On media and politics. . .

Tuesday, June 29, 2004

An American victory in the supreme court Declaring that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president," the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that those deemed enemy combatants by the Bush administration, both in the United States and at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, must be given the ability to challenge their detention before a judge or other "neutral decision-maker." (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/29/politics/29DETA.html) These decisions have brought some measure of due process to the plight of so-called enemy combatants, particularly those held in Guantanamo. There are already many interpretations of their meaning. Some of the discussion is partisan. Some wish to show this as a repudiation of the Bush administration. Some feel the limited new requirements make it only the mildest rebuke and actually allow the administration nearly a free hand in their treatment of these detainees. I feel both interpretations are at play. The decisions say that detainees, non-citizens and citizens both , have some access to American courts to challenge the basis for their detention. They do not spell out procedures and do not even guarantee trials. Some commentators have even read the decisions to mean that as long as the military executes some kind of procedure, such as a tribunal, that may mean there is no need to bring in the American court system. By striking down precedents from World War II, a clear invitation has been presented to congress to provide legislation to address the need for due process in the context of the unique situation in which we find ourselves, the first war against organizations as opposed to nations. The Bush administration had proclaimed that the president, as commander-in-chief has the sole unmitigated power to decide who is an enemy, how that decision will be made and how that person would be treated. That attitude has prevailed far beyond the issue of the detainees. In secret, they planned the Iraq war for nearly a year while pretending in public to be searching for alternatives. They decided they could ignore the Geneva conventions regarding treatment of prisoners and the means of interrogation. These supreme court decisions have repudiated that view. The president is only one powerful force governing our nation. The courts and the congress, therefore the people, have a meaningful role to play. Though we have a long way to go to redress the excesses of this administration, I call that a victory for America. Melvyn Polatchek 1:22:06 PM    comment []

Thursday, June 24, 2004

War on terror - Who is the enemy? We commonly refer to the war against terror as if it we were threatened by some amorphous blob. However, in this context, the word terror connotes a behavior, a tactic used by an enemy to achieve its goals. We are not at war with behavior no matter how reprehensible. We are at war with people, organizations and perhaps nations. Who are these people? By what standards do we decide they are our enemies, constituting a clear and present danger and requiring a military response? After 9/11, Al Qaeda was identified as our prime enemy in the new century. The attack transformed them from a dangerous outlaw group, to be dealt with essentially as criminals, to a threat as dangerous as any we have faced. We know that Bin Laden set himself against the regime in Saudi Arabia because he considers it ‘oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical’. His reasons for singling out America as an enemy include the support of the Saudi regime and the presence of American troops in that country as well s the support for Israel. He believes that Israel is bent on expanding to include the entire Arabian peninsula. He also says that his call for holy war is reflected in the beliefs of Muslims world wide. ‘They should all unite in the fight against polytheism and they should pool all their resources and their energy to fight the Americans and the Zionists and those with them. They should, however, avoid side fronts and rise over the small problems for these are less detrimental. Their fight should be directed against unbelief and unbelievers.” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html) By his words, Bin Laden has proclaimed a holy war between all Muslims and America and its allies and we are at war with him and his organization. Therefore, the minimal standards for declaring an enemy are: 1. They declare they are our enemy 2.They actually attack us. The Taliaban in Afghanistan had never attacked us, but they were a prime support of Al Qaeda. So we added a third standard. 3. They support enemies who have attacked us. America has attempted to convince itself and the Arab world that it is not at war with all Muslims, only the radicals. We hope that most of the world's Muslims do not see holy war against America as their own personal jihad. Only time will tell if we are correct in that assessment. Other than the Arab governments whom we support, we don’t hear much friendship in any other quarters. Coming soon. What about the evil empire? How does Iraq fit into the picture? 3:29:06 PM    comment []

