Our post from last week “Obama and
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
The Other Side of Obama on Israel
Posted by Matias Bulnes at 8:59 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
philosophical activism
TODAY'S HEADLINES
All Hail Judge Garzon
Federal Appeals court rejects torture victims' suit
The reasoning, especially coming after the Supreme Court's judgment in Boumediene, is so disgusting it's mind boggling. Basically: no reasonable government official could have known that torturing these people is a violation of the constitution. Is the divide between moral reasoning and moral knowledge and legal reasoning and legal knowledge so wide that with a straight face we can render judgments like this court did? You don't have to be a 'natural law' theorist to believe that something has gone seriously wrong here. SCOTUS gave this Appeals Court a chance to revisit their ruling; evidently, they didn't take their responsibility seriously.
Decider-in-Chief
Interesting article in the WaPost detailing the process by which the torture memos were released. Obama set up a debate format in which opponents and proponents of release took turns airing their arguments. This is the kind of willfully deliberative process that I imagine was non-existent during the Bush years. Even more impressive is the following: "When it ended, Obama dictated on the spot a draft of his announcement that the documents would be released, while most of the officials watched, according to an official who was present." He must have been leaning in a certain direction prior to the debate, but nevertheless Obama's capacity to make a decisive judgment immediately following what must have been a complex and emotional debate strikes me as a first-rate virtue for a commander in chief. Now we use Bush's quip that he is the decider-in-chief without shame and forboding.
Interesting article in the WaPost detailing the process by which the torture memos were released. Obama set up a debate format in which opponents and proponents of release took turns airing their arguments. This is the kind of willfully deliberative process that I imagine was non-existent during the Bush years. Even more impressive is the following: "When it ended, Obama dictated on the spot a draft of his announcement that the documents would be released, while most of the officials watched, according to an official who was present." He must have been leaning in a certain direction prior to the debate, but nevertheless Obama's capacity to make a decisive judgment immediately following what must have been a complex and emotional debate strikes me as a first-rate virtue for a commander in chief. Now we use Bush's quip that he is the decider-in-chief without shame and forboding.
The Torture Tango
A great post from Scott Horton over at Harper's. It reflects on the potential legal culpability of Jay Bybee. In essence, he offered legal advice with the aim of authorizing what he knew was conventionally construed as torture. That is, his advice did not merely inform but was designed to motivate torture. This surely makes him party to the interrogators' actions, and hence culpable for them.
National March on Wall Street April 4
United for Peace and Justice and the Bailout the People Movement are organizing a march on Wall Street this Saturday. If you're tired of trillions of your tax dollars going to wars and bank bailouts, please come spend the day with kindred spirits.
Self-Caused Disaster Capitalism
Naomi Klein coined the term 'disaster capitalism' to describe the advent of economic opportunism grounded on catastrophic and unforeseen events. AIG, the recipient of $160 billion from the US government (so far!), forces us to coin another phrase, 'self-caused disaster capitalism'. Not as elegant an expression for sure, but highly descriptive. Instead of corporations waiting for disasters to happen, they now cause them and dare the government to let them fail.
In a 'secret' memo, AIG executives warned US officials that allowing AIG to fail would have systemic disastrous consequences for the world's financial system. Apparently, it worked, since taxpayers are now on the hook for another $30B.
This illustrates 'moral hazard' in the genuine sense: motivate reckless economic behavior by guaranteeing that financial immolation is doused with tax-payer funds.
Scientism at work
Physicists working on Wall St. Fascinating and scary at the same time. Nice if you can get the work, but how on Earth did anyone become convinced of their usefulness?
A world of discontent
Mass protests and lines of anxious customers at bank doors: Ukraine is the latest scene of social unrest as the economic crisis continues. Last weekend, 120,000 people marched through the streets of Dublin to protest against government austerity measures targeted largely at public sector workers. The French Carribbean island of Guadaloupe has seen weeks of strikes and protests, while in France over a million workers have gone on strike against Sarkozy's policies; mass protests have brought down governments in Iceland and Latvia as their economies effectively collapse; popular anger and protest continues in Greece, where public sector workers held a 24-hour stoppage last week. There are reports of unrest in China, as growth slows. As unemployment grows this year, we can expect more of the same: the question is where and how well this popular anger will be directed.
