News: Sen Edwards A 'Preventative War Doctrine' Is 'Ridiculous And Dangerous'

Source: USA Today

Democratic presidential contender John Edwards attcked Sen. Hillary Clinton "is voting like a hawk in Washington, while talking like a dove in Iowa and New Hampshire." John Edward's in a recent television debate rounded on the front runner's foreign policy by accusing her of being 'hawkish' and not being strait with the electorate on Iran.

He also attack Clinton and her ties to lobbyists as part of a corrupt Washington system that voters should reject in the presidential election.

He also continued his attack on the Bush-Cheney policy of "preventative war doctrine." He was quoted as saying "After 9/11, instead of focusing on the terrorist threat, George Bush started promoting a radical new neoconservative doctrine he called, quote, "preventive war," -- which would soon become part of his argument for war in Iraq."

He went further and added "But there is a difference between doing everything in our power to keep America safe and a reckless, belligerent policy that actually makes us less safe. The preventive war doctrine was a stunning departure from the policy that had kept America safe during both world wars and during the Cold War. It is wrong on the merits, wrong on the morals, and wrong for America."

"Think about it -- you don't prevent wars by starting them. It would be ridiculous if it weren't so dangerous."

"George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the neocon warmongers used 9/11 to start a war with Iraq and now they're trying to use Iraq to start a war with Iran. And we have to stop them. ...As a nation, we stand today at a fork in the road with Iran. We have a real choice about the direction we'll take. One path will replay the last seven years. It leads toward a dark future of belligerence, aggression, and war."

His pitch was seen as a pitch to the left/liberal wing of the Democrat Party, which is undergoing its internal debates to nominate the Presidential Nomination he outlined his foreign policy plan pledge as:

-End the "preventive war" doctrine.

-Use bolder and more targeted economic sanctions.

-Reengage with Iran.

-Reengage with other major nations on the challenge of Iran.

However he failed to expand on his alternative policies in the debate.

Comment:Extraordinary Rendition-Is there an ethical case?

With Hollywood giving its ‘verdict’ on the ‘War on Terror’ I thought it might be high time to take a closure look at ‘Extraordinary Rendition’ and canvas opinion on what libertarian and centre right thinking is.

In fact the practice of Extraordinary Rendition is nothing new. The British Government often carried out kidnappings in the Republic of Ireland against key IRA personnel who had escaped legal rendition. The US first documented usage was against the hijackers of the Achille Lauro in 1985, with a US Navy jet forcing down a flight to land at Naval Air Station Sigonella and then rendered the hijackers to the United States. Other states that have also used this power are: China, South Korea, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, France, Israel and a number of Middle Eastern and African countries.

Many countries have also benefited from the intelligence that has been gained from the interrogation of prisoners that have been captured under extra judicial kidnappings including the EU and its institutions (the main Governmental critics of the US use of ER.)

What is often forgotten is that the Clinton Administration first brought in the law as this rather revealing piece by Richard Clark, counter-terrorism czar in the Clinton and Bush Administrations shows:

“‘Extraordinary renditions’ were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government…. The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'”

Richard Clarke, Enemies pp143–4

One can’t help thinking that this is the same Al Gore that has just got a Nobel Peace Prize.

Since 9/11 The Bush administration has increased its usage and allowed prisoners to be removed to black sites-covert sites where it is alleged torture is used to extract information.

The arguments FOR the use of Extraordinary Rendition are powerful:

The country where a suspect is held might be linked to the terrorist group and beyond the ‘normal’ reach of legal and diplomatic channels. For example capturing wanted war criminals in Serbia, Bosnia or Croatia
It may well be an advantage to interrogate a prisoner in his own country of origin where s/he would be familiar with the language, customs and a tradition of that country for example Al Qaeda uses Middle Eastern operatives.
The intelligence gained would not only benefit the nation rendering the capture, but the domestic intelligence agency carrying out the interrogation and third parties.
The ‘ticking bomb’ scenario. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_arguments_regarding_torture
To prevent unnecessary press intrusion that may effect how a case is prosecuted

The arguments AGAINST are equally powerful:

There is no legal or ethical oversight
It may well damage the reputation and relationship between the parties
The action itself may be dangerous or can expose the country carrying out the action to unwanted press and media attention if it becomes a failed operation.
The intelligence gain may not reflect the cost and effort put into the operation
It is again ‘international’ agreements and laws

Rather than lay out an argument, here is a scenario in which we can ponder:

A ‘war criminal’ takes refuge in country X and is granted diplomatic protection and is considered a ‘rogue state’. Country Y wants to prosecute the individual for war crimes and Country Z wants information on intelligence on weapons shipments including chemical transfers and nuclear material that might be in the hands of terrorists. As leader of Country Z would you authorize the use of Rendition-especially if Country Y uses torture to extract information and confessions?

Unlike Pallywoods ‘cardboard cutout world’ these are real world problems. Do you have a duty to protect your country or do you remain ethical and uphold international law? Will people die at a later date because of your inaction? Will the press find out? Will it cause diplomatic problems? Will you loose the greater battle of ‘hearts and minds’?