The Public Sector Again to the Rescue?

It is a strange quirk of capitalism that the private sector is always clamouring for independence or freedom from government intervention and regulation.  Yet the private sector has no qualms about using the public sector as a major source of income through government contracts.  

It is even more galling that these champions of the private sector in times of crisis-and these seem to come with increasing regularity- have no pangs of conscience in allowing the public sector to bail out the private sector "in the name of the nation"....

This idea of privatising profits and allowing losses to be borne by the public purse has traditionally been the unspoken catechism of the banking sector so it was somewhat surprising to see a new variant of this in the world of soccer or football as it is known outside the USA.

The newly (re)elected president of the Union of European Football Associations or UEFA, Michel Platini came out today blaming the increase of hooligan in European Stadiums on a lack of policing on the part of the public authorities, and therefore reiterated calls for a European sports police force to ensure that hooliganism doesn't take over the stadiums. 

Now part of his argument is that the rise of nationalism with its ugly sisters racism and extremism are not really the responsibility of Football as stadiums are the stage for undesirable acts but not the cause.

It would perhaps be harsh to blame these "isms" on Football, but they are all part of a tribalism that was present in the very nature of supporter groups when it was city against city or even intra-city.  As always, part of the "acting out" took place under the perceived protection of mob psychology and safety in numbers often leaving the perpetrators immune to prosecution.  

Recently, after many years of benign antagonism there has been a marked increase of verbal and physical abuse in stadiums which has been either ignored or even defended as part of the game.  

The first line of defence has to be the clubs and their stadium security stewards.  Mr Platini however seeks to put the blame for this increase in undesirable behavior on trends within society as a whole that are merely being manifested in football tribalism, and are therefore not Football's responsibility.  

Hmmm.

This year the poster child of UEFA, the English Premier League sold the television and marketing rights for even more obscene numbers than the already ridiculous prices paid in the past

.From that comes footballers earning hundreds of thousands of dollars per week, and yet the public sector should stump up for increased policing of stadiums in a time of austerity budgets for the public sector.

I know Panem et Circenses was a means of keeping the masses distracted from the actual stresses of life.  They were however financed essentially by the public purse and as such were part of the socio-political fabric of the state which served the purposes of the political elite.

The modern version of the games, especially in their global extravaganzas such as the World Cup and the Olympics are incredibly profitable for the organisations that run them, but are often ruinous for the host nation.  They require massive investment in infrastructure and security and yet the "games" negotiate tax breaks in the host countries as part of the selection process.

A classic example of private profits and public losses.

And now Monsieur Platini would like the public sector to provide security and oversight of Football stadiums throughout the season with an ever increasing plethora of leagues and competitions.

I might be too harsh and he intends to have UEFA pay for this public service.

I wouldn't bet on it.

For Clarification

A good friend of mine asked why it appeared that I have an obsession with radical Islam.  Because he is a good friend and I value his opinion I thought it merited some reflection on my part.

My reflection was shattered with the events in Paris last week.

Our western ideals have been developed over the past 500 years.  It was not always pretty.  The West's conquest of overseas colonies was perpetrated by soldiers going hand in hand with priests spreading Christianity under the banner of God and Country.

But those same cultures brought about the American and French Revolutions and with them the march of secularism.

And it was precisely the development of secularism, drawing a radical distinction between public and private life and more importantly the relegation of the religious to the private sphere which stopped the internecine warfare within Christianity removing one of the great causes of war and strife in Europe.

This secularism provided the basis for the West's pursuit of freedom- the freedom to believe whatever you wish in private, while still adhering to the rules and regulations of the public sphere. It tried to implement a social contract which allowed the individual many freedoms and rights, while demanding that the individual still remain subject to the rule of law and the requirements of the state that provides for that freedom.

These freedoms were enshrined in our democratic institutions in the form of our Constitutions, Basic Law Books or Parliamentary Procedures.

Democracy means that the majority determines who runs the State but the method of checks and balances ensures that the changes any one party can institute are within the remit of the State.

