Sunday, November 28, 2010

WikiLeaks, Saudi Arabia, and Staying Alive

WikiLeaks is in the news again. More documents were dumped, more people's lives have been endangered, and it's anyone's guess what'll happen next.

Good News/Bad News

First, the good news: National leaders around the world aren't as daft as one might fear.

Now, the bad news: Thanks to WikiLeaks' document dump, diplomatic relations between countries whose leaders are moderately sane and competent will be more difficult. Like it or not, there's a reason why diplomats don't broadcast what one leader wants another leader to say.

Worse, maybe, WikiLeaks may have helped some of the not-so-nice regimes around the world identify troublesome folks. Who will now quite likely be killed or squirreled away somewhere.

Freedom of Speech

Sweden isn't Sudan.

Which reminds me of a tired old joke. Two men, a Russian and an American, were discussing the relative merits of the United States and the Soviet Union. (This is an old joke.) The American said, "I live in a free country: I can stand on the front steps of Capitol Building and say 'I think the American President is an idiot.' " The Russian replied, "Ha! Soviet Union is a free country too: I can stand on the front steps of the Kremlin and say 'I think the American President is an idiot.' "

Seriously? I've made this point before: Not all countries are alike. Some have governments that put up with a certain amount of criticism. Others have a habit of making malcontents disappear. Or be sent somewhere for 'reeducation.'

Free Speech Restrictions: It's Not Necessarily Who You Expect

It'd be nice if all countries let folks speak their minds: but "nice" and the real world don't always overlap.

The former Soviet Union and Burma / Myanmar / Myanma aren't the only places where freedom of speech is restricted. Even some of the 'nice' countries have - in my opinion - regrettable sanctions against free speech. ("Libel Law Reform in UK: This Hasn't been Done Yet?!," A Catholic Citizen in America (November 13, 2010))

Saudi Arabia, Iran, and a Snaky Metaphor

Good news/bad news again.

First, the good news: The Saudi king realizes that Iran is a threat:
"...'Cut off the head of the snake,' the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Adel al-Jubeir, quotes the king as saying, according to a report on Abdullah's meeting with General David Petraeus in April 2008....
(Reuters)
Now, the bad news: Saudi Arabia has lots of folks who give financial support to outfits like Al Qaeda.

"Devastating:" Yeah, I Think That Covers It

Here's what one fellow had to say about the latest WikiLeaks action:
"...'This is pretty devastating,' Roger Cressey, a partner at Goodharbor Consulting and a former U.S. cyber security and counter-terrorism official, said in an e-mailed comment.

" 'It will constrain foreign leaders from being upfront and honest in their conversations with American diplomats and it will also make U.S. diplomats hesitant to put in diplomatic cables what they really think, for fear of it being leaked.'..."
(Reuters)
Like I said, there's a reason why diplomats don't broadcast what their leaders want said to another leader.

"Loose Lips Sink Ships"

My guess is that The New York Times and other news media have an explanation for (re)publishing WikiLeaks material this time. Offhand, I can think of a few more-or-less reasonable justifications:
  • 'The people have a right to know!'
    • Yes: but now?
  • 'WikiLeaks dumped this stuff on the Internet - we're just making a print copy'
    • Fact is, The New York Times and all are doing little but chronicle what's already happened
  • 'If we don't publish, someone else will'
    • There's something to that
    • The New York Times is in the business of selling newspapers, after all
That's not an exhaustive list of possible explanations, of course.

One reason I'm writing this post - and providing an excerpt of a Reuters article - is that 'the cat's out of the bag.' Those secret documents aren't secret any more.

The damage has been done: what remains is to sift through the wreckage and see if there's anything to be learned.

If that "loose lips sink ships" quote sounds familiar: You know your WWII history. Or read my May 11, 2010 post.

'Enlightened Self Interest'

Whatever effect it has on relations between countries whose leaders want to cooperate - it's something of a relief to know that so many world leaders have a grip on reality.

It's one thing for someone to argue that a criminal who kills in the course of a bank robbery is no criminal - that the robber is a warrior in the people's struggle with plutocratic oppressors and their lackeys. Or whatever excuse is fashionable at the moment.

When one of these idealists is in the bank that's being robbed, and urges the robber to kill everyone - including the idealist? That person is, in my opinion, heroically dedicated to some philosophy. Or seriously disturbed. Possibly both.

