In the spate of stories about the new material on the JFK assassination, I could not help but notice the following in a NYT account by Peter Baker:
One document included in the July release outlined a proposal to cause food shortages in Cuba as part of Operation Mongoose, the Kennedy administration project to remove Castro from power. The plan called for introducing untraceable biological agents to destroy crops in Cuba, leading to widespread hunger that could set off a revolt against Castro.
According to the memo, Kennedy’s national security adviser, McGeorge Bundy, “said that he had no worries about any such sabotage which could clearly be made to appear as the result of local Cuban disaffection or of a natural disaster, but that we must avoid external activities such as the release of chemicals, etc., unless they could be completely covered up.” Like many of the plans, there is no evidence that it was ever executed.
Bundy, of course, was the former Dean of the Faculty at Harvard who became JFK's National Security Advisor (and who became one of the architects of Vietnam, serving well into the Johnson Administration). David Halberstam delivered the classic critique of Bundy and his associates in The Best and the Brightest. But note the implications of these paragraphs. The well-educated and cultured Harvardian expressed no objections in principle to adopting a policy of mass starvation of innocent Cubans in order to elicit opposition to Castro. He simply pointed out that it would have "to be completely covered up." Anne Applebaum has been receiving praise this week for her newly published book on Stalin's collectivization of farms in Ukraine that resulted in mass starvation. Almost of all of us today find this kind of ideological zeal appalling. But Bundy was suggesting an American form of Stalinism, which, of course, brought us Vietnam and much else that we continue to live with today.
We should be comforted, of course, by the information that "there is no evidence that it was ever executed," but one can't help wondering why not. Did the denizens in the JFK Administration realize that the idea was truly appalling and should be dismissed forthwith, or was it "simply" that they came to the conclusion that it could not in fact be successfully covered up? [ADDITION: OF COURSE, THE INSANE EMBARGO THAT WAS IN PLACE FOR A HALF CENTURY WAS NOT AT ALL SECRET, AS WAS THE CASE WITH THE EMBARGO ON IRAQ REFERENCED BELOW IN ONE OF THE COMMENTS. THE LIVES OF NON-AMERICANS OFTEN SEEM TO MATTER VERY LITTLE TO US POLICY MAKERS, INCLUDING, OF COURSE, THOSE WHO ARE THREATENING WAR WITH NORTH KOREA AND THE ALMOST CERTAIN "COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES" FOR OUR PUTATIVE ALLIES IN SOUTH KOREA WHO SEEM TO BE PLAYING NO REAL ROLE IN THE SABER RATTLING.]
War includes dehumanization.
ReplyDeleteRecall some years back someone was upset at concerns about the mass starvation in North Korea, arguing Western sanctions and the like should not be stopped over such things. Best to consider certain individuals as "non-persons," at least in a legal sense, perhaps including undocumented teenagers who wish to have abortions, at least in the eyes of at least one federal judge.
Whatever was decided here, forgetting actual people are involved and/or putting aside human empathy for them is often deemed necessary. Also, "Operation Mongoose" has a certain ironic flavor to it: http://animals.mom.me/can-keep-mongoose-pet-2117.html
I learned back as a pre-teen in the early 1940s trowing up in Boston of the expression "All is fair in love and war." I had learned of war with Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. I did not know much about the type of love referenced as the love I knew back then was for my parents, grandmother, brother and the New York Yankees. [My brother was a Red Sox fan, but I loved him.] With the recent "Hurricane Harvey" and other sexual assaulters/harassers disclosures, now Sandy's post is a reminder that like interpreting the Constitution this expression raises a lot of questions as to what's fair.
ReplyDelete"All is fair in love and war"
ReplyDeleteWe were never at war with Cuba despite having been, some generations ago, at war in Cuba. Regardless, I am reminded of Secretary of State Albright's comment, during the Clinton Administration.
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.
