Senate Bill S 1867, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

This Bill is 680 pages long, but the section of greatest concern is section 1031.  Please read it.  I have listed sections 1031 and 1032 in order to show the contrast between the two.  In section 1032 there is an exemption for US citizens and Resident Aliens, however, this same exemption does not apply to section 1031.  It is easy to read section 1031 thinking that you are not one of those people, so there is no need to worry.  You may even agree that people who engage in the terrorist activities described deserve the measures taken.  However, ask yourself who gets to make the decision whether a person falls into this category or not?  The individual described in this section has not been tried and found guilty and then submitted to the detention described.  Anyone (including US citizens) suspected of these acts can be detained indefinitely without a trial.  Do you have enough faith in the government that innocent citizens won't be apprehended?  Can you live with the fact that they could be locked away indefinitely without charges or a trial if they are?  This section is an egregious attack on the liberties of US citizens and I hope enough people will voice their disapproval to at least have the same exemption as section 1032 amended to section 1031.  There is enough fodder already for us to be dissatisfied with our legislators, do we really want to add a removal of our liberties to that list?

Pg. 359

3 Subtitle D—Detainee Matters

4 SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED

5          FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN

6          COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AU-

7             THORIZATIONFOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the author-

9 ity of the President to use all necessary and appropriate

10 force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military

11 Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the

12 Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered per-

13 sons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition

14 under the law of war.

15 (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under

16 this section is any person as follows:

17 (1) A person who planned, authorized, com-

18 mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred

19 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon-

20 sible for those attacks.

21 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially

22 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces

23 that are engaged in hostilities against the United

24 States or its coalition partners, including any person

25 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly

VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00359 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

Pg. 360

•S 1867 PCS

1 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy

2 forces.

3 (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The dis-

4 position of a person under the law of war as described

5 in subsection (a) may include the following:

6 (1) Detention under the law of war without

7 trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the

8 Authorization for Use of Military Force.

9 (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United

10 States Code (as amended by the Military Commis-

11 sions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–

12 84)).

13 (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or

14 competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

15 (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the

16 person’s country of origin, any other foreign coun-

17 try, or any other foreign entity.

18 (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in-

19 tended to limit or expand the authority of the President

20 or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military

21 Force.

22 (e) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—

23 The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress

24 regarding the application of the authority described in this

25 section, including the organizations, entities, and individ-

VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00360 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

Pg. 361

•S 1867 PCS

1 uals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of

2 subsection (b)(2).

3 SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

4 (a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF

5 WAR.—

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para-

7 graph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States

8 shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who

9 is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by

10 the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public

11 Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition

12 under the law of war.

13 (2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in

14 paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose de-

15 tention is authorized under section 1031 who is de-

16 termined—

17 (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-

18 Qaeda or an associated force that acts in co-

19 ordination with or pursuant to the direction of

20 al-Qaeda; and

21 (B) to have participated in the course of

22 planning or carrying out an attack or attempted

23 attack against the United States or its coalition

24 partners.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00361 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

Pg. 362

•S 1867 PCS

1 (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For

2 purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a per-

3 son under the law of war has the meaning given in

4 section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise

5 described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be

6 made unless consistent with the requirements of sec-

7 tion 1033.

8 (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The

9 Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the

10 Secretary of State and the Director of National In-

11 telligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if

12 the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in

13 writing that such a waiver is in the national security

14 interests of the United States.

15 (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS

16 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—

17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require-

18 ment to detain a person in military custody under

19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United

20 States.

21 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require-

22 ment to detain a person in military custody under

23 this section does not extend to a lawful resident

24 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct

25 taking place within the United States, except to the

VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00362 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

Pg. 363

•S 1867 PCS

1 extent permitted by the Constitution of the United

2 States.


Contact your Senators and your Representatives and urge them to amend section 1031 to include an exemption for US citizens and legal Resident Aliens.

The Death of Muammar al-Qadhafi

It has been a while since I have written a post and I felt that it was time to at least submit something.  For the next few weeks, I will try to post links to articles that I feel are important regarding current events in the Middle East and North Africa.  Obviously, the news that the rebel forces of Libya captured and killed the more than four decades long dictator, Muammar al-Qadhafi, is very important news.  I do not have the time to put in a lot of thought or give a detailed analysis of the situation and for the next few weeks that will be the same for all of my posts, but I hope you will follow the links I provide and inform yourseves of the major events that are affecting the region and will also affect the US and its involvement.

I will say a few quick things.  I hope that the new Libyan government is stabilized quickly with free and open elections.  The military forces of the rebellion will probably want to be a part of the governing body at first in order to provide stability, but it is clear from the situation in Egypt that the military does not provide stability when it is a part of the governing body, but it inflicts martial law on the people and becomes an entity that oppresses the voices and actions of the people because it wants to demonstrate who has the power.  Egypt had a peaceful revolution to depose Hosni Mubarak, but the military has almost crushed the spirit of the people with its brutal attacks and its fabricated stories in an attempt to maintain the sectarianism between the Muslims and the Copts.  I don't think all is lost in Egypt, but the military needs to be removed soon from its control before it reverts into the same nation the people sought to change.  Because Egypt slipped so easily back into a militarized situation, I fear that the same thing will happen in Libya, especially since their regime change came through armed conflict.  It will be vital to watch the developments in Libya in the coming weeks in order to see in what direction the new Libya will go.

Here is a link to an article from the New York Times about the circumstances surrounding the death of Muammar al-Qadhafi.

The Lost Lessons of 9/11

Today is a day that most people in America are commemorating, because it is the tenth anniversary of the devastating and destructive attacks on the World Trade Center Twin Towers.  There were people from over 100 nations that lost their lives during this attack, and therefore there are many around the world who are also caught up in the memories that this day brings forth.  The events of 11 September 2001 will forever be etched in the annals of history and in the minds of the citizens of the world.