The Saudi king's remarks about Iran show, I think, that the House of Saud has at least one fairly sensible member. I don't envy Saudi Arabia's leadership, by the way: they seem to be caught between religious crazies in their own country, Iran, and a not-entirely-sensible lot of neighbors.

Compared with being in that position: dealing with a Minnesota winter is a piece of cake.

Now, an excerpt from the news item that set me off this evening:
"Saudi King Abdullah has repeatedly urged the United States to attack Iran's nuclear program and China directed cyberattacks on the United States, according to a vast cache of U.S. diplomatic cables released on Sunday in an embarrassing leak that undermines U.S. diplomacy.

"The more than 250,000 documents, given to five media groups by the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks, provide candid, tart views of foreign leaders and sensitive information on terrorism and nuclear proliferation filed by U.S. diplomats, according to The New York Times.

"Among the revelations in Britain's Guardian newspaper, which also received an advance look at the documents, King Abdullah is reported to have 'frequently exhorted the U.S. to attack Iran to put an end to its nuclear weapons program.'

" 'Cut off the head of the snake,"' the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Adel al-Jubeir, quotes the king as saying, according to a report on Abdullah's meeting with General David Petraeus in April 2008.

"The leaked documents, the majority of which are from the last three years, also disclose U.S. allegations that China's Politburo directed an intrusion into Google's computer systems, part of a broader coordinated campaign of computer sabotage carried out by Chinese government operatives, private security experts and Internet outlaws, the Times reported.

"The newspaper also said documents report that Saudi donors remain chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like al Qaeda, and that the tiny Persian Gulf state of Qatar, a generous host to the U.S. military for years, was the 'worst in the region' in counter-terrorism efforts, according to a State Department cable last December.

"The newspaper said many of the cables name diplomats' confidential sources, from foreign lawmakers and military officers to human rights activists and journalists, often with a warning: 'Please protect' or 'Strictly protect.'

"The White House condemned the release of the documents, saying their release could endanger the lives of people who live under 'oppressive regimes' and 'deeply impact' the foreign policy interests of the United States and its allies.

" 'To be clear -- such disclosures put at risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the United States for assistance in promoting democracy and open government,' White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

" 'By releasing stolen and classified documents, WikiLeaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals,' he said.

"Security analysts tended to agree that the release of the documents was a severe blow to U.S. diplomacy, undermining the confidentiality that is vital for foreign leaders and activists to talk candidly to U.S. officials...."
(Reuters)
Related posts:In the news:
Posted by at 4 comments:
Labels: , , ,

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Oregon: The Christmas Tree Bombing That Didn't Happen

Someone tried - unsuccessfully - to kill a whole lot of folks at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon. The person is a college student, young adult, resident of Oregon, born in Somalia, and a Muslim.

Depending on someone's biases, this could 'prove' that you just can't trust:
  • College students
  • Those crazy kids
    • For me, anybody under about age 30 is a 'kid'
  • Oregonians
  • Somalis
  • Muslims
Me? I think that anybody who wants to set off a bomb at a tree lighting ceremony isn't safe to have around. The same goes for folks who think it's a good idea to set off bombs in New York City's Times Square.

Motive Matters: Sort of

The motive for wanting to commit mass murder is interesting - and may be important at the trial.

In my opinion, though: it doesn't matter whether the wannabe bomber thinks God told him to kill people; is mad at the Federal Government; or believes that Discovery Channel isn't doing enough to cut the human race down to size. (You can't make this stuff up: A Catholic Citizen in America (September 1, 2010))

I do not think that blowing up people who came to watch a Christmas tree being lit is a good way to promote your religion. I think I can see how a practicing Muslim who lives in America might not want to attend a public event that's related - a bit - to a Christian holy day. But committing mass-murder? That's not the way we're supposed to act in this country.

Decades of secularist efforts to purge Christian symbols and ideas from America have made me quite aware of how disturbing an evergreen decked out in colored lights can be: to the hypersensitive anti-Christian, at least.

But - and this is an important distinction, in my opinion - I do not think that having your skivvies in a knot is a excuse for killing folks at a public gathering.

Muslims, Murder, and Minnesota

I'll admit to a bias. I think that people are individuals. I even think that people who are part of an identifiable group are individuals.

