Centerblue.org

Andrew Sullivan speculates on the truthfulness of the UK terror plot in light of questions raised by Craig Murray, the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan whose internal memo raised a ruckus a while back when it complained about the use of evidence obtained from outsourced torture.

They seem to believe that the lack of a bomb, purchased tickets, or some conspirators’ passports would have made it difficult to convince a jury of conspiracy to commit the terror plot, and they question whether the information about the plot came from tortured prisoners in Pakistan. Murray speculates that the real plot may have been the US and British governments being politically motivated to be seen as having stopped another 9/11.

If they are suggesting that officials should have waited until the last possible minute to arrest these suspects, they not only propose something really reckless but they also have the law of conspiracy wrong.

Can you imagine the recriminations that would have occurred had authorities decided to wait until the very last moment so as to collect as much evidence as possible, and then had the bombers commit their act sooner than the authorities had anticipated? How would they be able to explain not having moved sooner to prevent such a massive loss of life? There is no way such an approach would have flown if things had not gone exactly right according to authorities’ plans.

Additionally, if you look at the law of conspiracy at least as defined in the United States (which is often derived from British common law) you find the following definition of conspiracy:

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (emphasis added)

Conspiracy requires the commission of an “overt act” before a person can be charged with the offense. Merely sitting around a table talking about a plot is not enough. However the law does not require that every act but the final one be performed before the conspiracy charge will stick. Such a requirement would be socially irresponsible and risky. The law only requires “any (overt) act” be undertaken.

Did these suspects perform “any overt act?” I really think it’s too soon to tell. Did they buy the liquids needed to create the bombs? Did they buy the explosion mechanisms? Had they applied for their passports? Did they receive large sums of money from terrorist groups? Any of these acts taken alone are innocent enough, but in the context of a conspiracy would arguably be sufficient to meet the “any act” requirement.

It’s unreasonable to ask that British authorities wait until bombs were assembled before moving in. It’s not unreasonable to ask that the facts of the case be brought to light as soon as possible. Let’s give the investigation time to expose the facts before we go accusing our governments of their own conspiracy.

Speculation is percolating that Dick Cheney used his knowledge of the British plot investigation to bash Democrats, knowing the information would soon be made public (although he and Bush did not know when the British would announce it.) Cheney took the highly unusual step, after the Lieberman defeat, of calling together a news conference of reporters while on vacation in order to excoriate Democrats as being weak on national security:

“[Lieberman's defeat showed ]the direction the party appears to be heading when they in fact purge a man like Joe Lieberman, who just six years ago was their nominee for vice president [over his support for the war on terrorism.] What is particularly disturbing about it is from the standpoint of our adversaries … They clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task. [He wondered if] the dominant view of the Democratic Party [is] the basic, fundamental notion that somehow we can retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this conflict and be safe here at home.”

There are just so many things wrong with this. First, who does Cheney think he is, calling a news conference after a primary being held by the other party in order to comment on it? Second, it’s good to know how disgusted Cheney feels about the hundreds of thousands of people who turned out to vote for Lamont; it’s not the “party” that’s knows Iraq is a failure–it’s the American people who are coming to their senses. Doesn’t he read the polls? Third, it sure is an odd coincidence that Cheney would come out swinging at Dems over national security, knowing fully well of the unfolding plot in Britain, when you really haven’t heard much from him otherwise during this election season.

Maybe it’s not a coincidence, in which case Cheney played really dirty.

The newswires are on fire this morning with news that British officials foiled a major terrorist plot that allegedly was in its final stages of planning and execution. It involved the smuggling of liquid explosives and small electronic detonation components aboard several aircraft bound for the United States from Britain. Heathrow airport is in chaos from the sudden imposition of strict security measures, and ripple effects on air travel are being felt around the world. The US moved the terrorist alert level to “code red” for air travel, the highest level ever since September 11th.

The news suggests several things. First, if this is the work of Al-Qaeda as stated by officials then one must wonder why they have focused their efforts in Britain instead of the US (officials say there is no evidence of plot members operating out of the US.) Hopefully that means security measures at home are working despite the inability of federal agencies to coordinate their homeland defense efforts five years after the 9/11 attacks.

Second, it suggests that Al-Qaida may be wounded but is not dead, if indeed Al-Qaeda is responsible for the plot. Despite five years of chasing down this terrorist organization it seems they still have the wherewithal to mount these kinds of attacks. Maybe that’s because the US has been so distracted “fighting terrorism” where none was to be found in Iraq rather than focusing on the real war on terror.

Third, it highlights the continued need for strong security measures in a post 9/11 world where it is clear that traditional military force is of little avail in defending the homeland. We cannot let our vigilance lapse. On the other hand we cannot be governed by fear and allow the unjustified suppression or curtailment of our civil liberties in the name of national security. A careful balance must always be kept ensuring that the benefit of a security restriction outweighs the burden on the liberty interest being infringed. We should remain vigilant against any restriction that doesn’t meet this test (such as many examples coming from the Bush administration including military tribunals, indefinite detentions for Americans without access to a lawyer, et cetera.) Hopefully this plot will not be used as an excuse by Bush for justifying even more radical ideas to quash our basic constitutional and legal rights.

