Talk It Out

My fellow Austrians, welcome to OPEC

Is anyone really surprised that George Bush managed to embarrass himself once again at APEC, thanking "Austria" for hosting "OPEC" (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries)? Really what is the difference between APEC and OPEC? Or Austria and Australia? Just a few letters and half the world, but who cares! OK, its a mix up that would earn any student an F in politics or geography (or both), but if you are the "leader of the free world" you don't need to know where you are or what meeting you are attending.

Everyone knows that coherent expression is not George Bush's strong point (I'm not sure he has a strong point, but lets not go there). In fact his mangling of the English language is so severe that it required a new word to describe it - Bushisms. Other than redefining the meaning of "weapons of mass destruction", this addition to the English lexicon may be Bush's only linguistic contribution (If anyone fancies a laugh - Jacob Weisberg keeps a wonderful updated collection of "The Complete Bushisms").

Geography is not Bush's strong point either. He is famous for believing that Africa and Europe are nations and that Jordan is a Gulf Coast country. He was known to exclaim "Wow, Brazil is big" upon being shown a map, could not tell the difference between the Balkans and the Baltic, was apparently surprised that Germany is in fact a democracy or that Wales is a country. It's not just international geography either - he confused Michigan and Canada, Florida and Texas (which he believed is close to California) and apparently forgot that Canada and Mexico do not share a border, for the reason that they are separated by the territory of the USA. Oh yes, and he variously believed himself to be a Brit or British children to be "young Americans"  (For more geographical amusement see Dubyaspeak)

It is actually frightening that a guy who doesn't have enough brain function to walk and talk at the same time is the most powerful man in the world. The only comfort is that his first term in office was not a function of popular preference, but of the political split on the US Supreme Court, but even so, the fact that the village idiot can become the president of the USA says a great deal about the political system of that country (anyone notice how family members or descendants of previous presidents do quite well in getting themselves elected?)

But while we laugh at Bush's obvious idiocy, we should all hope that Bush doesn't decide to go to war with Austria and bomb the hell out of Australia instead.

September 7th, 2007 Posted by Unsilenced | United States, Funny, George Bush | no comments

Can democracies deal with terrorism?

There was an opinion piece in the Australian concerning the difficulties for politicians in a democracy in showing restraint in their responses to terrorism. The author argued that the shock value, rather than fatalities of terrorist acts means that politicians have no choice but to demonstrate that they are tough on terrorism, especially in a democracy where they will be held to account if they don't.

There is no doubt some truth in that, but is that the whole story? Is it fear of being held to account by the people in a democratic system itself that mandates an overreaction from our political leaders or is it the desire to capitalise on terrorism? Let's face it, terrorism can give a great boost to a leader's approval ratings. Consider Bush's approval ratings in the graph below. His approval ratings doubled in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

Similarly Howard's approval ratings jumped 21 points from 40 percent prior to 9/11 to 61 points in October 2001. That's a 50% increase.

Consider the popularity boost these leaders received as a consequence of the terrorist attack, the ensuing fear and the militaristic reaction to the attack. This sort of a popularity jump can be the difference between disastrous election loss and a comfortable win. Consequently, overreaction to the threat of terrorism may have less to do with avoiding a negative reaction from the electorate and more to do with the desire to make electoral gains by inflating the situation or creating a crisis if it doesn't exist, instilling fear and reaping the awards of being seen as "dealing" with the crisis.

While such conduct is more likely to occur in a democracy, for the simple reason that non-democratic leaders do not need to worry about getting re-elected, the phenomenon is not a function of democracy. It is a function of moral and ethical deficiencies on part of political leaders (of both left and right wing persuasions) who put their own interests above those of their country. While political leaders behave in this manner, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the author of the article is right when he says that "terrorism succeeds even when it fails."

I'll leave it to you to decide what it says about the voters if politicians can repeatedly get away with such conduct.

July 27th, 2007 Posted by Unsilenced | Australian politics, World politics, Terrorism and war on terror, United States | one comment

Sacrificing the rule of law at the altar of fear

        Inscriptions on the Statue of Liberty

Americans are good at coming up with inspiring slogans. Slogans are not sufficient however for a country to truly remain the "land of the free". They are not an adequate antidote to the fear-driven knee-jerk reactions threatening to compromise essential tenets of rule of law and freedom, not only in America, but also in other democracies.

