"HONOR BOUND TO DEFEND FREEDOM" : WHAT ARE WE STILL DOING IN IRAQ?

AN ESSAY

Two weeks ago, I watched Paul Greengrass' searing Green Zone. Although the movie masquerades as a pure action thriller, it actually deeply criticizes American involvement in Iraq, especially the manufactured casus belli that led us to war. At several points during the movie,my emotions surged. I have always spoken out against the War in Iraq. I always considered it an illegitimate, illegal, unethical, imperialist venture without justification in law, justice or good policy. The movie showed raw American power at work. And that reawakened my slumbering vitriol about the war.

Green Zone opens in the din of an air raid. It is March 19, 2003, the day the U.S. air force began bombing Baghdad. Sirens wail. We hear the buildings shudder as explosions rip through the city. Iraqi men and women frantically run through hallways, shouting and screaming. We see lights flickering. Dust falls from ceilings. Windows break. Then the shot pans out to a vista over the city. Massive fireballs light up the night. Buildings burn. Anti-aircraft fire streaks into the sky. Jet engines and cruise missiles boom through the air before yet another explosion rips the skyline.

That scene choked me up. So that's American power, isn't it: The power to bomb a city into oblivion. The power to make civilians scramble in panic as the house next door explodes into a million pieces. The power to knock out electricity and destroy infrastructure. And for what? In hindsight, I knew there was no justification for the war. There were never any weapons of mass destruction. Iraq did not plan 9/11, nor did any Iraqis hijack the planes that attacked the United States. No, America flexed its muscles against Iraq simply because it could. It ignored the United Nations and its weapons inspectors. It acted with breathtaking defiance, even if it mumbled about "reliable independent intelligence" concerning an Iraqi nuclear arms program.

Worse, we're still there, seven years and 6000 American dead later. That's to say nothing about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and countless more lives ruined for nothing.

War apologists will inevitably label be a socialist for making these observations. They will tell me that "intelligence was uncertain" about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in early 2003, so it was better to be "safe than sorry." They will also tell me that America had "good reason" to attack Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant who tortured and murdered his own people. In fact, they will stress the fact that America "fights for freedom" around the world; even if we did not find nuclear weapons in Iraq, at least we gave Iraqis democracy.

I recoil from this facetious "freedom" explanation for the invasion. The argument is not just illogical; it also shows American involvement in Iraq for what it really is: A selective, hypocritical, arbitrary application of brute force. It is illogical because America does not really care about "worldwide freedom." In the first place, it is presumptuous to even suggest that "American-style freedom" can work in diverse cultures around the world. And even if such a thing as "freedom" were universal, why stop with Iraq? George W. Bush said that the war was necessary because "Iraqis needed freedom from a murderous tyrant who tortured and gassed his own people." Yet there are many nations across the globe that need the same treatment. The "freedom" rationale--if believed--would require U.S. military involvement in virtually every sub-Saharan African nation, as well as Saudi Arabia, several southeast Asian countries and even Russia. There are "tyrants" in all those nations who "murder their own people."

So why haven't we attacked all these other countries? If we truly care about "freedom," we should attack Rwanda, Uganda, the Congo, Pakistan and Malaysia. The fact that we haven't shows that our involvement in Iraq is purely selective. And because the freedom rationale is so weak, it begs the real question: Why Iraq? Only a naïve idiot could believe that America had a genuine interest in "Iraqis' freedom from tyranny." So what was the real reason?

For a long time, I thought that America invaded Iraq to gain access to its lucrative oil reserves. The cynic in me can never really suppress the thought. Yet after seven years of occupation, oil prices are no lower than they were in 2002. In fact, they have even spiked several times in the ensuing years. With oil men like Dick Cheney and George W. Bush in the White House, Iraq's oil must have been one reason why they decided to invade. In retrospect, it should have been an easy assignment: Knock out Saddam, capture the oil fields, set up some pipelines and start pumping.

But it did not work out that way. The war planners encountered a set of problems they did not anticipate: Sectarian strife. They must have underestimated how difficult it would be to occupy Iraq. They could not set up their pipelines or build their oil-carrying infrastructure because the Iraqis did not just roll over and allow the Americans to have their way with their country. They sabotaged roads, blew up tankers, ambushed convoys and beheaded "contractors." And because men like Donald Rumsfeld woefully miscalculated how much force would be needed to subdue Iraq, the U.S. military never had sufficient strength to pacify the countryside. Rumsfeld thought a "small, rapidly mobile force" with overwhelming air power could claim Iraq.

