Explosive Expressions

This week, leaders from around the world are meeting in New York to attend the U.N. Security Council. There's all sorts of talk about climate change, nuclear weapons, and other such topics. But what I've found interesting, thus far, is an interview that Newsweek had with the current Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

If you've been following the news in the past few months, or even reading my blog, you'll know that Iran has been the source of some rather appalling news. With riots, human rights violations, and more, Iran hasn't been a very pleasant place.

Putting aside the current state of Iran, though, read through the article I mentioned above. Put aside your pre-conceived notion of who Ahmadinejad is. Put aside the vitriol spouted about him in the media. Read what he had to say, and think about it for a few minutes.

Now that you're done, let's look a little closer at what he's saying. Seriously, because I think what's being said here is a bit more than the standard "He's EVIL!" stuff you see in the media. Not that I'm arguing that point, but still, there is some food for thought here.

Let's start with the Holocaust stuff. The popular media marks him as a Holocaust denier, but if you read what he actually says, I believe there's more to it than that simplistic label. When asked why he would say there was no Holocaust, here's how he responded:

What I am saying is extremely clear. It is an academic approach to a crucial subject and also one based on humanitarian considerations. What I am saying here is that in past history many events have happened, and in World War II many crimes were committed. Over 60 million people were killed and even more were displaced. So we have several specific questions with regard to the events of World War II, and I believe we cannot find the answers to these questions through the propaganda that is promoted by the media. In the end, the questions need convincing answers.

Ok, so far so good. So he's admitting that people died and were displaced. He does seem to be equating historical information to propaganda, but that's not so very wrong. After all, the winners generally get to write the history books, so equating it to propaganda isn't so terribly wrong. But let's move on, shall we? He mentioned some questions...

The first question that I have to try and understand is why in the midst of all that happened in World War II, the Holocaust is emphasized more than any other [event]?

Holy. Shit. Wow.. umm.. That's one hell of a question. Think about it for a minute. Millions of people died during World War II. Why is the Holocaust emphasized so much? There are a lot of valid answers to this, but it's still a damn good question. And his follow-ups are even better.

The second question is why do Western politicians focus on this issue so much? The third question is how does that event connect with issues that we see around us in the world today? Was this a historical event that happened in isolation without impacting the present conditions?

These are some thought provoking questions. On the one hand, I believe the reason this is brought up so much is that we need to learn from mistakes and do our best to ensure that such atrocities don't occur again. On the other hand, it does get used a lot as an excuse for this or that. It is a historical event, though I'm not sure it has a direct effect on present conditions. Sure, it happened, it was an atrocity, and a lot of people lost their lives, but would the world be that much different today if it did not happen? Very hard to say, either way. Good food for thought, though.

The next question we should ask ourselves is if the event did take place, where did it happen, who were the perpetrators, what was the role of the Palestinian people? What crime have they committed to deserve what they have received as a result? Why exactly should the Palestinian people be victimized? Are you aware that over 5 million Palestinians have been displaced and have had refugee status? What role did they play in the Holocaust? Why is the Holocaust used as a pretext to occupy the land of other people? Why should the Palestinian people give their lives up for it? You are probably aware that there have been embargoes on the people of Gaza.

And now we get to the real meat of this issue. Remember, we're talking about Iran here, home to palestinians. When we talk about Israel, the Holocaust is sure to come up. After all, the Holocaust was a deliberate attack on Jews, and it is argued that the formation of Israel is a direct result of the Holocaust. I believe this is what Ahmadinejad is getting at. Basically, the nation of Israel was formed as a home for the Jewish people. The problem is, it was created at the expense of the Palestinian people. Whether you agree or not, there were a lot of people displaced by that decision.

Now, add in the Holocaust to that. It is believed that the existence of the Holocaust resulted in a lot of empathy votes when the U.N. voted on the Palestine Partition Plan. For better or worse, we ended up with Israel and a lot of really pissed off Palestinians. The holocaust was not caused by the Palestinians, but it seems they are being made to pay for it. Or, at least, that's what popular culture leads us to believe. There are those that disagree, of course.

He follows up with more, though you can read that for yourself.

