Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts

Monday, February 21, 2011

Libya: Not a Good Day for the Colonel

This has not been a good day for Libya's Colonel Muammar Abu Minyar al-Qadhafi.

Some of his air force pilots were told to bomb protesters. Two of them got in their jets, took off, dropped under Libyan radar, and headed for Malta. Looks like at least one of them asked for asylum there.

However that works out: two of Libya's military jets are now on the ground in Malta, along with their pilots. Killing protesters doesn't seem to be working as a way to win the minds and hearts of Libyans.

At least Qadhafi's isn't the only old-school regime that's unraveling: on the 'misery loves company' principle.

Qadhafi? Qaddafi? Gaddafi?

The Libyan colonel's name comes out in English as Qadhafi, Qaddafi, Gaddafi, by the way: and probably other ways as well. I've discussed what happens when words get transferred between languages that don't share the same writing system. (January 25, 2009) Even when both use a phonetic system, like Arabic and Latin alphabets, it's tricky - and that's another topic.

'Looks Good on Paper'

Libya is one of those countries whose government looks good on paper. How it's actually run - I'll get back to that.

Here's an excerpt from a backgrounder on what probably seemed like a good idea at the time:
"Libya

"background:

"The Italians supplanted the Ottoman Turks in the area around Tripoli in 1911 and did not relinquish their hold until 1943 when defeated in World War II. Libya then passed to UN administration and achieved independence in 1951. Following a 1969 military coup, Col. Muammar Abu Minyar al-QADHAFI began to espouse his own political system, the Third Universal Theory. The system is a combination of socialism and Islam derived in part from tribal practices and is supposed to be implemented by the Libyan people themselves in a unique form of "direct democracy." QADHAFI has always seen himself as a revolutionary and visionary leader....

"...conventional long form: Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

"conventional short form: Libya

"local long form: Al Jamahiriyah al Arabiyah al Libiyah ash Shabiyah al Ishtirakiyah al Uthma

"local short form: none

"Government type: Jamahiriya (a state of the masses) in theory, governed by the populace through local councils; in practice, an authoritarian state..."
("Libya," CIA World Factbook (last updated January 25, 2011))
I think one of the problems with governments whose leaders say they want to let 'the masses' lead - is that 'the masses' often don't agree with the leaders.

Back to what's happening in Libya.

Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya: Career Crises for Autocrats

The Libyan colonel may take some solace in the knowledge that he's not alone. Tunisia and Egypt's people have swapped out their leadership, and quite a number of other countries in that part of the world may be doing the same in short order.

Short-Term Outlook: Uncertain

In the short run, I'm a bit concerned about who's going to grab power in these previously-'stable' countries. Iran's ayatollahs may have some new friends soon. Or enemies. These self-styled defenders of Islam can't seem to agree on just what 'Islam' is supposed to be - and that's yet another topic.

I'd be mildly surprised if old-school socialist/Marxist/communist 'people's republics' came out of the mess. I could be wrong about this: but I think that too many folks in too many places have found out just what a 'workers paradise' was really like.

I'm pretty sure that there will be a few dedicated folks who won't give up on the idea of a Marxist/socialist/whatever state that works: just as I'm pretty sure that a few dedicated folks here in America will keep on assuming that 'the commies' are to blame what they don't like.

The rest of us, I think, have moved on.

Problem is, some folks have moved in the direction of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and like-minded outfits. And that isn't another topic.

For the next few years - maybe decades - I think there's a real chance that some bunch of self-assured fanatics will grab control of Libya, or another of the countries that's melting down today.

Long-Term Outlook: Even More Uncertain, As Usual

A few hundred years from now? I think there's a real chance that some of these countries will have found a way to pull their culture, tribal and national identities, and economies into the Information Age.

And by then, we'll all be dealing with some other set of troubles. No great surprise there: The one thing I'm fairly confident about is that change will continue to happen.

On the 'up' side, life probably won't get boring. Not any time soon.

Related posts:
In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Saturday, October 2, 2010

Guatemala, Dr. John Cutler, Tuskegee, Nürnberg, and Learning

I must be crazy: On the whole, I like living in America.

Despite the fact that this country systematically discriminates against my ancestors.

The Irish ones, anyway. Discriminates something fierce. Why, you'll see "Irish need not apply" signs in employers' windows!

Oh, wait: which century am I at?

The year is 2010. This is the 21st century. There's been an Irish president, for crying out loud. The Irish, by any sensible measure, are now accepted by America as a whole.

That's one reason why I like living in America: This country has a track record for learning from mistakes. Eventually. It took a major war to sort out the slavery issue - and the War Between the States involved other issues, too. That's another topic.

Guatemala, STD Experiments

Disgusting medical experiments conducted in Guatemala by Americans have been in the news. The experiments were criminal by today's standards.

