Guilty until proven innocent, posthumously

You might think you know what the word "militant" means. After all, US mainstream media outlets use this word with almost the same frequency as that now almost meaningless appellation "terrorist." But you would probably be wrong, because the Obama administration has thrown a little twist into the definition. Now we have learned that to be classified as a "militant," all you need to be is a "military age" male, and to be unfortunate enough to be blown-up in a US drone strike. You see, this is ostensibly why administration tallies of civilians killed in such strikes seem almost preposterously low. It's because the administration basically asserts that anyone (military-aged male) killed in a drone strike is a militant! The argument, such as it is, goes something like this, "... well, anyone in the vicinity of a place we are considering hitting must be up to no good..." It's ironic, deeply troubling, and sad all at the same time that this was also essentially the justification given by George Zimmerman for his stalking and eventual killing of Trayvon Martin. That these policies are being implemented by the administration of the first African American US President makes it even that much sadder.

Recall that it's not even required to know who is actually present when such a strike is conducted. So-called "signature" strikes just require there be some signature of terrorist activity. As for what that signature activity might actually be you would likely have to have access to the classified justifications and procedures. Good luck with that. So, the folks carrying out this policy likely don't even know the names and faces of who might be in the cross-hairs, but rest assured they are all "militants." Remember that these strikes are taking place far from what most of us would even remotely consider a conventional battlefield. It must be heady indeed to possess such god-like powers, to know exactly who the bad guys are, and that it's justifiable to kill them. No arrests, no interrogations, no criminal charges, no trials needed, just "administrative due process." But rest assured, apparently if some solid evidence appears after the fact, that is, posthumously, to demonstrate a victim's innocence then the "militant" appellation may be removed. Who could possibly claim that we are not a merciful people?

To my mind this was perhaps the most astonishing revelation brought to light by a recent New York Times piece whose primary story line concerned the existence of a "kill list" run right out of the White House, with Obama personally signing off on all such strikes. Again, you'll be comforted to know that a rigorous procedure is in place. First a "nomination" process is conducted where a potential target is put forward for possible addition to the list. Kind of gives a cruel twist to the term nomination! But then the torturing of language is a key symptom of the authoritarian mind at work. And of course we are told that the minimizing of civilian casualties is a paramount consideration. I guess it helps when you can simply redefine what it means to be a "militant" or "civilian," and you have a largely compliant media that will be more than happy to play along.

If you somehow think that the above is consistent with democratic governance in general and the US Constitution in particular, then perhaps it's time for a civics refresher course. The Obama administration has asserted that anyone, including American citizens, can be targeted for such extrajudicial killing. In a related expansion of such powers, indefinite detention by the military of designated persons, within the United States proper, was recently codified within the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) legislation passed by Congress. When challenged with a lawsuit in the name of a number of journalists and activists, and litigated with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), at a hearing to establish standing of the plaintiffs, administration lawyers could not give assurances that even normal journalistic activities or straight political speech would not run afoul of the vague and overreaching language in the NDAA. If that is not thoroughly inconsistent with the 1st Amendment, then the Amendment has effectively been rendered worthless.

The way to highlight the extreme nature of these policies is to ask how US leaders would react if foreign governments or official enemies were to adopt similar policies vis a vis US civilians. Imagine the howls, the shrieks, the blood curdling screams if some other country were to treat US citizens in such a way! The criticisms and condemnations would be unrelenting. US leaders were quick, and correct, in absolutely condemning Al Qaeda suggestions that somehow US citizens killed in the 9/11 attacks were "not innocent," and in some way also militants. Why would US leaders even remotely consider adopting such an eerily similar policy, arguing that anyone in the vicinity of a strike is also "not innocent," a militant. It's very simple, if we wouldn't want our citizens so labelled, then we have no right to condemn others to such an immoral policy.

The Enduring Power of Our Moral Example?

I suppose one should expect a certain level of nationalistic chest-beating and jingoism in your typical State of the Union address, and on that score President Obama certainly didn't disappoint in his recent speech. But really, "... the enduring power of our moral example.." Obama used this odious, over-the-top phrase of pure propaganda in his efforts to convince us that "America is back." Back from what, one is tempted to ask. Are you kidding me?

Now, when I was growing up one of the lessons I learned was that showing a bit of humility is always a better choice than outright bragging about ones perceived greatness, or even worse, ones perceived moral rectitude. Who ever brags about their moral rectitude?

These are the kinds of statements and thinking that enable the United States to routinely perpetrate on the global stage the same kind of destructive and immoral acts for which we regularly condemn other nations. So, what could Obama be referring to?

