"Why the Feds Fear Thinkers Like Howard Zinn"

[bloodyminded]

Tits getting sore?

Hmmm. You can write three words...but you can't read three words?

[Shwa]

So what? the onus to justify power and authority always rests on the powers and authorities themselves. The responsibilty is not of the critics to sya why specific uses of power are wrong; the responsibility is on the powerful to justify why it's right.

But they did justify why it's right, under the pretext of anti-communism. Are you disputing this point?

We certainly can't find out from the authorities, can we?

Not unless they release the files, which they did in Zinn's case. Or unless you have an access to information request.

A much more important consideration.

But of course, critics of power are generally held to a much higher standard than the purveyors and supporters of power. Which is telling indeed.

But think of this for a minute BM - the critic must have a higher standard that the purveyors, that is their specialty. And they have to see beyond the immediate to be able to express their criticism, even if using a different model. Now there might be a pang of conscience with the agents doing the active investigation on Zinn, but pangs of hunger trump pangs of conscience, especially in post war USA. Besides, another thing lacking from the article was a designation of how important the dossier was overall. As I said, Zinn was never charged or punished - other than being the topic of investigation - but his career didn't seem to suffer overall. Kind of like John Lennon, another dossier worthy radical.

No...not unless you take it as a given that the FBI were honest and competent, and that Zinn and every one of his many, many friends were all liars.

Not "were" but had the potential to be. I highly doubt the FBI were investigating him because he, or his associates, exercised his freedom of speech, but because what that speech could potentially cause. However, when did the FBI or any government sanction him for exercising his freedom of speech?

Zinn said he was never a member; no record of his membership has been forthcoming from anyone making the charges (the onus is on them, rather than on those supposed to prove a negative).

Why do you think Zinn was a member of the Communist Party? You think its "implied" because the FBI say so? Then why drop the investigation?

But of course the onus is on them, which perfectly illustrates the worthiness of their very own suspicions, which never resulted in any charges or sanctions. But does the article explain that was the final outcome of the allegation contained in the dossier? No, it said that Zinn denied the allegation repeatedly. When? In 1954? 1958? He got off pretty easy methinks. For the allegation during those times. Why is that? Why doesn't Hedges elaborate on that aspect of the dossier?

Please. This type of hair-splitting is the phenomenon that is both literally true--but dishonest to the spirit of what was meant. Surely you know that.

I might, but others might not. It is hair-splitting, but not without some utility. My aplogies.

[bloodyminded]

But they did justify why it's right, under the pretext of anti-communism. Are you disputing this point?

Yes. When I said "justify," I didn't mean "bland assertion." Anyone can assert anything.

I'm saying that the onus must always be on the authorities to credibly explain the use of their authority. For example, a police officer is constrained by the law. If he tases me and manhandles my prone body and cuffs me...the fact that he claims it was justified is worth literally nothing, in and of itself. He has to be able to back up thsoe claims.

But think of this for a minute BM - the critic must have a higher standard that the purveyors, that is their specialty.

Yes, they must, and sometimes they do. But that wasn't what I said. I said they were held to a higher standard...by others. (Sycophants, not to put too fine a point on it.)

And they have to see beyond the immediate to be able to express their criticism, even if using a different model. Now there might be a pang of conscience with the agents doing the active investigation on Zinn, but pangs of hunger trump pangs of conscience, especially in post war USA. Besides, another thing lacking from the article was a designation of how important the dossier was overall. As I said, Zinn was never charged or punished - other than being the topic of investigation - but his career didn't seem to suffer overall. Kind of like John Lennon, another dossier worthy radical.

Right, I meant to reply to this last time, and forgot:

I agree. The end effects, as negatives, are negligible to non-existant. But that's because Zinn was not easily cowed...and cowing him appeared to be part of the point.

As the piece you quoted elsewhere made clear, FBI agents tried to convince Zinn to chnage his (totally legal) behaviour...and concluded that he was not likely to do so.

Now, this alone is outrageous, at least to me. If the police or Security Agents came to me and asked me--however politely--if I shouldn't mind ceasing my totally legal behaviour, I would be thunderstruck. That's well beyond any reasonable mandate they might have.

Not "were" but had the potential to be.

Well, at this point we're both dealing in unknoweable speculation....but if I were to guess whether the FBI were lying, or that many dozens of individuals from all walks of life were lying, in collusion, to protect Zinn's supposed Communist identity...let's just say it's not an especialy difficult call.

I highly doubt the FBI were investigating him because he, or his associates, exercised his freedom of speech, but because what that speech could potentially cause. However, when did the FBI or any government sanction him for exercising his freedom of speech?

No, to my knowledge certainly not. however, there's a coercive aspect, which as i said is almost certainly intentional, and which a less courageous (or stubborn, or what-have-you) might truly have a censorious effect on the subject. This is not Orwellian totalitarianism; but it is a form of Big government totalitarianism-lite.

Like I said, such behaviour is completely unacceptable. If they behaved this way towards me--and if I didn't shrink and acquiesce--I would invite them to perform a difficult and potentially dangerous sex act upon their own persons.

But of course the onus is on them, which perfectly illustrates the worthiness of their very own suspicions, which never resulted in any charges or sanctions.

Not at all, no more than the lack of a nuclear war illustrates the worthiness of the Soviets placing missiles in Cuba. It's still bad, no matter that the effects were thankfully not.

But does the article explain that was the final outcome of the allegation contained in the dossier? No, it said that Zinn denied the allegation repeatedly. When? In 1954? 1958? He got off pretty easy methinks.

He got off pretty easy only if were guilty. If he wasn't doing anything wrong, then he did not get off easily in any way.

For the allegation during those times.

Oh, I imagine more people were suspected of communism but never charged then those who were charged

Why is that? Why doesn't Hedges elaborate on that aspect of the dossier?

I might, but others might not. It is hair-splitting, but not without some utility. My aplogies.

[Shwa]

Yes. When I said "justify," I didn't mean "bland assertion." Anyone can assert anything.

I'm saying that the onus must always be on the authorities to credibly explain the use of their authority. For example, a police officer is constrained by the law. If he tases me and manhandles my prone body and cuffs me...the fact that he claims it was justified is worth literally nothing, in and of itself. He has to be able to back up thsoe claims.

Are you saying that FBI investigative files on American citizens were somehow illegal or not credible with auhtorities at that time? We aren't talking about you being constrained and tazed, we are talking about an FBI investigation and dossier on Howard Zinn from the 50's & 60's. Now, we can say that McCarthyism was a "bland assertion" and even that some of the methods were dirty - in hindsight - but those undergoing the process weren't under the impression of blandness. Were they?

So the actions of the FBI relating to Zinn, appear - at least on the surface - and completely justifiable in the circumstances of the day.

Yes, they must, and sometimes they do. But that wasn't what I said. I said they were held to a higher standard...by others. (Sycophants, not to put too fine a point on it.)

Of course we hold critics to a higher standard and hopefully, at least in my case, not as syncophant! I mean, they are specialists and we appeal to their specialty to make determinations about choices we can make. I would hold Zinn to a higher standard than his interlopers, including Hedges.

Right, I meant to reply to this last time, and forgot:

I agree. The end effects, as negatives, are negligible to non-existant. But that's because Zinn was not easily cowed...and cowing him appeared to be part of the point.

Oh, but not so with Hedges. His article is titled "Why the Feds Fear Thinkers Like Zinn" and then uses some quasi-historical cherry picking to try and make his point. Sounds like a negative to me, but when I do a close read of the article I am under the impression that the importance of Zinn's dossier falls somewhere between the dossier on Sammy Davis Jr. and Area 51. I wonder if Zinn had the same impression since he lived his life like he did.

As the piece you quoted elsewhere made clear, FBI agents tried to convince Zinn to chnage his (totally legal) behaviour...and concluded that he was not likely to do so.

Now, this alone is outrageous, at least to me. If the police or Security Agents came to me and asked me--however politely--if I shouldn't mind ceasing my totally legal behaviour, I would be thunderstruck. That's well beyond any reasonable mandate they might have.

Where in that article does is say the FBI tried to convince Zinn to "cease" his totally legal behaviour? Are you talking about them trying to turn him into a rat? Nothing illegal about being an informant, especially back in the day. I don't see where they asked him to stop speaking free, teaching his ethics, or basically stop defending people in public. Am I reading the article too closely?

Well, at this point we're both dealing in unknoweable speculation....but if I were to guess whether the FBI were lying, or that many dozens of individuals from all walks of life were lying, in collusion, to protect Zinn's supposed Communist identity...let's just say it's not an especialy difficult call.