—60 Minutes (5/12/96)
We were not at war with Iraq then either. But these bits of history add some support to my Iraqi former colleague's 1992 protest that "The United States is the biggest terrorist."
I note we have not heard from all of the usual suspects. I'm getting ready for the Sunday political shows. Meantime, perhaps those who haven't yet might check this out at the NYTimes:
ReplyDeleteJames Madison’s Lessons in Racism
By NOAH FELDMANOCT. 28, 2017
Over the years I have enjoyed Sandy's comments on the Founders/Framers who may have had some imperfections, like we all do. War and morality are not harmonious. I mean all those "wars" that Congress did not declare, as well as those it did.
Sandy: The well-educated and cultured Harvardian expressed no objections in principle to adopting a policy of mass starvation of innocent Cubans in order to elicit opposition to Castro. He simply pointed out that it would have "to be completely covered up." Anne Applebaum has been receiving praise this week for her newly published book on Stalin's collectivization of farms in Ukraine that resulted in mass starvation. Almost of all of us today find this kind of ideological zeal appalling.
ReplyDeleteWhy?
Highly educated progressives, socialists and other totalitarians constantly and intentionally seek to have the government destroy entire sectors of the economy and knowingly reduce large groups of the people to poverty in their zeal to achieve ideological goals. See, for example, Cap and Tax seeking to destroy the oil, gas and coal industries (in Spain this program spiked energy costs, which Obama expressly stated was his goal, and caused a deep recession); Obamacare destroying the individual health insurance market by making the product too expensive to buy; the progressively punitive tax code and means tested welfare state paying people to remain under and unemployed and punishing them for taking a middle class job or creating a successful business; the New Deal (specifically the NRA, CCC and minimum wage) making people too expensive to employ and extending the early 30s recession into a decade long depression (a decade and a half if you do not count the WWII make-work and holocaust as an "economic recovery"); 1990s banking regulators creating the nation's first subprime home mortgage market, which came close to collapsing our financial system and the prime home mortgage market a decade later; and this is just some of the damage highly educated progressives and socialists have inflicted on just our nation.
I know you have no problem with any of these examples of totalitarian government at work. Perhaps, you just draw the line at mass murder?
Larry Koenigsberg said...Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
ReplyDeleteSecretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.
—60 Minutes (5/12/96)
This was Sunni Saddam starving the Shia and Kurds to pressure the UN to lift sanctions on his oil exports. The UN sanctions permitted more than enough food trade to feed the Iraqi population.
We were not at war with Iraq then either. But these bits of history add some support to my Iraqi former colleague's 1992 protest that "The United States is the biggest terrorist."
The Persian Gulf War never ended. Bush 41 entered into a ceasefire, not a cessation of hostilities, which Iraq constantly violated over the next decade. Bush 43 actually did not need to seek a second declaration of war/AUMF from Congress, but rather declare Iraq violated the ceasefire and finish the previously suspended war.
SPAM's:
ReplyDelete"The Persian Gulf War never ended."
is a reminder that the Korean "war" never ended. Is SPAM suggesting that President Trump, whom SPAM had referred to over and over again during the 2016 campaign as a fascist as SPAM was trolling for the leaky Cruz Canadacy, and "finish the previously suspended war"?
"We were never at war with Cuba"
ReplyDeleteOh, come on. That's like saying we weren't at war with Italy during WWII. We were at war with the USSR, and Cuba was an ally of the USSR in that war, the USSR's outpost in the Western hemisphere.
Those nuclear missiles didn't end up in Cuba because they were a neutral party!
"That's like saying we weren't at war with Italy during WWII."
ReplyDeleteIt would be wrong to say that, true, since Italy declared war on the U.S. & in return the U.S. declared war on Italy.
We weren't "at war" with the USSR in a formal sense. That term has specific meaning and also suggests a certain degree of conflict and in fact a large part of the "Cold War" was using smaller surrogate hot wars that avoided direct battle with each other.
