A Time For Peace?

Townhall printed a good article today by Doug Bandow on the need for a rapprochement between the United States and our allies. He states;

The mutual snarling serves no one's interest. Repairing the relationship first will require honesty. Secretary of State Colin Powell recently argued, "This is a conflict that we did not ask for, we did not seek, we did not want, we did everything to avoid."

No serious person could believe him. Washington was determined to go to war; that very determination won President Bush popular support in the United States. The administration needs to justify its decision, not run from it.

Washington should acknowledge that it overstated its case. The failure to find any weapons of mass destruction is deeply embarrassing. If Iraq wasn't willing to use such weapons to defend itself, they apparently didn't exist or weren't worth using.

At the same time, Washington's critics should acknowledge that their stance reflects less commitment to international law than concern about American dominance. Moreover, they need to recognize that Bush is no crazy cowboy, as evidenced by his circumspect response to the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11.

Both sides need to regain a sense of proportion toward multilateralism. If the United States believes that its vital interests are at stake, it should not wait for U.N. approval to respond.

Yet multilateralism has value. Washington is likely to find that the difficult process of creating a stable democratic Iraq would be easier with wider international support.

Wise words, well worth considering.

The Fourteenth Ammendment

Do you remember the 14th Ammendment? It was passed in the wake of the Civil War to declare African-Americans Citizens. Let's look at the first section of the Ammendment. (For those interested in a more complete version, here it is)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

However, this law has also been used to protect coorporate interests. In particular, the part which states, "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . ." has been useful. You see, if a State passes a law saying corporation X has to improve worker's safety conditions, than, the argument goes, that State has violated the Corporations power over its property.

So, to make a long story short, Corporations are people, and thus the government cannot place any restrictions on their behaivior that they would not place on an individual. At least that's the argument.

This argument reached a certain level of absurdity lately, when Nike claimed the right to lie to its customers. The issue was reported on at Commondreams.org. "While Nike was conducting a huge and expensive PR blitz to tell people that it had cleaned up its subcontractors' sweatshop labor practices, an alert consumer advocate and activist in California named Marc Kasky caught them in what he alleges are a number of specific deceptions. Citing a California law that forbids corporations from intentionally deceiving people in their commercial statements, Kasky sued the multi-billion-dollar corporation.

"Instead of refuting Kasky's charge by proving in court that they didn't lie, however, Nike instead chose to argue that corporations should enjoy the same "free speech" right to deceive that individual human citizens have in their personal lives. If people have the constitutionally protected right to say, "The check is in the mail," or, "That looks great on you," then, Nike's reasoning goes, a corporation should have the same right to say whatever they want in their corporate PR campaigns."

Well, today Doug Bandow writes about World Com's current problems. Apparently, they are in danger of losing lucrative government contracts, because of their previous dishonesty. "Obviously, WorldCom is culpable for gross misconduct in overstating its earnings. The market rightly judged the company harshly. Credit dried up and suppliers cut shipments. So WorldCom went into Chapter 11.

However, today's WorldCom is not yesterday's WorldCom. CEO Bernie Ebbers, CFO Scott Sullivan and four others were immediately dismissed; inquiries by the Justice Department, the SEC and the media have identified no other miscreants. . . .

Corporate misbehavior needs to be punished and it has been in the case of WorldCom. The market forced the firm into bankruptcy; corrupt executives lost their jobs and have been prosecuted.

The company still might not survive. But government shouldn't make that decision. WorldCom's future should be left up to the marketplace."

As they say, you can't blame them for trying. If an individual in the United States is convicted of committing a felony, he loses the right to vote forever. He doesn't get to come back a year or two later and say to the judge, "Your Honor, I've been really good for the last couple of months, and I'd like my right to vote back." Why should WorldCom get that privilege?

More to the point, how do we, as Americans, know that World Com has changed?

Good news. I was just informed that the Supreme Court, in Marc Kasky v. Nike Inc., ruled against Nike, stating, "Our holding, based on decisions of the United States Supreme Court, in no way prohibits any business enterprise from speaking out on issues of public importance or from vigorously defending its own labor practices. It means only that when a business enterprise, to promote and defend its sales and profits, makes factual representations about its own products or its own operations, it must speak truthfully. Unlike our dissenting colleagues, we do not consider this a remarkable or intolerable burden to impose on the business community. We emphasize that this lawsuit is still at a preliminary stage, and that whether any false representations were made is a disputed issue that has yet to be resolved."

Abandoning Iraq

There was an article by Doug Bandow today, in which he decried America's potential nation building operation in Iraq. He states, "Having invaded Iraq, Washington has little choice but to help rebuild that nation. However, America's basic objective should be to safeguard U.S. security, not to inaugurate an Iraqi New Deal. That means being less concerned about whether Iraq holds together, who rules Baghdad, and how the country's politics are practiced, and more concerned that any regime neither traffics in weapons of mass destruction nor terrorism."

