re suggesting the US tried to keep secret that the FBI was doing it’s job. That doesn’t happen in a democracy.
What was kept secret was the fact that they were NOT investigated because of their political ties to Bush. That, on the hand, is a scandal in a democracy.
It's been estimated that something 75% of all government secrets in the West are kept secret not because they are sensitive but because they would cause the government (or the agency) political embarrassment. They may have been sensitive at one time, but in hindsight they look embarrassing, and the procedure to declassify is expensive, so there is inertia. "Our government wasted money by doing THAT?" This is why many countries (including U.S.) have things like the "Freedom of Information Act" where citizens can petition to overcome the inertia, and agencies are required to declassify information that is no longer sensitive.
2. Re: Rockerfellers. No, I don't agree --- my original analogy was correct.
The FBI is MANDATED by law to protect American lives and property abroad, everything and everyone residing on US soil, and enforce U.S. laws.
This is all they are mandated to do.
If you've ever reported a crime to the police, you realize that it's a very technical, legalistic business.
To get a police investigation, you need to show (1) a crime was committed (2) a person or property was significantly injured (3) that police unit has jurisdiction, usually dependening on where the crime was committed (tricky in the Internet age).
This is because tax-payer resources are limited, and there many unsolved crimes. To educated Western way of thinking (economic/MBA, the people that manage these things), it's best to focus on what you're paid to do.
So, if the crime was committed in that police department's bailiwick, rather than have 10 different police departments investigating, they'll have you to go to the police dept with jurisdiction --- usually where the crime happened. Also, in the West, they can't prosecute unless they have legal jurisdiction.
That's true in the U.S. for non-federal crimes (the FBI will refuse to investigate, and you need to find the state police with jurisdiction and convince them it's an appropriate use of taxpayer resources, or hire your own private investigators.). And it's true internationally as well.
If the Rockerfellers or bin Ladens were suspected of being involved in the deaths of thousands of AMERICANS, that would (normally) trigger and automatic investigation and interrogation by the FBI, since that's their job. If you read my first post in this blog about Democracy, they also have to answer to Congress, which controls budget. Congress would expect them to investigate this.
If the Rockerfellers or bin Ladens were suspect of being involved in the deaths of thousands of foreign Arabs, say in Dubai, then that wouldn't necessarily concern the FBI unless US law was somehow clearly violated. The assumption would be that the FBI's colleagues in Dubai would investigate the case, and do the interrogation. If Dubai issued a "Red Alert" through Interpol, then the FBI would be required by treaty to assist Dubai in its investigations, such as accompanying them.
Due to concerns of political persecution, the FBI would only assist if the laws Dubai was claiming to violate were similar to U.S. laws. (In this case --- terrorism --- they would be). Even then, it would be more like a favor to a foreign state than something they were paid to do. Obviously, genocide and terrorism might be close to US national interests, so it would probably get significant resources these days, especially if the State Department leans on them. Prior to 911, it might require an effort by State Department to get them to look into it, since it wasn't something that happened in their bailiwick.
This is true in the U.S. as well. If the FBI refuses to become involved because the crime is too minor or no federal laws were broken, one state might ask another state to extradite a criminal for trial. That requires an extradition hearing, and the requesting state usually has to convince the extraditing state that the laws violated were similar to its own laws. In the old days of the deep South, for example, Northern states would sometimes drag their feet in extradition proceedings because they felt the South's laws were politically or racially motivated, or the South's punishments were too harsh (chain gangs for minor crimes), and so on.
Also, the police frequently see people trying to prosecute others for minor crimes out of political or personal vendettas. Internationally, one sees this as well.
So there would be a lot of skepticism if another country came forward and accused prominent Americans of serious crimes. This happens from time to time --- I think Belgium tried to indict Henry Kissinger for war crimes (and later even tried to indict George W Bush if memory serves). I won't comment whether or not these are justified. Whether or not the FBI would investigate in response would depend on who the country was, whether we had an extradition treaty with, whether what they were claiming would constitute a crime in the U.S., whether there was hard evidence, and so. The F.B.I. has to go through similar hoops with, say, Nigeria, when American citizens are kidnapped over there (which happens from time to time). International prosecutions are expensive, and the FBI is not the CIA.