We don't know if it is unknowable speculation, because Hedges omits to tell us the final outcome of that particular allegation as per the dossier. Over 400 pages - one would think that there would have been a little more information in the file about alleged ties to communism, don't you think? This is the sort of thing about the article that begs the question. Not from the FBI, but from Hedges.

No, to my knowledge certainly not. however, there's a coercive aspect, which as i said is almost certainly intentional, and which a less courageous (or stubborn, or what-have-you) might truly have a censorious effect on the subject. This is not Orwellian totalitarianism; but it is a form of Big government totalitarianism-lite.

Like I said, such behaviour is completely unacceptable. If they behaved this way towards me--and if I didn't shrink and acquiesce--I would invite them to perform a difficult and potentially dangerous sex act upon their own persons.

Of course there is a co-ersive aspect to intelligence gathering, even today I would imagine. (Just don't use the t-word. ) However, that was over 50 years ago and there doesn't appear to be any censorious effect on the consistent presentation of the subject from Zinn's perspective. Again, we have our modern enlightenment into what they were up to in those times, expectations have changed, we have the Internet, etc. However, no small irony that you mention Orwellian since 1984 was published in 1949 which was contemporary with the times. Heck, you just informed me a lot more in one sentence than Hedge did in 3 pages!

Not at all, no more than the lack of a nuclear war illustrates the worthiness of the Soviets placing missiles in Cuba. It's still bad, no matter that the effects were thankfully not.

You see? We are the beneficiaries of that hindsight, which they were not in that day. So they had to go on what they had on hand. So, in keeping with the theme of holding critics to a higher standard, that is for us to maintain as we critique articles such as Hedges. I am not saying we are specialists (well, you could well be, I don't know) but we have specialized knowledge now that we can apply - quite easily - to determine a moral path when it comes to such things. However the debt of this knowledge lays with the mistakes and bungling of the past. Even the FBI past.

He got off pretty easy only if were guilty. If he wasn't doing anything wrong, then he did not get off easily in any way.

Oh, I imagine more people were suspected of communism but never charged then those who were charged

He got off pretty easily even if he were guilty you mean. Others, not so much. Some of them not guilty of much at all.

[bloodyminded]

Are you saying that FBI investigative files on American citizens were somehow illegal or not credible with auhtorities at that time? We aren't talking about you being constrained and tazed, we are talking about an FBI investigation and dossier on Howard Zinn from the 50's & 60's. Now, we can say that McCarthyism was a "bland assertion" and even that some of the methods were dirty - in hindsight - but those undergoing the process weren't under the impression of blandness. Were they?

So the actions of the FBI relating to Zinn, appear - at least on the surface - and completely justifiable in the circumstances of the day.

This would be true if evberybody agreed at the time, I suppose.

But, as you know, McCarthyism was controversial then.

For some reason--which you have yet to even faintly examine here--you take it as a given that the FBI's behaviour "justified" simply because they said it was justified.

One is not justified in his behaviour merely because he thinks he is. That's lunacy. In fact, this is a direct defense of every terrible act carried out by anyone...so long as he personally think it's right.

Saddam Hussein, I put it to you, did not kneel at a Pentagram summoning Satan (or, rather, Shaitan), plotting to commit evil for its own, motive-free sake. He had his reasons. He felt justified.

And of course there's a massive difference in scale here; but that's all it is, scale.

Of course we hold critics to a higher standard and hopefully, at least in my case, not as syncophant! I mean, they are specialists and we appeal to their specialty to make determinations about choices we can make. I would hold Zinn to a higher standard than his interlopers, including Hedges.

You misunderstood me (at least I hope so): I'm saying that critics of power are held, unreasonably, to a higher standard than are the powerful themselves. This is upside-down.

For example, in our legal system, the onus is on the authorities to prove that they can justify punishment of the accused. Not the other way round. If the police claim: "I saw Bloodyminded commit a crime," the judge does not turn to me and say, "Prove him wrong, citizen, or suffer the consequences."

I use this analogy, imperfect though it is, because I am talking about a framework that crosses from legal to political to moral to democratic. Having said that, let me be more exact:

If one person says (as several have done, here, to me), "The US materially aided the invasion and mass murder of the East Timorese because of fears of the Communist threat"...well, they believe this requires no evidence. Certainly none is offerred, since such evidence doesn't exist anyway.

But if I say, "No, they materially aided this state terrorism for several reasons, some of them about investment opportunities and an institutional support for wealthy interests, and further, there was no direct communist threat" I'm asked for evidence.

Now, they are right to ask me for evidence. (Although their reflexive scorn, derision and outrage says something about their indoctrination...since the very idea of the West committed to terrorism (which it is) is not to be thought of too seriously, even without any facts or evidence.)

However, the original claim--all such atrocities committed with an ultimately benign intent--fighting Commie evil--is considered so self-evident (incorrectly), that no evidence need be offered.

In other words, the critics of power are held to a higher standard of evidence than are the supporters of power.

This is perverse. Like I said, the onus is on power to justify itself, or else the use of power is not legitimate. And you seem to be saying that merely claiming justification is sufficient.

But as I said, everybody claims justification for everything they do. The claims themselves hold no information or crediblity.

here in that article does is say the FBI tried to convince Zinn to "cease" his totally legal behaviour? Are you talking about them trying to turn him into a rat? Nothing illegal about being an informant, especially back in the day. I don't see where they asked him to stop speaking free, teaching his ethics, or basically stop defending people in public. Am I reading the article too closely?

If he were a rat, his entire agenda would be immediately compromised and overthrown, all his good work undermined. That's pretty obvious.

We don't know if it is unknowable speculation, because Hedges omits to tell us the final outcome of that particular allegation as per the dossier. Over 400 pages - one would think that there would have been a little more information in the file about alleged ties to communism, don't you think? This is the sort of thing about the article that begs the question. Not from the FBI, but from Hedges.

Yes, you've made it repeatedly clear that you trust the FBI (illegal assassinations notwithstanding), and that you don't trust the critics of the FBI.

For...some reason, unstated.

Of course there is a co-ersive aspect to intelligence gathering, even today I would imagine. (Just don't use the t-word. ) However, that was over 50 years ago and there doesn't appear to be any censorious effect on the consistent presentation of the subject from Zinn's perspective. Again, we have our modern enlightenment into what they were up to in those times, expectations have changed, we have the Internet, etc. However, no small irony that you mention Orwellian since 1984 was published in 1949 which was contemporary with the times. Heck, you just informed me a lot more in one sentence than Hedge did in 3 pages!

1984 is still relevant; that's because it's a work of literary art, not simply a moment-in-time political tract. For example, the insightful notion of "doublethink" is very much with us, absolutely real, and not an exaggeration; I daresay we're all subject to this interesting intellectual weakness. The book uses a caricature of Soviet tyranny, but not to specifically condemn the Stalinists; it's far broader than that. It's about us too.

Nnot only in 1949. Also in 2010.

You see? We are the beneficiaries of that hindsight, which they were not in that day. So they had to go on what they had on hand.

Are you kidding? Kruschev putting nuclear weapons in Cuba was not a bad idea, because nothing bad happened?

I disagree. Thanks to declassified documents, we now know (though always suspected) that that moment was unbelievably close to the launching of a nuclear war. Prhaps the most dangerous moment in human history. The Soviets were criminally insane to do what they did...that the potential outcome wasn't what it could have been doesn't change that.

If I fired a weapon into a crowd, and miraculously shot nobody, are you going to tell me I didn't do something horribly wrong?

So, in keeping with the theme of holding critics to a higher standard, that is for us to maintain as we critique articles such as Hedges.

You're right about critiquing Hedges (with some good points, i add just so you don't wonder if I"m ignoring your points for my own reasons); but wrong about power and its critics, or what I meant by them. When I talk "power," I"m not talking about Hedges, or Zinn: I'm talking about political and legal authorities. There's a real difference.

I am not saying we are specialists (well, you could well be, I don't know)

Oh God, certainly not!

but we have specialized knowledge now that we can apply - quite easily - to determine a moral path when it comes to such things. However the debt of this knowledge lays with the mistakes and bungling of the past. Even the FBI past.

So we should appreciate an abuse of authority because it makes us learn to recognize the abuse of authority?

How about not abusing authority in the first place?

