Freedom of the Press vs. Presumption of Innocence

A core tenet of our civil right is the “presumption of innocence”, which basically means that we are innocent of accused crimes until proven guilty in a court of law. 


Now, a common occurrence in our modern society is for the press (or media) to report on the alleged criminal acts before any allegation is proven guilty in a court of law.  Traditionally in the US culture, the press is entitled to conduct such reports via the principle of the “freedom of the press”.  So although a person may be exonerated by a court of law, the person may be convicted by the general public.


So does the Press/Media respect the ‘Presumption of Innocence’ principle?


The police, while usually a competent and reliable enforcer of the law, is capable of making mistakes.  The initial suspect for a crime doesn’t always end up being the one prosecuted for the crime.  Regardless of whether the police gave the news station the wrong picture or any other flaw, the man is now assumed to be guilty.  In the town he lives in and according to his peers, he is presumed guilty and his life is forever altered and judged based on an act he may not have even committed. 


Yet this is not a harmless mistake because the legally innocent man has been socially convicted and there is no appeal mechanism for this type of conviction.  Once a person’s reputation is tainted even by the public allegation, then that person’s life is forever stained.  The social consequences are boundless.  A person may have to leave their community entirely because they cannot go out in public without their peers judging them as if they were carrying a cloud of guilt over their head.


Let’s look at a present-day example: the allegations against Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK).  I won’t go into the details of the legal allegations because I want to focus on the role of the media.  DSK is/was a prominent public figure because he was the head of the International Monetary Fund.  DSK was living in the US for his job at the IMF but he is a French national.  As one of their political elite was in the headlights of the international media scandal, people in France paid close attention to the coverage in the US.  The US covered the story with pictures of DSK in police custody in handcuffs and surrounded by authorities.


A CNN article articulates the differences in US and French culture as the French have censorship laws which prohibit the media from prejudicing a legal case.  One French resident thought, “that for Americans it’s the normal procedure, so there’s nothing shocking about these pictures, but in France it’s true that these pictures are very shocking for us, because in France we don’t have the right to show images of a man who is charged but not yet convicted.”  The case against DSK has since been dropped.  So DSK has avoided criminal conviction, but his political career was not spared as he had been positioning himself to run for the French Presidency in the next election.  That aspiration is no longer plausible. 


So for alleged criminals like DSK, I do not believe the media appropriately respects the presumption of innocence that should be afforded to every citizen.


Censorship Harm


There is also an issue where the media assists authorities in making the public aware of a criminal so they can be caught. So a local news station may show a picture of a man who had just shot a convenient store clerk in their nightly news segment. A citizen who knows or has seen this man may might then call the police with information related to the man’s whereabouts. However, when the news station shows that man’s picture, everyone who sees it assumes that he is guilty.


Prohibiting prejudicial reports by the media may also harm the ability of the media to do investigative journalism.  We often see the media uncover corrupt and potentially criminal behavior which leads to a criminal investigation by the government.  Under new censorship, this investigative practice would undoubtedly be limited in some way because it would limit the degree to which the report can implicate a person in criminal activity.  ideally I’d like there to be a happy medium because I do fear truly investigative journalism would be jeopardized.  Appropriate and more specific limits definitely need to be debated further before any new law is formulated.


Yea it’s different, but let’s at least talk about it…


I think the freedom of the press should be limited to protect the presumption of innocence. At present in the US, there is no such presumption of innocence in the court of public opinion. When a media outlet runs a story on ‘alleged’ crimes, the audience forms a prejudice by assuming the media report to be truthful and unbiased.  It’s imperative that the media continually emphasize that the crimes are “alleged” and detail the arguments for both the prosecution and the defense.  It’s definitely time for at least a debate on the press/innocence conflict because the internet has the ability to make a mugshot a ‘kiss of death’ for a person’s social and political life.


If the person is convicted, then I think the press is entitled to report on it. But until guilt is proven in the court of law, the court of public opinion must respect every citizen’s presumption of innocence.  Granted the ‘how’ is complex the two principles can coexist.

Are We Thriving and Coming Together?

I needed some inspiration so I decided to re-watch the President's speech in Tucson, Arizona from several months ago (click on my nicely embedded video to the right if you would like to as well).  I first watched it the day after the speech was given, and I still remember tearing up at the end.   

I have copied (from here) the ending below, just as a tribute to how all of us can be better, and not just for ourselves....

Together We Thrive: Tucson and America

(all of the emboldened parts are where I get goosebumps!)

"...They believed - they believed, and I believe that we can be better. Those who died here, those who saved life here - they help me believe. We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another, that's entirely up to us.

"And I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us.

"That's what I believe, in part because that's what a child like Christina Taylor Green believed.

"Imagine - imagine for a moment, here was a young girl who was just becoming aware of our democracy; just beginning to understand the obligations of citizenship; just starting to glimpse the fact that some day she, too, might play a part in shaping her nation's future. 

"She had been elected to her student council. She saw public service as something exciting and hopeful. She was off to meet her congresswoman, someone she was sure was good and important and might be a role model. She saw all this through the eyes of a child, undimmed by the cynicism or vitriol that we adults all too often just take for granted.

"I want to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as Christina imagined it. I want America to be as good as she imagined it. All of us - we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children's expectations.

"As has already been mentioned, Christina was given to us on Sept. 11, 2001, one of 50 babies born that day to be pictured in a book called 'Faces of Hope.' On either side of her photo in that book were simple wishes for a child's life. 'I hope you help those in need,' read one. 'I hope you know all the words to the National Anthem and sing it with your hand over your heart.'  'I hope you jump in rain puddles.'