I was not in the United States on this beautiful September morning when the skies of New York City changed in an instant from blue to black, gray, and white.  I was in Switzerland at the time and was oblivious to the events until a friend showed me the news on the television.  I remember looking at the footage of the the planes flying into the towers and the swift and awful collapse of each one.  I almost could not believe what I was watching.  It was as if we had turned on a movie starring Bruce Willis or some other actor whose movies have more explosions than dialogue.  After the initial shock and the wiping of tears, I was surprised how personally attacked I felt.  I am not aware of having lost anyone whom I knew personally in this tragedy, but these events transcended the microcosms of our everyday lives and brought us into a far larger family of nation.  Every soul lost was not just someone's son, daughter, father, mother, husband or wife, but they instantly became the faces of our own friends and families.  We were brought together as a nation, because we faced such an unthinkable disaster together.

Many heroes showed their faces that day and not all of them survived, because they were willing to put the safety and security of others before themselves.  I unfortunately cannot write from a firsthand perspective about how 9/11 and the endless stories of heroism helped to unite our country, but I heard from my family and friends that there was a definite change.  People were nicer to each other and willing to express their love for each other more easily.  These are the things that I hope we remember and never forget about 11 September 2001.

Lamentably, the initial effects of 9/11 have not endured for 10 years on a national scale.  I'm sure there are individuals who have changed the course of their lives and become kinder, more selfless and service oriented.  There was, however,  the potential for us all to move into a new era of American camaraderie, mutual respect and trust; but instead we have become divisive, intolerant, and suspicious.  We have become a nation of blamers and victims expecting others to fix all of our problems because it is "owed" to us.  Instead of facing our troubles head on with the help of those around us, like was briefly displayed on 9/11, we feel the hands we are dealt in life are unfair and that we are entitled to something more without doing anything to achieve it.

It is time that we truly honor those who were lost by locating our will, tenacity, and integrity from amidst the hyperbolic rubble under which we have allowed it all to be buried.  It is time that we stop pointing fingers at those whom we blame for the hardships that we face and work to rise out of the ashes.  It is time that we find within ourselves the ability and capacity to open our hearts to everyone and to extend the hand of brotherhood/sisterhood and fellowship.  We live in a great country, but we are tearing it apart with our bickering, derogatory words and actions, and our intolerance.  11 September 2001 demonstrated that we have the capacity to rise above all odds and now is the time to prove it.  Let's all take up the banner to help those around us regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and age.  Let's come together to ensure a brighter future and truly honor the lives of those we lost! 

Events Leading to the War of 1967

     It has been a month since my last post and I apologize.  It isn't that I haven't wanted to post on many of the events that have currently graced the front pages of newspapers and magazines, but I have been working on papers for school.  My original plan was to post my most recent paper on the War of 1967 (Six-Day War) between Israel and the UAR (Egypt), but after looking into copyright laws, I realized that it could possibly become an issue to post my paper here without consent from all the authors whom I cited in my work.  So I have decided to do the next best thing--I am posting my introduction and conclusion, which provide the general content of the paper.
     The territorial gains (the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights) made by Israel during this war have been the greatest points of conflict between the Arabs and the Israelis.  This paper does not look at the results of the war and the impact they have had on the region, but rather it is an investigation of why the war occurred in the first place and the possibilities that existed to avoid war altogether.

Introduction

The Six-Day War of 1967 between Israel and the United Arab Republic (Jordan and Syria were also involved) is an example of a war that occurred due to rhetoric, manipulation, and miscalculation.[1]  Both sides had built-up sizeable militaries and were adequately armed in preparation for future conflicts, but the war that erupted between Israel and the UAR in June of 1967 was not inevitable.  This by no means suggests that the potential for conflict did not exist.  There were many contributing factors that led to the eventual Israeli attack on the UAR, but from these there are a few that played a major role in initiating the course of events that resulted in war.  Prior to the outbreak of war, the Soviet Union provided Syria and the UAR with false information about the concentration of Israeli troops on the border with Syria.  This led Gamal ‘Abdel Nasser, president of the UAR, to build-up troops in the Sinai Peninsula as a deterrent to Israel, which ultimately resulted in Nasser’s expulsion of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from the UAR and began a quick chain of events that culminated in a swift Israeli victory over he UAR, Jordan, and Syria.

Israel’s defeat of the UAR and its allies was a harsh blow to the Arab world and its designs to remove Israel from its place as a Middle Eastern state.  These plans were partly responsible for the resulting war in 1967, in as much as they put pressure on Nasser to come out from the shadow of the UNEF and reestablish himself and the UAR as a strong Arab nation.  This paper will examine two primary factors that escalated the situation between Israel and the UAR to war—the Soviet propaganda of Israeli troop build-up along the Syrian border and the removal of the UNEF from the UAR replaced by UAR troops in the Sinai.  The first section of this paper provides the context, by which the events of May and June 1967 were influenced.  The following section will analyze the Soviet propaganda and discuss the possible motivations for supplying its Middle Eastern clients with false information.  The final section will address the issue of Nasser’s decision to remove UNEF troops from the Sinai Peninsula, which was partially influenced by the “intelligence” provided by the Soviets.  Through a close look at these elements, one will be able to have a more thorough understanding not only of the elements that ignited the Six-Day War, but also of those things that possibly could have prevented war in the late spring of 1967.

Conclusion

The situation in the Middle East in 1967 was certainly unstable, but there was a multitude of influences that made an unstable situation, a situation of war.  The Soviet Union hoped to capitalize on the Middle East’s waning affiliation with the United States by securing its own Arab clients.  Because of this goal, it became increasingly involved in the affairs of Egypt and Syria.  Continuing a policy that had previously worked, the Soviets initiated a propaganda campaign to strengthen the bonds between its two main Arabs clients, the UAR and Syria, and to discourage any Israeli designs to attack Syria and threaten the neo-Ba‘thist government.  This propaganda was miscalculated as well as the internal situations of both Syria and the UAR.  Syria welcomed a new external war in the hopes to halt a conflict with the Muslim Brotherhood.  Nasser was not willing to be a pawn on the Middle Eastern chessboard, but wanted to be the king.  This miscalculation of the situation allowed the Soviet Union to spark the fuse that would ignite a new Arab-Israeli war.

