Should snooping for gossip be illegal?
The breaking news yesterday about the FBI infiltration and arrest of a Russian spy ring left me wanting. The spies were not sent to obtain U.S. government jobs and access to classified information. They were sent to mingle with elites and think tankers and get juicy gossip and rumors about U.S. politics and foreign policy. Um, hello FBI? Have you met any 30-something policy wonks over happy hour? This rumor mongering is what they live for. Take a gander at Laura Rozen’s Politico blog or “The Cable” on Foreign Policy. There’s a whole media industry of political gossip. Is it really illegal to pass this stuff to foreign governments. Hell, Russia could have saved itself a ton of money and the trouble of, you know, a diplomatic crisis by just reading Wonkette. Could have had a laugh while gaining much more valuable intelligence from them than a “New York-based financier described as a fundraiser for a major political party” is going to get you.
-Marc
Photo by Flickr user Anonymous9000 used under a Creative Commons Attribution license.
Live and let die?
How many (and which kinds) of deaths are acceptable in war?
On Tuesday, Marc posted an interesting article which argued that even if our current wars truly are essential to American defense, the number of innocent lives lost cannot justify the gain. The author, Adil Shamoo, assumes that the only reason we might find the deaths overseas acceptable is if we value American lives more than foreign lives. Dr. Shamoo thinks that this line of thinking is irrational and therefore cannot justify the bloodshed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As U.S. citizens, we value the lives of our fellow countrymen many fold over the lives of other citizens. How else could we allow our government to continue this policy of killing and wounding our opponents in such disproportion to the number of casualties of U.S. troops and contractors for nearly nine years after 9/11.
In his analysis, Dr. Shamoo considers only the number of deaths, but in doing so, he seems to have left out at least two morally relevant considerations – the manner in which the deaths occurred, and the purpose of the killers. For example, imagine that some Person A walks up to another Person C and kills him for some reason. Now imagine Person B walks up to the same Person C and for the same reason yells at him. Unbeknownst to Person B, Person C is easily startled and is standing at the edge of a cliff. The frightened Person C took a step back and fell off the cliff to his ultimate demise. In this example, both Persons A and B were responsible for the death of Person C and for the same reason, yet hardly anybody would think that their actions were morally equivalent. The difference here seems to be intent – while Person A intended to kill C, Person B only intended to scare him, the killing was an accident.
Now imagine Person A is a racist and shoots Person C because of his race. Person B, on the other hand, Read more
Are the lives of compatriots worth more?
Foreign Policy in Focus has an emotional article on how we value Iraqi and Afghan lives as compared to those of Americans. The article begins:”When a U.S. civilian is murdered in a foreign land or in the United States, we rightfully feel angry, sad, and some of us demand vengeance. These are normal, primordial, and instinctive feelings of group loyalty and herd mentality that have bound communities and countries for thousands of years.” And yet, they are in some sense completely irrational. Why should I feel any more for a stranger I have never met who is American versus one who is Afghan or Chinese? And yet most of us do and most of us find no problem acting on this emotion. I’ve written before on this priority thesis, but take a read of the article for a argument on how we might have taken this idea too far in our current wars.
-Marc
Photo by Flickr user DVIDSHUB used under a Creative Commons Attribution license.
Iran: The Times They Are A-Changin’
Does American Responsibility and Permissibility Change With It?
In a recent piece published in The New Republic, Senator John McCain writes that now is the time for America to support regime change in Iran. One of the central tenets of his article is that a domestic pro-democracy movement has sprung up over the past year, and it is now obvious that Iranians want American help:
Of course, the United States should never provide its support where it is unrequested and unwanted—but when young Iranian demonstrators choose to write their banners of protest in English, when they chant “Obama, Obama, are you with us, or are you with them?” it is a pretty good indication that we can do more, and should do more, to support their incontrovertibly just cause.
There are two ways to interpret Sen. McCain’s use of “should” here. Perhaps the Americans should help now because the chances of success are much higher when there is domestic support for foreign intervention. This would be a strategic, prudential argument. Alternatively, perhaps the “should” here is a moral “should,” and that only when help is wanted does America have a moral responsibility (or even permission) to interfere with Iranian affairs. I suspect that McCain means to express both these sentiments. This moral position is a common one, with much intuitive appeal – but can it stand up to much scrutiny? Read more
Violence and just borders in the Middle East
What does the flotilla incident mean for the Israel-Palestine border?