After tackling the holocaust, Ahmadinejad is asked about the recent presidential election. During that election there was both protesting and rioting. Many believe that large numbers of protesters were unjustly arrested and have been mistreated ever since. These human-rights violations are apparently going to be discussed in Geneva in the near future and the interviewer asks if the president is prepared to talk about them. Interestingly enough, Ahmadinejad seems to deflect the question by asking how many people are imprisoned in the USA. He goes on to state the following:

Do you know the number of prisoners here in the United States? I will give you an answer; if you please, bear with me. You don't expect me to give you the answer you are expecting. You have 3.6 million prisoners in the United States. Why are they in your prisons? Some of them are electrocuted. Why? Exactly why? There is a law here that deals with such matters. Could we say it is a bad thing? Could we address exactly why 3.6 million people are in prison? If nobody has violated the law, there is no reason for them to go to prison. Once the law is violated, then they could end up in prison.

What is interesting about this is how he tries to gloss over his countries actions by pointing out how difficult it is to make sure that every person in jail is supposed to be there. He then goes on to compare his countries judicial system to the system in the USA. He states that there are five stages to a court trial and that four of them are reviews of the case. Somehow this is to prove that they are much more diligent in Iran and will absolutely uphold the rights of the person being held.

He then goes on to state that other issues such as Guantanamo Bay, world security and disarmament, the economy, and more will be discussed in Geneva. He then rails on Europe and the rights violations that occur there. He states that merely discussing the Holocaust ends up with scientists and academics being imprisoned. But at no point does he mention that he is willing to discuss what happened most recently in his country. It's interesting how he can spin a conversation and evade answering questions.

At this point the interview turns towards nuclear power, enriching uranium, and other nuclear-related topics. Personally, I'm not sure I trust his true intentions and I believe the U.N. needs to proceed with caution. He does, however, raise a number of good questions about procedure and legalities with respect to global nuclear law. I think those matters need to be looked into, but I'm of the opinion that the entire story isn't being told.

I definitely don't think Ahmadinejad has the best interests of his people at heart, and I would love to see him lose his presidency to someone who will fight for the people. That said, I think we need to tread carefully as he is a well-spoken, well-educated individual and I think he can be very, very dangerous.

Here we go again... The associated press is reporting that a US Airways employee helped a passenger, who was apparently his friend, smuggle an unloaded handgun onto a plane. You can go read one of the articles yourself, but it basically boils down to this. The passenger was moving and asked his friend about transporting his handgun. His buddy, who was a TSA employee, apparently decided it was easier to just carry the bag through the employee entrance, rather than have it screened or checked. Before boarding, the TSA employee gives the bag back, is spotted by a watchful passenger, reported, and all hell breaks loose. They tear apart the plane, find the gun, and find a missed boxcutter in the process too..

So, stupid decisions by both, but it brings to light, again, the fact that security at the airport is nothing but a show put on by the powers that be to make it look like we're safe. In reality, though, the only thing that this insanity provides is headaches.

I wonder if people realize how incredibly easy it is to smuggle things onto planes. Let's look at liquids, since liquid explosives are apparently so easy to mix on a plane. Bruce Schneier posted a story about a lady who decided to test the TSA by going through security with the ingredients to make homemade gunpowder. She clearly labeled all of the ingredients, printed up a fake boarding pass, and waltzed through security. They scanned her fake boarding pass with no problem. She was questioned about the bamboo reeds she had in her carry on luggage. However, after inspecting them, and even running what was apparently an explosives test, she was allowed to pass through security. How's that for secure? They TESTED for explosives, yet found none.

Here's another, marginally less exciting, but concerning nonetheless. A gentlemen buys some salad dressing for his wife, puts it in his luggage and forgets it's there. At security, he goes through the motions and the dressing is found. After talking to the TSA employee he finds out that they have to discard the dressing, but is told exactly where they'll be throwing it. After they throw it away, he wanders over to the garbage can, in full view, grabs it back, and flies it home to his wife. All in front of the TSA.

So tell me, is this security? How about we deal with the terrorists before they get to the airport. If they've made it far enough to get into the airport, we're already too late.