The moral example of a nation where upwards of 50 million of its citizens lack regular access to health care?

The moral example of a nation where many of its citizens must make the choice between getting access to health care or financial ruin?

The moral example of a nation with almost 1/4 of its children living in poverty or economic distress?

The moral example of a nation with the highest incarceration rate in the world?

The moral example of a nation that still routinely employs the death penalty?

The moral example of a nation that illegally invaded, occupied and destroyed a country (Iraq) on the basis of fabricated pretexts (weapons of mass destruction, and a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda)?

The moral example of a nation that has claimed the right to unilaterally kill virtually anyone, anywhere in the world, that it deems a "terrorist," including its own citizens, without judicial review?

The moral example of a nation that routinely kills innocent civilians in the exercise of the above claimed right?

The moral example of a nation that tortures, and has claimed the right to indefinitely detain essentially anyone, anywhere, including its own citizens, without judicial review?

The moral example of a nation that claims the right to unilaterally kidnap anyone, anywhere and "render" them to another country for torture and interrogation, again, without the possibility of judicial review or remedy?

Well, I could go on, but you get the idea. Now Obama and indeed many of our political leaders must know about at least some of these moral shortcomings, or you would think that they should, right? But that's the beauty of the myth of "American exceptionalism," it's axiomatic, evidence to the contrary is completely irrelevant. We are simply the best, at everything, period, by definition. So, this allows someone like President Obama to argue, when confronted with the evidence of, for example, our indiscriminate killing of civilians, that we really don't, that these drone programs are surgical and precise, and we're just getting the bad guys, and even if we do kill civilians, well, our intentions are noble and moral, so, well, it's OK. We're the best after all. That really is the level of the argument. This is an extremely dangerous, not to mention unhealthy, mindset because when you hold such views moral arguments essentially hold no weight. You are the best, you can't be wrong or immoral in your actions, by definition. This is the kind of thinking that, sadly, is far to evident in our political culture.

Tearing Down the Myths

We are currently witnessing extraordinary scenes across the Middle East as people are rising up to demand an end to decades-old, Western-backed despotic regimes from Tunis to Cairo, and the revolt now shows signs of spreading into Jordan and Yemen as well. These revolts give renewed hope to peoples everywhere who yearn for freedom, democracy and economic justice.

There are no doubt a range of factors involved, but a proximal stimulus would appear to be simple economics. As people's living circumstances become more desperate, then they can be moved to take more forceful steps to try and change the status-quo. What might appear to be a desperate act to one with some food on his table becomes a necessary act for one whose children are starving. As an example, it appears that in Egypt a significant percentage of the population routinely subsists on something like the equivalent of $2 a day. Given such precarious economic circumstances a sudden increase in food prices, as has been occurring across much of the world, can be devastating. More succinctly, poverty and repression cannot be tolerated indefinitely.

As usual, the depiction of events unfolding in Egypt have been greatly distorted by the filter of the US media. Indeed, by far the best coverage I've seen on the Middle East rebellions so far has been that of Al Jazeera (I'm speaking specifically of the English language edition, since I can't comment on the Arabic version). While Al Jazeera English is apparently widely available in Canada and Western Europe it presently has little distribution on US cable networks. Somehow this doesn't seem surprising given the US media's increasing concentration in fewer and larger multinational corporations, and their general subservience to US government interests. For first rate coverage, then also check out the reporting from Sharif Abdel Kouddous at Democracy Now! who is on the ground in Egypt with an eye-witness and first-hand perspective on events.

As we watch these events unfold and see their refraction through the prism of US media outlets we can begin to see cracks in a number of longstanding myths on which US economic dominance and control in the Middle East and beyond is founded. One of my favorites is the notion of "regional stability." We hear this term endlessly from US media pundits. As in the following illustrative example: US Media Hack #1, "The US can't afford to lose the support of a pro-Western, stable Egyptian government," or, US Media Hack #2, "the toppling of Mubarak would just sow regional instability." So lets look a bit more closely at what this notion of stability actual implies.

Here's how the game works;

1) when a regional government is supportive of US government interests, that is, behaves as a good client and generally "knows how to follow orders," then, by definition, such a regime is "stable."

2) It is virtually irrelevant whether the government in question is democratic, autocratic, monarchical, tyrannical, plutocratic, oligarchic, theocratic, or any suitable combination thereof, by axiom 1) it is still a "stable" government. And just so that "stable" doesn't appear to be too overused, one can also substitute "moderate."

