The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) just released their report on the effect the Global War on Terror governments across the globe.  The ICJ held hearings in 16 countries, covered over 40 countries, creating the most detailed accounting of legal and institutional attitudes about the exercise of state power.

The outcome of the study was not heartening.  If the US bends the rules, others will too.  Most countries have grown more violent and the world has seen wide spread restriction of free speech and increased state torture.

Terrorism sows terror, and many States have fallen into a trap set by the terrorists. Ignoring lessons from the past, they have allowed themselves to be rushed into hasty responses, introducing an array of measures which undermine cherished values as well as the international legal framework carefully developed since the Second World War. These measures have resulted in human rights violations, including torture, enforced disappearances, secret and arbitrary detentions, and unfair trials. ere has been little accountability for these abuses or justice for their victims.

The report understands that terrorism is a real, long term threat but thinks that the international human rights framework has the capacity to deal with the problem.  IF the global community takes an opportunity to re-examined the threat and our response to it.

So far we have reacted in a violent, non-sensical manner than threatens the existing international order.  We are open the door for states to assum more power over us.  Ultimately, our response to terrorism is a bigger threat to our safety than anything else.

The Iraqi government assumed jurisdiction over the  Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) today.  The group is listed as a terrorists group by the US State Department and as the Kansas City reports:

The group has strong support among Republicans in Congress, and many neo-conservatives in the U.S. describe them as a democratic alternative to the Iranian theocratic regime.

“It just shows how feckless our list of terrorists is,” said Lawrence Wilkerson, who was former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff and is an MEK critic.

“They’re terrorists only when we consider them terrorists. They might be terrorists in everybody else’s books. … It was a strange group of people and the leadership was extremely cruel and extremely vicious.”

Supporting this group for five years has undermined the US’s moral stance against terrorism.  The invasion of Iraq provided us a great opportunity to  increase the credibility of the War On Terrorism. If we broke up the MEK (a group fighting one of our ‘enemies) in an open process that determined the relative guilt and innocence of its members, we could have provided a model for other countries to follow.

Instead we made ourselves look like state sponsors of terrorism and for what?  Kissinger would have used the MEK as a bargaining chip to get Iran to back off its nukes.  But our present leaders didn’t even to that.  They protected these guys for some wild hope a group despised in Iran for fighting with Saddam at the end of the Iraq-Iran War could lead a revolution.

This is another example of fantasy foreign policy and should be roundly criticized.  But it is not too late to round these people up and start a process of trying them in an open fashion that allows all parties fair representation.  This is the best way to protect innocent MEK, punish the terrorists, prove our intentions and improve relations in the region.

The Pentagon issued a report this week that stated that after examining thousands and thousands of documents, they found no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Hussein’s much touted terrorists activities were focused on Iraqi citizens.

“The predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq,” according to the report.” Read excerpts from report (pdf)

It is time we realized that our invasion brought al Qaeda to Iraq. We are responsible for making Iraq “ground zero of terrorism.” The Department of Defense has given the country a great opportunity to take a step back and reexamine our priorities and concerns in the region.

First, we should stand up and admit our role in letting these cretins into Iraq (and admit how strong they remain). Second, we should have a real public debate about the role Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and US.  We can avoid turning tail and running out of Iraq but it will take political adults willing to tell the truth about the situation on the ground.

Unfortunately, our current leaders give no indication that they have the moral fiber to lead us out of a mess they created. And so far none of the three contenders for our leadership appear much better.  We can succeed but someone besides the DOD needs be able to speak the truth.

The poor performance of the US media in the built up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq is well known. Well, they are up to it again. The Administration is pumping out distortions and exaggerations about Iran and the US media publish them without reflection. For example, Administration often state the Iran continues to support the insurgents in Iraq and the media repeats it with little to no context or any relevant questions.

The result is the people of the United States hear time and again that Iran is attacking our soldiers and nothing else. Simple story – good guys, bad guys – done. And the conclusion for must of us is clear – we have to do something about it. But the situation is much more complex than that and we cannot decide a what our real interests are and will end being lead in to a dangerous and ineffective war.

Every time a government official says that Iran supports the insurgents (and they are supporting the Shiite insurgents), the media should provide the simple context that we all know but conveniently forget. Iran is also supporting the government, police, army and prominent businesses in Iraq.