CIA destroyed 92 interrogation tapes.
One typical defense of government practices is the assertion of good faith, e.g. "I really, really think what we are doing is good for the country." Such a defense has its merits, but is completely belied when proof emerges of a criminal conspiracy to cover up one's acts.
Destroying evidence is the final proof of a guilty mind.
Join the Home Defenders Campaign
ACORN has begun organizing a civil disobedience campaign to stop home foreclosures. ACORN wants to put together networks of concerned people across the country that will come out in an emergency and surround homes authorities are trying to seize and whose occupants they want to evict. This way poor, struggling people who, unlike banks and their shareholders, aren't getting bailed out by the state can stay in their homes.
Please have the courage to sign up and act in solidarity with your fellows. If you're in New York, there will be training sessions this weekend.
Slaying Zombies
"The correct advice remains the one the US gave the Japanese and others during the 1990's: admit reality, restructure banks and, above all, slay zombie institutions at once."
Bizarro watch
Last week, Chuck Schumer (D-NY) scuttled the very idea of nationalizing banks. Evidently, he has rethought or refined his thinking. Now, we can put him on the pro side, but as he qualifies it, only for the 'good kind of nationalization', not that bad kind.
Thanks. It's all clear now: pursue only good ends, never bad ones.
Bizarro world, cont.
Amidst pressures from the Empire's henchmen, Charlotte-based Bank of America, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) continues to endorse the nationalization of banks. He asserts, plainly and in terms everyone can understand, "The truth is we put more money into the Bank of America than it's worth. That's not nationalization. That's just stupid."
Indeed. Is it possible that a Republican is seriously endorsing this strategy? Or is it some Jedi mind trick/ruse to get Obama to stake a position? Inquiring minds want to know.
Italy's Madhouse
If you thought that Berlusconi's Italy could no longer surprise you, listen to this: the Italian judiciary has sentenced a British lawyer for accepting bribe from Berlusconi in 1997 (here). Berlusconi has been left out of the whole trial because he enjoys presidential immunity (yes, he's the president!!!) and claims innocence--as he's done invariably in the many opportunities he's had to confront the law during his two periods as president.
Bizarro World
Lindsey Graham (R-SC) supports nationalization of rescued banks, while Chuck Schumer (D-NY) scuttles the idea.
Something must be afoot, for it's almost impossible to believe in either man's sincerity.
Eulana Englaro
It is remarkable that American media did not assign the least importance to a case that has shaken the whole world over the last few weeks. A dad's desperate struggle against the Vatican and the most Catholic country on Earth to give her beloved daughter a dignifying death and, him and his family a healing mourning (here).
Say it ain't so.
Obama Administration maintains Bush position on 'Extraordinary Rendition' lawsuit.
Basically, the position is that a lawsuit brought on by some who suffered extraordinary rendition cannot go through because it would divulge state secrets. In other words, we are unlikely to ever have a public hearing on the substance of this government sponsored terrorism.
Read here for some background on the lawsuit.
Khatami to Run for President
Former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami has announced that he will challenge Ahmadinejad in elections in June. Khatami is a reformer who has fought for a more democratic Iran and is known for his friendliness toward the West. How he fares in the upcoming elections will be interesting in many ways. First, we will have to see how hard the conservative establishment tries to thwart his bid. This establishment has formal control over the electoral process in Iran and can block his candidacy if it chooses to. Second, with the new US administration taking a more conciliatory note toward Iran, it is possible the Iranian electorate will welcome a less hardline President. One major contributing factor in Amadinejad's victory four years ago was the aggressive policies of the Bush administration.
Government Tapped Journalist's Phones
On the Media reports on revelations by whistleblower Russell Tice that under the Bush administration, intelligence officials tapped the phones of American journalists. This monitoring was more than simply noting the foreign contacts journalists had. In fact, the intelligence community examined the content of any call, including domestic calls. This had a chilling effect on the ability of journalists to cover the affairs of the state as government sources became afraid of talking. What's most disturbing about the story is that because of federal legislation this monitoring may no longer be illegal.
