Sunday, February 24, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Lt. Col Marttala and some news
I thought one of the things that was most interesting about Lt. Col. Marttala's visit was the language that the Air Force uses to justify the rules of war they teach. For example, when the internet test explained why troops shouldn't fire on a church, it wasn't because of cultural value or non-civilian space but to save resources. Of course, this is a valuable thing for the military to care about, but I just thought it was interesting that that this issue was never something we discussed in class.
Also, it's funny how technology can both improve our lives but also create chances for error. For example, Lt. Col. Marttala said that troops just had to take that online quiz once a year (or extra classes if you handled a weapon regularly). I imagine that there are some troops who do managed to understand and absorb the rules within that one computer simulation, but I imagine there are others who don't. Also, it is amazing how much things seem to vary from unit to unit. I imagine that not all units had someone like Lt. Col. Marttala who cared so much about civilian causalities and the rules of war.
Ok, and here are some news links!
I'm sure most everyone has already seen this article, but the NYTimes did a big piece on waterboarding and how the Justice Department is actually reviewing the technique and the CIA's choice to use it. According to legal experts, the most that this review will manage to achieve is the creation of a public debate about what torture is. In light of our discussion about norms and adhering to norms, it seems important that the public gets some input/new knowledge about what exactly is going on. If this issue continues to stay in the spotlight, there is a greater chance that people will demand the CIA changes its techniques. Unfortunately, it seems that news like this is big one day and gone the next. Apparently the Geneva Convention can't keep up with reality TV and our short-attention span generation!
I also found this NYTimes article from February 14 which details one of the experiences of a detainee from Guantanamo. Apparently an Al Jazeera camera man named Sami al-Hajj was arrested in Afghanistan and held in captivity for five years. It was pretty clear that he wasn't a criminal and the US even offered to let him go free...if he agreed to spy on Al Jazeera. He refused, and as a result, is still in captivity. He has been on a hunger strike for over a year, and twice a day he is held down and force fed through a feeding tube. Apparently lubricants aren't always used, and as a result, his throat is scrapped, bloody and raw. Also, he has said that the tube is sometimes still bloody from previous uses with other detainees.
Seriously? How is this not torture. It really is unbelievable that this stuff goes on.
Also, it's funny how technology can both improve our lives but also create chances for error. For example, Lt. Col. Marttala said that troops just had to take that online quiz once a year (or extra classes if you handled a weapon regularly). I imagine that there are some troops who do managed to understand and absorb the rules within that one computer simulation, but I imagine there are others who don't. Also, it is amazing how much things seem to vary from unit to unit. I imagine that not all units had someone like Lt. Col. Marttala who cared so much about civilian causalities and the rules of war.
Ok, and here are some news links!
I'm sure most everyone has already seen this article, but the NYTimes did a big piece on waterboarding and how the Justice Department is actually reviewing the technique and the CIA's choice to use it. According to legal experts, the most that this review will manage to achieve is the creation of a public debate about what torture is. In light of our discussion about norms and adhering to norms, it seems important that the public gets some input/new knowledge about what exactly is going on. If this issue continues to stay in the spotlight, there is a greater chance that people will demand the CIA changes its techniques. Unfortunately, it seems that news like this is big one day and gone the next. Apparently the Geneva Convention can't keep up with reality TV and our short-attention span generation!
I also found this NYTimes article from February 14 which details one of the experiences of a detainee from Guantanamo. Apparently an Al Jazeera camera man named Sami al-Hajj was arrested in Afghanistan and held in captivity for five years. It was pretty clear that he wasn't a criminal and the US even offered to let him go free...if he agreed to spy on Al Jazeera. He refused, and as a result, is still in captivity. He has been on a hunger strike for over a year, and twice a day he is held down and force fed through a feeding tube. Apparently lubricants aren't always used, and as a result, his throat is scrapped, bloody and raw. Also, he has said that the tube is sometimes still bloody from previous uses with other detainees.
