It’s sad but predictable…

Have the wounded and dead stopped bleeding?

While reporting on the Freedom Flotilla assault for FireDogLake, Tony Collings points out that:

Only three days since the deadly Israeli raid on the Gaza flotilla, already there are signs that American news media are beginning to lose interest in the story. While the BP oil spill understandably dominates much of the news, the Gaza story should also be getting continued media attention but instead is beginning to fade away, replaced by new stories such as the Gores' divorce, Sarah Palin's nosy neighbor, and a new murder by the suspect in the disappearance of Natalee Holloway. These may meet the water cooler test (what are people likely to talk about?) but not the public service standard (what do people need to know in a democracy to make enlightened policy decisions?).

As a former Middle East reporter for Newsweek and CNN, I know how quickly editors and producers lose interest in foreign news, but this is astounding. The few Gaza stories that are still being done are focusing on angles such as continuing protests abroad and policy discussions within the State Department on how to handle this crisis.

Only the exceptional states need apply

Apply for what position? As it turns out, the truly exceptional states could provide the only rightful applicants for the one position that would suit them: Sovereigns who possess prerogatives and powers which, in some cases, span the globe.

More specifically, what is the nature of this kind of state?

They are — or, better, believe themselves to be — accountable to no one. It is not simply that they have unlimited rights which other states must recognize and respect. Rather, they believe themselves to exist in a condition that is beyond justice and responsibility. Thus they see their powers as intrinsically limited only by the natural environment when it refuses to bow to their will. As unlimited in this way, their imaginations are free to concoct projects that brook no opposition worth recognizing. They are autonomous, and self-creative. They do confront humanly constructed impediments, but these are considered facts that could be otherwise. The world's resources are theirs to use when and where they please and dare. They recognize a law or the law only when they believe such legality reflects and serves their ends.

Theirs is an absolute politics.

The exceptional states are those which strongly embrace Hobbes' "state of nature." It is a condition defined by war and fear. They not only embrace the state of nature but they also willingly live within it while also believing everyone else must remain subject to a system of law if not to the law as such. Only the exceptional states enact laws to which they are not subject. Others obey these laws and lawmakers. The exceptional act. They make history. Others just provide some of the stuff from which history is made. As stuff, they lesser sort have a place in the history made by the exceptional — inconsequential fodder.

There is no irony in the belief of the exceptional that they are not hypocrites because of their conflicting assignments of legal accountability. They are, they believe, merely recognizing the true order of the world. A few states are subjects; the rest are subjected to the rule of the few. It is a matter of who has the power and will to act as they please. The hypocrites, as they might say, are those who believe in the necessity of legality but who break with this belief and the commitment which follows from it whenever doing so suits them. Legality is merely one of their tools.

There are few truly exceptional states. I can identify at least three states which approach the abstract characterization of such a state that I have drawn above. They are: The United States, Israel and North Korea.

North Korea might be the special or degenerate case among the three. It, like Pol Pots' Cambodia, appears to be a grotesque example of that tragedy which marks revolutionary socialism in the 20^th century. Its history is nearly unique and serves as a model for no one. And the country is now out of step with the times. Its predicaments make the regime untenable over the long term, for North Korea cannot credibly use the weapons it has or wants others to believe it has in order to blackmail the world indefinitely nor can it survive on its own, given the meager output of its economy. For North Korea to sustain itself, it required membership in the socialist world system, which no longer exists. In any case, North Korea's greatest threat was and remains to those over whom the North Korean state rules. Because of the limited nature of the threat posed by this state, the world now seemingly waits for the North Korean regime to collapse while hoping that it does not take anyone else with it when it does crash.

The same cannot be said for the United States — "Superpower," as Sheldon Wolin labels it — and Israel. They are not, like North Korea, a special (degenerate) case within the class of special cases. Both the United States and Israel are exemplary instances of the exceptional state category identified above. Why is this so?

Both are military and diplomatic powers, are considered legitimate by their citizens, are economically viable and are international powers. Consider the fact that neither cares a jot for its reputation, nor listens to the counsel provided by others. Nor, for that matter, can we expect either of the two to make a credible commitment to engage in civil discourse when confronting other states, to make a real effort to secure world peace, to participate in the rule of law as practiced by international institutions. They practice instead an imperial statecraft which uses as a resource without observing the spirit of an international civil society, of a project of world peace and of a practice of lawful governance. Their interests remain untempered by justice and mercy, by common sense and intellectual curiosity. They are, oddly enough, long-time allies who are perpetually at war with the world around them and at large, and who accept the reality of war as the human reality. They even seem to need and admire each other.

