Pijane Zające: November 2005

21.11.05

Tom Cruise Disturbs Me

This is what you get sent to you when you can't sleep. I don't rightly understand why, seeing as after having seen it, I was much less likely to be able to fall asleep.

12.11.05

Reminder of Rabin

Today marks the tenth anniversary of Rabin's death. To think that so much death and suffering could have possibly been avoided had this man lived makes one truly understand the power and significance a single individual could have on an entire region. Ironically, now one of his harsher critics is following certain similar policies. If only people realised that peace and life is more valuable than land and a false sense of superiority. Ultra-nationalism has never caused anything but destruction. I fail to understand why this is such a hard lesson to learn.

10.11.05

Petty Much?

I honestly half thought that my babcia was joking when she informed me that Russia, to please the far right, had instituted a new holiday (actually, more like reinvented an old one): Moscow's liberation from Polish invaders in 1612. For goodness sake, it isn't as if Russia, in its various forms, hadn't occupied Poland several times since 1612, more than making up for any time Poles spent on Russian soil. Then again, I suppose we should all be so wary of those mischievous Poles....

Clearly More in Touch with the Inner Ape

Last time I checked, I was entering an institution of higher learning every morning. I appear to have been grossly mistaken. Or perhaps the problem is that I am too conservative. I seem to think that everything has its time and place. Call me crazy. Therefore, I was, let's politely say, put off when a group of 2L's decided that Our Law School's lounge was the proper setting to display an utter lack of gross and fine motor functions. Don't worry, no one had an epileptic seizure--I wouldn't be in a foul mood if that were the case. Rather, these supposedly educated persons proceeded to launch tupplewear across the room repeatedly, both aiming at each other and the rubbish bin. As the coup de grâce, they decided to crush an aluminum can and send it on a path which lead it to whiz mere inches away from Pestilence's person. And my inches away, I mean landed on her foot. As I left the room, they assured each other that I think they are immature...you think?

9.11.05

A "Different Kind of War"

Shock! The CIA may decide to initiate criminal proceedings against "the leak" which gave rise to the Washington Post article (see "Telling Us What We Already Suspected"). All of this, naturally, is being looked into despite the fact that the White House has yet to confirm or deny the existence of these sites (which more or less means that they do exist). What I find interesting, apart from the course this matter has predictably been taking, is that the CIA, by choosing this course of action, is drawing more attention to the issue at hand. I am also bemused to learn the Shrub Administration has issued yet another round of directives banning the use of torture and dogs during interrogations (wolves are next, perhaps? I say this only somewhat sarcastically). If it weren't for the human lives involved, I would actually find this funny. There seems to be an inverse corollary between the directives issued and the "allegations of torture".
What truly irritates me is:

On Tuesday Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice averted questions on the issue, saying only that the US was in a "different
kind of war" and had an obligation to defend itself.

How the use of torture can be justified simply due to the "kind of war" being "fought" is beyond me. Considering America's history (Americans, incidentally, like so many people seeking independence, used "terrorism" to secure it, at least in the stages before the war for independence--however, in this case I am referring to their "proud democratic" history) you would think that they would at least make some effort to live up to the idea of winning precisely because you fight with one hand tied behind your back. But I suppose in this day and age, ideals are no longer worth their weight. This saddens me greatly, especially when I think about how America was viewed not ten years ago; how it seemed that if the USSR could fall, anything could be done. America has squandered a great opportunity in its pursuit of the new unseen enemy.

History Can be a Bitch

While I generally am wholeheartedly opposed to condemning people based on their ancestor's actions, I feel that this article is nevertheless quite interesting. As usual, I have turned to a British news source for American news. After all, the Bush political machine couldn't very well promote widespread media coverage of Prescott's Nazi links. Although I realise that this is an old article, I feel that it is worthwhile. Moreover, there has been little news the few days which has gotten my blood to boil. Maybe the Bush family is successfully setting that bar ever higher.

7.11.05

Overheard in the Lounge

A dear and treasured friend of mine overheard me bitching about Hummers and my views on people (outside of military personnel) who drive them. He walked over, and said, "let's satisfy the NRA as well. Let's pass a law which says that we can shoot at anyone driving a military vehicle. Oh, and can we shoot at PT cruisers while we are at it?!".

