A Case for the Constitution

In a report based on interviews with 66 released detainees and officials from both American and Afghanistan, McClatchy finds that just 34 of these detainees had some sort of connection with militant groups. Of those, 23 were "Taliban foot-soldiers, conscripts,...adventure-seekers who knew nothing about global terrorism."

Included in the count of innocents are Mr. Khan and Mr. Akthar. Both of these men were falsely accused of being terrorists while, in reality, Akthar had actually fought for the American backed regime in Afghanistan. Khan and Akthar were detained based on faulty intelligence. To be precise, a U.S. intelligence officer explained that Americans captured Akhtiar "because they were given bad information by another Afghan who'd harbored a personal vendetta against [him]" since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Anyone with military experience has the mindset of an omelette maker: some eggs have to be broken. But keep in mind that Akthiar and Khan are just two out of 32 innocent men covered in the report. Some were kept for three years, others for six, but they all have the same story. Their years were commandeered. Their lives were broken. And for what? To be found innocent and to return to a dank, unfamiliar world where once-loved relatives and once-feasible aspirations no longer exist.

Despite the protestations of the Secretary of the Army, a CIA analyst, and officials from the Central Command as early as 2002, these illegal internments continued. In the face of such protest, it's impossible to claim that Guantanamo was ever necessary to enhance America's security. In fact, the interviews revealed that "U.S. detention policies fueled support for extremist Islamist groups." Indeed, "For some detainees who went home far more militant than when they arrived, Guantanamo became a school for jihad, or Islamic holy war."

When presented with all the historical failures of American administrations that jettisoned legal protections (civil liberties and rights explained in the Constitution and legal writs like Habeas corpus) for tough security measures, the security over rights argument has but one advantage: expediency. Granting a terrorist the right to challenge his detention is not only time-consuming but morally repugnant.

However, the report reduces even this time-tested refuge for proponents of aggressive security measures to rubble. Of the 770 detainees held at Guantanamo, just six have been publicly charged by the U.S. military commissions. That's less than one percent. In one case, charges were dropped. Specifically, the "missing hijacker" on September 11th got off because harsh interrogation tactics (waterboarding) rendered him insane and his information to interrogators inaccurate.

By torturing enemies and abandoning our legendary legal protections from tyranny, this administration has reaped a harvest of flawed intelligence and produced a measly six charges against our (actual) enemies. Despite this heap of evidence, Scalia and others will support expedient security measures in favor of obeying the laws that form America's foundation. Let's face the facts instead and realize that theirs is a policy consistently accompanied by failure.

I disagree with Scalia. There is something worse than a dead American soldier. It's a soldier who enlisted to defend America, and died for a country that no longer supports the values he swore to defend.

--Full report: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38773.html

Shameful

This is the kind of thing that discourages me from joining the military. I would expect servicemen, whose job it is to defend the United States and enhance its national security, to understand that putting bullets through the Koran is counterproductive. So much for expectations.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/17/btsc.ware/index.html

Not Guilty

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Apologies for the Rant

There's a limit to how many times I can hear "everything happens for a reason" and "no regrets," but it seems there's no such limit to the people who believe those statements. So that brings us here.

Not that God doesn't exist, and things do happen for reasons. However, whenever I hear "everything," it's normally used consolingly. You failed your test? It happened for some unseen reason and that failing grade will benefit you in the end. You turned into an alcoholic and your friends and family have disowned you? Surely there's some divine, benevolent force smiling upon you who delivers you misfortune only to sweeten your triumph.

There are reasons for everything. But maybe the reason you have a drinking problem is psychological, or a result of you not knowing how to handle your problems-not the plans of some jolly protector who guarantees your eventual redemption. Who can tell you to not / believe in God? But attributing the lows of your life to invisible, eternally benevolent reasons rather than the ones you can see, correct, and control will only lead to continued lows.

Those with depression or psychological problems can't always control or explain the bad emotions they experience. But staking one's hopes on the phrase "everything happens for a reason" is an excuse for such people to not seek help. To stay depressed. "Everything happens for a reason" is often shouted by those who want everything without giving a reason for deserving it.