He was wrong. In the end, U.S. forces in Iraq wound up fighting a desperate "fire brigade" war in which they struggled to respond to local hotspots without bringing overall stability to the country. As a consequence, America could not realize its initial commercial war goal: Oil mercantilism.

Still, I am not writing today to summarize America's strategic failure in Iraq. Rather, I am writing to stress that America's failure was far larger than mere military stalemate. America sacrificed much more than young soldiers' blood to occupy Iraq. It also sacrificed its historically "moral high ground" in war by engaging in illegal, unethical behavior on an unprecedented scale. In the end, American occupiers showed themselves little better than the Baathist torturers they set out to depose in 2003.

Green Zone alludes to this. In brief, the movie follows an army officer (Matt Damon) assigned to locate nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction" at various sites throughout Baghdad. After coming up empty every time, he begins to wonder whether his intelligence is sound. He decides to investigate his sources and gradually uncovers a tangled web of official deceit running all the way down from the Pentagon. When he realizes that the Pentagon has basically misled the army into supporting the war, he sets out to locate an Iraqi general who met with a senior Pentagon official (Greg Kinnear) prior to the war. The general told the Pentagon official that Iraq had no WMD program. The Pentagon official lied about what the general said and told Washington that Iraq did have such a program. To prevent the truth from emerging, the Pentagon official sends a hit squad to kill the general. Meanwhile, the army officer rushes to save him and expose the truth.

Green Zone's plotline makes for a good thriller. But it also makes a valuable point: America's case for war against Iraq was marred from the outset. It was built upon official deception. It threw ethics to the wind and committed American blood for fabricated reasons. The movie shows the American government working in a criminally underhanded manner. It shows senior American officials manipulating the truth and authorizing murder to conceal it. While Green Zone might just be a movie, it is certainly based on real events.

I thought America was supposed to be better than this. What ever happened to America as the "White Knight" of international politics? There was a time when America went to war for good things--and only as a last resort. There was a time when people around the world looked to America as a beacon of freedom and justice. During that time, no one would have dared think America could be tyrannical or evil. America did not lie, cheat, deceive, torture, murder or kill. It punished those who did while remaining true to its ethical principles. Hitler tortured, killed and invaded. America liberated the death camps and freed Europe from Nazi domination. That was noble and just. That was America's international reputation. That America could never act a villain.

Sadly, America did act a villain in Iraq. In a telling scene, Green Zone reminds us that American forces committed atrocities against Iraqi prisoners. It shows us a "detainee camp" in which U.S. forces hold allegedly "high-value" Iraqis in a stockade. It shows U.S. troops brutalizing prisoners with clubs, barking dogs and extremely loud music. It shows them forcing prisoners to sit in uncomfortable positions. We hear prisoners crying out in pain from darkened solitary cells. Some even lie bleeding on the floor without medical care.

Ironically, a sign over the stockade reads: "Camp So-and-So : Honor-Bound to Defend Freedom."

What kind of freedom is this? What kind of honor? It is as if the American army in Iraq still believed that it was the "White Knight" of 1945, even though its "intelligence division" members acted more like SS torturers than noble liberators.

There is no honor in torture or inhumane treatment. America said it waged war in Iraq to overthrow tyranny and torture. Yet within weeks, it began committing the same outrages on Iraqi prisoners that Saddam committed against his own people. Of course, war apologists will say that troops in the field must discover valuable battlefield intelligence "by any means necessary." That may be so as a practical matter. But America used to draw ethical strength from its refusal to engage in the unsavory tactics of its enemies. America acquired a sterling reputation because it refused to be Machiavellian.

We have drifted far from our ethical moorings. The war in Iraq has cost this country more than individual soldiers. It has also cost us our international reputation. We are no longer noble liberators committed to justice. Rather, we are now petulant rogues who wage war simply because we want to, without regard to ethics or international law. Our involvement in Iraq is a very dark chapter in American history. It is the chapter in which America became just another Machiavellian State determined to do its will, no matter the cost in blood or principle.

I wonder whether we will ever repair the damage we have done to ourselves.

STOP THE EVIL CHICKEN BUTCHERS : EQUAL CHICKEN RIGHTS NOW

THE CHICKENS SPEAK

By : Mr. Woodrow D. Beakman, L.L.M., a Chicken; Escapee, Selma (Alabama) Poultry Processing Plant; Formerly Known as a "Grade D Fryer - Strong Style;" Self-taught in English and Human Communication; Avian; Honorary Master's Degree Holder in Human Rights Law, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C. (2008); Author, "Fried Chicken Holocaust : America is a Death House for Birds Everywhere" (Forthcoming, HarperCollins™ 2010).