This, in any case, is the significance I drew from this report:

With much of the world expressing fury over the raid, the contrast with Washington's muted response could not have been more striking. 

"The situation is that they're so isolated right now that it's not only that we're the only ones who will stick up for them," said an American official. "We're the only ones who believe them — and what they're saying is true."

The official was referring to Israeli protestations — backed by Israel Defense Forces video — that their solders were attacked by passengers on a ship headed for Gaza with humanitarian aid, when they boarded the ship in what the Israelis concede were international waters.

And this pronouncement:

Defense Minister Ehud Barak visited the Shayetet 13 base in Atlit on Wednesday and praised the commandos who participated in the deadly raid on the Gaza-bound aid flotilla on Monday for carrying out their mission, Army Radio reported.

"You carried out the mission and prevented the flotilla from reaching Gaza," Barak said. "We need to always remember that we aren't North America or Western Europe, we live in the Middle East, in a place where there is no mercy for the weak and there aren't second chances for those who don't defend themselves. You were fighting for your lives – I saw it, and I heard it from your commanders."

And, for that matter, this political manifesto — the National Security Strategy of 2002 — from the George W. Bush White House:

Defending our Nation against its enemies is the first and fundamental commitment of the Federal Government. Today, that task has changed dramatically. Enemies in the past needed great armies and great industrial capabilities to endanger America. Now, shadowy networks of individuals can bring great chaos and suffering to our shores for less than it costs to purchase a single tank. Terrorists are organized to penetrate open societies and to turn the power of modern technologies against us.

To defeat this threat we must make use of every tool in our arsenal — military power, better homeland defenses, law enforcement, intelligence, and vigorous efforts to cut off terrorist financing. The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration.

America will help nations that need our assistance in combating terror. And America will hold to account nations that are compromised by terror, including those who harbor terrorists — because the allies of terror are the enemies of civilization. The United States and countries cooperating with us must not allow the terrorists to develop new home bases. Together, we will seek to deny them sanctuary at every turn.

I could continue quoting such material indefinitely.

Today the world waits for the opportunity to assess Israel and America's response to the MV Rachel Corrie when it approaches Gaza. Will Israel dare to attack it? Will the United States support Israel no matter what it does? Will they collude in the commission of yet another war crime? Or, will they refuse play their parts in the confrontation that awaits them?

Whatever the path taken by the leaders of the two countries, we can be sure that they will have considered their interests in the matter.

NATO’s response to Israel’s provocative attacks on its member states

Israel attacked four flagged ships belonging to NATO member states during the recent Freedom Flotilla terrorist attack:

Greece: The Eleftheri Mesogeios and Sfendoni

Turkey: The Gazze

USA: The Challenger I

The Challenger II, which was to be a member of the flotilla but which was sidelined by mechanical problems, also carries the American flag.

NATO's response to this attack on ships belonging to NATO members:

Today the North Atlantic Council (NAC) met for an extraordinary meeting to discuss the recent Israeli operation against ships bound for Gaza. There was an extensive exchange of views among Allies on all aspects of this tragic event.

I would like to express my deep regret over the loss of lives and the other casualties resulting from the use of force during the incident involving the convoy sailing to Gaza. I offer sincere condolences to the families of all victims and condemn the acts which have led to this tragedy. I add my voice to the calls by the United Nations and the European Union for a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation into the incident.

As a matter of urgency, I also request the immediate release of the detained civilians and ships held by Israel.

Yet The North Atlantic Treaty states:

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article 6

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
  
• on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
  

So far, NATO's response has been, shall we say, measured….

The bloody hands of Uncle Sam

Paul Craig Roberts condemns Barack Obama for America's complicity in the Freedom Flotilla terrorist attack:

As I write at 5pm on Monday, May 31, all day has passed since the early morning reports of the Israeli commando attack on the unarmed ships carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza, and there has been no response from President Obama except to say that he needed to learn "all the facts about this morning's tragic events" and that Israeli prime minister Netanyahu had canceled his plans to meet with him at the White House. Thus has Obama made America complicit once again in Israel's barbaric war crimes. Just as the US Congress voted to deep-six Judge Goldstone's report on Israel's war crimes committed in Israel's January 2009 invasion of Gaza, Obama has deep-sixed Israel's latest act of barbarism by pretending that he doesn't know what has happened.

