5 comments about Silencing Political Dissent: How Post-September 11 Anti-Terrorism Measures Threaten Our Civil Liberties.

1. i only got to say a couple things... u want honesty and truth? get this book, thats the bottom line_



2. You are free to do as we tell you. War is peace. You are free to do as we tell you. Freedom is slavery. You are free to do as we tell you. Ignorance is strength. You are free to do as we tell you. Go back to bed America....



3. Nancy Chang's Silencing Political Dissent is a brilliant look into US history and current political agendas. Through her analysis of the Patriot Act , Chang is able to suggest to the reader the ways in which the newly militarized government is attempting to gain more power and less accountability through silencing the public and being secretive. The Patriot Act takes away constitutional rights and makes the fourth amendment null and void. This book allows the reader to look at the current "war on terror" in comparison to some historical events. Chang conveys the importance of this act by allowing the reader to imagine the implications that rightful protest could be considered terrorism and a person could be denied due process because of race, religion, or ethnicity. Most importantly, this book outlines the many steps that have been taken to deny rights to people showing a disregard for democracy and all that our country stands for.



4. Nancy Chang's book, Silencing Political Dissent, becomes increasingly relevant with the re-election of this administration and recent security breaches with commercial databases. Ms. Chang predicted in 2002 that "With the advent of electronic record-keeping, the FBI is likely to maintain far more dossiers on law-abiding individuals and to disseminate the dossiers far more widely than during the COINTELPRO era." Commerical database companies are composing life pictures of individuals which are then sold to other businesses as well as government entities which might otherwise be restricted in the information collected.



5. I suspect that the author of "Silencing Political Dissent" (Nancy Chang) is sincere and has good intentions. But the book is a gross overreaction to laws that have been passed since 9/11.
   
   Even worse, Chang's obvious, sometimes vicious (or so it seems to me), blatant bias against the current administration renders the contents of the book completely unbelievable (and, quite frankly, laughable).
   
   The fact is that I DO dissent, and I do so without fear. Thus how can I possibly believe Chang's assertions? No. Scare tactics, whether from the far-left or from the far-right, do not affect me.
   
   I would NOT recommend this book to a friend.
   
   Of course, this review (including all of the above paragraphs) is merely my opinion.

5 comments about Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy.

1. I'm sure the publisher blanched with the use of the word "Catastrophic" in the title, but it is a true description of the legacy, as noted and well-laid out in the book.
   
   A definite keeper to help bridge gaps of other writings about the Bush Administration and its concept of what "Republic" and "Government" mean.
   
   Rumsfeld was there from the beginning of the "Neo-Con Coupe" and following his many "snowflakes" in life will definitely bring the whole "grand plan" to light of public scrutiny.
   
   It leaves the feeling of knowing you know now definitely what you really know you now don't know.



2. Investigative journalist Andrew Cockburn shows how Rumsfeld has helped to push the US state into political and military disaster.
   
   Cockburn introduces us to Rumsfeld's business career, which depended on promoting aspartame, a sweetener suspected of causing brain tumours. He swung a compliant Food and Drug Administration into approving it anyway and bought enough Senators to amend the Drug Act to extend its patent, yielding the company $3 billion extra revenue.
   
   Rumsfeld played a key role in fixing the intelligence to fit the policy of attacking Iraq. Saddam's son-in-law Hussein Kamel told US officials about Iraq's arms build-up in the 1980s and also told them that in 1991 "all weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear - were destroyed." The US state shouted worldwide about the build-up, but hid the destruction.
   
   Bush appointed Rumsfeld the US Secretary for Defense in January 2001. Cockburn details Rumsfeld's catastrophic decisions in the disastrous wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. The US state has failed to focus on defeating Al Qa'ida, widening the wars into attacks on the Iraqi and Afghan peoples. So Iraq lost to the invader but is defeating the occupier. The Taliban lost Kabul but is winning the war.
   
   Rumsfeld claimed that he could occupy Iraq with a small force. He apparently believed the crook Chalabi who told him there would be no postwar guerrilla resistance and that Iraq would quickly become a stable capitalist ally.
   
   The US has the largest military spending ever and has spent $500 billion so far on the Iraq war, yet US soldiers' families have to buy them body armour and the soldiers try to protect their unarmoured Humvees with salvaged bits of plywood. No wonder the US army is at breaking point.
   
   What was Secretary for Defense Rumsfeld doing meanwhile? He was calling Guantanamo Bay every week for reports on the torture of Mohammed al-Qahtani. He was personally specifying the torture techniques at Abu Ghraib - the use of dogs, stress positions, and deprivation of food and sleep.
   
   Throughout his squalid career, Rumsfeld bullied, lied and cheated to get his own way. Richard Nixon, no mean judge, called him `a ruthless little bastard'. But as with all reactionaries, his scheming has brought only disaster to his cause.



3. What have we become as a nation, when a man as insidious as Rumsfeld can attain such power and cause such damage and harm? It is perhaps time that we as a people pay closer attention to the politics of the day, and not concern ourselves with Brittany's paunch. Democracy requires a well informed, literate, and discriminating citizenry. We do not live on ANIMAL FARM, and we do not have to mindlessly accept and bleat the mantra of the Neo-Cons.



4. An excellent book describing the egomaniac called Donald Rumsfeld, he is just one of the crimminals that have taken over control of the United States and should be tried for being a war crimminal. America wake up you are ruled by gangsters-he is just one of them. Does RICCO apply here?



5. Only the first five chapters, those briefly delineating Rumsfeld's time in the Nixon administration, his early political ambitions, and his time at G.D. Searle, served to contribute to the overall narrative of the "catastrophic legacy" of Donald Rumsfeld. Although those chapters do provide some historical insight into his career prior to becoming George W. Bush's SecDef, those insights are tainted by language that betrays a deep seeded animosity on the part of the author towards his subject. To be fair to Cockburn, the more I come to learn about the history of the two wars conducted by Rusmfeld, the more and more I myself come to possess what can only be described as a deep seeded animosity towards the man. Be that as it may, I have not written a book about the loathsome character.
   
   As far as the more contemporary history, that which relates to OIF and OEF, other than the allegations of Rumsfeld personally being involved in the torture of Jose Padilla and the abuse at Abu Ghraib, this book provides no new insight. I'd suggest the reader pick up Fiasco or Bush at War instead.

3 comments about Finding Jefferson: A Lost Letter, a Remarkable Discovery, and the First Amendment in an Age of Terrorism.