They are working both sides creating a simple question; Why is Iran supporting and subverting the stability of Iraq. Imagine where the debate might go with a rigorous pursuit of that simple question? We would need to know who is doing what in Iraq and why. And finding answers will lead us to imagine new ways to improve stability and lower tensions between the US and Iran.

Arlen Specter attacks on the Administration over its authority to wiretap is mounting.  The media is covering his growing frustration; few outlets carry much of the critique.  John C Woo,  on whose authority the President has rested his claim of authority, has augured both ends of a short stick to pretend that only the President can take the nation to war and once engaged the President do whatever he deems necessary to conduct the war.

TSN! applauds Senator Specter for fighting for the individual rights and helping to check the growing power of the President, but we call on the media to do a better job of explaining what it is at stake.  It is not sufficient to say that ‘critics claim the white house is overstepping their bounds’.   Using our airways means you should dig into this issue and show us what Presidents have done in the past and look at what this administration has done in light of our present laws.

The Administration argues that their actions are sanctioned and common but their poor track record means that very few Americans will take them at their word.  We need intelligent and diligent exploration of the legal, constitutional and security issues surrounding these actions. Yet the press remains as weak and leaderless as the New York Times was silent about this issue before the election.

The senate rolled over yesterday and will allow the Federal Government to listen to anything it wants for 45 days. Big Brother has his wish; the ‘law’ is being twisted to fit the governments wish to watch, not just terrorists, but everyone who disagrees with it.

We have seen past Administrations abuse this power and now we are watching both the Administration and the Congress abuse this power. The people are once again pushed aside for being compliant and unaware. Our freedom is being taken from us week by week. If freedom is ever to ring in this land again, it will be up to us to make if happen for the very of the elected bother to protect us.

President Bush today employing his famous Texas straight-talk and made a clear statement that “no American will be able to torture another human being anywhere in the world.” Every American would like to believe this but our governments’ recent actions leave TSN! skeptical. In fact, the very next statement by the President Bush threw his conviction into question when he claimed that he qualified the McCain anti-torture amendment to “protect the prerogative of the executive branch.”

Unless the people constituting the executive branch are not Americans, TSN! can not see what he was protecting. If no American can torture another human being, then no President can torture another human being, which means President Bush had nothing to protect when he watered down the McCain amendment. No sooner than the statement was out of his mouth, the President backed away from it leaving TSN! trusting his actions more than his words.

TSN! applauds Bob Deans of Cox News Service for asking the President a question that elicited a clear and direct response from the President and calls on news organizations to remember the President’s declaration and hold him to it. TSN! certainly will.

Ever since the story broke on the domestic spying program authorized by the President, all sorts of angles have been taken on what the “story” is… And now the PR machine is rolling for both sides of the aisle but we just want to ask a basic question: with the existing law, as it was already in place, which required the need for warrants (and in time-sensitive matters post-action warrants), what was inadequate that the president felt justified the need to super cede the existing law?

Read the rest of this entry »

If there is one issue that we can imagine Liberals and Conservatives joining forces on it is the detention of US citizens on US soil being held as “enemy combatants” indefinitely. How any conservative, cut from the State’s rights triumph over Federal rights clothe, could sit back on this issue is dumbfounding. Of course the ACLU is fighting this – that is to be expected – but how any conservative Republican can return to their constituency and defend the federal government seizing a US citizen and never giving them due process or even the right to an attorney is shameful.

We would love to hear from a conservative group on how they justify this type of action? Would a reporter be so kind as to ask a politician, any politician, why we should sit back and allow this? And when we say “this” we mean “this happening to you”! Because if you think Jose Padilla is isolated… something tells us that wiretapping US citizens and allowing indefinite detention as an “enemy combatant” makes a dangerous pair.

Why is it we have to have the Editorials be the place that such stories are discussed? If the president, any president, intones that they are somehow authorized to ignore the law they should be questioned, questioned and questioned some more! Is it really that hard; is the White House so strong, that asking if the president sees himself above the law or that what would be the situation that “zero-tolerance” ban on torture would be ignored?

Instead the media covers it for a news cycle, then the opposing party (now Democrats) starts complaining, and then it devolves into “partisan fighting.”