On the other hand, bin Ladens, or any other prominent individuals on U.S. soil would be expected to get an automatic knock on the door from the FBI if their relatives were involved in genocide on U.S. soil. Everyone expects this to happen. The FBI has very little control over what happens in other countries, so there would be a higher burden of proof required before they'd look into crimes against Arab foreign citizens residing outside the U.S. (Terrorism would get high priority these days, though.)
So, my original analogy with Rockerfellers was correct.
Which is why the Bush Administration tried to keep the bin Laden flight secret --- as a result of a special favor to Bush's cronies, the FBI wasn't allowed to do it's job.
I don't by the lynching argument. They would probably be quite safe in temporary FBI "protective custody" under their friendly interrogation (remember their political connections with Bush!) was complete. And they'd be whisked out all the same as it was over, with much less scandal. That didn't happen --- we know that simply because there wasn't enough time.
6:38 PM
dponce80 said...
Ok... I see I got you going, which is always a good think. Now, let me thank you for the lesson in jurisdiction, which sadly wasn't necessary. I do know how it works, and my comment was way too snide to deserve such attentive counter-arguing.
Let me first start with a standard disclaimer, for the record, just so we're clear. I am very critical of America's policies, both domestic and foreign. I dont put it past them that they've given the bin ladin's preferential treatment, as I'm sure Michael Moore will spend 90 minutes explaining to us on June 25th. The point of my argument was not to defend america's policies, rather to defend the bin laden's right to build twin towers on arabian land without attracting criticism from american's wounded sensibilities. From there emerged the discussion of preferrential treatment and all that. And, you know, in a roundabout way, I'm on your side, and think much the same way you do (which is very clear if you occasionnaly visit my blog). Now let me clarify the analogy business.
A foreign entity (bin laden in this case, I suppose), came into the US to inflict damage on American soil. This soil and particular crime is part of the FBI's jurisdiction, thus it is their job to investigate it, as they do all such major crimes commited under their jurisdiction (let's just assume we're talking about the FBI here, although this could be about any law enforcement agency, whether at the city, state or federal level). The thing is, the perpetrator of the crime resides elsewhere, outside of US jurisdiction. That's when the extradition treaties come in. I wont get into the argument of whether america has any right to physically force another country to extradite one of it's citizens (or even in this case, unwanted guest), as it did with Afghanistan, but maybe we can save it for another day. While the Bin laden's were here, still under US jurisdiction, they could have been questioned, sure, I'll grant you that. Whether the should have been, for bearing the bin laden name, I wont get into. I dont want to get sidetracked.
Now, remember. What happened is: outside entity (bin laden), causing damage inside US. You said, inside entity (rockefellers), causing damage INSIDE the US. Yes the FBI would still investigate if it was the rockefellers, of course, it would. But the analogy is not exact. You'd have to reverse the table and see it from, let's say, Dubai's point of view, where for them, an outside entity (rockefeller) would commit a crime inside THEIR soil. Then it would be Dubai's business to investigate, and sure they could ask for the FBI's help if they wanted to, but I dont think they would. And what I was saying, finally, was that even if the FBI knew all along that it's the Rockefellers who did it, they wouldn't be too quick to do anything about it, in my opinion. Kind of like how Afghanistan reacted when it was told bin laden did it, and was asked to kick him out. When it didn't comply, you know what happened. Now, imagine for a second... (heheheh, I can't help but smile here), Dubai contemplating an action such as the one the US took in Afghanistan. Hhehehheh... oh wow...
They say, He with the Gold makes the rules. I say, He with the Guns makes the rules.
Also, the only reason I suggested maybe the interrogation was kept secret was because, maybe, the results of it were too embarrassing. (now i'm delving deep into pointless conspiracy theory, so dont take me too seriously) I mean, if there is an interrogation, and the results are kept secret, you still know one thing, that these results exist, and maybe one day, 50 years down the line, they may get declassified. Maybe someone up the chain of command couldn't stomach that, so they simply made the whole interrogation disappear. No interrogation, no potentially embarrassing results 50 years later.
Finally, let me not get going on my views of "protective custody". The FBI can't manage to keep the mafia away from doing away a few of its fat rats. Can you imagine keeping the bin ladins away from an american mob bent on ripping them apart?