"If there are rain puddles in heaven, Christina is jumping in them today. And here on this Earth - here on this Earth, we place our hands over our hearts, and we commit ourselves as Americans to forging a country that is forever worthy of her gentle, happy spirit..."  - President of the United States Barrack Obama January 12, 2011

I can't remember a moment where I've been prouder that he is my President.  And I wanted to ask: do you think America is thriving and coming together?  I feel like we have exited the time of depolarization and the country is once more characterized by its political divisions than its commonalities.  Even though it was short-lived, I hope we can get back to that time when we did not let our divisions define us.

Just some other things that motivate me...

Park Scene from Good Will Hunting

"Ocean" by John Butler Trio

Alicia Keys on CNN's Impact Your World - "I want to be known as an incredible, global citizen and a person who has made their mark in an inspiring, positive way....this is my generation--we're about to do something really big."

A 'Jeremy original':  "What happened in your past does not determine your future because expecting  future outcomes to be the same as past outcomes is naively assuming nothing has changed between then and now."  It comforts me to know this when I am struggling.  It tells me that any failure or unrealized opportunity from the past does prevent me from being able to realize my potential in future endeavors. 

I Miss My 4Runner

So I have been in Australia for about 11 months now and I have really been missing my '05 4Runner that's back home in the US.  I was thinking about looking for a new car when I get home but I have reservations about making a change.  One advantage would be getting better fuel efficiency and I got to thinking about what kind of impact that would actually have.  So, let's imagine an argument for buying 'better', fuel efficient cars. 

The Question:

If I'm shopping for a car, you tell me to buy the one that gets 30 mpg versus the one I really like but only gets 22 mpg.  Now you say: Jeremy do you want to 'do the right thing' and help the environment or be bad and hurt the environment?  Then I tell you to shove it because that 8 mpg-difference isn't going to make much difference in the big scheme of things.  

The scheme of things:

Now I'm going to do some math, so I'm sorry if you don't like math but I like using it because it's hard to rebuke.  I usually drive about 5,000 to 6,000 miles per year, about 110 miles - or 5 gallons of gas - per week.  Let's guess the average truck driver drives 10 hours per day at 60mph on highways, equaling 600 miles per day over 5 work days, totaling to 3000 miles per week.  In 2 weeks, a truck driver drives as far as I do in 1 year.  It would take me 25 years to match that of a trucker's annual driving mileage.


A truck driver, who gets worse fuel efficiency - between 3-8 mpg - than my 22mpg, expends two to five times as much fuel.  So, a trucker expends 75 to 200 gallons of diesel - aka carbon emissions - in 1 day compared to my expending 27 gallons for the same distance.  (By the way, diesel fuel used by truckers and unleaded gas used by most cars do not have the same, but rather similar carbon footprint).  So while I consume 225 to 280 gallons per year, a truck driver consumes 18,500 to 50,000 gallons for their 150,000 miles per year.  My 22mpg car is so insignificant that, at my highest projected consumption and the truckers' best fuel efficiency, it would take me 65 years to match the carbon emissions output of 1 single truck driver in 1 year.  


To top it off, that 8mpg that you wanted me to save -- 280 gal. per year (22mpg car @ 6000 miles) minus 200 gal per year (30mpg car @ 6000 miles) = 80 gal. difference -- would be equivalent to 1 day's work for 1 trucker.  And there are millions of truckers on the road every single day...


I imagine, with 970 gallons as the average fuel consumption per hour of a commercial airline flight when total airline energy consumption represents 10% of all transportation consumption, that energy efficient airplanes should be relevant part of the discussion too.  I won't go through all the same math with this one but the amount of fuel I would save each year (80 gallons between 30mpg and 22mpg car)  is less than one-tenth of the average fuel consumption of one commercial flight.  Imagine American Airlines decides tomorrow to cut just one of its weekday back-and-forth flights from Dallas to New York for one year (260ish days x 1940 gallons = 504,400 gallons).  That change alone would save more fuel than I could possibly consume in 100 lifetimes.  


Airplane fuel efficiency has improved over the last decade but the targets are still laughably unambitious.  Every time I'm walking to class and a plane flies overhead I don't feel my walk has impacted the big picture, but I still enjoy my walk of course.

My Answer:

Regardless of the individual perspective, small scale automobile transportation as a whole accounts for more than 50% of total transportation energy consumption.  So while it may not matter what I do, it matters what we do.  It's going to take an industry-wide fuel efficiency standard to make an impact for the environment and for consumers.  If consumers are given choices where the minimum fuel efficiency for every vehicle is 25mpg, then I think we'd make some headway.  Policymakers need to get ambitious.

I agree that climate change and carbon emissions are a vital interest for every human being on the planet.  I consider myself pro-environment and I'll vote for limits on carbon emissions any day.  I'm only stating my view on what kind of impact I can effect as a consumer, specifically as a user of transportation.  

As long as the fuel efficiency of airplanes and trucks continues to be pathetic all while the best comparable change I can muster is a measly few mpg's, then I'm sticking with my 20mpg Toyota 4Runner that I love dearly.  What are you coming back with now?

Last Post about bin Laden Raid

This will probably be my last post about the raid of bin Laden's compound which resulted in his death.  Pakistani officials are sill condemning the US for the raid, as they should based on the Pakistani public's anti-Americanism...all politics are local.  However, Pakistan turned over the intact tail section of the Black Hawk left behind from the raid as a result of Senator John Kerry's diplomatic efforts.  The CIA was also allowed to interrogate the survivors of the raid.