I mean, if Iraq were to become the thriving, free-society democracy that some people claim it will (some even incredibly say so about it now!)...we could say that Saddam Hussein was excellent for Iraq, in hindsight, since he was the ostensible reason for the invasion. Or we could say that the Holocaust was good because it led to the formation of the state of Israel as it now exists.

I can even understand such notions, which become eventually more palatable as centuries go by and a long historical view is employed.

The problem is that they're fallacious. Because they assume that if people are living just and good and happy and productive lives, free from abusive political authority...then great things will not also happen.

I put it to you that greater things would happen, and without all the unneccessary suffering.

Edited August 4, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shwa]

This would be true if evberybody agreed at the time, I suppose. But, as you know, McCarthyism was controversial then.

Controversial, maybe, but on it went with the complicit approval of the American people through their representatives. Not for a few weeks or months, but for years. Republicans and Democrats.

For some reason--which you have yet to even faintly examine here--you take it as a given that the FBI's behaviour "justified" simply because they said it was justified.

One is not justified in his behaviour merely because he thinks he is. That's lunacy. In fact, this is a direct defense of every terrible act carried out by anyone...so long as he personally think it's right.

Nope. I am saying that I have to accept that the FBI felt it was justified in their means and methods because of the complicit approval as noted above. My personal moral stance on the issue is practically meaningless at this point and simply clouds the issue. Now, had McCarthyism continued into this day, I might have some moral stance on it. And that is not to say that I don't have moral stances on other means and methods of willful enforcement, because I do. But that has very little bearing on the subject at hand except a nod to the debt of having hindsight into what they did with their complicit approval.

Saddam Hussein, I put it to you, did not kneel at a Pentagram summoning Satan (or, rather, Shaitan), plotting to commit evil for its own, motive-free sake. He had his reasons. He felt justified.

And of course there's a massive difference in scale here; but that's all it is, scale.

This example is neither here nor there. Might as well talk about bread and circuses if we want to discuss scale. The Gulf War made for some good, dramatic TV.

You misunderstood me (at least I hope so): I'm saying that critics of power are held, unreasonably, to a higher standard than are the powerful themselves. This is upside-down...

In other words, the critics of power are held to a higher standard of evidence than are the supporters of power.

This is perverse. Like I said, the onus is on power to justify itself, or else the use of power is not legitimate. And you seem to be saying that merely claiming justification is sufficient.

No I think I understand perfectly well, although your legal system analogy seems backwards to me. If you were to accuse (as critic) the judge (the power), you would have to provide evidence of your accusation. As critic, you are the accuser and the accused has a right to defence. Similarly, if you counterclaim about the East Timor fiasco, you need to supply evidence yes? If your evidence justifies your counterclaim, your standard is immediately 'higher.' Now, if you ask (or demand as critics are wont) the authority to justify it's use of power, I would say there is an implied accusation that their justification is invalid. Which is still an accusation.

But as I said, everybody claims justification for everything they do. The claims themselves hold no information or crediblity.

Sure, but if they can justify themselves, then their claims are valid correct? So we look back and see the phenomenon of fervant anti-communism as evidenced by McCarthyism, which had the complicit support of the American people as per the democratic process. Was it justified according to them? Yes, in the way that was required to act. But hindsight tells us the final disposition of that phenomenon, that it could not stand the 'higher standards' demanded by its critics.

They burned "witches" way back in the day. Did they think they were justified? Yes and they acted. Myself, living in enlightened times, do not. In the case of Zinn, there is a certain inevitability introduced, but a conspicuously mild form of it. However, Hedges tries to make more out of it than what appears to be the actual case and then argues as if this is some rational example of how the modern state fears 'thinkers like Zinn' However, from where I sit, it is 'thinkers like Zinn' that have ultimately had the last laugh due to the relative moderation of policy since.

PS - don't get me wrong. This isn't some form of blanket justification for any modern act just because one day it will be better. We need our critics and we need them to continue to adhere to much higher standards that we personally know about now. But that is a whole other can 'o worms in'it?

If he were a rat, his entire agenda would be immediately compromised and overthrown, all his good work undermined. That's pretty obvious.

But it wasn't illegal for them to ask.

Yes, you've made it repeatedly clear that you trust the FBI (illegal assassinations notwithstanding), and that you don't trust the critics of the FBI.

Off side! I have made no such claim of trust of the FBI nor mistrust of it's critics. I don't necessary trust the French National Assembly, but I can understand that they felt justified in lopping of Louis XVI's head.

Are you kidding? Kruschev putting nuclear weapons in Cuba was not a bad idea, because nothing bad happened?

I disagree. Thanks to declassified documents, we now know ...

You see? We are the beneficiaries of that hindsight, which they were not in that day. So they had to go on what they had on hand

.

If I fired a weapon into a crowd, and miraculously shot nobody, are you going to tell me I didn't do something horribly wrong?

Now don't you start pulling a 'Hedges' and ignore context to make wide brush strokes. Are you a police sniper trying to get a hostage taker on the street? Is this a murderous mob that has gone wild? Is this a revolutionary crowd? Were you firing blanks? Are you fighting for your life? Was it a weapon to you, but only a piece of spaghetti to everyone else?

You're right about critiquing Hedges (with some good points, i add just so you don't wonder if I"m ignoring your points for my own reasons); but wrong about power and its critics, or what I meant by them. When I talk "power," I"m not talking about Hedges, or Zinn: I'm talking about political and legal authorities. There's a real difference.

But so am I. And, in the case of Howard Zinn and the higher standards of critics like him, has provided impetus for societal change over the past 50 years.

So we should appreciate an abuse of authority because it makes us learn to recognize the abuse of authority?

How about not abusing authority in the first place?

No we ought to pay attention to the lessons of history and learn to see when abuses of authority are happening, especially if we are in positions of authority from a Mom or Dad, teacher or principal or government official. Being self-critical or having a vision of a higher standard for ourselves has it's utility.

I mean, if Iraq were to become the thriving, free-society democracy that some people claim it will (some even incredibly say so about it now!)...we could say that Saddam Hussein was excellent for Iraq, in hindsight, since he was the ostensible reason for the invasion. Or we could say that the Holocaust was good because it led to the formation of the state of Israel as it now exists.

I can even understand such notions, which become eventually more palatable as centuries go by and a long historical view is employed.

No, but we would be justified in saying that some good came of it from the knowledge we gained of that event and the lessons we learned. But applying an overarching moral sentiment was not my point and you know that. And the long historical view is not necessarily required, just a competent view.

The problem is that they're fallacious. Because they assume that if people are living just and good and happy and productive lives, free from abusive political authority...then great things will not also happen.

I put it to you that greater things would happen, and without all the unneccessary suffering.

And I fully agree, therefore I try and live my life by these simple maxims. However I am not an island unto myself and thus any moral system I wish to incorporate requires me to integrate into a very large world... Wait. Have we gone from Hedges to Sir Francis Bacon?

Mmmmmmm. Bacon.

(but be careful when you freeze it!)

[bloodyminded]

Controversial, maybe, but on it went with the complicit approval of the American people through their representatives. Not for a few weeks or months, but for years. Republicans and Democrats.

That's not so clear. Fervent screeches abotu communism were not central paltforms, though they might have been vaguely implied.

Look at it this way: do you support Canada's complicity in the overthrow of democratically-elected governemnts (Haiti) or of Canada's direct complicity in the attempted genocide of the East Timorese?

If I were to vote for a leader based on notions of "security," let's say, that doesn't mean I'm voting for the obstruction of democracy or the mass murder of the innocent. Not intentionally.

Similarly, I doubt American voters were voting for the Cointelpro assassination program, the lies told them about Vietnam, or the harassment of law-abiding citizens based on leftish personal politics.

Nope. I am saying that I have to accept that the FBI felt it was justified in their means and methods because of the complicit approval as noted above.

And yet again: "felt" it was justified is not serious justification. Or else Saddam Hussein was correct.

This example is neither here nor there. Might as well talk about bread and circuses if we want to discuss scale. The Gulf War made for some good, dramatic TV.

No, because there is a larger philosophical issue about the responsibilty of Power and Authority...and this applies to al power and authority. the more powerful you are, the greater your responsibility. The crimes of authority are worse than the crimes of non-authorities.

No I think I understand perfectly well, although your legal system analogy seems backwards to me. If you were to accuse (as critic) the judge (the power), you would have to provide evidence of your accusation. As critic, you are the accuser and the accused has a right to defence.

No, you've got it backwards; this is exactly what I said, and that he's a judge is not relevant. If he is accused of a crime, he has the rights of the accused. And it would not be for me to provide the evidence; it would be for the authorities--the prosecutors--to provide the evidence, perhaps including compelling me to help.