Many viewed the recent flotilla incident in the waters off of Gaza as relevant to larger questions about Israel’s legitimacy and what constitutes a just outcome to the peace process. This argument, whereby the legitimacy of Israel (or Palestine) depends upon their policies toward the other side, seems inappropriate. What makes a state legitimate? What should the borders be between two states? These are hard questions. Whatever the answers are, as a matter of political morality, I doubt that it includes much analysis of how one side treats the other.
Consider this example: People A have lived in and governed Land Area Q for 500 years. People B invade Q to exploit its natural resource and they push out People A. In their attempt to regain control, People A resort to tactics that threaten the innocent members of People B.
We don’t generally believe (I think) that the right of People A to their land would be affected. Their tactics may be unjust and reprehensible, but it seems they’re unrelated to the deeper question of who should live in and govern a land area. There may, in theory, be a breaking point, such that if People A aim to commit genocide against People B, we might conclude that they’ve lost all rights, including the right to rule Q. But even this is uncertain; it’s not as if the German people after WWII lost all their rights to control land, such that the French could justly take their land.
When thinking about the big questions on Israel from a moral perspective (e.g. what’s a just border?), it’s maybe irrelevant when and whether one side commit actions deemed inappropriate, unjust, egregious, etc. It’s surely relevant from a policy perspective, insofar as some actions may be better or worse for one’s desired end-game. And it’s relevant in regard to other moral questions about how people ought to treat each other in such a conflict.
Do enemy combatants take checks?
How does cost affect where we should house suspected terrorists?
The Washington Post ran a detailed article today on the $500 million that has been invested in renovations at the Guantanamo Bay base that has housed many of the enemy combatants we’ve captured since the 9/11 attacks.
Among the more amusing expenditures:
The cost of the marquee, along with a smaller sign positioned near the airfield: $188,000. Among other odd legacies from war-on-terror spending since 2001 for the troops at Guantanamo Bay: an abandoned volleyball court for $249,000, an unused go-kart track for $296,000 and $3.5 million for 27 playgrounds that are often vacant.
It’s always easy to cherrypick seemingly useless expenses to show waste, although an abandoned go-kart track really does feel egregious. Also, I’m not sure playgrounds are as fun when you are cuffed and hooded. Or maybe slides and tunnels are a new “enhanced interrogation” technique. Ok, ok, enough bad one-liners.
The real concern is the disparity between Guantanamo’s $150 million annual operating cost and what it would likely cost to house these prisoners on U.S. soil. The Post cites a White House estimate that Guantanamo costs “double the amount for a comparable U.S. prison.”
There have been some interesting arguments about whether it would be appropriate to move suspected terrorists to a U.S.-based maximum-security prisons. The main debate was whether such a move would put American lives in danger.
But the spending issue adds a new and important perspective. There’s little question that safety arguments tend generally to trump waste arguments. If moving these prisoners to the continental U.S. really would significantly risk American lives, the best argument would be to show that keeping the prisoners in Guantanamo actually puts more lives at risk (or increased the risk level for the same number of lives).
If the risk is relatively low, the spending level (the Post estimates about $2 billion total) really does trade-off with other morally good things. Today’s Los Angeles Times reported that political pressures heading into the midterm elections have even many Democratic lawmakers leery about education and unemployment expenditures expected to be taken up by Congress.
If I were a father of four, I wouldn’t want Guantanamo-USA near my hometown. But if I’ve been unemployed for a year, I might need my unemployment check.
How should we choose?
-Sam
Flotilla folly
The startling simplicity of a tragic clash
Over the weekend, Israeli military forces raided a flotilla of Turkish activists who attempted to pass through Israel’s blockade of Gaza and provide aid to the Hamas-governed population. Some of the activists were killed in skirmishes with Israeli commandos; hundreds of others are in custody.
While the international reaction has been harsh, Israel says that the blockade is legal and defends its right to enforce it.
There is little question that any loss of life is grave and this incident underscores the importance of continuing to seek a mutually-agreeable way forward on Israeli-Palestinian relations. At the same time, we should not be surprised to hear commentators add needless complexity to an issue that, to my mind, is not that morally confusing.
For Israel, the Gaza blockade is an issue of national security. It’s no secret that it exists, and they rely, where possible and appropriate, on non-violent efforts to enforce it. Five of the six Turkish boats were stopped using a technique that interferes with rudders. The sixth was apparently too large for the technique. While an investigation is in order, early reports suggest that commandos were met with armed resistance on the sixth boat.