No one in the world will believe that Israel attacked ships in international waters carrying Israeli citizens, a Nobel Laureate, elected politicians, and noted humanitarians bringing medicines and building materials to Palestinians in Gaza, who have been living in the rubble of their homes without repairs or medicines since January 2009, without first clearing the crime with its American protector. Without America's protection, Israel, a totally artificial state, could not exist. No one in the world will believe that America's spy apparatus did not detect the movement of the Israeli attack force toward the aid ships in international waters in an act of piracy, killing 20, wounding 50, and kidnapping the rest. Obama's pretense at ignorance confirms his complicity.

Once again the US government has permitted the Israeli state to murder good people known for their moral conscience. The Israeli state has declared that anyone with a moral conscience is an enemy of Israel, and every American president except Eisenhower and Carter has agreed.

The White House goes to the mats

Party discipline in action

Sam Stein of Huffington Post reports that:

In the hours following the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, the predominant feature of the debate has been the swift, campaign-like operation of Washington's Democratic establishment.

Since President Obama introduced his Solicitor General as the choice to replace retired Justice John Paul Stevens, national airwaves and DC inboxes have been littered with a steady stream of material from Kagan backers. One party official compared it (favorably) to a presidential campaign war room, with caffeine-aided staffers shooting out "rapid response" messages to Republican attacks and driving narratives either supportive of Kagan or mocking of the GOP.

It has been by design. At the White House, a team of aides overseen by Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and run out of the office of the President's Counsel had already outlined many of the key arguments they want to dominate the Kagan conversation: her eminent scholarly qualifications, her consensus-driven leadership qualities, and her bipartisan support. The team includes Ron Klain and Cynthia Hogan on the Vice President's staff, Susan Davies (an Associate Counsel to the President) and press officials Josh Earnest, Jesse Lee and Ben LaBolt — all of whom pitched stories and monitored media throughout the day.

At the Democratic National Committee, the campaign atmosphere was even more robust.

And so on….

Obama remains true to his principles

Glenn Greenwald's gloss on Barak Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan for John Paul Stevens' Supreme Court seat:

It's anything but surprising that President Obama has chosen Elena Kagan to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. Nothing is a better fit for this White House than a blank slate, institution-loyal, seemingly principle-free careerist who spent the last 15 months as the Obama administration's lawyer vigorously defending every one of his assertions of extremely broad executive authority. The Obama administration is filled to the brim with exactly such individuals — as is reflected by its actions and policies — and this is just one more to add to the pile. The fact that she'll be replacing someone like John Paul Stevens and likely sitting on the Supreme Court for the next three decades or so makes it much more consequential than most, but it is not a departure from the standard Obama approach.

Marjorie Cohn concurs:

Elena Kagan, Obama's choice to replace Justice Stevens, has never been a judge. But she has been a loyal foot soldier in Obama's fight against terrorism and there is little reason to believe that she will not continue to do so. During her confirmation hearing for solicitor general, Kagan agreed with Senator Lindsey Graham that the president can hold suspected terrorists indefinitely during wartime, and the entire world is a battlefield. While Bush was shredding the Constitution with his unprecedented assertions of executive power, law professors throughout the country voiced strong objections. Kagan remained silent.

Erwin Chemerinsky likewise:

No one is surprised that Elena Kagan is President Obama's pick to replace Justice John Paul Stevens. Like Sonia Sotomayor last year, she is someone sure to be confirmed by the Senate and will require little of the president's political capital. Kagan is impeccably qualified. Unlike other recent nominees, she has a small paper trail. She's never been a judge, so there are no prior opinions to scrutinize. She's written only five major law review articles, and none are controversial.

On the other hand, that is the risk in Obama's selection of Kagan: no one is sure of her views on key issues.

The SCOTUS blog provides its readers with its Kagan research.

And the New York Times provides us with one odd tidbit:

If the Senate confirms Ms. Kagan, who is Jewish, the Supreme Court for the first time will have no Protestant members. In that case, the court would be composed of six justices who are Catholic and three who are Jewish. It also would mean that every member of the court had studied law at Harvard or Yale.

Surely Know Nothing stalwarts are turning in their graves with this prospect looming over their native land.

Anyway, chalk up another thrilling victory for Team Obama.

Update

This quote comes from the White House press release for the Kagan nomination:

The President has always viewed nominating new Justices to the Supreme Court as one of his most important responsibilities, and his nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan reflects the results of a careful and thorough search across America's exceptional pool of legal talent.

Widely regarded as one of the nation's leading legal minds, Solicitor General Elena Kagan has forged a path-breaking career in the law and in government service, distinguishing herself throughout by her penetrating intellect, unwavering integrity, sound judgment and prodigious work ethic.