America is a great Nation because it respects life. It fights for dignity and freedom abroad. It believes that all living creatures have a right to exist. America trusts life because it knows that life represents potential greatness for all. Life is good. It is worth saving. In short, America stands up for life.

Yet America has failed to stand up for life when it comes to chickens. To the contrary, America has committed heinous crimes against chickens everywhere. In every State, America allows men to ruthlessly imprison, mistreat, pluck, murder, slaughter, dismember, disembowel and process helpless chickens on an industrial scale. Worse, America even encourages bloodthirsty criminals to butcher chickens in the name of "commercial advancement."

This is an outrage against life and dignity. As chickens, we demand that America cease its genocidal campaign against us at once. We may be chickens. But we are people, too. We deserve to live just as much as a brain-dead human child or an endangered humpback whale. We refuse to allow our brethren to die in poultry slaughterhouses so that greedy profiteers can sell our breasts, thighs, wings and gullets. We refuse to allow our mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers to end their existence beer-basted and fried at the bottom of some God-forsaken Styrofoam bucket. Put simply, we demand that America respect all life--including chicken life.

Why does America refuse to see us? Indeed, America seems almost willfully blind concerning our daily ordeals. Rather than express outrage over our horrific treatment, Americans actually praise the men who orchestrate our slaughter. Just last week, for example, the Wall Street Journal ran a piece analyzing the "highly successful business model" employed by two notorious chicken butchers: Harlan David "Colonel" Sanders and his protégé Dave Thomas. According to the Journal, these two "entrepreneurs" devised an "exemplary food processing and delivery system," in addition to creating "a shrewd marketing scheme designed to maximize consumer interest in chicken meals." As a result, said the Journal, "Sanders and Thomas stand as giants in the business community." In conclusion: "Every food service entrepreneur should study the Sanders/Thomas Method well."

Giants in the business community? Exemplary food processing and delivery systems? Sanders/Thomas Method? Does the Journal even understand what made these men "giants?" Does any American really understand what methods made these men "successful?"

Sanders and Thomas are not heroes. Rather, they are evil chicken butchers who scorn life. They achieved their "success" by purposely breeding, corralling, beheading, gutting and packaging millions of innocent chickens. Yet Americans celebrate these butchers every day, not just in the Wall Street Journal, but also in rundown chicken shacks from coast to coast. Every day, Americans sing praises to Sanders and Thomas as they greedily feast on the flesh of our kin.

This is not dignity. This is not respect for life. This is genocide.

According to international law, "genocide" means the intentional killing of any identifiable ethnic, national, racial or religious group because of animus against that group. Chickens are a racial group. Our genetic combinations result in a unique racial identity. Racially, we are chickens. And because villains like Sanders and Thomas hunt us down and kill us because we are racially chicken, that makes them genocidal mass murderers, not entrepreneurs.

America should think long and hard about glorifying these killers. It should think about its principles. After all, America prosecuted Nazi war criminals for genocide after World War II. It prosecuted Slobodan Milosevic for "ethnic cleansing" in Yugoslavia. It even investigated Iraqi officials who allegedly killed minorities in that country. Hollywood superstars have lobbied for aid to Darfur, where ethnic groups make war on each other.

In short, America says it cares about stopping genocide. Why, then, does it call "Colonel" Sanders an "entrepreneur" rather than a chicken-slaughtering thug? America says it recoils from systematic, racially-motivated killings worldwide. Why, then, can it not see that chickens endure racially-motivated killing every single day? Chicken genocide proceeds on an unimaginable scale. Only 400,000 Rwandans perished in that country's genocide. Yet billions of chickens have been left writhing to die in grime-covered barrels since America took a liking to "Original Recipe" hot wings. And that's just in America. Other countries like to eat us, too. China, for instance, does not just violate human rights. It massively violates chicken rights, too. Put simply, no human genocide in history can compare to the intentional butchery chickens have suffered.

Chickens deserve to live the American dream. They deserve a chance to live in peace, prosper, propagate and find some happiness before they die. America guarantees that dream to all humans who live in its borders. It also says that all life is valuable. If that is true, why does America condemn chickens to systematic exploitation, pain and death? What about a young chicken's dream? Don't chickens get a chance to go to school, find love, work at a job and go to the movies on weekends? Don’t chickens get a chance to raise children and find meaning in life? Humans do. Why not chickens? We are living, breathing creatures, too. We have cells and brains. Our brains may not be as large as men's brains. But that is no reason to pluck us alive, cut our throats, batter us, fry us and feed us to a Little League team along with Grape Soda and potato salad.

