A Second Opinion 5

A Second Opinion

A Second Opinion is a cooperative effort based in Oshkosh dedicated to providing readers with fact-based opinion about current events. John S. Lemberger, Managing Editor

Contents:

[Editor's note: A Second Opinion is pleased to present the text of a speech given at UWO during an October 28th public debate on the merits of a war on Iraq.]

Oshkosh-Tonight's debate takes place at a low-point in our nation's history. As a report in the Washington Post detailed last week, in the Iraq debate, and perhaps in many others, the Bush administration has established a pattern of repeated lies substituting for the truth. Those repeated lies now threaten to take this country, and quite possibly the rest of the world, over the cliff into one of the most ill conceived wars in recent memory. When, at a time of mounting financial scandals, in many cases directly involving key players in the Bush administration, the contract to build a new $50million terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is given to the Halliburton Corporation, formerly directed by Vice President Dick Cheney and currently under federal investigation for massive accounting fraud, we can smell the odor of lies, deceit and a government of elite privileges. When the administration fails to own up to the fact that Halliburton, under Dick Cheney's leadership, did over $70million worth of business in the late-1990s with the so-called "evil" Saddam Hussein, helping to provide equipment for the extraction of Iraqi oil which may have been sold in violation of UN sanctions, we can again detect the odor of lies and deceit. When, as reports in the New York Times and the Washington Post have claimed, the administration strong-arms even the CIA into skewing its intelligence assessments of Iraq's weapons programs toward positions favorable to its case for invasion, we can again detect a regime of lies and deceit.

In that context, every American has both a right and a responsibility to call for a regime change - not in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, but right here, in this country, at the highest levels of power. We need to start by opposing this war on Iraq. Given the seriousness, the complexity and the emotionally charged nature of the current situation, we must be very clear on the reasons for our opposition. Contrary to the administration's claims, September 11th was NOT like Pearl Harbor. The war on terrorism is NOT like World War II, or even the Cold War. Saddam Hussein is obviously a brutal dictator, but he is NOT like Hitler. The current war on Iraq will NOT be like the last Gulf War. And the occupation of Iraq afterward will NOT be like the occupation of Japan. We are in a new situation, and no new Iraqi democracy is likely to emerge from the ruins of this war.
What, then, is this war about? Is this war about the growing dangers posed by Saddam Hussein to his own people, to the region, and potentially to the United States? NO. There has been no new evidence presented thus far that would override the CIA's own assessments of Hussein's threat. And unlike in the last Gulf War, no one in the region, not even our closest Arab allies, is calling for this war. The director of the CIA himself has argued before Congress that Hussein seems to have drawn a line "well short" of the use of weapons of mass destruction, and would only be likely to use them in the event of an invasion. Is this war about the connections between Hussein and the events of September 11th? NO. There is no evidence that Hussein was in any way connected with September 11th. If there was, the president would not have needed a new resolution from Congress authorizing the use of force, for the resolution passed in the immediate aftermath of September 11th would have been sufficient. As best we can tell, Saddam Hussein has one primary end in mind - staying in power in Iraq by any means necessary. I have yet to hear anyone make the case that an alliance with Al Qaeda, however one defines that organization, serves such an end for Saddam Hussein.

With those points in mind, I think we can safely assert that the leading causes for war, as stated in a series of public speeches and press reports by the Bush administration, are outright lies. What is this war about then? Is this war about oil? Yes, but only partially. There is no question, I think, that the securing of a stable flow of Middle Eastern oil, probably paid for in part by hefty
contracts for American oil companies, ranks among this administration's highest priorities, but it is not the entire rationale. Is this war about the November elections? Yes, but again, only partially. The stakes are too high for mere electoral brinksmanship

This war is about something much bigger. This war is about a new global order. On this, the Bush administration has been clear in interest if not in word from the day it came to power. It views the aftermath of September 11th as a sort of "rip in time," where for a limited moment it will be free to accomplish the most radical of a set of highly controversial foreign policy objectives aimed at replacing the previous international order with one guaranteed by outright US military domination anywhere and everywhere in the world. This is the meaning of the so-called doctrine of "pre-emption." The extreme nationalists in the Bush administration are afraid right now that with the quick victory and slow decay in Afganistan, and without any other easy victories in sight, that "rip in time" may be closing up on them. The time for them to act is now. Enter Iraq.

