Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent
header_02 home about login header_06
header_07
search_bar_left
date_box_left
date_box_right.jpg
search_bar_right
sidebar-top content-top

Preventing terrorism: Where do we begin?

Richard Tonkin is a longtime Webdiary contributor and volunteer. He specialises in the growing influence and success of US company Halliburton and other US defence companies in Australia, particularly in his home state, South Australia. Richard's last piece for Webdiary was The Man with the Dyed Beard Returns, and his blog is Richard Tonkin's snippets.

.....sometimes our methodology gets slammed, sometimes we get reprimanded for errors, faulty assumptions, inadequate literature review in our report, whatever. But we're doing the best we can - and usually, our best is pretty good. You want to know why your streets are free from perpetual motion machines and anti-gravity gangs? Because we have the power to do what it takes to stop crime. Forget about juries. We try, convict, and sentence on our own  - From Jeff Lindsay's  "Memoirs Of A Sci-Cop."

The Australian Federal Police and Federal government have badly botched  a few terrorism deportations of late. If poor handling of the cases of Scott Parkin, Mahommed Haneef and David Hicks weren't enough, the APEC events in Sydney gave us a police force that could arrest suspects because of crimes they might commit in the future. Now AFP Mick Keelty wants greater police power to prevent crimes from happening. For reasons that may be obvious, I have a problem with this.

After witnessing the brutal tactics employed by police at  APEC, I was doubly shocked to hear a familiar story being used to vilify protesters. NSW Police Minister David Campbell told the Sydney public (via ABC Radio) that one of the reasons police acted pre-emptively was intelligence that protesters were planning to roll marbles under the hooves of police horses. The same story was used (on the front page of the Australian, reportedly leaked by ASIO) to "explain" why it was necessary to confine and deport Halliburton activist Parkin. At this stage Newsweek hadn't uncovered the Pentagon File on the peanut butter sandwiches. The irony of reviving the "marbles and horses" story was that, because of the horse flu, there were no mounted policemen. Parkin's case is back before the courts now, in the wake of ASIO's  disallowed appeal against the Federal Court's decision that the deportee should see the peanut butter drenched files that damned him.

The circumstances surrounding Haneef were different. There was a piece in the Australian last year in which a US counterterrorism expert forecast an ominous possibility. True, he gave it a likelihood of less than ten per cent at the time of mention. The notion was that on the weekend of APEC Al Qaeda could strike Australia by unleashing explosions simultaneously in three capital cities. It's not surprising, and in hindsight admirable, that the AFP detained somebody who, based on the circumstantial evidence available to them at that time, might well have been connected  to an organised group employing the tactic of simultaneous explosions. The probability of the forecast being correct had suddenly become much greater. The trouble was that while Commission Keelty maintained that Haneef should be granted a presumption of innocence, this was not considered politically appropriate by the Federal Government. Haneef's lawyer Peter Russo has raised concerns this week that the visa appeal won't be heard until next year. Did anybody seriously expect it to happen before the election?

Having shown how brilliant they are at handling the counterterrorism powers they've already been given, have our authorities qualified themselves to receive more?

In the speech he gave in Adelaide on Monday night, AFP Commissioner Keelty had a fair bit to say on how much the world had changed since September 11 2001. He says that "Health, education and the economy remain important issues, but domestic security has been elevated to a level of importance we’ve never experienced before," adding that "our mindset has changed". He says that the AFP has "moved into new, global, law enforcement territory,"

Having stood in a public park and watched squadrons of police invade a gathering and arrest people to avert the possibility that they might commit a crime, I was particularly interested in what Mr Keelty had to say next. He explained that the Australian public expected terrorists to be caught before attacks occurred, and that legal problems would ensue. "In a prevention environment the courts will be dealing with larger numbers of inchoate crimes, or crimes that are prevented at a very embryonic stage of execution. Sentencing in this environment could become problematic, at least in the early stages." Keelty argues that through the new approach less people would be charged with "lesser" crimes because these crimes will have been prevented from occurring. 

If the "marbles intelligence" was still current at the time of APEC, it would appear that one of the most publicly-active justifications of Parkin's deportation was a complete failure. And when Haneef gave a second chance to get the procedures right, another travesty arose. These are the sorts of situations Mr Keelty expects us not to read about in the future. Does that mean they won't be occurring, or just better concealed?

If APEC is an example of applying Keelty's proposed methodology, then we're about to become a society treated with benign contempt by an armed force sifting us for, and removing, potential evildoers from within our masses, smugly confident that any violations in civil liberties are justified in serving a greater good. This kind of sentiment was typified by the last NSW police commissioner when he explained that he had to worry about giving society the greatest civil liberty, "freedom from murder."  All else, it seems, is trivial.

The bungling exhibited by the combined efforts of the government and its agencies, in what now can be perceived as prevention of Haneef and Parkin from carrying out future crimes, suggests that pre-emptive counterterrorism is failing miserably, and that its status quo is wide open to incompetency. And these people want us to have faith in them and give them more?

Accountability in applying counterterrorism powers is a major problem. If Keelty is lauded by federal ministers, then who is checking them? When you look at the ministerial support for the treatment of Parkin and Haneef, perhaps the concept of a Counterterrorism Ombudsman is one worth considering. The shady cloud of having allowed a government agency to provide material support (you know, the charge for which David Hicks, still the only Guantanemo convict, is locked in Yatala?) for Saddam Hussein before sending troops to capture him still looms over this government's head, and you can be certain that any political stuff-ups are going to be concealed as best as possible between now and the election. An apolitical ombudsman could have the power to eliminate such possibilities. Perhaps the idea is akin to shutting the door after the horse has bolted, but from Mr Keelty's ruminations this week, I can see that s/he could have a heavy workload in the near future. Perhaps it could be someone from ASIO? It would appear that the spooks are also unhappy with government/police power acquisition. Whether police and government would accept subservience to ASIO, though, is another thing altogether. After all, what would they know?

Looking at other end of counterterrorism gives us a fair idea of how far an idea can travel.  Jack Hitt's Missile Defence piece in Rolling Stone sums up the global philosophy well.

[extract]

Working alongside Paul Wolfowitz, the future secretary of defense finally came up with the result that Republicans were looking for. The Rumsfeld Commission established a new standard of threat, asserting that any country with Scud technology would be able to easily convert to ICBM capability. Most important, they determined that the earlier intelligence efforts were flawed because they looked only at "likely" threats instead of "possible" threats -- such as North Korea and Iran and Venezuela.

This was a key conceptual shift, the difference between relying upon known facts to empirically project a likely scenario and relying upon the human imagination to conjure every possible danger. If the shift seems familiar, that's because it is the same one that occurred throughout the government after September 11th. All threats, big and small, were now on the table, and all were taken seriously. In foreign policy, this worldview became known as the War on Terror. In the realm of national defense, this idea became the missile defense shield.

 If the perceived future possibility of terror attacks was enough to implement a global war to eliminate it, how long will it be before "terrorist friendly" words are forbidden? If the treatment of Parkin and his words is an indicator of a "possible threat" being dealt with badly, what measures are the Government and police prepared to take to correct their ineptitude? How long before authorities come to sites such as Webdiary and begin to censor our words, in the name of saving citizens from being murdered? 

If local counterterrorism methods mirror the global approach of eliminating possibilities before they have a chance to occur, then our police and governments will be able to do whatever they please, whenever they feel like it.

I believe that we need to start some preventative thinking. Work out what our worst case scenario as a police state society might be, and eliminate the possibility.  Under the new rules of the game, it's the only way to play.

We've had it drummed into our heads that if we change our lifestyles because of fear of terrorism then the terrorists will have won. Things aren't looking too good at the moment. We still, however, have much left to lose. In a situation with so much gravity, it's still a long way down for a  society falling into becoming a martially-controlled community for the sake, so we're told, of its survival. The terrorists have much more to win, and in my opinion we're handing it to them on a platter decorated with thirty pieces of silver.

left
right
[ category: ]
spacer

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Afraid of bogymen?

Eliot, I suggest that you reread the gas truck story. Leaking gas bottles ignited by the fire, a result of the truck catching fire, exploded.

Only a tiny percentage of vehicles involved in crashes catch fire.

As for the police powers!  Either people get behind moves to get rid of all governments that subscribe to the '9/11 changed the world nonsense',  or the police states of the western world will be not one whit better than the police states anywhere else.

Just because the Yanks thought that they were going to die from a mere smack in the mouth is no reason for the rest of the world to believe it.

This will be a long, hard fight, the control freaks who are benefiting from these increased powers are not going to give them up without a bitter fight.   It will probably have to be fought electorate by electorate, forgetting political party affiliations and combining to vote against any candidate who supports any police or government power  that they did not have at the time Ryan left. 

 People will certainly be jailed, and almost certainly people will be killed before governments and police  are stripped of these authoritarian powers.