1. Saturday Night:
   I received Finding Jefferson as a gift today from my sister-in-law Linda. Thank you Linda, I loved it. I read the book today, I thought about it today, and I wrote these comments today.
   I have always thought of myself as a Free-Speech Absolutist. I still want to call myself that but here are my thoughts - inspired by Jefferson and Dershowitz.
   1) An anonymous man on a soapbox in the middle of a public park is the perfect symbol of what "free speech" seems to suggest. Why? Because, no matter what he says, people who choose to listen to him are under no obligation to believe him or to be swayed by him. They are as free to listen as he is to speak. In any event, he will most likely be thought a crackpot for speaking in public to a crowd that may or may not form.
   On the other hand, the speech of your military superior, your gang leader, or your boss at work is not JUST speech. The relationship between unequals in a formal hierarchy is not just speech. Coercion is a necessary part of this kind of speech, the result of discourse among unequals. If your CO or your boss tells you what to do, your refusal to obey may have serious consequences. For example, a neo-Nazi speaking in front of a crowd of onlookers who are totally free to listen or not is exercising his right to free-speech, even if he advocates mayhem. On the other hand, the same speaker speaking to his lieutenants and his subordinates and advocating mayhem is conspiring to commit crimes and ought (perhaps) to be accountable even before the commission of any crimes. In sum, speech between unrelated equals is always free and ought always to be protected; speech between members of a group with a pecking order may be coercive and ought not to be entitled to protection as free speech. (vs. Jefferson & Dershowitz)
   2) Not all speech consists of IDEAS. a) Some speech is opinion or taste, which of right ought always to be free. b) Some speech is factual, or not. PERHAPS the propagation of some kinds of untruths among a closed group ought to be actionable: should society allow the teaching of blatant falsehoods? Should the teaching of 2+2=5 be allowed to be taught in a religious school? Should the denial of the Holocaust be permitted under the law? I don't have an answer to this, but it is worth examination. Teaching falsehoods as the truth is not the same as propagating an idea or an opinion or a political preference. c) Some speech is directive: do this! Is the command of your leader merely a case of "self-expression"? I think not. d) And some speech, masquerading as IDEA, is just emotional vomit. Again, the fellow on the soapbox in a park ought to be free to tell lies and to urge insurrection; the leader of a gang or a religious group perhaps ought to be constrained not to tell utter falsehoods or urge insurrection to his ignorant followers. In other words, directive speech from a superior to a subordinate ought not to be protected, because it is not really speech at all.
   3) Religious speech ought always to be free (PERHAPS excepting outright falsehoods); but speech turned into action is no longer speech. The fact that much religious speech is ridiculous is no reason to deny it protection.
   4) Imams directing their obedient flock to kill the infidels are conspiring to incite to murder or treason. When your spiritual leader tells you what to do, you exercise your freedom to refuse to do it on pain of eternal damnation. This is the same as being told what to do by your CO or your boss, but more so. It is not free speech because the speaker's listeners are not free to ignore it; it ought not to be protected, as it is NOT JUST speech. When a speaker thinks his words are law, his speech is not just speech. Many Catholics are pro-choice, despite the Pope and their own priest. When listeners are truly free to disobey, speakers ought to be free to say what they will. (vs. Dershowitz & Jefferson)
   5) The free marketplace of ideas is just as free as the economic marketplace is free. Neither is free! There are areas in this country where all the news is filtered by one corporate owner with a significant political agenda to push. Or many big owners with similar agendas. Not to mention the fact that many Americans are so closed-minded that alternative ideas will not be listened to and cannot be heard. The speech of such monopolistic speakers must be seen not as free as in a market of multiple viewpoints. In other words, some kind of regulation is called for in this case. (vs. Jefferson)
   6) It seems to me that Islam has real cause to be angry with the West. Just as black and red men have real cause to be upset with white European Americans. We should sit down and air our grievances openly. Well, no, we should sit down and listen to them air their grievances with us; WE should just shut up and listen for a change. However, insulting Muhammad is within our most narrow definition of protected speech; the freedom to insult the Prophet is protected, and that freedom is not negotiable. Neither is a new Muslim Empire spread by force negotiable. But we would do well to listen. For a change.



2. Alan Dershowitz and Thomas Jefferson were collectors. Dershowitz, inter alia, collects antiquities. He loves objects with aesthetic and historical significance. Dershowitz travels to flea markets and book stores seeking treasure. Much of the focus of his legal activities has centered on the line between speech and act.
   
   The greatest acquisition of the author's career as a collector came from the Argosy Bookstore. It is a Jefferson letter about freedom of religion, (and of speech and ideas). The letter had been passed down through generations of the Boardman family who reside in New Milford, Connecticut. The historian Charles Beard learned of the letter's existence in 1926 and quoted from it. In turn, the sentence appeared in several important legal decisions.
   
   The letter was sold to the Argosy in 2006. Alan Dershowitz's daughter believes he has become obsessed with Jefferson. (He has now bought a number of books and souvenirs pertaining to Jefferson.) Through his letters a person is able to get into Jefferson's head the author asserts. John Adams hoped that Jefferson's letters would be published. Jefferson pardoned persons convicted of violations of the Alien and Sedition Acts when he became President.
   
   This book is of great interest to lawyers and to historians of ideas.



3. ....and that's a hell of a thing for a conservative Republican to say. I've always liked his style, even when I disagree. This short, but profoundly great, book gives his views of the First Amendment, filtered thru the metaphorical lens of a short letter written by Mr. Jefferson in 1801. Despite profound differences, Mr. Dershowitz and I share some things in common: [1] We are both pack-rats [2] We both revere Thomas Jefferson [3] We both love America. But then, he's a Red Sox fan, and I'm a Yankee fan......and, while we agree about the First Amendment, I suspect that we might part company over the Second...
   
   Alan Dershowitz found the letter in question in a rare book store a couple of years ago...it deals with Mr. Jefferson's disagreement with the views of Reverend Stanley Griswold, who advocated limitation on the freedom of speech. Jefferson decried limits, prefering to await "the first overt act". Well and good, but Jefferson did not face weapons of mass destruction [though he did have to deal with Islamic criminals]. The book deals point by point with Mr. Jefferson's arguments, with Dershowitz playing "Devil's Advocate". Dershowitz then branches into specific examples of how Jefferson dealt with problems in his own day. [I may add one slight point of disagreement; Dershowitz states that the Aaron Burr treason case of 1807 brings no credit to Jefferson...well, neither was it John Marshall's shining moment...Burr should probably have been acquitted on the merits, but Marshall still ran it as a rigged trial for political purposes]. He ends with his own views of the First Amendment...no limitation of free speech by the government. Period. I am fairly sure he would support me in the arguments I had with school authorities over my son's right to wear a Confederate flag T-shirt {I won}. But, nobody questions my Confederate flag tie at work...strange.
   
   This is one of the greatest books I have ever read. EVER. It reveals a human side of both Jefferson and Dershowitz that is engaging. Brilliant people are still people. And, this is a good place to give my own theory of what made Jefferson tick, though it's probably way off base...he was a man not bothered by contradictions. Mr. Dershowitz defended the idiots in Skokie; it bothered him [still does], but he made himself do the right thing; [I think] Jefferson would have done the same, and never worried about it a bit. If you want to spend an afternoon really understanding the First Amendment, this book is for you. I can't recommend it highly enough!!!!

2 comments about Winning the Right War: The Path to Security for America and the World.

1. This book which outlines the way the "Cold War" was won, now offers readers a blueprint for winning the war against terrorism that we are currently engaged in. It should be read by every candidate for President of the United States, and by all members of the House and Senate. It offers a number of options the U.S. can and should employ in the battle against terrorism.