We should remember in this sense, that this is part of a pattern. The Bush administration has been clear on their opposition to the Kyoto agreement, because Kyoto favors the poorer nations of the world against the continuing excesses of the current mode of American economic life. They were clear when they opposed the ABM treaty in order to free themselves legally for the building of space-based missile defenses. They were clear when Condolezza Rice stated publicly that the administration viewed treaties per se as outdated and inflexible relics of the 20th century. They were clear even within the armed forces when Donald Rumsfeld began calling for a high-tech US military premised on space-based weaponry and satellite surveillance technologies - the first truly global, because extra-terrestrial, military program. They have been clear in their consistent opposition to the international criminal court because they want exemptions for American soldiers from war crimes prosecution. And they have been clear in speech after speech, that they have utter contempt for the United Nations - a long-standing contempt dating back at least to the early-Reagan period. When President Bush says that the US will invade Iraq with or without UN approval, we need to name that policy for what it is - a declaration of willingness to start an ILLEGAL war. The president would, of course, like to have the cover of UN approval for PR purposes, but does he believe in the historic principles and the globally democratic potential of the United Nations? NO. He has said repeatedly that he will invade without the UN if need be. He is not formulating national policy as if he cared about the UN's so-called "relevance," and he has given no one cause to believe that his regime has any desire whatsoever for a world governed by international law.

We have unfortunately arrived at a moment in history when the maintenance of democracy and security in the United States, according to the terms and the vision of the current presidential administration, are apparently becoming contradictory to the establishment and maintenance of democracy and security worldwide. What is this war about? This war is about the subversion of an emergent but fragile, interconnected global order, premised upon borderless trade and respect for international law formulated and applied by legitimate international institutions on the basis of genuine multilateral cooperation. This war about producing and ensuring a regime of borderless trade for multinational corporations, and poverty and hopelessness for most of the world, under the auspices of military globalization. This war is aimed directly at the rule of international law, and at the foundations of a possible but as-yet unrealized global democracy as much or more than it is aimed at Saddam Hussein. Iraq is just the beginning. That is why we must oppose this war and stand instead with a vision of a world based on democracy - not just for all nation-states, but between them as well - secured by the abolition of world poverty and the equitable distribution of the world's resources and opportunities. In other words, we must stand together with our partners in Europe, in Asia, in Canada, in the Middle East, in Latin America, in Africa, and with the courageous minority of Democrats in the US Congress, including the late, great Senator Paul Wellstone, for democratic, not military, globalization.

Remember, as the slogan says, regime change begins at home.

Defending the Essence - The Constitution under attack
By William Rivers Pitt and Matthew W. Condon

Boston-Perhaps the most terrifying aspect of the September 11th attacks is that they were facilitated by the incredible freedoms enjoyed by American citizens. We can fly where we wish, drive where we wish, speak to whomever we wish, all without any significant supervision and intrusion from the Federal government. The terrorists who attacked us used these simple freedoms to deadly intent.

There is no question that 9/11 also happened because of catastrophic intelligence failures by the American government, failures that are, when analyzed, almost incomprehensible. This is an issue to be discussed in another forum. For details, read "The War on Freedom" by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed of the British Institute for Policy Research and Development.

Even with those failures in mind, it cannot be denied that the attackers used our freedoms against us. The question has become clear - what is the proper response to such a daunting fact?

The response of the Bush administration, facilitated by a stunned and quiescent Congress, was to pass the USA PATRIOT Anti-Terrorism Act in October of 2001. This Act re-wrote and disposed of a vast array of fundamental Constitutional freedoms American citizens had come to take for granted. An ACLU analysis of the Act, drafted a week after its passage, highlighted the largest issues of concern.

Among the USA Patriot Act's most troubling provisions, the ACLU said, are measures that:

In a perfect world, a benign government would use these awesome new powers only to do good. They would not abuse them in any way, but would focus only upon threats to America. Unfortunately, no such benign government exists. The Act has been used, and will continue to be used, as a tool for the intimidation of dissenters, the removal of immigrants, and for the systematic profiling of citizens and organizations whose only crime is to be of Arab descent. At bottom, the Act, as well as those within the Justice Department who would enforce it, has become a corrosively invasive mechanism for spying on Americans.