Gas bottles don't explode on impact

Hey, Mary J? Remember how you reckoned gas bottles wouldn't explode if you crashed a Jeep full of them into an airport waiting room?

Look at this:

The driver of a truck has died after his vehicle loaded with gas bottles rolled north of Brisbane this morning.

A light truck was heading north when it crossed to the other side of the road and collided with a car on the Bruce Highway at Narangba about 5.30am.

The truck burst into flames, killing the driver instantly.

I guess you were right after all.

Not learning from history ... and benefits.

Belated happy birthday, Richard. Some items that might be of interest:

Scott Horton on Guy Fawkes - and lessons unlearned.

On the Pakistan situation:

Chris Floyd.

M K Bhadrakumar.

Syed Saleem Shahzad.

All the things that can happen under the "war on terror".  

Cuban dictatorship demands Yankee dollars. Again.

The geriatric Cuban dictatorship has demanded once again that the Yankee Imperialists bail out the Castro brothers' failed economic experiment.

Having "liberated" their population from capitalism nearly 50 years ago, the Castro clique's demands for access to capitalism in order to prop up their backward regime have been growing ever more strident since the collapse of the Soviet Union, their chief sponsor.

Cuba trades with hundreds of the world's nations, but still needs the USA it seems.

Nearly all other Western nations, and certainly the chief competitors of the United States, Japan, West Germany and Canada, are currently improving commercial relations with Cuba.

Trade between Cuba and market economy countries reached $1.6 billion as early as 1986.

As of 1998, there were 322 joint ventures in force, with partners from over fifty different countries

Principal sources of foreign investment include Canada, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Latin America.

Spain was Communist Cuba's main trading partner durin the Franco era.

Quite a few US firms do trade with Cuba, of course.

But still the Castros and their lickspittles need an alibi for their implaccable social and economic backwardness.

Mind you, Raul Castro's personal economic experiment hasn't failed.

The billionaire murderer's gigantic pallace has been a work in progress for decades, renowned throughout the impoverished nation for the endless amounts of refurbs and upgrades lavished on it.

Raul regularly cuts a portly figure in the French Riviera's upmarket resorts. He likes holidays.

oh now I understand!

Eliot,

Now I understand.  When you are not writing this stuff you are preoccupied  with removing the bits of carpet from your front teeth.

V for Vendetta at Adelaide Railway Station

There was a bloke walking around the Adelaide central station today wearing the mask identical to the protagonist of the movie.  The fact that the mask is intended to portray Guy Fawkes, the date was the fifth of November, and that the underground station virtually abuts the foundations of SA's Parliament House was not lost on a couple of travellers.  I wonder if anyone watching the security cameras made the connection?  Probably not, though they should have.  Living one railway stop from the city, I've always wondered how easy it could be, and on this day more than any other, someone should've been keeping a look-out.

How many situations, in this day and age of Homeland Security, are wide-open for exploitation. 

I'd like to buy the man behind the mask a beer.   I'm surprised that he wasn't detained and questioned.

On the subject

Thanks Richard.  The discussion left the subject behind.  To bring it back: it seems relatively straightforward to analyse the causes of terrorism as poverty, powerlessness and the violation of national (which includes ethnocentric national identity) boundaries.  I have no doubt that suicide bombers (for example) feel driven to their action by exasperation at their powerlessness to act to bring change to their current and future conditions. That is how disorganised terrorism appears to me.  Organised terrorism takes a different form: the use of the military promoted and maintained by the mechanism of the state.

What these two forces have in common is a commitment to the use of violence to achieve their ends.  The effectiveness of violence as a means is not at issue here.  The intention to cause harm and suffering is the problem.   

What do we do?  Renew our determination to seek and use peaceful means to resolve conflict.  As Australians, clean up our own back yard, as it were.  Pressure the Federal government to cease training and supporting Koppasus (the terror arm of the Indonesian military). One could build a substantial agenda for action within Australia.  Perhaps that is the clearest path...to ensure that Australia is an active and vigorous democracy with a strong civil society where citizens can and do play an active and participatory role in determining the policies of the state.   Promote democracy.  Be models of peacefulness.   

The Love Boat

Anthony Nolan says:

"The real picture, as I am sure you are keen to deny, is that US foreign policy is driven by an out of control ruling class whose appetite for resources forces on the rest of the world the most bloody imaginable policies."

You're not night a nightmare. You're a dream.

Compare the "most bloody imaginable policies" of the USA with, as you yourself have described them, the policies of the USSR?

Take even the current policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Last night, on SBS World News, was a report on a half-dozen or so new Hollywood productions giving fictionalised accounts of events, some based on reality, that have happened in Iraq.

These include a film about US soldiers raping an Iraqi teenager. All the films were stridently critical of US policy in Iraq.

This is even before the war in Iraq is over. And even as the same news source was reporting that schools are re-opening in Bagdhad because the 'troop surge' has decimated al-Quaeda's operations in Bagdhad, and that Northern Sunni communities are now working with Coalition forces to improve security in their regions, too.

When during the Soviet era did a Soviet film maker produce anything even remotely critical of Soviet foreign policy in places like the Ukraine, Georgia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Latvia, Chechnya, Cuba, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, etc, etc, etc?

Let alone six films in one year?

And remember, Anthony, Hollywood is the veritable "handmaiden" of the "out of control ruling class" in America.

Ask any Marxist and they'll tell you that.

So, no. You're not a nightmare...

Oh Eliot...

Dear Eliot ... you just don't get it, do you?  Of course there was opposition in the USSR and of course they were viciously persecuted.  As were critical voices in both the USA (and Australia) during the McCarthy period.  Remember the Rosenbergs? 

The point to this whole dialogue, however, is that the USSR collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions.  Gorbachev didn't have the stomach for it any more and neither did the USSR population.

Hooray for them all.

But that collapse does not vindicate the awful foreign, repeat, foreign, policies of the USA.  Which are monumentally bloody.

On comparisons between the USA and the USSR: no-one except the genuinely deranged would argue that the USSR was anything but a disaster.   But you are such a resilient erecter of straw men, you just cannot let the habit go. 

Oh well.  I remember watching a documentary about the collapse of the Chicago automobile industry  in the late seventies or early eighties.  An unemlpoyed Afro-American worker was explaining how, in extremes of hunger brought on in the absence of any social welfare system, he boiled up newspapers and ate the resulting slew.  A friend of mine commented that at least American workers were free to choose which paper to eat whereas the poor in the USSR only had Pravda on the menu.

Goodnight

Eliot's Code Of Ethics?

We've argued over Hicks and Haneef till we've both been blue in the face.  Here has been a thread on counterterrorism that you've reduced to a barney over Choamsky, Chavez and Russia,;  And right at a time where a "dirty bomb" newsfeed has become much more active than ever before.

I would like to know if you debate the points that you do because you believe they are wrong, or simply because you think that you capable of repudiating them.  If you answer this I will be better able to understand your code of ethics

What is "It All"?


Eliot
, indicative of what? You haven't said.

As for provocation, I think we need to consider who provoked who first. I offer no final judgment on that here, but as I noted earlier, the US already had missiles on European territory, aimed at the nearby USSR. The USSR stole a march on the US, placing missiles virtually at its back door. The US then engaged in the ultimate in brinksmanship, thus placing the world at risk of imminent destruction.

So yes, we need to acknowledge that the USSR did the right thing by all of us in choosing to lose face rather than risk the destruction of the world.

My aim here is not to support the USSR, but simply to tell it like it is.

Just says it all, really...

Bill Avent, hi!

I think it's highly indicative that you feel kudos is due to the Soviet Union for, as you acknowledge, having provoked the Cuban Missile Crisis.

 

Working For The Man

Bill Avent, I' am not and never have been an apologist for America. I have been critical of American actions numerous times. Choosing not to take part in blind and irrational bigotry is not being an American apologist.

Would an apologist http://www.answers.com/topic/apologist for terror tactics write something such as this?

Submitted by Bill Avent (not verified) on September 18, 2005 - 8:13am.

C Parsons: “Why do suicide bombers want to kill Iraqi workers?"

Easy. Because they’re working to support the American occupation of their country.

Taking your advice I happend to do a little truth seeking of my own. I did discover that I do owe you an apology as you are clearly not racist. You generally seem to dislike any number of people pretty much without any particular reason - a level of consistency I will grant you.

Perhaps we should add the employed to your ever increasing proud to be biased against list?

I'm not your buddy, Paul

Indeed, you most certainly are not.

Margo: OK boys, that's it. Move on. 

No, Fidel Is Not The Maniac We Need To Worry About

Eliot

Sanity prevailed, thanks to the good sense of those rotten commies. Would the USA have shown good sense, had the USSR not? Who can say, but it seemed unlikely at the time. Ergo, kudos to the commies.