2:50 PM
E.E.A. Eaton said...
This active thread is hidden way back in the archives, so I decided to start a new thread.
Please post further replies in the new thread here [it continues below]. Thanks.
11:49 AM
7 Comments:
dponce80 said...
I don't know if, in a funny way, I should feel flattered by the quality of the responses my words are attracting from you. Because, quite frankly, the intellectual soundness of my comments is much frailer than the petulant language I use would make you believe. The thing is, I tend to beat around the bush a little too much, and maybe I should distill my argument a little more.
This is what I'm saying. Because of America's power on the world scene, there is an imbalance in the way all the wonderful international legal systems actually work. I know there exists diplomatic channels for dealing with these types of criminals and resolving all sorts of geo-political conflicts. I'm also aware that sometimes, those channels block and, like in the case of Afghanistan, you're forced to just act (in this particular case, I do believe America had a case, but that too is beside the point). Ok. The problem with this is one of perspective.
When you look at it through the eyes of america, it all makes sense. When you turn it around, and you look at it through the eyes of other nations... well, the nice theory breaks down. Why? Simple because THEY dont have america's resources. They cant simply say "Oh well, screw it, this diplomacy business isn't working. Let's go there, kick their asses and get what we want." This imbalance is what makes the entire process one sided. You cant have a rational, objective argument with someone who is holding a loaded gun.
Look for instance at the palestinians, Ariel Sharon and the Sabra & Shatila massacre. The International Court of Law tried to bring Sharon to justice. But to what effect? What are palestinians now supposed to do, if they really want their guy? Go get him? See, that's what makes me laugh.
So tell me, what's the point of all these mechanisms, when nations who have the military means, can just choose to ignore them, and act unilaterally? What are other, smaller nations supposed to do when they have policy rammed down their throaths because they lack the military might to hold their own in the diplomatic tug of war.
3:45 PM
dponce80 said...
Sorry, by International Court of Law, I meant the International War Crimes Tribunal. Sorry.
3:46 PM
E.E.A. Eaton said...
Democratic nations should not act unilaterally in violation of international law (and most do not, as their populations usually hold them accountable, as we shall soon see).
So, what are smaller nations to do?
This undoubtedly was the question small states like Rhode Island were asking themselves 200 years ago when the United States was founded. (states meant nations in those days, and still does).
What are smaller nations like Rhode Island (200 years ago) and Luxembourg (today) to do when their larger neighbors don't entirely honor their international commitments?
Certainly not use this as an excuse for violence and terrorism (and the latter sounds like where you might be heading).
In this case of Rhode Island (and presumably Luxembourg) things ultimately worked out, thanks largely to a greater international society largely committed to respecting agreements and rule of law.
Why? Because cross-border trade (that is, global capitalism) finds that failure to respect agreements, including cross-boarder agreements (such as constitutions and international treaties), is disruptive to global trade.
So, the smart guys in the other states of the U.S. (and presumably today in the EU) figured out pretty quickly that it made sense generally to honor their agreements with Rhode Island (and today presumably Luxembourg), and, in turn, Rhode Island generally honored its agreements with the rest of the Union. There was, of course, the US Army (and today NATO in the EU), helping to enforce compliance as well --- but that wasn't the only thing holding the Union together (as the Civil War would later prove).
I think George Soros has had this point as well --- civilization, global trade, capitalism, progress, and prosperty all require respect for international law, international treaties, and international cooperation.
Some parts of the world have figured this out, some parts (the United States) have suffered a temporary lapse of memory, and some parts of the world still don't get it.
10:33 PM
dponce80 said...
Temporary lapse of memory indeed! You said I was leaning, as a solution for violations of international law from larger nations to the detriment of smaller ones, towards violence and terrorism as a solution. Not exactly. It's hard to me to condone the killing of civilians who've had nothing to do with their government's compulsion to go around, uh... "bedding" other nations. The argument you give however fails to show me just exactly HOW the smaller nations are supposed to make sure they dont always get the smaller end of the stick. You told me what happened, that surrounding nations saw the light and decided to honor their obligations, which is all fine and dandy, but what do you do when one nation's "temporary" lapse has been... lapsing for years?