We are more valuable than vegetables. We are living, breathing avians, not plants. We are not inanimate turnips or cabbage heads. Put simply, it is morally wrong for America to discriminate against us because we have feathers and small brains. We have webbed feet and gizzards. So what? America says it values diversity. Yet it kills us because we have gizzards and humans do not. America can benefit from all life, including creatures with gizzards. The fact that we have gizzards does not make us inferior. We are no less alive than a college professor or a superstar athlete. We all breathe the same air. We all give birth to young. True, we lay eggs and humans pop children out alive. But our distinctive reproductive methods are no reason to slaughter us and eat us; they are part of "who we are."

Federal law and the United States Constitution prohibit discrimination based upon reproductive capacity. It is no answer, then, to say that "chickens deserve differential treatment" simply because they lay eggs. In a word, America says it values equality. Like humans, we are "living things." Viewed in that light, we are equal. We demand EQUALITY NOW.

But this debate is not just about the law. This debate is about America's conscience. After all, how can America continue preaching about equality, dignity and "respect for life" when it condemns an entire segment of its living population to industrialized slaughter? How can America maintain its moral rectitude when it sets aside an entire segment of its living population to be greedily eaten along with sweet-n-sour sauce, cole slaw and biscuits? And how can it maintain its respect for individual autonomy when it refuses to allow chickens to form their own identities?

Every chicken is special. We refuse to be labeled "Grade A Fryers," "Finger-Lickin' Drumsticks," "Nuggets" or "Dark Meat Specials." We are unique individuals with thoughts, dreams and desires. America exists to allow every living individual to reach his maximal potential in all things. America exists to protect everyone's right to live. In that light, we demand that America live up to its principles. It must stop praising chicken butchers like "Colonel" Sanders and Dave Thomas. It must stop dooming our relatives to frozen death in microwave dinner boxes. In short, how is it American to allow a human to go to college and prosper, while allowing a chicken to live a wretched existence before being thrown into a steel plucking machine?

It is time to stand up for what is right. It is time to stand up for life. Chickens have so much to contribute to American life. We do not just exist to die and fill human stomachs. We do not just exist to peck around farmyards and cluck. No, we are living, breathing creatures. We can achieve great things. And if America cares about stopping genocide, it can start by bringing men like Sanders and Thomas to justice, not calling them "successful food industry entrepreneurs."

There is nothing "entrepreneurial" about mass murder. As chickens in a Republic that values diversity in all living things, we demand a voice. We refuse to be exterminated, chopped up, bagged and drowned in barbecue sauce any longer.

That is not our destiny. And that is no way to treat an entire race in America.

TERROR TRIALS IN NEW YORK : DO WE REALLY CARE ABOUT FAIRNESS?

AN ESSAY

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it would try several key al-Qaeda suspects for their alleged role in the 9/11 attacks. That was big news; under President Bush's direction, the Justice Department deferred exclusively to the military for handling so-called "enemy combatants" captured in the "War on Terror." Unlike President Bush, Obama decided to heed the United States Constitution and prosecute these suspects before U.S. civilian courts. After all, these detainees are not "soldiers captured in War" under the Geneva Convention, because al-Qaeda did not sign the treaty. Yet American authorities hold them on American territory for breaking American laws. In such circumstances, there is only one lawful alternative: Try them in domestic courts.

This was a significant step. But the Justice Department announced something even more significant: It would try the suspects in New York.

From a legal perspective, it makes little difference where the sovereign chooses to try a criminal defendant for violating the law. Here, the United States seeks to convict terrorists for plotting to attack the World Trade Center and ultimately destroy it. As long as the sovereign holds the defendant in his realm, he can prosecute him under the ancient principle of "personal jurisdiction over the body." If you are present in a country and you commit a crime there, you can be prosecuted for it in that country--it is very simple.

It also makes sense to try 9/11 conspirators in New York from a practical perspective. In criminal trials, venue is proper when it is easy for witnesses to get to the courthouse. Certain districts have a greater interest in trying a case than others, especially when all the "sources of proof" lie in those districts. Venue is also proper when the crime has a direct connection to the locale. Even the United States Constitution says: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." U.S. Const. Amd. VI. This makes common sense as well as constitutional sense. It is practical--and somehow just--to try cases in the places where the crimes happened. Every jurisdiction has a public interest in punishing wrongdoing in its own borders.