2. Following the tragic attacks of 9/11, the President George W. Bush administration unilaterally declared a "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT). This `war' as it turned out was based on a very flawed strategy that saw terrorism as a monolithic threat that could best be countered only by spreading American Style Democracy over the Near East. As this book makes clear the advocates of this strategy were monumentally ill-informed about the nature of the enemy, the geo-political realities of the Near East, and, most fundamentally, the nature of Islam.
   
   The GWOT as prosecuted by the Bush Administration is what Gordon calls the "wrong war" by which he also means the wrong strategy. He offers an alternative strategy based on his analysis of the Cold War. His premise is that although the former USSR and the U.S. were the principal protagonists of the Cold War, it was really about a struggle between two opposing ideologies: the Soviet Model of Communism; and the Western Model of Democratic Capitalism. Gordon maintains that the GWOT is analogous to the Cold War because it is also about two opposing ideologies: the Shari'a based theocracy advocated by Sunni fundamentalists and adopted by the violent fringe group, al Qaeda; and Western secular Democracy. In his opinion many of the same tactics that were successful in the ideological combat of the cold war would be applicable to the current ideological struggle. This is what he means by the "right war" and by implication right strategy. The problem is of course is that terrorism is not monolithic and al Qaeda is only one of many terrorist ideologies around the world. What of such diverse groups as Hezbollah and Hamas?
   
   Further, the West won the Cold War in Europe, but not in the Far East. The Asian nations such as China with a different set of cultural values never succumbed to Western ideology and although moving towards Western style capitalism today, China is doing so in a uniquely indigenous fashion. One would suspect that Western secular ideology would have a similar lack of appeal to many of Muslims who adhere to uniquely Islamic values.
   
   A perennial Amazon.com best seller is "The Art of War" by the Chinese classical philosopher, Sun Tzu. In Washington D.C. many own the book, but few have apparently actually read it. Had they done so they would know that one of the cornerstones of this book is the dictum, know your enemy (Sun Tzu, "know the other and know yourself"). Gordon would be well advised to dust off his copy of this classic and consider its advice.

5 comments about Rogue State: How a Nuclear North Korea Threatens America.

1. In an expansion upon his earlier works in U.S.-China relations, this latest by William C. Triplett II is an unflinching examination of North Korea. Triplett uses his skill as historian and political analyst to present an insightful inspection of the North Korean crisis, the Chinese nexus and policy prospects for future engagement. Triplett deftly weaves the complex issues of communism, weapons proliferation, drug trafficking, terrorism, the U.N. and political theory into a single work with clear prose and cogent reduction. This book is an excellent choice for those who would like to become well informed on the crises and controversies surrounding Kim Jung Il and his father Kim Il Sung. Likewise, the thorough analyses of political missteps and contemporary hypotheses for future engagement, make this a must read for any who wish to remain abreast of the latest political theory on communist Asia.



2. At a time when North Korea is deliberately threatening the world with a nuclear crisis, William Triplett's new book, Rogue State, provides some valuable insight.

   Unlike earlier works on the Koreas, Rogue State is neither a pure history text (a la Bruce Cumings) nor historical narrative (a la Don Oberdorfer), but rather a colorful, often grotesque, indictment of 58 years of tyrannical rule by the Kim dynasty. Written by the former chief Republican counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, an insider to Washington's Asia policy for the better part of 30 years, Rogue State is a scathing chronicle of North Korea's involvement in drug trafficking, nuclear development, weapons proliferation, and sponsorship of terrorism.

   But that is only the tip of the iceberg. Even a Beltway insider may learn for the first time about:

   - North Korea's clandestine "spy city," the underground enclave where Kim Jong Il trains his agents.

   - Kim Jong Il's mysterious "Office 39," the quasi-governmental department which operates his family's personal slush fund (and is even replete with its own personal gold mine).

   - Accounts of South Korean and Japanese women kidnapped by the Kim regime and forced into sexual slavery for regime bigwigs.

   - Tales of cannibalism in the countryside, part of the mass famine that occurred while Kim Jong Il was busy spending half a billion dollars on a memorial hall to glorify himself.

   One would think that a regime so despicable could have no defenders, but millions of teacher-indoctrinated students in South Korea and expatriate Koreans in Japan (the Chosen Soren) support the North with words and cash. Triplett takes care to delve into this bizarre phenomenon.

   Yet his focus is not limited to North Korea alone. His most controversial views, in fact, concern not Pyongyang but rather the familial connections he draws between Kim's regime and Beijing, the former representing (in Triplett's words) China's "borrowed knife." For those who've read his previous books, "Year of the Rat" and "Red Dragon Rising," the refrain is a familiar one, and Triplett's support for this thesis takes up a considerable portion of the book.

   Still, those who presume Triplett to be merely a conservative warmonger will have a few surprises in store. For instance, Triplett warns that America (short of an imminent threat) should not initiate hostilities in North Korea. Nor, he suggests, should Republicans or Democrats use the "other side's handling of the North Korea problem" as a campaign issue in 2004, an obvious eye-raiser considering the failed talks and finger-pointing that pervaded U.S. North Korea policy under Clinton. Moreover, Triplett's ultimate conclusion is uncharacteristically passive, namely that America will only be able to topple the despotic Pyongyang regime by convincing China that it is no longer in its interest to prop it up.

   Overall, whether or not you agree with all of Triplett's positions, this book should be greeted as a welcome addition to the strikingly small volume of literature on the Pyongyang regime.

   For readers who are looking for an insightful and highly-readable introduction to North Korea, the Kim dynasty, and the ever-tendentious U.S.-North Korean relationship, this book represents essential reading for 2004.




3. Having very little previous knowledge concerning the nuclear capabilities of both China and North Korea, I absorbed a lot of information through this book by Triplett. It does a great job of pointing out the potential (and very possible) dangers associated with the current military advancements in China and North Korea. He poses the threat in a way that really opens your eyes to the problems already at hand. In order to better educate yourself in international politics and foreign affairs, this book is a must read.



4. This is one of the three books I commented for a book review assignment of a Korean history class, taught by a very very renowned professor on Korean history. I got an A/A- for the review. My professor especially argeed with my comments for Triplett's book. As I disagree with the previous reviews on Amazon(which is the reason I chose to read this book. a big waste of time, sadly), I want to leave my review here for future reader's reference.
   
   
   Rogue State: How a Nuclear North Korea Threatens America, although written by a former chief Republican counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee William Triplett II, is overall a disappointing book. Triplett accuses North Korea of proliferating weapons, supporting terrorism, producing and selling drugs, abusing human rights, and kidnapping females to be sex slaves. Although Triplett provides many detailed allegations and facts, he does not give credible and unbiased sources for many of his allegations, which greatly weakens his claim. Moreover, he presents North Korea as the most dangerous state in the world. He also accuses China for planning behind it and supporting it militarily, economically, and politically for almost sixty years, with a hidden intension to use North Korea as a "borrowed knife to kill other people." (p. 9) Contrary to what is suggested in his title, Triplett does not spend much analysis on North Korea nuclear crisis itself, but just the potential outcomes if everything goes as he argues. He also fails to give any constructive recommendations, only predicting that issues on North Korea, and nuclear weapons in particular, will not progress unless the U.S. define the issue not as "North Korea" but as "communist China and North Korea." (p. 12) Yet America already tried to involve China in solving the North Korea nuclear crisis.
   