This article still doesn't clarify the all-important reason the SEALs shot bin Laden.  There were guns nearby, but the alleged 'threat' which warranted a double-tap to the head and chest is not clearly justified.  So the legitimacy of the supposed "kill or capture" objective of the mission is still in question.  Regardless, I think I'm gonna lay my opinions to rest for now.  

I thought the article was a pretty good description so I'll just re-post it, unabridged - New details about the bin Laden raid from the Associated Press:

"Aboard two Black Hawk helicopters were 23 SEALs, an interpreter and a tracking dog named Cairo. 19 SEALs would enter the compound, and three of them would find bin Laden, one official said, providing the exact numbers for the first time.  Aboard the Chinooks were two dozen more SEALs, as backup.

"The Black Hawks were specially engineered to muffle the tail rotor and engine sound, two officials said. The added weight of the stealth technology meant cargo was calculated to the ounce, with weather factored in. The night of the mission, it was hotter than expected.

"The Black Hawks were to drop the SEALs and depart in less than two minutes, in hopes locals would assume they were Pakistani aircraft visiting the nearby military academy. One Black Hawk was to hover above the compound, with SEALs sliding down ropes into the open courtyard.

"The second was to hover above the roof to drop SEALs there, then land more SEALs outside — plus an interpreter and the dog, who would track anyone who tried to escape and to alert SEALs to any approaching Pakistani security forces. If troops appeared, the plan was to hunker down in the compound, avoiding armed confrontation with the Pakistanis while officials in Washington negotiated their passage out.

"The two SEAL teams inside would work toward each other, in a simultaneous attack from above and below, their weapons silenced, guaranteeing surprise, one of the officials said. They would have stormed the building in a matter of minutes, as they’d done time and again in two training models of the compound.

"The plan unraveled as the first helicopter tried to hover over the compound.  The Black Hawk skittered around uncontrollably in the heat-thinned air, forcing the pilot to land. As he did, the tail and rotor got caught on one of the compound’s 12-foot walls. The pilot quickly buried the aircraft’s nose in the dirt to keep it from tipping over, and the SEALs clambered out into an outer courtyard.  The other aircraft did not even attempt hovering, landing its SEALs outside the compound.

"Now, the raiders were outside, and they’d lost the element of surprise.  They had trained for this, and started blowing their way in with explosives, through walls and doors, working their way up the three-level house from the bottom.  They had to blow their way through barriers at each stair landing, firing back, as one of the men in the house fired at them.  They shot three men as well as one woman, whom U.S. officials have said lunged at the SEALs.  Small knots of children were on every level, including the balcony of bin Laden’s room.  As three of the SEALs reached the top of the steps on the third floor, they saw bin Laden standing at the end of the hall. The Americans recognized him instantly, the officials said.

"Bin Laden also saw them, dimly outlined in the dark house, and ducked into his room.  The three SEALs assumed he was going for a weapon, and one by one they rushed after him through the door, one official described.  Two women were in front of bin Laden, yelling and trying to protect him, two officials said. The first SEAL grabbed the two women and shoved them away, fearing they might be wearing suicide bomb vests, they said.  The SEAL behind him opened fire at bin Laden, putting one bullet in his chest, and one in his head.  It was over in a matter of seconds.

"Back at the White House Situation Room, word was relayed that bin Laden had been found, signaled by the code word “Geronimo.” That was not bin Laden’s code name, but rather a representation of the letter “G.” Each step of the mission was labeled alphabetically, and “Geronimo” meant that the raiders had reached step “G,” the killing or capture of bin Laden, two officials said.

"As the SEALs began photographing the body for identification, the raiders found an AK-47 rifle and a Russian-made Makarov pistol on a shelf by the door they’d just run through. Bin Laden hadn’t touched them.  They were among a handful of weapons that were removed to be inventoried.

"It took approximately 15 minutes to reach bin Laden, one official said. The next 23 or so were spent blowing up the broken chopper, after rounding up nine women and 18 children to get them out of range of the blast.

"One of the waiting Chinooks flew in to pick up bin Laden’s body, the raiders from the broken aircraft and the weapons, documents and other materials seized at the site.  The helicopters flew back to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, and the body was flown to a waiting Navy ship for bin Laden’s burial at sea, ensuring no shrine would spring up around his grave.

"When the SEAL team met President Obama, he did not ask who shot bin Laden. He simply thanked each member of the team, two officials said.  In a few weeks, the team that killed bin Laden will go back to training, and in a couple months, back to work overseas."

Tribute to My Dad

Today's post is dedicated to my Dad, Roy Isenberg, whose birthday is today!  Happy Birthday Dad!!


I was trying to search for the quote in the mission statement of my blog, "My duty as child is stand on my father's shoulders and see more than he did".  I had originally found the quote about ten years ago when I was doing an assignment for a creative writing class in high school.  I then used the quote on the cover of my anthology of works for the class.  I finally found a source for it at this google search.  As reported by the Jewish Agency for Israel, apparently a philanthropist, Sam Reisman, was speaking in front of a conference for the North American Leaders Camping Assembly.


In my search, I also came across a portion of a book, Lovology, written by Ken Lewis.  I don't know if I support Lewis's other views, as he appears to be a minister of some sort, but I really like this excerpt that I read:


Standing on Our Father's Shoulders


"As little children, we were, at times, afforded the opportunity to view the world from the vantage point of standing on our father's shoulders.  As we grew older we became heavier to hold.  And in time, we chose to stand firmly on the ground on our own two feet and experience the world from our own individual perspectives.