It should be remembered too that the USSR, who you accuse of aggravating the situation, were perfectly entitled to have weapons in Cuba. It was a matter for the Cuban government to decide whether or not to have a friendly nation's weapons on their territory. After all, the US had weapons based in other countries, close to the then USSR. That Cuba became an enemy of theirs was of their own doing. They had their nose out of joint because the Cubans kicked their puppet Batista out, along with the American Mafia, who thought they owned the joint. They don't like to get kicked out, those Yanks. Their getting kicked out of Iran still rankles; that's why they can't wait to bomb the place, if only they can find a way to get out of the messes they've made in Iraq and Afghanistan. How dare people without much might dare tell Americans to get out of their country? An absolute crime against nature, that is.

Pity you didn't go check the site you cite before you said South Africa had the world's highest murder rate, isn't it?

Zimbabwe is not a basket case? Get real — of course it is. But it is not and never will be a threat to world peace. That rogue nation America, with its might is right policy, is a clear threat to world peace, and a serious one.

, some say "Might is Right". Most of us are nauseated by any such notion. The USSR had plenty of might; when the crunch came its leaders chose to do right, much to the relief of the people of the world who, as the song goes, were getting ready to put their heads between their knees and kiss their arse goodbye [XTC, "Living Through Another Cu-u-u-ba!"]

Childlike versus Childish

I'm not your buddy, Paul — I'm just a kindly person trying to help you out. And here you go again, quoting my words back to me, to no better purpose than to demonstrate that you don't know what they mean. And I've kept them simple enough, Heaven knows.

An apologist is not someone who goes around apologising. Look the word up to see what it means, then apologise to yourself for making yourself sound foolish. When you've done that, read over what I have written to try to find where I claimed to be a seeker of truth. Actually, I won't disown it; I would rather expect everyone to seek the truth, but all I ever said to you was that I was happy to be biased towards the truth. Unlike you, who seem to prefer the lies put about by the warmongers. And to compound that, you now seem to be dismissing truth-seeking as a reprehensible thing. Hmmm…

A person who "proves things beyond reasonable doubt" by spouting absurdities, and when those absurdities are revealed for what they are then goes on to admit that he doesn't care whether he is wrong or right, now says he doesn't care about my "racist" (wot?) "biased" (bugger that bias, eh?) "mistakes". Well, what can I say? I didn't need the vindication, but thanks anyway.

Where have I shown that tactics NOT designed to cause TERROR are NOT classifiable as TERRORISM? Well, if you don't know by now, Sunshine, you'll never know. Once again, a dictionary might help you out. And the Geneva Convention is not relevant to what we are talking about simply because there are a number of things disallowed by the Geneva Convention which do not amount to terrorism; and taking shelter among civilians is one of those. Simple, when you think about it, isn't it?

No, you are right, I have not explained anything. I have long doubted that anyone has ever explained anything to you.

The Trust Me Man

Bill Avent:

As for that balanced view you imagine yourself to hold, that too is there for readers to see and judge for themselves. I judge yours to be the view of an apologist for US atrocities.

I do not remember apologising for US atrocities?  Would you like to point out where I ever wrote anything that does this?

I'm happy to be biased in favour of the truth.

A rather juvenile view of the world I must say. This truth seeker business is an attempted psychological trigger that is not very effective - similar to the term trust me.

I really couldn't care less about your child like views of the USA. What I care about is your racist biased mistakes that litter the page embarrassing both yourself and this forum.

I have shown that combatants shielding themselves among non-combatants are not engaging in terrorism. Your saying "Oh well, it is to me, regardless of any reasoned argument to the contrary", makes no difference to the fact that they are not. The fact that such a thing contravenes the Geneva Convention is irrelevant.

How have you shown that this is not terrorism? Why does the Geneva Convention become irrelevant? Do you think claiming to be a truth seeker makes what you say relevant?

The situation as regards citizens' responsibility in democratic society has nothing to do with collective punishment, nor anything to do with Stalinism, nor anything to do with any weird notion you may have about defence in any court, civilised or otherwise. I have already explained to you how democracy places responsibility ultimately in the hands of its citizens.

No, you have not explained anything. What you have attempted to do is share your strange opinions with me. By using the bizarre disclaimer of being a truth seeker you rather childishly think this validates your beliefs. Sorry buddy, it doesn't.

I take you to be a free man, living in a democracy, whose government works for him, not the other way around. If it causes you discomfort to have your responsibilities pointed out to you, I can't help that.

Why would a person with rather curious views pointing anything out mean anything to me? Truth seeker or not your opinions are poorly presented, and often wrong.

Stay Calm Eliot

Your campaign against Noam Chomsky is getting out of hand. I'm not sure what proof you have that he "gets it wrong" so many times nor how you can justify he is "overpaid". As his main occupation is that of a language expert for which he is acknowledged worldwide as one of the best (even by his detractors). It's a silly claim. Unless you refer to his possible book sales.

A start in protecting Australia would be to rid ourselves of the utterly useless Mick Keelty – way beyond his use-by date and who has demonstrated that he is vindictive, nasty and non-too-bright.

Then intelligence agencies like ASIO need a major shake-up for producing or at best, accepting false information from our supposed allies the US and UK, about Iraq. With friends like that ... Why the top echelon hasn’t been swept out is anyone's guess. Their last tame buffoon Denis Richardson's great contribution was to say Aussies should give up more of their freedoms as he departed for an Ambassadorship.

Australia also needs to stop thinking the world revolves around the USA. Far from it.

The excuses used by the police during the APEC lock down are so transparent that even right leaning writers like Miranda Devine are laughing about them. By going in for overkill, and then when nought happens and you claim a success has been used just once too often.

This is a further demonstration that police chiefs, ASIO and the AFP don't even comprehend that Joe Blow public is now onto their game. That was amply demonstrated by the reaction to Keelty's disgraceful campaign of falsehoods against Dr Haneef which he has tried to retreat from in his Bulletin interview, just drawing further condemnation.

Until we get clever, intelligent and honest people in these posts, what chance have we of even recognising what threat (if any) there is to Australia.

One day on here – when the complaint is finally dealt with, I relate the tale of my treatment by an ASIO officer on an international flight (partly relieved by getting myself upgraded for free to business class on threat of suing the airline) and then my subsequent treatment by Australian Customs at Sydney as a consequence. Apart from the illegal actions by both, part of my complaint deals with the sheer lack of intelligence of these public servants and how they frighten me that anyone could slip into Australia while these clowns create straw men.

Duck Soup - Marx's finest

Bill Avent says:

"But kudos must go to the USSR for their recognition of the maniac nature of the people it was dealing with, and withdrawing."

So, the people who caused the conflict should be congratulated for not having aggravated it to the point of letting it erupt into World War Three?

And is the "maniac" you are talking about Fidel Castro, who wanted the missiles there in the first place?

And Chompers should be commended for, what? Agreeing to lie about it all? To protect their reputations? And to besmirch his fellow countrymen?

And we should be jealous of him?

I see.

Bill Avent says:

"Interestingly, in pure number terms, more crimes are committed in the United States than in any other nation. "

You are right. Colombia has the world's highest murder rate. South Africa merely has the world's second highest murder rate for a major city - Johannesburg.

And Zimbabwe is not a basket case - its just another example of how a formerly prosperous society can benefit by being "liberated" by a Marxist academic.

As for there being more crime in the USA than anywhere else, it's more likely there's just better information on crime.

Take this nation by nation comparison. According to it, China and North Korea have no crime at all.

Imagine what Chompers could do with that 'fact'.

Though, regretably, Venezuela has more crime than Colombia!!

Good Lord

Eliot Ramsey says South Africa has the highest murder rate in the world. Wrong again, Charlie Brown.  According to the United Nations survey of crime trends (see Paul's link above) South Africa comes a not very close second to Colombia.

Interestingly, in pure number terms, more crimes are committed in the United States than in any other nation. Fewer murders than in 23 other countries, but more burglaries, car thefts, rapes and assaults than anywhere else. 8 times more crimes than in Russia, as it happens. And the Russians recognise that they are in a crime crisis since capitalism took over from communism.

Eliot, one man, speaking now, is not the "former Soviet Union". Personally, I have no argument with Putin's view that the USSR provoked the Cuban crisis. Nor do I want to bag JFK — it was he who started the radical shake-up that turned the domestic US from the major horror story it was in his day to the relatively minor blight on the face of the first world it is now. But kudos must go to the USSR for their recognition of the maniac nature of the people it was dealing with, and withdrawing. That was what saved the world from a nuclear WWIII.

Zimbabwe is a basket case. But it is not a threat to world stability. And it is certainly not going around the world dropping big bombs on cities in other countries, or kidnapping truckloads of people and holding them prisoner for years without trial, for crimes that don't exist. It is the US doing that.

By the way, what is your problem with world-renowned thinker, Chomsky, and successful socio-political reformer, Chavez? "…racist buffoon marxist nostalgist"? Good Lord. Not a wee bit jealous of their popularity, are we, by any chance?