Similarly, if you counterclaim about the East Timor fiasco, you need to supply evidence yes? If your evidence justifies your counterclaim, your standard is immediately 'higher.' Now, if you ask (or demand as critics are wont) the authority to justify it's use of power, I would say there is an implied accusation that their justification is invalid. Which is still an accusation.

What are you saying? that to criticize the authorities narrative as wrong, I have to provide evidence...but they don't have to provide evidence for their original claim, their original narrative?

Why?

Sure, but if they can justify themselves, then their claims are valid correct?

If we believe in their absolute integrity and honesty--somehting, I note, that you reflexively disallow for critics, or even for Zinn's friends and acquaintances. It's strange: you have chosen sides, even as you deny it: you defend Power and authrotity, and demand higher standards from the critics: if authority claims it's jsutified, and seems to believe it, then they are justified....a generously credulous gift you don't seem so quick to bestow upon the critics of authority.

So we look back and see the phenomenon of fervant anti-communism as evidenced by McCarthyism, which had the complicit support of the American people as per the democratic process. Was it justified according to them? Yes, in the way that was required to act. But hindsight tells us the final disposition of that phenomenon, that it could not stand the 'higher standards' demanded by its critics.

Again, this would only hold water if everyone agreed at the time. Which they didn't.

Or there wouldn't have been any of the "communist witch-hunts."

Again, you're choosing sides. I am too, mind...the other side. The victims, not the perpetrators.

However, from where I sit, it is 'thinkers like Zinn' that have ultimately had the last laugh due to the relative moderation of policy since.

Like the unprecedented, warrantless domestic spying program, instituted under Bush and retained (some say expanded) under Obama?

Or the new Security Apparatus that's been growing sicne 9/11, so huge that nobody (literally: nobody) has any clue to even its cost?

PS - don't get me wrong. This isn't some form of blanket justification for any modern act just because one day it will be better. We need our critics and we need them to continue to adhere to much higher standards that we personally know about now. But that is a whole other can 'o worms in'it?

I appreciate this sentiment, but no, I don't think it's a seaprate matter at all, but utterly germane. Frankly, I get the sense we're talking past each other on this whole thread.

Now don't you start pulling a 'Hedges' and ignore context to make wide brush strokes. Are you a police sniper trying to get a hostage taker on the street? Is this a murderous mob that has gone wild? Is this a revolutionary crowd? Were you firing blanks? Are you fighting for your life? Was it a weapon to you, but only a piece of spaghetti to everyone else?

I am firing a deadly weapon into a crowd because I believe they are a capitalist threat to the Revolution and are imperially-minded. And both these concerns, on the part of the Soviets, were no doubt at least partly genuine, and partly true.

So my shooting is justified?

But so am I. And, in the case of Howard Zinn and the higher standards of critics like him, has provided impetus for societal change over the past 50 years.

I might have to concede this much, though its irritating to me to have to do so.

No we ought to pay attention to the lessons of history and learn to see when abuses of authority are happening, especially if we are in positions of authority from a Mom or Dad, teacher or principal or government official. Being self-critical or having a vision of a higher standard for ourselves has it's utility.

Unsurprisingly (I hope), I agree.

Mmmmmmm. Bacon.

(but be careful when you freeze it!)

Sir, you wound me. My doctor has declared bacon off-limits. Elevated cholesterol. A gift from my father...another case of abuse of power!

Edited August 4, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shwa]

That's not so clear. Fervent screeches abotu communism were not central paltforms, though they might have been vaguely implied.

But it is clear. Fervant anti-communism, the policies and countermeasures were transferred from administration to administration, regardless of whether they were central platforms or not. Even worse if they weren't. I am not saying everyone liked them, but they did last. They became a prominent media filter and still is to a certain extent today.

Look at it this way: do you support Canada's complicity in the overthrow of democratically-elected governemnts (Haiti) or of Canada's direct complicity in the attempted genocide of the East Timorese?

If I were to vote for a leader based on notions of "security," let's say, that doesn't mean I'm voting for the obstruction of democracy or the mass murder of the innocent. Not intentionally.

Similarly, I doubt American voters were voting for the Cointelpro assassination program, the lies told them about Vietnam, or the harassment of law-abiding citizens based on leftish personal politics.

But that is the way of the democracy isn't it? But I would be surprised to find your average American - evewn back in the day - holding the idea that intelligence operations were clean and fair. Or even completely legal. But even still, the American public got fed up with the high cost of Vietnam and influenced the government to act.

And yet again: "felt" it was justified is not serious justification. Or else Saddam Hussein was correct.

I am not about to justify their justification, which is what I think you are seeking. I don't see it that way. They acted on what they believe was the best course of action to attain desired outcomes acording to their values. It is tautology to moralize about past human beings treating each other horribly.

No, because there is a larger philosophical issue about the responsibilty of Power and Authority...and this applies to al power and authority. the more powerful you are, the greater your responsibility. The crimes of authority are worse than the crimes of non-authorities.

Then we shall not discuss capital punishment! However, the philosophical point turns on the notion of what is considered a crime and what a responsibility means. That is the cauldron of polysci isn't it? Each age has their own values it seems, determinable long after the fact.

No, you've got it backwards; this is exactly what I said, and that he's a judge is not relevant. If he is accused of a crime, he has the rights of the accused. And it would not be for me to provide the evidence; it would be for the authorities--the prosecutors--to provide the evidence, perhaps including compelling me to help.

Right. But the critic - especially a moral critic of power - is indeed the prosecutor, she/he is the one in pursuit. If the government accuses a critic of some crime, of course they have to provide the evidence. But are we talking about infractions against a criminal code or are we talking about the criticism of power?

What are you saying? that to criticize the authorities narrative as wrong, I have to provide evidence...but they don't have to provide evidence for their original claim, their original narrative?

Absolutely if you are going to criticize authority you had better make sure you provide evidence of your claims. You would be the one pursuing (prosecuting) them. This is the first rule of credibility. Otherwise we degenerate into conspiracy theory and specious claims of all sorts. (Plus it is also helpful to live in a society that requires evidence of, and the freedom to speak about, those claims.)

How do you think the government derives their policy in the first place? Sure, some of it may be in a bar over a few beers, but most isn't.

If we believe in their absolute integrity and honesty--somehting, I note, that you reflexively disallow for critics, or even for Zinn's friends and acquaintances. It's strange: you have chosen sides, even as you deny it: you defend Power and authrotity, and demand higher standards from the critics: if authority claims it's jsutified, and seems to believe it, then they are justified....a generously credulous gift you don't seem so quick to bestow upon the critics of authority.

No, I am not choosing sides at all, but trying to provide as disinterested view as possible, of the reality of the value processes which was used as input into political action. And no, I don't believe in institutional integrity and honesty, which slides towards anthropomorphism. Heck, much of the time, the grunt has no idea of the big picture and I am not so certain that even the boss can anticipate all possible outcomes. But we are much more fortunate than that.

Again, this would only hold water if everyone agreed at the time. Which they didn't.

Which is one of the pitfalls of democracy, alas. But out of scope here I think.

Or there wouldn't have been any of the "communist witch-hunts."

But there were communist witch-hunts.

Again, you're choosing sides. I am too, mind...the other side. The victims, not the perpetrators.

I m not choosing sides here, you are.

Like the unprecedented, warrantless domestic spying program, instituted under Bush and retained (some say expanded) under Obama?

Or the new Security Apparatus that's been growing sicne 9/11, so huge that nobody (literally: nobody) has any clue to even its cost?

Eh, whose complaining? There appears to be this ethic, and I am guilty of it as well, that if you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to worry about. Of course, that really doesn't do upon close examination, but we are back to bread and circuses again aren't we? That is, it is comforting to know that someone is looking out for us, even if we call it spying.

I appreciate this sentiment, but no, I don't think it's a seaprate matter at all, but utterly germane. Frankly, I get the sense we're talking past each other on this whole thread.

It is germane, but worthy of its own space and not hung out on some discussion about a Hedges article.

I am firing a deadly weapon into a crowd because I believe they are a capitalist threat to the Revolution and are imperially-minded. And both these concerns, on the part of the Soviets, were no doubt at least partly genuine, and partly true.

So my shooting is justified?

For consistency sake - and this is very important - I would state that the perpetrator of the act felt justified, in one measure or another, to fire his weapon. Whether his justification for discharging is weapon could past muster in modern times is another consideration that requires more information than the brief synopsis supplied.