"Likewise, our fathers and others who have come before us have assisted us in gaining understanding of the material, mental, and spiritual worlds around us.  They have shared their own individual and collective perspectives on these matters with us.  Many of these perspectives have been handed down from one generation to the next.  And many ties they have been accepted by the next generation without much questioning or soul-searching.


"When our fathers held us, as little children, on their shoulders, it was so that we might see the possibility that many new horizons exist out there for us to explore.  They held us high on their shoulders, and they held us high with their teachings.  We were held high so that we might choose to go forth with eagerness and the anticipation of finding something new.  We were held high to help create in us the desire to ultimately gain our own individual and collective awareness of the living world around us today.


"It is safe to say that anyone reading this did long ago climb down from his or her father's physical shoulders.  You climbed down because even though he may have held you high, he still held you. Your urge was to be set free and explore the world for yourself.  You now move around experiencing the world as only you can see it.


.....


"If this young man goes forth into the world accepting the fact that he is responsible for his own life and the fact that his thoughts, words, and actions do, in fact, influence others in so many, many unseen ways, then he could create or manifest the desires of his heart.  And others who may choose to follow his example could find their lives filled with hope, fulfillment, love, and unity.


"If this young man chooses the responsible path, then some of his current friends and peers may at first feel intimidated by his evolving presence.  Yet as he grows and evolves with this new, responsible awareness, these people will see him with new eyes of respect, admiration, and ultimately, love.  And he may even lead countless generations into prosperity." - August 3, 2003


I wouldn't be where I am today without you, Dad.  I hope you have a good birthday even though I'm not there to celebrate with you.


-Jer

List of 2011 Movies I'm Excited About

I've been getting a little excited as I keep seeing so many good trailers out there, so here's a list of movies I'm excited about coming out in 2011.  


The ones in bold I definitely want to see while they're still in theaters/cinemas.  I've linked the titles to trailers either thru Apple or IMDB.


For entertainment value (action and comedy):

1. Thor - already out; comic book blockbuster
2. Sucker Punch - already out; bunch of hot girls in a hybrid of Kill Bill and The Watchmen
3. Hangover 2 - May 26; sequel to a hilarious comedy
4. X-Men: First Class - June 3; comic book blockbuster
5. Trollhunter  - June 10; pseudo documentary about troll hunters, visual effects look awesome
6. Green Lantern - June 17; comic book blockbuster
7. Harry Potter 7, Part 2 - July 15; the finale to harry potter series
8. Cowboys vs. Aliens - July 29; harrison ford + daniel craig + olivia wilde, cowboys defend earth from alien takeover
9. Rise of the Planet of the Apes - Aug 5; prequel plot to planet of the apes
10. Colombiana - Sep 2; zoe saldana plays an assassin
11. Real Steel - Oct 7; hugh jackman and boxing robots
12. Immortals - Nov 11; basically the movie "300" with mickey rourke and magic

For high-quality-film value (drama):

1. The Lincoln Lawyer - already out; great cast led by mcconaughey
2. Source Code - already out; action thriller with jake gyllenhaal, critically acclaimed
3. The Tree of Life - May 27; "seeking answers to the origins and meaning of life while questioning the existence of faith"
4. Beautiful Boy - June 3; about the parents of a boy who committed mass murder
5. Super 8 - June 10; spielberg and jj abrams do a sci-fi thriller 
6. The Devil's Double - July 29; the body double for saddam hussein's son
7. The Whistleblower - Aug 5; Rachel Weisz outs UN in sex scandal 
8. Circumstance - Aug 19; lesbian girls in Iran
9. The Debt - Aug 31; great cast, three former mossad assassins relive their past
10. Anonymous - Sept 30; was it really Shakespeare who wrote all those plays?
11. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - Dec 21; David Fincher directs Daniel Craig and great cast in very, very dark film based off a book

2011 Has Been A Crazy Year

It seems like this year has been packed full of craziness around the world.  So I felt like chronicling some major events, especially US issues, to put it all in perspective. By the way, I'm sure I'm missing some so let me know if I should add something!






December 2010 thru January 2011 - Australia - Floods estimated damage at $1 billion.  Three quarters of the state of Queensland (size of Texas) was disaster zone. 

- January -

12th - US - Tucson, Arizona shooting where US Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was critically shot in the head.  This tragedy shocked the nation.  The President gave an amazing speech a couple days following.  Giffords is still undergoing rehabilitation in Texas.


14th-ish - Arab Spring I -  Revolution in Tunisia where their dictator eventually fled to Saudi Arabia after several days of riots and uprising. Beginning of the "Arab Spring" or "Jasmine Revolution" where peoples in the Arab world showed (and still showing) the rest of us their thirst for democracy by standing up to their dictators and monarchs.   


9th thru 15th - Sudan - A referendum was passed, establishing southern Sudanese independence from the north, which concluded after a week of voting.  This was an unusual, peaceful change in Africa, possibly because Sudan had the whole world's attention (at the time of transition and voting).  A new country will be formed in July of this year.


25th thru Feb 11th - Arab Spring II - Weeks of uprisings and international diplomacy in Egypt which led to revolution and regime change.  The domino effect really began taking off around this point with major democratic protests and uprisings in Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, Iran, and Jordan.  

- February -

14th - US - Dispute and protests between government unions and governor Scott Walker over the Wisconsin state budget allocations.  The primary issue of contention was the stripping of collective bargaining rights from the unions.


22nd - New Zealand - 6.3 earthquake hit Christchurch (2nd one in the last year).  Over a hundred people killed and city infrastructure was devastated.