Tuesday, June 15, 2004

The fallacy of phenomenon News There was an unbylined article in the NYTimes of June 15 entitled, "Reaganite by Association? His Family won't allow it." The article talked about the rather obvious attempts to paint Bush as a political heir to Ronald Reagan and the attempts by the family to quash that kind of comparison. A part of the article captured my attention and provoked some thoughts on the media and the TV habits of the nation. (from the article) Just over 35 million viewers tuned in to the channels carrying the funeral of President Ronald Reagan on Friday night, the high viewing point for the coverage on the Reagan funeral events last week. That was a big increase for the cable news networks that carried the events, though it represented a small decline compared with the entertainment programming on the broadcast channels the previous week. Among the broadcast networks, ABC had the largest audience, with 8.1 million viewers. On cable, Fox News had by far the biggest audience with about 5 million viewers. Compared with other news events covered by all the broadcast networks, plus CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and CNBC, the funeral did not have an especially high number of viewers. The last State of the Union address, for example, was watched by 43.4 million viewers on those channels. (for the full text visit: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/15/politics/15memo.html?pagewanted=21) By some mysterious process the various news outlets, which ordinarily are fiercely competitive, decide to cover the same story at the same time. We, the viewing public have habits which do not change because our favorite TV show has been preempted. We do not turn off the TV. An unusually large audience, focused on a single story, becomes a phenomenon. A TV news phenomenon takes on a bandwagon effect. Print reporters start writing columns and the magazine shows do analytical pieces. At some point it may come full circle and some commentator will mention the story that "just won't go away". It won't go away because they won't stop flogging it. They base their decisions on ratings, but the fact is that they created those ratings by taking away our choices. The size of the audience does not make the event a phenomenon. The only way that could happen is if the size of the audience increased significantly beyond the normal combined viewership. It would be phenomenal if they ever reported that. Melvyn Polatchek 11:58:12 PM    comment []

Monday, June 07, 2004

Genocide in the Sudan Synopsis of a Washington Post Editorial: "THE EARLY PREPARATION for the genocide in Darfur, Sudan's vast western province, played out behind a veil of ignorance: Almost no foreign aid workers operated in the region, and the world failed to realize what was happening. Stage two of the genocide, the one we are now in, is more acutely shameful: A succession of reports from relief agencies, human rights groups and journalists informs us that hundreds of thousands of people are likely to perish, yet outsiders still cannot muster the will to save them. Unless that changes, we are fated to live through the genocide's third stage. There will be speeches, commissions of inquiry and sundry retrospectives, just as there were after Cambodia and Rwanda. Never again, we will be told." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21016-2004Jun6.html The American media and the American people are always disturbed at reports of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Yet, little ever seems to happen. There was intervention in the Balkans, many years too late to save tens of thousands of lives. It took U.S. leadership because the European nations were once again watching a tyrant swallow up countries. With some not very well executed exceptions (Somalia, Haiti) The United States can generally bring itself to intervene only if our security is threatened. We are happy to have ended tyranny in Iraq, but that is not why we invaded. Things are unlikely to change. The U.N. will remain impotent and while we Americans claim religious imperatives, we are clearly content to allow these tragedies to continue. Shame on us. From my blog at: http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/ Melvyn Polatchek 7:52:08 PM    comment []

Wednesday, June 02, 2004

No honor code for civilians at the pentagon The civilian leadership at the pentagon continues to insist that the size of the military is appropriate to its obligations. Yet they continue to extend indefinitely the tours of regular troops as well as reservists. It's a pity that civilians who manage the military are not required to accept an honor code of their own. Melvyn Polatchek 10:43:47 PM    comment []

Brahimi proves his unworth In the Kansas City Star today, Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N. envoy who has been asked to help form a transitional Iraqui government was quoted as saying, "Bremer is the dictator of Iraq," he said. "He has the money. He has the signature." The entire article is available at: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/8820988.htm?1c I'm sure he has had a difficult several weeks. Yet, he served no one by his outburst. All people of good will want this transitional government to fare well. There is and has been plenty of hypocracy, but for the man who repesents the U.N. to so undercut this new government is unworthy of his mission and calls his own integrity into question. By accepting his role he made a tacit agreement to seek the best possible outcome for the Iraquis, the Americans and the member states of the U.N.  His words indicate an agenda that seeks to embarass and weaken the U.S. position. Of course none of his children serve with the American military. Melvyn Polatchek 7:40:04 PM    comment []