"No regrets" is another gem. Sleep with ten guys in one night, betray your friends, and hurt the ones you love. But when you wake up in the morning, don't dare look back on your mistakes.

It is not possible to learn from mistakes without first acknowledging them and then determining their causes. Regret, or feeling pain while looking back on a past misdeed, can be a powerful teacher. It's true that nobody can change the past. Dwelling on it will get you nowhere. However, letting regret control your life and learning from the regrets you have are two different things. Regretting missteps can remind a person to walk with a more deliberate gait. Having no regrets after doing something regrettable is unrealistic and immoral. Keeping regrets and using them to improve the future is more effective than disowning them.

Final lie count: 935

The Center for Public Integrity and Fund for Independence in Journalism recently finished compiling all 935 lies (click the post title to see them) told by the Bush Administration between September 11th and the start of the Iraq War, concerning the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his (nonexistent) WMDs. The White House Spokesman Scott Stanzel commented that the decision to invade Iraq was based on "the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world."

Lucky number 936. The decision to invade Iraq was made years before September 11th by Paul Wolfowitz and Bush's neocon colleagues. The 935 lies helped, but it was all too easy for Bush to capitalize on our fears following 9-11. The lies serve as a reminder that, in times of widespread fear and conflict, it is crucial to fact-check our leaders' statements and premises.

Hoax in Hormuz?

UPDATE: Iran has a history of independent radio operators bringing foreign navies to the brink of violence, according to a Los Angeles Times article.

During the Iran-Iraq War and many ship-challenges (when a visiting or foreign ship is ordered by the native, or controlling, navy to identify itself and clarify its intentions), these operators have provoked deadly conflicts before.

Referring to one such operator, a gulf-based shipping source claimed: "He's dangerous. He gets on the radio when ships are being challenged, and some of the things he tells the Iranians could provoke an attack."

Full article:
Los Angeles Times
November 12, 1987,
MESSAGES FROM ROGUE RADIO OPERATOR COULD PROVOKE ATTACK;
FILIPINO MONKEY: ON BACKS OF MANY IN TENSE GULF

---
A cargo ship was sailing through the Strait of Hormuz recently when it was challenged by an Iranian warship demanding to know what it carried.

Iranian gunboats in these waters frequently attack vessels they suspect of carrying war materials to Iraq, and for the crew of the cargo ship, it was a tense moment.

"What is your cargo? What is your cargo?" the voice of an Iranian officer crackled over the radio.

Before the ship's captain could respond, a third voice came on the air: "I am carrying machine guns and hand grenades to Iraq . . . and the atom bomb."


The Filipino Monkey had struck again.

Jokes and Taunts

Sailors in this part of the world are by now well-acquainted with the rogue radio operator who calls himself "The Filipino Monkey." He has been interjecting jokes and taunts into radio conversations between ships at the southern end of the Persian Gulf for at least three years.

But as the Iran-Iraq War escalates and tensions rise, with the warships of several nations patrolling the gulf on a hair-trigger state of alert, the Filipino Monkey has become more than just an occasionally amusing annoyance.

"He's dangerous," one gulf-based shipping source said. "He gets on the radio when ships are being challenged, and some of the things he tells the Iranians could provoke an attack."

Most of what he tells the Iranians is unprintable.

'Doesn't Like Iranians'

"Whoever he is, he doesn't seem to like Iranians very much," the shipping source said. "He tells them what he thinks of them in graphic terms."

Memories vary, but most shipping sources who have listened to the Monkey say they first heard him about three years ago.

"He started out by playing music and then by taunting other seamen, usually Filipinos, with curses in the middle of the night," one official recalled.

Other seamen would respond in kind until the airwaves were alive with colorful arguments in various accents of English. This livened things up during the lonely and monotonous graveyard shifts in the gulf, and so for a time nobody much minded the Monkey's technically illegal activities. His transmissions were an abusive, but harmless, form of entertainment.

