I've been doing a lot of thinking about the Bush Administration's foreign policy decisions the past couple of weeks, and I don't like my conclusions. None of my thoughts are earth shattering or even all that original, though.
The President has made a big deal about his policy of "Preemptive Strikes" against nations that present a threat to the United States. It's obvious that this philosophy falls under the pseudo-macho heading of "the best defense is a good offense" category. It is also patent nonsense.
I'll be the first to say that I want a strong military and that preparedness and vigilance are an absolute necessity in the face of foreign threats. The next thing I'd say is that you don't attack other nations unless they attack you first, or at least declare war on you. The Bushistas want us to do just that, based entirely on "intelligence" information that is too sensitive to be released, that will never be presented to anyone in Congress, or shown to our allies. We'll just have to trust him.
A word about "trust" and the current administration: Dick Cheney refuses to obey court orders to release information about his "National Energy Task Force", the President has systematically gutted the Freedom of Information Act, the existence of the "Shadow Government" after September of 2001, Operation TIPS, the Office of Information Awareness, the presence of convicted felons (and liars to Congress) Poindexter and Abrams, and the appointment of Henry Kissinger (liar, deceiver, conniver) to investigate the intelligence failures of 2001. Sure, we should trust these guys.
The hypocrisy inherent in the Bush plan is obvious: we can attack sovereign nations that we fear, but they have no right to attack us if our policies threaten them. Republics don't operate in this fashion, this is the method of Empires and totalitarian regimes, which says a lot of bad things about where we are heading as a nation.
So the President yearns for a return to days when all nations claimed the right to attack all others on the smallest of pretexts, which is bad enough. The next part of his foreign policy that is particularly problematic, is the directive to the CIA to attack al-Qaeda wherever they may be.
The CIA's hunt for al-Qaeda has already claimed the life of one U.S. citizen during a missile attack in Yemen. Ignoring the implicit violation of Yemen's sovereignty here, the life of an American has been taken by the United States government without any indication that he had ever been investigated, tried, subpoenaed, arrested, or indicted. The Bush response to a possible Constitutional issue? "there is none".
The CIA's mandate for the President more or less tells them to seek out and kill any al-Qaeda operative they find, anywhere in the world. There is no exception made for the United States, so it's possible that the CIA could be targeting someone near you based on the smallest of information. You or your neighbors could be killed by the federal government with no trial, no evidence, no oversight, and no appeal. This may be the extreme view of their instructions, but it could happen.
The message here? Be afraid. It is the policy of our government that it can attack anyone, anywhere, at any time. How long before other governments follow our lead?
Posted by Chris at December 15, 2002 11:15 PM