I realize that having banned violence and terrorism as an answer, this makes my last question mainly rhetorical. With it, I imagine we've pretty much circled the issue, and to state things bluntly, the US is screwing the rest of the world, and has the means to get away with it, with relatively "minor" losses.
6:54 AM
E.E.A. Eaton said...
> The argument you give however fails to show me
> just exactly HOW the smaller nations are supposed to > make sure they dont
> always get the smaller end of the stick. You told me > what happened, that
> surrounding nations saw the light and decided to
> honor their obligations,
Well, the Germans under Hitler thought they had an answer to all of this. "Kleines Deutschland" ("little Germany") was getting screwed by these larger, nebulous, all-powerful countries enemies that were out there somewhere. What is small Germany to do? "Wir brauchen Lebensraum!", which Hollywood, in its propaganda films, translated (not entirely inaccurately) roughly as "Vee bombed Rotterdam. Vee destroyed it in 3 hours. Vee vill kom to England next!"
The Serbs in late 80s and 90s thought they'd found a similar solution. Again, Serbia was this tiny nation being screwed by all of its neighbors, and there was just one solution....
This stuff about "Oh what are small nations to do" sounds vaguely familiar. But other small nations found other solutions. The Asian tiger economies, for example, are a bunch of small countries that were (and still are, relatively speaking) doing pretty well for them. No violence. No terrorism. No need for Lebensraum. There are plenty of other "small" nations in other parts of the world that are doing equally well for themselves --- without violence.
> I realize that having banned violence and terrorism
> as an answer, this
> makes my last question mainly rhetorical. With it, I
> imagine we've pretty
> much circled the issue, and to state things bluntly,
> the US is screwing
> the rest of the world, and has the means to get away
> with it, with
> relatively "minor" losses.
Yeah, we're screwing the rest of the world, but the thing is, we're also getting screwed by a number of other countries in the world, and some of the more aggregious examples are located in Middle East. The Taliban pretty throughly screwed us there for a while. There are some guys over there with a lot of oil that think our economy is a remote controlled car. There are some guys over there with a lot of oil that like to make donations to the "right charities", which the wrong charities from our standpoint (i.e., terrorism).... Need I go on?
The point (which I've advocated all along) is to work for a more equitable world where it is harder for nations and groups to screw each other.
For example, instead of whinning about Sharon's breaches of international law (of which there are plenty to go around), people on the Arab nationalist side in Middle East might reach out to similar-minded people on the Israeli side (there are some, you know) and try to settle this whole thing through diplomacy.... Could it happen? It almost happened once before --- until they got bogged down in religious fanaticism on both sides when tried to figure out how to split up control of the Temple Mount area....
9:44 AM
dponce80 said...
"Yeah, we're screwing the rest of the world, but the thing is, we're also getting screwed by a number of other countries in the world"
I suppose, although some (maybe even me) could argue that that's the price of doing business with a world that doesn't share your outlooks on the way it should be run.
The thing about capitalism is that its kryptonite is stagnation. The economy must always grow in order for it to do well. Recessions are horrible. Problem is that after you reach a certain size (as a nation, or even a simple business), you're forced to get out and go do business with people that may not agree to tango on your terms. That's when the disagreements can turn nasty.
Am I saying that I support these nations and condone the senseless killing of innocent life? Of course not. However, this applies to both sides of the equation, and it would be naive to deny that America's foreign policy has not caused the premature death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands (let's just, for the sake of argument, factor in Japan, with Hiroshima and Nagasaki) of civilians. Of course all these deaths are usually labeled one thing or another, usually either physical or economic self-defence. Now there is even talk by the DOD lawyers of circumventing the Geneva Convention and the 1994 Convention Against Torture.
Noam Chomsky makes a good point in establishing the US and Israel's actions on the world front as state-sponsored terrorism. This however falls beside the scope of this conversation.
The point here is that, yes, peace and agreement without "affirmative action" can be achieved. Diplomatic channels have worked in the past, which is why they're still in place today. Compromises have been known to be reached. These channels break down however when one side or the other becomes unreasonable and stubborn, unwilling to give even an inch. And with America's rhetoric of "we do not negotiate with terrorists", coupled with their knack for terrorism labeling, it's placing itself in a decidedly uncompromising stance.
