How long is 22 minutes?
The amount of time it takes to bake a frozen pizza.
The amount of time it takes to run three miles.
The amount of time it takes to watch an episode of Seinfeld on DVD.
The amount of time it takes for talks between North and South Korea to break down.
The two Korea's held direct talks yesterday for the first time in over a year, lasting a measly 22 minutes. The talks come at a particularly tense time in peninsular relations. North Korea has kicked out international inspectors, reopened its nuclear production sites, and test fired (unsuccessfully) an ICBM.
The topic of these talks was the Kaesong Industrial Complex; a collaborative South Korean business park located in North Korea, using workers from both Korea's. The North Korean delegation walked out after only 22 minutes following a South Korean delegation question about the status of a South Korean Kaesong worker who had been arrested for supposedly criticizing North Korea.
In other North Korean news, Dear Leader Kim Jong Il has finally made a very public appearance after eight months of seclusion following a stroke last August. He gave a speech to the Supreme People's Assembly following his "re-election." The good news- he looks terribly frail. The bad news- he looks terribly frail. While it would be great if Kim Jong Il were no longer running North Korea, it's a question mark as to who his successor will be. It was rumored to be his eldest son, until he was caught trying sneak into Japan to visit Disneyland. Now, it's anybody's guess. And there is of course no guarantee of a smooth succession. Should the regime fall, there will be millions of starving North Koreans interacting for the first time with the outside world. Not exactly a win-win situation.
22 April 2009
21 April 2009
Torture? No way, we do that stuff to Americans...
NPR had a worthwhile segment today over the recently released "torture memos." These memos laid the legal framework for the Bush administration's policy of permitting so-called "enhanced interrogation." One memo in particular made interesting assertions. The memo in question, written by former assistant attorney general, current federal judge Jay Bybee, states that enhanced interrogation techniques such as water boarding, sleep deprivation, slapping, and stress positions can not be labeled as torture because they do not cause prolonged psychological harm.
Bybee backs up his claim by pointing out that over 26,000 U.S. servicemen and women have been subjected to the exact same interrogation techniques at the U.S. Army SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Evade) school. One of the purposes of SERE school is to help members of the military learn to resist enemy interrogation should they be captured. Bybee believes that because these service members have not shown signs of prolonged psychological harm, detainees who are subjected to the same interrogation methods must not suffer from long-term ill effects either.
The flaw in Bybee's logic, as the NPR piece points out, is that attendees of SERE school ultimately have control over their situation in that if the interrogations becomes too much for them to handle, they can quit. Detainees have no such luxury. And it is a stressful situation coupled with a lack of feelings of control which typically lead to prolonged psychological harm. The two interrogation scenarios are thus not as comparable as Bybee thinks.
It will be interesting to see what if anything results from the Bush administration's attempt to codify and legalize torture. Already President Obama has specifically not ruled out prosecution of those former officials who had hand in promoting the use of torture, saying that the decision to prosecute rests with the Attorney General.
Other countries are even considering the prosecution of Bush administration officials for crimes against humanity. Baltasar Garzon, a Spanish judge famous for his investigations and attempts to prosecute those responsible for crimes against humanity in Spain, Chile, and Argentina, has expressed interest in trying six Bush administration officials for their work in creating a legal system which permitted torture in violation of international law. Will we see Americans on trial someday for crimes against humanity? Do we want to see Americans on trial in an international court? Good questions. Not sure of the answers yet.
Bybee backs up his claim by pointing out that over 26,000 U.S. servicemen and women have been subjected to the exact same interrogation techniques at the U.S. Army SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Evade) school. One of the purposes of SERE school is to help members of the military learn to resist enemy interrogation should they be captured. Bybee believes that because these service members have not shown signs of prolonged psychological harm, detainees who are subjected to the same interrogation methods must not suffer from long-term ill effects either.
The flaw in Bybee's logic, as the NPR piece points out, is that attendees of SERE school ultimately have control over their situation in that if the interrogations becomes too much for them to handle, they can quit. Detainees have no such luxury. And it is a stressful situation coupled with a lack of feelings of control which typically lead to prolonged psychological harm. The two interrogation scenarios are thus not as comparable as Bybee thinks.
It will be interesting to see what if anything results from the Bush administration's attempt to codify and legalize torture. Already President Obama has specifically not ruled out prosecution of those former officials who had hand in promoting the use of torture, saying that the decision to prosecute rests with the Attorney General.
Other countries are even considering the prosecution of Bush administration officials for crimes against humanity. Baltasar Garzon, a Spanish judge famous for his investigations and attempts to prosecute those responsible for crimes against humanity in Spain, Chile, and Argentina, has expressed interest in trying six Bush administration officials for their work in creating a legal system which permitted torture in violation of international law. Will we see Americans on trial someday for crimes against humanity? Do we want to see Americans on trial in an international court? Good questions. Not sure of the answers yet.