You could have also used an example from the Winnipeg riots in 1919.

I might have to concede this much, though its irritating to me to have to do so.

Ah, so now my turn. Do you think Zinn would have made as much as an impact had he not been the subject of an FBI investigation? We can surmise that his experience of dropping bombs on people's heads had a profound influence on his political direction - as it had on many other bombadiers and bomber pilots of that age. Do you think there is a possible corollary between his emerging political ethics and the way in which he was viewed by the authorities of whom he was critical?

Of course Hedges doesn't even touch this hot potato, for good reason, being under the "constraints" that he was.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Shwa

[bloodyminded]

But it is clear. Fervant anti-communism, the policies and countermeasures were transferred from administration to administration, regardless of whether they were central platforms or not. Even worse if they weren't. I am not saying everyone liked them, but they did last. They became a prominent media filter and still is to a certain extent today.

Well, that's a good point. People are fearful and stupid part of the time. (And there's no implied separation of myself from this broad asessment.)

But that is the way of the democracy isn't it?

Overthrowing democracies and supporting massive state terrorism is the way of the democracy? Do you mean integrally, or de facto?

At any rate, few people seem to think this is good; governments of course do not admit to such behaviour--which means they are not representing us as they're supposed to do, and in fact are international criminals, which I suggest is a serious matter; not least because we justify our current war largely on the premise of fighting international criminals who have killed considerably fewer. Further, such behaviour undermines democracy itself (by definition), since hopefully there's some vestige of real principle still involved in ideas like "democracy."

But don't misunderstand my replies--while I was a bit confused about your stance before, your helpful clarifications have shown me that you are not defending such behaviour, bush_cheney2004-style.

But I would be surprised to find your average American - even back in the day - holding the idea that intelligence operations were clean and fair. Or even completely legal.

No, it's been long understood, both tacitly supported and condemned in everything from political debates to Hollywood movies; it's become so well understood that vice President Cheney virtually admitted it by informing us that the US would be moving down "the dark side" in their New Fight.

But even still, the American public got fed up with the high cost of Vietnam and influenced the government to act.

They did.

I am not about to justify their justification, which is what I think you are seeking.

Yes, this was my misunderstanding, as mentioned.

I don't see it that way. They acted on what they believe was the best course of action to attain desired outcomes acording to their values. It is tautology to moralize about past human beings treating each other horribly.

I think part of Hedges' argument, while certainly fleeting and undeveloped, was his fear that the same sorts of things are ocurring now, and could get worse: especially for Western Muslims. Whether he's correct or not, I have no idea.

Then we shall not discuss capital punishment! However, the philosophical point turns on the notion of what is considered a crime and what a responsibility means. That is the cauldron of polysci isn't it? Each age has their own values it seems, determinable long after the fact.

Sure. I had thought it clear that I was expressing my opinion about the responsibilities of power--no insight of mine, obviously, but one I believe quite strongly. I've already said it, but I'll be more concise:

If someone has power over other human beings, it up to the individual(s) with power to defend their use of it in a way that is broadly understood and accepted.

We're never going to achieve total agreement, but in certain respects we can: aside from a vanishingly small minority, I doubt Americans or Canadians in 1976, or '81, or '94, would have cavalierly accepted the notion that their governments were secretly aiding state terrorism, resulting in one of the worst genocides of the last half of the 20th century.

Yes, some people do support it; I've discussed the matter with them here on this board. (It makes their other denunciations of terrorism ring a bit hollow, incidentally.)

But most would consider it outrageous and unacceptable.

That's a wanton misuse of power; the criminality can scarcely be overstated. And no justification is good enough. (Try to justify the Nazi holocaust, and see where that gets you! The principles at stake are not vastly different.)

I daresay that such things have radically altered my view of Western government and the use of Western power.

Right. But the critic - especially a moral critic of power - is indeed the prosecutor, she/he is the one in pursuit. If the government accuses a critic of some crime, of course they have to provide the evidence. But are we talking about infractions against a criminal code or are we talking about the criticism of power?

OK, I confused matters, though that wasn't my intention (which was the opposite, actually).

Forget matters of criminal justice as I've framed them. I'm talking about power...not perfectly specific, I get that, but I'm talking, for want of a better word, about rulers, about (ye gods!) the Establishment.

Absolutely if you are going to criticize authority you had better make sure you provide evidence of your claims. You would be the one pursuing (prosecuting) them. This is the first rule of credibility. Otherwise we degenerate into conspiracy theory and specious claims of all sorts.

You misunderstood my question; the first half was rhetorical; of course I think we should provide evidence for our claims. What I was really asking was why the critics of Power have to provide evidence for their claims, while Power (or its defenders) only has to make assertions, sans evidence.

You know: "We're fighting communism: that's why we support the invasion of Indonesia (which invasion none of y'all are supposed to know about anyway, you bad boys"). You see? That's a claim; that's their "justification," repeated obediently by every West-is-Best triumphalist you'll ever meet.

But they offer no evidence; it's a premise, a given; it's conventional piety presented as unassailable fact.

But if I say, "Wrong!"....they counter, "Oh yeah? Where's your evidence that it's wrong?"

Well, I'm happy to present it to the best of my abilities--not as well as many others could do--but I'm frustrated that I'm expected to present evidence...while they can just mutter "Cold War."

"Cold War" is not evidence.

I m not choosing sides here, you are.

Yes, I've freely conceded that I am. The downside of my approach is that power and authority aren't always wrong, and the weak aren't always right. But so long as I keep this fact in mind, I can avoid devolution into enormous conspiracy theories, and never use the word "bourgeoisie."

Eh, whose complaining? There appears to be this ethic, and I am guilty of it as well, that if you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to worry about. Of course, that really doesn't do upon close examination, but we are back to bread and circuses again aren't we? That is, it is comforting to know that someone is looking out for us, even if we call it spying.

I'm not sure that using the word "spying" to describe warrantless eavesdropping by the government on its own population, via colluding telecommunications corporations, is so dubious as to deem the word totally subjective...but ok.

Personally, I don't find it comforting. I don't think there's an overwhelming Islamist threat, which our government is going to protect us from, and that it's so beyond the understanding of us peons that they need to be particularly secretive about it. But many people disagree, so there we are.

Ah, so now my turn. Do you think Zinn would have made as much as an impact had he not been the subject of an FBI investigation? We can surmise that his experience of dropping bombs on people's heads had a profound influence on his political direction - as it had on many other bombadiers and bomber pilots of that age. Do you think there is a possible corollary between his emerging political ethics and the way in which he was viewed by the authorities of whom he was critical?

I don't know. There is no doubt a seductive element to the perceived righteous fight against what one views as abusive authority. But I can't speak to Zinn's experience in this kind of psychology.

Edited August 4, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

....We're never going to achieve total agreement, but in certain respects we can: aside from a vanishingly small minority, I doubt Americans or Canadians in 1976, or '81, or '94, would have cavalierly accepted the notion that their governments were secretly aiding state terrorism, resulting in one of the worst genocides of the last half of the 20th century.

Not only did they accept the notion, but when faced with the clear opportunity to prevent "genocide", state sponsored or not, they declined to do so (Rwanda). Alas, the "genocide card" had been overplayed by the "morally superior" yet again.

[bloodyminded]

Not only did they accept the notion, but when faced with the clear opportunity to prevent "genocide", state sponsored or not, they declined to do so (Rwanda). Alas, the "genocide card" had been overplayed by the "morally superior" yet again.

I know, it's only "the troops'" lives that rise to the level of sacred, bleating cow.

Edited August 4, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

I know, it's only "the troops'" lives that rise to the level of sacred, bleating cow.

Works for me....not only is your lofty moral superiority ignored in policy and practice by democratically elected leadership, but the military mechanisms for implementing such policies have developed their own (insulating code) as well, because yours is impractical and inadequate.

[bloodyminded]

Works for me....not only is your lofty moral superiority ignored in policy and practice by democratically elected leadership,

As is yours.

[bush_cheney2004]

As is yours.

Sure...but you still can't stop the bombs...past, present, or future. Power dressed up as "democracy" is the most powerful of all.

[Shwa]

People are fearful and stupid part of the time.

Some people have a good idea about what countermeasures mean and fully or partially support them. Others might not have access to the data, the criticism or plainly might not care enough to pay attention. And others still answer to the pangs of hunger before the pangs of conscience...

Overthrowing democracies and supporting massive state terrorism is the way of the democracy? Do you mean integrally, or de facto?