The bottom line? Both sides are wrong, in my eyes. The "terrorists", as well as America, are too extreme in their demands, making it impossible to reach any compromise.
"I wont rest until America is destroyed!" says the terrorist.
"I wont rest until all terrorists are dead!" says Uncle Sam.
Eh... get some popcorn, it could be a long show.
2:21 PM
E.E.A. Eaton said...
>The thing about capitalism is that its kryptonite is
>stagnation. The economy must always grow in order for
>it to do well. Recessions are horrible. Problem is
>that after you reach a certain size (as a nation, or
>even a simple business), you're forced to get out and
>go do business with people that may not agree to tango
>on your terms. That's when the disagreements can turn
>nasty.
This reasoning is straight out of Karl Marx's Das Kapital (aka Capital).
Trouble is, it isn't exactly true. Karl Marx wasn't particularly good at mathematics or abstract thought, and he got a lot of things wrong. This was one of them.
Economies grow mainly through increases in productivity, often achieved through invention and technology. Marx didn’t quite get that, and that’s the basic problem with Marx’s idea that you have to expand your capitalist empire and reduce foreign nationals wage slavery to keep things growing -- you don’t. The other thing he didn’t realize is that foreign trade (or trade of any kind), is only sustainable in the long term if it is to the mutual benefit of all parties. If it’s not, sooner or later someone stops trading. It’s that simple. That’s why global trade (and increased global trade) is a good thing -- it makes people better off by giving them more options than without the global.
That’s not to say there aren’t problems with greedy companies trying to bribe their way into buying up local water systems in third world countries, or similar horror stories. I’m not proposing laissez faire globalism. There are rules, regulations, treaties, and international laws to be followed. In particular, growing inequalities within and between countries potentially becomes a threat, and it is the duty of richer nations to support education and health care in poorer nations — health care, in particular, because AIDS and other health-related problems threaten national stability in some nations, and may ultimately threaten U.S. interests.
>Now there is even talk by the DOD lawyers of circumventing the Geneva
>Convention and the 1994 Convention Against Torture.
No, actually that’s old news. These memos came out as a result of the Iraqi torture scandal, and may well be the smoking gun that ties the President of United States to this scandal. (That’s why Ashcroft defied Congress’ request to obtain these documents so far.) It’s clear that, back in early 2002, the highest levels of the Bush Administration were trying to find a way to make torture legal. It’s a major scandal, and it’s something I’ve rallied against in other posts on this blog, but it’s off topic for this thread.
>Noam Chomsky makes a good point in establishing the US and Israel's actions
>on the world front as state-sponsored terrorism. This however falls beside the
>scope of this conversation.
Noam Chomsky’s thinking is so twisted that I have difficulty taking him seriously and would advise others to view his work with equal skepticism. Personally knowing some of the people he sometimes writes about, and seeing how he often grotesquely misunderstands their motives or even the situations that led to their actions, I don’t believe he has any special insights beyond that of less famous deluded paranoiacs. His critics often point out that, in any random country on Earth terrible attrocities are talking place while bemoans some misinformed delusion of wrongdoing. He acknowleges this as true, but says he is not responsible for pointing the flaws in other nations, no matter how great -- he is an American, and so only feels responsible for pointing out America’s inequities. If only he’d get his facts right.
That’s not to say he might not occasionally say interesting or intelligent things. I would just avoid mentioning his name in a debate as it will tend to undermine your arguments. ;-).
> "I wont rest until America is destroyed!" says the terrorist.
> "I wont rest until all terrorists are dead!" says Uncle Sam.
This is what the Bush Administration says. The Bush Administration is not America. These certainly aren’t my goals, or the goals of a majority of Americans. They may well not even be the views of even the Administration that takes office in January 2005 following the November elections.
They may not even be the views of a majority of Americans currently working as high-level career civil servants in the federal government. So it’s not at all clear this is what "Uncle Sam" says, as it probably isn’t even what most decision makers in the federal government would say. It might be something that Bush Administration has said, or woulds say, approximately. It is not, however, something "Uncle Sam" has said.
Bush Administration != federal government (Uncle Sam) != United State of America
I make this point because people living in more totalitarian countries sometimes confuse the views of the Bush Administration with the permanent views and policies of the American government, or even the views of the American people. They are not the same thing.
11:00 PM