Yet there are times in which it does not make sense to try cases in the most logical places. New York seems the most fitting place to try those accused of destroying the World Trade Center. All the witnesses are there, and obviously New York has a burning local interest in punishing those who caused such havoc in its borders.

But these practical advantages spawn larger concerns. After all, the Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants "a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury." U.S. Const. Amd. VI. It is also guarantees that "no State shall deny any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Id. at Amd. IV, s. 1 The Supreme Court has held repeatedly that a State deprives "a person" of "due process of law" if it does not afford him a "fair trial." For obvious reasons, 9/11 conspirators may not get a "fair trial" by an "impartial jury" in New York. That is why it might not make sense to hold the trial there.

How can any New York jury be impartial about 9/11? Daily newspapers routinely run stories about "dangerous Muslims." Bitter memory about 9/11 runs deep. Many people knew individuals who died in the attacks, or they know their families. 9/11 is a focal point for national anger; and it burns hottest in New York.

These are the people who will sit in the "New York jury pool" when the conspirators step into court in New York. Can they be impartial? Can they render a judgment free from passion, excitement, resentment, anger or emotion? Trials are fair when they are based on evidence admitted under law in open court. They are not fair when they are based on emotional reaction, prejudice or bias.

And how can New Yorkers insulate themselves from pervasive press coverage about the trial? As soon as the Justice Department announced that it would try the suspects in New York, the New York Post published a blaring headline: "NOW DIE! 9/11 Fiends Coming Back to New York for Trial--Next Stop Hell."

That headline reminded me about the famous Supreme Court case about trial publicity and Due Process: Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966). Sheppard held that every criminal defendant has a right to a "fair trial free from massive, pervasive and prejudicial news coverage" that is "reasonably likely" to lead the jury to find against him based on inadmissible evidence and emotion. The case also concluded that the trial judge has a duty to control press access to the trial, and to monitor every juryman's out-of-court attention to news comment about the case. After all, according to the Court, the State provides trials in order to "adjudicate controversies, both civil and criminal, in the calmness and solemnity of the courtroom according to legal procedures." Id. at 350, 351, quoting Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 583 (1965). Those "legal procedures" include the requirement that the jury base its conclusions on evidence admitted in court, not on outside sources or emotion. Id. Prejudicial and pervasive press coverage undermines these goals when it poisons an entire population against a criminal defendant. And it undermines another key goal in our justice system: Fairness.

Many people discount fairness in legal questions. Law professors used to scoff at me when I suggested that certain results in cases were "unfair" or that legal forms resulted in "unfairness." After all, the law attempts to introduce scientific certainty into the maelstrom of human existence. It attempts to govern the ungovernable. In many ways, humans are ungovernable because nothing can control their emotions. Emotions are not reasonable; they are intuitive. Sometimes they flow from perceptible evidence. At times they do not. Legal formalism fails when it refuses to accept just how important emotion and intuition are to the human mind. Like emotion, it is difficult to quantify fairness. We know it when we feel it. We know when a process is unfair, even if we cannot articulate why. Fairness is important to the law, even if it draws ridicule from law professors. And sometimes even the law recognizes how important it is. In more hopeful moments, even the Supreme Court sees that no legal rule can survive unless it comports with intuitive fairness: "[O]ur system of law has endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness." Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 353 (1966), quoting In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955).

I doubt whether the 9/11 suspects will receive a "fair trial" anywhere in the United States. But I am certain they will not receive a fair trial in New York. The fact that the New York Post blared a headline telling the suspects (who are not convicted) to "Go Die" and mentioned "hell" indicates how New Yorkers feel about the case. True, not everyone reads the Post. But it voices a very popular sentiment, and it is almost impossible to avoid seeing such headlines each day. And these are the people who will receive jury duty summonses. Can we expect them to be "unbiased, calm and serene" as they consider "only evidence produced in court" in this case? I think not.

All this begs a question: Why even bother holding a trial at all for these suspects? In theory, the State and the individual should be equally matched at trial. The State attempts to divine the "truth" about the individual's "criminal act," while the individual--whom our system presumes innocent--is free to cast doubt on all the State's claims. As long as he produces a reasonable doubt about his guilt, he must go free.