Seriously: What was done by the Venereal Disease Research Laboratory of the Public Health Service was not good. It was bad. It was wrong.

An excerpt from yesterday's news:
"PAHO Statement on STI Experiments in Guatemala"
PharmaPro (October 1, 2010)

"1 October 2010. We have just listened to a press briefing by Dr. Francis Collins, Director of NIH, who discussed experiments in Guatemala in the 1940s, in which prisoners and other vulnerable groups were intentionally infected with sexually transmitted diseases. Dr. Collins said these experiments were 'deeply disturbing' and 'reprehensible,' and we agree. We join the US Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of State in deploring these experiments.

"This research was conducted by the Venereal Disease Research Laboratory of the Public Health Service and venereal disease experts from Guatemala, with funds given to the Pan American Sanitary Bureau (PAHO's precursor) by the U.S. Institutes of Health, and with some cooperation by Guatemalan authorities. Dr. John Cutler, who conducted these experiments and worked on the infamous Tuskegee experiments, was then a Public Health Service medical officer.

"We are just learning details of these experiments, and the US Institute of Medicine is now conducting an investigation.

"The Organization has established strong ethical standards for research it sponsors or is associated with to prevent such abuses for many years now...."
What that agency of the American government did in Guatemala was bad. It was not good. It was wrong. They shouldn't have done it.

Those experiments occurred in the 1940s.

Now that an official (and long-overdue) apology has been made, my guess is that the appalling lapse in ethics will be discussed in news media - and may be added to the litany of American offenses taught in American schools.

America is Not Perfect

Make no mistake: bad things have been done in America. Sometimes by the American government.

I'm glad that systematic treaty violations of the 19th century are being sorted out in American courts: but those agreements with the first nations on this continent should not have been broken in the first place.

I do not approve of the way that the government of Hawaii was overthrown and the territory taken.

And I'm not all that crazy about some of what's being done in today's America.

Still, I'd rather live here, than any other place in the world. That's not the knee-jerk emotional reaction of a chauvinist. I have, from time to time, over the decades, been so fed up with what was happening in this country that I started looking around for someplace to go.

I discovered that there wasn't a country around, for example, that provided the kind of safeguards for its citizens' rights that I enjoyed here. Perfect safeguards, no: generally adequate, yes. There's more - but the point is that I chose to stay: after looking at the alternatives.

I'm not the only one who likes it here. One of the major issues these days is how to deal with folks who are in this country illegally. On the whole, I think it's prudent to follow the rules of a country you're emigrating to - but I think it says something for America that we're one of the places people try to break into.

America Learns

About that "litany of American offenses taught in American schools" I mentioned earlier: I think that the American educational system is overly-enthusiastic in portraying America as a cesspool of racist, sexist, homophobic bigots out to destroy the environment and rip crumbs from the bleeding lips of the oppressed.

That said, I also think it's a good idea to make sure that each new generation knows about what went wrong before. And what went right.

Both are important.

Knowing what worked in the past may keep folks from reinventing the wheel - and crying out for some new law, when there's a neglected one on the books that needs to be enforced. And that's yet another topic.

Knowing what America has done wrong might keep this country from making a similar mistake again. I can't prove it, but I think that one reason we don't have concentration camps for Muslims in this country is that the American government (finally) acknowledged that locking up Japanese-Americans was a bad idea.

There are other ways of running a country - which is why I don't plan to move.

Turkey, for example, seems to be trying to cover up atrocities committed by the Ottoman Empire. Which strikes me as silly, considering that the current government was set up by folks who overthrew the Ottoman Empire. And yes, that's an oversimplification.

Japan is doing a little better: but there's an effort by some folks in that country to rewrite the history of WWII - without the details they don't like.

I sympathize with folks who don't like some parts of their country's history. As I wrote, I'm not at all crazy about some things that America has done. But I think it's vital to remember errors: so that we will learn, and not repeat them.

I think it's important to remember triumphs, too: like the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and the repeal of the 18th Amendment. Not to maintain a puffed-up jingoistic pride: but to remember why it's important to not repeat errors.

America's a great place to live, we've got a lot to lose: and if we don't keep learning we may do just that.

Related posts:In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Zelaya, Honduras, and History

This post is a bit off-topic for this blog, but please bear with me.

Jose Manuel Zelaya was president of Honduras until a military coup ousted him recently. Honduras has a new president now, selected by the Honduran Congress. Roberto Micheletti has been sworn in as the provisional president of Honduras.

I haven't been following the Zelaya administration at all closely, but I gather that

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez wants Zelaya back in power. No surprises there, Chavez and Zelaya are on the same page, politically.

The United Nations unanimously resolved that they want Zelaya running Honduras. The resolution isn't so surprising to me, but the unanimity seems a little out of character for the U.N.

American President Barack Obama said:
"... President Obama on Monday called the turmoil in Honduras a step backward from the 'enormous progress of the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions in Latin America.'