   Triplett borrows the phrase "killing with a borrowed knife" from a Chinese military classic the 36 Stratagems. He presents this strategy as if it is a secret doctrine of the Chinese people. According to him, it means "to use covertly another country to annihilate your enemy." (p. 9) However, he apparently does not fully understand the meaning of this phrase. Triplett says that to make the stratagem work, it has to be disguised, by keeping your opponent from learning vital information (denial) and misleading him about your true intentions (deception). He therefore argues that China and North Korea have been adopting a strategy of denial and deception, trying to hide their malicious aggressive intensions. (p. 10) However, his interpretation of this stratagem is completely wrong. It is true that to make this stratagem work, one has to disguise his intentions. Yet the disguise is not only for the opponent, but more importantly, for the one you "borrowed the knife" from. The point of this strategy is to deceive someone, make him fight against your opponent, and let that person bear all the costs. That China and North Korea indeed made some secret agreement, as Triplett suggests, goes directly against this strategy. Therefore, Triplett cannot reach the point that China and North Korea have been using denial and deception by just claiming that they try to "kill with a borrowed knife."
   
   Triplett goes on to spend about a quarter of the book on a history of the role Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's Red China played during the Korean War, to demonstrate their close connection with North Korea. Triplett gives a list of records of the Soviet's and China's involvement in North Korea (p. 9), without providing any source for his allegation. This puts the reader in doubts about the credibility and impartiality of his claim. For example, Triplett writes that "Moscow and Beijing helped Kim start the Korean War; Beijing intervened to block a United National victory in the war." (p. 9) However, the question of who started the Korean War, North or South, is still debatable. In a more impartial view, Bruce Cumings thinks that it is wrong to ask who started the war, since both North and South Korea were at fault. (Cumings, Korea's Place in the Sun. p. 263) Cumings argue that the United Nation's decision to enter the war against North Korea was solely based on American and South Korean sources and was likely to be biased. (Cumings. p. 263) Thus, accusing China of haveing blocked a United Nation's victory without providing enough background information could mislead the reader. In another allegation, Triplett claims that "communist China helped Pyongyang to start the Korean War." (p. 73) This accusation is apparently false. At that time, China saw conquering Taiwan as its priority and did not want the Korean War to divert its energy. It did not support the idea of the Korean War, and did not help North Korea in the war until very late, actually too late in a military strategy perspective.
   
   To demonstrate that the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea produced "a series of decisions that initiated a reign of terror over millions of people in the Far East and established the framework for East Asia today," Triplett claims that Stalin, Mao, and Kim decided in a communist summit in late 1949 to let Kim conquer South Korea, Mao conquer Tibet and Taiwan, and Ho Chi Minh conquer Indochina, and attack the Japanese Communist Party. (p. 21) However, Triplett again fails to credit any source for this important decision. What's more, as we can see after more than half a century, none of these goals materialized except for China's takeover of Tibet. Many of these aims were even never attempted, let alone attempted but failed. Therefore, even if Stalin, Mao and Kim did make a secret agreement, with only one goal achieved, I wonder whether China and North Korea indeed have the ability to initiate a reign of terror and put billions of lives in danger, as Triplett claims.
   
   Triplett claims that China supports North Korea and is to blame for making North Korea so dangerous. However, Triplett fails to make it clear what China's intension and incentive to support North Korea is. This is crucial to how the non-communist world should respond. China may not have malicious aims to support North Korea. It could have done it partly because of Mao's romanticism to help his communist friend in the 50's. And once the support started, it would be hard to stop. China might also support North Korea to increase its own influence in international politics but without the aim to use North Korea to dominate the world. Such intensions are perfectly justified. The U.S. is also supporting various countries and regions around the world in order to have a stake in regional politics, such as Taiwan, Japan, and Israeli. Another possibility may be that China sees the trend in North Korea towards terrorism and instability. Fearing a neighboring country getting into trouble and the spillover that would ensue, China may be trying to prevent a social and political crisis in North Korea by providing support. Triplett fail to analyze any these possibilities. In fact, China should be one of the countries that want to see North Korea to become a terrorist state the least, unless it can fully control Kim Jong Il, which Triplett fails to prove either. Triplett provides another piece of evidence against his accusation of China's involvement himself. To prove the danger of North Korea, he says that it turned to income from producing and selling drugs, after China cut its support to fund its own economic development. Regardless of the amount of support China has provided North Korea, how could we assume that China is the evil planner behind North Korea right now, after China already cut its support?
   
   The weakest point of Triplett's book, in my point of view, is that after making so many unaccredited and rather controversial claims, he fails to go anywhere significant in his analysis. He does not really examine the implications of the nuclear tensions after 2002. He argues that there is no simple military solution to a nuclear North Korea. To solve the North Korean problem, the U.S. has to define the problem not as North Korea, but as communist China and North Korea. (p. 12) Although Triplett claims that the Bush administration are blind to the role of communist China, what I have shown is that China has always played an important role in negotiating with the North Koreans. And it is not the case that the U.S. has not tried to make China influence North Korea more. If China has tried all it can, Triplett's conclusion does not help the problem. If China tried to hide its influence on North Korea, then what can America do even if it re-defines the problem? If it wants China to move, there will be a price to pay. This is a known rule of the game of international politics. Triplett's suggestion is incomplete without a recommendation on how to employ China into the negotiation at a reasonable price.
   
   To be sure, Triplett does provide many examples and tries to prove the connection between China and North Korea from an historical perspective. However, because he fails to give references for many important examples, the creditability and impartiality of his book, and consequently his conclusion, is in question. Readers with more knowledge about Korean history could easily give alternative explanations of his examples that do not lead to his conclusion. Besides, his conclusion does not contribute much to the situation right now. Given Triplett's role in the U.S. government, this book is important and valuable in another sense--it more or less indicates one U.S. governmental official's perspective on North Korea, a dangerously prejudiced perspecitve.
   
   (Another minor point, Triplett should have done a better selection and framing of the cases. For example, in a list of prices the non-communist world have paid for North Korea, Triplett parallels the loss of more than 50,000 Americans' lives in the Korean War, to the killing of a high school girl singing in a chorus in the same shootout that killed the South Korean first lady. (p. 7) No matter how cruel the killing of an innocent high school girl is, it is way less important and significant than the more than the causality of 50,000 Americans in the Korean War. Putting these two on the same list gives rise to doubts about the author's capability.)



5. Another book that should be read by all, and can be grouped in with "9/11 Commission Report", Holy War On The Home Front" and "Imperial Hubris". Triplett has thirty years of experience with China and national security. There are extensive notes along with an appendix. The book begins with the Russian communist conspiracy. Then he details China as the the financial supporter of North Korea. Also China is the arms dealer to them and other nations. The horrific terror and crimes of North Korea are discussed. Also discussed is the threat to Japan, Taiwan, and other countries.