The blame does not fall solely on the Soviet Union of course.  Although one might question if there ever would have been a war if the Soviets didn’t instigate a crisis, it is very difficult to determine this.  It is, however, much easier to determine possible outcomes had other agents reacted differently to the initial crisis.  The mobilization of UAR troops into the Sinai was not a move beyond the point of no return.  The UAR and Israel had averted a military conflict seven years earlier under almost the same circumstances.  The problem with this situation was Nasser’s need to quiet the comments of his fellow Arab leaders, which were delegitimizing his claims as leader of the Arab world.  An inaccurate assessment of the situation by the UN Secretary General U Thant further complicated the situation.  Had he applied pressure on the UAR and refused to remove the UNEF from UAR territory, it is quite likely a replay of the stand off in 1960 would have been the only consequence.  However, U Thant’s compliance with the UAR’s request, although correct according to policy concerning the UNEF, forced Nasser to continue the course of action he began.

Nasser, who did not meet the opposition he expected, had to decide whether he wanted to avoid a war and lose his prestige among the Arab world or continue with actions that would commit the UAR to another war with Israel, but would further legitimize his status in the Arab world.  He chose the latter path because that was his whole purpose in playing the game the Soviets had set before him.  The superpowers and the UN failed to recognize the importance the Israelis placed on naval access to the Straits of Tiran and didn’t work hard enough to convince Nasser to open the straits.  The risk assessment became too great for Israel and it finally attacked and defeated the UAR, Jordan and Syria. 

The possibility for a different outcome existed in 1967, but there were too many conflicting aspirations that resulted in the events that have been recorded in the annals of history.  Although the “what if” game could be played forever, what is clear from this analysis is that there is not one sole person or entity that is responsible for the chain of events that escalated into the Six-Day War.  Instead, the propaganda, manipulation, rhetoric, and miscalculations of a number of agents determined the course of events that led to war in 1967 and has affected the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli conflict ever since.     

---

[1] Syria was no longer part of the UAR at this time, but it was still the official name of Egypt.

As Democracy Spreads in the Middle East and North Africa, Israel Stifles It

Israel once enjoyed the title of being the only democracy in the MENA region, but now as the Knesset has voted to ban citizen rights of freedom of speech and assembly when it comes to the actions of the Israeli government, Israel is continuing the slippery slope to dictatorship and fascism.  I know that some may find my implication of fascism as offensive and insensitive given the atrocities against Jews and other peoples that occurred at the hands of fascists, but the term is accurate for describing the direction in which Israel is headed.  The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."  The second paragraph of the NY Times article (see link above) describes how the defenders of this bill consider it necessary in order to fight against Israel's current global delegitimization.  This certainly sounds like exalting the nation above its people and there is no question that the state of Israel already exalts race above the individual.  This new law will forcibly suppress opposition, which already occurs in the West Bank, but will now be a part of life in Israel.  I would also suggest that there is also economic and social regimenting that occurs at certain levels in Israel.  I don't think Israel has a dictatorial leader yet, but it doesn't seem far from attaining this fascist characteristic.

Police and IDF gathered at demonstration  © Chad Card

The Knesset now has made it possible to continue settlement building in the West Bank without vocal opposition.  They have just written themselves a free pass to continue illegal acts in peace and quiet.  I'm sure there are some Israelis who will not pay attention to this law and will continue to defy it.  I am also sure that the Palestinians will continue to vocalize their opposition to the acts of the state of Israel against them.  I hope the Knesset is busy building more jail space, because that is what will be needed if this bill is not overturned by the Supreme Court of Israel.

© Chad Card

© Chad Card

I recently shared some pictures of Israeli protesters in Jerusalem, who gather every Friday in demonstration against the settlements and wrongful eviction of Palestinians from their homes.  I am honored to have been able to witness this type of integrity among Israelis.  I am also saddened that these people, who know what is right, will face fines and jail if they continue to vocalize their opposition to these injustices.  If a people doesn't have the right to speak out against the actions of their government, they have lost any control they might be able to wield in that government.  When that happens, the door for authoritarianism is blown wide open.  It is my hope that enough people and nations will realize that the state of Israel is fast becoming like Nazi Germany and make a substantial change in their support for Israel's policies before it is too late and the atrocities of the holocaust are revisited on another people in the name of "national security."

The Second Flotilla and the US Failure to Support What is Right

On 26 June 1948, the United States along with its allies began a 15 month operation called the Berlin Airlift in English and Die Luftbrücke (The Air Bridge) in German, which circumvented the complete blockade of Berlin by the USSR through coordinated and continuous flights of supplies from West Germany to Berlin.  Berlin, although located in newly created East Germany, was divided like the rest of the country into east and west zones.  However, the Soviet Union wanted to have the entire city and initiated the blockade.  Luckily for the West Berlin Germans, who were considered enemies only a few years earlier, the Soviet Union and Communism had become the new enemies of the western Superpowers and these Superpowers organized an honorable effort to bring relief to those Germans who had been cut off from necessary supplies.  I was fortunate enough to be in Berlin in 1998-99 when the 50th anniversary of this historic humanitarian aid event was commemorated and President Bill Clinton represented the US and its role in die Luftbrücke.  

