*

TWITTER | @martingruner

    3.8.10

    Sic semper tyrannis

    I knew I was going to have some major issues with the Obama presidency. Foreign policy, for instance looked really bad, and turned out worse (illegal bombing forays creating popular anger in The Most Unstable Nuclear Power In The World, killing hundreds of civilians? Seriously? That's your strategy to secure the USA? And don't even get me started on Israel.) I also figured his economic policy was going to be business as usual. But I never really thought that the collapse of civil rights in the US was going to be an issue. How could things get worse?

    Barack Obama is a trained constitutional scholar. You would think that he would be quick to restore the US constitutional and civil rights that the Bush administration demolished over the past decade. And surely he would dismantle what Lawrence Lessig has called the "unitary überexecutive", where the President's office holds power over life and death. But no, he has done none of these things. There have been disappointingly few reversals, and even several issues where things have deteriorated. He has retained the excessive and unchecked power of the Bush administration, instead of taking his George Washington moment and relinquishing it. And he has insisted on not prosecuting the former administration for its many, many crimes. The man to read about all this is blogger and lawyer Glenn Greenwald, who has been taking the Obama administration to town over these issues.

    But I think I had some vague sense of, hmm, Hope for Change, deep down, still. But now? Not so much, no. Two weeks ago, the Obama administration's Treasury Department slapped a Global Terrorist label on a man named Anwar al-Awlaki. He's a US citizen, living overseas, probably in Yemen. Now, in all likelihood, the man is bad news. He's apparently a fundamentalist radical muslim cleric. But that's not really an issue here. This is: The Obama administration has revealed that he is on an assasination list. Obama has, in effect, ordered a US citizen killed without due process, on some dreamed-up neverending battlefield in a neverending war, in which he is apparently a military player. The global terrorist label of the Treasury Dept. makes it a criminal offence to do any kind of business with him — including representing him as a lawyer. This means that al-Anwaki is specifically barred from challenging his kill on sight-order legally.

    So the Obama administration is ordering a citizen killed arbitrarily, without due process, with no checks and balances, with no representation, and preventing any legal challenges to that completely crazy concentration of power. That's not something you can do in a democracy. Unchecked and arbitrary power over the life of your subjects is, in fact, the definition of tyranny. Thus, always, to tyrants.

    My concern now, extrapolated from this case, is that Obama will keep the political and civil structures in place that preclude change. He was possibly the last hope for a transformative US presidency, but given how he consistently refuses to rethink the distribution of power and rights of opposition, exemplified here in the US's security policy, I'm afraid that this thinking represents his action plans on the domestic front as well. If that happens, then halfway into president Palin's first term, we'll look back on arbitrary extrajudicial assasinations as the good old days.

    *


    Update: And while I'm busy recommending Glenn Greenwald's writing, this post is very readable, building on the recent exposure by the Washington Post of the secret intelligence bureaucracy in the USA, and the evaporation of internet privacy.

    From the introduction to the Washington Post piece:
    These are some of the findings of a two-year investigation by The Washington Post that discovered what amounts to an alternative geography of the United States, a Top Secret America hidden from public view and lacking in thorough oversight.

    Labels: , , , , ,

    10.6.10

    OMG!! WTF!?

    OMG OMG, you are surely saying to yourself, this is not the blog I was expecting! To which, verily, I reply: Get used to it. After literally years of I-really-should-do-that-sometime-soon, I wrote a new layout. And it only took me, like, three months. And it's not really finished. There will be much tweaking in the days and weeks to come.

    The new layout, as you probably have noticed, has no sidebar, just a 500 px central column of verbiage. All the sidebary stuff is now in the footer, which, if things were working correctly, you would get to by pressing the asterisk in the right-hand side of the window. Unfortunately, that's not working yet, for no apparent reason. I'll have to look into that. [edit: working now! Thanks, Kyrre.].

    The page also now starts with my Twitter feed and a stream of a set of personal favourites from my Flickr account. This not-placing-of-the-blog-content up top is weird, I admit. It does mean that you have to scroll down before you get the actual specific content of the blog, but I wanted to have the blog reflecting more of my online activities. This way, it's more of a sort of homepage. Anyway, it probably won't stay this way forever, but for now, I like the micro-unorthodoxy of not bombarding the reader with Too Much Information, and I like that I have a little pause up top before the contents start.

    If you go to a specific post page, the Twitter and Flickr bits will not be there, so if you're requesting a specific post, you'll only get that post.

    Do you get any bugs with the new layout? Let me know in comments.

    Labels: , ,

    4.11.09

    Recommendation: Glenn Greenwald

    The blogroll isn't really the best way to introduce other bloggers. I'll try to do posts like this one occasionally, where I recommend other people.

    Today: Glenn Greenwald.

    Greenwald is a constitutional/civil rights lawyer who works for Salon as a blogger. He is distinguished by being absolutely relentless in his pursuit of justice for the horrors of the Bush years and their ongoing obfuscation by the failure of the Obama presidency to prosecute them. He is in my opinion the most interesting voice in the blogosphere on issues of torture, extraordinary rendition, legal black holes, Guantanamo, etc. as well as other issues, like drug policy, foreign policy, civil rights/human rights issues in general, and so on. He is a skilled dismantler of government or media hypocrisy. He is very much not hoped up by the Obama administration. Which, on these issues, is extremely refreshing.

    His recent post, "A court decision that reflects what type of country the U.S. is", is a blistering attack on a court decision right out of Kafka. You've probably heard the story of Maher Arar already:
    Maher Arar is both a Canadian and Syrian citizen of Syrian descent. A telecommunications engineer and graduate of Montreal's McGill University, he has lived in Canada since he's 17 years old. In 2002, he was returning home to Canada from vacation when, on a stopover at JFK Airport, he was (a) detained by U.S. officials, (b) accused of being a Terrorist, (c) held for two weeks incommunicado and without access to counsel while he was abusively interrogated, and then (d) was "rendered" -- despite his pleas that he would be tortured -- to Syria, to be interrogated and tortured. He remained in Syria for the next 10 months under the most brutal and inhumane conditions imaginable, where he was repeatedly tortured. Everyone acknowledges that Arar was never involved with Terrorism and was guilty of nothing.
    And now the court basically says -- incredibly -- that they can't grant Arar his rights, because the president might need to mess with said rights because of national security. I think I agree with Greenwald that there are substantial holes in their line of reasoning. A must-read.

    Labels: , , , , , , , ,

    21.8.07

    and speaking of single-celled organisms...

    The polysemic champion must be 'set'. Superficially it seems like a wholly unseeming monosyllable, the verbal equivalent of a single-celled organism. Yet it has 58 uses as a noun, 126 as a verb, and 10 as an adjective [and] it take the OED 60,000 words...to discuss them all.
    —Bill Bryson
    Man, I love the word polysemic, and not just because it sounds totally dirty, yet isn't. It's also one of those words I keep forgetting the English language has, and it always takes me by surprise when I remember it. It always feels like rediscovering it every time I come across it.* When I'm translating, and I come across the Norwegian word "flertydig" or "mangetydig" (which are far more commonly used than their English equivalents), I try to work out a series of words in my head meaning the same thing**, elaborations like "having several meanings", "multiple meanings", etc. And then I remember polysemous or its partner in crime multivalence** and I'm home free.

    * Any double-entendre in the previous two sentences is completely unintended. Seriously.
    ** Did you realise that polysemic is the equivalent of multivalent? So many levels, dude.

    Labels: , , ,