" 'We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras,' Obama said...." (CNN)
For a leader who has been accused of allowing tons of cocaine to go through Honduras on its way to America, Mr. Zelaya is quite popular. Granted, that cocaine accusation was made by the people who ousted him.

The cocaine charge isn't as wild as it may sound. Mr. Zelaya apparently asked the United States to legalize cocaine last year - apparently to reduce the murder rate in Honduras. (La Prensa - my Spanish isn't all that good, so I may have missed something.)

Jose Manuel Zelaya Liked Being President

What may actually have triggered Zelaya's ouster was his enthusiasm for being president. The Honduran constitution includes term limits for the president. Zelaya was elected in 2006, for a four-year term. Under the present constitution, in 2010 Honduras would elect a new president.

Zelaya didn't like that, and tried to push a new and (by his standards) improved constitution through. (Latin American Herald Tribune)

The Honduran congress rejected Zelaya's constitution, and placed limits on executive power in Honduras. (Daily Focus blog, A.Q.) Somewhere after that, the coup happened and Congress selected a provisional president, Roberto Micheletti.

Why the Enthusiasm for Zelaya?

It's hardly surprising that the leader of a small country who likes being in charge, and wants America to legalize cocaine has some support. Some might see him as an underdog, either upholding the position of Honduras as a transshipment point for drugs, or protecting his people from American drug crimes. Others might simply think that anyone who wants to legalize cocaine is groovy.

But when Chavez, Obama, and the entire United Nations want Zelaya back in power, there almost has to be something else going on.

Setting the lizard people and other conspiracy theories aside, I think there may be a fairly reasonable - if perhaps misguided - motive behind support for Zelaya.

The key, I think, are in four phrases used by President Obama:
  • Step backward
  • Enormous progress
  • Democratic traditions
  • Latin America
I remember the days when a comedian could refer to some Latin American country as a place where they change their government about as often as they change their underwear. Even then, that was an exaggeration, but Latin American countries had earned the reputation for lively politics: whose debates were often conducted with machine guns.

That was then. There really has, I think, been a change in the political climate of Latin America. Those news items of a former presidente committing suicide (officially) as another junta's troops move in aren't routine any more.

World leaders tend to be at least as old as I am. Maybe they remember the 'good old days,' too. They may believe that it's better to have a groovy president with a taste for power running Honduras, than return to the days of juntas and coups.

This is Not a Political Blog

This is another post where I have to point out that this is not a political blog. I don't want President Obama to succeed because he's a democrat, or fail because he's not a Republican, or Libertarian, or whatever.

If you've been following this blog, you know that I had lively apprehensions about what sort of president Barack Obama the candidate would be. He's proven to be much more practical than I'd feared: as I've written quite often, "it's different, when you're in charge."

That's not to say that I am for Barack Obama. I'm not against him, either. What I am for is the American way of running a country: which includes a degree of freedom which is, in my view, both precious and rare.

A phrase which dropped out of favor during one of my terms in college is "rule of law." From the time that a Babylonian ruler had laws literally carved in stone and put on public display to this hour, I think societies have fared better when there were laws that were both reasonable and enforced.

Taking that view, I must concede that Zilaya's ouster may, in fact, have been illegal. In which case he should, by law, be reinstated as president.

However, if his ouster was illegal, and if he becomes the Honduran president again, I think it would be well for his current supporters to keep an eye on him. From an American point of view, laws apply to those in authority as well as those who are not.

Which brings up the perennial scandals in office, which I think demonstrate not so much the shortcomings of law as the imperfections of humanity.

Vaguely related posts: News and views:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Friday, June 12, 2009

Using a Kid to Bomb a Mosque: Non-Western Cultural Values, Just Plain Evil, or Something Else?

If I read the score right, three people in al-Shawaf Mosque in Baghdad were killed, and a dozen injured, when a 15-year-old kid threw a grenade. The kid also killed others, including an Iraqi parliament member.

The kid exchanged fire with guards at the mosque, and was killed.

Using Kids as cast Cat's-Paws: Evil, or a Non-Western Value System?

One thing I learned in college was that to fit into the more 'sophisticated' circles, it was necessary to recognize all cultures as being of equal value, with non-western cultures being more equal. Criticism of non-western cultures, unless it was on the basis of environmental impact, saving the whales, or some other worthy topic, marked one as a pariah. Not everybody on all campuses had quite that 'enlightened' a view of reality, but it was not at all uncommon, either.

People steeped in the Eurocentric, male-dominated, traditional American culture might regard using a fifteen-year-old boy as a disposable cat's-paw as "bad."

Letting my college training kick in, I could explain how, in the cultural context, it's perfectly okay to use kids this way: it's even a commendable act. But, I did that last weekend. (June 7, 2009)

Iraq's government doesn't seem to be quite that 'enlightened.' Iraq's Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, ordered an investigation after the American military released the report that inspired last weekend's post.

