"making bad history:" law, ideology, and the 9/11 trials

I've been pretty out of it this semester with the new job and trying to adjust to Chicago, etc. I'm only skimming news occasionally, much less getting a sense of the positions being taken on various issues. The trials for 9/11 planners, for instance, seem like an absurd bit of political theatre, meant to consecrate the law as objective and the US as a just society. It is a welcome change from people who shirk the law and try to re-write it by executive edict; but on the other hand, it is one of those things where the rule is only proven by exceptions. In other words, it is unlikely that this is a whole lot different than a show trial by military tribunal, yet it is perceived as such. The perception that there could be a chance of acquittal is seen by some as a downfall of this process; but the assertion that justice will be served is supposed to give assurance that, as in the trial of Saddam Hussein, there will be a hanging at the end of the process.

I am too foggy to reflect on much of the details here, but I was struck by one exchange in the Senate questioning of AG Eric Holder about this trial. In skimming through today's version of the Neo-Con Patriot Post, I came across this passage:

"Can you give me a case in United States history," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked of Attorney General Eric Holder this week, "where an enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?" Holder, the chief surrender-facilitator, was outlining to Congress the administration's latest ploy to appease its über-Left base, namely, moving Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) -- the self-proclaimed mastermind of 9/11 -- and four other al-Qa'ida 9/11 planners from Guantanamo to New York to be tried like ordinary civilians in a Manhattan federal court. When Holder hemmed and hawed ("I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made..."), Graham shot back, "We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no."

I can't really comment on the history of wartime trials--though I imagine that the courts in the Hague and Nuremberg would be similar presidents--but I'm really struck by the way that Graham is able to render the facts of the case using the ideology of the war on terror as completely unproblematic. It is a classic example of how ideology can tweak facts in a certain direction--and be so unquestionable that the leading lawyer in the country is unable to muster a response. The facts are the following: during the time that we were at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, these five people were all caught in Pakistan.

• Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - initially killed, then caught by the Pakistani ISI on March 1, 2003 in Rawalpindi, Pakistan
• Ramzi Binalshibh - on FBI most wanted terrorist list since 2002; caught by the Pakistani ISI (conveniently) on September 11, 2002 in Karachi, the same day that KSM was supposedly killed in Karachi, Pakistan ostensibly on intelligence procured by the torture of Abu Zubaida, though video tape the evidence of this interrogation was one of those destroyed by the CIA.
• Mustafa Al Hawsawi - Also captured on March 1, 2003, in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
• Ammar al-Baluchi and Walid bin 'Attash - both captured in Karachi, Pakistan, in April, 2003.

None of these men, in other words, were caught on a battlefield or in the process of fighting against our troops. None of them were caught in Iraq or Afghanistan. None of them were caught in either of the official wars with actual countries. All of them, in fact, were caught by police and intelligence forces sort of like, well, criminals. In other words, to call them enemy combatants, one would have to apply the label very loosely--unless of course, the war on terror has no borders. In this case, the unprecedented thing is not that war crimes are being tried in a civilian court, but that the definition of war has been so tediously stretched that it barely resembles what it was meant to signify. The field of the war has become so ubiquitous that it is all a game in performative language--a game which is meant to make it legitimate to torture, run secret prisons, and deny people on trial access to the charges or evidence against them. Calling them "enemy combatants" is a ridiculous holdover from a (more obviously) corrupt set of agents.

This is precisely what the Bush administration asserted when it applied the label of "enemy combatants" to these prisoners, upon their transfer from previously undisclosed CIA secret prisons. This label is basically an executive order, meant to justify their being detained, but to prevent them from being able to claim the protection of the Geneva Conventions since they weren't lawful combatants. In this case, among the other technicalities (i.e. they weren't wearing uniforms) they weren't lawful combatants because they weren't actually engaged in a war, at least not in the classical sense. In fact, they were basically just criminal terrorists, who had, up until the Bush administrations, been dealt with through law enforcement channels such as police, FBI, courts, etc. Timothy McVeigh, the Lockerbie Pan Am bomber, and the people responsible for the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania were all dealt with as criminals through the so-called justice system (I bracket for a moment how or if this really worked and focus merely on the formal facts).

In other words, the current administration is not the one changing history; this trial only appears as a revision of the process because it had been so thoroughly perverted under the previous administration. What is amazing is that this isn't the response of Holder to this line of questioning. Why not say, "well no, we've never tried an Enemy Combatant in a US court, but then that definition was basically a fabrication of the previous administration so we're not dealing with a long period of time." Better yet, why not point out that, as of last March, the US government no longer honors this designation, something which Holder himself said at the time:

The Obama administration stopped calling Guantanamo inmates "enemy combatants" on Friday and incorporated international law as its basis for holding the prisoners while it works to close the facility.

The U.S. Justice Department filed court papers outlining a further legal and linguistic shift from the anti-terrorism policies of Republican President George W. Bush, which drew worldwide condemnation as violations of human rights and international law.