Now, what does this have to do with the Middle East?  As I am writing this post, there is a second flotilla that has left Greece and is headed for Gaza in an effort to bring necessary supplies to the people, who have been devastated by the Israeli blockade of seaports and land crossings.  Gaza has a total land area of 360 sq. km., which is slightly smaller than the 479 sq. km. of West Berlin.  It also has a population that is slightly smaller than that of West Berlin in 1948 at 1.65 million people compared to 2.2 million.  The number of people per square kilometer is almost exactly the same between Gaza and West Berlin of 1948.  Another similarity between the two is the difficulty of production and resources in the area necessary to sustain the population.  Where these two seemingly similar situations differ is in the perpetrators of the blockades.  For West Berlin, the new enemy of the West--the Soviet Union--had instigated the blockade, which was their right for security purposes since Berlin was located in their territory.  The Palestinians, are not as fortunate, since the perpetrator of the Gaza blockade is Israel--the most strongly supported country by the United States.  It seems humanitarian aid is worthy of US support as long as the recipients are its allies or if the aid will thwart the plans of its enemies.

I'm not saying that the Unites States does not supply humanitarian aid to the Palestinians, because it does and I do not want to mislead anyone.  My point here is strictly related to the Gaza situation and the Flotilla of Peace that is on its way to Gaza.  One of the ships in this flotilla is called "The Audacity of Hope" carrying 50 US citizens.  The US State Department has issued a travel warning about entering Gaza by sea, which states "previous attempts to enter Gaza by sea have been stopped by Israeli naval vessels and resulted in the injury, death, arrest, and deportation of U.S. citizens. U.S. citizens participating in any effort to reach Gaza by sea should understand that they may face arrest, prosecution, and deportation by the Government of Israel."  In response to questions about the second flotilla headed to Gaza, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton also stated "that it’s not helpful for there to be flotillas that try to provoke actions by entering into Israeli waters and creating a situation in which the Israelis have the right to defend themselves."  It appears that the US supports any action Israel will take against US citizens on this flotilla.  The great problem with this is there is no intention for the flotilla to enter Israeli waters.  The flotilla that was attacked by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) last summer was still in international waters when boarded by IDF soldiers and the plans of the current flotilla are also to remain in international waters.  Just because Israel has a naval blockade on Gaza, does not mean those waters have now become part of Israeli territory, although I am sure that is the mindset.  Does Israel have the right to check the cargo of the ships to make sure there are no weapons or potentially dangerous materials?  Sure it does.  The problem, unfortunately, is that anything can be labeled as potentially dangerous and blocked by the Israelis, which has happened continuously with supplies to Gaza.

Statements from the State Department indicate the ineffectiveness the flotilla will have, pointing to the improvements in the transportation of materials into Gaza.  State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland released a statement last Friday, which noted "that the humanitarian situation has significantly improved over the last year, including a marked increase in the range and scope of goods and materials moving into Gaza, an increase in international project activity, and the gradual expansion of exports."  What she doesn't mention is the fact that these improvements are a direct result of the first flotilla to Gaza.  Without that first flotilla, there would have been no easing of the Israeli blockade.  Other statements have warned US citizens against supplying materials to recognized terrorist organizations like Hamas, implying that those aboard the flotillas are criminals and could very possibly face criminal charges for their actions.  What I find astounding is that we consider Hamas a terrorist organization, but the Taliban in Afghanistan has never made the list.  We have been at war with the Taliban for a decade, fighting a war on terror, and yet the Taliban is not on the list.  I wonder if it has to do with the fact that originally the Taliban was an ally of the US.  We supplied arms to the Taliban, known as the mujahideen at the time, which in Arabic means those who are involved in jihad, in order to support their fight against the Soviet Union, whose victory against the USSR was applauded by the US government.  This was made famous by the book and subsequent movie Charlie Wilson's War.  Maybe they haven't made the list because the US needs to be able to have legal interaction with the Taliban to further its purposes in Afghanistan and the region.  My guess is that President Obama does not believe the war can be won without a compromise between the new government of Afghanistan and the Taliban.  Since the US has a strict policy of not negotiating with terrorists, it cannot list the Taliban as a terrorist organization.  One of the criteria for qualifying as a terrorist organization is posing a threat to US national security, which Hamas does not do, but the Taliban obviously does.  The point here is that whom the US government decides is a terrorist organization is completely arbitrary.

It is clear that the reason Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization is because they are an enemy to Israel.  I will not deny that Hamas has carried out terrorist operations.  I'm not trying to justify the actions of Hamas, but I would like to put things into perspective.  Recently the US Senate unanimously passed a non-binding resolution (S. Res. 185 text) urging the president to veto any resolution that comes to the UN Security Council for the recognition of an independent Palestinian state.  Much of the resolution focuses on Hamas and the unity government that has been forged between Fatah and Hamas since the breakdown of the last attempts at peace negotiations.  Senator Ben Cardin from Maryland, the head writer of the resolution, states, "any Palestinian effort to gain recognition of a state outside of direct negotiations demonstrates their lack of a good faith commitment to a peace negotiation. The Senate is now firmly on record that this kind of action would be directly counterproductive to peace. If the Palestinians pursue this, it may well have implications for the continued U.S. participation with the Palestinians."  I'm not surprised that the Palestinians lack good faith in the peace negotiations.  More than sixty years of negotiations have done little to better their situation.  What is also implied in Senator Cardin's statement and made clear in the resolution, is the intent to withdraw all funding to the Palestinians should they continue to pursue recognition in the UN.

Israeli settlement in the West Bank near Bethlehem  © Chad Card

Senator Cardin also comments that "Israel has always been willing to come to the peace table for direct negotiations."  I can't refute this fact, but it is one thing to always agree to negotiations in order to demonstrate to the world your beneficence in an effort to garner continued support and it is a completely different thing to actually be prepared to negotiate.  The unwillingness to extend the moratorium on new settlement construction in the West Bank clearly indicates how dedicated Israel is to peace negotiations.  What is worse is operative clause 5 of the S. Resolution 185, which reads "the Senate supports the opposition of the President to a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and the veto by the United States on February 18, 2011, of the most recent United Nations Security Council resolution regarding a key issue of the Israeli-Palestinian process."  The key issue that goes unnamed is the US veto of the UN resolution to recognize the illegality of the Israeli settlements according to international law.  So, operative clause 5 should read "the Senate supports the opposition of the President to a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and the veto by the United States on February 18, 2011, of the most recent United Nations Security Council resolution deeming the Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal according to international law."  This UN resolution was not a resolution to create a new international law, but to enforce one that is already in existence and one that Israel has violated since the first settlements were begun.

