Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 405
Netizens-Digest Tuesday, October 8 2002 Volume 01 : Number 405
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Only more democracy can save democracy
Re: [netz] Only more democracy can save democracy
Re: [netz] Only more democracy can save democracy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 22:46:31 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Only more democracy can save democracy
>What do Netizens do about the US government's plan to make war on Iraq?
>
>If there is no democracy in the US, how can we be calling for
>a regime change in other countries to make them more democratic?
Well, technically, the US (at the Federal level) is not a democracy.
It is a republic.
>(And if there were democracy in the US, we wouldn't be calling
>for a regime change in any other country, but setting a good
>example here.)
Why is regime change necessarily wrong, especially if there is a
threat to the US, but, for that matter, from a humanitarian
standpoint with repressive regimes? NOTE: I have very mixed feelings
about the need to do so in Iraq, but that is a separte discussion.
>
>I called the NY Senators and their local phones were either busy
>or not taking messages....
>[snip]
>I decided to call the White House (202-456-1111) I had to wait
>about 15 minutes to speak to someone on the comment lines.
>I asked what we could do since the neither the President nor
>Congress appear to have any concern that the people in the US
>don't want a war and that millions of people around the world
>don't want a war against Iraq.
Simple question: what is your data that the US majority does not want
a war? I'm not prejudging, just looking for what is opinion versus
information. Given the size of the world, I can probably find
millions opposed to almost anything.
Incidentally, I feel that Congress has been especially shameful in
this, beginning with some leaks that certainly don't contribute to a
good working relationship with the Executive, followed by
witchhunting by the Executive, then Congress apparently drafting a
blank check without serious investigation and debate. There has been
an incredible amount of posturing.
Many leaks deal with overclassification. Leaks of communications
intercepts do not. There is reality to the claim that sacrifices
sources and methods that may be critical for the future.
[snip]
>
>The staffer said he would convey my sentiments to the Senator.
>I didn't see how he could since he didn't seem to be asking
>any questions or taking any notes.
[snip]
From practical experience with the Hill, it's not all that effective
simply to call the office. It tends to be most effective to track
down the relevant staffer in a member's office or the relevant
committee/subcommittee, unemotionally state your credentials, perhaps
tie what you want done to a position taken by the legislator or of a
group in the constituency, and then offer specific suggestions.
Offer to be a policy resource.
Another approach, even though the matter in question may be before
the Senate, is to contact your Representative's office, in writing,
and ask the material be conveyed to your Senator and to the various
House and Senate committee staff. I wouldn't expect to get anywhere
on a phone call unless I had already established a staff relationship.
If, say, foreign policy is an issue, start in a non-crisis situation
and ask your Senatorial and House offices to put you on their mailing
lists for relevant action by the member. Try to learn which staffer
has interest in the area.
>
>So that was the best America's representative form of democracy
>seems to offer its citizens. Not very adequate to the problems
>facing the people in the US and around the world.
>
>What are we to do to have more democracy?
Define how you differentiate individual democracy from government by
public opinion poll.
>
>That is the question that needs to be raised and somehow answered.
>
>And how do the people of the US and around the world prevent the
>US government from attacking Iraq and offering other countries the
>Iraq oil reserves etc?
A more general question that might be discussed: are there criteria
for just war? If so, what are they? Is preemption ever ethical?
It is harder to have public debate on specific operational matters.
Mind you, there are matters of realpolitik, not democratic theory,
that suggest regime change in Iraq may not be a good idea.
I also find it very difficult to come up with scenarios for Iraq
giving WMD to terrorists. Using them directly against coalition
forces, or against Israel to break up a coalition, is much more
plausible.
There's also been too little analysis about how strategic deterrence
actually worked during the Cold War, but somehow is irrelevant here.
Howard
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 23:56:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Only more democracy can save democracy
"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote:
>>What do Netizens do about the US government's plan to make war on Iraq?
>
>>If there is no democracy in the US, how can we be calling for
>>a regime change in other countries to make them more democratic?
>Well, technically, the US (at the Federal level) is not a democracy.
>It is a republic.
>>(And if there were democracy in the US, we wouldn't be calling
>>for a regime change in any other country, but setting a good
>>example here.)
>Why is regime change necessarily wrong, especially if there is a
>threat to the US, but, for that matter, from a humanitarian
>standpoint with repressive regimes? NOTE: I have very mixed feelings
>about the need to do so in Iraq, but that is a separte discussion.