South Africa

Bill Avent says:

"I hadn't heard that South Africans were going round the world dropping big bombs on cities in other countries, or kidnapping truckloads of people and holding them prisoner for years without trial, for crimes that don't exist."

Well, when it comes to "kidnapping truckloads of people and holding them prisoner for years without trial", I think you've got mixed up with Zimbabwe.

South Africa was mentioned because there was a reference to the USA's culture of violence. South Africa has the highest murder rate in the world.

Grouchy Marxists

Bill Avent asks:

"Eliot, how, pray tell, can we ask the former Soviet Union what it thinks? "

I've quoted Vladimir Putin, the former head of the Soviet KGB and current President of Russia, who stated only a couple of days ago - and pretty categorically - that it was the Soviet Union itself which provoked the Cuban Missile Crisis.

That's pretty darned authoritative and not inconsistent with the documented record.

Especially as it flatly contradicts one of the main assertions made by the overpaid, priveleged marxisant American psuedo-intellectual, Noam Chomsky in his article disparaging his own country and drawing an unfavourable comparison between it and the former Soviet Union.

Putin would know, whereas Chomsky has merely a long track record of getting things wrong.

Chomsky in this case is either implicitly stating that he preferred the Soviet Union to his own country or regrets that in the struggle between the two it was the USA which prevailed.

I suspect it's the former, seeing as he once rather infamously rushed to the defense of Pol Pot on no better grounds than because a Catholic Priest and the Readers Digest were among the first to expose the Killing Fields.

I'd say Chompers here is re-writing history again because he actually preferred the Soviet Union to his own country and needs to lie about things to tidy up the record.

Oddly enough, he never got tenure nor had his books published by the Soviets, though the racist buffoon marxist nostalgist Hugo Chavez hawks them around the place.

So, Chompers? Mad? Stupid? Both?

Take your pick.

 

Logic with Question Marxists

Eliot, how, pray tell, can we ask the former Soviet Union what it thinks? Or a former anything? Something no longer exists, and you're asking it questions, and taking note of its answers? Looks like you weren't paying much attention during logic 101.

You and your fellows probably weren't paying much attention to that philosopher biased in favour of Marxism, either. He might have had something interesting to say, but we'll never know. Biased in favour of the truth as I am, I can't believe your account of the lecture.

Who are the real terrorists?

If the French Terror had a slogan, it was that attributed to the great orator Louis de Saint-Just: “No liberty for the enemies of liberty.” Saint-Just’s pithy phrase (like President Bush’s variant, “We must not let foreign enemies use the forums of liberty to destroy liberty itself”) could serve as the very antithesis of the Western liberal tradition.

On this principle, the Terror demonized its political opponents, imprisoned suspected enemies without trial and eventually sent thousands to the guillotine. All of these actions emerged from the Jacobin worldview that the enemies of liberty deserved no rights.

Though it has been a topic of much attention in recent years, the origin of the term “terrorist” has gone largely unnoticed by politicians and pundits alike. The word was an invention of the French Revolution, and it referred not to those who hate freedom, nor to non-state actors, nor of course to “Islamofascism.”

A terroriste was, in its original meaning, a Jacobin leader who ruled France during la Terreur.

To prevent terrorism first we must decide who are the real terrorists.

It seems this has been a problem for at least two hundred years.

Nice timing, Chompers...

Anthony Nolan said:.

"Eliot Ramsay, yes indeed I did note his belief that, of the two super powers of the twentieth century, Noam Chomsky believes that the US is significantly more bloody and insidious than the USSR."

Well, let's ask the former Soviet Union what it thinks:

"The Kremlin leader said his personal friendship with US President George Bush has helped to prevent the US plans - a radar in the Czech Republic and interceptor missiles in Poland - from turning into a new global disaster.

"Analogous actions by the Soviet Union when it deployed rockets on Cuba provoked the Cuban missile crisis," Mr Putin told a news conference after the Russia-European Union summit in Portugal.

Nope.

The former Soviet Union today said it thinks it was responsible for the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example.

Also, the Soviet Union of the Cold War era included such noteworthies as Stalin and Beria who between them killed about 20 million of their own countrymen and enslaved half of Europe.

Noam Chomsky on the other hand has spent the better part of half a century abetting and excusing his country's enemies, up to and including Pol Pot of all people, while reaping for himself the personal rewards to be had from a tenured position in one of the USA's finest universities and a flourishing career in publishing.

All under the protection on the very political constitution he so despises.

No wonder Hugo Chavez admires Chomsky almost as much as his "brother" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

your worst nightmare...

Dear Eliot,

I think I may be your worst nightmare ... someone who is as equally informed about Marxism and the horrors of Stalinism as he is critical of its failures. Making matters worse, I extend that critique to the socio-economic system currently driving the world to ecological ruin (capitalism) and its defenders and promoters (neo-liberals) in the USA, the UK and in Australia.

So here goes, just to establish my credentials regarding the former USSR: I am currently reading Simon Sebac Montefiore's superb biography of Stalin (Phoenix 2003) which provides a psychologically informed account of Stalin and his co-conspirators on the Politbureau. They all lived intimately together in the Kremlin and his account is based on recent (2000) access to immense archival material including memoirs, diary notes, personal letters and so on. The significance of this sort of biography, compared to Isaac Deutsher's, for example, is that it offers some sort of account of the subjectivity (ie, the mind state) of the major actors. A psychologically informed account of human society was, as I'm sure you are aware, the major project of the 'Frankfurt school' of 'critical theory' Marxists including Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Fromm and latterly Honneth. They are right, in my view, on insisting on 'the subject' as an agent in history in contradistinction to both Marx and Marxism's tendency to see history and society as little more than the product of 'social forces' (classes, for example).

I guess, over time, the most significant writer to convince me of the absolute failure of Soviet socialism was Rudolph Bahro who, sometime in the late 1970's wrote a perfectly informed Marxist account of why what he then termed 'actually existing socialism' (ie the USSR) was an abject failure. For that effort he received the East German Peace Prize (seven years in gaol). On release, he went to West Germany and became a significant foundation member of the West German Greens. How ungrateful of him that he didn't fall to the ground in a frothing frenzy of servitude to new Western masters. Bahro is a perfect example of sustained critical thinking and praxis.

I am well aware of the disastrous ecological consequences of soviet rule: from Lake Baikal (once the world's largest freshwater inland seas) to the rotting nuclear fleet in the northern ports and the unforgettable calamity of Chernobyl.

I also take the view that liberalisation in Russia has plunged that country into the abyss of social dislocation described by Marx in V I of 'Das Kapital' as the period of 'early capital accumulation'. something similar is going on in China as well. It is a period usually marked by robbery, thievery and criminality on a mass scale.

None of which problems in any way impose on me any necessary restraint in criticising either the internal or foreign policies of any Western nation. This is why I titled my last post 'cold war permafrost' and accused you of Manichaeism. There is an old style cold war warrior still extant (Gerard Henderson comes to mind) who condemns anyone who even has a knowledge of the Soviet Union (or Cuba, Chavez etc) of somehow advocating similar policies. It is a ruse, and most of us see through it, to avoid having to engage with serious critique of neo-liberalism.

The key issue at the moment is the ongoing and unrestrained military and economic imperialism of the world's remaining super power - the USA. Their military interventionism is not new to this century or even last: the US has waged wars, beginning with the imperial conquest of large parts of Mexico, all over both Latin and South America, and where war has been unacceptable then they have pursued a policy of bankrolling and providing military aid and advice (even to the extent of training torturers) to military juntas and dictatorial regimes of all types. Similar policies have been pursued in south-east Asia (remember the Philippines, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia) and the Caribbean, and the middle-east. The list of US interference, all under the rhetoric of preserving or extending freedom, is very extensive.

Howard Zinn and Walter LeFebre have written extensively on this history and if you know nothing about it then all I can say is that you must have been living under an ideological rock somewhere else, mate.

The real picture, as I am sure you are keen to deny, is that US foreign policy is driven by an out of control ruling class whose appetite for resources forces on the rest of the world the most bloody imaginable policies. It would be a grand day indeed if the neo-liberal policies of the US were able to feed, clothe, house, educate and provide work and health care for the whole of the north-American population. But they don't which is why we are obliged to seek alternatives. Do you get it? If these policies worked those people with a critical eye for US style neo-liberalism just wouldn't bother.

Personally, I look forward to oil depletion because, with luck, it will cause a massive internal crisis in the US at the same time as making it very much more expensive to maintain offshore military bases. That will be a good day for freedom, self determination and national sovereignty everywhere.

I want to conclude by returning for a moment to the critical theorists mentioned above. It was Marcuse in 'Eros and Civilisation' who argued the diversion and perversion of entirely natural libidinal energies was a necessary element, indeed a foundational requirement, of the insane drive to accumulation, wealth acquisition, power over others and incessant commodity purchasing that is at the heart of social relations in a capitalist economy. Breaking it down for you here mate, but in short he argued that getting laid, well and regularly, by someone who loves and likes you, is a pretty darn good thing and that if people were able to do what comes most naturally (love, friendship, kinship, solidarity) we wouldn't bother so much with wide screen TV or penile substituting 4WDs.