Seriously? How is this not torture. It really is unbelievable that this stuff goes on.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Bush and norms
Byers writes: "Previous administrations at least paid lip-service to the existence of normative constraints by concealing and denying their covert operations. The Bush Administration lets the mask slip, to the discredit of the nation and at the peril of the soldiers whom so many of the rules are designed to protect."
In some ways, the Bush Administration is no different from other Administration as far as its attitudes towards international affairs goes. At the end of the day, Bush does what he thinks is best for American interests, which is the same as all other Presidents before him (of course, whether or not it is in the country's best interest is actually debatable). One of the major differences, however, is his lack of regard for the desires of other states. At least in the past, presidents paid lip-service to the idea of cooperation. But while Bush doesn't seem to care about annoying other states, he does seem to care about the pretense of abiding by norms. This administration couldn't care less about what bridges it burns but it does attempt to justify the international norms it flaunts...well at least until it gets tired of doing so and just breaks them anyway!
As we've discusses so often in class, these are no mechanisms for upholding international norms. Basically, it is states that decide to play by the rules or not. And to be fair, the administration does attempt to justify its actions before it completely ignores the norm. When it invaded Iraq, it attempted to do so under the auspices of preventive and preemptive action. When it put prisoners in Guantanamo it attempted to justify their status. Basically, they've become good at reinventing words and changing the meaning of definitions. And when that doesn't work, they just find loopholes around existing norms. And when that doesn't work, they just flaunt them anyway! "We don't torture." "Water boarding isn't actually torture." "What is torture anyway?" "Let's redefine the meaning of torture..." And it goes on...
Honestly though, Clinton did the same thing with genocide. "Acts of genocide have been committed." It's as if the most important part of norm creation is nailing down the definition so tightly that there is no room to wiggle. Of course, when you do that, states refuse to agree with them. So I guess the goal of future presidents will be hiring lawyers who are clever enough to find loopholes and weak language in the norms. Man, that's depressing.
In some ways, the Bush Administration is no different from other Administration as far as its attitudes towards international affairs goes. At the end of the day, Bush does what he thinks is best for American interests, which is the same as all other Presidents before him (of course, whether or not it is in the country's best interest is actually debatable). One of the major differences, however, is his lack of regard for the desires of other states. At least in the past, presidents paid lip-service to the idea of cooperation. But while Bush doesn't seem to care about annoying other states, he does seem to care about the pretense of abiding by norms. This administration couldn't care less about what bridges it burns but it does attempt to justify the international norms it flaunts...well at least until it gets tired of doing so and just breaks them anyway!
As we've discusses so often in class, these are no mechanisms for upholding international norms. Basically, it is states that decide to play by the rules or not. And to be fair, the administration does attempt to justify its actions before it completely ignores the norm. When it invaded Iraq, it attempted to do so under the auspices of preventive and preemptive action. When it put prisoners in Guantanamo it attempted to justify their status. Basically, they've become good at reinventing words and changing the meaning of definitions. And when that doesn't work, they just find loopholes around existing norms. And when that doesn't work, they just flaunt them anyway! "We don't torture." "Water boarding isn't actually torture." "What is torture anyway?" "Let's redefine the meaning of torture..." And it goes on...
Honestly though, Clinton did the same thing with genocide. "Acts of genocide have been committed." It's as if the most important part of norm creation is nailing down the definition so tightly that there is no room to wiggle. Of course, when you do that, states refuse to agree with them. So I guess the goal of future presidents will be hiring lawyers who are clever enough to find loopholes and weak language in the norms. Man, that's depressing.
Monday, February 11, 2008
US to seek execution for 9-11 defendants
NYTimes article on the above topic. Thought it was pretty relevant given our readings!
Sunday, February 10, 2008
US Soldier Convicted of Killing an Unarmed Iraqi
There was an article today in the NYTimes about a soldier who was convicted of killing an unarmed Iraqi civilian. It's odd to me that other cases that seemed more black and white have been dismissed in the past while this case was prosecuted. Maybe this conviction is a fallout from the Blackwater debacle. Although they didn't say in the article when the incident occurred.