If you want to use words loosely, yes, we were at "war" with those countries. Not having diplomatic relations is clearly a sign of not simply being at peace, at least.
BD: "The Persian Gulf War never ended."
ReplyDeleteShag: ...is a reminder that the Korean "war" never ended.
The Korean War never legally started. Truman never went to Congress for a declaration/AUMF.
Spam's 9:49 AM comment referenced a quote of a portion of a paragraph from Sandy's post. Here's Sandy's sentence that followed closing that paragraph:
ReplyDelete" But Bundy was suggesting an American form of Stalinism, which, of course, brought us Vietnam and much else that we continue to live with today. "
Context matters.
Did Congress declare war on North Korea? I recall back then the reference to the Korean Conflict. In my earlier comment that SPAM was responding to I used the words "Korean 'war'" intentionally and SPAM took the bait. While there was an armistice, there's never been a peach treaty.
ReplyDeleteAnd Congress did not declare war on Vietnam, yet numerous references are made to the Vietnam War.
And Congress did not declare war against Iraq in the Gulf War.
There have been undeclared wars, military conflicts, etc.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteShag:
ReplyDeleteWe are discussing the legal significance of ceasefires.
A POTUS may legally wage a war declared by Congress. AUMFs are declarations of war. If the wartime enemy violates a ceasefire of that war, the President may finish the war without going back to Congress tor a second declaration. One declaration per war.
If a POTUS starts a war without a declaration/AUMF by Congress, the war is illegal both before and after any ceasefire.
SPAM's effort at 4:11 PM:
ReplyDelete"We are discussing the legal significance of ceasefires."
attempts to shift the point of Sandy's post, aimed at Bundy in the category of Halberstam's "The Best and the Brightest," noting:
"Anne Applebaum has been receiving praise this week for her newly published book on Stalin's collectivization of farms in Ukraine that resulted in mass starvation. Almost of all of us today find this kind of ideological zeal appalling. But Bundy was suggesting an American form of Stalinism, which, of course, brought us Vietnam and much else that we continue to live with today."
SPAM's:
"If a POTUS starts a war without a declaration/AUMF by Congress, the war is illegal both before and after any ceasefire."
SPAM by including a reference to AUMF is making an effort to make Gulf I "legal" presumably because of his role as a grunt. Where in the Constitution is there a reference to AUMF? Article I? Elsewhere? to support SPAM's claim that "AUMFs are declarations of war."?
Perhaps SPAM will remind us once again that he was an Intelligence Officer. Apparently that has not rubbed off on him in civvies. SPAM wants to discuss progressives, the New Deal, and totalitarians, international events, Obamacare, etc, his usual screeds. (I note that SPAM did not go back to The Gilded Age of the late 19th century.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteShag:
ReplyDeleteMy first post responded to Sandy's points. My second post discussing the Persian Gulf War ceasefire was a brief response to Larry's erroneous comments concerning the Iraq War.
Next, what is a declaration of war as used in the Constitution if not an authorization to use military force? Once again, pay attention to what people and things do, not necessarily what they say.
SPAM the textualist has spoken by means of his question that incorporates the answer he desires. One can pay attention to what SPAM says when he is mistaken and unresponsive as SPAM often is), merely laying out his trolling agenda as the Citizen Pampersteer.
ReplyDeleteShag:
ReplyDeleteApplying the principles of textualism, which is the determination of meaning, a declaration of war and an AUMF are completely synonymous like a bill and legislation.
"Obamacare destroying the individual health insurance market by making the product too expensive to buy"
ReplyDeleteMore people have health insurance now than before Obamacare, so that's an interesting way to make 'the product too expensive to buy.' But more importantly, you're comparing Obamacare to the purposefully engineered mass starvation of thousands to millions is par for the course sickening hyperbole on your part.
"Applying the principles of textualism, which is the determination of meaning, a declaration of war and an AUMF are completely synonymous like a bill and legislation."