At any rate, few people seem to think this is good; governments of course do not admit to such behaviour--which means they are not representing us as they're supposed to do, and in fact are international criminals, which I suggest is a serious matter; not least because we justify our current war largely on the premise of fighting international criminals who have killed considerably fewer. Further, such behaviour undermines democracy itself (by definition), since hopefully there's some vestige of real principle still involved in ideas like "democracy."

But don't misunderstand my replies--while I was a bit confused about your stance before, your helpful clarifications have shown me that you are not defending such behaviour, bush_cheney2004-style.

No, not defending such behaviour at all, but merely accepting it as fact.

I think part of Hedges' argument, while certainly fleeting and undeveloped, was his fear that the same sorts of things are ocurring now, and could get worse: especially for Western Muslims. Whether he's correct or not, I have no idea.

But Hedges could have used a little bit more background to show that this sort of thing has been happening in Western countries for a very long time. Spying and surviellance may have differing methods and processes in different ages, but it is still spying and surviellance.

Sure. I had thought it clear that I was expressing my opinion about the responsibilities of power--no insight of mine, obviously, but one I believe quite strongly. I've already said it, but I'll be more concise:

If someone has power over other human beings, it up to the individual(s) with power to defend their use of it in a way that is broadly understood and accepted.

Agreed, hence the use of constitutions, laws and policies and the use of such instruments in their defence. The innocent-until-proven-guilty ethic also plays a part in this as well. Governments will admit to certain mistakes, but not if no one complains.

We're never going to achieve total agreement, but in certain respects we can: aside from a vanishingly small minority, I doubt Americans or Canadians in 1976, or '81, or '94, would have cavalierly accepted the notion that their governments were secretly aiding state terrorism, resulting in one of the worst genocides of the last half of the 20th century.

Yes, some people do support it; I've discussed the matter with them here on this board. (It makes their other denunciations of terrorism ring a bit hollow, incidentally.)

But most would consider it outrageous and unacceptable.

That's a wanton misuse of power; the criminality can scarcely be overstated. And no justification is good enough. (Try to justify the Nazi holocaust, and see where that gets you! The principles at stake are not vastly different.)

I daresay that such things have radically altered my view of Western government and the use of Western power.

You don't have to go far in a library, bookstore or Internet to find the word 'despotism' creeping into the text. And it appears to me that we are sliding towards a form of despotic power hoarding under the guise of "well, you elected us fair and square. It's democracy, rah-rah-rah."

Forget matters of criminal justice as I've framed them. I'm talking about power...not perfectly specific, I get that, but I'm talking, for want of a better word, about rulers, about (ye gods!) the Establishment.

Me too, but less about the corporate side of the establisment with regards to the article, and more about the governing establishment at the time.

You misunderstood my question; the first half was rhetorical; of course I think we should provide evidence for our claims. What I was really asking was why the critics of Power have to provide evidence for their claims, while Power (or its defenders) only has to make assertions, sans evidence.

You know: "We're fighting communism: that's why we support the invasion of Indonesia (which invasion none of y'all are supposed to know about anyway, you bad boys"). You see? That's a claim; that's their "justification," repeated obediently by every West-is-Best triumphalist you'll ever meet.

But they offer no evidence; it's a premise, a given; it's conventional piety presented as unassailable fact.

But if I say, "Wrong!"....they counter, "Oh yeah? Where's your evidence that it's wrong?"

Well, I'm happy to present it to the best of my abilities--not as well as many others could do--but I'm frustrated that I'm expected to present evidence...while they can just mutter "Cold War."

"Cold War" is not evidence.

No, but "Cold War" was/is a substitute phrase for a body of evidence that is incumbent on you being familiar with before making your accusation about it. It is an effective phrase because you have given it piety, but I am certain that to the folks who had to deal in the currency of Cold War data it has a much more significant meaning, less religious and much more worldly.

Now, had you dug through the Cold War data and come across some nasty and illegal acts of people treating others horribly, you may question that aspect. But questioning an aspect does not necessarily invalidate the whole, especially with a subject matter such as war. And, in wartime then as now, access to that data is restricted so your observations of it, and any subsequent criticism would only be in retrospect.

I'm not sure that using the word "spying" to describe warrantless eavesdropping by the government on its own population, via colluding telecommunications corporations, is so dubious as to deem the word totally subjective...but ok.

But you see what I mean yes? That some people, perhaps a large portion of them, perhaps a majority of them find the fact that someone is looking out for them to be comforting. Like...a... big brother of sorts. Call it 'family values.'

Personally, I don't find it comforting. I don't think there's an overwhelming Islamist threat, which our government is going to protect us from, and that it's so beyond the understanding of us peons that they need to be particularly secretive about it. But many people disagree, so there we are.

Yes indeed. But what if there were an overwhelming Islamist threat, would that make it all justified? Would you be comforted then? Gawd, we have a crusade, they have a crusade, we have another crusade to throw off their crusade and they respond with a new crusade, then we have a crusade to get some of their resources, and they have a crusade called a 'Jihad.' Oh, and there was this little interuption from Russia about some economic theories they wanted to try out, but for 900 years, the basic same pattern. Those crazy worker bees!

I don't know. There is no doubt a seductive element to the perceived righteous fight against what one views as abusive authority. But I can't speak to Zinn's experience in this kind of psychology.

And neither can Hedges since he tries to pull the coattails of a champion into his own cause. However, if the FBI investigation into Howard Zinn for all of those years had even the slightest postive input into his work, it's delivery or impact - specific or overall - well that is a game changer now isn't it?

Edited August 5, 2010 by Shwa

[bloodyminded]

No, but "Cold War" was/is a substitute phrase for a body of evidence that is incumbent on you being familiar with before making your accusation about it. It is an effective phrase because you have given it piety, but I am certain that to the folks who had to deal in the currency of Cold War data it has a much more significant meaning, less religious and much more worldly.

Now, had you dug through the Cold War data and come across some nasty and illegal acts of people treating others horribly, you may question that aspect. But questioning an aspect does not necessarily invalidate the whole, especially with a subject matter such as war. And, in wartime then as now, access to that data is restricted so your observations of it, and any subsequent criticism would only be in retrospect.

But no, I wasn't suggesting that the term has no use or is always used misleadingly. I was stating that it explicitly is and has been in specific situations. The one I have repeatedly summoned (since religious adherents have been good enough to offer a fine example) is the Indonesian invasion of East Timor. I have had discussions with people, on this very forum, in which they claim that the material and intentional support of massive state terrorism was done to "fight the greater evil" of Soviet totalitarianism. There is no "worldly" understanding here, but only a reflexive defense of "the West," without any accompanying knowledge of the situation at hand.

(Another issue arises, too: if the attempted genocide of the East Timorese, and the murder of perhaps a third of their population, was performed to "fight the greater evil," then these must be apocalyptic times indeed.)

Those who argue (if I can even use that word) "Cold War" in this situation aren't wrong "in retrospect," but simply wrong. In fact, during my reading on the subject, I didn't come across administration or foreign policy officials making even a fraudulent claim for "fighting communism" (as they did for their equally wilful support of the 1965 Indonesian massacres); the theme doesn't really arise.

So when one debates them, and they say, "Oh, well, it was the Cold War, you know"....this is not a sober response. It's a knee-jerk response, and not based on any information available. It is a (failed) try for the shotgun blast in the dark; and it doesn't rise even to the level of informed vacuity.

Further, since Western support for the terror ended in 1999, not, say, 1990, the "communist threat" idea is dubious even before you get into the official record (where, as I said, the threat wasn't even disingenuously claimed, much less cogently argued).

Edited August 9, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shwa]

But no, I wasn't suggesting that the term has no use or is always used misleadingly. I was stating that it explicitly is and has been in specific situations. The one I have repeatedly summoned (since religious adherents have been good enough to offer a fine example) is the Indonesian invasion of East Timor. I have had discussions with people, on this very forum, in which they claim that the material and intentional support of massive state terrorism was done to "fight the greater evil" of Soviet totalitarianism. There is no "worldly" understanding here, but only a reflexive defense of "the West," without any accompanying knowledge of the situation at hand.

(Another issue arises, too: if the attempted genocide of the East Timorese, and the murder of perhaps a third of their population, was performed to "fight the greater evil," then these must be apocalyptic times indeed.)

Those who argue (if I can even use that word) "Cold War" in this situation aren't wrong "in retrospect," but simply wrong. In fact, during my reading on the subject, I didn't come across administration or foreign policy officials making even a fraudulent claim for "fighting communism" (as they did for their equally wilful support of the 1965 Indonesian massacres); the theme doesn't really arise.