5 comments about The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction.

1. If you read only one book on terrorism, make sure it's not this one - to change the statement made by former CIA director James Wollsey somewhat. The list of shortcomings of this book is so long that it'd hardly worth the effort to mention them all here - see also the other reviews.

   The information in this book doesn't appear to be very thoroughly researched (e.g. I am German and a lot of what Mr Laqueur write about what he calls the Baader-Meinhoff gang - which is actually only the first generation of the RAF - is simply wrong). What's more, it is amazingly superficial. How can you for instance reject the claim that terrorist are "unremarkable people" (Maxwell Taylor and Ethel Quayle in "Terrorist Lives") by quoting Joseph Conrad, a novelist? Mr Laqueur only needs to look at studies on e.g. Nazi death squads to see how those people who killed thousands of Jews in fact were what you'd call unremarkable people. On and on goes the list of shortcomings.

   On top of that, to make a political statement, Mr Laqueur's definition of what terrorism is excludes states like Israel (with a long history of state-sponsored terrorism) and the US itself (ditto - take for instance the US war against Nicaragua which, according to the international Court of Law, was pretty much state-sponsored terrorism). One could at least expect that an author who examines terrorism would look at all the different meanings the word "terrorism" has - as the ruler of Syria said the other day those Palestinian terrorists are freedom fighters for him. One might reject that but it has to be mentioned in a book which claims it is dealing with terrorism.




2. I keep thinking I've fread a different book than the ones that other people review. The History of Terrorism is one of those books. This book was fantastic, and it suffered from few to none of the problems attributed to it below.

   I admit to being baffled by one other review in particular. Being fairly well versed in Baader-Meinhoff lore, and I couldn't find a single un-superficial problem with Laqueur's account of them, although I did like Laqueur's 1987 book "The Age of Terrorism" better than this book as far as the Red Army Faction goes. But these are small potato problems, and don't lead me at all to the conclusion our German friend had. I think it very significant that he did not bother to note a single "innacuracy".

   The other criticisms are either utterly beside the point or approaching the absurd. The worst were the spurious definitional demands. Until it was taken up by dogmatists, terrorism clearly meant non-state, irregular violence. It was only the needs of left-rhetoric that expanded the view of terrorism to include what states do, which intelligent people might think is called "war" and "repression". I can think of no reason to include The US and Isreal except for dogmatic purposes: if we were to include Isreal, why would our German friend not include Cuba? The clear answer is this is an ideological agenda and not a serious rejoinder for an expansive notion of terrorism. Essentially, the other reviewer doesn't like the US or Isreal from political contacts and is saddened from a lack of political agenda on the part of Mr. Laqueur.

   And if by some possibility our other reviewer friend does not mean some simple anti-American or anti-Isreali bias, then his main problem is that this book is an American writer writing from an American perspective on terrorism. Contrary to what mister Colberg believes, it is not a crime to have an American perspective.

   The last point is most substantive, and wqhere Mr. Laqueur is most right and his other rewviewer is most wrong- the vast majority of terrorists throughout ages have clearly been unremarkable people. This is what makes the phenomenon so interesting- the notion that terrorism is part of some corner in human nature. I give to you the 19 unremarkable folks who took down the World Trade Center as an example. I don't think our other reviewer friend realizes quite how well Joseph Conrad defined the standard terrorist or why his characterization has survived so long in the minds of people who think about terrorism.

   This was a fine book. Please buy it.




3. As a practicing Odinist, I find this book to be extremely persecuting. Because of this author, and many like him i might add, many people are misled to think that all Odinists are White Supremacists, which just is not true. I think authors, like this pud, should be more wary in there choice of words and make it known with even the vaguest acknowledgement that a small faction of Odinists is of an Aryan mentality. I had to say my piece in defense of all my indiscriminate Odinist sisters and brothers in the world, so farewell.



4. This book is little more than a rehash of high-profile terrorist attacks in the 20th century with very little insight into the forces that inspired them. Mr. Laqueur covers the gambit from the far right to the far left, with some discussion of the American "survivalists" and the "eco-freaks" that will go to any length to drive their points home. Laqueur seems more comfortable dealing with the Far Right extremists, as his research seems to be strongest in this regard. He seems on shaky ground when dealing with environmentalist terrorism, unsure of the various splinter groups that have adopted extreme actions in recent years.

   His digressions into the literature that may have inspired such groups seem absurd at times, talking about James Bond supervillains and noting Edward Abbey's The Monkey Wrench Gang, which was a dark comedy on environmental terrorism. However, he discusses more pertinent books such as The Turner Diaries, which supposedly inspired Timothy McVeigh in attacking the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

   Probably the best chapter is Terrorism and History. Again, there is nothing new but he provides a good encapsulation of terrorism down through the centuries, noting the historic origins of suicide bombings which have sadly become the favored tactics of extreme Islamicists today. He ends by delving into the apocalyptic potential of terrorists should they get their hands on nuclear, chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction, but there is nothing very solid here. More of the doomsday scenarios we have grown accustomed to.

   What I found sorely lacking was any attempt to deal with the political conditions that have given rise to the current wave of terrorism, such as the United States' and Britain's overextending foreign policy. Instead, the book is really nothing more than a collection of newspaper stories that will provide the reader with a general survey of terrorism and its threat to American foreign policy.




5. Its always a pleasure to read a Walter Laqueur book, not only are you promised a well written book but some interesting discussions.
   
   In this book he discusses terrorism and the Arms of Mass Destruction. Something that I am sure is coming but not fortunately not yet.
   
   The problem with weapons of mass destruction is that chemical warfare is not very effective. Biological is unclear. No one has done much in it and it can effect everyone. Nuclear is probably out of the reach of a terrorist organization unless it can steal a bomb. What response would a nuclear blast give if released? Who knows? Look at the response that 911 caused.
   
   Anyway to use nuclear weapons you need a safe house to keep them. Once the authorities know you have one they will be looking for it. You also probably need a few. One to blow up to show that you have a bomb and can use it. Another to maybe use. If they use it what would be the result?
   
   Not to say a terrorist who wants a bomb is not be feared as it has been stated, "I don't fear a person that wants many nuclear bombs but I do fear the person that wants only one bomb."
   
   Interestingly Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are not mentioned at all although he was already active. The book just came out just a bit to early in 1998.
   
   One point I wished he had discussed more, is what motives would a terrorist organization have to use such weapons. Many countries today have such weapons and yet they don't use them. Maybe terrorist would be similarly affected for example before 911, the leaders of al Qaeda discussed but rejected attacking a nuclear power station as a target. The reason is that it would have a unclear result. It was seen as too dangerous.
   
   Anyway in this book we are given some interesting history and is certainly a good read.

3 comments about Counterinsurgency and the Global War on Terror: Military Culture and Irregular War (Stanford Security Studies).

