Tag: politics

We were asked to listen to Eliza Manningham-Buller’s 3-part lecture series titled “Securing Freedom” as part of the terrorism course I’m taking right now.  She’s a former head of MI5 (the U.K.’s FBI, more or less).  Her talks were given as part of the 2011 Reith Lectures on BBC Radio 4.  It’s a fantastic set of talks.

You can listen to or read them on the BBC Radio 4 website:
Listen Online: Part 1 – Terror, Part 2 – Security, Part 3 – Freedom
Download (MP3s): Part 1 – Terror, Part2 – Security, Part 3 – Freedom
Read (PDFs): Part 1 – Terror, Part 2 – Security, Part 3 – Freedom

She joined MI5 in 1974 and was Director General from 2002 to 2007.  She knows the goings on of terrorism.  She lived and worked in that world for over 30 years.   Here positions and opinions have been thoughtfully cultivated during that career.  A career in an organization that has been trying to grapple with terrorism for decades and has learned a great deal that the U.S. has chosen to ignore.

She presents an incredibly well spoken, calm, rational discussion on terrorism.  There are some minor aspects of her talks that I disagree with, but even so I think she gives voice to a levelheadedness the world has been lacking.

I think the U.S. would be in a better place in terms of national security, civil rights, and human rights if we had some people like her over here running things.

I think her biggest point of departure from U.S. rhetoric is the acceptance that you can’t solve terrorism with the military alone.  You can’t shoot your way to peace unless you’re willing to shoot every man, woman, and child who might ever disagree with you.  And I’m not suggesting that we should do so.  You have to make some effort at resolving the underlying dispute that has given rise to the violence.  And I can already hear the disgusted remarks about how we don’t negotiate with terrorists.  Which is the point.  If you don’t you will never have peace.  Negotiation doesn’t necessarily mean sitting down at a table and signing a peace treaty.  But it should mean addressing root causes and trying to make potential terrorists feel like such actions are unnecessary.

I appreciate her adamant position that torture is unacceptable regardless of its efficacy simply because it is wrong to do that to another person.  And, yes, sadly this means sometimes innocent people may be injured or killed.  That’s the price a nation must pay in order to uphold the belief that all persons have a right to humane treatment.

I especially liked her discussion about how an intelligence organization can operate effectively in balance with civil rights.  There is a need for oversight and perhaps you shouldn’t give intelligence organizations arrest and detainment capabilities.  Holding people in prison indefinitely with no trial, as the U.S. has done to hundreds at Guantanamo Bay, is a massive breach of civil rights and the rule of law.  If the rule of law is broken then you erode faith that the system works.  If you don’t believe the system works then you become incentivized to operate outside the system.  The rule of law is what prevents civilized societies from devolving into violence and anarchy.

If you have some time, read the lectures.  I listened to them while driving to and form work for the last few days.

Unnerving many conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats, the legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation’s borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. House Republican leaders had to tamp down a small revolt among some rank-and-file who sought to delay a vote on the bill. (NPR: House Passes $662B Defense Bill)

While President Bush already took the liberty of stripping U.S. citizens of their rights and denying them trials (e.g. José Padilla).  The government did eventually buckle to public pressure and give Padilla a civilian trial.

This new defense bill officially gives the government/military/president permission to simply disappear U.S. citizens.  When it passes the Senate and gets signed by the President (which everyone says it will), you will be able to be arrested by the military, hauled off to a secret prison, denied a writ of habeas corpus, denied a trial, and left to rot.

You won’t be considered a U.S. citizen, you won’t be a prisoner of war.  You won’t have the protection of the U.S. Constitution or the Geneva Conventions.  You simply won’t exist.

This is disturbing on so many levels.  This is not what justice looks like.

I’m am stunned at how incredibly far our country has fallen in the last 11 years.  The idea that we stand for freedom and justice is now just a joke.

The bill is essentially repealing the Posse Comitatus Act and paving the way for us to see the U.S. Army being deployed against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.  It may sound like a far off extreme now, but there were reasons laws were put in place to explicitly forbid this type of stuff.

But most people don’t seem to care at all.  The complete misplacement of concerns is frustrating.  People will scream bloody murder about Netflix charging more, or Apple releasing a new product, or how loud commercials on TV are.  But come time for the government to strip you of all judicial protections and the only people complaining are watchdog groups.

It honestly makes me fear for our future as a democratic republic.

President Obama while in China – November 16, 2009:

But I am a big believer in technology and I’m a big believer in openness when it comes to the flow of information. I think that the more freely information flows, the stronger the society becomes, because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable. They can begin to think for themselves. That generates new ideas. It encourages creativity. (emphasis mine)

Hillary Clinton – January 1, 2010:

[President Obama] spoke about how access to information helps citizens hold their own governments accountable, generates new ideas, encourages creativity and entrepreneurship. The United States belief in that ground truth is what brings me here today.

Hillary Clinton about WikiLeaks – November 29, 2010:

It is an attack on the international community…

Sarah Palin about Julian Assange – November 30, 2010:

Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders?

Senator Joe Lieberman – December 7, 2010:

It sure looks to me that Assange and WikiLeaks have violated the Espionage Act.

Philip Crowley (State Department Spokesman) – December 7, 2010:

What WikiLeaks has done is a crime under US law.

So much for Freedom of the Press and holding our own governments accountable. Also, as much as people are clamoring to charge Assange with a crime there’s the small problem of him not being a U.S. citizen. Seems rather extraordinary to charge someone with a crime under a law in a country in which they neither live nor have citizenship. But Palin apparently has the answer to that, just call him a terrorist and kill him where he stands.

Regardless of how you feel about the leaked information WikiLeaks needs to be protected the same way any other news organization would be, including the New York Times which collaborated with WikiLeaks in processing the documents and deciding what to publish.