Kagan is one of America's "leading legal minds"? But I thought Kagan lacked a credible body of legal scholarship…

Last updated on May 10, 2010 at 12:11 PM

Stevens’ replacement will arrive in a Washington minute

The Huffington Post reports that:

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) predicted on Sunday that the president would have his replacement choice for Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens confirmed through the Senate by the time the Court reconvenes in October.

"There is no question," said the Vermont Democrat. "It would be irresponsible to do otherwise."

Appearing on "Meet the Press," Leahy predicted that a nominee for the Steven's seat would be announced shortly because, as he put it, "we would like to get this wrapped up this summer."

Naturally, Senate Republicans vowed to mount a filibuster if Obama were to choose an extremist to replace Stevens.

Pittsburgh

A stop on the road to dictatorship in America

While addressing the G-20 Summit along with the protests meant to challenge the Summit and what it represents, Chris Hedges recently characterized the repression implemented by the federal government and the local governments in the Pittsburgh region as follows:

The draconian security measures put in place to silence dissent in Pittsburgh are disproportionate to any actual security concern. They are a response not to a real threat, but to the fear gripping the established centers of power.

A quibble: I would say that the threat is real and that the elite rightly believe their position to be insecure. But the actual threat posed by the G-20 demonstrators gathering now in Pittsburgh will not be in any way related to whatever violent acts they might commit during their demonstrations. The actual threat which motivates this kind of fear among the elite is political in nature. It takes the form of a politics meant to represent the interests, identities and lives of those largely excluded or ignored by America's compromised political institutions. This political exclusion supports and reflects the economic dispossession that is now operative in an economy teetering on the brink.

Additionally, the repression is future-directed, as Hedges recognizes:

The power elite grasps, even if we do not, the massive fraud and theft being undertaken to save a criminal class on Wall Street and international speculators of the kinds who were executed in other periods of human history. They know the awful cost this plundering of state treasuries will impose on workers, who will become a permanent underclass. And they also know that once this is clear to the rest of us, rebellion will no longer be a foreign concept.

How, indeed, will the dispossessed respond to their knowing that their lives were sacrificed so that the finance capital might thrive in the difficult future now coming into being? To whom will they attribute their suffering? Will they have the cultural and social resources they will need if they are to survive the global system coming into being? How will they survive the slums they will inhabit when they know so little of solidarity and political communication?

The American political system, tenuously democratic and corrupted as it has been by the militarism and market fundamentalism of the last decades, can produce only one response to this threat, which is, to be sure, a threat generated by its growing illegitimacy and the inadequacy of contemporary capitalism:

The delegates to the G-20, the gathering of the world's wealthiest nations, will consequently be protected by a National Guard combat battalion, recently returned from Iraq. The battalion will shut down the area around the city center, man checkpoints and patrol the streets in combat gear. Pittsburgh has augmented the city's police force of 1,000 with an additional 3,000 officers. Helicopters have begun to buzz gatherings in city parks, buses driven to Pittsburgh to provide food to protesters have been impounded, activists have been detained, and permits to camp in the city parks have been denied. Web sites belonging to resistance groups have been hacked and trashed, and many groups suspect that they have been infiltrated and that their phones and e-mail accounts are being monitored.

In other words, "Force is all the elite have left," as Hedges succinctly states. The elite have no other response to these protests because they lack a reform politics that points to a possible world that exists beyond the crises of the present and which resolves these crises in a manner that can be judged legitimate. Force — the 'reasoning' and 'communicative' technique used by the stupid to address problems they do not understand and cannot resolve.

Indeed!

The original may be viewed on truthdig.

Sotomayor it is

According to The New York Times, Barack Obama has nominated Sonia Sotomayor for David Souter's position on the Supreme Court. A Hispanic woman of Puerto Rican descent, Sotomayor's presence would diversify the ethnic and gender composition of the Court, which remains composed mostly of crusty old white guys and white guy wannabes (Thomas), if her nomination were to make its way through the Senate.

As one would expect, the reactionary right has already begun to stockpile the ammunition (she is a liberal activist) it will use to combat Sotomayor's candidacy. Their standards are so exacting….

Justice David Souter intends to retire this summer

A moderate on this right-leaning Supreme Court, Souter, according to the Associated Press, wishes to retire in order to flee permanently a Washington, DC he despises!

It goes without saying that the opportunity to appoint Souter's successor will provide Barack Obama with another self-revelatory moment.