Friday, August 24, 2007

Putin says U.S. wants to dominate world

Russian President Vladimir Putin has launched his harshest criticism yet of the Bush administration, claiming that the US is attempting to force it's will on the entire world.

Attacking the concept of a "unipolar" world in which the United States was the sole superpower, he said: "What is a unipolar world? No matter how we beautify this term it means one single center of power, one single center of force and one single master."

"It has nothing in common with democracy because that is the opinion of the majority taking into account the minority opinion," he told the gathering of top security and defense officials.

"People are always teaching us democracy but the people who teach us democracy don't want to learn it themselves."

I think Putin raises a very valid point. Often, in the comments section of this site, I am told that Americans "don't care" or "couldn't care less" about matters which concern Europeans.

Indeed, there is a strange dichotomy raised by an American state that claims to be interested in exporting democracy whilst, simultaneously, ignoring the UN; the ultimate expression of global democracy.

Surely any state that supports the democratic ideal would - as a matter of course - be interested in the opinions of the majority of citizens? Putin's point is that the US - whilst claiming to be exporting democratic ideals - has very little interest in what most of the planet thinks about what it doing. Indeed, it is led by a President who seeks to make a virtue out of the fact that he pays little attention to opinion polls; polls which express the opinion of the majority.

The attitude of Bush and Cheney - certainly from the way they seek to bypass their own Congress - is that, once elected, the President is, in effect, a dictator for his remaining term in office; he is "The Decider" and the rest of the governmental apparatus is there simply to facilitate his decisions.

This is the "reclaiming of Presidential powers" that Cheney thinks was lost after the Watergate scandal, a scandal which grew out of a President believing that he was the law and that it naturally followed that anything he did could not be illegal. Which is surely the best definition one could ever come up with for a dictatorship; a place where the opinion of one person held sway over all other opinion. A place where the laws that apply to all of us do not apply to the leader; who is deemed, as a matter of course, to be above the law.

In the US today we have a President who has publicly admitted to committing a federal crime - to wiretapping US citizens outside of FISA - and yet nothing has been done to censure him. No attempt has been made to bring him back within the law. Indeed, the Democrats have, shamefully, acquiesced in making his illegality legal.

It is against this backdrop that Putin raises the question of where this US definition of "democracy" is leading us. What kind of world is being fashioned by a US that gives itself the right to attack non-nuclear powers with nuclear weapons if it sees fit? What kind of world is being fashioned by a US that allows itself to develop a new range of "bunker busting" nuclear weapons, whilst demanding that the rest of the planet, especially Iran and North Korea, abide by the NNPT?

The democratic ideal is a fine one. Indeed, the Bush administration claim to be so fond of it that they wish to export it throughout the Middle East. However, as Putin rightly points out, that ideal has - at it's heart - the belief that the opinion of the majority should ultimately hold sway.

The Bush philosophy appears to state that the rest of the world should acquiesce to US superiority, that the laws which govern the rest of the planet do not apply to the US itself. This is manifested in the US's attitude towards the NNPT, Guantanamo Bay, and a host of other issues. It is the antithesis of the democratic ideal, and it is the dichotomy at the heart of Bush's supposed love of democracy.

Since the end of WWII, the US has led the world. Under Bush, it seeks to rule. Those are very different things, and Putin may very well attract approbation from Lieberman and others for pointing this out, but his point is valid.

No country has the right to state that international law does not apply to them. In repeatedly doing so, Bush undermines the very ideals which he claims to aspire to.

Click title for full article.

9 comments:

daveawayfromhome said...

However bad Bush may be, his sin is plain old fashioned tyranny. Your description of the Democrats having "acquiesced" is indeed the greatest scandal of this administration. Every nation sees its power-hungry types, but it takes a special brand of fuckery to sit back and watch it happen while worrying that someone might scold you for being "soft on terror" (if, indeed, that is the problem; I think it may that the Dems are simply more interested in the status quo than they are in any kind of justice).

Kel said...

Dave,

I couldn't agree more. The Democrats are a bunch of spineless fuckwits. Even with the majority of US public opinion behind them they seem determined to play to a Republican script, where Republicans have some sort of Joker card when it comes to national security, allowing Bush to ignore FISA and then demand that the Democrats retrospectively confer legality upon his crimes. And the Dems go along with this!

It's simply breathtaking... No wonder the publics opinion of Congress is so low. You elect these buggers to make a difference and they acquiesce in the government's crimes. It's simply shameful.

Unknown said...

However bad Bush may be, his sin is plain old fashioned tyranny.

Bush is a tyrant? Oh I'd love to hear the fact-based argument to back that wild-ass claim up.

allowing Bush to ignore FISA

You know nothing about FISA, nothing about US national intelligence law, and nothing about what the intel agencies are or are not doing, so just stop. I love this shit. You guys read a few headlines and are all suddenly enlightened experts. Of course, I guess we don't need to know what the hell we're talking about in order to have an opinion on something.

Unknown said...

I forgot to ask... Have any of you been paying attention to Putin and Russia lately? Or only when something agreeably newsworthy comes up? Many who are paying attention to Russia and Putin these days are beginning to think they might be a bit nostalgic for the good ol' cold war days.