Democrats have finally come together on Iraq, issuing a joint statement signed by 12 leaders (including Pelosi, Reid, and Murtha) calling for commencement of troop withdrawal by the end of the year.

Hallelujah and glory be. They’re finally enunciating what Americans already know to be true: “Over 2,500 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice and over 18,000 others have been wounded,” the statement said. “The Iraq war has also strained our military and constrained our ability to deal with other challenges.” Bush’s “open-ended commitment” to Iraq should be abandoned, the statement said, in the interest of “American national security, our troops, and our taxpayers” who have paid $300 billion in three years and are paying $3 billion a week now.

The Republican response was the typical “cut and run” drivel, as they continue to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the reality of the greatest foreign policy catastrophe in a generation that Bush has inflicted on this country.

We have been in Iraq for three years, losing our friends and family members to a war without purpose. We have held fast for those three years and tried to make the best of a grave mistake. We have allowed the Treasury to be bled dry, with hundreds of billions of dollars spent against future generations that could have been used to greatly improve America’s own future at home. We have CREATED terrorism instead of stopping it by giving great cause for the rest of the world to detest us. We have been crippled in our ability to respond to real threats to America like Iran and North Korea. America’s experiment in imposing democracy in a manner that was not wanted has been a complete failure. Here we are, three years later, and we are WORSE off by far than we were before.

What the Democrats propose is not “cut and run.” It’s called “cutting your losses short.”

It’s time for the Iraqis to realize that we are getting ready to leave and will not be able to use our military presence as a crutch anymore. They need to understand that if they’re serious about not having a bloodbath on their hands they better get their act together quickly on government and civil order. Iraq is comprised of people who absolutely hate each other and who apparently require a brutal regime to keep them living together in some semblance of harmony. There may simply be no way to keep a united Iraq in a democracy, and leaders on all sides need to put all options on the table for a quick resolution. America’s presence there has facilitated postponement of these difficult issues as Iraqis engage in endless debate while they kill each other and destroy each others’ mosques. Iraqis clearly have no respect for America’s puppet government in Baghdad, so let them determine their own fate in a manner of their choice.

It’s time to stop imposing our view of the world on people who do not want it..and it’s about damn time we brought our troops home and out of harm’s way.

The Bush administration is building a massive bioweapons facility and plans to cloak the entire operation in absolute secrecy.

The facility is intended to anticipate bioweapon attack scenarios and plan responses. It will involve laboratory tests with a myriad lethal viruses, bacterial, and other biological agents. Unfortunately, in order to do this the lab has to actually make small amounts of bioweapons to test against, and that may put the US in violation of a treaty banning biological weapons.

There is no question in my mind that this facility must be built. The anthrax scare of 2001 showed how vulnerable our society is to a bioweapons attack. Ever-continuing advances in biotechnology make very real the possibility of some nation creating a designer virus capable of killing millions of people, and even existing viruses like smallpox can do that. We must stay ahead of this game.

However, secrecy is not the right way to go about this. Absolute transparency should be required.

My biggest concern is with quality control: how can we ensure that a facility as secret as this (more secret than nuclear labs) will not engage in misbegotten experiments or be negligent in such a way that could somehow cause some mutagen to escape?

Another issue is the bioweapons treaty. An expansive reading of the treaty might, in the minds of some, justify creation of limited amounts of material for defensive purposes only. However, how would we react if we were informed that another nation like Iran was developing a secret lab that would create small amounts of material “for defensive purposes only?” We would have no moral standing to prevent another nation from doing something we are doing ourselves. By creating the lab and keeping it secret, the Bush administration will engender suspicion that may actually cause more proliferation of biological weapons.

Transparency–which is not the same thing as giving away all secrets–would ensure that the public knows what’s going on in this facility, that good quality control measures are being kept in place, that experiments are humane and necessary, and that other nations can be confident of the lab’s good intentions. Unfortunately, Bush’s insistence on secrecy, so that he can do whatever he wants as usual, does not engender confidence in anyone or any country, and in his hands this lab will probably do more harm than good.

Bush’s refusal to pressure Israel to stop its war campaign is a carefully calibrated “strategy” that will in his mind bring long term peace to the Middle East, according to this analysis.

He believes the current aggression is a golden opportunity to permanently eliminate a major de-stabilizing force of Hezbollah “terrorists” (or “freedom fighters”, depending on who you ask). This is the type of rationale that guides his actions in Iraq as well. He would thus rather address the consequences of the war as a “manageable crisis” instead of continuing to serve as an “honest broker” in any Middle East peace process.

The fallacy of this line of thinking is that if you kill enough people then the conflict will go away. This completely ignores the root of the conflict, an ideology arising from hatred bred rightly or wrongly from actual or perceived wrongs against a group of people. If you fail to address the causes of the ideology then killing people will not resolve the problem, because new people will simply step into the shoes of others killed. The rampant unemployment among youth in the Middle East and even what they learn in school about the West provide almost unlimited numbers of willing suicide bombers to unleash against Israel or the US and to strengthen the ranks of groups like Hezbollah.