I thought you would find of interest this article from today's
Financial Times of London, as it speaks to the illegality of
Bush calling for a "regime change" under international law
and international law, including the UN's charter etc become
part of the country's law when the country signs a treaty
as I understand.
>From the Financial Times October 7, 2002
Blair Warned war to oust Saddam 'illegal'
by Jean Eaglesham in London
Tony Blair, the UK prime minister, has been warned by his
attorney-general that military action against Iraq to force a regime
change would breach international law.
The clear advice from Lord Goldsmith and Harriet Harman, the solicitor
general, places the prime minister in a potentially "impossible
position", according to legal experts.
The warning explains why the government has been careful to avoid any
suggestion its military threats are designed to force Saddam Hussein
out.
Mr Blair is sympathetic to President George W.
Bush's threats to act unilaterally against Iraq if
United Nations disarmament moves fail. But President Bush's repeated
emphasis on regime change - reiterated last week when the White
House appeared to endorse the assassination of
Mr Hussein - would make any concrete UK military
support for such US action very difficult.
Mr Blair last month said Britain "will always act in
accordance with international law".
The law officers' confidential advice to Mr Blair sets
out limited circumstances in which international
law could allow military action in support of existing UN Security Council
resolutions, and gives legal backing for action to enforce the fresh
resolution under negotiation at the UN. But it rules out war to achieve
regime change.
Were the government to breach international law, it could find itself
before the International Court of Justice facing charges for
breaching the UN charter.
The US is unlikely to be deterred from unilateral action by such
constraints. However, such action would strain relations with the
UK, America's closest ally. Mr Blair would find it difficult to
support the US without splitting his party.
Many of his cabinet members are opposed in private to military action
that does not have at least nominal UN backing. The law officers'
advice has strengthened their resolve....
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 00:20:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Only more democracy can save democracy
Continuing my response:
"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com> responding to Ronda Hauben
ronda@panix.com wrote:
>>
>>I called the NY Senators and their local phones were either busy
>>or not taking messages....
>[snip]
>Simple question: what is your data that the US majority does not want
>a war? I'm not prejudging, just looking for what is opinion versus
>information. Given the size of the world, I can probably find
> millions opposed to almost anything.
20,000 in Central Park in NY on Sunday, and 9,000 in San Francisco
and demonstrations in other places. In the world, 400,000 in London
last weekend and 1 million demonstrating around Italy this weekend.
Lots of calls to the offices of Congressfolk and other forms of
communication opposing the war..
The fact that there is so little representation of any of this
in the US press and that the President and Congress do not seem
to have any interest in why there is such opposition or the need
to explore and understand the opposition.
Something very fundamental seems to have broken down in the US
system of government that this is all happening.
>Incidentally, I feel that Congress has been especially shameful in
>this, beginning with some leaks that certainly don't contribute to a
>good working relationship with the Executive, followed by
>witchhunting by the Executive, then Congress apparently drafting a
>blank check without serious investigation and debate. There has been
>an incredible amount of posturing.
Yup giving a blank check and there being so little public discussion
in the US about what is happening is a strange environment to
be living in.
>Many leaks deal with overclassification. Leaks of communications
>intercepts do not. There is reality to the claim that sacrifices
>sources and methods that may be critical for the future.
Far too much is secret to begin with. Somehow there is a need
for much more public discussion of problems to have any means
to find real solutions that serve a public interest rather
than solutions that only serve very narrow private interests.
>>The staffer said he would convey my sentiments to the Senator.
>>I didn't see how he could since he didn't seem to be asking
>>any questions or taking any notes.
>From practical experience with the Hill, it's not all that effective
>simply to call the office. It tends to be most effective to track
>down the relevant staffer in a member's office or the relevant
>committee/subcommittee, unemotionally state your credentials, perhaps
>tie what you want done to a position taken by the legislator or of a
>group in the constituency, and then offer specific suggestions.
>Offer to be a policy resource.
Several of us tried that with the ICANN situation back when the
Science Comm was taking up the issue. The staffers really didn't
seem to want to sort out how to solve the problem, but rather
it seemed that Worldcom's representative from Mississippi was
there calling the shots in Worldcom's interest.
It all made me wonder if there is any way to have the system
function according to law and the public interest ever again.