And, seriously, I'm one of those people who think that, although the old-fashioned, jingoistic notion that the world is divided into "people" and "foreigners" is at best silly, there are some things that are, simply, wrong. Looks like I'm not the only one to have such a 'narrow' view of things:
"...'To endanger children with acts of terrorism is despicable,' said Lt. Col. Hugh McNeely, the deputy commander of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry. 'But when terrorists actively recruit them to risk their lives for goals that the child probably doesn't even understand is evil. There's just no other way to say it.'..." (CNN)
An important point, before moving on: I think that using an unwitting stooge - of any age - in a lethal attack is wrong. I do not know enough about what the dead teenager knew, and what he believed was happening, to pass any sort of judgment on him or the people who sent him.

And, finally, no: I don't think that whoever wound that kid up and pointed him toward al-Shawaf Mosque and the member of parliament was your "typical" Muslim. From what I've read, and Muslims I've corresponded with, I think there may not be a "typical" Muslim, or "typical" form of Islam.

Islam seems, in many cases at least, to be a veneer set over a region's existing cultural values and practices. That's very 'democratic,' in a way: but also help explain why Muslims bomb mosques now and again.

Related posts: In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Waterboarding, Moralizing, Politics, and Security

Waterboarding's back.

I think that many politicos count on their most loyal supporters having very short memories, or a deep need to re-hash a few favorite topics. Another War-on-Terror Blog isn't about politics, but America's leaders are chosen by political means, so politics affects the war on terror. And, I'm afraid, often affects decisions our leaders make.

Waterboarding: It Really is Unpleasant


Reuters, via International Business Times, used w/o permission)

That's a demonstrator, being waterboarded to show how horrible, inhuman, depraved, and generally awful it is. That photo is from a 2007 article. The caption was "A demonstrator is held down during a simulation of waterboarding outside the Justice Department in Washington November 5, 2007. (Photo: Reuters)"

Waterboarding is something that I'd rather not do, or have done to me. I'd rather not have another root canal procedure, too: and I really don't want to go through finals week again. Of course, that's different.

I don't take demonstrators who waterboard each other to show how intolerable it is very seriously. I do give some credence to a former CIA interrogator, quoted in an Indian news article:

"...Former CIA interrogator John Kiriakou told U.S. news media that suspected al Qaeda lieutenant Abu Zubaida agreed to cooperate after being subjected to the simulated drowning technique for less than a minute by CIA officials in 2002.

" 'It was like flipping a switch,' he told the Washington Post.

"He said the session yielded valuable information and probably helped prevent attacks, but he now believes waterboarding is torture and 'Americans are better than that.'..." (International Business Times)

My guess is that Mr. Kiriakou is a nice person, and feels bad about making someone else feel bad. That's much to his credit. I think it's quite possible that he believes that waterboarding is torture. And I agree with him that "Americans are better than that."

The International Business Times didn't give enough information about Mr. Kiriakou to allow an evaluation of his personal motives and beliefs, in reference to his dislike of waterboarding.

I think two things are interesting here. First, someone who doesn't work for the CIA any more says that waterboarding is torture. Second, the same person says it is effective: "'It was like flipping a switch," is how he was quoted.

"Torture" is a word which, like "love," has many meanings. People may describe everything from final exams to waiting in line as "torture," and mean it. The same word is used to describe physical abuse ending in actual injury.

America subjects its own troops to waterboarding as part of training. Code Pink may believe that America tortures its own soldiers, but I'm not willing to take that leap of faith.

And, waterboarding is effective.

I do, seriously, think that America has a responsibility to behave ethically. Legal professionals have given their considered opinion that waterboarding is not illegal - and presumably not unethical. They could be right.

The way things are shaping up now, we could be in for a replay of the McCarthy era, as those professionals are run through as many Congressional hearings as it takes to destroy their careers and, if possible, their lives. I sincerely hope that doesn't happen: both for the sake of the victims, and for the sake of the American Congress's reputation.

Wouldn't it be Nice if Terrorists Were Nice?

I'd love to live in a world where an American interrogator could sit down with someone like Abu Zubaida, enjoy a nice cup of tea, ask who was planning the next attack, and get a nice, civil answer. Perhaps after that the interrogator would politely ask the terrorist to please stop hating Americans and other westerners so much.

Overwhelmed by the tea and kindness, the terrorist would fervently renounce terrorism, shake the interrogator's hand, and start doing volunteer work with Habitat for Humanity.

I'd love to live in a world like that.

As it is, I'm stuck with the real world, and so are the people who are trying to keep another 9/11 from happening.

Out here, terrorists are not nice people. I think that the politicos, in their self-righteous zeal to do whatever it is they're trying to do, should remember that the "diabolical" George Bush isn't the enemy. Al Qaeda is, and that group isn't alone.