3.11.05

Meet and Greet with the Office of the Secretary of Defense

It would seem that my last posting has attracted the attention of the DOD. They have taken five looks at this blog since "Telling Us What We Already Suspected" was published. I am only sorry that such a poorly written piece was what attracted their attention. But really now, does the US government not have anything better to spend tax payers' money and government resources on?!
This is akin to the question found on many visa application forms which asks the alien whether (s)he has ever been trained in chemical warfare so as to ascertain if that alien is a potential "terrorist". Anyone who is actually liable to carry out an act of terrorism (and terrorism is an action, not a person) is not going to answer that question truthfully. Likewise anyone who is a security threat to the US is not going to advertise their plans on a blog. They should only be so lucky to only have bitter, sarcastic law students to worry about (I should mention that those adjectives describe the whole of the American law school population).
Oh, well. Happy reading, Big Brother. I wish I had your job.

2.11.05

Telling Us What We Already Suspected

To your average, quasi-conscious person, the contents of this Washington Post article won't seem shocking (although it is outrageous to think that a "civilised country" feels the need to employ such tactics, to be sure). Therefore, for those of you in the know, I suggest you don't even bother reading this rather drawn out posting. For the rest of you, or those of you who are just plain bored, feel free to launch into this rather lengthy text. One last disclaimer--due to this posting's length, I have not proof read for clarity and the like. My apologises. I am lazy.
Despite the fact that the facts presented in this article are either common knowledge or should be common knowledge for those persons in possession of that oh-so-rare commodity that is common sense, there are parts of the article that I would especially like to stress. This is the case all the more so since in both IBT's and Int'l Law we have been discussing when American courts have jurisdiction over actions taken in foreign sovereign states by those foreign states, and US and non-US citizens. To put the relevant rule rather bluntly (if not in an overly simplistic fashion, which completely dismisses the problems of subject matter and personal jurisdiction for the moment), US courts have jurisdiction over the actions of US citizens. Therefore, if a US citizen commits an illegal act in a foreign state, (s)he can be sued in a US court, unless they can raise, for example, an act of state doctrine defense (for you non-lawyers, this means the big, bad foreign sovereign state made me do it). And now we get to the crux of the issue:

Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Porter J. Goss asked Congress to exempt
CIA employees from legislation already endorsed by 90 senators that would bar
cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoner in U.S. custody

I just wish that Congress, instead of "being concerned" about such issues arising out of the CIA's "opaqueness", would actually move affirmatively to stop them. This actually harkens back to my most recent days across the pond. One of the first bold statements my law professor made to us is forever stuck in my mind: not only are human rights and democracy not necessarily compatible, but also the limitations on civil liberties which take place within the framework of a human rights document may be seen as promoting the very civil liberties it curtails. Thus, censorship, torture, internment and the like become consistent, rather than inconsistent, with human rights. Although this statement may be a great deal to process all at once, I will not go into detail at the moment why this actually is the case (although if someone reminds me, I will write a post explaining this and similar concepts which have been floated in the human rights and law on terrorism fields).
Ah, but alas, it appears that I have once again digressed on only a somewhat related tangent. Turning back to the article, my next issue is with the following statement:

Although the CIA will not acknowledge details of its system, intelligence officials defend the agency's approach, arguing that the successful defense of the country requires that the agency be empowered to hold and interrogate suspected terrorists for as long as necessary and without restrictions imposed by the U.S. legal system or even by the military tribunals established for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.

This once again proves that although human rights may be the trump card of international politics, it is no match for the power embodied in two simple words: national security. And then we have the following paragraph:

Since then, the arrangement has been increasingly debated within the CIA, where considerable concern lingers about the legality, morality and practicality of holding even unrepentant terrorists in such isolation and secrecy, perhaps for the duration of their lives. Mid-level and senior CIA officers began arguing two years ago that the system was unsustainable and diverted the agency from its unique espionage mission.

Why the morality of these actions is even up for debate is beyond me. To me, it seems pretty cut and dry that these actions, regardless of their purpose, are immoral. Holding someone in detention indefinitely and perhaps torturing them seems to fall squarely under the "immoral deeds" category, if not also under the category of illegal acts. But then again, what do I know--after all, I am just another tree-hugging, criminal-cuddling liberal, and we all know how people like me really just support the terrorists and would plant dirty bombs all over the country if we only weren't so stoned (oh, what's that I hear? Republicans abuse prescription drugs, among other drugs? It's not just the lefties?! Shock--But again, I seem to have gone off topic).
I am thankful that at least the CIA recognises the fact that their actions would not only be considered illegal in the United States, but also in the host countries. And...