>Another approach, even though the matter in question may be before
>the Senate, is to contact your Representative's office, in writing,
>and ask the material be conveyed to your Senator and to the various
>House and Senate committee staff. I wouldn't expect to get anywhere
>on a phone call unless I had already established a staff relationship.
I appreciate these suggestions and will consider seeing if there
is some way to do what you suggest. But somehow it seems that
the Congress and other aspects of the US government need to have
some realization that citizens and and their needs do matter.
Right now, it seems this has gotten lost from their radar screen.
In other countries like for example Germany and a few years ago,
Austria, there seemed real interest in government in how the
Internet could make a more democratic environment possible.
>If, say, foreign policy is an issue, start in a non-crisis situation
>and ask your Senatorial and House offices to put you on their mailing
>lists for relevant action by the member. Try to learn which staffer
>has interest in the area.
Have you found this functioned for you?
>
>>So that was the best America's representative form of democracy
>>seems to offer its citizens. Not very adequate to the problems
>>facing the people in the US and around the world.
>
>>What are we to do to have more democracy?
>Define how you differentiate individual democracy from government by
>public opinion poll.
Nice question.
A public opinion poll is in the control of someone or some interest
who has some calls made and makes some report of some finding.
There is no discussion among the public, no public questions that
are identified and examined, etc.
In a democracy, as has functioned online at various periods,
there is a need to hear from a range of opinions. People
with differences are encouraged to speak and to have a discussion.
People find from the differences that issues become clarified and
it becomes clearer what is important to do and less important
and why.
A newsgroup or mailing list with active participants can be helpful
in clarifying issues. For example, in our book "Netizens: On the
History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet" there are two
chapters about the November 1994 National Telecummunication and
Information Administration online conference (NTIA) about the
future of the Internet. There were a broad range of views and
interests discussed and that was a beginning model for how
to have people participate in a democratic process that the
people making the decisions should be drawing on.
>
>>That is the question that needs to be raised and somehow answered.
>
>>And how do the people of the US and around the world prevent the
>>US government from attacking Iraq and offering other countries the
>>Iraq oil reserves etc?
>A more general question that might be discussed: are there criteria
>for just war? If so, what are they? Is preemption ever ethical?
The UN charter is contrary to attacking a sovereign nation with
a preemptive attack. I guess I don't see preemption as having
the potential of being ethical since one doesn't know what will
happen, only what one thinks can happen.
In Great Britain before World War II there was a sense that Britain
needed some way to defend itself in a coming war, so there was
a commitment by the government to develop radar, a defensive strategy
to protect rather than to strike out. Later there was the decision
to bomb civilian areas in Germany and that lengthened the war
and cost more lives both German and British than before this policy.
This second decision was a preemptive decision and proved harmful.
>It is harder to have public debate on specific operational matters.
>Mind you, there are matters of realpolitik, not democratic theory,
>that suggest regime change in Iraq may not be a good idea.
>
There are also democratic theory considerations that say to make
a "regime change" by an outside attack is a violation of any
democratic process.
In the US we need more democratic processes so we aren't in a position
to be dictating to Iraq or any where else what means there are
to more democracy. And as I wrote earlier, if we were more democratic,
we wouldn't be proposing illegal activities without any participation
of the people in the decisions that will affect us such as
attacking Iraq to bring about a "regime change."
>I also find it very difficult to come up with scenarios for Iraq
>giving WMD to terrorists. Using them directly against coalition
>forces, or against Israel to break up a coalition, is much more
>plausible.
It ssems that the US in proposing a regime change via an attack
is the problem for the UN and the world, not Iraq.
And Israel in attacking the Palestinians in violation of UN
mandates is similarly a serious problem. And yet there is
no entity calling for a UN resolution against the US or
Israel. One wonders if that is what should be happening instead
of going along with the US to consider how to continue the
attack on the Iraqi people in the name of the problem of their
government. Once one starts to condemn some government from the
outside, it seems all governments can be condemned by other
governments. It becomes a mere power play as there aren't
governments in general that citizens are satisfied with at
the current time. But that is the task for the citizens of
a country, not the government of some other country.
>There's also been too little analysis about how strategic deterrence
>actually worked during the Cold War, but somehow is irrelevant here.
Yes this is an important issue as well.
Ronda
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #405
******************************