There are many reasons the US does not want to support the Palestinians' right to seek recognition by the UN.  This "unilateral" decision would create a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, which means the Old City of Jerusalem and all of the illegal Israeli settlements would be included in the Palestinian state and the Israeli settlers would become Palestinians.  This is why the US is so adamant that the two-state solution come through direct negotiations.  The purpose of the negotiations is to give the land of the settlements to Israel and swap it for land that Israel possesses.  This 1:1 exchange seems fair, but one must ask the question, "Why is Israel constructing settlements in the West Bank when they have all of this land to swap?"  The answer to this question is two-fold.  The Israeli settlements in the West Bank are strategically located over natural water sources and the unsettled Israeli territories are non-arable lands.  These direct negotiations will create a Palestinian state that is not able to sustain itself because the majority of its arable land and water sources will go to Israel.

Playing soccer with children of displaced Palestinians  © Chad Card

If the continued settlements weren't enough of a source of pain, anguish and anger for the Palestinians, there is currently a bill in the Knesset, the Israeli governing body, to make Palestinians pay for the costs of the demolition of their homes.  This has already been a practice in East Jerusalem, where Palestinians are forcefully ejected from their homes at night by masked soldiers in order to replace these families with Israeli settlers.  The displaced Palestinian families must then pay the cost of moving their stuff out of their homes or else forfeit their possessions.  I had the opportunity to listen to some of these families in East Jerusalem, who sit everyday on the street outside of their homes in protest of their forced eviction.  This is what the US government is supporting.  Prior to her comments on the flotillas, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton comment on the situation in Syria.  She said, "we are closely monitoring the situation in Syria and in neighboring countries, and it is [a] further example of the lengths to which President Assad’s regime will go to repress the people of Syria rather than actually working in a collaborative way to try to resolve the legitimate concerns of the Syrian people. And it just is very clear to us that unless the Syrian forces immediately end their attacks and their provocations that are not only now affecting their own citizens but endangering the potential border clashes, then we’re going to see an escalation of conflict in the area."  I'm wondering where the disconnect is.  How can the US understand that oppression and restriction of rights is wrong and the cause of clashes in Syria, but it can't recognize the same thing in Palestine?  Oh I forgot, the US isn't friends with Syria, but it is bed buddies with Israel.

If You Want to Comment on the Poll Before it Closes

I realized when I made the current poll about the presidential candidates that some of you, who participate in the poll, may have something to say before I actually write a post about the results, and this was confirmed by my friend Kathleen.  I have created this post not to share my own perspective at this time, but to allow you all to comment on the current poll.  I know there are a lot of current and potential candidates and you may not have even heard of some of them, I know I hadn't.  If you would like to see something on each candidate follow the link and have fun.

Addendum to Afghanistan Post

President Obama addressed the nation yesterday and outlined his plan for withdrawal from Afghanistan and an ending to the war.  He wants a removal of 10,000 troops starting in July and to return to pre-surge troop levels by next summer.  He also projected an end to the war by 2014.  I was pleased to hear him discuss the need to protect the advances made in education and for women and girls.  I was also glad to hear him imply that the war on terrorism is not one that is fought on a battlefield, but rather one that needs to focus on specific targets. I think the greatest mistake we made with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was to initially treat them like normal combat wars.  It was not only less effective, but it also helped to contribute to the image of the US as an imperial force--making it easier for terrorist organizations to recruit members.

President Obama also turned the focus towards the future of the United States.  He spoke about taking the middle road between the extremes of military isolationism and troop overextension.  The idea that we need to work with international allies to prevent and stop the evils that are occurring in the world is a sound policy.  I know that many feel that this diminishes the clout our military may have in the world, but that should not be the focus of our worries.  As the president said, we need to focus on nation-building here in the US.  Instead of rallying together as we did following 9/11 and with the initial operations in Afghanistan, we have become a nation that has warred with itself and become more destructive with words and ideals than we could have been with weapons.  It is time to come back together as a proud people, not to boast of ourselves in front of the world, but to support each other in accomplishing our dreams.  We need to become less self-serving and more service oriented--willing to help those in need.  It is time to reclaim what made the United States great from the beginning--our willingness to sacrifice our desires for the greater good.

Before I was able to listen to the address, I had heard that President Obama mentioned the troops would be home by September of 2012.  I was all ready to write about the president's use of the war to further his presidential re-election campaign.  If this was mentioned in another context, then I am disgusted that the troops in Afghanistan are being used as pawns in the elections. and if that is the intent, we might as well just bring them all back now and watch Afghanistan crumble without the loss of more American lives.  However, this is not what was mentioned in the address to the nation and the timeline of concluding the combat phase of this war.  I am hopeful that the US military and civilian forces will be able to train Afghani troops, police, and the general population as the president indicated.  My one fear is that the president has indicated the need for the Afghanis to patrol for and protect against al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.  I worry that focusing too much of our rebuilding of Afghanistan on their security may turn Afghanistan into a militarized nation as it was under the Taliban.  Hopefully, the military and police forces will be trained not to rule the nation, but to ensure and protect the rights of the people from those who would oppress.

If anyone who reads this has served in Afghanistan, I would love to hear what your thoughts are on the issues brought up in this post and the one that preceded it.  I am not an expert on Afghanistan and I am not in the military.  I know what I learn from books and the news isn't the whole story, but that is all I have at the moment on which to base my comments.  If anyone has greater insight into the situation in Afghanistan, I would love for you to share your thoughts.  Again, I have to reiterate, this blog is intended to start a discourse--an exchange of ideas.  I want to learn more about these issues as much as anyone who reads this blog.  If you don't feel like an expert, but have questions, suggestions, or different opinions than the ones I share, I truly want to know what they are.  Please make a comment if you are so moved.