"As we work toward developing a new policy to govern detainees, it is essential that we operate in a manner that strengthens our national security, is consistent with our values, and is governed by law," U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.

Holder had, himself, played a part in redefining these prisoners as, well criminals. It baffles the mind that this wouldn't be his response. Yet he basically affirms not only the dispute Graham raises about the historical precedent but the idea that this is an attempt to, in Graham's words, "criminalize the war."

"We're making bad history here," Graham said. "The big problem I have is that you're criminalizing the war. ... I think you've made a fundamental mistake here."

Testifying for the first time on the decision, Holder delivered a point-by-point rebuttal to his critics who say he's treating the suspects with a "pre-9/11 mentality."

"I know that we are at war," Holder declared.

In other words, unlike the previous administration, which did everything in its power to construct an alternative reality, this one basically cowers in the face of that reality, acts as if the alteration didn't occur and we can simply pick up from where we were before it set about redefining what was legal and what laws applied to what. In the present case, this is pragmatically difficult since the evidence in many of these cases was obtained through questionable methods--perhaps the underlying fear many of the people involved in trying to bring this case to justice (or trying to prevent it from being brought to justice.) But if that is the case, the error isn't with the present administration for trying to bring it to trial but with the previous one for utterly failing to have any long term plan for how these people would be tried or punished. It seems as if their only plan was to leave them rotting in a dungeon in Cuba till they died, in a state of perpetual legal and political limbo--the ultimate state of exception. If they had thought about this in any length of time, they would have known they need to come up with an alternative plan--or a plan at all. Even using their perverted logic of denying them Geneva Conventions to begin with (so that they could torture them, etc.) ,after a person has been in custody for a certain length of time, they aren't going to yield much in the way of useful information: were they just supposed to sit there indefinitely with no one asking any questions? Just logistically, it is screwy. What was the plan? The fact that the current administration is going to have to go through all sorts of contortions to make this appear legal and just is not their fault or the fault of their choice of venue: it is because the previous administration had so little regard for not only the law, but the future administrations' burden of dealing with their mess. No one can dispute that the history being made is bad; it is just that this process began several years before.

What conservatives seem to be less interested in is the fact that the law isn't the law just because you say it is: people don't just listen to the law and obey because they respect authority as a source of power and repression. They listen to the law because, on some level, they believe it represents some higher process of legitimation. In the case of US law, this is because it supposedly guarantees due process. I agree that this is a bit of political theatre, but it is being done to reinstitute the belief in the law--a reasonable move for a lawyer president to do. The ideological process involved in this is a topic for another day, but needless to say their fetish of authority evidently only extends to certain people: now that there is a new president, it is evidently not important that they observe him with respect--or that they find it important that he try to establish his authority on the basis of law and justice rather than some crusty trust in old white men.

Hummer: the conclusion?

Following up from an essay I wrote long ago on the Hummer, A friend just passed along a link to the news that the Hummer brand will likely be sold to a Chinese company. At the jump, the article says:

General Motors Corp. has struck a deal to sell its Hummer truck unit to a Chinese industrial business, the two companies confirmed Tuesday.

Privately owned Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Company Ltd., based in China, will acquire the truck brand, which has been part of GM since 1999. Tengzhong said it plans to keep Hummer's management team.

The Chinese company are really just buying the trademark (i.e. the IP), just like GM did in 1999--though now with all the social improvements made to it through the process of cultural efficacy over the past decade (the Chinese corporation now owns all those little references you have to the H2). When GM made the H2, they just built it on a chassis for one of their trucks (I think the Tahoe). In other words, ultimately the only thing that is changing is the brand relationship. And in this case, the local cultural experts--the management of GM which always only in charge of the marketing and design of the more fashionable H2--are being kept on. So the real change is just who is going to supply the credit--and who will get the most profits. In this case, the Chinese corporation is now replicating the relationship of the Chinese state to the US treasury: supplying credit and expecting returns. The job losses the article mentions are from the closure of dealerships. And in that case, one could basically argue that the losses are the collapse of the move to make cars more consumer oriented--with a variety of brands that can supposedly identify with a particular consumer. On the other hand, this could be only the first of several purchases by Chinese corporations--Saab, Saturn, etc. could all get sold this way. It is a predictable way for them to move up the value chain quickly in the US and world market. Who knows, it might also be purchased by Chinese companies that already produce counterfeit cars or car parts.

And I don't know that GM ever made the Hummer (as opposed to the military Humvee) on its own; I think it always contracted with the company that originally made the Humvee of gulf war fame, which makes most of its money from making actual Humvees for the army.

So, contrary to the article, AM General makes most of the H2 and 3s, though on a contract from GM. It should be a more striking fact that, if all the arrangements remain the same, a Chinese company will be contracting with a company that primarily makes US military vehicles to make a supposedly civilian truck. From the article, it looks like the answer is to move all production of Hummers to Shreveport, where GM currently makes some of the H3s.