A la Breyer there's an argument that authorizations are a functional equivalent to a declaration, but textual? The Founders actually changed the wording in the Declare War Clause from "make" to "Declare."
"Bush 41 entered into a ceasefire"
What ceasefire was that?
Brett
ReplyDelete1. "That's like saying we weren't at war with Italy during WWII"
We formally declared war on Italy (they formally declared war on us as well).
2. "We were at war with the USSR"
No, we were not. There's a reason why they came up with the term 'cold' war, because while we were certainly competing and unfriendly we were never at war, which is a specific state to be in.
3. "and Cuba was an ally of the USSR in that war"
Spain was an 'ally' of Germany in WWII, but we were never at war with Spain.
SPAM engages in cavalier textualism. A quick Google search led to:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl31133.pdf
a 112 page document:
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Declarations of War and Authorizations
for the Use of Military Force: Historical
Background and Legal Implications
Jennifer K. Elsea
Legislative Attorney
Richard F. Grimmett
Specialist in International Security
March 17, 2011
I haven't read this but did review its extensive table of contents. SPAM is only middle aged and should be able to digest this document before I can, so it's a battle of the tortoise and the "hair." [sic] (Hopefully I don't run out since before thread moderation sets in.)
Mr. W:
ReplyDeleteAlmost no one personally buys the insanely expensive Obamacare exchange health insurance, whose premiums spiked another 34% for next year. The taxpayers pay the premiums for the lower middle class, most of whom then cannot afford the sky high deductibles. Everyone else unable to loot the taxpayers is screwed.
Given you progressives claim being without health insurance is a death sentence, is the comparison of destroying health insurance with destroying crops that strained?
After Bush called a ceasefire in ground operations, the US imposed the terms of maintaining the ceasefire and UN Resolution 687 adopted them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteShag:
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, your CRS report engages in almost no constitutional analysis comparing declarations of war with AUMFs.
How dishonest would it be to say that 'progressives' have 'destroyed the individual college market by making the product too expensive to buy" when it is demonstrable that *more people attend college than before the 'progressive' reforms?" It's laughable.
ReplyDelete"the US imposed the terms of maintaining the ceasefire and UN Resolution 687 adopted them"
Hmm. UN Resolution 687 you say. Did the UN approve of the second Gulf War?
"your CRS report engages in almost no constitutional analysis comparing declarations of war with AUMF"
You've of course engaged in even less than that!
Highly educated progressives, socialists and other totalitarians
ReplyDeleteThis is mere name-calling.
As usual, Mr. DePalma runs language around like a ringmaster, cracking his whip at meaning. I myself am a highly educated progressive and take umbrage at his linking me to the European, Asian, African and Latin American dictatorships, past and present, that I abhor. Is it necessary for me to assert that I am not a totalitarian? The definition: "relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state." I'm trying to think of when liberals in this country locked up and executed dissidents with show or no trials, to enforce complete subservience to the state.
I have it: in this country, the best example is the antebellum and jim crow south, so I guess in Mr. DePalma's view, those oppressors were liberals in their lynching burning and show trials.
His conflating "progressive" and "totalitarian" is rather like his defining demeaning talk about one's political opponent as vote suppression (see 2012 election), in contrast to the actual vote suppression practiced by his party: purging voter rolls, requiring ID and then making it difficult to obtain, reducing the calendar for voting. Will consistency lead him to describe Trump's bad mouth as vote suppression? Probably not, as Mr. DePalma is so skilled with words, making them mean something that they don't. Clever fellow!
SPAM is a Humpty-Dumpty textualist.
ReplyDeleteThe article addresses international law and the law of nations that is integral to constitutional law in regarding Congress' request on the subjects of the article. Members of Congress had some concerns about the Constitution's Article I power of Congress in comparison to the AUMF process. SPAM must have missed those discussions in the article. But SPAM, the top legal dog in criminal defense DUI practice in his rural mountaintop community, knows better with his "Declaration of War = AUMF."
