Antiwar.com Blog

Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere. Ha ha ha!

Or not.

Jacob Hornberger reminds us of the true nature of our unlimited republic:

“Zacarias Moussaoui’s guilty plea to terrorism charges in U.S. federal district court does not end the Pentagon’s threat that hangs over the head of every federal judge who has jurisdiction over an indicted terrorist defendant.

Moussaoui’s punishment must still be decided, either by a jury or by the judge if both Moussaoui and the government waive a jury. The problem is that the Pentagon and the Justice Department are still claiming the power to remove Moussaoui from the jurisdiction of the federal court and transfer him to the military for punishment, including execution. Don’t forget that that’s in fact what they’ve done to Jose Padilla and Ali al-Marri and that they are fighting for the power to do this to every other American citizen and every foreigner whom they suspect of being a terrorist.

Thus, if it looks like the jury or the judge might be unwilling to impose the death penalty on Moussaoui, the military might simply take the law into its own hands and do the dirty deed itself, transferring Moussaoui to Gitmo and executing him there, independent of any federal judicial interference.

That’s why the Moussaoui case — or more accurately, the Pentagon’s claim of power to punish Americans and others without due process of law — still presents the most ominous threat to the freedom of the American people in our lifetime.”

The funny part is that the feds have said before that they don’t even really believe he was meant to be the twentieth hijacker. That was Ramzi Binalshibh. As Seymour Hersh has written,

“The assumption of government bungling was predicated on the assumption that Moussaoui was indeed the twentieth hijacker. (There were five hijackers on each of the three planes that hit their targets, but only four on the flight that went down in Pennsylvania.) Moussaoui has said in federal court that he was a member of Al Qaeda, but he has denied any involvement in the hijackings. Many present and former F.B.I. and C.I.A. officials have told me that they believe he was “a wanna-be,” as one put it, and far too volatile and unstable to handle a long-term undercover terrorist operation. Nevertheless, they said, Moussaoui may have crucial knowledge about Al Qaeda.”

Oh, well. Close enough for an execution, right?
If you’re not a terrorist, you don’t have anything to worry about.

Re: Saudi Arabia, Chris Matthew Sciabarra asks,

Of what use is “democracy” when the dominant culture would bring about a political condition that might make the current Saudi regime appear “moderate” by comparison?

Good question, though not a new one for readers of Antiwar.com. The neocons’ democratization rhetoric plays well because it’s not a total falsehood. It’s a quarter-truth. It starts from the half-truth of equating democracy, the freedom to participate in a political system, with freedom generally. Then it halves that truth again by saying that everyone wants freedom. Well, sure – every person (with the exception of certain save-us-from-ourselves ninnies in post-liberal societies) wants freedom of thought and action for himself. This innate desire for personal license – which is easily hitched to authoritarianism – is obviously light years away from a commitment to “liberty for all.” The Puritans came to America, as Garrison Keillor once quipped, “in the hope of finding greater restrictions than were permissible under English law at that time.”* Massachusetts was to Puritans what Woodstock was to hippies: a place where all was permitted – all that they wanted to do, that is. Which was go to church every spare moment, stamp out heresy and secularism, drown witches, etc. Now imagine the Islamist equivalent of Salem, and you have a realistic picture of a democratic Saudi Arabia.

Even in the West, the development of (classical) liberalism took millennia, and despite its broad influence, most Westerners have never fully accepted it. Witness the general tolerance of (and even enthusiasm for) eminent domain laws, the War on Drugs, standing armies, state censorship, domestic spying, and in the not-too-distant past, slavery and conscription. Nonetheless, Americans rightly recoil at the tremendous repression in Saudi Arabia, but as a result, many fail to see the true nature of the popular discontent. What if the Saudi masses really don’t want their MTV, but the freedom to stone anyone who looks at the Koran sideways?

The standard critique of U.S.-Saudi relations from neocons, New Republic-style liberals, and true-blue libertarians is that U.S. support for the monarchy has made Saudi Arabia worse off. At the risk of being expelled from the whole debate, I disagree. Yes, the Saudi monarchs have built a police state to quash any challenge to their power, mostly from the Islamist extreme, but also from a handful of moderates. Still, the place could be in far worse hands. Saudi Arabia is actually a case where U.S. meddling may have made a country less illiberal than it would be otherwise. The salient question for Americans, however, is What has this meddling done for us? As the anti-Saudi crowd constantly reminds us, 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. What they conveniently ignore is that those guys weren’t pissed off at the U.S. because they loved the Saudi monarchy, but because they hated it and our coziness with it (and Israel).