My guess is that this is being well loved intimately is not the sort of experience that has featured prominently in the lives of Howard, Costello, Abbot, Bush or Thatcher. Or Hayek or Nozick. Or members of the Business Council of Australia. Or the ... I could go on. My guess is that psychodynamically we are dealing here with a massive accumulation of (mainly) middle aged men who sit around on swollen prostates wondering why no-one loves them and feeling like the world owes them something. In the absence of either psychotherapy or a decent root they then attempt to generalise their own misery on the rest of the world and, in a state of utter denial, insist that the social system that generated their pathological self disgust is generalisable for the good of all at a global level.

I don't think so.

The Truth

Bill Avent says:

"For myself, I don't care for a balanced view. I'm happy to be biased in favour of the truth."

That is funnier than you probably realise. I remember having a marxist "philosopher" (tenured academic) explain in a lecture how "balanced" media reporting was actually a form of censorship because only marxist formulations of history and politics  were the "truth".

Therefore, anything not strictly marxist was false, and so effectively a form of censorship of the 'truth' to the extent which it was stated at all.

Thus the only way to prevent "censorship" was to ensure that only marxist formulations were ever expressed through the media.

He said this completely deadpan.

The lecture theatre was rocked with laughter for a full minute before the "philospher" stormed out in a huff.

I thought Nelson Was Free

Eliot Ramsey, sorry, I missed your question. And I'm not sure I can answer it. I hadn't heard that South Africans were going round the world dropping big bombs on cities in other countries, or kidnapping truckloads of people and holding them prisoner for years without trial, for crimes that don't exist. Only country I've heard of doing that is America.

This reply is what is called “In the context of current discussion”.

Dear Bloodless,

Sport, you don't need to quote back to me everything I say. I know what I've said; and if anyone else cares to know, it's there for them to read. As for that balanced view you imagine yourself to hold, that too is there for readers to see and judge for themselves. I judge yours to be the view of an apologist for US atrocities. For myself, I don't care for a balanced view. I'm happy to be biased in favour of the truth.

As for America having much to be proud of, this is legitimately a matter of balance. I think Americans have an overwhelming much to be ashamed of, in the form of destroyed countries and hundreds of thousands of destroyed lives. You claim they have a lot to be proud of, but fail to say what.

I have shown that combatants shielding themselves among non-combatants are not engaging in terrorism. Your saying "Oh well, it is to me, regardless of any reasoned argument to the contrary", makes no difference to the fact that they are not. The fact that such a thing contravenes the Geneva Convention is irrelevant. That is another matter, unless you are now revising your definition of terrorism to mean "anything you don't like". And you precious Land Of The Free, Home Of The Brave has weaselled its way out of the Geneva Convention anyway.

Some of the silliest things ever said are prefaced by the words "I believe" or "I don't believe". I won't bother responding to your mumbo-jumbo-or-not beliefs, backed by no argument whatever.

Well of course a country with a larger population will have a larger number of murders than one with a smaller population. In making comparisons of such things, people speak in per-capita terms. I would have thought that to be obvious. And a reminder: I only ever said that I thought the US must have a higher murder rate than any other country. I am not in the habit of presenting off-the-cuff impression as objective fact. Perhaps some people don't know the difference, but that's not my fault.

The situation as regards citizens' responsibility in democratic society has nothing to do with collective punishment, nor anything to do with Stalinism, nor anything to do with any weird notion you may have about defence in any court, civilised or otherwise. I have already explained to you how democracy places responsibility ultimately in the hands of its citizens. I'm sure any intelligent person can see the difference between those responsibilities and the lesser ones of a person living under the rule of a military dictatorship. To make it clear to you, consider the responsibility a slave has for the actions of his master — none at all.

I take you to be a free man, living in a democracy, whose government works for him, not the other way around. If it causes you discomfort to have your responsibilities pointed out to you, I can't help that.

Blood Sport

Bill Avent:

Your posts came across as ones from an Americophile viewpoint; or at least those from an apologist for USA interference in the affairs of the world. When you provided your definition of what terrorism is, John Pratt pointed out that you must therefore consider the US to be a terrorist nation. I merely seconded that motion.

Balanced posts I suppose might be construed by some as an "Americanphile viewpoint". This does not necessarily make it the case. America (nation) has much to be proud of, and it also has much to be ashamed about - similar to most nations, I would suggest.

4) Disagreement. Would I agree that combatants shielding themselves among non-combatants is terrorism? No. I might disapprove of such tactics, but any comprehensive definition of terrorism needs to include the proviso that the tactic is intended to cause terror. Being near to a combatant, who is on his or her side, doesn't automatically cause the non-combatant to be terrified.

Agreeing that Iraqi terrorism is terrorism is a good start. However, combatants sheltering amongst civilians I would classify has a form of terrorism I do accept that you many not. Combatants sheltering amongst non-combatants are at least in contravention of the Geneva Convention.

6) Your Problem. It is your prerogative to place individuals and their actions above nations, and to not even believe in the concept of nations. It sounds like you are taking refuge in existential mumbo-jumbo to me; and I am not in to that stuff. The fact is that nations are made up of individuals, and every individual, like it or not, is part of a nation.

I do not believe in the present concept of nations - mumbo-jumbo or not.

7) Mathematics. Yours are beyond my comprehension. Perhaps too existential for me. "…the life and size of certain nations against the American nation would make [what] so"?

China for example would have a much greater number of murders. Both the population size difference, and the age of the nation would make this a certainty.

8) Gross and Untested Generalisations. You'll have to tell me what they are. They seem to me to exist only in your own mind. Or perhaps the (conservative) numbers I provided of Japanese civilian deaths from American bombing have been found to be a myth, and I haven't heard about that yet?

No, the myth is this:

I said I think more Americans than any other country's people who call themselves civilised have killed someone.

Which I have since corrected, and you have agreed with the correction.

10) Uncle Joe. Stalinist or not, I must insist that citizens of a democracy bear ultimate responsibility for the actions of their governments. This must be so, whether you personally support a particular government or not. When you consent to operate in an elective democracy and abide by the will of the majority, what your elected representatives do in your name, they do on your behalf. If they provide emergency aid to another country in trouble, you have provided the aid. If they do terrorism, you have done the terrorism. Like it or not, that is the deal with democracy. Let me illustrate: you go to work under the protection of your government, and make wealth for yourself, and pay a portion of that wealth to your government, called taxes. If your government uses some of that wealth to make bombs, and drops them on civilians somewhere in the world, you have, according to your own definition of what terrorism is, engaged in terrorism. As has been noted on these pages before, in another context, democracy is not a spectator sport, Sport.

Certainly, I would not agree with any of this. This would be collective punishment and a contravention of any civilised law. Any degrees of guilt depending on any particular system of government are a complete nonsense. Certainly this would not be an acceptable defense in any civilised Court nor should it be.

Let me illustrate: you go to work under the protection of your government, and make wealth for yourself, and pay a portion of that wealth to your government, called taxes. If your government uses some of that wealth to make bombs, and drops them on civilians somewhere in the world, you have, according to your own definition of what terrorism is, engaged in terrorism.

Exactly the same acts of government take place in nations that are not democracies. Therefore, if all people living in a democracy should be accused of being part of terrorist acts (participants or not) so should all people living in a non-democracy can be accused of exactly the same crime.

Let me illustrate: If the people of the UK must accept guilt for certain acts that took place in Germany during WWII so should all Germans, and Russians equally be guilty for certain acts perpetrated by their nation.

As has been noted on these pages before, in another context, democracy is not a spectator sport, Sport.

A much overrated sport in my opinion - the most important decisions an individual ever makes are of course not made democratically.

The lesser and more moderate force

Anthony Nolan, did you note that the 'satirical' Noam Chomsky article your link refers to contains this statement:

'During Cold War I, the task was to contain two awesome forces. The lesser and more moderate force was “an implacable enemy whose avowed objective is world domination by whatever means and at whatever cost.” '

The "lesser and more moderate force" Chomsky is referring to is, of course, the USSR.

That should give you some idea of Chomsky's mental state.

cold war permafrost...

Eliot Ramsay, yes indeed I did note his belief that, of the two super powers of the twentieth century, Noam Chomsky believes that the US is significantly more bloody and insidious than the USSR.  If you'd managed to read to the end of the article, you would have come across reasoned arguments for such a belief.

And, please note, as an anarchist, Chomsky would have no interest in supporting Stalinism. So his critical appraisal of US foreign policy is, in my view, all the more credible given that he is a member of a social movement antithetical to the Stalinist statism.

But I'm getting the impression that you have a Manichee's views of such matters, which is to say that you hold anyone who has an informed opinion of the USSR, marxism, socialism or social democracy to be  somehow guilty of a sin. And the sin is eating of the forbidden fruit of knowledge.