News and views:
Posted by at 4 comments:
Labels: , ,

Thursday, March 12, 2009

A Bank Robbery in Texas, Donald Murrah and David Long

Yale Law School, New York's Columbia University, Dartmouth, and Harvard didn't like the ROTC in the sixties and seventies: and there's no reason to think that these bastions of relevance have changed.

I don't blame them. The ROTC represents a set of values that are quite alien to contemporary American academia. These values can, if embraced, affect how people act in a crisis situation. A case in point:

An Overheated Bank Robber in Texas

June 12, 2008, wasn't exactly a cool day in Fort Worth, Texas. The high was just under 100 °F, the low was 74 and a fraction. (wunderground.com)

So, the fellow in a long coat, hat, and a beard, stood out. The gorilla bag1 he was carrying didn't make him any less conspicuous. That description reminded me of the incredible flying imams of Minnesota, who bundled up one hot summer day (no kidding).

The unseasonable attire caught the attention of Donald Murrah and his buddy, David Long. Something was obviously wrong with the picture. Since Mr. Coat was walking into a bank, the odds were that a bank robbery was about to happen. Neither of them were police officers, so they couldn't do anything about the situation.

Except keep an eye on the bank.

The coat, hat, beard and overheated person came back out of the bank, tried to start a Honda, and, failing that, went to a car in the ATM line. That car drove off, so Mr. Coat tried to carjack a van with a woman and two kids inside.

By that time, Murrah and Long were catching up to Mr. Coat, with Murrah in the lead. Murrah flipped Mr. Coat over and relieved him of what looked like a starter pistol. Murrah and Long restrained Mr. Coat until the police showed up. The 'starter pistol' was a 22 caliber revolver.

Murrah is Master Sergeant Donald S. Murrah of the U.S. Army. Long is First Sergeant David M. Long, U.S. Army, retired. Murrah wound up with a medal but, with due respect, I don't think he's all that special.

He simply did what an American NCO would reasonably be expected to do in a situation like that.

On the other hand, all Army sergeants stationed in Korea might not decide that studying Tai Kwon Do was a better use of time that going to bars. Murrah did, though, and earned a black belt.

Cold, Bloodthirsty Soldiers: A Reality Check

Quite a few people seem to think an American soldier, meeting people overseas, "shakes hands and shoots them the next day," as someone put it in a roundtable I attended the other day. Public perception of the American military has improved a bit since the Vietnam era, but some people never seem to have left the seventies.

Part of the military's reputation for being dangerous is quite justified. If you're robbing a bank, one of the last things you'd want would be to have two Army sergeants outside, waiting for you.

The rest of us, in America, really don't have that much to worry about, when it comes to 'those soldiers.' American soldiers are remarkably selective about who they get rough with.

Core Values of the U.S. Army

The United States Army has what it calls "core values." They may sound corny, or old-fashioned, but I think they're also common-sense virtues that any society needs:
  • Loyalty
  • Duty
  • Respect
  • Selfless Service
  • Honor
  • Integrity
  • Personal Courage
There's a pretty good discussion of these core values on the GoArmy.com website, and a decent summary in another blogger's post, "Army Core Values In Action" (A Soldier's Mind (February 18, 2009)). That blog post also has a detailed description of what happened last June.

JROTC: It's Not a Recruiting Tool

Master Sergeant Murrah works with the JROTC in Texas. He assured a roundtable recently that JROTC is not a recruiting tool for the Army. He said that JROTC teaches discipline and leadership skills that youngsters can use in adult life.

I think that's true, but I also think that there are far worse things people can do with their lives, than pursue a career in the American military.

Vaguely related posts: Another blogger's view: In the news:
1 "Gorilla bag" - a bag 9 x 13 x 19 inches in size. (Letter from Office of the Commanding General, Department of the Army, Headquarters, United States Army Recruiting Command Dear Future Recruiter:" (pdf))
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , ,

Thursday, July 3, 2008

United Nations: "Laws are for the Little People?"

America has 'whistleblower laws' to protect employees who expose their employers' wrong-doings.

The United Nations could use something like them - and would be well-advised to follow the rules it already has.

For decades, United Nations officials could do their business in comparative security, knowing that American news media, at least, would be too polite to mention those little business arrangements and shakedowns that make positions of power so satisfying for some.

Then, a nice, straightforward business deal with the former ruler of Iraq became the Oil for Food scandal. Much of the blame for exposing this little arrangement goes to an upstart news service, that doesn't recognize United Nations immunity from scrutiny.

As if that wasn't bad enough, a whistleblower pointed out ways that the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) was breaking United Nations rules. Among other things, this person said that the UNDP had redirected millions in cold, hard, cash to North Korea's own Dear Leader, Kim Jong Il. It gets better. It seems that North Korean government employees ran key aspects of the UNDP development program there.