08 April 2009
That's How It's Done! Go Shiver Your Own Timbers!
Piracy off the coast of Somalia is a growing problem. The rate of hijackings has increased dramatically over the past few years. Last year, Somali pirates took control of a luxury yacht, with at least 20 french citizens on board. And I admit I thought it was pretty BA when French commandos rappelled in off helicopters to free the boat and capture some of the pirates. Not after today though; a new standard has been set, and its colors are red, white, and blue (an American red, white and blue. Not those wimpy French shades of red, white, and blue).
Pirates attacked an American ship today; the first such attack on an American ship off the coast of east Africa since Thomas Jefferson was president in 1804. The American crew failed to evade the pirates, who boarded the boat with grappling hooks and were armed with AK-47's. The crew disabled the boat so the pirates could not sail it back to Somalia, then hid in the ships steering compartment. From this point on details are murky, but somehow the crew managed not only to take back control of the ship, but also to take one of the pirates hostage. The pirates ran off on the ships lifeboat with a hostage of their own, the ship's captain. The crew attempted to trade hostages with the pirates, though the deal fell through after the pirate hostage had already been released. An American destroyer has since arrived on the scene and a navy plane recently spotted the lifeboat.
As cool as French commandos rappelling onto a yacht and sniping pirates from a helicopter are, its way more impressive when an unarmed crew manages to take back control of the ship and capture an armed pirate. America rocks.
Pirates attacked an American ship today; the first such attack on an American ship off the coast of east Africa since Thomas Jefferson was president in 1804. The American crew failed to evade the pirates, who boarded the boat with grappling hooks and were armed with AK-47's. The crew disabled the boat so the pirates could not sail it back to Somalia, then hid in the ships steering compartment. From this point on details are murky, but somehow the crew managed not only to take back control of the ship, but also to take one of the pirates hostage. The pirates ran off on the ships lifeboat with a hostage of their own, the ship's captain. The crew attempted to trade hostages with the pirates, though the deal fell through after the pirate hostage had already been released. An American destroyer has since arrived on the scene and a navy plane recently spotted the lifeboat.
As cool as French commandos rappelling onto a yacht and sniping pirates from a helicopter are, its way more impressive when an unarmed crew manages to take back control of the ship and capture an armed pirate. America rocks.
A machine that can read minds?
Well, India thinks it has one. A woman in India was convicted of murder based mainly on evidence from a brain scanner, basically a lie detector on crack. This brain scanning machine is called The Brain Electrical Oscillations Signature test. The test administrator makes short, detailed statements in the first person which recount the crime as it allegedly occurred. The accused is attached to the machine and does not say a single word during the test; his or her brain tells it all for him or her. The machine produces pictures of the brain activity. A higher level of activity in a particular region of the brain means that the person connected to the machine has experienced the statement the test administrator made. Hence, if the test administrator says, “I stabbed John on Tuesday”, and the test taker’s mind becomes very active in a particular area of the brain, it means that the test taker is remembering stabbing John on the day in question.
The U.S. has been researching brain based lie detection in order to use it in counterterrorism investigations. It is thought that this technology will eliminate torture. If we could read minds, harsh interrogation methods will no longer be needed because we will already know what is on the alleged terrorist’s mind.
If brain scans are used in court in the United States, it is thought that numerous amendments to the Constitution may be violated. Hence, this is a highly controversial area. Scientists across the globe are split on whether this technology is accurate. Some believe it to be 97% accurate; others believe that it is completely inaccurate. I am unsure if we will ever know whether it is accurate when used in the criminal prosecution system because criminals will not tell if they lied and actually committed the crime. Therefore, this machine is unable to be tested when it comes to criminals unless there is plenty of other evidence substantiating the crime. However, in that case, the brain scanner’s use will be unnecessary. Oh, what a dilemma.
There needs to be more independent studies conducted on this brain scanner; it needs to be reviewed by more scientists before it will gain credibility in the field of science, and in U.S. Courts. If credible, this brain scanner will transform the legal and counterterrorism fields.
The U.S. has been researching brain based lie detection in order to use it in counterterrorism investigations. It is thought that this technology will eliminate torture. If we could read minds, harsh interrogation methods will no longer be needed because we will already know what is on the alleged terrorist’s mind.
If brain scans are used in court in the United States, it is thought that numerous amendments to the Constitution may be violated. Hence, this is a highly controversial area. Scientists across the globe are split on whether this technology is accurate. Some believe it to be 97% accurate; others believe that it is completely inaccurate. I am unsure if we will ever know whether it is accurate when used in the criminal prosecution system because criminals will not tell if they lied and actually committed the crime. Therefore, this machine is unable to be tested when it comes to criminals unless there is plenty of other evidence substantiating the crime. However, in that case, the brain scanner’s use will be unnecessary. Oh, what a dilemma.