Competing historical lessons
Mitch McConnell, Senate minority leader and all around nay-sayer, offers us two historical precedents to explain why a large stimulus package will fail: the Great Depression and Japan in the 1990's. According to McConnell, it didn't work then, and we shouldn't believe it will work now. On the other hand, liberal economist, and recent Nobel prize winner, Paul Krugman just released a revised edition of his book, 'The Return of Depression Economics' in which he argues that those same two historical precedents show that a large stimulus package will work. Who's right?
I know where my bets would go. McConnell's strategy smacks of Rovian duplicitousness: take your opponent's strengths, shake and distort, and use to your own advantage.
Government to buy debt, not banks
The New York Times reports that the Obama administration has decided on a bailout plan for the banking industry that would have the federal government buy or otherwise support their bad mortgage-backed assets. The plan would not involve state-ownership of the banks themselves. It would, in other words, be a rescue package to the industry that caused our present economic woes.
If this is true, it is extremely disappointing. Not only does it mean that already rich bankers get a huge amount of welfare, it also doesn't address the coercive power they exercise over us. They can go on determining the fate of the world and expect to be supported by their victims when times are tough.
Daschle is out
Support the Sit-In at Republic
Please support the workers of Republic Windows and Doors who have occupied their factory for over a week now. They are demanding pay and benefits that the owners are trying to deny them in the process of closing the plant down. The struggle of these workers is an inspiration and worthy of all our support. Please send them kind words and/or money.
Bush: Don't Blame Capitalism
Yesterday, Bush was forced to defend neoliberalism in the face of a growing chorus of detractors. He called it "the engine of social mobility, the highway to the American Dream." If only.
It is a sign of neoliberalism's waning power that he even thinks a defense must be offered. The days when neoliberalism can be called the only alternative are over. Yippee!
It is a sign of neoliberalism's waning power that he even thinks a defense must be offered. The days when neoliberalism can be called the only alternative are over. Yippee!
Tax breaks for banks
The Treasury's newfound broad powers is suspect as a constitutional matter, but surely ill advised as a prudential matter.
We now know, via the Washington Post, that a tax law that conservatives have been anxiously and vigorously attacking for decades, has been quietly (really, secretly) 'reinterpreted' by the Treasury. The law forbids corporations from using offshore shell companies as tax shelters. The upshot of the reinterpretation: a $110bn tax windfall for banks. Evidently, due to the complexity of the bailout, few or no members were aware of the change. Due to the delicate nature of corporate executives in our current economic 'crisis' (who are otherwise at all other times vicious tigers) , the article suggests that Congress is wary of coming out to declare the illegality of this maneuver: who wants to be the cause of the next Great Depression?
Could there be any better example of Naomi Klein's thesis of the 'shock doctrine'? I suspect we will be hearing of further outrageously hidden 'reinterpretations' of law. Hopefully (can we hope?) the newly empowered Democratic Party will do the right thing and methodically bring back law and order after 8 years of chaos.
What's Actually in the bailout proposal
The proposed bailout contains two particularly disturbing provisions. Section 8 reads:
"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."
Yes, that's right: no oversight whatsoever. We are being asked to trust Henry Paulson-- whose previous job, in case you'd forgotten, was as CEO of Goldman Sachs-- to get us out of a mess he played a significant part in creating. He will have a free hand to hire Wall Street companies to value the toxic assets of, you guessed it, Wall Street companies-- and no-one will be able to do anything about it.You could not make this stuff up!
The key phrase of Section 6 reads:
"The Secretary's authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time."
In other words, this is not a $7 billion bailout; the actual cost could be many times that. As economist Nomi Prins explains here, "[i]t means that if everything we American taxpayers buy re-evaluates down to zero, we get to buy more. That's hardly taxpayer "protection." With several hundred billion dollars of write-downs already announced this year by the part of the industry compelled to post their losses, it's a safe bet that $700 billion worth of the junkiest assets in existence will be heading to zero the second they are purchased."