1. Excellent book. Format was good and the book was well written. Good points presented by the book.



2. Despite LTC Cassidy's occasional allusions to the dubious belief that the Army is changing as necessary for the kind of
   irregular warfare terrorism presents, he still makes some valid points about how the Army and other
   services need to change further. LTC Cassidy makes valid observations about the American military culture of conventional
   warfare thinking, but his recommendations seem to be less about cultural change and more about organizational
   change. The problems he identifies seem far too entrenched for organizational tweaking to resolve them.
   
   Some points LTC Cassidy makes with regard to how to counter insurgencies are very good points. He addresses the
   cultures first of Russian, British, and American military thinking in separate chapters then summarizes the lessons
   concerning "small wars" in the end. In the process of summarizing the lessons of those three, he draws on additional
   experiences of the French in Indochina and Algeria. The organization of his work becomes a little difficult as the
   author seems to confuse the cultural issues with organizational or tactical issues of isolated examples. If the
   reader is able to separate those issues, this book has much to offer. Otherwise it may only confuse the issues.
   
   Specifically, among the observations LTC Cassidy makes, three seem especially helpful.
   First, the need to emphasize conversion/rehabilitation of enemy combatants. Rather
   than capturing them and jailing them away only for questioning, making the assumption that they cannot be
   rehabilitated, would it not be better to convert them - to win their hearts and minds? The very common-sense of that
   question along with the example given of British and Rhodesian techniques to do just that in Malaya and Rhodesia
   should provide the obvious answer.
   
   Second, and similar to the first point, large-scale use of indigenous forces provides legitimacy where occupation-style
   large American footprint does not. Again, the common sense of this thinking should be enough to immediately see the value
   of this point. Though he does leave the assertion open to a wide range of interpretation as has been the case in the past.
   
   Third, adopting realistic measures for success. LTC Cassidy, as with so many others, makes a challenge to the
   traditional measures of success such as insurgent body counts. Such measures do not tell us whether or not we are
   being successful at winning hearts and minds or improving the lives of those we claim to be protecting. The goal
   in conventional warfare thinking has generally been to destroy the enemy army. The goal in this unconventional warfare
   is to produce a lasting peace. Ignoring the population only breeds more insurgent support. The goal must be to win
   and protect the population more than to kill the ever-increasing flow of insurgents.
   
   A problem with all three of these points is that none can be mechanistically applied to every situation without an
   understanding of the cultural/political context of the indigenous people. What works in one scenario is not necessarily
   an universal law of counterinsurgency for all other scenarios.
   
   Another problem is the political question. And this one LTC Cassidy may be forgiven for not addressing
   as a military commander.
   He states that we need to change our military in order to meet the goal of "democratization" wars. But this rather
   begs the political question of whether such wars are even winnable in all cases. The sad fact remains that perhaps there are
   some cultures in which democracy is not workable or even wanted. LtC Cassidy is a military man tasked with carrying
   out political policies with which he may not always agree. It is not his place perhaps to question those
   policies - but it is ours. It is a difficult question that underlies just how effective any cultural or
   organizational changes could make in such situations.
   
   A third problem LTC Cassidy does not address is the common mistake of confusing revolutionary nationalist insurgencies,
   like those in Malaya or Vietnam, with the non-nationally focused insurgencies of global terrorism - something the title
   claims to address. Little is added on the theory of counterinsurgency as it pertains specifically to the so-called
   Global War on Terror. Instead, LTC Cassidy seems locked in the mindset of so many other military thinkers - still
   preparing for the last war or the war we would prefer to fight.
   
   While the author makes some very good points concerning counterinsurgency warfare, his conclusions for changing
   the military seem far too little. The military and political culture that feeds it must change as a whole and not
   just with organizational or tactical tweaks here and there. We also need to understand better that not every war
   is one we should be fighting or that we have a chance of winning.
   
   Despite some shortcomings, LTC Cassidy has given us a fair addition to the theory and practice of counterinsurgency.
   It is a good start perhaps at addressing the issues but the solutions are unimaginative and shortsighted. Still
   this work deserves a good rating for at least addressing some of the underlying problems.



3. I have not checked, but I would bet that this book is required reading at the various command colleges for our armed forces. The book reads like a PhD Dissertation, but that is not all bad. The sources and cites are awesome if you want to delve further into the subject.
   
   The basis of this book is a description of what counterinsurgency is, a historical look at its uses and how we must adapt to the new global "network insurgency"! LTC Cassidy has obviously done his homework on this subject. While dry, it is probably the best meta-analysis of the subject available for lay readers.
   
   Among the main themes for the successful prosecution of this type of conflict is the need to involve as many indigenous forces as possible, paternal control systems of occupation and scrupulous care to avoid killing "innocents". If you are a fan of Clausewitz, you are going to have a hard time getting into this!
   
   If you are interested in delving this deep into the war on terror and where it is going, I highly recommend this book.

5 comments about Seeds of Terror: An Eyewitness Account of Al-Qaeda's Newest Center of Operations in Southeast Asia.

1. 
   This is the best book I've read that attempts to cover all the reasons behind Muslim Terrorism and at the same time details how it got started,how it continues,in which countries it is being waged,how it is all interconnected,and how complicated the networks are and how difficult and for how long it will take to defeat.The author introduces so many names and aliases that unless one has a fantastic memory it is impossible to keep them all sorted out;if one can remember them all.She traces these terrorists back for over 20 years;and in case you think this Muslim Terrorism started 5 or 6 years ago;she completely disproves that idea.In my title, I was not suggesting that this Terrorism started on 9/11;it started long before;has been developing and seething for a long time,but became a full-fledged World War with that Attack on America;just the same as the Japanese Sneak Attack on Pearl Harbor.As FDR said then "This day will live in infamy..." ;GWB similarly stated "Those people who did this will hear from all of us,soon.."
   From reading this book it is easy to get the idea that this network of terrorism is so extensive,organized,funded and dedicated that it seems to be impossible to win against.There is no reason to despair because the same seeme to be the case with Nazi Germany ,Fascism ,and Japanese Imperialism in WW11;then with Communism for 50 years after WW11.Like those great challenges,which had foundations of evil,hatred,greed,fanaticism and domination;the adage that "Good will always prevail over Evil" was the end result and will be again with this latest confilct.Nobody knows what the course or length or cost in both people and resources of this struggle will be-----but one thing is certain and that is the final outcome--Terrorism will be defeated.
   The author does an excellent job of pulling together all that has taken place around the world nd makes it possible,if not somewhat difficult,to get an overall picture of what is going on.The only caution I have for the reader, is not to let the details,names and locations cloud up the greater picture.



2. JI is an active terrorist organization, but there just aren't many of them and their influence on Indonesian society is quite small. However, Ressa makes a number of sloppy connections as she tries to argue otherwise. Though the Ba'asyir interview has some fascinating tidbits, this book by and large reads like an audition for Fox; few people with any expertise or experience in Indonesia lend it much credence.