Note that by US government interests above I mean those of the economic elites--largely corporate interests and their patrons--within the US that for the most part influence and control the US foreign policy agenda. Also bear in mind that these interests are not necessarily the same as, and often are directly opposed to, those of the vast majority of the American people.

Now, what is the actual nature of many of these "stable" US client regimes? Well, it would take a book to cover all of them, but looking at the most recent "dominoes" to teeter in the Middle East should be sufficient. You would be hard-pressed to find any serious commentator arguing that either Tunisia or Egypt be considered as democratic states. Rather, these regimes were/are best described as autocratic, repressive oligarchies, in which a small ruling elite has enriched themselves through corruption at the expense of the vast majority of their citizens. They also routinely employed violent suppression of any and all political opposition, often with the use of arrest, torture, or worse. In reality, the societal and political conditions created and fostered by these "stable" regimes could not be more unstable! That is unless you consider vast income inequality with epidemic poverty and violent political repression to be stable economic and political models.

And of course the corollary rules apply. Any regime unwilling to play ball by our rules is "unstable," or if they really attempt to conduct their affairs with independence from Washington, and, heaven forbid, outside of the Capitalist model, then they may even be "radical." Again, the nature of the regime itself is irrelevant, what only matters is their stance towards US interests, if they are willing to put US interests above those of their own people, then of course, they are a "stable" regime. An example of a "radical" regime in this context was the democratically elected, but left-leaning government of Chile under Salvador Allende. Allende was overthrown and murdered in a US-backed coup that installed decades of "stable," vicious autocratic rule under General Augusto Pinochet. You see, a "stable" dictatorial government is always preferable to a "radical" democracy. Chile under Allende could not be tolerated mostly because it might represent the "threat of a good example," and worse yet, right in America's own backyard. That is, a nation that develops outside the Western-dominated model, with development actually serving the interests of its population and not those of international capital.

Another crucial myth that must be continually reinforced is the notion that the US is the bastion and guarantor of true democracy throughout the world. This is axiomatic among news talking-heads and the punditocracy in mainstream US media. While there is abundant evidence to the contrary, it is all completely irrelevant. Just consider the case of Egypt's Mubarak, supported through 30 years of one-party (indeed one-man), iron-fisted rule by multiple US administrations. You see, when government officials understand that this myth is virtually unassailable, then they can get away with the kind of bare-faced lies like those spouted by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who argued in a recent CNN interview, "We are on the side" of the Egyptian people, "as we have been for more than 30 years." The Egyptian people know better Ms. Clinton.

But you can understand that in such circumstances US officials have to be careful, they don't want to be seen as completely on the record in their support for a dictator whom a million Egyptians are out in the streets to try and remove. And on the other hand, if they still see a fair chance for the survival of their client, Mubarak in this case, well, then they don't want to openly call for him to depart to quickly. This is where obfuscation becomes a real asset, and there are few better at it than US State Department Officials. Consider this gem from Clinton herself, in response to a question about the US's stance on Mubarak, "This is a complex, very difficult situation," said Clinton, "We do not want to send any message about backing forward or backing back..." Backing forward? Backing back? Well, I'm glad that cleared everything up. One has to show some grudging admiration for someone who could so torture the English language, but that has been the nature of much of US commentary so far, obfuscation.

We can also learn a great deal by comparing the US response to the present rebellion in Egypt to that which occurred last year following elections in Iran. Now, according to our rules of the game, Iran is clearly not a "stable" regime. On the contrary, Iran is a "radical" regime that sows "instability" in the Middle East. In the summer of 2009 when large numbers of Iranian citizens protested the outcome of elections in their country, then US officials were more than vociferous in their support for the democratic rights of the protesters in Iran. But now, when faced with similar conditions in Egypt, and the apparent demise of one of its own lynch-pin clients in the Middle East, US officials can only talk out of both sides of their mouths and call for "restraint," and other such neutral platitudes. While Iran's theocratic government is objectionable on many levels we have to keep in mind that it had its roots sown in the overthrow of another "radical" democratically elected regime, that of Mohammed Mosadegh, deposed in yet another US-orchestrated coup, that installed the dictatorial rule of the Shah of Iran, Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi. I guess you can say what goes around comes around.

At present, the Mubarak government appears to be digging in its heals, and may not go without trying to first exact a terrible price from the Egyptian people. Let's hope that doesn't happen, and that the Egyptian people can attain a democratic future.