Faced with these charges, the UNDP did the only thing it could do. It fired the whistleblower. 'Allegedly' fired, I should say.

But, the damage was already done. Real investigators went in, and found out that the whistleblower hadn't been very thorough. The investigators confirmed every accusation, but uncovered wrong-doing missed in the original disclosure.

That was then. Recently, the United Nation's ethics commissioner has been trying to get restitution for the whistleblower.

His efforts may, or may not, be successful.

If they're not, it's business as usual for the United Nations.

This may be a 'multicultural' issue. It's my impression that in some parts of the world, public officials are expected to make part, or the bulk, of their income from bribes, kickbacks, and other activities which a comparatively intolerant American system of law and custom doesn't permit.

Perhaps we should recognize that the United Nations, as a global body, lives by its own rules, and shouldn't be trammeled by the stultifying restrictions of western law and custom.

I don't think so.

My hope is that the United Nations, encouraged by the knowledge that somebody's watching them, will make restitution to the whistleblower: and start behaving like a legal, respectable, rule-following institution.

My Own View of the United Nations

Some people hate the United Nations. I don't.

When I was in my teens, I was quite a fan of the world organization. I still think that, by and large, the world is better off with that well-intentioned institution, than without it. If nothing else, things like the General Assembly give world leaders a place where they can yell at each other in comparative safety.

I recognize that it's far from "Parliament of man, the Federation of the world" envisioned by Tennyson. Very far.

However, warts, chronic scandals, and all, it's the closest thing we've got to a competent legal authority on a global scale.

Like it or not, we need to deal with it.

Something that affects my perception of the United Nations is my being an historian and a Catholic. About fifteen centuries ago, as Rome's influence was fading, the Catholic Church was dealing with the leaders of war-bands in Europe.

At the time, they were the closest thing Europe had to competent governments. (I'm using "competent" in the sense of functionally and legally qualified for a task.)

There's a pretty good case for saying that the Catholic Church's influence on these warriors is what gave us chivalry: a code of ethics which wasn't always followed, but served as a guide and an example.

Today, Europe has gone from a patchwork of warlords' territories, to a feudal system, and then nation-states. The European Union promises to be a next step in that region's political organization.

Also today, the United Nations is the closest thing the world has to a competent legal authority with global influence. I think it is a poor excuse for a 'world government,' but I also think that the European warlords of post-Roman times weren't competent to form the European Union. These things take time.

Meanwhile, the Vatican has an 'ambassador' to the United Nations. The official title is the"Holy See Permanent Observer to the United Nations."

It's my hope that, between the Vatican's Permanent Observer, impolite news agencies, and whistleblowers, the United Nations can continue to do more good than harm. And, who knows: in another fifteen centuries or so, Tennyson's dream may come true.

Background:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Chantix, Human Lab Rats, and Business as Usual

The politicos are getting involved. With Chantix, ethically-deficient doctors, and a massive federal bureaucracy driving veterans to the edge of madness, it was only a matter of time.

Particularly since what's been happening to veterans like James Elliott tugs at the heartstrings, and the American public's attitude toward American soldiers isn't, thank God, what it was in the late sixties and seventies.

The two politicians named in a Washington Times update are presidential candidate Barack Obama and Texas Senator John Cornyn: a Democrat and a Republican. Nicely bi-partisan. each of them sent a letter to James Peake, secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, with their views. You'll find links to the letters in the Times article.

For what it's worth, Barack Obama's letter is about twice a long as Senator Cornyn's, but the Texas Senator's is more action-oriented. The first paragraph of each gives a pretty clear picture of what the rest of the letter is like.
  • Obama:
    "I was very concerned to read this morning's Washington Times and learn that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has yet again failed to take appropriate steps to safeguard the health and well-being of veterans participating in drug trials."
  • Cornyn:
    "I request your prompt attention to a troubling report released this morning by ABC News and the Washington Times. According to press accounts, Department of Veterans Affairs medical personnel have been subjecting some of our returning warriors to potentially dangerous clinical trials involving the anti-smoking drug Chantix."
Meanwhile, back in the Fourth Estate, the Washington Times published an editorial on the VA, Chantix, and using veterans as lab rats.

The Times editors think that the House and Senate committee chairs should investigate the matter.

The paper also gives somewhat meaningless statistics about Chantix: "According to the FDA, nearly 40 suicides and more than 400 incidents of suicidal behavior have been linked to Chantix."

The deaths and suicidal behavior are tragic, of course: but it's impossible to tell how big the problem is. If those 400 incidents are out of 1,000 people who have taken the drug, Chantix shouldn't be given to human beings. On the other hand, if those 400 incidents happened in a population of 100,000 people, they're a minority of cases: four tenths of one percent. That's still quite a bit, but might be an acceptable risk in some cases.