A few days ago a prominent US judge - Richard Posner, gave a speech to a conference of Australian lawyers in Chicago, in which he reportedly advocated secret trials for terror suspects, increased surveillance and crackdown on US and Canadian Muslims. More frightening still was Posner's suggestion that anti-terrorism efforts should not be "hog-tied" by the Constitution and that US "over invested" in the "traditional concepts of criminal justice." 

I have not been able to find a full copy of Posner's speech, but his speech is said to have shocked the attending Australian lawyers. Posner's position is indeed a worrying reminder of how dangerous a motivator fear is. What we have is a US judge essentially suggesting tearing up the constitution and discarding the principles that form the foundation of the American justice system and the rule of law because he (along with many others) is afraid. We are not talking about someone who is a fool or a right wing extremist. Posner is a highly regarded jurist. Whatever one may think of his economic theory of law (it doesn't appeal to me personally, but each to his own), there is no point denying his capabilities.

That a jurist of his caliber would suggest abandoning the carefully crafted protections and principles that we treasure as cornerstones of our legal (and political) systems, because "the US temper and culture could not sustain repeated terrorist attacks" points to the fragility of our liberties. The country that proudly proclaims itself to be "the land of the free" is willing to destroy its freedoms because of fear. No terrorist action is needed to destroy the American "way of life" - they appear to be content to do so themselves. 

It is not my contention that the fear is unjustified or that the threat of terrorism ought to be ignored. But if we (Western democracies) are to destroy the cherished liberties and principles that make "our way of life" what it is - then what is it that we are fighting for? Do we really want to defend ourselves by destroying who we are? Do we want to abandon the protections and liberties that were achieved through decades or centuries of struggle and sometimes bloodshed? If the answer is yes, then the "war on terror" has already been lost.

One other comment that Posner reportedly made is that the measures he proposed would not "endanger liberty and undermine the political system" because a "very aggressive media" and government whistle-blowers made it impossible for governments to conceal what they did. It is quite extraordinary that a judge would propose media as a substitute for the protections enshrined in the legal system. Leaving essential liberties to the mercies of what journalists wish (or dare) to report and to the possibility that a government employee would be sufficiently disgruntled and courageous to blow the whistle, borders on absurd. It is not to say that the media does not play an important role in government transparency, but it is not an antidote to abuse, as is evidenced by the documented atrocities in the "war on terror". Further, revealing abuses, possibly years afterwards, is not the same as preventing them from happening in the first place.

America's rush to destroy its founding principles is very disturbing. If it continues on that road, the inscriptions on the base of the Statue of Liberty will stand as no more than sad reminders of proud and cherished values willingly sacrificed at the altar of fear. 

July 2nd, 2007 Posted by Unsilenced | World politics, Law, Human rights, Terrorism and war on terror, United States | no comments

Sacrificing Australians

Yesterday, an Australian, Hew Griffith was sentenced to more than a year in jail by an American court for setting up a software piracy ring. There is no question that Griffith broke the law - he pleaded guilty to distributing pirated software.

However, the case is extremely disturbing because Griffith did not engage in piracy in America. He did it from his home in NSW, Australia. However, because Griffith pirated software made by American companies, because the US government is extremely anxious to suck up to the powerful copyright lobby and the Australian government is extremely anxious to suck up to the similarly powerful American government, Griffith was extradited to face trial in US, a country which he never visited.

Although he could have been prosecuted in Australia, the penalties are likely to have been much less severe. In US he faced up to 10 years jail plus substantial fines. As it was, he spent three years in jail in Australia while fighting the extradition request.

What is a triumph for the US prosecutors anxious to pander to the copyright lobby should be of grave concern to the Australian public. An Australian citizen was handed over to the US to be tried for something he did in Australia.

As Griffith's lawyer pointed out he "was sent to face charges in a foreign country where he has no knowledge of the legal system and no friends or family. He has been surrendered to a country where the penalties for such offences are much harsher."

This appears to be yet another example of our government's ignoble tradition of abandoning Australians to the tender mercies of the US authorities to score some political brownie points. It will be pleased that the US government was suitably impressed.

US Attorney Chuck Rosenberg said that "theft is theft" whether committed with a gun or a keyboard and that the US was prepared to play global cop again to catch " those inclined to steal intellectual property".

Yes, you heard it right - US intends to play "global cop" to ensure that its laws are enforced in every country of the world, including Australia. It doesn't matter that we didn't vote for the US Congress or the US President or otherwise submitted ourselves to US laws. It doesn't matter if we never set foot in US. They think that they can apply their laws to us. And our government is happy to let them do it.