But this is all theory. Few Americans presume everyday criminal suspects innocent, let alone the 9/11 conspirators. These men have been demonized in the press for over eight years. They have been held in orange jumpsuits at Guantanamo Bay. We have all seen the pictures. Can any American truly presume them innocent? Can any American reflect on them without bias or prejudice? Yet we now expect Americans--in New York, no less--to put aside all their emotions about 9/11, as well as all the negative publicity they have heard about it for the past eight years. We now expect that they will calmly and serenely reflect solely on evidence produced in court. We expect them to drop all their emotions, preconceptions and prejudices. We expect them to magically forget all the horrible things they have been told in the press since 2001. And we even expect them to respond to a judge's command to "exclude any information I deem inadmissible," including confessions induced by torture.

If our jury actually acts in the way the law expects, the 9/11 suspects will get the "fair trial" to which the Constitution entitles them. But people do not simply shut off their bias or emotion. Nor can they erase a fact from their memory simply because a judge says: "Disregard that fact, please." In short, national hysteria surrounding 9/11 for the last decade has so inflamed the American public that there is no way the 9/11 conspirators will get anything approaching a fair trial.

In this case, emotion, prejudice and a rabid press have already made the decision.

As guilty as the conspirators may be, we should step back and ask ourselves how "fair" our process truly is. And while we're at it, perhaps we should wonder whether we even want "fairness" for "monsters."

But if we sacrifice fairness in one case, what happens in the next one?

AMERICA MUST SWEEP PIRATES FROM THE INTERNATIONAL SEALANES

CONSIDERED OPINION

By : The Right Honorable Admiral Sir Hercules Robinson, Acting Governor General of Her Imperial Majesty Queen Victoria in the Crown Colony of Cape Town, SOUTH AFRICA; Former Governor General of New South Wales in the Crown Colony of AUSTRALIA; Former Supreme Commander of Her Majesty’s Naval Forces in and around the Crown Colony of FIJI in the PACIFIC ISLANDS; Former Governor General in and for the Crown Colony of HONG KONG, a City wrested from the savage and barbaric CHINESE EMPIRE; Deceased 1897.

International commerce depends on secure transport by sea. Our great British Empire understands that sea power translates readily into economic power. When our merchant ships pass freely across the world’s oceans, British power grows. But it is no easy task to secure the sea. Nothing is vaster—or more perilous—than those great oceans over which our valuable cargoes must travel. Danger lurks everywhere. Captains must weather brutal storms on the Indian Ocean. They must navigate harrowing crosscurrents near the Cape of Good Hope. They must skillfully avoid shoals and reefs in the Caribbean. And no matter where they sail, they must keep vigilant watch for PIRATES, those enemies of all humanity.

I have recently learned that pirates hijacked the American container ship Maersk Alabama near the Somali Horn in Africa. According to reports, these vicious buccaneers took the Captain hostage and imprisoned the crew in the boiler room. Thankfully, the crew sent a distress signal, alerting the American Navy destroyer USS Bainbridge that they required immediate assistance. The pirates abandoned their quarry in a lifeboat, taking the captain with them at gunpoint. Bainbridge secured Alabama, then made chase after the cowardly pirates as they fled in their lifeboat. Bainbridge swiftly overtook the pirates. Marines stationed aboard Bainbridge eliminated the pirates with sniper fire, captured one surviving pirate and rescued the captain.

I am at heart an Admiral. I must say this was a highly effective naval intervention. Jolly good work, gentlemen.

Despite the happy result in the Alabama case, I write today to urge the American government to crush the pirate menace once and for all. As a fellow colonial power with overseas interests, I cannot overemphasize how important it is to secure the sea-lanes. The attack on Alabama was no fluke; these brazen African pirates have long harassed international sea traffic along the Somali coast. Piracy did not die in the 18th Century. We must recognize that pirates still prowl the waves, threatening vital sea commerce between colonial outposts and home ports. More than any other transport method, our economies depend upon intercontinental sea carriage. Ships transfer the largest amount of material at the lowest cost. Without reliable sea transport, costs for goods ranging from Chinese umbrellas to African coffee beans to Vietnamese rice will skyrocket. Merchant captains will fear to leave port, increasing crew costs and insurance expenditures. Our troubled economic outlook will only worsen if we do not seriously address the pirate menace.

I am no expert in American or British law. I am a Governor General and an Admiral by trade. But I understand that piracy harms overseas interests. And I understand that America—like Great Britain—depends on overseas interests for continued economic strength. Nonetheless, there are established legal mechanisms in place to deal with these seaborne brigands. Any Nation on earth may seize pirates and try them in their own courts under a universal jurisdictional principle. Pirates are hostes omnes humanis—enemies of all humanity. By taking arms against ships under any flag, pirates exclude themselves from the brotherhood of Nations. As such, all Nations have a right to seize and punish them, for they are equally hostile to every Nation. Furthermore, your American Constitution empowers Congress: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas[].” U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8 cl. 9. In short, do not hesitate to take harsh action against pirates. Both American law and international law regard them with contempt. I urge you to launch a determined effort to sweep these thankless rogues from the oceans.