First of all, don't the rulers of Iraq maybe exert some influence over whether their nation supports weapons of mass destruction or terrorism?

But more to the point, regardless of the difficulties, the creation of a stable, democratic, capitalist Iraq would have positive reprecutions throughout the region. It would be a blessing to the Iraqi people, who have had to suffer under Saddam's despotic rule. It would show the Middle East that we come not as conquerors, nor in vengence, but to help.

There are going to be strong pressures on President Bush to abandon Iraq, but I encourage each of us to support him in his efforts to rebuild Iraq. Here is President Bush's E-mail address. president@whitehouse.gov

Brandy's Bemusings

Here are Brandy's comments on the marches over the weekend.

"Come on people...lets just be honest here about what these 'anti-war' demonstrations are about. they should be called Anti-Bush. first case in point, I have heard SO many of these marchers say they would support the war if the UN sanctions it...well then, um how exactly are you anti-war? Oh, I see, only anti-war if it is Bush.

Second...and please pay attention here, don't think on what you are going to say next or what you should have for lunch, just really really listen...Bush has NOT gone to war, yes, that is right, not a missile has been fired, no soldier has stepped foot on Iraqi land, and are you ready for this...he IS waiting to see what the UN says. Those who say...'well we all KNOW what he is going to do, what he wants regardless' are either amazing future tellers and we should just have them tell us who is going to win and award the victor now, or maybe, they just have a pre-conceived idea and don't want to pay attention to ACTUAL EVENTS (ie after Powell's statement the US is STILL waiting on a UN approval).

*quick side note on UN approval, specifically France. Loving how the anti-war regime (some, not all) are saying the US is doing this because of oil...when in fact only 16% of our oil comes from the middle east, the rest comes from south America. But guess who gets over 80% of their oil from Iraq...dinging that's right boys and girls France. And who is the other nation not wanting to go to war against Iraq...could it be Russia, that's right, the very same Russia who signed a nice little treaty with Saddam less than a year ago.

And by the way, we do have the support of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and depending on the day Saudi Arabia...that's right, the MUSLIM countries that will be quite effected by a war...lets sit back and think on that a moment please.

I see most of these anti-war lemmings as followers who don't want to think for themselves...Or then where were they when Clinton was bombing Serbia, Bosnia and Mogadishu (quite sure I spelled that wrong), because once again...lets all say this together BUSH* HASN'T STARTED FIGHTING...and Clinton was bombing the crap out of little defenseless places...oh where oh where were the anti-war marchers then?

*littler side note, I did not vote for Bush, am not a huge fan, but how can ANYONE say he is not trying to handle this diplomatically. I have been impressed with the diplomacy and restraint shown.

And just one more comment, for anyone who is against taking Saddam out before he has nuclear capability I have one name for them to ponder on; Kim Jong Il

Thank You for allowing me to comment, I actually AM open to listening to 'true' anti-war patrons...there should always be another side, however I have yet to hear a real argument against it. (the only two I agreed with was if the other middle-eastern nations did not back us...which they do now, and in giving Saddam a chance to get rid of his weaponry in agreement to the treaty of 91'...which I think is obvious he has no intentions of honoring) And I actually would support those that are truly anti-war...meaning they are against it ALWAYS, that at least would make sense (not to me personally, but one can see the logic) any other well thought out anti-war ideas are welcomed...just once again...PLEASE THINK FOR YOURSELF!!!!!!!!!

Brandy

In response to your letter, let me say that a lot of the protesters feel that their efforts are at least part of the reason President Bush didn't unilaterally invade Iraq. There is a sense that the Bush administration wants this war--perhaps it is a false perception, but there a certain amount of evidence for it. Look at the comments of those conservatives who seem to share President Bush's outlook.

Take Rush Limbaugh. Vice President Cheney has appeared on his show. Secretary of Defense Rumsfield appeared in Rush's newsletter. It's hard not to believe that Rush doesn't have some tap on how the administration feels. He is clearly furious that we are delaying this war, as are about half the columnists at townhall. com. (Though not all. Doug Bandow wrote today, "The best evidence that Iraq can be deterred is that we are alive today. Unfortunately, seeking to oust Saddam removes any leverage to prevent him from conducting the sort of attack that the administration claims to most fear. Attacking Iraq will make more, and more dangerous, terrorist attacks more likely."

Did you go to the protest and talk to people? The ones I talked to didn't seem like Lemmings. They knew most of the issues and seemed to have pretty strong opinions. And there were peace protests during the Clinton Campaigns. They were smaller, but the issue was a bit different. For one thing Serbia and Bosnia were UN operations, and I think Mogadishu was too. They weren't protesting a war we were inflicting on another nation (that had done nothing to provoke us recently) because we worried that they might attack us in the future.

Someone opposed to all war is full of crap in my opinion. Force is sometimes necessary. I mean I guess I can appreciate the moral purity involved, but we don't live in a morally pure world. The only way to stop Hitler was through force. The better arguments against the war deal with the world the way it is.