Our two options for “dealing with” Saudi Arabia are, as I see them:

1) Don’t. Leave the godforsaken place alone. Don’t prop up the government, don’t knock it down. If the monarchy hangs on, maybe the moderates will slowly grow in strength and improve things. Maybe Saudi Arabia will stay stuck right where it is. Or maybe the hardcore Islamists will take over. At any rate, disaffected Saudis will have one less excuse to ram more planes into our buildings – and if they try, then maybe we could take that monster military of ours out of countries that never screwed with us and use it for a legitimate purpose.

2) Work to topple, overtly or covertly, the status quo in the fanciful hope that the handful of native liberals will fill the power vacuum before the horde of bin Ladenites do. Once this succeeds, establish oceanfront resort in Riyadh.

*Yes, yes, there were other reasons, too, including commerce. Spare me the pedantic e-mails. It’s called humor.

The Antiwar.com server will be down from 2 – 2:30 am EDT on Sunday. We apologise for any inconvience.

An interesting piece in Haaretz by Efraim Halevy, former chief of the Mossad and National Security advisor to Ariel Sharon, about the wonderful potential of American Empire in the Middle East:

“At present the United States is torn between the immediate need to ensure a safe flow of oil, while maintaining close ties with the existing government in Riyadh, and the fear that every day that passes without genuine reform in Saudi Arabia is not only bringing the fall of the House of Saud closer but is also heightening the danger that the new rulers will take an extremist approach to the “infidel” states of the West. Thousands of citizens from Western countries live in Saudi Arabia, in well-fortified compounds that protect their families. These extreme measures of protection reflect the constantly widening gulf between the local population and the foreign guests.

Few observers of the Middle East scene are actually taking a good hard look at the situation in Saudi Arabia and examining coolly the terrifying scenarios, one of which might ensue. Some believe that there is a real danger that extremist religious figures will seize power in Saudi Arabia and establish an “Al-Qaida state” in Riyadh. Others note that the national identification of large numbers of the country’s population with the Saudi entity is feeble and that their main attachment is tribal or local-regional. Thus, a revolutionary situation might cause the disintegration of the state and the creation of parallel regimes in various regions of the kingdom.

In a visit to the United States two weeks ago, I was told by several well-informed observers that should one of the more severe scenarios come to pass, the United States will have no choice but to deepen its presence in the Middle East. To that end, it will have to renew the draft, to ensure that there are enough forces to deal with developing situations in countries like Saudi Arabia.

Superpower in the `neighborhood’

From being a superpower that exerts a potent influence in the Middle East, the United States has become a player that is present in the region. Its pattern of activity in Iraq illustrates not only the determination of President Bush to act consistently to realize his policy in Baghdad. There is a good possibility that Iraq will not be the last country in the region that will require a lengthy American military presence. The U.S. campaign in Iraq was perceived as a signal of long-term American commitment to do whatever is required and to stay in the “neighborhood” for as long as needed. It was none other than Martin Indyk, the former U.S. ambassador to Israel, who not long ago raised the idea of establishing an American trusteeship regime in the areas of the Palestinian Authority, if it should turn out that the Palestinians are not ripe for self-rule. That arrangement would require an American operational military presence along Israel’s border with the Palestinian territories.

The shapers of the basic political approach of the Bush administration say that the United States plans “to be in the area” for as long as 10 years and more, if needed. Speaking in a semi-closed forum during a visit to Israel a few months ago, Bill Kristol, one of the most influential “neocons” (neoconservatives) in the United States, noted in this connection that the American presence in Europe after World War II lasted for nearly 60 years. Israelis who are trying to promote a role for NATO in the region, in one form or another, are actually promoting a generation-long American presence.”

Sounds great so far, what else?

“In the light of the accumulated weight of all the developments cited above, it is possible that the favorable surprise of the years ahead will be nothing less than the containment of Iran and the neutralization of the danger it poses to Israel – without Israel’s having to consider whether to cope alone in the face of what it justly construes as the potential of a genuine existential threat.”

Potential Existential Threats everywhere beware! The U.S. is on its way to protect Israel from you. At least until we go bankrupt.

Saturday on the Weekend Interview Show (4-6pm eastern time): In the first hour, the interview will be about something that has nothing to do with foreign policy or terrorism cases, but in the second hour, I’ll be interviewing survivor V.Z. Lawton about the real story of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building in 1995, and no, Laurie Mylroie, It wasn’t Saddam.

Update: Show’s over, Archives.