3. This book was written by another TV correspondent who has gained some expertise in a particular area of the conflict with Al Quaeda. In this case, Maria Ressa is an expatriate Filipina who was educated at Princeton, raised in New Jersey, and became a CNN correspondent (eventually their "bureau chief" in Jakarta). Her background and experience apparently have given her some insight into the politics in the region, and into the various Muslim extremist groups that are trying to establish their Islamic paradise there.
   
   The book is chopped into chapters on the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore, with 2-3 chapters on the former two countries and only one on each of the latter two. The discussion seems very well-informed, and her point of view seems objective. She seems to admire the leadership of Singapore, especially, and thinks that the extremists will have a tougher time gaining a large following there than in Indonesia, for instance.
   
   Where I disagreed with the book was in her analysis of the situation in the world. I was surprised to see one of the reviewers say that it looked like she was applying to Fox; in fact, she takes the obligatory U.S. journalist view that the war in Iraq was a large mistake, and that it's incited violence in the region towards Americans. Whether this is true or not, it's not like the extremists in Islam weren't upset with us before the Iraq war, and they weren't exactly unsuccessful. After all, the embassy bombings in Africa, the Cole bombing, and 9/11 all happened *before* the war with Iraq started.
   
   One side-note. I recently reviewed Jayna Davis's book The Third Terrorist. One reviewer dismisses Ressa's book in that the author refers to the Oklahoma City bombings and rumors that Terry Nichols learned bomb-making in the Philippines, and that he and McVeigh had assistance from Islamic extremists. Ms. Davis makes it clear that this is clearly a strong possibility, and has a lot of evidence to back her up. One weakness of Davis's book is the poor writing. Ressa's book is much better constructed and put together, and reads very well, by comparison.
   
   I enjoyed this book, and would recommend it to anyone interested in the region or the subject.



4. When people speak of terrorism, most think of the Middle East, N. Ireland, and maybe the former Soviet Republics. The new front in the war on terror, according to this book, is Southeast Asia. Authored by a CNN reporter from the Philippines, this book traces the individuals that have formed the beginnings of Islamic terrorism in the countries of Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines and Thailand. The book names names, places, and events that together resemble the beginnings of an Al Qaeda style organization in SE Asia. The book also shows how governments are dealing or not dealing with these troublemakers. Underlying these movements is political disenfranchisement, economic poverty, and frustration with corruption, a topic that the book addresses to some level, though not one deep enough to satisfy this reviewer. All in all a good book.



5. Goods: This book provides a good primer to Muslim extremist groups involved Southeast Asian Terrorism and events that have happened in Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, and the Philippines. The author has/had fairly decent access and converted this into an objective book. The book is a quick read and doesn't really get bogged down.
   
   Others: The book doesn't necessarily look at Islamic History in SE Asia before the Afghanistan War, and some of the problems, principally in the Sulu Archipelago, go back further. The other major detractor at this point is that the book is 5 years old and the landscape has changed somewhat.

5 comments about Batman: Dead White.

1. I guess some of the folks who read this book were mad that Batman didn't drink Budweiser and go gaybashing. I found it to be an above average Batman yarn with action, interesting tech, odious villians, and a tough, smart Batman. Those who call this book "liberal" are the same guys using the term "College boy" as an insult. Maybe they were upset that Batman beat up white supremacists. They should just go watch some Larry the Cable guy movies and beat their kids.



2. This book does a really good job of keeping you interested all the way through, some say the batman in this story isnt like the "original" batman, i dont think there's a wrong way to interpret batman, John Shirley does a good job. i mean take any comic character from it's beginning and look at it now...what are the odd's it's the exact same character? even if your a long time reader of batman or a newbie to the character you can enjoy this book.



3. A book set early in Batman's career, when Gordon is still a Captain. However, given the fluid superhero timelines and the gear Batman is using, it is set close to the modern day, with hints of anti terrorist combat air patrols being problems for Batman to sneak Batplanes past, and that sort of thing.
   
   He uses body armor a lot at this point in Shirley's version, and actually gets hit by more than one bullet.
   
   The antagonists are a group of crazy drug dealing white supremacists, led by a nut, and a nutty technological wizard. An ex-Gotham cop, a couple of Federal agents, and the cops son also get mixed up in this. Cormac, the police guy and bounty hunter is a pretty good character.
   
   The supremacists have developed some nasty automatic weapons, in particular a hybrid machine gun/shotgun, and man portable missiles. They do have a final plan, which involves political destabilisation of the USA via the expedient method of blowing the crap out of a large percentage of the current leadership.
   
   Batman is stretched physically, technologically and mentally to cover this, as an old training partner he had a thing for has come to town, and he most definitely gets physical with her.
   
   During one cute discourse on the actual flying mammals that hang around his cave, it is discovered that he and Alfred have a particular bat as a pet, one with a hole in its wing that they looked after.
   
   One funny quote by a old-timer bounty hunter acquaintance of Cormac's : "I mean, jeez, how can you take a guy like that seriously, wears tights, leaps about on the roofs, wears a mask, thinks he's the Phantom or something."
   
   A tossup on this one, 3.75 might be just about right.



4. What a treat to have an author of John Shirley's skill dip his hands into the Batman mythos. It is funny that some reviewers have commented negatively about the inclusion of politics. Funny considering that Batman is a vigilante who would not exist if he was not frustrated by the system. The deep brooding that John Shirley brought to his batman is even more impressive if you realize he wrote before any of us saw Nolan's modern updating of batman.
   
   John Shirley has created a brutal realistic batman that goes very well as a follow-up to the recent film. If you love Batman begins and think it was the right path for the hero then you need to read this book.



5. This is one of the better books I have read on Batman. (The other great one was "No Man's Land") This author really gets you into the feel of Batman, it may be a little to racial (Batman fights a white superemist who uses racial profanaties) but it is part of the story and why you want Batman to kick his butt even more. If you like Batman, you will like this, (As long as you are over 13 or so, to graphic for underage readers)

5 comments about The Matador's Cape: America's Reckless Response to Terror.

1. Stephen Holmes, Professor at the New York University School of Law, has produced an exceptionally good book exploring the tangled arguments for the US and British governments' `war on terror'. He sums up that this war has been a disaster.
   
   He describes the US state's "excessively violent, too broadly targeted, and patently counter-productive response to 9/11." He notes the odd assumption that "American immoderation will produce Muslim moderation." As he writes, "America's bellicose response to the 9/11 provocation was not only dishonourable and unethical, given the cruel suffering it has inflicted on thousands of innocents, but also imprudent in the extreme because it was bound to produce as much hatred as fear, as much burning desire for reprisal as quaking paralysis and docility."
   
   Holmes demolishes the arguments used to try to justify the shift from getting Al Qa'ida to `America's gratuitous invasion and horrifyingly bloody occupation of Iraq'. He criticises idealist warmongering about the clash of civilisations, humanitarian intervention and democratisation. He notes, "Senators and Representatives who originally voted to approve a war on false pretenses have subsequently hesitated to criticize it, no matter how calamitous the outcome, because after-the-fact dissent embarrassingly reveals their own prior gullibility and lack of foresight."
   