We must protect our commercial interests. Let us be honest: We maintain a military presence on many continents in order to protect our trade all over the world. For example, Her Majesty would not maintain a garrison in South Africa were it not for the mineral resources British companies exploit here, nor would your American President maintain a garrison in Iraq were it not for the mineral resources American companies exploit there. We invest military force when necessary to expand and protect significant commercial interests. Yet our investments on land would be for naught if we did not control the sea. In that sense, we may win commercial rewards on land across the globe, but we cannot truly realize our bounty unless we can freely ship our treasure from port to port. Just as the military protects commerce on land, so too must it protect commerce at sea. Consider the sea the circulatory system of international commerce. Without clear, healthy arteries, the whole organism dies. To that extent, our military must jealously guard the sea-lanes. We owe it to the merchants who make our countries as great as they are.

I suggest aggressive action on both land and sea. In my experience, I have learned that restless natives are dangerous. Applying that lesson, I have found that it is always best to strike first. When it comes to naval action, “striking first” means choosing the place of engagement. Do not wait for pirates to attack you; attack the pirates when they least expect it. Patrol their known launch areas. Assemble rapid strike forces. Do not wait for them to put to sea; bombard their harbors and put marine parties ashore to round up their leaders. If you prefer sea action, I suggest using decoy ships to lure pirates onto the water. Once they commit themselves to piracy, deploy a fast fleet and destroy them. The American Navy has massive resources. Use them aggressively. There is no point wasting national treasure on warships if you do not use them for their intended purpose: Sea combat.

We must match aggressive measures on the high seas with aggressive actions on land. When we capture pirates, there is no time for legal nicety. Pirates are not ordinary criminals; they are enemies of all humanity. As such, they do not deserve the same legal process as other prisoners. In the British tradition, Royal Navy Captains hanged pirates from the yardarms or threw them overboard for shark fodder. If they did transport them back for trial, justice was swift. After all, what legal defense can a pirate offer? That he did not take up arms against a defenseless merchant ship? That he mistook the merchant ship for a man-o-war? Rubbish. Pirates have no legal defense. If they are taken in arms on the high seas, they are pirates. Pirates are enemies of all humanity. That ends the legal debate. The fact that British authorities put pirates to death indicates the seriousness of the crime. We do not tolerate interference with our colonial or commercial interests. We did not invest our national toil and blood creating an Empire to sit by and allow bloodthirsty robbers to plunder our bounty at will.

In 2009, you Americans occupy much the same position we occupied in 1890. You have the largest economy in the world. Your commercial interests stretch across the globe. Your merchant fleet supplies your wealth. In that light, I must urge you to protect your bounty. No Nation in history has ever cultivated commerce as masterfully as the United States. It would be a tragedy if piratical scallywags shook faith in American economic might. Your military power is unmatched. Start using it for its proper purpose: To protect American commerce worldwide.

We cannot afford to lose the war against piracy. World commerce depends on safe sea traffic. To that extent, I urge you not to give in to “humanitarian” concerns when prosecuting captured pirates. I am informed that you already hold one pirate in custody. It is admirable that you wish to put him on trial, but you cannot let him win. Pirates have no legal defense. Do not let pirates hoodwink you. Do not encourage future atrocities by allowing pirates to believe they can escape punishment. This suspect says he was “forced into piracy” by “intimidating local warlords” who “promised him money.” He also claims he is only 16 and speaks no English. You must put aside your sympathy and remember what this man did. Your Navy captured him on the high seas after he forcibly boarded a merchant ship and threatened the crew with a rifle. That is piracy. It would not matter if he were 16 or 6 or 600. It does not matter why he did it; it matters that he forcibly boarded a ship while armed. If we start treating pirates like “regular criminals,” we put our entire colonial economy in jeopardy. Our overseas commercial interests are simply too important for us to accord civil liberties and legal process to pirates determined to interfere with those interests. After all, Nations exist to engage in world commerce. Pirates undermine our very raison d’etre as independent sovereignties. That distinguishes them from common robbers. Pirates make war on the very foundations of our national identity. Thus, we must have no qualms about treating them in a peremptory manner.