War in Afghanistan Poll

Well, I guess I haven't come up with any intriguing polls, since my two polls have only managed to bring in 20 votes total and the new poll currently only has one participant.  Two of those votes were mine, so really the total stands at 18.  I would appreciate it greatly if you would comment on this post with suggestions for new polls.  My only guidelines would be that your suggestions focus around the Middle East and/or the United States, since that is the focus of this blog.  I thrive on interaction and I truly desire hearing your opinions about the polls and the posts on this blog.  You can comment anonymously or publicly, but please comment so I have something from which to build.  Thank you so much for reading this blog and for participating with me.

In the last poll, I provided an incomplete statement to which I wanted you to add your opinion.  The statement was:  Now that Osama bin Laden has been found and executed do you think the war in Afghanistan is  

justified                                                                            1 
                                                                                              (33%)

another US intervention that will one day backfire         1 
                                                                                              (33%)

a lost cause                                                                       0 
                                                                                                (0%)

a mistake                                                                          1 
                                                                                              (33%)

One individual believes the war is justified, I'm the one who indicated the second option and another individual believes the war in Afghanistan is a mistake.  It is interesting to me that no one was willing to place a vote indicating the war is a lost cause.  Although I’m sure there are those out there who believe that the war in Afghanistan is a lost cause, no one indicated as such.  This makes me glad because we can't afford for the war to be treated as a lost cause.  Whether the US should have entered into a war in Afghanistan or not, it is necessary now to focus on finishing this war and providing the Afghanis with the security and organization they will need to ensure the positives that have come from this war (i.e. education of girls, greater rights for women, the destabilization of the Taliban) are not lost when the US withdraws from their country.  What this requires is the patience to stay in Afghanistan until these things are secured.  This means that many more years are required for the US to maintain a presence in Afghanistan, which is not a popular option for most Americans and, therefore, not good political policy especially as we enter the presidential campaign.  However, it is my hope that President Obama doesn’t fear a campaign loss if he keeps us committed to Afghanistan and doesn't start to make promises of huge troop withdrawals in order to appease the voters.  I don’t say this because I want us to be forever engaged in a war in Afghanistan, but I also don’t want us to ever have to return because we didn’t feel like making things right the first time.

This is one of the reasons I said this war is another intervention that will backfire on us.  Our record of intervention in the Middle East is not very good.  Almost everything, if not everything, with which we have involved ourselves in this region has ultimately come back to haunt us.  In 1953 we staged a coup of a democratically elected prime minister in Iran, who was an ally to the US (both Prime Minister Musaddiq and Iran) and we paid the Iranian ayatollahs annually in order to ensure their support of the Shah we installed (see William Blum, Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, pg. 72).  Now Iran is one of the most verbal haters of the United States led by the ayatollahs to whom we paid millions.  In 1963, a decade later, we decided to try our hand at another “successful” coup and we unofficially aided the coup in Iraq that overthrew ‘Abd al-Karim Qaasim and led to Saddam Hussein’s rise to power (whom we courted at the time).  To continue with Iraq, during the 80s we supplied President Hussein with weapons to fight our now Iranian enemies, whom we created.  Soon after the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990 and became an enemy to the West using the weapons we freely supplied to him just a few years prior.  It is too soon to tell what the results of the most recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will be, but if we look at the results of the past, we might get some idea.

I’m afraid it is too late for us to do anything about Iraq.  The one thing we have learned in both Afghanistan and Iraq from our past mistakes in the Middle East is to not replace one dictatorial government with another.  Unfortunately, we have still imposed a government on the people of each nation and preselected its leaders.  We have imposed democracy on both Afghanistan and Iraq without truly working with the people of the two nations to help them build something that is more organic.  The instability that still exists in Iraq is partly due to this very fact.  Given the sectarian nature of Iraq, setting up a government that would be agreeable to all involved was going to be a challenge, but trying to impose a western structure in this situation without a real investment from the masses could quite possibly lead to the same situation we had in Germany after World War I.  We forced democracy on the Germans; we made them pay for the war, which they couldn’t, thus economically destabilizing them; the Great Depression hit the world and Hitler rose from the ashes to cause even greater destruction.  I certainly hope we haven’t created another Weimar Republic in Iraq, but if we don’t remain somehow invested in its future and stability, we may have done just that.

In Afghanistan, not only have we imposed democracy, but we have supported people of questionable integrity because they had the clout we needed to fight against the Taliban.  If we are not careful and we leave Afghanistan in the hands of these new leaders who used to be or still are drug lords and weapons dealers, we have not only created a breeding ground for a new dictator, but we have also associated democracy with tyrannism, deceit, and corruption.  It is in our best interest not only to train Afghani police forces, but to help the Afghanis rebuild their nation.  Again, we need to work with the Afghani communities, which are tribal, and find out from them what they need and how we can be of service to them.  Anything we build without community support won’t last even if it is good and beneficial to the people.  We need to help the Afghanis to be interested and invested in their own nation building.

I would say that the war in Afghanistan was justified as much as I think the war in Iraq was justified, not for the reasons given—housing al-Qaeda and bin Laden in Afghanistan and WMDs in Iraq—but for the ending of an era of oppression and massacres in both nations (not to say the wars haven’t had a large number of casualties).  Removing Saddam Hussein and the Taliban have been good things from a humanitarian point of view, so I would say the wars are justified.  However, if we don’t make sure the people are invested in their new governments and lives, I do feel like we will one day experience the repercussions of our intervention and that will be our greatest mistake.

Anti-Semitism

I actually contemplated writing this post as my first entry when I started this blog, but felt like I should wait.  Well, the waiting is over.  I have been struck again by the need to write about anti-Semitism.  I'm sure that it is quite obvious from the posts on my blog that I don't have much love towards the government of Israel.  I do feel though that some readers may perceive my anti state of Israel stance as anti-Semitic.  I say this, because it is a common label given to people and organizations that speak up about the less than stellar actions of the Israeli government.  I have not, as of yet, received any comments or other messages from people to indicate that my blog has been viewed in this light, but I still feel that it is important for me to make it perfectly clear that my intent here is in no way fueled by malicious motives.