The foolishness of Bush’s reasoning is amply evident in the disastrous mess represented by Iraq. Instead of promoting stability and eliminating a big threat to the region in Iraq, the US is instead fomenting all sorts of unrest that it is completely incapable of quelling. That weakness is emboldening countries like Iran and Syria to behave in ways they would not were the US truly a check on their power. Israel would do well to learn from the American mistake in Iraq, especially because it was its own behavior in Lebanon in years past that gave rise to Hezbollah in the first place.

Rather than weakening the anti-West ideology, Israel and the US are strengthening it by their warmongering in Lebanon and Iraq. It is providing the validation the Arab world needs to prove that their cause against the West is a just one. They need only see the senseless bombings of cities and the slaughtering of innocent children and civilians to fuel their hatred.

I categorically condemn groups like Hamas and Hezbollah detonating suicide bombers among groups of innocent Israelis in cafes and restaurants–such behavior undermines whatever legitimacy their causes may have. Even if suicide bombers are the only weapon you have against an opponent vastly superior militarily to you, you focus on military targets in wartime and not civilians. On the other hand, how is this behavior qualitatively different from Israel bulldozing Palestinian houses and people or indiscriminately shelling Beirut? Innocent people are just as dead regardless of the method used.

The rest of the world sees what Bush and Israel do not: that the neocon ideology of shooting first and managing the damage later solves nothing and only creates far larger problems than the ones solved. As usual, the US chooses to behave like a rogue nation while paying token lip service in admonishing Israel to minimize the killing of civilians.

It is time to address the ideology behind the Middle East hostility rather than just shooting guns at the problem. Pulverizing Lebanon accomplishes nothing. The biggest obstacle is the Palestinian statehood issue. Until Israel gets serious about the subject of providing a viable permanent home for these displaced people it will continue to be perceived as an oppressor by the Arab world and will continue to be in a state of perpetual war–if not by Hezbollah then inevitably by some other group or nation that takes its place.

President Bush had plenty to say today at a news conference in Chicago.

Negotiations with North Korea: “[I will not] get caught in the trap of sitting alone with North Korea at the table.”

Well, at least he’s learning from the last disaster where he “sat alone” with Iraq.

2006 election: “You win elections by believing something”…You win elections by having a plan to protect the American people from terrorist attack. You win elections by having a philosophy that has actually produced results — economic growth, for example — or kind of changing the school systems for the better, or providing prescription drug coverage for elders.”

Let’s set the record straight, please. While it’s true that strong economic growth was officially recorded by economists for the last quarter, you sure wouldn’t know it if you ask the average person on the street. Sky-high gas prices, higher food prices, cost of housing through the roof, health care cost doubling in the last five years, industrial commodities sharply higher, the list goes on. Unfortunately none or almost none of these items factor into economists’ reading of the consumer price index of inflation. I guess the CPI applies to someone who lives in a cave, but it doesn’t apply to the rest of us. So maybe we had strong economic growth for business, but it certainly hasn’t trickled down to the rest of us. We’re also borrowing from tomorrow’s growth to fund today’s growth with the massive federal and trade deficits the nation is running.

Changing the school system for the better? No Child Left Behind is almost universally panned by teachers for mandating unnecessary federal intrusion at the local level (what happened to being a small-government Republican?) at the same time that only small amounts of federal money are forthcoming to fund the mandates. Schools are subjected to arbitrary standards that may be impossible to meet based on the location, majority ethnicities, and wealth of the school district in question; yet those districts who fail to meet those arbitrary standards are threatened with a cut off of funds when they are likely to need the funds most. NCLB is NOT an improvement to the educational system.

Prescription drugs for elders? Please don’t insult our senior citizens. The tangled maze of bureaucracy presented by the drug program has made it extremely unpopular, especially when you compare the effort involved with the relatively small return. Many seniors who need the help have turned away from the program in favor of state programs and/or just going without prescriptions they need (trust me on this one, my parents are in that group.) On top of all that, a conservative Mr. Bush mandated the federal program without setting aside a dime to pay for it.

Yep, Mr. Bush likes to pretend to be a Democrat in implementing “Great Society” programs, but pays for them like a Republican. Spend and Borrow.

As for making the nation safer: I don’t feel safer yet after three years of this master plan in Iraq to keep us safe from attack. And…this announcement about a New York terrorist plot stopped in its early stages was really just a coincidence with the President making his “case” about national security–right? (In fairness, kudos to the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security for stopping this plot, but the timing of the announcement seems a little fishy.) By the way, where’s the outrage for the Daily News reporting prematurely on an ongoing investigation?

Missile Defense vs. Korean Missiles: “”Yes, I think we had a reasonable chance of shooting it down. At least that’s what the military commanders told me.”

That sounds SO confident, Mr. Bush…especially when the entire world knows that we can’t shoot down anything worth a damn based on recent tests. It’s the perfect tone for this lame (duck) president and his GOP’s “plans.”