It took the Judeo/Christian world 500 years to reach our present state.  As mentioned, it hasn't always been pretty.  But I have no intention to sit idly by and watch our hard fought freedoms-despite the fact that the concept of Freedom of Speech has been bastardized in any number of legal defenses-and allow religious fanatics to run rampant over our values.

I appreciate that the cartoons of Charlie Habdo were often crude and intentionally offensive.  But the Charlie Hebdo's of the world are what provide me with my way of life.  And I like my way of life.

If Islam still has 500 years of development to go through before it too can embrace a secular society that is a saddening thought.  But it does not mean I have to subject myself to it.

I choose to live in a secular society, exercising my freedoms within the structures of the State.

If anyone, regardless of race, creed or colour wishes to live in a non-secular state, be my guest.  But don't try and impose your rules and regulations on me in my state.

I would maintain that radical Islam has every intention to try and make me live according to their rules regulations.

I object to that, and for the record, I am equally adverse to any other religious group which attempts to coerce me into their belief system.

And I Won't Ride With You

The second event that I referred to in my last post was the attack by the Taliban on a school in Peshawar, Pakistan.  Although one of the tenets of terrorism is that it is intended to strike terror into the population at large this attack, intentionally targeting a school resulting in the death of 137 school children may have been a bridge too far.

The sheer brutality of the attack was apparently intended to break the country's resolve to fight the Taliban and perhaps submit rather then suffer more such violent attacks.

It appears to have backfired.

The Afghan Taliban condemned the attack as un-Islamic.  In Pakistan, Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, a rival jihadist group in the rebel alliance and other sectarian groups denounced the attack on the school. 

In Islamabad the Red Mosque, home of the pro-Taliban cleric Abdul Aziz and the site of a fierce battle between the army and the jihadists in 2007, was  surrounded by protesters demanding that Aziz leave the country and go live in the Islamic State!

And lastly, there were public demands that the State stop distinguishing between "good" and "bad" Taliban, to stop supporting jihadists in Afghanistan and India while waging war against some of them in Pakistan.

This was followed up by meetings between the Afghan and Pakistan governments to co-ordinate going after Afghan jihadists who seek refuge in Pakistan, and Pakistan jihadists who seek refuge in Afghanistan.  

I do not expect that the opaque linkages between parts of the jihadist movement and the more conservative members of the Pakistani establishment will be broken in one fell swoop. 

But perhaps this atrocity is the start of a major shift within Pakistani society.  Perhaps this is where those opposed to extremism go on the offensive and demand that the state stop dithering.  

And that could, just maybe, foreshadow the demise of religious fanaticism in Pakistan.

 

I Will Ride with U

I have been concerned that since the publication of Samuel Huntington's 1993 article  "The Clash of Civilizations" that the world was sleepwalking into a religious conflict of epic proportions.

From PEGIDA in Germany, to UKIP in the UK, the National Front in France and all the other "western" extremists to ISIS in Syria/Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan/Pakistan, Al-Queda and "Islamic" separatists  wherever they may be to the lone wolf terrorists of all creeds the world seems to be setting out cultural blocs designed to demarcate what separates us rather than what unites us.

But two events just happened which might just be the beginning of something new.

The first is the hostage siege in Sydney.  Forget about whether Mons Haron Monis was on a list or not.  Forget about whether he was walking around free instead of being interred, deported or made to wear a tag.

What was amazing is that as the siege became public a storm of anti-Muslim tirades hit Australian social media.  This at the same time that personally we were having a discussion as to why didn't the Muslim community ever come out and condemn these types of attacks.

First of all I don't necessarily expect the man or woman on the street to come out in condemnation-but I do expect it of the "speakers" for the Muslim community(s).  Otherwise I could harbour a doubt that they might in some way condone these acts done in the name of Islam.

Then I saw the message from the Australian National Imams Council and I had a moment of hope.  But then I read the message.*  It was addressed to the Muslim Community.  It spoke of its sorrow for the loss of death and trauma suffered.