© Chad Card

My goal for this blog is to make people aware of the situations that are not reported or are reported with specific biases.  Of course, I am just as biased, but my biases are based on personal experiences in the region of the Middle East.  I have no sponsorship to which I must be loyal and I like it that way.  I have become so frustrated listening to the news and politicians because there is such a slant when it comes to the Middle East, which has been perpetuated for decades.  I have a few colleagues in my degree program with whom I can discuss these matters and I can also yell at the television, which I have been know to do, but this doesn't solve the problem.  Glenn Beck's call for a gathering in Jerusalem to support Israel was the straw that broke the camel's back and I could no longer relieve my frustrations by singing to the choir, although I know some of you are reading this.  I am hopefully reaching many more people who may not have been aware of the situations as they are, because our media and political outlets are not structured to provide us with this information.

Western Wall  © Chad Card

Back to addressing anti-Semitism.  The term anti-Semitism was coined by Wilhelm Marr, a German,  in 1879.  His coining of the word was not for the purpose of human rights awareness, but rather to celebrate an aversion towards Jews.  As you can also read in the link above, although this term has been purely associated with the hatred of Jews, especially since the atrocities of the Holocaust, anti-Semitism actually means a hatred of Semites, which includes Jews, Arabs, Ethiopians and other indigenous groups in the Middle East and Northeastern Africa.  Anti-Semitism is not an accurate term to describe a dislike or hatred of the Jews because it includes these other people as well.  Only one who hates all Semites could truly be called anti-Semitic.

Nevertheless, the origins of the word and its true meaning do not negate its actual usage and meaning and that is what I want to address in this post.  I have spent much of my adult life traveling to countries in Europe, the Middle East and Asia.  As an American, I have had to bear the burden of representing the United States.  I have lost track of how many people have said to me that they hate the US government, but they love Americans.  This is the general response I get from people, usually within the first five minutes of meeting.  One the the most memorable meetings was while I was living in Berlin, Germany.  I had gone to a nearby café with my roommates and we met a man who was quite amicable to us until we told him we were from America.  He became both visibly and verbally angry, but it was not directed at us--his hatred was towards the government.  We learned that he was from Iraq and he still had family there about whom he worried.  Sadi and his German wife Petra became two of our best friends while we were in Berlin.  I share this, because I believe the many reports that have come to us for decades via our media and politicians about those who hate America are misleading us and perpetuating mutual animosity.  I would wager that the majority of people who "hate" America do not hate Americans, but have serious difficulties with our government.  Is that really hard to imagine?  I know there are plenty of issues that have sparked my disdain for our politicians.

Banksy's statement on the occupation  © Chad Card

My comments about Israel should also be interpreted in the same light.  My issues have nothing to do with Israelis or Jews, but are specifically concerned with the Israeli government.  However, the issues I have are issues I have with any government that imprisons a minority population and violates international laws for the purposes of "security".  The United States would have to be included in that group given the Japanese-American internment camps created in the US during World War II.  This type of action is reprehensible and I cannot support it.  However, does this mean I hate America and secretly wish for its destruction?  Of course not!  There are many actions that our government has taken in the past and even currently with which I do not agree, but I love America and I am proud to be an American.  I can't say that I haven't also been ashamed to be an American at times.  We are a nation that is built on the ideals of freedom, liberty, equality, and brotherhood about which I am proud, but when our government or people act in a manner that is not in harmony with our ideals I find it difficult to be proud.

I likewise feel the same about Israel.  I do not believe that Israel should be destroyed or harmed in any way.  Do I think the creation of an Israeli state in Palestine was the smartest act of western intervention? No, but it is a reality and it is important to treat Israel as any other nation with sovereign rights.  What this also means is that we can't keep our blinders on when it comes to Israel.  We don't do that with other nations and I can guarantee you that other nations don't do that with us.  We have to stand up for what is right because that is the foundation upon which our nation has been built.  When we stop standing up for what is right, we threaten the very essence of our nation.  Exploiting another people because it is in the "best interest" of our nation is not the same thing as standing up for what is right, plus many of the things that have been pursued for the "best interest" of our nation have come back to bite us hard in the proverbial behind.

Christianity, Islam and Judaism represented  © Chad Card

Site of the disagreement © Luke Lavin

I guess I haven't come out and declared that I am not an anti-Semite, so to be clear, I am not an anti-Semite.  I don't feel like I have to make such a statement because I think my intentions are clear.  However, I don't want there to be any lingering doubts.  I have never had any negative feelings for or experiences with Israelis or Jews, except for a verbal argument with a border guard, which is another story.  I have many friends who are Jewish and I could not forgive myself if they ever felt I was attacking them.  I'm sure there are many that disagree with my positions and opinions, but I feel confident that those who know me, know that I have no malevolence towards anyone.  I encourage disagreement, because it is through such an exchange that we can grow.  Sure it is hard to have someone disagree with something about which one is passionate, especially if that someone is a close relative or friend, but disagreements should never be considered hatred or lead to it.  We need to quit the mentality of "if you're not with us then you're against us," and realize that our differences and disagreements are the very elements that provide us with the greatest opportunities for growth.

Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty 44th Anniversary

Today marks the 44th anniversary of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, which was patrolling international waters in the Mediterranean in 1967, while Israel was in an short-lived war with Egypt.  It is this war that provided Israel with the gains of the Golan Heights territory, the Palestinian territories, and the Sinai Peninsula.  The attack on the USS Liberty, a United States naval vessel, resulted in the deaths of 34 service men and the wounding of 171 (I've also seen reports up to 174 wounded) others.  The reason I am posting this today is to commemorate the lives of those who needlessly lost theirs serving their country, to bring this tragic event to the attention of the masses (not that my blog is necessarily reaching the masses, yet), and to provide information that is not generally know about this event.