- March -

11th - Japan - Triple-headed natural disaster of earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear reactor.  A 9.0 magnitude earthquake occurred about 75km off the northeast coast, sending large tsunamis to Japans shores.  The earthquake and flooding from the tsunami disabled safety mechanisms at the Fukushima nuclear plant.  Fukushima's 6 reactors leaked radiation for weeks and this nuclear accident is being considered the worst since Chernobyl.


17th thru 19th - Arab Spring III - Allied forces began enforcing no-fly zone over Libya after Security Council resolution was passed.  It was led by the US, France, and the UK and now NATO is running the operation.  Libya is now in a state of civil war.

- April -

11th - Ivory Coast - Former president Laurent Gbagbo arrested after the crisis where Gbagbo refused to step down after free elections ousted him nearly 6 months before.  Internationally legitimized president Ouattara takes power.


27th - Alabama - Tornadoes kill hundreds of people.  Here's a crazy video of an F4 that rolled through Tuscaloosa.


29th - UK - Royal Wedding between Prince William and Kate (Catherine) Middleton.  Thought to be one of the most watched (2 billion guessed) and anticipated events of all time.

- May -

1st/2nd - US/Pakistan - US Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden during a raid on his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.  Obama made a really good speech as hundreds of students were celebrating outside the White house.  Aftermath involves several issues: narrative by Washington from the details of the raid - bin Laden not armed, no woman as human shield, Navy SEALs kill due to threat - to releasing proof to the public; Pakistan dealing with embarrassing questions - incompetence or complicity - and heavy internal and external criticism for sole-US operation; domestic debate over torture and Patriot act; questions of legality of killing; and public divided over morality of celebrating a human death.


Late April to now - US - Flooding of the Mississippi River and its tributaries, affecting several states.  Worst flooding in nearly a century after a winter with huge snowfall and several storms leading up to it.


22nd - Missouri - Tornado killed over 100 in Joplin.

- Ongoing - 

Syria - Uprisings are still receiving international attention - in spite of the regime banning foreign journalists - in the midst of the regime's crackdown while violence and death ensue.  


Mexico - heightened violence along US-Mexican border over last year in the "war on drugs".


Libyan civil war; War in Afghanistan; Iraq insurgency; Charles Taylor trial at the Hague

"First Reports Are Always Wrong"

NY Times

The Times provides some insight over the changing story about the raid of Osama bin Laden's compound.  Former Pentagon official Victoria Clarke commented that, "First reports are always wrong -- it's a fundamental truth in military affairs," which seems to be emblematic of the evolution of the bin Laden story.  There are details being changed, construing a very smudged illustration of the raid.  This then fosters huge doubts on the legitimacy of the story.  What's just important as killing bin Laden?  Actually shaping the narrative following his death.


The Times points out that a "shifting narrative distracts from the accomplishments of the SEAL team."  There have been two major gaffs in the narrative.  One was the assertion that a woman was used as a human shield.  This has been walked back by the administration.  The other was that bin Laden was killed during the firefight, leaving us to assume he was armed.  It later came out that he was unarmed.  Both may be honest mistakes, and the product of an excited administration anxious to get out info to the press; nevertheless, intentions have less weight than actions in the court of public opinion.


Killing bin Laden has not eliminated the problems he poses the US.  We battled bin Laden as a person which is only one part of the war because it's equally important to battle bin Laden as a symbol.  This whole other battlefront is what is at stake in the narrative following his death.  Bin Laden's death may symbolize that of a resolute freedom fighter now become a tragic martyr. On the other hand, his death may symbolize the demise of a catalyst for terror.


I'm not a fan of propagandists and that's what the Whitehouse looks like right now, but Americans like me aren't the ones the Whitehouse should be worried about deceiving.  Liberal and moderate Muslims are the most impacted by this information.  I might get disgusted, but I'm still gonna support America; whereas, they will be less inclined to forgive.  If the world gets disgusted like they did at the Iraq invasion, then, in short, we're shooting ourselves in the foot in foreign policy.  The world also stopped trusting us after we went into Iraq and said 'trust us - we know what we're doing'.  We should not recast America as the world's bully.


The SEAL team just got back stateside so I hope more accurate information will be coming from their debriefs.  The President's quote about "not spiking the football" by withholding pictures has stuck in my mind because it seems his administration is fumbling the ball all over the place.  

Guardian

This chronicle by the Guardian on Tuesday is a pretty good account of the events leading up to, during, and after the operation where Osama bin Laden was killed.  It talks of details I haven't yet seen elsewhere.  


For instance it states that Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, was heading the assault operation.  An intelligence chief heading an operation of Navy SEAL Team Six, a military unit, is rather unknown to me.  I've heard of ex-pats running missions for the CIA but never them having effective control over active military operations.  The photos released of Obama, Biden, Clinton, and others watching the operation intently may have been at Langley - not the Pentagon or Whitehouse.


Obama gave the green light Friday April 29th for the operation.  The assault was planned for Saturday but apparently bad weather forced a delay of the go-ahead.  Then on Sunday, the President interrupted a round of golf to return to the Whitehouse to prepare for the operation.


It also states that a rocket-propelled grenade was fired upon the stealth helicopters on approaching the compound.  This has not been reported anywhere else.  Then, one of the MH-60 Black Hawks went down after stalling but the pilot was able to bring it down safely.  His body was then taken to the US aircraft carrier Carl Vinson in the Arabian Gulf.


Pakistani officials and its spy agency have stated it had no knowledge of the operation; however, the Guardian article casts doubt on this: "some reports on the strike, sourced in Washington, suggest the Seals took off from Ghazi airforce base at nearby Tarbela Dam. If true, that suggests a convenient contrivance so that Pakistan could avoid ownership of an operation certain to rankle with the notoriously anti-American public."