Shoot the Messenger, but Never, Ever, Examine Our Own Conduct

Wikileaks, the whistle-blowing website that has now in the past few months released two immense troves of once-secret US military and State Department documents, is now literally under attack from all quarters. The long knives are out as government officials of every stripe--and nationality--try to convince American citizens or anyone who will listen that Wikileaks and it's Editor in Chief Julian Assange are evil incarnate. The Wikileaks website itself has been dropped from several domestic internet providers, most recently from Amazon, seemingly due in part to pressure and threats from government officials, including that stalwart of First Amendment protections, Senator Joe Lieberman. It is also apparently under some form of cyber attacks, most likely denial of service attacks, to force it down or paralyze its servers.

The threat that Wikileaks poses to the powerful State and Corporate actors who have become accustomed to absolute impunity can be gauged by the almost hysterical nature of their response. Note, there is no threat in the sense of any real physical danger, rather, the threat is that their privileged positions and actions might actually face some measure of accountability. That is Wikileaks' unpardonable sin, to dare challenge the notion that the powerful can do whatever they like whenever they like with total impunity. Just for daring that, anyone with a modicum of belief in real democracy should support Wikileaks efforts to shine some light on the inner workings of empire. Robert Scheer's eloquent defense of democracy and Wikileaks pretty much sums it up.

Not surprisingly, a couple of the more hyperbolic attacks on Wikileaks have come from the "mental ward" of the Republican Party. No less than Sarah Palin and Representative Peter King--he a seemingly perpetual embarrassment to my birth state of New York--have argued, rather pathetically, that Wikileaks be labeled a foreign terrorist group by the US government. Former Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has distinguished himself by calling for the execution, on grounds of treason, of the alleged leaker Private First Class Bradley Manning, and Palin also suggested that Assange be "hunted down." And to demonstrate that such wackiness is not confined solely to American critics of Wikileaks, former aide to current Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada, Tim Flanagan, has publicly called for the assassination of Julian Assange, saying, "I think Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something. You know, there’s no good coming of this." And not to be outdone, Bob Beckel, a Democratic commentator on Fox News has also publicly called for the "illegal shooting" of Assange because of his treasonous and traitorous leaking, and his having, "...broken every law of the United States..." Perhaps someone should tell Beckel that Assange is in fact a citizen of Australia. And--you'll be relieved to know--Beckel is an opponent of the death penalty, and that of course all the guests appearing with him on Fox News were in complete agreement regarding the illegal shooting. Yes, unfair and unbalanced.

Of course the irony is rich indeed when you consider that these same folks arguing that Wikileaks has "blood on its hands," would more or less by content if Assange were "whacked" in some kind of mob hit. So much for consistent thinking, but OK, these folks rarely get accused of thinking anyway.

The bulk of American media has also been more than happy to whip up animosity against Wikileaks, and as usual has almost completely missed the real story, the actual content of the leaked cables. Mainstream outlets have been more than happy to perpetuate and amplify the "shoot the messenger" statements coming out of government officials. They appear much happier to sensationalize the alleged sexual misconduct charges apparently leveled against Assange than explore, for example, the aftermath of US military strikes in Yemen one year ago which the leaked cables indicate resulted in the deaths of many civilians, including 21 innocent children. Yes, US citizens have a right to know when their government is engaged in operations that are killing children! That's horrific enough, but it gets worse, because even with the knowledge that children were killed US diplomats still conspired to have Yemeni officials take the blame by publicly stating it was their missiles and not ours. There are really only two simple reasons why US government officials would behave so; first, so that the policy cannot be challenged by the people in whose name it is being carried out, and second, so that those decision makers ultimately responsible for initiating and carrying out the policy can do so with complete immunity from prosecution, because, while I am not a legal expert, I'm rather certain that the indiscriminate killing of civilians (and children) is indeed a war crime. Again, the real blood is on whose hands?

The leaks, and the government's response to them starkly reveal a crucial aspect of the entire secrecy regime that Wikileaks threatens. Those whose neighborhoods are demolished by US missile or drone attacks know they are being attacked, and generally by whom. The secrecy is not to try and convince them that we are innocent, no, it is aimed directly at us, the citizens from whom the government ostensibly derives its consent to govern. When citizens have no way of knowing what their government is doing, then true consent cannot be granted, and democracy ceases to exist. If enough citizens knew the details of such conduct then they might be outraged enough to demonstrate and petition the government to change its policies, as is their right under the Constitution and in a functioning democracy. As usual, Noam Chomsky rather eloquently makes this point, that the leaked cables demonstrate first and foremost the real distaste for democracy exhibited by our political elites.