Superdelegates=An elitist system designed by party insiders
So apparently in 1984 superdelegates were created "to restore some of the power over the nomination process to party insiders..." according to the NYTimes. Does anyone else see a problem with this? As the election gets closer and closer between Clinton and Obama, there is more and more of a chance that superdelegates will be deciding this race. Basically, these 796 people get to choose who wins in the event that neither of the candidates get enough delicates. Seriously? How is this democracy?
At least Obama has stated, "My strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates from the most voters in the country, that it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters."
Clinton, according to the Times, "disputed Mr. Obama’s interpretation of how superdelegates should make their decision, arguing, as her aides have in conversations with superdelegates, that they should make an independent decision based on who they thought would be the strongest candidate and president."
Now Obama hasn't come out and said he would support Clinton if she had the most delegates at the end, but his response seems to lean that way a bit more. Clinton, on the other hand, brazenly declares that even if Obama has more delgates, it is still ok for superdelegates to vote for her. Again, SERIOUSLY? Another reason why I'm happy to be supporting Obama.
At least Obama has stated, "My strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates from the most voters in the country, that it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters."
Clinton, according to the Times, "disputed Mr. Obama’s interpretation of how superdelegates should make their decision, arguing, as her aides have in conversations with superdelegates, that they should make an independent decision based on who they thought would be the strongest candidate and president."
Now Obama hasn't come out and said he would support Clinton if she had the most delegates at the end, but his response seems to lean that way a bit more. Clinton, on the other hand, brazenly declares that even if Obama has more delgates, it is still ok for superdelegates to vote for her. Again, SERIOUSLY? Another reason why I'm happy to be supporting Obama.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Norms and Ireland and Norms and Me
Ok, so first norms and Ireland. Apparently in the past few years, people in Ireland have been refusing to use plastic bags for any of their shopping. While plastic bags aren't illegal, being spotted with one has become akin to committing social suicide, according to a recent NYTimes article. Ireland has always been pretty far ahead of the curve on this issue, requiring a 33 cents tax on all plastic bags and encouraging people to use recyclable alternatives (when I was there a few years back, you couldn't even buy plastic bags in some stores, making it very difficult for me to carry my groceries the first time I discovered this). Basically a new norm has been established that has a socially regulating effect on plastic bag usage. If only that could happen here! (As a side note, I have attempted to use only cloth bags since I moved to Pittsburgh and I've been amazed by the response from some check out people. When I say I don't need a bag, they look at me skeptically and kind of scowl. Then if my bags get filled and I have to use plastic bags, they get annoyed when I ask them not to double bag them (which is SO unnecessary). Trader Joes, of course, have been the exception to the rule! There are obviously norms at work here as well: not questioning the checkout people and using plastic bags without thought).
Ok, onto norms with me. So if you notice, this post is a little late. And I thought about just changing the date on the bottom so that it would look like I posted this on Thursday. But then I decided that I would be a better person and follow the norm of honesty. I don't have to, but the social norms of honesty that my parents embedded in me are pretty strong (that and the article I posted above is from today so it would have been kind of hard to pull off that farce effectively). Basically the reason this is late is because Tuesday I got a virus on my computer that destroyed my entire operating system. Thankfully the heroes over at the Pitt Oscar Tech desk fixed it up, but it did take several days and many hours, time that I would normally have dedicated to getting my homework in on time!
Ok, onto norms with me. So if you notice, this post is a little late. And I thought about just changing the date on the bottom so that it would look like I posted this on Thursday. But then I decided that I would be a better person and follow the norm of honesty. I don't have to, but the social norms of honesty that my parents embedded in me are pretty strong (that and the article I posted above is from today so it would have been kind of hard to pull off that farce effectively). Basically the reason this is late is because Tuesday I got a virus on my computer that destroyed my entire operating system. Thankfully the heroes over at the Pitt Oscar Tech desk fixed it up, but it did take several days and many hours, time that I would normally have dedicated to getting my homework in on time!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