Other noteworthy reports

The original estimated value of the compound bin Laden was killed in was $1 million.  Yet, this is now in question.  It seems the compound may only be half that estimated value.  This detail was important because most people had imagined bin Laden was hiding in some cave.  So the stark contrast of finding him living a comfortable life was very enlightening and also embarrassing for Pakistan.  More importantly, it would be another detail fumbled by the administration.


This AP article tells us the identity of the courier who became the crux of the manhunt -- Sheikh Abu Ahmed, a Pakistani man born in Kuwait.  He was supposedly killed in the firefight.


The numbers of the SEAL team vary anywhere between 12 and 80, also apparently included a dog.  Varying estimates are interesting because it relates to how many helicopters there were and address why the team couldn't take other bodies such as bin Laden's son.  Also one chopper went down which limited how much they retrieved.  I don't know about other people, but when I pictured a covert team of Navy SEALs  raiding the compound, I imagined 15 to 25 soldiers.  


I also loved this Times story because my old dog, Maggy (just died last week), was mostly Malinois - one of the likely breeds of dog used in the raid.  The article said those breeds “have the best overall combination of keen sense of smell, endurance, speed, strength, courage, intelligence and adaptability to almost any climatic condition."  Sounds like good ol' Maggy to me!

What's done is done

The Obama administration is saying we shouldn't be 'spiking the football' because releasing pictures of bin Laden's dead body will catalyze more violence against Americans and the US.  This is a serious argument and definitely one worth considering, because the last thing we want to do is endanger more American civilian and military lives.  Their reasoning centers around the belief that less violence will come from withholding the pictures.


Rick Nelson provides supporting thoughts the administration's decision.  I think his most legitimate point against releasing the photos is, "The Obama administration's counterterrorism strategy relies on engaging the vast majority of Muslims who do not support extremist violence. Muslim anger at the U.S. would have weakened this strategy."  This is a valid concern in releasing the pictures because we might lose moderates.  However, as I said yesterday, we appealed to this base by dealing with his body in accordance with Islamic traditions.  And we arguably did moderate Muslims a favor by silencing an extremist voice which was doing irreparable harm to the image of Islam.  


If moderate Arabs are pissed at us right now, then it's likely because they want us to stop backing the dictators and monarchs who have been oppressing them.  Yet, I don't see that element of foreign policy changing to suit moderates.


Bin Laden's body was identified at several stages.  First, at the compound, the SEALs used photo analysis technology to confirm what was left of the man's face was Geronimo.  They also used genetic kinship analysis, DNA testing which provides "near 100 percent certainty".  At the compound, apparently a woman believed to be bin Laden's wife confirmed it was him.  Although, I don't really see how bin Laden's wife would provide trustworthy information.  If anything, she would be motivated to lie and hide that her husband was really hiding somewhere else.  It's unlikely the DNA results will be released if the pictures aren't going to be released; nevertheless, I think it would be very strong evidence to release to the public.


William Bennett at CNN argues against Nelson in favor of releasing the pictures. I found his rebuttal to the administration's argument quite convincing, especially: "What inspires jihadist attacks against Americans and non-Islamists are speeches by the pope, cartoons, documentaries, nuns walking down the streets of Africa and almost every other exercise of human and civil rights."  Killing them doesn't make them hate us; on the contrary, exemplifying everything they hate -- pluralism, women's rights, US boots on Arab soil, girls in schools, backers of dictators, etc... -- makes them hate us.  Bennett goes on, "It is, after all, our very existence that troubles our enemies, not the specifics of our actions -- those serve only as an excuse."


Has the administration considered that providing a graphic image of the jihadist hero's death may actually do damage to bin Laden's mythical influence?  I would imagine that a hero is best remembered for his rise to grace - not his fall from it.  If we denigrate their mythical leader who has evaded capture for years, then maybe it will foster doubts in fighting their cause.  Jihadism has much more to gain from fueling ideas that bin Laden is still alive than saying he is dead.  If we released the pictures, I would be willing to bet the jihadist leaders actually prohibit viewing the images which reveal the mortality and fallibility of their mythical leader.  


What are the pictures the mujahadeen and Islamic extremists are using right now to inspire mass-murder of innocent lives?  I've never been in a madrassa or a terrorist training camp but I'm gonna guess, if they use pictures, they have a giant portrait of Osama bin Laden posing in some defiant-looking fashion.  Maybe he's holding a gun or looking off into the distance, epitomizing the mystique bequeathed to a staunch leader.  I bet an image of the twin towers falling to the ground is inspirational too.  They're also using pictures from Abu Grahib and Guantanamo Bay where we tortured (and are still holding) their brethren.  They've probably been circulating pictures of children mutilated by drone attacks around Muslim communities as well.  They already have plenty of inflammatory anti-American material.  


It's also immensely ironic that the administration's position on the pictures completely contradicts its position on closing the Guantanamo Bay prison.  President Obama stated during his presidential campaign that Gitmo was one of the biggest incitement tools the terrorists groups use.  He is right.  Yet, we won't close down the prison to stop inciting more violence.  (I know the administration sought closing it a while back which prompted Congress to pass legislation prohibiting the Gitmo prisoners being moved to American soil.  But, Obama expended very little political capital fighting this so culpability lies with both branches of gov't.)