There needs to be more independent studies conducted on this brain scanner; it needs to be reviewed by more scientists before it will gain credibility in the field of science, and in U.S. Courts. If credible, this brain scanner will transform the legal and counterterrorism fields.
07 April 2009
Afghanistocracy. Or, Abhorrent Stability
A recent bill, passed by the Afghan legislature and signed into law by President Karzai, legalizes what in the West would be considered rape. The law states that, unless ill, wives in Afghanistan's small Shia community must have intercourse with their husbands should he demand it. Following Western attention and condemnation (President Obama called the law abhorrent), a review of the law's constitutionality has been ordered. However, the larger point remains; Americans will have to accept that the final product in Afghanistan may seem distasteful when compared to Western democracies.
Former President Bush spoke of a Jeffersonian Democracy in Afghanistan. President Obama speaks not of establishing democracy, but of establishing stability. Americans ultimately desire an Afghanistan free of terrorist safe havens. An unstable Western democracy will not provide this. A stable democracy, or a stable authoritarian government if necessary, will fare much better at preventing terrorists from launching attacks from Afghanistan. This may result in a U.S. backed strongman taking charge. An un-democratic leader with whom America can work is preferable to the chaos in which terrorists flourish.
An argument could be made that the short and medium term stabilizing benefits of an authoritarian government could lay the foundation for a future transition to democracy. Democratic governments are wonderful for their accountability and various freedoms. But the democratic process can also be used to take away freedoms, especially in countries just leaving periods of intense strife and without a history of rule of law to fall back on. Forcing democracy too quickly on a country grants strong powers to majorities perhaps not used to honoring minority rights. An authoritarian leader has the ability to provide the necessary stability, while slowly instituting democratic processes.
One thing COIN practitioners have picked up over the years is that a host government's military forces should not be organized to work like those of an occupying power. Taking Afghanistan as an example, the Afghan National Army (ANA) should operate and be organized like Taliban forces, not like the U.S. military. For starters, the ANA is in direct competition with the Taliban for the will of the Afghan people. The ANA can only win by beating the Taliban at their own game. If the Taliban are playing football, the ANA will win by playing football too and better, not by learning baseball. Also, the U.S. military has gone through several hundred years of design to be right for the U.S. It doesn't translate that easily to other nations.
Just as military structures don't always translate well, neither do political structures. The American system of government works in America because of the specific cultures and history found in the U.S. It can not simply be transported to another country with a far different background like Afghanistan and be expected to work. Democracy has to be contextualized. Afghanistan's specific cultures will influence how democracy eventually works there. Which may result in many more laws some in the West may find abhorrent.
Former President Bush spoke of a Jeffersonian Democracy in Afghanistan. President Obama speaks not of establishing democracy, but of establishing stability. Americans ultimately desire an Afghanistan free of terrorist safe havens. An unstable Western democracy will not provide this. A stable democracy, or a stable authoritarian government if necessary, will fare much better at preventing terrorists from launching attacks from Afghanistan. This may result in a U.S. backed strongman taking charge. An un-democratic leader with whom America can work is preferable to the chaos in which terrorists flourish.
An argument could be made that the short and medium term stabilizing benefits of an authoritarian government could lay the foundation for a future transition to democracy. Democratic governments are wonderful for their accountability and various freedoms. But the democratic process can also be used to take away freedoms, especially in countries just leaving periods of intense strife and without a history of rule of law to fall back on. Forcing democracy too quickly on a country grants strong powers to majorities perhaps not used to honoring minority rights. An authoritarian leader has the ability to provide the necessary stability, while slowly instituting democratic processes.
One thing COIN practitioners have picked up over the years is that a host government's military forces should not be organized to work like those of an occupying power. Taking Afghanistan as an example, the Afghan National Army (ANA) should operate and be organized like Taliban forces, not like the U.S. military. For starters, the ANA is in direct competition with the Taliban for the will of the Afghan people. The ANA can only win by beating the Taliban at their own game. If the Taliban are playing football, the ANA will win by playing football too and better, not by learning baseball. Also, the U.S. military has gone through several hundred years of design to be right for the U.S. It doesn't translate that easily to other nations.
Just as military structures don't always translate well, neither do political structures. The American system of government works in America because of the specific cultures and history found in the U.S. It can not simply be transported to another country with a far different background like Afghanistan and be expected to work. Democracy has to be contextualized. Afghanistan's specific cultures will influence how democracy eventually works there. Which may result in many more laws some in the West may find abhorrent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