Enough said!
"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."
Yes, that's right: no oversight whatsoever. We are being asked to trust Henry Paulson-- whose previous job, in case you'd forgotten, was as CEO of Goldman Sachs-- to get us out of a mess he played a significant part in creating. He will have a free hand to hire Wall Street companies to value the toxic assets of, you guessed it, Wall Street companies-- and no-one will be able to do anything about it.You could not make this stuff up!
The key phrase of Section 6 reads:
"The Secretary's authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time."
In other words, this is not a $7 billion bailout; the actual cost could be many times that. As economist Nomi Prins explains here, "[i]t means that if everything we American taxpayers buy re-evaluates down to zero, we get to buy more. That's hardly taxpayer "protection." With several hundred billion dollars of write-downs already announced this year by the part of the industry compelled to post their losses, it's a safe bet that $700 billion worth of the junkiest assets in existence will be heading to zero the second they are purchased."
Enough said!
Sign the petition telling Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate torture here.
Call for Submissions
If you would like to contribute to the discussion at Interventions, please send us a submission. The piece should be 600-1000 words and be connected to the themes of domestic or international justice. Submissions will be subject to editorial review. Email us at iventions@gmail.com.
Label Cloud
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(118)
-
▼
March
(24)
- Bait and switch
- Dith Pran dies
- Bear Stearns: Three Cheers for the Bankers
- Coalition of the willing
- Bush's War
- The difficulty of aid
- The Nader Factor by Matias Bulnes, NYC
- Obama’s speech
- The Other Side of Obama on Israel
- My Lai
- Iraq War Anniversary
- Some remarks on Paul Collier's The Bottom Billion ...
- To gerrymander
- FTA with Colombia
- Manufacturing consent
- House fails to override Bush veto
- Daggers Out
- Zapatero Reelected
- The costs of war
- Samantha Power out
- Crisis on the Colombian Borders
- Vanity Fair's bomb
- Environmental Disaster: Is the Right being reasona...
- Constitutional showdown
-
▼
March
(24)
3 Comments:
I know it is a popular sport to parse presidential pronouncements on Israel and Palestine as finely as possible, and then exaggerate them all out of proportion, but Obama's statement that it is distorted to view "the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel," certainly doesn't have to be read as denying Israel's partial or even equal responsibility for Middle East conflict. Rather, it could be understand as claiming (plausibly enough), that it would a distortion to claim that Israel is the primary or even sole cause of conflict.
But regardless, Obama has been basically pro-Israel all along. What occasionally makes him sound different than the normal U.S. politician when talking about Israel is more the result of his overall commitment to dialogue with his opponents rather than just demonizing or ignoring them.
Your comment confuses me. First, you say that my reading of Obama's words isn't necessarily the only one. Next, you give the exact same reading.
As with your reading, I take Obama to have said that it would be a distortion to claim that Israel is the primary cause of the conflict in the Middle East. And this, I contend, shows a historical confusion on his part because no doubt Israel is the primary cause of the conflict in the Middle East. What else could it be? I don't say that Obama denies Israel's partial or equal responsibility, he denies Israel's PRIMARY responsibility.
Israel's actions have certainly contributed to conflict in the Middle East, but it seems unfair to suggest that they are the primary cause of Middle East conflict. For instance, the war between Iran and Iraq was not caused by Israel, but nonetheless had a devastating impact on the Middle East. Similarly, the current war in Iraq was primarily caused by the U.S., not Israel. So, to suggest that there is no doubt that Israel is the primary cause of all conflict in the Middle East seems overly simplistic.
The reason I attempted to clarify Obama's statement is that while it would be incorrect to claim that Israel has no fault for Middle East conflict, and this is a claim made by many in both parties, that is not implied by Obama's statement. In fact, what he said is compatible with the view that Israel is significantly responsible for much of the unrest in the Middle East. The claim that you endorse is so broad (all conflict in the Middle East?!?) that it seems uncharitable to chastise those humble (or politic) enough to hesitate before also endorsing it.
Post a Comment