One Man's Opinion

When push comes to shove, the U.S. Supreme Court will invariably come down on the side of the government, especially in matters pertaining to the so-called "national security. It's always been that way, even when the government has acted in extreme and outrageous fashion, as in the Japanese internment camps during WWII. Now, since 9/11, the Court puts its stamp of approval on what otherwise would be considered illegal or contrary to basic notions of human decency, going so far as to overturn decisions by courts of appeals that recognize official wrongdoing. The latest case in point deals with an American turned Muslim who was detained  under suspicion of having some relationship with terrorists. He was held for two weeks, subjected to an inhumane treatment and never charged with anything. Having sued John Ashcroft, the then Attorney General, for putting in place the system and policies that resulted in his unlawful detention, the Court has held that Ashcroft has immunity fro...

Sometimes, good intentions go wrong. It's been reported that the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo, those courageous women who have insisted that justice be done posthumously to their loved ones killed or disappeared by the military junta in Argentina all those years ago, find themselves now in hot water, having employed two brothers who were convicted of murdering their parents 30 years ago and are now under investigation for mishandling public funds. The Mothers -- at least some of them -- branched out into social work, especially housing for the poor, and thus received public funds. This is what happens to some grassroots movements when they become too ambitious and big for their own good. Instead of staying focused on one issue, do-gooders sometimes lose sight of their original purpose, and then have to organize, hire staff and handle  donations, all of which present problems which they are ill- equipped to solve. In essence, they become victims of their own success, and end up discre...

Tomorrow is Memorial Day, a date of remembrance of American soldiers who have died in U.S. wars. But, who remembers those innocent people who have been killed by American and other Western soldiers; people who were minding their own business in their countries and were bombed to hell by U.S. airplanes or killed "accidentally"? Case in point: twelve children and two women  have just been killed by a NATO air strike at night in Afghanistan. That country's government has repeatedly requested that these blind operations at night be stopped, in order to prevent the deaths of innocent civilians. But, as I've said before, the invaders don't care how many civilians they kill or maim. Paraphrasing the old American saying, the only good Afghan or Iraqi is a dead one. So, the killing goes on. No one but their families will remember these children. Those who killed them don't even know it, nor do they care. Tomorrow, they'll be having a picnic.

Fanning the flames of public discontent in countries people in the West feel deserve it has come back to haunt them. It's all well and good to applaud street demonstrations and protests in the Arab world, but what happens when the same thing starts to occur in your country? When people take to the streets, become a public nuisance  and refuse to go home? Then, those same governments that cheered the protesters in Cairo, for example, don't think twice before sending the police to clear the street and public squares. Of course, a distinction can and should be made between dictatorships and democracies, where there are mechanisms for citizens to be heard and ask for redress to their grievances. But, still, there is a right to protest publicly and massively, especially, if people become convinced that there is no other effective recourse. Ultimately, there is the right to revolution, peaceful or otherwise. In a way, people in the West have begun to realize that the so-called Arab...

Knowing very little about U.S. military life -- thank God! -- I was unaware of the policy that the family of soldiers that commit suicide don't receive a letter of condolences from the President. Wow! This means that the military puts people in extremely stressful situations and, when they snap under all that pressure, there is no acknowledgment of that from the Commander-in-Chief. Boy, talk about being cold-hearted and ungrateful! It's as if the Armed Forces were ashamed of those who take their own lives, for being sick or weak, the antithesis of the macho ideal of a soldier. Some families have been petitioning the President since 2009 to change that decades-old policy, but Obama is still reviewing the matter. Does it take so long to do the right thing?

As I was saying, Obama isn't all that different from his predecessors in some respects, especially as commander in chief of the Empire. In fact, Congress is up in arms over the fact that  he has completely disregarded his obligation under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 to obtain its approval of any military action in another country within 60 days of having ordered it. Not only has he failed to do so, he has completely ignored the issue. For a man who has pledged that he would do things differently, he has followed in the footsteps of previous Presidents, when it comes to ordering and sustaining American bombing of Libya. The truth is that Obama, like those who came before him, has gotten caught up with all that talk about being "the leader of the free world", and he conveniently forgets that Congress is his full partner in government and must be consulted in all major decisions at home and abroad. Not that Congress won't go along with him in the case of Libya, b...

Every so often, Obama reminds us that, personal merit aside, he is still the head of the American Empire or what's left of it. This comes to mind when you hear or read his speech in the U.K, saying, with the utmost arrogance, that both the U.S. and England are "essential" for democracy and human rights to flourish in the rest of the world. Really? Well, unless the history of both nations I know is totally wrong, that assertion is bullshit. The British Empire was nothing to be proud of. Ditto the present American one. Obama was really all over the place in this speech. If, on the one hand, he recognized that the idea of freedom, liberty and human rights is on everyone's heart and mind, then why does the world need that the Americans and the English teach them anything? Are both countries' records so exemplary, that they should serve as models for the rest of the world? Not really. He also said that they should not dictate outcomes abroad. And what the hell are th...