And then it went on to commend the community for their strength and resilience in the face of the current challenges.  It encouraged the community to draw on their faith to help them through these difficult times.  And it gave a number to call to report threats or abuse to the authorities.

But no distancing from the perpetrator in any form or fashion.

Are they trying to attract negativity?  Are they trying to become part of the society rather than accentuating their separateness?

I don't know.

But then there were reports of many Australian Muslims taking to the same social media and expressing their fear of abuse and/or attack.  And in the report I read apparently  a 14 year old girl tweeted "i will ride with u" offering Muslims who were afraid to be accompanied by non-Muslims on buses, trains, in carpools etc.

And her offer was taken up.  Physically, and in the social media ether.

As a final comment, two Muslim men went to the cafe where the hostages were held, and after being questioned by the police where they emphatically stated "He's contradicting Islam...,He's not from our community for him to do this" and "We are Australian too.  No one wants this to happen.  It could have been my mother or my sister having coffee", went and prayed for the hostages/victims.

I can only commend the young girl trying to break the cycle of fear and hate, and equally commend the two young men for their comments, and their actions.

I will write about the second event shortly-the Taliban assault on a school in Pakistan.


 *http://www.anic.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/GRAND-MUFTI-AND-ANIC-MESSAGE-TO-THE-MUSLIM-COMMUNITY.pdf

National Security, Round 3

I was told that Round 2 was somewhat convoluted and so I reread it, AGAIN, and agree that it was difficult.  I was trying to cover too many points and the end result was a bit muddled.

So I am going to come at it from another angle.

There were two arguments I was trying to address.

One was that no matter how you look at it torture is indefensible and the United States shouldn't engage in it.

The other was that the information gathered from the interrogations might or might not have been as a result of torture.  This is actually beside the point.  The end does not justify the means.  Torture is unacceptable.  The information gathered is also highly suspect.

The criticisms I have read seem to focus the second point claiming that the information garnered wound conceivably not have been obtained without torture.  They also then focus on the fact that that the time "enhanced interrogation techniques" had been deemed legal.

They claim that one of the major weaknesses in the Senate's report was that no one from the Senate interviewed anyone from the CIA  so how would the Senate know if valuable information had been garnered from the torturing of detainees or not.

That is moving the argument away from one of principle and turning it into a question of facts.

It misses the most important fact which is that on principle torture is unacceptable.  Regardless of the information gathered.  It's called ethics.  It is the first question a student is presented with in Philosophy class.

Not that I expect soldiers to be angels.  Nor do I expect CIA operatives to be angels.  There is good and bad in everyone, and how and when it manifests itself can be very dependent on the circumstances.  But excesses in the heat of the moment, when discovered, are both recognized as such and prosecuted accordingly.

But in this case the excesses were condoned at the highest levels of government.  They were signed off by the Executive Branch, by the Attorney General, the National Security Committee, and by the Legislative Branch in the form of Senate Intelligence Committee..

They are making a mockery of our enlightened democracy.  Facts are facts.  What is of critical importance is that we maintain our values in the analysis of facts.   Renaming a fact doesn't change the fact.  Legalizing an immoral act doesn't make it moral, even if it suddenly gains legality.

Facts don't change our values.

National Security, Round 2

As was to be expected there was a backlash to the release of the CIA Report, specifically from a dozen former high ranking CIA officials and Senator Saxby Chambliss and five other ranking Republicans. The site is ciasavedlives.com.  It is their right to defend themselves, but I believe they are sailing a dangerous course.

Their first rebuttal is not to deny that it was torture, but rather that it was not illegal torture.  They claim they repeatedly consulted the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel before using brutal methods of interrogation.  They discussed the program with "The Gang of Eight"-a group of Congressional leaders who were apparently supportive of it. They further assert that the President, the National Security Council and the Attorney General all approved it.

Unfortunately for them, and for the government leaders the legal opinions which assured the agency that their requests for enhanced interrogation techniques were indeed lawful, were later discredited and withdrawn.