The closest that the Times editorial gets to identifying how many people are involved is when it says that "4,796 military veterans are enrolled in post-traumatic stress disorder studies - including 940 in the smoking cessation study that raised red flags. One-hundred-forty-three veterans in this study take Chantix...." It's easy to assume that all 40 suicides and 400 cases of suicidal behavior come from that population of 940, but the editorial does not say that.

Is Experimenting on People Without Their Consent Ethical?

No. At least, that's what the Allies decided at the Nürnberg trials, and I'm inclined to agree.

Is using James Elliott as a poster child for the cause of promoting greater Congressional control over the Executive Branch right? That's debatable.

Is using the Chantix SNAFU at the VA as a campaign tool right? It's inevitable, right or wrong.

Is human experimentation at the VA a problem with the American military? Oddly, my answer is no. The American military - and the federal bureaucracy - are involved, but I see this as another case of "medical ethics" being an oxymoron. (See "Chantix and Veteran's Affairs: Who Needs Consent? We Got 'Em, Let's Dose 'Em" (June 17, 2008).)

By the way, if you think the Chantix business was bad, you ain't seen nothin' yet: Lobotomies are back in vogue, or may be soon.

Pleasant dreams.

More, at
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Chantix and Veteran's Affairs: Who Needs Consent? We Got 'Em, Let's Dose 'Em

It looks like a Department of Veteran's Affairs drug test involving Chantix has been handled badly. And, it's getting into the news in a predictable way. Here's a sample:

Medical Experiment at Department of Veteran's Affairs, in the News

  • "VA testing drugs on war veterans"
    The Washington Times (June 17, 2008)
    • "The government is testing drugs with severe side effects like psychosis and suicidal behavior on hundreds of military veterans, using small cash payments to attract patients into medical experiments that often target distressed soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, a Washington Times/ABC News investigation has found.
    • "In one such experiment involving the controversial anti-smoking drug Chantix, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) took three months to alert its patients about severe mental side effects. The warning did not arrive until after one of the veterans taking the drug had suffered a psychotic episode that ended in a near lethal confrontation with police.
    • "James Elliott, a decorated Army sharpshooter who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after serving 15 months in Iraq, was confused and psychotic when he was Tasered by police in February as he reached for a concealed handgun when officers responded to a 911 call at his Maryland home...."
  • " 'Wash Times': V.A. Using Iraq Vets as Guinea Pigs in Drug Tests "
    Editor & Publisher (June 17, 2008).
    • "NEW YORK As if the "soldier suicide" problem wasn't bad enough already, word has just emerged from ABC News and The Washington Times that our government is testing drugs with severe side effects, including promoting suicidal behavior, on hundreds of vets.
    • "In one case, the V.A. took three months to alert the veterans to the severe mental effects caused by one of the drugs, the controversial Chantix, used to halt smoking.
    • "They are even using cash payments to attract patients into medical experiments "that often target distressed soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan," the newspaper puts it today....
  • " 'Disposable Heroes': Veterans Used To Test Suicide-Linked Drugs"
    ABC News (June 17, 2008)
    • "Mentally distressed veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are being recruited for government tests on pharmaceutical drugs linked to suicide and other violent side effects, an investigation by ABC News and The Washington Times has found.
    • "The report will air on Good Morning America and will also appear in The Washington Times on Tuesday.
    • "In one of the human experiments, involving the anti-smoking drug Chantix, Veterans Affairs doctors waited more than three months before warning veterans about the possible serious side effects, including suicide and neuropsychiatric behavior...."
    • (A video clip is captioned "Mentally distressed veterans are recruited for questionable drug trial.")
Just keeps getting better, doesn't it?

From what I've read, this is a scandal, and an avoidable one. Ever since Chancellor Hitler and his massive reforms put medical experimentation on human beings into the spotlight, there's been little excuse for doctors to regard their patients as expendable experimental subjects.

A Lesson from Nürnberg: Get Informed Consent Before Experimenting on People

The so-called Nürnberg Code was supposed to give physicians guidelines about how to use people as guinea pigs. It didn't work quite as well as might have been hoped.