Dark Humor

But since the arrival of U.S. warships and an increase in Iranian challenges to shipping at the southern end of the gulf, the Monkey's mischief has assumed a darker side.

"I don't know whether he's trying to make trouble or whether he's simply an idiot who doesn't understand the implications of what he is doing, but either way he is a real hazard to commercial shipping," a former ship captain said.

One case in point is another recent encounter between an Iranian gunboat and a merchant vessel near the Strait of Hormuz last month. When the gunboat challenged the vessel, demanding to know its destination, the Filipino Monkey broke in and replied: "I go to your mother's house. . . . "

The encounter ended peaceably, apparently because the Iranian captain was also familiar with the Monkey's antics.

Search Under Way

But the recurrence of such incidents has moved officials of the United Arab Emirates to mount a search for the Monkey. According to shipping sources, Ministry of Communications officials have been checking on shore-based two-way radios in recent weeks to make sure they are licensed.

"They are trying to narrow down where this guy might be broadcasting from," one shipping executive said.

Catching the Monkey is not proving to be easy, however, because there are hundreds of possible locations for his transmitter, including ships, supply boats, tugs, oil platforms and shore-based facilities.

Also, there may be more than one Monkey. Because he has been broadcasting for far longer than any normal tour of duty for seamen or oil workers in the gulf, officials think the Filipino Monkey has spawned imitators and that there may now be more than one radio operator using the same moniker.

Many Monkeys?

"Everyone has their own theories about how many Monkeys there are and where he or they are based," said Margaret Rogg, a reporter for CBS who frequently monitors marine radio traffic. "My own image of him is that he's someone with a lot of time on his hands, maybe someone who's handicapped and has nothing to do but play with his radio all day."

Whoever he is, the Filipino Monkey's sing-song voice is also becoming familiar to U.S. sailors in the gulf.

Early last month, for instance, he broke into the middle of a tense radio exchange between a U.S. ship and an Iranian warship.

The Iranian ship had locked its weapons radar onto the U.S. warship, which was warning it in no uncertain terms to stand down. The warning was repeated three times until the Filipino Monkey added his own.

"Iranian warship, Iranian warship," he said. "You gonna get it now."
--

Despite the writer's tone and the operator's goofy moniker, Iran's history of weak radio security is especially troubling given the almost deadly and potentially cataclysmic encounter on Sunday.

American military officials are still undecided on whether the threatening transmission came from the ships of Iran's Revolutionary Guard or from someone offshore. Either way, we have too little information to identify the culprit let alone to retaliate against Iran.

Strait of Hormuz

Both the Pentagon and the Iranian government have released their videotaped version of events during Sunday's confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz. There is a consensus among naval officers that the threat to destroy the American ships could have very well been issued from offshore or from a boat not affiliated with Iran's military.

According to the Boston Sun, the U.S. Chief of Naval Operations "said it was unclear whether the radio warning came from Iranian vessels or from shore along the Straits of Hormuz..."

Similarly, TPM reports that the voice which issued the threat to "explode" the American ships, "seems to come out of nowhere and doesn't have the expected engine noise in the background, and in fact, The Washington Post reports, the accent doesn't even sound Iranian."

Paul Pillar, a former CIA analyst stated in the Boston Globe that Iran's actions may have been a signal to other Arab states "who have to make their continuing decisions about aligning more closely with the United States, or accommodating the Iranians...Whatever ideas the US may have to push Iran around, Iran has options to push back."

Some questions about the incident remain. Videos from both sides have been released, but they are heavily edited. The footage is no longer than five minutes, but the encounter, by all accounts, took around 20 minutes total. Barely any sources (the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Boston Sun, Associated Press) venture to identify the boats as Iranian. Most claim that the boats are "suspected" to be Iranian. The Revolutionary Guard, which recently took over Iran's operations in the Strait of Hormuz, is somewhat autonomous. Some believe that these soldiers could have acted alone in pursuing the American ships. More as the story develops.