Kel said...

I guess we don't need to know what the hell we're talking about in order to have an opinion on something.

You have proved that point many times during your contributions here, Jason.

And Bush has openly admitted to wiretapping outside of FISA. And some Democrats have recently voted to make his illegal behaviour legal. What part of "this shit" am I not understanding?

And I am concerned by many of Putin's actions, especially what appears to be his tendency to lock up people who criticise him in asylums.

However, the one does not invalidate the other, Putin's point remains valid.

Unknown said...

"This shit" is people commenting on things they have no idea about. Nobody in the public knows for a fact exactly what the technical issues are behind the FISA debate, know exactly what or wasn't done. It's nothing but conjecture. And the fact is that the President has certain Constitutional powers that cannot be limited via statute (such as the President's power to collect foreign intelligence during wartime). The President has claimed Constitutional authority for acting outside of FISA. Since neither I nor you, nor any of the nutcases screaming loudest know any of the details, we cannot make any kind of informed decision, only irrational emotional ones. While a reasoned debate may be had by those in the know, it seems that not many are interested in a reasoned debate.

Kel said...

The President has claimed Constitutional authority for acting outside of FISA. Since neither I nor you, nor any of the nutcases screaming loudest know any of the details, we cannot make any kind of informed decision, only irrational emotional ones.

Once again you are surrendering yourself to a Higher Power whilst admitting that you have no idea what that Higher Power are actually doing.

The FISA law was enacted for the protection of American citizens from the undue surveillance of their government.

We know from Bush's own statements that he is breaking this law. He has admitted as much. And yet this arouses no curiosity in you. You seem willing to accept that, whilst your nation is at war, your rights - your legal protections - are all subject to Presidential approval. I thought he governed at the approval of the people. You appear, because you are at war, to be making him a King.

All power resides with him.

And the fact is that the President has certain Constitutional powers that cannot be limited via statute (such as the President's power to collect foreign intelligence during wartime).

But, by your own admission, you don't know that foreign intelligence is all he is collecting. FISA have said no to very few requests, it's almost a rubber stamp; so why doesn't Bush accede to it as every President before him, since FISA was enacted, has done?

FISA even allows the government to request it's permission after the wiretapping has taken place.

I can think of no reason for the government to ignore FISA other than Bush and Cheney's weird obsession with expanding the power of the executive.

Unknown said...

Once again you are surrendering yourself to a Higher Power whilst admitting that you have no idea what that Higher Power are actually doing.

I'm not surrendering myself to anyone. Since I recognize that neither you, nor I, nor the screaming nutcases have a clue about the issue, whining about it is useless and only politically motivated. As I take national defense very seriously, I want it seriously addressed in a non-political way by those in the know - intelligence professionals, the White House, and the intelligence committees of the Senate and House.

it's almost a rubber stamp; so why doesn't Bush accede to it as every President before him, since FISA was enacted, has done?

...

I can think of no reason for the government to ignore FISA other than Bush and Cheney's weird obsession with expanding the power of the executive.


DNI Michael McConnell offered a reason.

Kel said...

I'm not surrendering myself to anyone. Since I recognize that neither you, nor I, nor the screaming nutcases have a clue about the issue, whining about it is useless and only politically motivated.

My complaint is not that Bush is doing it, but that any President would act outside of the law. Where you surrender is that you assume his reasons for doing so are based on national security when the very reason the FISA law was brought in was because another President - who felt he was above the law - was using wiretapping on American citizens, including Martin Luther King.

There are checks and balances because one cannot always trust a President to use his powers lawfully. You have apparently shown a willingness to surrender such checks and balances, despite the fact that Bush's illegality was so blatant that John Ashcroft - not a man who you could accuse of being soft on national defence - refused to sign off on it.

As I take national defense very seriously, I want it seriously addressed in a non-political way by those in the know - intelligence professionals, the White House, and the intelligence committees of the Senate and House.

No, you surrender any proper system of checks and balances as soon as "national defence" is given as a reason. You appear to think that more powerful people than you can be trusted to always act in your best interests.

FISA, introduced in 1978, after the behaviour of Nixon, made it a felony for any government official to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant. Bush was doing this, by his own admission, for almost five years. You appear to be happy with this as long as he keeps certain people in the loop. That's garbage. The law is the law. He was either obeying it or he wasn't.

Neither was he, apparently, keeping many people in the loop.

In highly redacted notes released to the House Judiciary Committee, FBI Director John Ashcroft told Andrew Card and Alberto Gonzales during their 2004 visit to his hospital room that "he was barred from obtaining the advice he needed on the program by the strict compartmentalization rules of the [White House]."

Ashcroft was, at that time, the Attorney General. And they weren't even sharing information with him. What they were doing was so secret that even the Attorney General was being kept out of the loop.

And I read your link, it doesn't appear to address why Bush was ignoring FISA until the New York Times made his behaviour public.

You appear to be granting Bush permission to ignore the law as long as he claims he is doing so on grounds of "national security".

That's surrender. Bush is not a King. He must submit himself to checks and balances. The checks and balances REQUIRED by law. Not the ones that he, or you, think he should be held to.