Another constant refrain from officialdom and the media echo chamber is that the leaks pose a "grave threat" to US "national security." This charge is also rather revealing. Indeed, the term "national security" has become so debased and trivialized that's its use is now almost totally propagandistic. Any request or attempt to have those in power face some measure of accountability is instantly reversed with the cries of National Security. Even after officials going as high up as Defense Secretary Robert Gates have essentially admitted that no harm or serious threats resulted from the leaked documents, the charge continues to be leveled, and you would be hard pressed to find any mainstream journalists challenging such previously debunked comments. Glenn Greenwald explains precisely how the game works.

Of course the truth is that it is US policy, resulting in the indiscriminate killing of many civilians, that is actually harmful to US security. Such a policy does not eliminate the threat of terrorism, rather, as a number of studies have shown, it has increased the threats from terrorists, as it simply further alienates the populations under attack, enabling terrorist groups to more easily recruit among them. But if US citizens have no idea how US policy is playing out in countries subjected to drone or missile strikes, then how can the policies be confronted and challenged? It appears clear that foreign policy elites have little inclination to reverse course without significant public pressure. Just look at ten years of US policy in Afghanistan, one is reminded of the lyrics from a famous Pete Seeger song, "waste deep in the big muddy, and the big fool says to push on."

So, rather than representing some kind of threat, it appears much more likely that the Wikileaked documents actually could make us all safer if they eventually lead to more openness and transparency in government. But that is unlikely to come easily, as at this very moment, Attorney General Eric Holder is desperately in search of a crime with which to charge Julian Assange. Irony is in abundant supply indeed as no doubt extensive resources will be spent in investigating Assange and trying to find any trumped-up charge that will stick, but meanwhile we have war criminals and torturers freely walking in our midst, and plenty of binding international and domestic legal treaties with which to charge and try them with, but not a finger is lifted, as we have to look forward, that is, away from our own misdeeds, and never backward at them and ourselves.

And perhaps justifiably the State Department itself easily wins the irony grand prize with this announcement concerning World Press Freedom day 2011! Enjoy.

Failure to Learn

The hubris knows no bounds. The United States is now approaching eight years of its Afghanistan adventure, with a thoroughly predictable outcome. Defeat. The Taliban were so easily "defeated" initially because, as indigenous forces are wont to do, they simply melted back into the country-side, and decided to bide their time, to fight another day. Six years of waiting and gathering strength, coupled with six years of American neglect and incompetence have now provided the conditions where the Taliban feel they will be able to reassert control over much of the country. What did the United States do with it's initial "victory?" Did it turn the bulk of its aid to Afghanistan to economic and social development for that desperately poor country, to win the support of the population? Did it support the nascent democratic organizations and institutions that had existed before the Taliban, to empower these groups to lead the political and economic development of the country? No, the United States did none of these things. The bulk of its aid remains military assistance. It installed a corrupt government, and did nothing to reduce the influence of warlords and militias on average Afghanis. It routinely resorted to massive firepower, including indiscriminate air-strikes, when engaging Taliban militants, with the predictable killing of many innocent Afghan civilians. The latter has done much to turn the population against the American project and is a veritable recruiting boon to the Taliban. One would be hard-pressed to devise a more counterproductive strategy.

While the US has made no end of mistakes with regard to its policy in Afghanistan, the most important mistake can be traced back to the Bush administration's decision to react to the September 11, 2001 attacks with a primarily military response. The solution to the extremism that fosters terrorism is not a military one, it is primarily political, educational and social. Terrorists themselves are best dealt with in the context of international law enforcement. A heavy-handed militaristic response simply exacerbates the conditions which lead to radicalization and extremism.

However, as a self-styled sole-superpower, the United States tends to approach much of its foreign policy from a military point of view. This is where its perceived strength lies. On the other hand the US is relatively weak politically. Whereas talk of democracy is always heard, what sort of development model does the US really have to offer? As in Afghanistan, much of what passes for foreign "aid" is used to further the interest of American corporations, or simply ends up enriching a small minority at the expense of the impoverished majority. Much of the developing world no longer sees the appeal of such an "American Plan."