Going from here, the Obama administration won't go back on their decision in the short-term, but I'm still guessing that the photos will be "leaked" at some point down the road.  Eventually proof will need to be given.  I hope they do it in the next few months before the 2012 race gets heated, because then it will be viewed as a political move.  Maybe they should just release the details of the DNA testing since it doesn't perpetuate the feared disadvantages of releasing pictures.


We've already done the deed which would provoke retaliation: we killed bin Laden.  Regardless if we release a picture proving it, there won't be any less violence because they're still going to want retribution.  

AC360 - No Pics - AG's Statement on Legality

Hooray Anderson!


Anderson Cooper made several good comments in his nightly program, Anderson Cooper 360.  I especially liked his reference to the burial at sea of Bin Laden's body: "The message it sends is that we are a country that does not drag the bodies of our enemies through the streets. We do not behead them for the entertainment of others. We do not mutilate their corpses."  We still honored Islamic traditions of our mortal enemy and it shows that we uphold some moral higher ground.  For this, I applaud the Whitehouse.


No photos?


A new development has been the decision by the Whitehouse to withhold the photos of bin Laden's body.  Of course, there has been and will be debate over this decision as it is a very controversial decision.  We did send in a team of Navy SEALs instead of bombing the compound with a drone.  One of the virtues of a special forces operation was to make sure we were killing bin Laden by being able to identify the body.  If we blew him up, then it would have been unlikely we would have been able to identify him.  


Okay the argument goes that releasing graphic photos of his dead body will fuel hatred and incite more violence from terrorists.  This may be true, but couldn't there also be the SAME active harm in not releasing the photo.  Aren't the conspiracy theories and speculation more dangerous than any possible reality drawn from his death?  They're going to worship their own fictional imagination of a man standing defiantly against their sworn enemy.  Wouldn't it be destructive to their ideology to tell them their hero died swiftly and, most importantly without dignity?  


We've countered the possible claims of disrespect toward Islam by burying him according to their traditions, so the worst case scenario is that we lose the extremists.  If we don't provide substantial proof, then we lose the extremists AND some of the moderates.  I am completely puzzled by this administration's rationale in handling the "proof" of bin Laden's death.  


Maybe this is a stretch, but I find this concealing of evidence reminiscent of the "birther" controversy.  Although I never personally doubted the President's citizenship, there were still people out there who wanted an unreasonable amount of proof dispelling speculation.  I didn't need to see the birth certificate, but other people did.  I would also add that propaganda has slightly more influence in the Middle East, so fanatical doubters are going to have a more eager and vast audience.  So why are they using the logic that Islamic extremists are more rational than "birthers"?


I understand that for most people, just saying 'trust us' is enough; however, no amount of evidence will be satisfactory for some people.  Will they release some DNA evidence?  Are they planning to have the pictures deliberately "leaked" at some point to sidestep accusations of grandstanding?


Legalism


Also Attorney General Eric Holder has been saying (same Reuters article and said yesterday according to other sources) that the actions of the SEAL team in killing bin Laden were legal.  The messages coming from the Whitehouse are still clinging to the idea that this was a "kill or capture" operation.  If it was a "kill and capture" operation, then that violates international law, but until that is proven, I won't address it further than my last blog post did.  


I want to first be clear: if the mission was "kill or capture", and if the SEAL team encountered a threat from bin Laden at the moment of his killing, then I fully support their right to kill him.  If the eventuality comes to fruition which proves these two conditions true, then I support, and have no objections to the operation or its consequences.


For all I know, he may have had a bomb strapped to his chest, putting the lives of the whole SEAL team at risk.  I would expect they have a no-tolerance rule for surprises and preempt any potential threat, and worry about legality later.  In an intense situation like a firefight, it is probably better to err on the side of caution.  Nonetheless, I am simply speculating in the case where "threatening moves" did not actually happen.


Holder has said, "If [bin Laden] had surrendered, attempted to surrender, I think we should obviously have accepted that, but there was no indication that he wanted to do that and therefore his killing was appropriate."  Now, this is ridiculous in my eyes.  Yes, if he had surrendered, minding international law, we shouldn't have killed him.  But Holder is addressing the legality of US actions in the arrests of terrorists who do not surrender.


Let's examine the implications here: if an unarmed man presenting no threat and does not physically and verbally surrender, then the consequence is shooting him.  The logic would then follow that anyone resisting arrest, by-and-large refusing to surrender, should also be shot and killed.  I do have objections to this.


How many arrests do you think happen where the suspect goes willingly?  I would guess a large amount of them refuse, but from what I understand that just means the enforcement agents are entitled to use force in order to capture them.  Imagine a scenario where some Average Joe is suspected of some serious crime like rape or kidnapping.  The police/FBI then go to arrest average Joe at his workplace and confront him in his office saying, "you are under arrest, please come with us," or something like that.  Knowing he is probably going to prison for a long time, Joe refuses to leave his office and go with the policeman.  He starts throwing stuff off his desk, hitting an officer with a stapler and yelling quite belligerently.  So clearly he does not want to be taken into custody -- is the only option left to kill him?  


NOW I know average Joe is amazingly different from the most wanted terrorist in the world and there are a myriad of other differences but this still paints a good picture in principle: all humans are entitled to basic human rights/freedoms such as due process and presumption of innocence.  Additionally, we cannot expect other nations to abide by rules we insist on breaking.  I know such freedoms can technically be suspended under looming Security Council resolutions and the Patriot Act in the US; however, denial of said freedoms have misdirected our moral compass.