So when one debates them, and they say, "Oh, well, it was the Cold War, you know"....this is not a sober response. It's a knee-jerk response, and not based on any information available. It is a (failed) try for the shotgun blast in the dark; and it doesn't rise even to the level of informed vacuity.

Further, since Western support for the terror ended in 1999, not, say, 1990, the "communist threat" idea is dubious even before you get into the official record (where, as I said, the threat wasn't even disingenuously claimed, much less cogently argued).

Not quite sure where you want to go with this, but I will try:

Surely you are not equating the use of the term 'Cold War' as used in official government documentation and correspondence as being used in the same way as on this forum. Then we only need to alter one word:

"No, but "Cold War" was/is a substitute phrase for a body of evidence that is incumbent on you being familiar with before making your accusation assertion about it."

"You" in this case referring to the person using it as a catch-all phrase.

But let's look at this. The government says we did Act A because of {term B} (i.e. "the Cold War.") The citizen, knowing that the phrase is a substitute for a certain body of evidence, accepts this as a plausible explanation. They are likely not familiar with most of the details of the body of evidence of {term B} , and in their daily routine to feed themselves and their families, should they be? But if they should be - who is going to fill them in on the requisite details to understand Act A?

That is, who is going to accuse them of ignorance on the matter and prosecute their thoughts for relying on such flimsy plausibility? I would say it is the critics responsibility in this day and age. And, if it is, the critics had better come bearing sound and convincing body of evidence.

But even still, there are those that will reject the cold reality of people treating others horribly, preferring the comfort and warmth of their pursuit of happiness instead. I don't think there is much you can do for those folks, except perhaps chip away at the notion that such a pursuit has no hidden costs.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Shwa

[bloodyminded]

Not quite sure where you want to go with this, but I will try:

Surely you are not equating the use of the term 'Cold War' as used in official government documentation and correspondence as being used in the same way as on this forum.

No. I was talking about the reflexive use of the term by people on this forum...but also implied by every commentator, in any capacity, who takes it for granted that the West always acts with benign intentions...not, I don't think, an uncommon view, rising to the level of Doctrinal Truth.

I said that even the government had made no pretence towards a Soviet threat in this instance....only to emphasize the fact that those who plead "Cold War" in this instance are not getting their "information" from anywhere except their assumptive imagination.

[Shwa]

No. I was talking about the reflexive use of the term by people on this forum...but also implied by every commentator, in any capacity, who takes it for granted that the West always acts with benign intentions...not, I don't think, an uncommon view, rising to the level of Doctrinal Truth.

Ya think?

I said that even the government had made no pretence towards a Soviet threat in this instance....only to emphasize the fact that those who plead "Cold War" in this instance are not getting their "information" from anywhere except their assumptive imagination.

East Timor Government dot com (History section)

However, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the US ambassador to the UN at the time, wrote in his biography that "the United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook [with regard to the invasion of East Timor]. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with not inconsiderable success." (A Dangerous Place, Little Brown, 1980, p. 247) Later, he admitted that as American ambassador to the UN, he had defended a "shameless" Cold War policy toward East Timor.

Western governments were criticized during the war for their role in supporting the Indonesian government, for example with arms sales. The U.S. had supported Suharto's regime in Indonesia during the Cold War as it was seen as a bulwark against communism and it continued the practice during the invasion of East Timor. While the U.S. government claimed to have suspended military assistance from December 1975 to June 1976, military aid was actually above what the Department of State proposed and Congress continued to increase it.

U.S. Cold War Foreign Policy and the Neglect of East Timor: An Apology for Henry Kissinger

As a consequence, there is a temptation to judge the motivations for the actions of U.S. policymakers such as Henry Kissinger based on present standards with no eye to the Cold War mentality which dominated policy in that era...

To this end I shall evaluate the United States’ role in the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, using the declassified documents the National Security Archive gave to CAVR in combination with other period documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. In this way I will clarify that Kissinger’s actions, while certainly supportive of the invasion, reflected the U.S. foreign policy mindset of his time. While these actions were reprehensible, the prevailing logic could not have allowed for any other outcome.

Interesting eh?

[naomiglover]

Any challenge to the establishment by a powerful individual is a threat to the system

[bloodyminded]

Ya think?

East Timor Government dot com (History section)

U.S. Cold War Foreign Policy and the Neglect of East Timor: An Apology for Henry Kissinger

Interesting eh?

It is, and clearly I missed a few things.

Actually, I should have understood intuitively that such rationalizations would arise, however laughable and disgusting they might be. (For example, it is explicitly asserted that "prevailing logic could not have allowed for any other outcome" than materially aiding the attempted genocide of a peasant country that was not aligned with the Soviets. This is the linguistic method of Commissars.)

Such defense of the indefensible is commonplace, so I should have recognized this truism. (The defense is also, not incidentally, logically absurd...as if Kissinger et al were "forced" into the "reprehensible" act, totally free of agency (so therefore, by definition, not "reprehensible," which denotes a moral choice automatically). You have to wonder at the piss-poor rhetorical skills of historians with such an important job, no?).

Even if one were to maintain, as you have done (in another context...I'm making no harsh claims about you) that they "worked with what they knew," as it were, there is no explicitness about the "Cold War justifications." They simply exist...presumably in the way that Islam and other religions simply exist and demand no explanation beyond the parameters devised by the adherents themselves. Perhaps a precise analogy, except that religious faith has a slightly superior argument in its favour.

In other words: Ok, so "Cold War policies" were the reason for supporting the murderous invasion;

How so? Specifically? This is the question I'd love to hear answered, but without accompanying platitudes devoid of actual information. If this policy (not "policy" writ in overweening generalities) were genuinely necessary (directly the claim made in the link you helpfully provided), then surely somebody could helpfully explain how.

Further, how do "Cold War policies" justify such actions late into 1999? Were Ford, Carter, Reagan (and their leadership contemporaries elsewhere) justified...but Bush Senior and Clinton are war criminals?

At least that charge would remain consistent with the logic that is declared.

At any rate, your correction, while completely accurate, doesn't alter at all the main thrust of my remarks; it only removes the hypothetical "debaters and intellectuals didn't get their info from the government." As I now see, they may well have gotten it from the governemnt; that is, from bland government historical revisionism containing zero information.

But frankly, at least with those I have debated here on the topic, I can say with some certainty that they didn't even get it from such government claims; they knew nothing about it until I brought it up, and immediately defended and supported the genocide by summoning "cold War" policy. They knew nothing of what happened, nor any details...some of them made stuff up out of whole cloth (Suharto must have "fooled" the West into it), before quickly dropping such stuff to take another tact. (ie. "Easy for you to say: you don't have the leadership's responsibility to & co &co...a defense of the radical Mullahs, of Hitler and Stalin, by philosophical inclination.)

Edited August 10, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shwa]

It is, and clearly I missed a few things.

Actually, I should have understood intuitively that such rationalizations would arise, however laughable and disgusting they might be. (For example, it is explicitly asserted that "prevailing logic could not have allowed for any other outcome" than materially aiding the attempted genocide of a peasant country that was not aligned with the Soviets. This is the linguistic method of Commissars.)

But such laughable and disgusting rationalizations are available to whomever no matter what side of the porch one is rocking on. Although even Moynihan admits his complicity in the Cold War sham excuse. However after the fact that was, it was still retrospect.

Such defense of the indefensible is commonplace, so I should have recognized this truism. (The defense is also, not incidentally, logically absurd...as if Kissinger et al were "forced" into the "reprehensible" act, totally free of agency (so therefore, by definition, not "reprehensible," which denotes a moral choice automatically). You have to wonder at the piss-poor rhetorical skills of historians with such an important job, no?).

Even if one were to maintain, as you have done (in another context...I'm making no harsh claims about you) that they "worked with what they knew," as it were, there is no explicitness about the "Cold War justifications." They simply exist...presumably in the way that Islam and other religions simply exist and demand no explanation beyond the parameters devised by the adherents themselves. Perhaps a precise analogy, except that religious faith has a slightly superior argument in its favour.

From the wiki page:

Kissinger similarly agreed, though he had fears that the use of US-made arms in the invasion would be exposed to public scrutiny, talking of their desire to "influence the reaction in America" so that "there would be less chance of people talking in an unauthorised way." The US also hoped the invasion would be relatively swift and not involve protracted resistance. "It is important that whatever you do succeeds quickly," Kissinger said to Suharto.

