Civil Rights 09/16/2006 02:45:45 pm by Dan Krohn

	For several months and continuing today, there has been a lively discussion in the United States regarding the extent to which presidential efforts in the so called "war on terror" have violated civil rights. Apparently the executive branch wants the unrestrained ability to label someone an "enemy combatant" which means they can be secretly imprisoned anywhere in the world, not allowed legal counsel or communication with family or anyone else, and subjected to conditions which all of us (were we in the prisoners' shoes) would describe as torture. Then eventually these people might be tried by special military courts where they could be subjected to the death penalty on the basis of secret information to which the accused has no access. This resembles more the Spanish Inquisition than modern America. And indeed, there is now talk of the need to pass special legislation to protect United States personnel from possible prosecution for war crimes. One would think that Americans would do everything in their power to avoid committing war crimes in the first place. But the fear, which was born on 9/11 and has been amplified by those who seek to take advantage of that fear, has many Americans ready to leave their principles behind. In a recent conversation one gentleman expressed his disagreement with a position of mine, stating that we need to be ready to give up our rights so as to protect ourselves. I responded that it was an issue which needs careful balancing. Certainly some measures are needed to protect us from the new style of terror becoming all too common in the world, but to give up all rights so quickly is equally dangerous. He responded, "What good are those rights if you're dead." History is filled with the stories of thousands of American heros who died protecting those very rights which this gentleman and others would throw away. It will be a pity, and the ultimate insult to our veterans, if we choose for them to have died in vain.

	[1 comments]

Iran - again 09/01/2006 04:29:29 pm by Dan Krohn

	Some situations and trends have lasting power. The world's challenge in dealing with Iran is one of them. Previously this blog noted that Iran was handling the back and forth of diplomacy with considerable finesse. Now we have another round. Iran has responded to the offer it was given of various rewards in return for its giving up nuclear enrichment capability. Though the report has of this writing not been released, preliminary indications are that Iran has not responded with a willingness to give up or even slow down its enrichment efforts. So what's a world to do? Well, the question being bandied about is whether or not the U.N. Security Council will vote sanctions against Iran. Unfortunately, that is not a very useful option. Russia and China have thusfar demonstrated reluctance to be very tough on Iran. That's not surprising since both of those nations have very strong incentives for maintaining the status quo. China looks to Iran as a substantial supplier of oil and gas, and one to which it will look increasingly in the future. So why would China be willing to take a hostile position? Russia, on the other hand, has some of the world's biggest reserves of oil and gas. Turmoil in the middle east works to Russia's advantage. To the extent that hostilities take out middle eastern oil and gas production, Russia gets a better price for its resources. So two Security Council members are very unlikely to agree to sanctions with teeth. Lastly, it seems that the world is only looking at economic sanctions as a stick to counterweigh the various reward carrots that have been offered in return for abandonment of Iran's nuclear enrichment efforts. Economic sanctions are not a very desirable solution. For one thing, economic sanctions typically lead to great misery among a nation's population but little misery among a nation's leaders. They increase human misery, and in this case that would tend to further persuade Iranians to look upon the west as evil. Economic sanctions are also unattractive in this instance as there is a great liklihood that nations looking for an oil supply will trade with Iran anyway. Lastly, sanctions are a longterm effort; so even if successful in bringing pressure to bear on the Iranian government; that pressure will probably come about too slowly to prevent Iran's becoming a nuclear power. So what's a world to do? Iran has made it very clear that abolishing Israel altogether is high on its agenda. Unless we are willing to accept that result, something must be done. Unfortunately, appearances indicate that the best solution might be a military one - quick precise attacks on the nuclear capabilities. Undoubtedly there are many people planning such things now. But that is a tough option. Israel is the most likely to take such action, but it will hesitate to submit itself to vast world criticism, which would surely follow. The United States has both stretched itself a bit militarily, and rather used up much of its claim on cooperation from other nations. And an attack from the U.S. might result in increased Iranian efforts to undermine its efforts in neighboring Iraq. Western Europe has generally not expressed much willingness for a military cure. It has recently taken over most of the effort in Afghanistan and is already experiencing casualities there. And the area just doesn't need more bombs - it has to stop sometime. So when all is said and done, the most likely scenario has Iran experiencing limited ineffective sanctions, developing its own nuclear capability, maintaining a problematical zone on the Israel - Lebanon border through its Hizbollah division, and laughing at the ineffectiveness and softness of the world which has demonstrated that its culture is no match for its rising new Islamic Empire. And that's only the beginning ... The only other option is to talk. The United States and Iran have a well-established history of hostility developed over the last sixty years. Those two nations need to talk to each other, and keep talking to each other, until attitudes shift. That will take considerable time and patience. A super-power should be strong enough to do it. Will Iran's leaders shift? Only time will tell.

	[comments?]