Terrorism.  So much has been said about terrorism, and so much more will be said. Our wondrous leader, George W. Bush, is quoted as saying, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”  What more needs to be said, right?  Of course, I’m not a Bush supporter, by any stretch of the imagination, so I suppose that makes me “with the terrorists.”  …

Terrorism…  How scared can we make the nation?  Hell, right after the 9/11 attacks there were people who covered their ENTIRE HOUSE in plastic!  Why?  Because our government said that chemical and/or nuclear attacks were a possibility.  Yeah, and getting hit by a meteor is a possibility too.  But that didn’t stop TIME magazine from publishing, almost a year and a half after 9/11, a how-to guide about “Living with Terrorism.”  The Department of Homeland security regularly publishes information about being prepared for terrorism, though it’s not as “in your face” as it was just a few years ago.  Still, a single click on their website brings you to the “Prevention & Protection” page where the first two items on their list are about chemical security, and reporting suspicious activity.

But the insanity doesn’t stop there!  The government is regularly taking away our liberties, stripping away our privacy, all in the name of stopping terrorism.  How can this be, you say?

Let’s look at FISA.  FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, is a law that, in short, allows the government to “spy” on anyone (including American citizens) that are suspected of being engaged in espionage.  Sounds reasonable enough…  That is, until you see what has happened since 9/11.

First up, we have the USA PATRIOT act.  The PATRIOT act allowed all manner of anti-terrorism activities including wiretapping, searches, and indefinite imprisonment.  All this in the name of anti-terrorism.

Next, the Protect America Act came into being.  The PAA was, arguably, a response to the warrant-less wiretapping that President Bush engaged in after 9/11.  Its provisions opened up all electronic communications to wiretapping, both domestic and foreign, provided that the wiretapping wasn’t targeted at one particular person.  It upheld warrant-less wiretapping, but provided a provision that required it to be reported to the FISA Court within 72 hours.  Although, the notification could be sealed, only to be opened if the legality of the tap needed to be certified.

And more recently, we have the FISA Amendments Act.  This act aims to expand the governments surveillance powers even more, and even includes provisions to provide immunity to the telecommunications companies that complied with Bush’s, arguably illegal, warrant-less wiretapping.  The provisions in this law are absolutely staggering.  States have been stripped of the ability to investigate telecommunications companies, or others, for warrant-less wiretapping.  It allows the government to not keep, or even destroy, records of searches.  Telecommunications companies have been given immunity for both past and future wiretapping, provided it’s for determining terrorist plans.  Details no longer need to be given on why or what is being monitored, and allows monitoring to continue for 168 hours, more than double the previous 72 hours.  About the only positive in this mess is that the act prohibits the government from superseding these rules in the future.

So, in other words, anyone can be put under surveillance, for any reason, at any time, and all the notification that needs to be given is a piece of paper in an envelope that can only be opened if the legality of the surveillance is questioned.  And guess who voted for this.  Obama.  Mr. Obama, who I openly supported, voted for this Act.  But at least he voted.  McCain abstained from the vote, a cowardly move in my opinion.  This seriously affects my own view of Obama…  I will definitely need to take the time to re-think my position and who I want to see in office.

Regardless, this is all done in the name of terrorism.  Which is great, because we don’t want any terrorism..  Right?  Well, wait..  What the hell is terrorism anyway?  According to the Federal Criminal Code, Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18, it’s defined as the following:

“…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and… (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States… [or]… (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…"

That’s pretty…  vague?  Looks to me like you can fit just about anyone into the role of a terrorist.  And, once classified, you get to feel all the weight of these wonderful anti-terrorism laws…  There’s a happy thought, eh?

So let’s look at this another way.  Constant reminders about terrorism and the war on terror pop up every day.  New laws are introduced and rushed through the system, all so we can stop the imminent threat against our country.  Yet, in the end, these laws can be twisted and used against the very people they proclaim to protect.  And each day, a little more of your independence, your liberties, and your rights is lost.

Stop being a sheep.  Stop accepting these laws as necessary and giving up your rights.  Speak out against these injustices and fight.  As the saying goes, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”