For example, not all Irishmen are shiftless drunkards who talk too much. I'm half Irish, myself, and - wait a minute. I had a drinking problem. Maybe that was a bad example.

Or, not.

Consider America's first Irish president. He did not, as far as I am aware, have a serious problem with drinking. And, whatever failings President Kennedy may have had: he does seem to have taken his job as chief executive seriously.

America's gotten over the 'Irish need not apply' attitude, as far as I can tell. These days, the sort of folks who didn't approve of the Irish and Chinese sometimes focus their hostility on America's newer citizens - like Somalis.
Muslims, Somalia, and America
Many Somali-Americans are Muslims. No big surprise there. Most Somalis are Muslims.

Many came here for the same reason that many of my forebears came to America: It's a whole lot easier to stay alive here, than back in the old country. And there's a whole lot more opportunities here for doing well, economically.

Then there are the occasional individuals who don't like the status quo: and think that committing mass murder will improve things.

Like the young Muslim who wanted to kill a lot of folks at an Oregon Christmas tree lighting ceremony.
Somalia and Minnesota
I'm particularly interested in this case of frustrated religious expression, because of the Somalia connection. I live in Minnesota, where a great many folks from Somalia are settling. They're not coming here for the climate: this is a state where they can find jobs. (December 4, 2008)

The old 'melting pot' metaphor for America doesn't seem to have been popular for years. Decades. I think what we've got is more of a 'crazy quilt,' anyway: Immigrants don't tend to entirely jettison their culture, not for a few generations anyway.

Which is fine by me. I'd start to worry if folks stopped trying to get into America.

About Muslims living in America? I've written about that before. A lot. These posts are a pretty good indication of where I stand, on living in a country where everybody isn't exactly like me:
Aren't I Afraid of Those Murderous Muslims?
I think someone from any group might go off the rails and try to commit mass murder. Remember Timothy McVeigh? (June 6, 2009)

Besides: in this case someone who is a Muslim, living in America, was worried about a young man. And told American authorities who to look out for.

No: I'm not all that worried about 'those Muslims.' Whack jobs from any group? Those folks, I'll worry about.

Here's some of the news that set me off today:
"A Somali-born teenager was arrested on Friday for attempting to detonate what he thought was a car bomb at a Christmas Tree lighting ceremony in Oregon, officials said.

"Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 19, was charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction in connection with an alleged plot to bomb the annual event in downtown Portland, the Justice Department said late on Friday.

"The bomb was a fake and had been provided to Mohamud as part of a long-term sting by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, federal officials said in a statement.

"Officials said Mohamud, a naturalized U.S. citizen and student at Oregon State University, had been in contact with an unnamed individual believed to be in northwest Pakistan and involved in terrorist activities...."
(Reuters)
Reuters may think that the important part of this news story is that Federal investigators tricked Mr. Mohamud into thinking that he was getting help building is bomb. My take is that a really important point is mentioned, briefly, deep in the article:
"...The New York Times, quoting a federal law enforcement official on condition of anonymity, reported that the FBI received a tip from a Portland Muslim who was concerned about Mohamud's increasing radicalism. The Times said that tip prompted the FBI to monitor Mohamud's e-mail activity....

"...He told FBI agents that he had thought of waging violent jihad, or holy war, since the age of 15, federal officials said.

"Mohamud proceeded with the plot despite opportunities to back away, according to the complaint, which quotes him praising the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States and expressing a desire to see 'body parts and blood' in Portland.

"According to the affidavit, Mohamud said, 'I want whoever is attending that event to leave, to leave either dead or injured.'..."
(Reuters)
That, I think, is an important detail: that "the FBI received a tip from a Portland Muslim who was concerned about Mohamud's increasing radicalism...."

Most folks here in Minnesota, who came from Somalia, don't get their names in the paper. They're doing what I've been doing: getting jobs; raising their families; being part of a community.

Not long ago, quite a few young Minnesotans were disappearing - some turned up later, in pieces, in Somalia. Someone had convinced them that their best career choice was to be a walking bomb.

Their folks 'back home' here in Minnesota - were not happy about the situation. At all. And that's another topic. Sort of.

Somewhat-related posts:In the news:
Posted by at 2 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.