The problem here is that it goes beyond the "I was following orders" refrain of extermination camp guards,  It is dealing with the creation of those orders, at the highest levels of the CIA and more disturbingly of the Government.

Their second swipe at the report is to claim that the information gained through torture was instrumental in locating Osama bin Laden.

Given that bin Laden was essentially living next to the headquarters of the Pakistan Military Academy in Bilal Town which should have made him easier to find then if he were holed up in the mountains somewhere a lot more forensic evidence of the interrogations and the information achieved would have to be published to back up the claim.

Disclosure of that information would probably fall foul of National Security fears so it is likely to remain confidential, and admittedly, probably should.  The interrogators were following orders.  The information in their site only says they were able to get information on bin Laden's location through detainees.

The links on the website referencing the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) and highlighting the use of information gained from detainees emanate in the main from the office of the then President G W Bush so it is not surprising that in their releases they support the program both within as well as outside Guantanamo.

They do not explicitly say how that information was achieved so either every detainee was subjected to EIT-which I am not sure the CIA would like to admit, or we are still left in the dark as to the explicit method used to achieve the information.

It is always a difficult decision for a Commander-in-Chief to declare war.  But there are rules of warfare. There are rules governing the treatment of  enemy captives.  Making decisions as to how far to go when protecting (American) lives should be easier.

Even if one were to go so far as to say that it is a bizarre concept that there are strict rules of engagement in an exercise which at its core is to kill the other guys, the rules do exist and it is only rational for us to expect our leaders to adhere to them.

All of the legal shenanigans to get around the basic tenet that torture is illegal flies in the face of this expectation. But I don't hold the CIA (solely) responsible.  One of the most admirable aspects of our government is that we have a series of checks and balances.

Given the fact that the CIA completely missed the buildup to 9/11 it is understandable they would be willing to go to great lengths to try and prevent further attacks.  It is the government's responsibility, its duty to defend the ideals and basic tenets upon which our government stands.

The government failed miserably.

The dissenters are fighting to clear their names...they were either CIA officials, or part of that government.

They would do better to admit wrongdoing, and suggest that others, regardless of political affiliation who are in the same position should do the same.

Then we could move on.

In Defense of National Security

With the release of the  Senate Intelligence Committee's Report on Torture it is interesting who has come out in in support of the release; and who came out against it.

Of course I expected the usual partisan breakdown along party lines, Democrats for and Republicans against.  I also expected the liberal and conservative press to line up accordingly.

So it was with some surprise that I read an article in USA Today by former Democratic Senator Robert Kerrey decrying the "partisan" nature of the report and that this was generally bad for America.  

He did shoot himself in the foot mentioning that he will wait until he has read the full report before he makes a definitive statement on whether or not "the CIA handled interrogation of detainees in an appropriate manner".  

Now normally I don't wait to read a report on the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" to determine if I think something constitutes torture or not.

I find it even more opaque when Mr Kerrey chooses to base his view that our interrogation methods policies and procedures are aligned with our core values on John McCain.

The same John McCain who spoke passionately today in defense of the reports release and countered the usual blather with sincere, pithy retorts.

He started with  "Terrorists might use the report's re-identification (my italics) as an excuse to attack Americans, but they hardly need an excuse for that.  That has been their life's calling for a while now".

Touche.

Even more to the point, from someone who was a prisoner of war and tortured by his North Vietnamese captors:  "What might come as a surprise, not just to our enemies, but to many Americans is how little these practices did to aid our efforts....since it contradicts the many assurances provided by the intelligence official on the record and in private that enhanced interrogation techniques were indispensable in the war against terrorism."

McCain's focus is that although there are many things done in the name of war and certainly in the heat of battle this was a conscious, premeditated decision.  It is against against our core beliefs.  We fight for an ideal that is predicated on the idea that all men are endowed with with inalienable rights- and we were systematically trampling over them- without any real gain and at an immense cost to our self-image- despite the protestations of former senior CIA members and their political allies in the Senate.

Now maybe I am missing something else in Mr McCain's position, but it does make me wonder why he ever danced with Sarah Palin....