I wish you good fortune in your enterprise against the pirates. We must act quickly. If you require support from the Royal Navy or Royal Marines, please do not hesitate to enlist my assistance. Together, we can sweep these curs from the oceans for all time. On that happy day, goods will travel unimpeded—at low cost—from Shanghai to Montevideo to New York to Hamburg to Vladivostok and beyond. When we secure the seas, we secure commerce. And when commerce is secure, Nations prosper.

REFLECTIONS ON THE GEORGIA CRISIS

AN ESSAY

Written August 14, 2008

I have grown accustomed to absurd statements issuing from the Bush Administration. But yesterday’s gaffe bears mention for its sheer hypocrisy. Sadly, it underscores the damage Bush has done to America’s international credibility; the damage is so severe, in fact, that America is virtually disqualified from invoking international law.

While Bush watched swimmers at the 2008 Olympic games in Beijing, Russia launched an attack on its southern neighbor, Georgia—a new American ally and aid recipient. The conflict arose over a Georgian province called South Ossetia, which is ethnically Russian and has strong ties with Moscow. Georgia moved to expel Russian peacekeepers from South Ossetia, leading to a Russian intervention and encroachment onto Georgian territory. After several bloody days and numerous casualties through Russian air and artillery bombardment, Georgia called for a cease-fire. Russia agreed, but the atmosphere remained tense. Russian troops continued to advance into Georgia. After returning to Washington, President Bush demanded that Russia “adhere to the cease-fire agreement with Georgia.” Meanwhile, U.S. aid arrived at the Georgian capital, Tbilisi.

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice gave a statement announcing the Bush Administration’s approach to the crisis. In a direct rebuke to Russia, she said: “If Russia wants to play on the world stage, it must play by the rules.”

The outrageousness of this statement should be lost on no one who knows recent American foreign policy. Today, America is the last country on earth that should feel entitled to assert international law. Bush and his Administration have repeatedly shown that they do not care about “rules,” whether international (Treaties and the United Nations) or domestic (The Constitution). It is therefore extremely hypocritical for Bush now to insist that Russia refrain from an invasion. After all, America did not “play by the rules” in 2003 when it invaded Iraq on false pretenses and without approval from the United Nations. Similarly, America did not play by its own constitutional rules when it held citizens and foreign nationals without charge at Guantanamo Bay, wiretapped phone calls without warrant or probable cause and authorized its executive agents to hand prisoners over to foreign allies to circumvent domestic bans on torture. Furthermore, Bush’s Administration showed contempt for the rules of international law. The Administration actually requested that lawyers seize upon linguistic ambiguities in treaties such as the Protocol Against Torture and the Geneva Convention (to both of which the United States is a signatory) to maintain disingenuous arguments that its practices did not amount to torture. This, in turn, led to the grotesque spectacle of American “jurists” actually debating whether forcibly suspending a person on a declining board with cellophane over his head and pouring water down his face “intentionally inflicts serious pain.” These barely legal methods have earned America a reputation for dishonesty and lawlessness on the world stage. They have undermined America’s credibility on matters of international principle and render her attempt to hold Russia to “the rules” laughable. Russia must now be wondering: “How can the world’s most facetious rulebreaker now insist that we play by the rules?”

America’s take-no-prisoners approach in the War on Terror has created dangerous international precedent. If America plays fast and loose with international law and faces no consequence, should it surprise us that other powerful countries may wish to do the same without fear? Whether it knows it or not, America has a responsibility—as the world’s preeminent economic and military power—to adhere to principle, if for no other reason than to take the moral high ground over more unscrupulous world powers. America has always prided itself as the world’s beacon for democracy, freedom, justice and right, even if its own history reveals a checkered record on these issues. Yet America’s recent contempt for international rules has badly tarnished whatever reputation it may have had as the “White Knight” of world powers. When our public officials speak now about “international rules” on the “world stage,” their words ring hollow and warped.

This is the price Nations must pay for obtaining results “by any means.” While such an approach may guarantee victory in one confrontation, it stains the Nation’s image for all time, weakening any attempt to assert principles that it ignored in other circumstances. Such damage can only heal with time and conscientious, genuine effort. Of course, a Nation may take the haughty road and admit no fault, pressing onward as if it did nothing wrong. But to press on without acknowledging unjust conduct is a hallmark of tyranny, for nothing will deter that Nation from resorting to the same conduct—or worse conduct—when the next crisis arises. And what is tyranny, if not the raw assertion of power in conscious disregard of established rules?