So what is the US really doing in Afghanistan? And how is it that it's government and political leaders could even consider a further escalation so soon after the disastrous and ongoing occupation of Iraq, not to mention the shameful history of the Vietnam war? Are our leaders incapable of learning anything? Or are they simply blinded by imperialistic hubris and the myth of American exceptionalism? Even a man as obviously capable and intelligent as President Obama seems unable to escape the suffocating shackles of the "mainstream" consensus that cries for "victory" in Afghanistan. The ostensible argument offered by Obama recently is that the US cannot allow a "safe haven" for terrorists in Afghanistan. But what does that mean? The argument is completely ludicrous. Moreoever, how is it possible to deny "safe havens" to terrorists in general? Would one need to occupy the entire world? Throughout history Afghanistan has been the "graveyard" of empires, what is it about American hubris that leads us to think we can impose our will on this country when all others have failed?

Crude hosts

The elected President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was invited to speak and engage in a public forum at Columbia University yesterday. Considering the rudeness and out-right hostility he faced, he seemed to handle himself with commendable aplomb. The President of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, provided one of the more boorish displays from an American academician in recent memory. Bollinger, seemingly bent on providing Fox News with it's course of raw meat for the day, acted the part of the "ugly American" to a tee. He came off as nasty, ill-informed, and downright arrogant. Perfect for Fox in fact.

While I do not agree with much of what Ahmadinejad stands for, and he certainly has made a number of regrettable and ill-informed statements, he has not bombed and invaded any countries under dubious circumstances (like some other president I know), and he has not threatened the United States in any serious way. Whether we like to admit it or not, he was legitimately elected in Iran, and he actually wields considerably less power in Iran than George W. Bush has appropriated for himself in this country. Why not let him speak, judge him on his statements, and perhaps try to engage and educate him to a more enlightened point of view? That's the truly American response that I was taught.

Moreover, why bar Ahmadinejad from visiting Ground Zero, in lower Manhattan, if he had expressed a wish to do so? There is not a shred of evidence linking Iran to the 9/11 attacks, recall that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens. Indeed, Iranians expressed deep sympathy with Americans after the attacks, as did much of the world. Sympathies which the Bush administration has done much to undue since then. If the attempt is to further try and demonize Iran as somehow responsible for Bush's debacle in Iraq, then we must not forget that Iraq too had nothing to do with 9/11. How is it that we became such crude hosts?

The Betrayal

George W. Bush likes to fancy himself a friend of the military. Our Vietnam-evading, chicken-hawk president talks a good game, but if you examine the record it isn't very pretty, and indeed a reasonable argument can be made that Bush is about the worst friend the military could have. Since when has committing US forces under false pretenses to an illegal war and occupation been consistent with "supporting the troops?"

Further, let's consider the build-up to the invasion of Iraq. A key component of the "rationale" for war was the new security policy of "preemption" promulgated by the Bush administration. Put simply, it basically asserts the right of the United States to wage war in "self defense" against any perceived threat, including future threats which have not really fully materialized, but are merely incipient threats, in the view of the president. It also asserts this as a unilateral right, that is, it essentially argues that the United States will be bound not be international legal and treaty obligations, but by it's own determination of what constitutes a threat. In this sense it deals a severe blow to the notion of multi-lateralism, and greatly weakens the United Nations in its efforts to secure peaceful solutions to conflicts. It also represented a radical, 180-degree shift from previous US security postures, which largely promoted the notions of multi-lateralism and collective security within the context of international law.

Now, approximately 300,000 Americans lost their lives in the fight against fascism in World War II. An important legacy directly resulting from this American (and Allied) sacrifice was the establishment of an international organization (the Unite Nations), and a framework for international law, both of which essentially grew out of the Nuremberg war-crimes tribunals. Indeed, the notion that the affairs of States should be bound by a legal framework, and that leaders could and would be held accountable for their actions, held the great promise of finally ending the scourge of war, or, if not ending it, then at least seriously constraining it. The legal framework is codified in the Nuremberg Principles. A key component of the principles is the definition of crimes against peace;

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

The chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, had this to say about wars of aggression, "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Moreover, the United Nations Charter, which has the force of international law, states in article 2 that; All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. The UN charter, and other international legal agreements, also establish that the only legal justification for the use of force is self defense against attack. In this context self defense is meant to be defense against an imminent threat of attack against a nations territory. It does not, however, contemplate the preemptive use of force to defend from "perceived" threats.

The Bush doctrine of preemptive war seriously undermines the entire framework for international law that several hundred thousand American servicemen gave their lives to help bring into existence. I would call that a serious betrayal of the legacy of those Americans who served in World War II. Moreover, the claim of the right to now commit US troops to preemptive actions outside of the legal framework of international law is yet another betrayal, but now of those presently in uniform. I wouldn't call these the actions of a friend.