While pondering the mistreatment of our citizens by our own government, it is useful to consider the warped sense of morality of the US Attorney Rosenberg. To suggest that distributing pirated software or movies (freely, without making any money out of it) is on the same level of criminality as robbing someone at gun-point is almost insane. Or, as Griffith's father succinctly put it "It's a load of crap".

The "victims" - being large US companies - claim that they lost some $60 million dollars takings. Their claim is based on the flawed assumption that those who download pirated content would have purchased it had it not been for Griffith's activities. It doesn't make sense. We all know that just because you take something when its free, doesn't mean you would have bought it if you had to pay for it.

But that is beside the point. Rosenberg's comment reveals an obsession with protecting American companies' IP rights, and this obsession is so strong that a presumably intelligent individual thinks nothing of comparing breach of copyright to violent crime. This is yet another reason why Australia (and indeed other countries) should not cooperate with US attempts to enforce their own laws around the globe.

Unfortunately, it is too late for Hew Griffith.

By the way, Anonymous Lefty has some excellent posts on issues of copyright - check them out if you are interested in the issue. 

 PS. Thanks to the contributors who pointed out that Hew is not an Australian citizen, but is a long-term permanent resident. The point remains the same, but accuracy is important!

June 24th, 2007 Posted by Unsilenced | Law, Internet and technology, Howard government, United States | 4 comments

The disappeared

On 7 June 2007, Amnesty International released a report into "off the record" detention in America's "war on terror".

The existence of a secret detention system was acknowledged by President Bush in September 2006. However the US government has never disclosed the numbers of people subject to this system. Secret detention allows a person to be held at an undisclosed location, for undisclosed duration, so no one can find out what has happened to them. Because, with the exception of a handful of detainees, the US government has not disclosed who is secretly detained, these people simply vanish. Their families are not told where they are or what was done to them.

Research by human rights groups, now published by Amnesty International, reveals at least 39 people who have been disappeared by the US government and whose fate or whereabouts remain unknown. It is however known that a number of these "disappeared" have been tortured by various methods including beatings resulting in permanent incapacitation, broken limbs and loud music played in their cells for months without a break. The "disappeared" include children. There are reports that at least two young children have been tortured by denial of food and water and putting insects and various creatures on their bodies to frighten them.

Such conduct violates the ICCPR and the Torture Convention, but lets ask - are we bothered by it? Does it make our blood boil that the country which claims to be "the land of the free" would engage is such manifest abuses of human rights? Or do we not care because the "disappeared" are "the worst of the worst" of terrorists (or at least so the US government claims)?

As to the "worst of the worst" point, the Amnesty Report reveals that the "disappeared" include low level terror suspects as well as families (including children) of the suspects. How a 7-year old child can be considered the "worst of the worst" is unclear. But lets ignore that. Lets assume that the "disappeared" are in fact dangerous terrorists (we have to assume because, as none of them have been given a fair trial, we'll never know for sure).

Is disappearance, indefinite secret detention and torture justified because America is fighting those who threaten to destroy "our way of life"? Is it ok because the suspects are alleged terrorists as opposed to your ordinary everyday criminals? Is such conduct acceptable against people who violently oppose "our values" and "our laws" and "our freedoms"?

I cannot help thinking that, if this is what the "war on terror" is about, then we have already lost. In the rush to "defend its way of life" America has sacrificed the very values and principles it claimed to protect. By violating key human rights and civil rights obligations America has done more to destroy its own freedoms, its own values and its own laws than any terror group could have hoped to achieve. One cannot fight an enemy by becoming that enemy, one cannot defend one's values by engaging in the very conduct that those values condemn.

It is easy to respect human rights of those we love, it is harder to respect the human rights of those we hate or those we fear. That is the ultimate test of our commitment to our core values and it is a test that America has failed. It is tempting to make exceptions for one's enemies. They may even appear to be justified, notwithstanding the fact that no derogation is permitted from prohibition on torture, no matter what the circumstances.

But remember this - if exceptions are permitted, someone would define them. Someone would need to say that certain people are not "human" for the purposes of enjoying human rights protection. That definition will be made by a person or a country with the power to do so, it will be made according to its own political agenda. For America it might be terror suspects. For Hitler it was six million Jews. For Pinochet it was thousands of left-wing sympathisers. For the terrorists it is those who don't subscribe to their view of the world.

If you are tempted to make exceptions of your enemies, you can rest assured that someday, someone will be able to make you the exception.

June 11th, 2007 Posted by Unsilenced | World politics, Human rights, Terrorism and war on terror, United States | 2 comments