Take the recently-proposed TIPS Program as an example. TIPS - short for Terrorist Information and Prevention System - would bring in millions of Americans and use them to investigate other Americans. Truck drivers, cable television installers, mailmen, cab drivers, meter readers and a host of other individuals who have intimate access to private homes and conversations would report "suspicious activity" to the FBI and the Justice Department.

Beyond the fact that such a program would hopelessly bog down the FBI with false reports, consider the broad array of interpretation that could be applied to "suspicious activity." If you have the Koran on your bookshelf, or if you have literature that supports Palestine, or a book that is critical of the Bush administration, or if you don't have a Bible prominently displayed - all of these benign situations and more could be deemed suspicious by overzealous citizens bound and determined to root out terrorism. Once reported, your name is forever ensconced in an FBI file and database.

The fact that the TIPS Program was laughed out of existence - fearful laughter, yet - does not diminish the simple fact that such a program was contrived in the first place. Attorney General Ashcroft, while a member of Congress, tried on multiple occasions to rewrite the Constitution via amendments that ultimately failed. He is a religious extremist who chafes at the separation of church and state. While drafting the PATRIOT Act, he wrote a provision that did away with Habeas Corpus. While testifying before Congress about the Act in December of 2001, he stated bluntly that anyone who questions what he is doing to the Constitution is aiding terrorism.

The manner in which we address the means with which we were attacked on September 11th is of profound importance. A national debate on the merits of reconsidering some of the freedoms we enjoy is an absolute requirement. The Bush administration and John Ashcroft have allowed no such debate. They have, instead, acted by fiat and gone after the Constitution and Bill of Rights with erasers and redacting tape. The consequences of this will take years to fully encompass, and will be dire in the extreme.

In the final analysis, it comes to this. Destroying freedom in order to save freedom is a terribly poor idea. We should focus on why 9/11 happened in the first place, but we must also remember that we are defending the idea that is America as much as we are defending the physical reality of America. If we shatter that which makes us unique in special in the world, we hand those who attacked us an incredible victory.

[The proposed opening of the Fox Locks would greatly increase the likelihood of Gobies entering Lake Winnebago.]

The Round Goby (Neogobius melanostomus) spreads quickly and has been sighted in all five of the Great Lakes. Frequently, the Round Goby has become the dominant fish species. The Round Goby has many adaptive and highly competitive features that help it successfully inhabit foreign environments.

Gobies are very aggressive and robust fish. They are extremely territorial and very competitive for shelter, food, and spawning areas. If allowed to enter the Lake Winnebago ecosystem, these adaptive and competitive features would enable the Gobi to deplete many of the native fish species.

Gobies inhabit a wide variety of conditions. This means a high probability for success in Lake Winnebago and rivers connected to it. The trout and other fishes of the Wolf, Willow, Pumpkinseed and Pine rivers could be destroyed.
Gobies are avid foragers with diverse diets and will consider consuming smaller fish and eggs. Gobies also have a lateral line system that allows them to forage and feed at night. This system allows them to capture a large supply of food, and to avoid being detected by predators.

Gobies will spawn approximately six times in a season, at a rate of about once every 20 days. This reproductive ability provides a huge ecological advantage over native fish, who normally spawn only once per season.
Would-be Goby predators have a hard time learning how to catch the Goby, because these exotics jerk, scoot, then stop, only to shoot out unexpectedly in another direction. They will dive under gravel and vanish.

Gobies have had negative effects on many fish populations in the Great Lakes that foreshadow the Lake Winnebago system susceptibility. When Gobies reach high numbers, they have been known to eat the eggs of other fish. Researchers are concerned that they will attack nests of other fish during spawning season. Experiments have been conducted and have shown that Gobies will attack nests of other fish even if there is a fish guarding it. This shows that Gobies are aggressive, and appear to fear little. In the long run, these hostile fish will likely have a significant negative impact on Lake Winnebago fish.

"Anyone who wants to combat lies and ignorance today and to write the truth has at least five difficulties to overcome. He must have the courage to write the truth although it is suppressed everywhere, the cleverness to recognize it although it is veiled everywhere, the art to make it usable as a weapon; the judgment to select those in whose hands it may become effective; the cunning to spread it among these. These difficulties are great for those who write under fascism…indeed even for those who write in the countries of civic freedom."-Bertolt Brecht