Of course, you are taking the eminently 'common sense' view that the USA couldn't possibly be a worse foreign policy player than the USSR. Well, I don't think so and the facts here, in relation to intervention and subsequent human immiseration, are on my (and Chomsky's) side.

Lest you paint me as part of a semi-retired cheer squad for old Uncle Joeism, let me also put on record my disgust at the Soviet incursions into Czechoslovakia and Hungary et al.  But, by comparison, they then didn't behave like the USA in Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, Chile and so on, did they now?

 Cheers,

Orthographics

Fiona, do you mean capitalising philosophies? A conscious decision on my part, but one I won't try to justify. I'd be on too shaky ground if I did. Looking back over what I wrote, though, I can see a clumsier, if more subtle poor choice I made. Less said about that the better.

Of spelling and capitals

No, Bill, although I do admit to decapitalising (but not decapitating) existentialism. I have an aversion to capitals except where absolutely necessary (though I freely admit that my aversion is not necessarily applied consistently).

The spelling errors were in your post Sí, es Bueno, and were truly trivial: afficionado (only one f), and couse (r missing).

Ah, the minutiae that entertain the mind of a moderator...

Sport

Paul, sorry to have taken so long getting back to you. I shall deal with the points you make in order of mention, which is reverse order of importance, actually; but we can't have it both ways, so I'll settle for convenience.

1) Logic. My saying "I know what I think, therefore I must be correct when I say I think such and such about a thing" is not the same as your saying "I think a thing is funny, therefore it must be funny". Now if you said "…therefore it must be funny to me", that would accord with logic, whether the thing really is funny or not. This is very basic stuff. High school level, matter of fact.

2) The Fray. Before I entered it, I did take the trouble to read the thread. Your posts came across as ones from an Americophile viewpoint; or at least those from an apologist for USA interference in the affairs of the world. When you provided your definition of what terrorism is, John Pratt pointed out that you must therefore consider the US to be a terrorist nation. I merely seconded that motion.

3) Agreement. Having no particular argument with your definition of terrorism, would I agree that Iraqi groups taking part in bombings of civilians is terrorism? Well, yes, of course I would.

4) Disagreement. Would I agree that combatants shielding themselves among non-combatants is terrorism? No. I might disapprove of such tactics, but any comprehensive definition of terrorism needs to include the proviso that the tactic is intended to cause terror. Being near to a combatant, who is on his or her side, doesn't automatically cause the non-combatant to be terrified.

5) Point of Fact. I don't think every nation on earth does engage in terrorism, but even if they did, it makes no difference to what is under discussion. Take the trouble to read what is written. I have been talking from the outset about matters of degree. I maintain no more than that the USA is the world's leading terrorist state. I think the world needs to wake up to the mad contradiction inherent in a situation where the world's worst terrorist state claims to be leading the world in a war against terrorism.

On non-terrorist states (there must be hundreds), the Scandinavian countries come to mind. I know they used to send Vikings forth to rape and pillage, way back before there was a USA; but they have grown up since then. The Americans have not.

6) Your Problem. It is your prerogative to place individuals and their actions above nations, and to not even believe in the concept of nations. It sounds like you are taking refuge in existential mumbo-jumbo to me; and I am not in to that stuff. The fact is that nations are made up of individuals, and every individual, like it or not, is part of a nation.

7) Mathematics. Yours are beyond my comprehension. Perhaps too existential for me. "…the life and size of certain nations against the American nation would make [what] so"? And "The death of one thousand people at one person's hands would count as the same as the death of one person at another's hands." That looks out by a factor of 999 to me.

8) Gross and Untested Generalisations. You'll have to tell me what they are. They seem to me to exist only in your own mind. Or perhaps the (conservative) numbers I provided of Japanese civilian deaths from American bombing have been found to be a myth, and I haven't heard about that yet? By the way, with your misconception of what "proved beyond reasonable doubt" means, don't try to get a job as a lawyer.

9) Comparative Domestic Murder Rates. Here I plead guilty. Having followed your link, I must concede that I was incautious in accusing Americans of having a higher rate than people in any other country. They are from memory 24th in a list of 62. It's a pity the list is incomplete. Comparison with some of those countries the US labels "Rogue Nations", and other nations upon which the US is intent on forcefully imposing its values and its way of life, might have given me some rhetorical ammunition.

10) Uncle Joe. Stalinist or not, I must insist that citizens of a democracy bear ultimate responsibility for the actions of their governments. This must be so, whether you personally support a particular government or not. When you consent to operate in an elective democracy and abide by the will of the majority, what your elected representatives do in your name, they do on your behalf. If they provide emergency aid to another country in trouble, you have provided the aid. If they do terrorism, you have done the terrorism. Like it or not, that is the deal with democracy. Let me illustrate: you go to work under the protection of your government, and make wealth for yourself, and pay a portion of that wealth to your government, called taxes. If your government uses some of that wealth to make bombs, and drops them on civilians somewhere in the world, you have, according to your own definition of what terrorism is, engaged in terrorism. As has been noted on these pages before, in another context, democracy is not a spectator sport, Sport.

watch the spooks ...

Some days back on this thread I was suggesting that in the climate of fear and paranoia cultivated and fostered at both an international and national level the key organisations to watch in Australia were police units and sections of the Federal security apparatus. At a state level this would include the NSW 'anti-terror' squad. In today's SMH there is a report of this view being within the Police Integrity Commission. In summary, the PIC is of the view that police are 'at risk' of breaching their ethical guidelines when allowed or indeed encouraged to collect files on citizens for political purposes. It makes note of the way that the old 'Special Branch' kept a file on the sexual indiscretions of a Supreme Court judge which was then used to force the judge to acquiesce when they wanted to run a dirty prosecution. This presumably refers to the suicided Justice Yeldham and his under-age exploits in the toilets of Wynyard Station.

There is a long history of police 'special units' acting well outside of their remit in Australia. See, for example, Grabosky's article here Wayward governance: illegality and its control in the public sector (P N Grabosky Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 1989) on the findings of the Royal Commission into the operations of the South Australian Special Branch. That police unit held files on more than 40,000 'subversive' residents of South Australia who, despite their overwhelming presence, had failed to seize control of the state!

Then, of course, there is evidence of the Fraser Government's A.G. Ivor Greenwood agreeing to Ustasha training in Australia in preparation for assassination and other mayhem in the old socialist Yugoslavia.

Watch the spooks. They are not as smart as they think they are and are capable of violating the law in order to create the social conditions (ie, fear and hysteria) in which to escalate the process of eroding our rights.

Breaks and Dudes

Richard, I'm sorry if I offended you. I didn't post a single block of text; and when I chose to "Preview Post" last night, what I saw was what I intended to send, so I assumed that was what would appear on the page. Either I am doing something wrong at this end, or there is something wrong with someone's software.

Thanks for your work in keeping the conversation flowing — it certainly does that. Paragraph breaks at appropriate points is a helpful aid in readability and comprehension of any text, though: it does more than just give the reader's eyes a rest.  Something of the meaning intended is lost when text is not presented as the writer intended. Hence my little hissy fit. Please forgive me.

Paul, I will get back to you this evening. Have to go out now. Meanwhile, please don't go calling me a "dude". Especially not if you know what that word means. In German it is a fool; in the Western American vernacular a foppish incompetent; and I know how to hunt and fish and shoot, and I sit a hoss real purty.

Fiona: Bill, do you use a Mac? That may be part of the problem. I think one way of overcoming it would be for you to select the Text Only option, rather than HTML. Not sure if it will work, but it could be worth a try.

De Nada, Bill

Here I was thinking a Dood was part of a camel, don't ask me why buth there you go.  Dude's bad enough, but call me Buddy..

No offense taken Bill, sorry if I sounded terse but I've had a long few days. and at times I push myself to not let things down here. An you no what, me English skills are getting more betterer.  I'm always open to constructive criticism, if you ever care to email.

Regards, Richard

Fiona: Get along with you and your English skills, Richard. And me the princess of editors, after all...

Sí, es Bueno

Richard, I can't see anything wrong with your English, and I'm a pedant and a grump, and quite often wrong anyway. People tell me all those things. They're wrong about the wrong, of course. I thought I was wrong once, back in about '71, I think it was; but it turned out I was mistaken.

Fiona, yes, Mac. I used to need to, because I had to work with both Mac and PC generated documents, and only Mac could handle both. Now, when I talk to fanatical Mac aficionados, to needle them I say I reckon its time I stopped Thinking Different and started Thinking Sensible like everyone else.

Seems to make little difference whether I use Full HTML or Text Only. But I used to be able to post to WD with format intact before, with another Mac. Maybe if I used HTML tags it might work? I have those things on another hard drive, I think. I don't like the idea of lumbering moderators with the job of  breaking my blocks of text up with line breaks, so I'll see if I can find it. I don't want to clutter this thread with techno stuff either, but I have to tell everyone that if someone tells you Pages fits seamlessly with MS Word, as Apple claims, they're wrong. Line spacing doesn't match.