After the code was set up, America saw a number of more-or-less well-publicized lapses:
  • Tuskegee syphilis experiment (1932-1972)
    Black men in in Macon County, Alabama, who had syphilis weren't treated
  • Harold Blauer (1952)
    Mr. Blauer went to the New York State Psychiatric Institute for treatment of depression, was dosed with mescaline derivatives supplied by the U.S. Army Chemical Corps: then he killed himself
  • High oxygen to premature infants (1953)
    Premature babies were exposed to high levels of oxygen: the doctor knew that it would probably cause blindness, and noticed their eyes swelling, but kept up the treatment anyway
  • Injections of cancer cells (1963)
    Doctors wanted to know if cancer cells would thrive as well in patients who were debilitated by something other than cancer, as they did in debilitated cancer patients, so they injected cancer cells into patients who didn't have cancer - without telling them.
    • Ironically, this non-consensual research was done at the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital. And: "Two years later, the American Cancer Society elected the principal investigator to be their Vice-President."
  • Hepatitis in retarded children (1964+)
    The Willowbrook State Hospital in New York injected severely retarded children with hepatitis virus: as 'a vaccine against hepatitis.' True enough, survivors of the disease had an immunity.
  • Cincinnati radiation experiments (1960-72)
    Blacks, again, and this time exposed to high radiation. For the U.S. military. Without their consent.
    Source: "Nonconsensual Medical Experiments on Human Beings" (copyright 1997 by Ronald B. Standler)

What's Going on Here?

Although half of the cases that Mr. Standler mentioned involved the American military, half didn't. I don't see these excesses of experimental enthusiasm from the fifties and sixties - or the current scandal at the VA - so much as a military problem, as a medical one.

People as Lab Animals: a Personal View

I will admit that I have a personal stake in the matter of medical experimentation. Please indulge me, with this account my own experience: it does tie in with this post's topic.

I was born in 1951. Shortly after that, the doctor my parents had trusted rotated my legs. It's a quite routine procedure, still used, to determine if there are any issues with the hip joints.

As soon as my legs flopped over, I screamed. The doctor made some remark to the effect of "that seemed to hurt."

Some time later I was diagnosed with congenital hip dysplasia. Non-surgical treatments were tried, but didn't work. Finally, after a best-try reconstruction of my left hip, it was obvious that I'd going to be at least semi-crippled for life.

My father was a librarian at a local college at the time. He was in the habit of taking a book or periodical at random from the shelves, to read during his shifts at the reference desk.

One day, he noted an interesting article in a medical journal. The title was something like "Consequences of Delayed Application of Treatment in Cases of Congenital Hip Dysplasia." The article, written by our family doctor, went on to describe how he had run across an infant with a bad case of congenital hip dysplasia.

What a lucky break! For the doctor.

'The top of my head blew off' - that's how my father, decades later, described his reaction to the article. Direct and passionate Irishman that he is, he wanted to go straight to the doctor for a frank and open discussion of the matter.

My Norwegian mother told him, 'no.' She went to the doctor's office, and discussed the matter with him. My mother is dead now, so we'll never know what she said.

Shortly thereafter, the doctor left his practice, on 'personal leave,' for an indefinite period.

In a way, it might have been more humane to have let my father unscrew his head.

Doctors: 'Medical Ethics' Shouldn't be an Oxymoron

Unhappily, using people as experimental subjects without getting their consent isn't the only problem we've had with doctors in my lifetime. Psychosurgery - slicing and dicing someone's brain to 'cure' moodiness, or some other inconvenient trait - was a sort of cure-all for a while.

I can remember when lobotomy was going out of fashion. We haven't heard about this charming practice for a while, but I see that it's coming back. At the risk of getting too far off-topic, I'll list a few lobotomy links, and move on:
  • psychosurgery.org
    "Remembering the Tragedy of Lobotomy"
  • "Portrayal of Lobotomy in the Popular Press: 1935-1960"
    "This study analyzed the content of popular press articles on lobotomy between the years 1935 and 1960...."
  • "Lobotomy's back - controversial procedure is making a comeback"
    "In 1949 lobotomy was hailed as a medical miracle.
    "But images of zombielike patients and surgeons with ice picks soon put an end to the practice.
    "Now, however, the practitioners have refined their tools."
  • And, last but not least, there's Dr. Walter "Icepick" Jackson Freeman II, who scrambled Rosemary Kennedy's brain, popularized the 'icepick lobotomy,' and did the same for about 2,500 other people in his energetic career.
    His contributions to society and medicine are covered online in
    • "The Lobotomist"
      PBS, viewable online
    • "The Lobotomist"
      By Jack El-Hai, an authoritative biography
      Chapter one available online, Mr. El-Hai hopes you'll buy the book
The point of that side-trip into slice-and-dice psychiatry is that doctors aren't necessarily right. That may seem obvious now, but back when Dr. Kildare (1961-1966), Ben Casey (1961-1966), and Marcus Welby, M.D. (1969-1976) were top-rated entertainment, many people really believed that doctors were somehow special. The problem was that some doctors seem to see themselves as a breed apart, higher beings who are beyond good and evil1.

When people who are unencumbered by conventional morality, and believe that their quest for knowledge justifies breaking the rules, have the sort of power that physicians have, we've got trouble.

The current medical mess at the VA doesn't reflect too well on a bureaucracy-bound American military, but I think that the problem here isn't the military-industrial complex: it's another case of doctors who can't be bothered with rules.

More, at
1(There's a pretty good summary of Nietzsche's book at sparknotes.com.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.