For activists who see a serious moral wrong occurring in Gaza and feel the need to provide aid, there is little question that they should do everything they can to deliver that aid. If they feel the moral obligation is high enough, it’s not outlandish to resort to force.
These two sides are morally opposed, but both can mount legitimate arguments for their respective positions.
This problem can only be addressed through a blockade policy that assuages the Israeli security interest and the desire for activists to see adequate humanitarian capital flowing into Gaza. If only a total blockade satisfies Israel or if activists really are after some kind of political outcome beyond the provision of necessary supplies, conflict will inevitably follow.
You can’t think your way out of that kind of dispute.
-Sam
Money and guns
US complicity in Mexico
When we attempt to attribute responsibility for the world’s most severe problems, especially in the developing world, it’s difficult to see exactly how the causal links operate. Even though the US is the most powerful nation, its direct responsibility for these crises is almost always attenuated and complex. One can spin ridiculous, semi-conspiratorial arguments where the US stars as the final puppet master to anything corrupt and unjust in the developing world, but these are not to be taken seriously in my mind. There exists, however, at least one glaring exception: The civil violence between Mexican drug lords and the Mexican government.
Outside of military intervention, rarely ever is there such a clear case of one nation’s culpability in the domestic challenges of another. The drug lords exist to feed the US drug market. And they get their guns through the US weapons market. We give the bad guys their money by buying their drugs; and we sell them the guns that enable their continued existence. The causal line does not involve a Rube Goldberg story beginning with the practice of colonialism. Its clear, direct, and recent. If democratic nations can be considered as coherent entities able to bear moral responsibility, as I think they ought to be, this is a pretty easy case.
In short, the US bears some direct moral responsibility for a civil conflict that creeps very close to the status of existential crisis for Mexico. If we take our moral status seriously, its imperative we think hard and fast about how to stem the flow of our money and guns to some of the most vicious people in the world.
-Jake
Kristof on foreign aid
When do facts matter?
Kristof’s latest column reveals a dark side to poverty in the poorest countries: parents often spend significant parts of their income on purchasing alcohol and tobacco products, significantly more than they invest in their childrens’ education. Although he begins this discussion with a few anecdotes from his own travels, he relies on an MIT research project for serious data.
Jamelle Bouie, one of Yglesias’ substitute bloggers, writes:
Kristof comes dangerously close to sounding like the domestic commentators who blame the problems of inner-city African-Americans on a lack of personal responsibility and some kind of unique black “pathology.”…The truth is that there isn’t much evidence to suggest that the African poor — or the poor more generally — are any more short-sighted and foolish than their wealthier counterparts, domestically and abroad.
Bouie, notably, never contests Kristof’s data on this issue. His retort is a clear non-sequitur; whether the poor spend a higher percentage of luxuries than the wealthy isn’t the issue as much as it is the actual amount invested in education. A hedge fund manager that invested $40,000 in Harvard and $1.5 million in a yacht might be contemptible for a variety of reasons, but underfunding education would not be one of them.
Bouie concludes his piece by praising Kristof’s efforts to promote micro-saving, a curious move. If the world’s poor are really doing just fine, why would a Western-funded savings program be necessary or justified? The conclusion seems to be that over-spending is a major problem with some potential solutions, but that we can only discuss those solutions without voicing the underlying problem.
Bouie also argues that factors other than poor spending underlie African poverty. No one is contesting this fact. Kristof’s argument is that behavior is one of the factors that serves to perpetuate poverty, among possibly many others.
In considering whether Bouie’s argument has any relevant moral component it’s useful to ask if there’s anything to be gained by his proposed silent treatment, and I really couldn’t think of anything relevant. A clear diagnosis of the problem should underlie any kind of foreign aid; further, data like Kristof’s should be available to help the West decide whether and how much foreign aid is appropriate.
Ultimately Bouie’s argument is that Kristof’s piece reminds him of another thing which he’d rather you not talk about, so better to not talk about either one. Puzzling.
-John
The world court
When is it appropriate for American courts to reference foreign law?
The other day Jake posted on the Supreme Court ruling that teenagers cannot be sentenced to life in prison for non-homicide crimes. In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy referenced the consensus in the international community against such punishments:
There is support for our conclusion in the fact that, in continuing to impose life without parole sentences on juveniles who did not commit homicide, the United States adheres to a sentencing practice rejected the world over.
In other recent decisions outlawing the death penalty for juveniles and overturning laws prohibiting sodomy the court has also referenced international law. These cases raise an interesting question, what role, if any, should the opinions of foreign nations play in our constitutional interpretation? Read more
Share us