Webdiary on the Mac

Hi Bill

But I used to be able to post to WD with format intact before, with another Mac. Maybe if I used HTML tags it might work? I have those things on another hard drive, I think. I don't like the idea of lumbering moderators with the job of  breaking my blocks of text up with line breaks, so I'll see if I can find it. I don't want to clutter this thread with techno stuff either, but I have to tell everyone that if someone tells you Pages fits seamlessly with MS Word, as Apple claims, they're wrong. Line spacing doesn't match.

I work on the Mac too. I've found you can't copy and paste stuff from the web into a post here, as all the formatting code comes with it. If you like 60 point Times Roman I guess that's OK, but it would look odd to most readers... :)

I usually use TextEdit to assemble my thoughts, or as a medium to copy and paste stuff from the web. Once you paste it into TextEdit it seems to lose the formatting code. You can pretty well copy and paste it out again and it comes in here unformatted. I use full HTML and it seems to work fine.

Maybe it's your browser? I use Mozilla (essentially Firefox), but if you use the old MS browser or Safari it might be different. If this problem persists for you, contact me direct and I'll try to help.

Fiona: Thank you, Ian - TextEdit sounds like a great idea, but you are right, it could also be a browser issue.

Paragraphs and pedantry

Unfortunately Text Only didn't make any difference, Bill. What I do with your posts is to drop them into Word, reformat them as Normal (Web) etc etc. Takes a bit longer, but worth it for their ultimate readability, as well as retaining the author's preferred paragraph breaks.

I believe there is some trick that one can use to fix it in the Comment box, but I can't remember what it is. Anyway, I prefer editing in Word - apart from a better spellcheck I find the posts easier to read.

As to which (pedantry, that is) - well, I did find two orthographical errors in your last, but I promise not to tell anyone else...

Biblical Steam Engines, Hoss, and Dude

Bill Avent:

Paul, the more excited you get, the less sense you make. "In between Bible Class"? What in the world is that supposed to mean? "Hoss"?

Merely adding my own brand of sarcastic humor - obviously, it has not gone down as intended. Although if I were to use one of your criteria of logic; it was funny to me therefore it must be funny.

Let me remind you what started this argument. You told us all that you perceived terrorism to be "an attack on non-combatants such as civilians".

Actually, before you entered the fray what I did write was that all terrorism should be condemned. I wrote it was unhelpful for people to take any particular side when looking at such things. The intentional targeting of civilians (non-combatants) is terrorism, and yes, under that definition the nuclear bombing of Japan would be deemed a form of terrorism. Would you also agree that Iraqi groups taking part in bombings of civilians is also terrorism? Would you also agree a combatant intentionally shielding ones self amongst non-combatants is terrorism? These questions after all go to the original point I made.

I, and not only I, recognised from what you'd written that you must deem the USA a terrorist organisation.

If I were to apply your logic almost every nation on earth is a terrorist organisation. Your own criteria is to use both present, and past deeds as a measuring stick. I would have to agree the USA is a terrorist organisation, and you would have to agree that so is nearly every other nation.

You, while in your latest post agreeing with me, still seem to want to argue the point. Just what is your problem

Your definition of how much responsibility an individual has for a nation's actions is my problem. Personally I place individuals (and their actions) above nations. I do not even believe in the concept of nations. I believe in both individual rights, and individual responsibility. I believe both of these things should be placed above all other measurements.

I said I think more Americans than any other country's people who call themselves civilised have killed someone. That statement must be logically correct and beyond challenge, insofar as I must be the ultimate authority on my own thoughts.

Historically this would certainly be incorrect - the life and size of certain nations against the American nation would make it so. That is a mathematical estimation almost certain to be correct. Also you use the term Americans (individual). Therefore each American individual must be measured against other nations' individuals. The death of one thousands people at one person's hands would count as the same as the death of one person at another's hands.

Yes, you are also the ultimate authority of your thoughts. Gross and untested generalisations, and public airing of those generalizations is also valid. However, once the generalisations have been proven incorrect beyond reasonable doubt a continual utterance of those generalizations without qualification makes your argument invalid.

My opinions are naturally open to challenge, but you seem incapable of doing that. And the qualification (civilised/uncivilised) should be obvious.

It was not obvious to me so I asked for clarification, which is a valid process. Having now been given clarification I offer this as evidence http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita. The USA ranks 24 and none above are declared war zones. The continual airings of you generalization without this qualification would now be dishonest.

On your "A bit Stalinist, don't (I) think?" No, I don't. Maybe you can show me where Stalin said what I said?

Stalin believed in group responsibility and group punishment under certain circumstances. It is clear from your own writing you share that belief under certain circumstances. In the particular circumstance you have used it is Stalinist.

The argument that individuals are less responsible for actions depending on the form of government is not logical. It is in fact obvious that in a perfect democracy 49% of people have as much power over the government as they would have under any other system. Rather than logical your criterion is selective. It is selective to further an argument you are attempting to make. It therefore is an invalid argument.

On paragraphing posts

Can anyone tell me why my posts so often lose or gain paragraphs, without rhyme nor reason? Why do posts when they appear on page differ from what was seen in "Preview Post"? If it is due to interference by an editor who doesn't know what he or she is doing, is there some way of showing who is doing the editing at the moment, so as to allow deferment of post until such time as that particular would-be editor is not on duty?

Richard: Sorry to be so long getting back to you, Bill, but  I'm in the middle of a long couple of days, double shows, bugger-all sleep.   I think I'm your problem, although I've been trying to be careful of your sensitivities.  Your previous post to this came through as a single block of text, and to give readers' eyes a rest I inserted two breaks where I thought most appropriate.   Your writing is brilliant, whilst I am but a humble afficionado and student.  If you would rather wait till somebody else is on duty, then I will leave your posts aside.  I think, for somebody who has just returned, that you might be being a tad harsh on people voluntarily giving a truckload of hours to trying to help this site, and in spite of some inadequacies doing their damnedest to keep the conversations flowing.   Let me know if you want me to publish your posts or not, and I'll happily oblige.

You might have noticed that I avoid writing editorially in threads under my pieces.  I thought making my position and situation clear was worth making the exception to that  self-rule.

Chomsky's take on it...

From the North American left - a very funny view of the situation available here/

Cheers 

 

I Thought They Died With The Steam Engine

Bill Avent

Paul, It seems it is you who needs to calm down and take your time. You can do better than that, as evidenced by your previous posts. This latest one looks like you went off half-cocked.

Indeed - in between Bible Class.

I still ask what is the relevence of numbers of Americans who have killed people, but in the context of current discussion, if you please.

The relevence is that you use the term Americans. This term obviously means a group (as in all). I am interested in ascertaining how correct many of your statements are. We should definitely test one of your theories; however, you are yet to share with me which nation's you feel are uncivilized?

To make things clear for you, most people have not killed anyone in those many countries the Americans condemn as Terrorist States, Rogue Nations, Evil Empires, etc. As far as I know Osama Bin Laden has never personally killed anyone, but that doesn't disqualify him as a terrorist. And however many he has killed indirectly, they are a tiny fraction of the number killed by George W. Bush and the psychopathic Neocons whose puppet he is.

Reasonable argument, I do not remember making a contrary claim?

And it goes back to times before the rise of the Neocons: consider the results of American interference in the internal politics of countries in Central and South America, and in fact all over the world.

I agree. All American adventures have been misadventures. Not once have they given the nation anything the nation did not already have. I would support the isolationism of America (very strict defense partnerships except), and indeed hope America withdraws from the UN immediately.

I repeat, people who claim to live in a democracy must bear ultimate responsibility for the actions of the government they elect. That is the nature of democracy.

A little bit Stalinist don't you think? Oh that's right they were not a democracy; silly me.

Example: the people of Burma cannot be held responsible for atrocities carried out by their government, because they live under a dictatorship. Many of the world's people do; and many of the world's dictatorships exist under the aegis of the USA. Saddam's Iraq was one of those, before the US decided to turn against him and destroy his country and his people's chance of evolving eventually into something more benign than a dictatorship.

Hoss, I think you have power politics all messed up. In the perfect democracy 50% plus one decides on the course ahead. Surely overthrowing the rule of a group of people would be easier than defeating half the population?

Burma population 48 000 000

How many people rule the nation? Do they really get a pass or does it suit your argument to give them a pass?

You ask whether I include ethnic Americans in responsibility for their elected government's atrocities. Well, of course I do. I already have. Read what is written, and save yourself the trouble of asking the question.

That means Japanese Americans as well, does it?

You say, in respect of the examples I provided of government sanctioned atrocities at home and abroad: "…one could say they got a form of the punishment they deserved." Well, of course they did not. That is a matter of historical fact. I have no idea where you must be coming from, with as ridiculous a statement as that.

