Bradley Manning was found not-guilty of aiding the enemy, but guilty of just about every other charge against him. This could mean, if given a maximum sentence, 130 years (also know as "life" by any other standard human metric) in prison.
All of this because he exposed wrongdoing by the US military.
The law, in the case of the military actions, is not subjective. The US cannot escape culpability simply by deeming the incident "classified" or "off-the-record" or by labeling those innocents killed as "terrorists."
This is a poor, poor precedent.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Boy Meets Anachronistic World
I, like just about every other hormone-addled boy, grew up watching the many exploits of James Bond in his many incarnations. From Connery to Brosnan, I was always excited to see a fun, if not somewhat campy, spy adventure that almost always featured the archetypal arch-rival of the west, the USSR. The first Bond film made after the Cold War ended, Goldeneye (featuring a resoundingly suave Pierce Brosnan), had one very simple line of dialogue that fit that new era:
Bond is a relic of the Cold War. The USSR fell, deflating the military tensions between Russia and the west, and ushering in a time of what some may call "Big Power Peace," simply meaning that there are no wars between the large powers. So, if there is this peace, then why do they still need to spy on each other?
As just about the entire world knows, Edward Snowden, former NSA analyst, leaked information that the US had a massive spying program. That, in and of itself, is not surprising. The kicker, however, was their largest target: Germany.
I was gobsmacked, to use local British parlance. Germany, of all countries, was the target of more spying than Iran, or China, or North Korea, or any of the US' so-called "enemies." Why? Well, there hasn't been any real clear answer, but I can dare to speculate: the US wants to know what will happen with the Euro. Whatever the intention of the US is to do with that knowledge, whether it is used for undermining or attempting to corner the currency swap market, only those in the US intelligence community can know. Again, it's speculation, but I can't fathom any other reason as to why the US would spy on a reputable ally.
Then we come to the very notion of spying on allies, something presumably thought of as unconscionable and unethical. It is a notion stuck in the 1950s, held back by myopic thinking and government bureaucrats still old enough to remember when they were appointed under the Nixon administration. These soulless minions of orthodoxy take a singular form: the aged, commonplace, almost ubiquitous elite in the Pentagon, the State Department, Congress, and the White House. Do they still hold the notion of US hegemony over everyone to be the end-all, be-all?
These men and women (though there are exceptions) grew up in an extremely simple time in terms of foreign policy: good and bad, Capitalism and Communism, us and them, etc., whatever it was the propaganda dictated. Can we truly expect these people to understand a new multipolar world where the machine is greater than the sum of its parts? In other words, can these people see anything aside from power politics where the US is king and premiere?
Possibly not, possibly so: there is evidence for both. On the one hand, the US still has the most technologically advanced military along with the most expensive professional army in the world, and yet they were stymied by guerrilla fighters using weapons from WWII. Clearly, it is not the size of the army or the strength it holds that truly matters anymore, but its ability to adapt to the changing character of war that truly displays its might.
On the other hand, there are senators, such as Elizabeth Warren, who have demonstrated a keen understanding of new age domestic politics, especially in her dogged pursuit of those who perpetrated the financial collapse of 2007, along with her support for aid to university students, where tuition is liable to bankrupt the average student. But, and this is the unfortunate reality of it all, she is the minority.
The men and women now in government had it easy, at least comparatively: tuition prices were exponentially lower when they attended university, and getting some kind of job right out of college was more common than not. The government scandals coming from these neo-Reaganist administrations is enough to sour politics for the younger class, especially those who find their ideals placed in someone who, like Janus, shows one face to the public but a wholly different one when it comes to governing.
So what can we expect of those youth who still want to enter government? Do they work under those who perpetuate orthodoxy, who still believe in Cold War machinations of politics? Do they adopt those beliefs and erase whatever preconceived ideals they might have had, just because they do what is expected of them rather than what is better? The answer is that, well, I don't know. My generation never knew the Cold War, and we have yet to truly enter government and make a difference. We would have to literally let the old guard die to completely understand whether or not we can think outside the realm of defunct notions.
And so, like a boat tethered to shore, we wait for the ideal opportunity to remove ourselves from those anachronistic beliefs of the past and pave our own paths in politics and diplomacy, because otherwise, we will rust and fall apart.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Bond is a relic of the Cold War. The USSR fell, deflating the military tensions between Russia and the west, and ushering in a time of what some may call "Big Power Peace," simply meaning that there are no wars between the large powers. So, if there is this peace, then why do they still need to spy on each other?
As just about the entire world knows, Edward Snowden, former NSA analyst, leaked information that the US had a massive spying program. That, in and of itself, is not surprising. The kicker, however, was their largest target: Germany.
I was gobsmacked, to use local British parlance. Germany, of all countries, was the target of more spying than Iran, or China, or North Korea, or any of the US' so-called "enemies." Why? Well, there hasn't been any real clear answer, but I can dare to speculate: the US wants to know what will happen with the Euro. Whatever the intention of the US is to do with that knowledge, whether it is used for undermining or attempting to corner the currency swap market, only those in the US intelligence community can know. Again, it's speculation, but I can't fathom any other reason as to why the US would spy on a reputable ally.
Then we come to the very notion of spying on allies, something presumably thought of as unconscionable and unethical. It is a notion stuck in the 1950s, held back by myopic thinking and government bureaucrats still old enough to remember when they were appointed under the Nixon administration. These soulless minions of orthodoxy take a singular form: the aged, commonplace, almost ubiquitous elite in the Pentagon, the State Department, Congress, and the White House. Do they still hold the notion of US hegemony over everyone to be the end-all, be-all?
These men and women (though there are exceptions) grew up in an extremely simple time in terms of foreign policy: good and bad, Capitalism and Communism, us and them, etc., whatever it was the propaganda dictated. Can we truly expect these people to understand a new multipolar world where the machine is greater than the sum of its parts? In other words, can these people see anything aside from power politics where the US is king and premiere?
Possibly not, possibly so: there is evidence for both. On the one hand, the US still has the most technologically advanced military along with the most expensive professional army in the world, and yet they were stymied by guerrilla fighters using weapons from WWII. Clearly, it is not the size of the army or the strength it holds that truly matters anymore, but its ability to adapt to the changing character of war that truly displays its might.
On the other hand, there are senators, such as Elizabeth Warren, who have demonstrated a keen understanding of new age domestic politics, especially in her dogged pursuit of those who perpetrated the financial collapse of 2007, along with her support for aid to university students, where tuition is liable to bankrupt the average student. But, and this is the unfortunate reality of it all, she is the minority.
The men and women now in government had it easy, at least comparatively: tuition prices were exponentially lower when they attended university, and getting some kind of job right out of college was more common than not. The government scandals coming from these neo-Reaganist administrations is enough to sour politics for the younger class, especially those who find their ideals placed in someone who, like Janus, shows one face to the public but a wholly different one when it comes to governing.
So what can we expect of those youth who still want to enter government? Do they work under those who perpetuate orthodoxy, who still believe in Cold War machinations of politics? Do they adopt those beliefs and erase whatever preconceived ideals they might have had, just because they do what is expected of them rather than what is better? The answer is that, well, I don't know. My generation never knew the Cold War, and we have yet to truly enter government and make a difference. We would have to literally let the old guard die to completely understand whether or not we can think outside the realm of defunct notions.
And so, like a boat tethered to shore, we wait for the ideal opportunity to remove ourselves from those anachronistic beliefs of the past and pave our own paths in politics and diplomacy, because otherwise, we will rust and fall apart.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)