By the Bybee [expletives deleted], as I recall the UN was a tad involved not only with Gulf I but with the Korean "war."
"No, we were not. There's a reason why they came up with the term 'cold' war, because while we were certainly competing and unfriendly we were never at war, which is a specific state to be in."
ReplyDeleteYou can place the emphasis on "cold", I can place it on "war", but they were both part of the phrase, and rightfully so. We certainly were at war with the USSR, for all that we did it through proxies most of the time, both being worried about escalating it to a nuclear conflict.
And, I repeat, those missiles didn't end up in Cuba because they were a neutral party. They ended up in Cuba because Cuba was an ally of the USSR, and a military foe of the US. Of course we were at war with Cuba.
Here's a paragraph from a TPM report today:
ReplyDelete"Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson are scheduled to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Monday. They told the panel behind closed doors three months ago that a 2001 law gave the military ample authority to fight terrorist groups."
Apparently the Senate is nervous. The Trump Administration does not want a debate in Congress on the issue. This is an extension of the Imperial Executive that takes military actions without Congress exercising its Article I power to declare war under both Democrat and Republican administrations.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLarry: I myself am a highly educated progressive and take umbrage at his linking me to the European, Asian, African and Latin American dictatorships, past and present, that I abhor. Is it necessary for me to assert that I am not a totalitarian?
ReplyDeleteYes, but it will do you no good.
Nearly every policy American progressives have or wish to impose are imported from foreign progressive, socialist and fascist political economies.
All totalitarian political economies (socialism, fascism and progressivism) share four elements:
(1) A belief in unlimited government - This does not mean the government runs everything, but rather totalitarians recognize few or no natural limits on government power and believe government direction can and should solve or mitigate anything they see as an economic or social problem.
(2) Government by absolute bureaucracy - In order to exercise power and direct our lives, highly educated totalitarians rule through a largely unaccountable absolute bureaucracy exercising all three government powers - executive, legislative and judicial. A bureaucratic dictatorship is far more invasive than any absolute ruler because it's reach extends much further into our lives.
(3) Direction of the economy - Totalitarian governments all attempt to direct the economy as the most effective means of directing our lives.
(4) Redistribution of Wealth - Totalitarian governments all attempt to redistribute wealth (the product of the economy) from those who create it to those the totalitarians prefer, starting with the totalitarian government itself. Highly educated totalitarians highly compensate themselves.
The only real differences between socialism, fascism and progressivism is what they see as problems, the means they use to address these problems, or the vocabulary they use to describe or the degree they employ shared means, and they share a great number of means.
Off topic, I see that Mueller's much heralded indictments turn out to be Manafort, fired months before the election, for conduct having nothing at all to do with Trump's campaign.
ReplyDeleteEither he's hoping to turn Manafort with threats of an unrelated prosecution, having found nothing by other means, or this is just prosecuting SOMEBODY, before he folds up shop, so that the millions he spent investigating a work of political fiction don't look totally wasted.
I'm guessing the latter.
Does Brett recall the "War on Drugs"? The word "war" can be used loosely, including as political public relations. I note the response to the current opiod epidemic is not being referred to as the "War on Opioids," obviously for colorless public relations purposes.
ReplyDeletePerhaps by Brett's definition America is at war with North Korea. Maybe Russia? Maybe China? Maybe Iran?
Regarding the US being at war with the USSR, perhaps the view of the USSR regarding missiles in Cuba was that the US had missiles in Turkey, close to the USSR. Recall how the Cuban Missle Crisis was resolved: A tit for tat.
Considering the many locations of US military throughout the world, perhaps that might serve to describe with whom the US is at war under loose definitions of war.
The Cold War ended. But wars, tightly and loosely defined, continue. Does anyone recall Ike's "farewell speech" in 1961 about the "military/industrial complex"? Or was Ike covering his ass because of his involvement in putting US military in Vietnam?