You did say all people living in a democracy were culpable. The punishment may not have matched the crime, though you do believe in group responsibility (your own writings).

Died with a Steam Engine?

Paul, the more excited you get, the less sense you make. "In between Bible Class"? What in the world is that supposed to mean? "Hoss"? What is that all about? Should I call you a Donkey in retaliation, and we go on to argue like truculent children? A mule is an animal with long funny ears He pricks up at anything he hears His back is brawny and his brain is weak He's just plain stupid with a stubborn streak And if you hate to go to school You may grow up to be a mule… (Courtesy of Jimmy van Huesen. Can't say whether or not he died with a steam engine. Still puzzling over what that even means.) Let me remind you what started this argument. You told us all that you perceived terrorism to be "an attack on non-combatants such as civilians". I, and not only I, recognised from what you'd written that you must deem the USA a terrorist organisation. I have proved that such is the case, according to your definition. You, while in your latest post agreeing with me, still seem to want to argue the point. Just what is your problem — not enough Bible Class? Just what statement of mine do you suspect might be incorrect? I said I think more Americans than any other country's people who call themselves civilised have killed someone. That statement must be logically correct and beyond challenge, insofar as I must be the ultimate authority on my own thoughts. My opinions are naturally open to challenge, but you seem incapable of doing that. And the qualification (civilised/uncivilised) should be obvious. For instance, people engaged in civil conflict, e.g. in the Balkans not long ago, or in African republics, kill each other more than Americans; but they would not claim to be living in civil societies at the time they are killing each other.

On Japanese Americans, I've already answered that, and invited you to read what is written and save me the trouble of repeating everything over and over. But on the subject of Japanese, they were prisoners of America at the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not citizens. I'm sure they weren't allowed to vote, or lobby the government. On your "A bit Stalinist, don't (I) think?" No, I don't. Maybe you can show me where Stalin said what I said?

Or would you like to swing on a star Carry moonbeams home in a jar And be better off than you are Or would you rather be a mule…?

Free Nelson Mandela

Bill Avent says:

I still ask what is the relevance of numbers of Americans who have killed people, but in the context of current discussion, if you please.

It's so we can compare it with the number of South Africans who have killed people.

Back To Bible Study

Slight error: It should of course be the Mai Lai Massacre, not Mai Lin. The in-form Ms Lin is of course a well known adult entertainer, and ahem table top dancer.... so they tell me. America the religious capital of the world!

Schizophrenia Of The Hater

Bill Avent, the anti American anger been building up for sometime has it? Now when did it all start, relax and take your time? Try not to think about the King (of rock an roll that is).

You wrote:

Likewise, what is the relevance of your point that most Americans have never killed anyone?

Well thankfully today's civilised world is one where people are meant to be convicted for the crimes they actually commit. Granted, probably in your world a small technicality that I would call the basis of law.

Actually, I suspect that more Americans have killed someone than citizens of any other country that calls itself civilised, but even that has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Perhaps we should test the theory? Firstly would you mind telling me the nations you call uncivilised?

Americans, whether they choose to vote or not, live in a democracy, and are therefore responsible for terrorist acts carried out on their behalf by their elected government.

Of course you would never have written America is presently a dictatorship? That would of course blow your theory out of the water from the get go so I shall proceed premised on the fact (your own writing) you accept it is a democracy.

Do the Iranian Californians count in this responsibility? Do the Iraqi Americans count also when responsibility comes a knocking? How's about the Afghani, Serbian, and Pakistani etc etc etc? You know being a democracy, and the should be responsibility sharing kind of place.

The US military has a long history of targeting civilians, including women and children, stretching back to wars against America's original inhabitants.

Certainly atrocities took place in these particular wars. Given I was not born I know this from both books written, and films made by, funnily enough, mostly Americans - by the way were Native Americans also responsible for Iraq, America being a democracy, and prime for responsibility sharing?

You must have heard of the Kent State University massacre, when four peacefully protesting students were gunned down by National Guardsmen, who had the day before bayoneted two civilians who had verbally harangued them. No one ever paid any penalty for those things. One can come to no other conclusion than that such things are considered culturally acceptable in the USA.

Or one could say they got a form of the punishment they deserved. America of course was a democracy, even in those days, and the Mai Lin massacre must have meant these people were guilty under your very own definition.

This and the example above make nonsense of your claim that most Americans would support legal action taken against any American offenders.

Actually, under your definition, action was taken against at least some of the offenders.

Whether or not you or I were born when 220,000 or so Japanese civilians were killed by US forces has nothing to do with anything. Nor does the fact that Australians celebrated the end of the war.

Au contraire, accepting your very own definition it would mean everything. Australia being a democracy (even if Australians only had to show up on penalty of a fine) would mean Australians have to take at least some responsibility. At the very least they should not have been so joyful about the situation.

All the Americans were doing was using Japan's civilian population in a weapons testing exercise, as they have been doing to the world at large ever since.

Which Americans? Iranian, African, Anglo, Italian, Mexican, Pakistani, Afghani, Iraqi, Native etc etc etc.....

Blindness of the Lover


Paul
, It seems it is you who needs to calm down and take your time. You can do better than that, as evidenced by your previous posts. This latest one looks like you went off half-cocked.

I still ask what is the relevance of numbers of Americans who have killed people, but in the context of current discussion, if you please.

To make things clear for you, most people have not killed anyone in those many countries the Americans condemn as Terrorist States, Rogue Nations, Evil Empires, etc. As far as I know Osama Bin Laden has never personally killed anyone, but that doesn't disqualify him as a terrorist. And however many he has killed indirectly, they are a tiny fraction of the number killed by George W. Bush and the psychopathic Neocons whose puppet he is.

And it goes back to times before the rise of the Neocons: consider the results of American interference in the internal politics of countries in Central and South America, and in fact all over the world.

I repeat, people who claim to live in a democracy must bear ultimate responsibility for the actions of the government they elect. That is the nature of democracy.

Example: the people of Burma cannot be held responsible for atrocities carried out by their government, because they live under a dictatorship. Many of the world's people do; and many of the world's dictatorships exist under the aegis of the USA. Saddam's Iraq was one of those, before the US decided to turn against him and destroy his country and his people's chance of evolving eventually into something more benign than a dictatorship.

You ask whether I include ethnic Americans in responsibility for their elected government's atrocities. Well, of course I do. I already have. Read what is written, and save yourself the trouble of asking the question.

You say, in respect of the examples I provided of government sanctioned atrocities at home and abroad: "…one could say they got a form of the punishment they deserved." Well, of course they did not. That is a matter of historical fact. I have no idea where you must be coming from, with as ridiculous a statement as that.

Ho Hum

John Pratt

If this is the case the US must be a terrorist organisation.

Actually America is nothing of the sort. America has a population in excess of 250 million people, and is probably the most culturally diverse place in the world. Outside of Tehran for example; California would be Iran's largest city (there is even an Iranian born Mayor of Hollywood). Most Americans have never killed any person. Most Americans are not even members of a political organization. Unlike Australia where you are forced to vote (somewhat undemocratic) for two identical people, most Americans do not even vote.

Even given the difference of combat deaths against detailed plans with the sole aim of killing civilians (which I will not even bother going into) I would, and I believe most Americans would, support legal action taken against any American offenders. That is certainly not the advertised role of the American military, and it is certainly not the role most Americans would support in their military.

Most certainly I condemn any American atrocities committed. And I am also certainly not blind to the fact that certain unsavory incidents have taken place. I differ in the fact I do not base my entire life's outlook on a ludicrously juvenile view of a world with one bad guy. Life in the grown up world is slightly more complicated than that. Two wrongs do not make a right, and staying on message (anti American) is a pointless exercise.

Bill Avent:

Paul Morella must perceive the US to be the most terrorist nation the world has ever seen. Seventy thousand civilian non-combatants died in Hiroshima; a few days later another forty thousand were killed in Nagasaki. In the days and weeks following those terrorist attacks equal numbers died from radiation poisoning.

I wasn't even born when this took place. Were you? I do note that Australians celebrated (so I have read) the end of the war. Perhaps if you were around you could tell us all about the outpourings of sympathy in Australia toward Japan at the time? Also, if you are really clever you might be able to work in the Harry Truman neo con connection. At least you will be able to claim it is not really about Americans: it is about their politics.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
© 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd
Disclaimer: This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors.
Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way,
please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary.
Margo Kingston Photo © Elaine Campaner

Recent Comments

David Roffey: {whimper} in Not with a bang ... 12 weeks 6 days ago
Jenny Hume: So long mate in Not with a bang ... 12 weeks 6 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Reds (under beds?) in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 1 day ago
Justin Obodie: Why not, with a bang? in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 1 day ago
Fiona Reynolds: Dear Albatross in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 1 day ago
Michael Talbot-Wilson: Good luck in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 1 day ago
Fiona Reynolds: Goodnight and good luck in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 3 days ago
Margo Kingston: bye, babe in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 6 days ago