I think it is reasonable to expect that a historian would attempt to frame an event within the context of the times that the event occurred. Spring 1975 was a pretty heady time is Asia would you not agree? However, I think it is fair to say - given enough information about the events as they unfolded - which I am sure Kissinger had, that the context would be changed to include what was reasonable. In other words - WE might have operated under the old Cold War apparatus back THEN (including the public justification), but was it necessary for Kissinger given the access to detailed information he must have had about the supposed conflict? I mean, how long do you go on before you say 'oh-oh...' especially after Vietnam?

In other words: Ok, so "Cold War policies" were the reason for supporting the murderous invasion;

How so? Specifically? This is the question I'd love to hear answered, but without accompanying platitudes devoid of actual information. If this policy (not "policy" writ in overweening generalities) were genuinely necessary (directly the claim made in the link you helpfully provided), then surely somebody could helpfully explain how.

Further, how do "Cold War policies" justify such actions late into 1999? Were Ford, Carter, Reagan (and their leadership contemporaries elsewhere) justified...but Bush Senior and Clinton are war criminals?

At least that charge would remain consistent with the logic that is declared.

I think the only "Cold War policies" at play long after the fact of the massacres and genocide would be the economic type policies of arms sales. Billions of dollars worth.

At any rate, your correction, while completely accurate, doesn't alter at all the main thrust of my remarks; it only removes the hypothetical "debaters and intellectuals didn't get their info from the government." As I now see, they may well have gotten it from the governemnt; that is, from bland government historical revisionism containing zero information.

But frankly, at least with those I have debated here on the topic, I can say with some certainty that they didn't even get it from such government claims; they knew nothing about it until I brought it up, and immediately defended and supported the genocide by summoning "cold War" policy. They knew nothing of what happened, nor any details...some of them made stuff up out of whole cloth (Suharto must have "fooled" the West into it), before quickly dropping such stuff to take another tact. (ie. "Easy for you to say: you don't have the leadership's responsibility to & co &co...a defense of the radical Mullahs, of Hitler and Stalin, by philosophical inclination.)

Well, there is always Hansard, which I had posted elsewhere. But who reads Hansard?

Edited August 10, 2010 by Shwa

[bloodyminded]

But such laughable and disgusting rationalizations are available to whomever no matter what side of the porch one is rocking on. Although even Moynihan admits his complicity in the Cold War sham excuse. However after the fact that was, it was still retrospect.

Moynihan's retrospective account sounds suspiciously like boasting to me.

I think it is reasonable to expect that a historian would attempt to frame an event within the context of the times that the event occurred. Spring 1975 was a pretty heady time is Asia would you not agree?

For the Asians moreso than for us, I suggest.

And yet oddly we condemn Pol Pot, who (by the standards here invoked) perhaps had no choice whatsoever in his actions. I mean, if we allow that Kissinger et al were forced into an action that "could not have allowed for any other outcome" thanks to "prevailing logic"...then surely the same must apply for other policymakers and leaders.

And if not, why not?

I daresay the historian here would not make the same outrageous, indoctrinated claims on behalf of anyone but the State he accidentally happens to have been born in. Men like Pol Pot don't get the luxury of being defended on grounds of "prevailing logic" thanks to temporal context.

At any rate, the blatant rhetorical illogic--that Kissinger's behaviour was "reprehensible," concurrent with the "fact" that he literally had no choice (the exact argument which is being made by said historian)--has not altered one whit between '75 and 2010. He was morally wrong...but he had zero ability to alter the inexorable march of pre-determined destiny.

That's literally the argument being made. I don't think it's even slightly a caricature. And it rises not quite to the level of elementary logic.

that the context would be changed to include what was reasonable. In other words - WE might have operated under the old Cold War apparatus back THEN (including the public justification), but was it necessary for Kissinger given the access to detailed information he must have had about the supposed conflict? I mean, how long do you go on before you say 'oh-oh...' especially after Vietnam?

Good question.

I suppose the proxy "war at second hand" (ie no Western troops, beyond a few in the capacity as trainers for the machete-wielding militias and military machine-gunners) gives a faint, if dubious, air of "plausible deniability."

I think the only "Cold War policies" at play long after the fact of the massacres and genocide would be the economic type policies of arms sales. Billions of dollars worth.

It doubtless played a part, but I think it's only part of the explanation. As Clinton said, we have the "right" to militarily protect "our resources" (which usually happen to be under other people's feet, a slight error in God's design). This seems to apply to potential resources, not only those already taken earlier (often by force). As early as 1965, after Suharto killed somewhere on the order of a million "Communists" (which begs a lot of questions in itself), government and investors and corporations met and divied the resources up. It's hard to imagine all this as coincidence.

It reminds me of the scene in The Godfather Part 2, where the American gangsters, the Western business interests, and the pre-Castro Cuban government officials met, and sliced up a cake....shaped like Cuba. A simple metaphor, but a beautiful one.

[Shwa]

Moynihan's retrospective account sounds suspiciously like boasting to me.

Boasting or not, he outed himself. Often criminals are caught by boasting about what they think they got away with.

For the Asians moreso than for us, I suggest.

And yet oddly we condemn Pol Pot, who (by the standards here invoked) perhaps had no choice whatsoever in his actions. I mean, if we allow that Kissinger et al were forced into an action that "could not have allowed for any other outcome" thanks to "prevailing logic"...then surely the same must apply for other policymakers and leaders.

And if not, why not?

I daresay the historian here would not make the same outrageous, indoctrinated claims on behalf of anyone but the State he accidentally happens to have been born in. Men like Pol Pot don't get the luxury of being defended on grounds of "prevailing logic" thanks to temporal context.

Excellent point of course and no doubt that Pol Pot thought he was doing something right according to his internal logic. Something that a good historian would look at, I'm sure. But I believe he is also condemned by Cambodians too. Kissinger never consumed his own people, so there is a slight difference.

At any rate, the blatant rhetorical illogic--that Kissinger's behaviour was "reprehensible," concurrent with the "fact" that he literally had no choice (the exact argument which is being made by said historian)--has not altered one whit between '75 and 2010. He was morally wrong...but he had zero ability to alter the inexorable march of pre-determined destiny.

That's literally the argument being made. I don't think it's even slightly a caricature. And it rises not quite to the level of elementary logic.

Logic? Why appeal to logic when you have apologetics? The thing about studied apologetics is that there is a deep rabbit hole to fall into before even remotely considering elementary logic.

I suppose the proxy "war at second hand" (ie no Western troops, beyond a few in the capacity as trainers for the machete-wielding militias and military machine-gunners) gives a faint, if dubious, air of "plausible deniability."

It doubtless played a part, but I think it's only part of the explanation. As Clinton said, we have the "right" to militarily protect "our resources" (which usually happen to be under other people's feet, a slight error in God's design). This seems to apply to potential resources, not only those already taken earlier (often by force). As early as 1965, after Suharto killed somewhere on the order of a million "Communists" (which begs a lot of questions in itself), government and investors and corporations met and divied the resources up. It's hard to imagine all this as coincidence.

I have no allusion to "coincidence" when it comes to Indonesia. Cripes, look what they did for frickin bananas in Central America.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Shwa

[bloodyminded]

Boasting or not, he outed himself. Often criminals are caught by boasting about what they think they got away with.

True. Further (because this is a point I haven't addressed here at all), when there is an institutionalization of criminality--which is part of the essence of the nation-state itself, arguably--people who are even objectively criminal can be in some ways blind to this fact. If not as blind to it as are their defenders in venues of public opinion.

But the agents themselves are probably never totally blind to it. This is the point of Orwell's ingenious "doublethink"; it is and it is not, all at once.

Excellent point of course and no doubt that Pol Pot thought he was doing something right according to his internal logic. Something that a good historian would look at, I'm sure. But I believe he is also condemned by Cambodians too. Kissinger never consumed his own people, so there is a slight difference.

Yes, good point, and there is a difference. But that one will destroy his own people in such numbers, while others will only destroy peoples elsewhere, is not a monumental difference in a larger, human sense. The distinction matters, but is not of prime importance beyond the supposed sacredness of the representative State.

If someone were to insist that Kissinger was morally less repugnant than Pol Pot, I would agree; Pol Pot is more monstrous. I would also point out that it's a poor standard, and says nothing good about Kissinger in any way. (I know...it was I, not you, who brought him up in the first place.)

Logic? Why appeal to logic when you have apologetics? The thing about studied apologetics is that there is a deep rabbit hole to fall into before even remotely considering elementary logic.

Well said!