   He points out, "In Administration rhetoric, terrorism (a method for waging asymmetric war) is routinely opposed to liberty (a principle for organizing a modern society). The antithesis of liberty, however, is not terrorism but tyranny. So, when the Administration tries to place jihadism in the space vacated by Communism, turning it into the new global enemy of liberty, it confuses both itself and others." Gordon Brown uses the same bad comparison to continue Blair's war policies.
   
   Holmes writes, "On the one hand, neoconservatives assert that Islamic radicals despise American values (such as religious toleration), not American policies (such as support for Israel), and deny that America's past behaviour has in any way provoked anti-American violence. On the other hand, they imply that the 9/11 plot was inspired and implemented by terrorists radicalized by Arab autocracies allied with or sponsored by the United States. This suggest precisely that 9/11-style terrorists hate American policies (backing the oppressors of Muslim peoples), not American values. They hate not the principles of American liberty but, rather, America's unprincipled support for tyranny. ... That is to say, jihadism, however repugnant, is not simply `evil' but has a perfectly comprehensible rationale. If we do not honestly grapple with this rationale, we will not be able to reduce the jihadist appeal."
   
   He concludes, "the war on terror is bound to fail when conducted, as it has been so far, against the rule of law and outside the constitutional system of checks and balances." "To `go around the law' when combating terrorism is to regress into collective punishment. ... Waiving the rules will do the work of terrorists in this sense: it will recreate a world where violence breeds violence - where terrorism breeds torture and torture breeds terrorism. This will not be a safer world."



2. New York University School of Law research director Stephen Holmes presents The Matador's Cape: America's Reckless Response to Terror, a scholarly examination of the failures, mismanagement, and worse rampant in the Bush-Cheney administration's response to the September 11th attacks, especially the deleterious ramifications of the war in Iraq. The Matador's Cape strongly condemns acts of terror and genocide, yet examines with equal suspicion the Bush-Cheney's administration's insistence in sequestering its intelligence and decision-making process from the public - and therefore from any solid opportunity to vette or cross-check its ideologically driven conclusions, with disastrous results. Also discussed is the significant yet by no means unilateral role of religious fundamentalism in propagating terrorism, the impact of rising birthrates in the Islamic world contrasted with falling birthrates in the Western world, the harmful and psychologically twisted effects of the Bush-Cheney administrations embrace of torture, and much more. A measured, well-reasoned and deftly persuasive treatise about the need for an immediate reexamination of America's current administration and foreign policy. Highly recommended.



3. In terrorizing America, Osama Bin Laden only got the ball rolling. Contrary to FDR's famous statement that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, George W. Bush seems to believe that fear should be the prime motivator in engaging Islamic radicals and of them we should be truly terrified. With much of America and Congress cowed, Bush was given carte blanche to push his right wing agenda including massive tax cuts on the wealthy, an erosion of civil rights and a stunning reelection win using a campaign of fear. It was Bush who was instrumental in bringing Bin Laden's dream to fruition by galvanizing the Islamic world against America and driving a wedge between the U.S. and its allies. The author writes, `The strength of the U.S. government, including its ability to project force abroad, not only depends on its reputation for invincibility abroad, it also relies on its domestic legitimacy.' What Bush has managed to do is completely tie down the military, demonstrate to the world its limitations and tar the image of the United States as a beacon for freedom and law.
   
   The author devotes an entire chapter to Dept. of Justice lawyer John Yoo and with good reason. Yoo's views on presidential power can best be summed up by a quote from his book `The Powers of War and Peace' saying, "the President's authority under the Constitution did not differ in important measure from that of a king" In other words everything Americans know about checks and balances and the founding fathers desire to rid themselves of a king is wrong. To support his assertion Yoo cherry picks through historical documents, omits contrary facts and distorts reality. Yoo is to political discourse what creationism is to science. What sets Yoo apart, besides the fact that he is the reductio ad absurdum of Conservative thinking on the concept of the Unitarian Executive, is that he actually went to the effort of putting his extremist ideas into a book. Yoo is unashamed in his belief that Nixon was right when he said, `When the president does it that means that it is not illegal' The views Yoo expresses are a mirror held up to the policies practiced by the Bush Administration, that the president in time of war becomes a supreme branch of the government answerable to none.
   
   Yoo's most infamous statement, that a president could order the brutal torture of a child in order to extract information from a parent, leads into the author's next point. Why does the Bush Administration seem so adamant about having the ability to torture detainees? Besides ignoring Global Warming, engaging in torture may be the most shameful act the Bush Administration has involved itself in. John Dean speculated that torture is encouraged by the Bush Administration in order to satisfy the leadership's authoritarian egos. Mr. Holmes takes a different approach suggesting that the Bush Administration tortures as a demonstration to our enemies and allies that the gloves are off. The U.S. intends to match ferociousness with ferociousness. Similar to Bush's belief when governor that executions are good crime deterrents even if a few innocents die, the Administration seems to believe that torture should be done for tortures sake as a symbol. Torturing innocents and breaking international law is a means to an end because the U.S. looks that much more ruthless. The author writes, "The ticking time-bomb fable also suggests the quiet heroism of those who, defying moral norms and legal conventions, choose torture"
   
   These are just a couple of examples from a book that is jam packed with thought provoking discussions about government and the use of power. I have read more than a few books on the Bush Administration's response to 9/11 but this may be the most intellectually profound, lucid and sober account yet. Stephen Holmes doesn't just recite the Bush Administration endless buffooneries he steps beyond partisan politics and establishes solid reasons for supporting alternative solutions. The Matadors Cape is a five star book that gets my highest endorsement.



4. This book is mostly a collection of book reviews strung together with the goal of making sense of the US' foreign policy lurches after 9-11. Even that description makes it sound a little more coherent than it actually is, since there is also an interesting chapter that tries to explicate the mindset of the 9-11 terrorists. Furthermore the books reviewed uneasily fall into two different categories--there are those that are symptomatic of current American mindsets (books by Robert Kagan, Samantha Powers, and Samuel Huntington, for example), and there are books that Holmes considers somewhat useful for illuminating the world (books by Geoffrey Stone or Michael Mann among others). Nevertheless, Holmes is an able, lucid guide through this highly uneven pile of books and ideas. Furthermore, an overarching theme does crystalize. Holmes is insistent on the value of laws, international and domestic, which is not some sort of trick played on the powerful, but instead both creates an enabling context for the exercise of power and a check on the errors rulers are likely to commit. Those who underestimated the virtues of a lawful international (and domestic) order include not only the neocons in the Bush administration but also humanitarian liberals like Samantha Power. Holmes is also potent in describing the way the Bush administration could not let go of cold war binary frameworks to interpret the post-9-11 world, although these were woefully inadequate to the task. My main reservation about the book is that it tends to see the failures of the US/Bush administration entirely as a failure of understanding. There is little political economic texture that might help illuminate why these ideas thrived with so little effective opposition. Rather than requiring a new coalition guided by different principles, Holmes seems to hope that somehow the flawed thinking he documents can be corrected away.



5. Stephen Holmes is good. This author is solidly grounded in classical liberal democracy and its contextual origins from the enlightenment.