A Time For Everything

Today, amidst the usual turmoil and trouble due to upcoming elections, something has come to add to the chaos in a frightening way. The assasination of former Pakistani PM Benazir Bhutto has already had consequences felt everywhere. In an attack chalked up to rising insurgency, questions remain. The US seems to be taking an approach designed to keep everything relating to them peaceful and letting the rest fall as it may. Now, there are times when this philosophy is appropriate; this is not one of those times. The United States have been so busy policing the rest of the world that they have neither the resources, the will, nor the ability to judge when such assistance is really beneficial. The most the US has managed to do is express a wish for the elections to continue as planned, rather than aid the investigation and, if necessary, rethink their financial support, depending on the outcome of said investigation. With Bhutto dead and Sharif still refusing to participate, two out of three candidates are out. The boycott was proposed to promote legitimacy. The only thing different now is that Musharraf and his backers in the West can claim a sense of security, albeit shallow, by changing its focus from a resistance movement to an unfortunate happening that is meant to be mourned for a time and forgotten.
Order must be restored to the region. With rising militancy and acts of terrorism being joined now by increasing religious tensions in next-door India, something must change, but not the way we have been trying to do it. We have focused our attentions as a war in the Middle East, namely Iraq and Afghanistan. We will be in a sore place if we do not act in response. Keeping a single-minded attitude never solved anything. America may have backed the wrong plan of action, as evidenced now in current events. A different set of tactics is needed. Instead of backing a particular party or candidate, why not a system or establishment, such as the restoration of stability regardless of who leads the country we are dealing with? We made the same mistake in the Middle East, arbitrarily choosing sides in a matter that had little to do with us. At first it was simple: join the enemies of our enemies. After that it splintered out and our choices were poor, but still we pressed on with our ever-failing plan of action. This is a lesson history does not need repeating.

-Modern Diogenes-

Convenient Scapegoats

This country has outdone itself in recent years. This title is not a good one, however. Rather, it is one of pathetic blame-shifting, one where we can claim to have perfected excuse-making to an art. Every action is the result of some motive, granted, and politics has never been an honest arena. However, when every move is justified by a loose and vague reply, suspicion begins to arise.
The Bush administration has always made it a point to brainwash the general public, but poorly executed repetition has rendered it useless and failing.
The UN was persuaded to send weapons inspectors to Iraq, with Bush hoping to find a publicly-announceable reason to invade. When no weapons were discovered, he relied on pure nationalism to gain support. And now, as it becomes clearer and clearer that the invasion is a failure, this popular support is losing hold in all but the most fervent "patriots", with such a title being bestowed upon his few remaining loyal lemmings in order to captivate their sense of duty.
The use of torture is now becoming one of those issues, Bush contradicting himself by both claiming it is a necessary evil to find and eradicate terrorism and then denying any such interrogation techniques. How convenient that the tapes that would provide definitive proof have been destroyed. The very fact that they have been destroyed only proves the crime. And yet we are back to utter denial.
The question of using interrogation techniques classified as torture on known criminals is not much a question at all. Part III, Section I, Article 17 of the Geneva Convention explicitly states "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever." Even in the case of peacetime, such measures exist. Part I, Article 3 says "To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons...Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture..."
Perhaps it is understandable, however. We would only be keeping with the current trend of believing laws only apply in select, opportune cases. Even in cases of civil disobedience punishment is accepted for the lack of compliance with a specific law. Must our leaders perform this self-serving routine of applying only the most advantageous of laws to themselves and discarding all moral and just boundaries, skipping above the surface of reproachment?

-Modern Diogenes-