Yet CIA interrogators in the overseas sites are permitted to use the CIA's approved "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques," some of which are prohibited by the U.N. convention [Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment] and by U.S. military law. They include tactics such as "waterboarding," in which a prisoner is made to believe he or she is drowning.
What "surprises" me is that the CIA is given even more leeway than the military (which, judging from the torture scandals, has been given quite a long leash). These CIA facilities exist in addition to the practice of rendition--meaning that although the US sends some of its terrorism suspects to countries such as Egypt and Jordan with a list of questions it wants answered, the US likes to every now and then do its own dirty work. For the record, these countries pay at least lip service to their disapproval of torture, and claim that they no longer use such methods to interrogate prisoners. Human rights groups, however, beg to differ.
As the White House has permitted the CIA to brief the House and Senate intelligence committees, Congress cannot claim it is ignorant to these gross violations of international law. And yet, for fear, I suppose, of failing to appear "strong on terrorism" they are willing to in essence sentence these prisoners to a living death. On a slightly different note, I am sure what the Washington Post is referring to as Eastern European countries throughout the article are in fact Central European countries (the term "Eastern European" having been applied to them at the onset of the Cold War to starkly differentiate them from "the West"). While I am at it, I should also explain that a nation and a state/country are not one and the same. A nation is something akin to an ethnic group. It does not imply the existence of a territory or a government. I am also mildly amused that the US saw "Eastern Europe" as more trustworthy than Zambia.
At least officials are cognisant of the fact that they have belly-boarded down the slippery slope, as evidenced by comments such as:

"The issue of detaining and interrogating people was never, ever discussed," said a former senior intelligence officer who worked in the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, or CTC, during that period. "It was against the culture and they believed information was best gleaned by other means."
However, these observations seem to have no effect. What we have seen since September 11th is simply an accelerated version of how other state have implimented "counter-terrorism" measures. Moreover, the original plan adopted by the CIA according to this article (ie assassination) was an action that was discarded in the 1970's after one too many fiascos. Worryingly, suspects were spared this fate not because of the illegality of such actions, and the repugnance attached to execution (if I had my druthers this sentence would end here but since this is the US we have to go one step further) without trial. Moreover, the CIA only became concerned with the "well-being" of detainees after they were dying under the conditions in which they were held. This was something that the CIA, arguably, had no control over, as they were being held prisoner by allied warlords (and what a good idea that was...).
I am also disturbed at how, at every level of the military and government, no one is held accountable for their actions. Take the example given by the Washington Post as an indicator:

In November 2002, an inexperienced CIA case officer allegedly ordered guards to strip naked an uncooperative young detainee, chain him to the concrete floor and leave him there overnight without blankets. He froze to death, according to four U.S. government officials. The CIA officer has not been charged in the death.

At least some judicial action was put on display, albeit aimed lowly ranked soldiers, after the Abu Ghraib scandal came to the fore. This is not to say, however, that I am so naive as to believe that other such actions have not been carried out by the US armed forces, or that where such actions have been carried out without the public's knowledge, the soldiers involved haven't completely escaped prosecution.
Although I do not feel the need to comment on the following statement, I do not feel that I can proceed without quoting it:
The CIA pulled out when U.S. courts began
to exercise greater control over the military detainees, and agency officials
feared judges would soon extend the same type of supervision over their
detainees.
In short, I find this very disturbing. I believe that the same laws and principles which govern prison facilities within the United States should apply to US prison facilities without the United States. Similarly, I will present yet another example of the slippery slope without commentary:
The CIA program's original scope was to hide and interrogate the two dozen or so al Qaeda leaders believed to be directly responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, or who posed an imminent threat, or had knowledge of the larger al Qaeda network. But as the volume of leads pouring into the CTC from abroad increased, and the capacity of its paramilitary group to seize suspects grew, the CIA began apprehending more people whose intelligence value and links to terrorism were less certain, according to four current and former officials.
The original standard for consigning suspects to the invisible universe was lowered or ignored, they said. "They've got many, many more who don't reach any threshold," one intelligence official said.

I would finally like to say that I am deeply saddened by how the US has reacted to September 11th. It's actions have been irresponsible, to say the least, and have had profound effects worldwide which have set international law back at least fifty years. I have much more to say on this topic, but I will refrain for now.