There are others who have done far more research into this event than I and for that reason, I feel it is better for me to provide links here that will be far more informative than I can be.  Please take a moment to check out some of these links and learn about an event of which most Americans have never been aware.  I have included links from both sides of the debate over the intentions of this attack.  If you have time, please look through it all and make your own assessment.

Timeline of USS Liberty Attack
Video with Members of the USS Liberty
USS Liberty Memorial
NSA Records of Messages from the USS Liberty
Anti-Defamation League's Assessment of the Attack

Presidential Terms Poll

© Chad Card

The results of the first poll are in and the first thing I have to say is that I hope the percentage of those who voted from the total number of people who visited my blog--especially those from the US, since this is a question more geared towards US citizens--is not indicative of real voting numbers.  If I assume those who voted were all from the US, only 4.5% of people from the US who visited my blog actually placed a vote.  I certainly hope more people participate in the next poll.  It is an easy way for me to gauge the interests and the opinions of those who are visiting.

The results are:
41% of the voters liked the idea of a limit to one term of six years for the president of the United States, 53% wanted to keep the term limits as currently constituted, and 6% thought we should just get rid of term limits altogether.  I'm actually quite intrigued by the one voter who represents the 6% of this poll.  I wonder if the idea would be to allow a situation similar to Senate and House elections, where there are no limits and as long as people keep winning their respective elections they are able to remain in office?  Or possibly the idea is more extreme like a dictatorship.  It is hard to speculate and although I appreciate this individual's vote, I would have to politely disagree with the concept of eliminating presidential term limits.

© Chad Card

There is the old adage that absolute power corrupts absolutely and it is my fear that an absence of term limits for the president of the United States, who is still considered the most powerful person in the world, would lead to major corruption in the executive branch of government.  This would not only have horrible repercussions for US citizens, but could potentially wreak havoc on a number of other world nations.  I'm inclined to say that the lack of term limits for senators and representatives has already proven to have corrupted the legislative system and it is this corruption that has produced the ragged state in which we find the US government today, but that is an argument for another day.

It can be argued that the US managed just fine without term limits before the Twenty-second Amendment was passed in 1947 and ratified in 1951, which created the two-term limit for the presidency of the United States.  No president served more than two terms other than Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was elected to a fourth term, but died within the first year.  Dwight D. Eisenhower, the first president confined by the two-term limit, feared the loss of power  and the lame duck status the term limit would create, but he eventually decided that it gave him more power because he could be seen as acting in the best interest of the country and not to win another election.

The majority of voters (9) would like to see the presidential term limits remain as they are.  Most, if not all, of the people who have visited this blog don't know a US presidency without the term limit set by the Twenty-second Amendment.  They may also feel, like Eisenhower did, that the final term actually provides the president the opportunity to act in the best interest of the country and not for one's own best interest of electability in the future.  Unfortunately, the media has taken to referring to a two-term president as a lame duck and this labeling permeates throughout the consciousness of the masses and, I am sure, also affects the actual productiveness of the president's interactions with the legislative branch.

© Chad Card

If we take this as the general case, then a two-term president ultimately has about 3 1/2 years of productivity.  I'm sure many will disagree with this analysis, but this is how I see it.  The first year of a presidency is spent analyzing the policies and actions of the preceding president and determining what can remain as a part of the new president's vision and what has to go or be exploited to demonstrate how the new president is better than the last one.  This first year is still a year of campaigning to ensure the American people that they made the right choice and hopefully to convince those who voted otherwise of the same thing.  I do not consider this a productive year for the president.  The second year of the first term can definitely be considered a productive year.  There is enough distance between the outgoing and incoming president so that mistakes can no longer be blamed on the prior president (for the most part).  People no longer want to hear about the mistakes of the past, they want to know what the new president is doing to correct things.  As the president moves into the third year, re-election becomes a strong influence in the presidency and decisions are made not based on the best choices for the long-term future of the country, but on what will make the president look good short-term so that a re-election can be secured.  I would say about half of this year is productive.  The fourth year of the first term is spent campaigning for re-election, which makes this by far the least productive year of the presidency.

Now we enter the the second term.  The first two years are probably the most productive out of the 8 years in office.  There is no need to separate oneself from a prior president, policies are already set in motion and the president can continue to work towards achieving one's vision for the country's future.  By the third year, the media begins to talk about the lame duck as the legislative branch looks to ride out the rest of the presidency and looks forward to the new Commander in Chief.  Obviously, if the president's party is the same as the party majority in the House and Senate then the president can be more effective in the last years of one's presidency, but even then, these years tend to be more about maintaining the status quo so that a candidate from the president's party will have a good chance at election.  If the president were to do something extreme and these actions failed, then the chances of the same party remaining in power are ultimately lost.

© Chad Card

This brings us to the final choice presented in this poll.  6 voters and I chose the option of changing the term limit to one term, but extending the years of service from four to six years.  This is my reasoning for such a change.  Like I stated above, the first year of any presidency is a time to weed through everything that has come before and to learn what it really means to be president of the United States.  No one can truly know what this is like and what it entails until one becomes president.  With a six-year term, years 2-5 can be productive and there isn't the large gap in continuity that is created by the need to campaign for re-election or to create policies that only fulfill this short-term goal.  The president would no longer have to campaign while in office and could focus on the true welfare of the nation.  With this change, there is at least the same amount of productive time for the president, possibly more, as there is with a two-term president.  The advantage to the six-year single term presidency is the continuity of the president's administration and eliminating the need to campaign in office, thus eliminating the need to act in one's own self interest instead of the interest of the nation as a whole.


I can see that people like the four-year two-term limit because it potentially shortens the service of a "bad" president if one is unable to win re-election, but I truly believe that such a structure actually gives a president little time to demonstrate one's capacity as president in the first term for the reasons I have already discussed.  I believe the six-year single term offers a better alternative to the problems that occur with the current system while still restricting an individual presidency from the possibility of major corruption.  I look forward to reading any thoughts you may have on what I have presented here.