By the Bybee [expletives deleted], speaking of Ike, it has been said that the Korea truce may have been pushed along by threats to nuke North Korea. Perhaps is a peace treaty had been pursued following the truce, the current situation with North Korea might have been avoided.
And is there any doubt that under Putin Russia in seeking claims to prominence has interfered in US elections? Of course the US has taken steps since the Cold War to lessen the prominence of Russia in Eastern Europe. More tit for tat.
But let's not get too loosey-goosie with the word "war."
Brett's quick with the Trump Talking Points. Meantime, Manafort may be humming "Pardon me Boy" about the Moscow Choo-Choo.
ReplyDeleteShag: The article addresses international law and the law of nations that is integral to constitutional law in regarding Congress' request on the subjects of the article.
ReplyDeleteThe CRA article focuses on the differences between a declaration and an AUMF in triggering various statutes and international laws.
The constitutional question we are discussing is whether an AUMF satisfies the Constitution's Declaration Clause to grant POTUS permission to start a war even though it does not use the magic word "declaration?"
Brett: Either he's hoping to turn Manafort with threats of an unrelated prosecution, having found nothing by other means, or this is just prosecuting SOMEBODY, before he folds up shop, so that the millions he spent investigating a work of political fiction don't look totally wasted.
ReplyDeleteOr use of this indictment is meant to distract public attention away from the Democrat "dossier," spying and Uranium One scandals emerging again in the news.
The evidence against Manifort has been known for months. How long has Mueller been sitting on this indictment?
Sandy: INCLUDING, OF COURSE, THOSE WHO ARE THREATENING WAR WITH NORTH KOREA AND THE ALMOST CERTAIN "COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES" FOR OUR PUTATIVE ALLIES IN SOUTH KOREA WHO SEEM TO BE PLAYING NO REAL ROLE IN THE SABER RATTLING.
ReplyDeleteIt would appear instead that the PRK is threatening to nuke the US and our allies in the region by launching ICBMs in our direction.
In response, Trump suggested any actual PRK nuclear attack would result in massive nuclear retaliation, which has been our posture for decades towards China and their smaller nuclear arsenal.
Uh okay. The Italy reference still wasn't that good for the reasons given.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I recall the war on drugs. Don't recall it involving a lot of aircraft carriers and people in uniforms shooting at each other, though. The "Cold" war was only "cold" directly between the US and USSR, pretty hot at times where the proxies were concerned.
ReplyDeleteBut, yes, Italy was a bad example.
The "war on drugs" did (and does) involve shooting and both para and actual military efforts, some dealing with other countries. The "proxies" part included some actual wars or uses of force ("war" itself treated differently in international law in recent years). "Cold War" was a metaphor and the cold part was because the Russians and Americans weren't actually directly shooting at each other as in an actual war.
ReplyDeleteTo be clear about the fiction ...
The charges — which were unsealed Monday — include 12 counts of conspiracy against the U.S., conspiracy to launder money, unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false and misleading FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act) statements, false statements and seven counts of failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts, according to a Mueller spokesperson.
One of Manfort’s [former Trump campaign director] business associates, Rick Gates, also turned himself in Monday, according to CNN. The pair were indicted by a federal grand jury on Friday. Gates is linked to Manafort’s business dealings with politicians and corporations in Eastern Europe.
[Talking Points Memo]
But, that's off topic, so I put that aside.
George Papadopoulos, foreign policy advisor for Trump campaign, secretly pleaded guilty. Again, off topic, and part of a big nothingburger, so hey how about those Astros? And, that Kevin Spacey news?
ReplyDeleteBottom line: Mueller is alleging a variety of failure to report and conspiracy charges, which date before the accused's entry into Team Trump, do not include any substantive crimes and have nothing to do with Mueller's portfolio or Democrat charges of Trump collusion with Russia.
ReplyDeleteTrump should order Mueller to report the status of his investigation and give him 90 days to obtain indictments within his portfolio or shut down.