Lights Out

A little over halfway through the Manchester United-Lille Metropole match today, the lights went out in certain section of Our Law School. I didn't think much of it (although it did make using the loo quite an adventure), and continued watching the game, and later reading IBT. Approximately two hours later, a woman in her late 40's, who I can only assume was sent by the administration, to tell us that since some of the lights were out, the school was unsafe and we were all to go home immediately. Now don't get me wrong. I have no problem with being ordered out of Our Law School. However, I do find it a little curious, to say the least, that the administration's reaction was so delayed. I should also mention that the majority of the school's lighting was still functioning. I really don't see how a few darkened lamps constituted such a grave danger. Again, not that I am complaining.

1.11.05

Two Peas in the Pod called America

This is a small correction to my earlier posting "One Step Closer". Apparently, Hamm wasn't the original thief. American Apolo Anton Ohno put on quite the show, which resulted in Korea's Dong-Sung Kim not only being deprived of the gold, but also disqualified. Perhaps America should learn that if it can't play nice, it can't play at all. Then again, that is a tall order when the biggest kid in the sandbox also appears to be hard of hearing.
Perhaps I should also mention that ND tells me that the word "Ohno" acquired a pejorative meaning in Korean, having been transformed from a noun into an adjective. It came to mean dirty, unfair, stupid and/or messed up. For example, "what ohno behaviour" or "what an ohno-like person".

The Right to Free Speech

I am very thankful for the right to free speech. Having said that, I'm not sure that it should be unlimited. For example, in the Grundgesetz [Germany's "Basic Law"] (otherwise known as their constitution), prohibits Volksverhetzung [hate speech] (especially when it finds its roots in Nazism), such as neo-Nazi propaganda (oh, and yet the NPD still survives, much to my utter displeasure) or the use of Nazi symbols. This prohibition, one must be careful to note, does not cover the use of, for example, Nazi symbols for educational, research or artistic purposes. Interestingly, the Grundgesetz seems to differentiate between the right to expression and the right to free speech. I am especially in favour of limiting the right to free speech along these lines when I receive emails such as the one ND sent to me about a white supremacist girl band called "Prussian Blue" (while I could link to any of a number of sites, I would be too ashamed to have my blog provide access to those pages).
And before anyone says anything, yes, I am ashamed and full of chagrin when I turn my attention to the Polish law on freedom of speech. I think it is pitiful that people in this day and age, in a country of Poland's standing can still be convicted, detained, or otherwise punished for insults to religious feeling (and mind you, by "religious feeling", I mean that of the Roman Catholic majority) or, alternatively, for insulting heads of state who are to be on Polish territory in the near future. (And please, no one should make the mistake of thinking that I like any aspect of Urban--he does nothing so much as to disgust me. And should anyone viewing this page not know me, my family is Roman Catholic, although I am an atheist. Therefore, I will say what I like about Roman Catholicism in Poland).

One Step Forward?

I could hardly believe my eyes as I watched BBC news over a steaming bowl of udon soup. North Korea and South Korea have agreed to present one unified team at the Beijing Olympics and at the Asian Games. True enough, North Korea is known for backing out of agreements at the last minute (and in fact, talk of the two teams uniting has come up in the past to no avail), and there has yet to be an agreement on how the teams will be chosen or what flag will be flown. Nevertheless, this is quite remarkable when taken at face value. North Korea, true be told, probably has a lot to gain by currying favour with the South Korean government.
While it is easy to dismiss sports in general, when viewed in the context of attempts at reconciliation, they, amazingly enough, are quite powerful. One need not look back any further than to the cricket matches held between India and Pakistan. While relations between the two neighbours are still rocky, much progress has been made since that time. And what's more, there was little conflict between the Pakistanis and Indians who attended the match.
Likewise, the idea of Koreans on both sides of the line of armistice cheering for the same team competing in international events seems enheartening, and makes the goal of reunification seem that much closer (although it is still far, far in the distance).
Although I sincerely hope that this does not happen again, if America steals yet another medal undeservedly from under (in that case, South) Korea's nose, it will be interesting to see if both Koreas will react jointly (if this deal does in fact go through successfully) or whether once again, the North Koreans will lambast America, while the South Koreans, silently agreeing, allow their northern neighbours to vent their frustration.
ND, if I am completely off, please let me know, and I will publish my apologises and an explanation of why I am wrong.

Pijane Zające