Back to Holder's comment, he is presuming that by refusing to surrender, the only option the SEALs had to get him was to kill him.  They couldn't knock him unconscious?  They couldn't drag him out of that compound kicking and screaming?  They couldn't even shoot out his knee caps, crippling him and rendering him a non-threat?  The concepts behind "are you going to go quietly(?)" and arresting someone "the easy way or the hard way" were thrown out the door because the only acceptable answer was "yes I'll go quietly - I'm gonna make this easy for you".


What I learned from Holder: if you are ever told to "cease and desist" by law enforcement agents arresting you, then you better cooperate because the only remaining remedy is to end your life.  I truly doubt that is what he meant and I hope he clarifies his position.

Counterterrorism and Foreign Policy Changes in bin Laden Aftermath

As expected, the killing of bin Laden is still a hot topic as more details come forward.  There are many issues worth discussing including the intelligence operations of CIA and foreign policy implications for Pakistan and Middle East.


Update on previous post:


I mentioned before how I have been suspicious of the way he died.  For years, starting with Bush II, we stated publicly that we had a "dead or alive" policy for the manhunt of bin Laden. The CIA Director has stated that bin Laden would have been captured if he surrendered and was not a threat.  Killing him in cold blood is not justice - disgracing him by hauling him off to face the music of the US courts may have been the better path to justice.  I don't want to assume they had the luxury to do so, but until we get more info, we won't know for sure.  There are also concerns in Europe that US may have been "wrong to act as policeman, judge and executioner.  Based on the current details, it is feasible that this operation was conducted with a "dead or dead" policy, meaning that regardless of an option do a live-capture we were going to kill him.

CIA Ops:

We can talk about the timing - whether the operation to kill Osama bin Laden was politically motivated - and speculate on the current information we're being given about the intelligence trail.  Bin Laden's death comes 6 months before the 10 year anniversary of September 11th, which is when al Qaeda got the world's attention and Bin Laden vaulted to the most wanted man in the world.  al Qaeda had been involved in terrorist plots before such as the  bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.  ("The Looming Tower" has great insight of the al Qaeda roadmap to 9/11 and of bin Laden himself)  

So it's been to my wonder how it could take so long for the most advanced and powerful military in the history of the world, coupled with the full breadth of a massive intelligence web with unprecedented resources, could not find one man. Now, I know that I can't fully grasp the difficulty of finding bin Laden, but honestly given the resources of the US Government and the power it yields, what should my expectations have been?  Supposedly, we almost killed him in Pakistan only a couple weeks after 9/11, and if we had killed him, then that would have probably surpassed my expectations.

Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, has been making appearances on show after show, seemingly touting the operation as an intelligence success. The intelligence trail apparently goes back a couple years to interrogations of detainees at Gitmo.  It was first gathered there the name of bin Laden's courier - basically his connection to the outside world.  In August 2010, the CIA found the courier who had made a call on his cell phone to someone else already being wiretapped.  However, no intelligence ever surfaced, at least none presented to the public, that bin Laden was seen at the compound.  This means the President took a gamble based on the CIA guessing right.  As far as I know, there's been no published work on the CIA's incorrect guesses to bin Laden's location, so I'm really sure how to judge the success rate of intelligence on this one.

Now, I do not think this justifies any kind of torture at Gitmo.  Apparently the profile of the courier became more prominent once Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a Gitmo detainee and mastermind of 9/11 attacks, was questioned about the role of the courier in al Qaeda.  KSM seemed to protect the courier's identity, saying the courier knew nothing and was insignificant, and the CIA interpreted this to mean the courier was important.  I think that torture is, unconditionally, a violation of human rights and is additionally viewed so by international law.  Right now, it's unclear which methods were used to get this information.  

Further implications:

This article by Michael Ware, who used to be one of my favorite journalists before he stepped out of the spotlight on IR by resigning from CNN, talks about some pretty interesting things.  The best point was: "Make no mistake, his slaying is without a doubt a heavy symbolic body blow to the al-Qa'ida organization. But when it comes to its ability to continue waging its campaign of attacks and terror that's all it promises to be. Symbolic."

The operation will also greatly affect relations with Pakistan.  A Wall Street Journal article does a good job in discussing this.  We didn't tell Pakistani officials about the operation, which is very telling about our current relationship.  The US and Pakistan have been on especially rocky terms ever since the Raymond Davis incident earlier this year.  Their President Musharraf has exclaimed that this operation was a unilateral action violating Pakistan's sovereignty.  He is correct and I suspect that if the operation had resulted in the killing of an elite mullah instead of bin Laden, we would be discussing more problems for the US in terms of international law.  Also what would have happened if Pakistani forces also moved in on the compound after having noticed the helicopters flying in just a couple minutes away from a military school?

The questions Pakistan will be facing are going to be truly embarrassing and damaging - Are you too corrupt for the US to trust you in a joint operation? Did you have knowledge of bin Laden living in Pakistan, especially in a mansion so close to Islamabad and a military academy?  How did you not pick up helicopters in your airspace for hundreds of miles (both coming and going)?  The answers are going to either stem from incompetence or complicity, and they won't ever state publicly if they were complicit.  Pakistan is in a lose-lose situation.

Thomas Friedman hopes the death of bin Ladenism comes with the death of the man himself.  I completely agree with Friedman on his points.  Although it took so long to get him, bin Laden saw his claims that self-rule is only obtained thru murderous violence and digression to puritanical Islam.  Perhaps it is a sign that the "Arab spring" or "Arab awakening" and peaceful cries for democracy happened the same year as bin Laden's killing.  "We killed bin Laden with a bullet.  Now the Arab and Muslim people have a chance to do their part -- kill bin Ladenism with a ballot".  <<He's such a good writer!!