As part of the deal, some GM plants will continue to build the Hummer brand for the new owner, at least for awhile. The company said its Shreveport, La., plant will keep building Hummers for the new owner until at least 2010

But in the interim, it is likely that the US military contractor will help the Chinese with both the production in the meantime and the conversion in Shreveport. I point this out not because I'm trying to illuminate some traitorious relationship of the US government or US business, except in so far as I'm saying that it is always ultimately that. In other words, the main reason the government and capitalism work so closely is that the one is always the foundation of the other. My earlier essay pointed to this in the early development of both the Hummer and the consumer SUV. Now the difference is that capitalism is global--and capitalists in question are supposedly communist.

So in the future, not only will the communists lend us the money and sell us the rope with which we'll hang ourselves; but they will also have US workers produce that rope. One could say that this would be a final way to make the Communism global--by injecting its political economic power into the US like a virus. In other words, they will defeat the US by coopting it into their financial orbit. A few years ago, Barry Lynn speculated that the control over the world's labor supply would ultimately create monopoly control wielded by both Asian manufacturers and states.

If terrorists ever want to strike at the heart of American manufacturing, they need not sneak into Ohio to do so. More certain success, with more concentrated results, awaits along the industrial boulevards of Taiwan. And what of the Philippine colonel or Indonesian autocrat who one day wakes to find that the electronics industry, in its rational wisdom, has placed 80 percent of the world's chip-assembly, or even chip-testing, operations in his country? Must we now abide and buy off cranks such as Malaysia's Mahathir the way we must abide the Dos Santoses of the world and the families Saud? As our companies continue to scatter industrial capacity to the far comers of the globe, then to trim slack at home until they come to depend on that distant capacity, are we not witnessing the creation of a new strategic commodity like oil, control of which can be exploited to wrangle away our wealth and security? And once a country expropriates industrial capacity in this way would it not be able to use its influence to prevent the affected industry from ever building competing capacity elsewhere again?

I still think there is much that is correct about this--though, again without the nationalistic moralizing. My dissertation is largely centered around how IPR makes much of this possible. By making the IP the only thing that links US brands to US corporations, it is all the more likely that more production will be shipped overseas. In this way, the only thing keeping Lynn's nightmare from coming true would be the use of IP. But what Lynn neglects to note is that this relationship would supposedly be limited by the fact that the consumers for those products would be predominantly located in the US--thus the Taiwanese producer would find little joy in owning a plant to produce cars that were mostly purchased by US consumers unless it could also guarantee the legal sale of its products to those US consumers. The key relationship, therefore, was between the capitalist and the state protection of IP and trade.

I imagined that the situation would ultimately result in the closure of US plants, but lately Asian corps are setting up shop in US to buld cars they will ultimately sell to the US. In this, the capital relationship proves to be equally mobile in the opposite direction. THe fixed equipment of the US might be put right back to work--provided there is transnational control over US labor standards--using Chinese capital and to the benefit of the continued stockholders in these companies, many of which would be US citizens as well. In short, far from the divisive relationship predicted by Lynn, China would not hold the US hostage by withholding labor; instead, China and its Communist government would coopt US labor (much like US car corporations did in the 1940s) and much of US society. It would never need to build up its military or engage in a top down revolution: it would simply own more and more of the world's capital and therefore eventually be able to dictate the labor standards. I have no illusions about how many legs are good or bad (in this case, it's hard to tell if there are any pigs involved) but it is an interesting scenario which would provide the Chinese government--which could probably nationalize any of these companies and their capital and labor supplies at any time--with an amazing lever over the future development of US industry. They would never need to fire a shot. IP, therefore, would prove to be an unlikely pivot to having the Chinese state gain control of US society. On the other hand, this replays the xenophobic debates in the 90s about the Japanese owning the US, so I wouldn't want to push it too far.

I will have to review my Arrighi, but there is surely something in the pattern of capitalist development here--he touches on the Japanese connection in Long Twentieth Century, but I have yet to read his new book on China. (something here about venitians, Dutch or Spain not having their own army.) On the other hand, as I understand it, the Russian mafia is supposedly integral to the trade in conuterfeit goods (discussion I'm hoping to follow on in looking at the book McMafia). These organizations might be willing to pony up some money if it meant buying a legitimate US shop for really cheap. But I don't know how strong that brick of the BRIC is in this great wall.

On tea parties

Can't really say much about the tea party stuff at this point since I haven't had any time outside of the major project of the "Title Pending" above, but Thom Hartmann had a good column on the actual event that centered on this fact I hadn't heard of (or had forgotten.)

The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the BEIC pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.

In this sense, it is the G-20 protesters who better represent the spirit of that revolt--making Glenn Beck's attempt at disparaging the latter (by comparing them to Lenin and Stalin) telling. Of course he also compares them to the actual communist revolution, in which case I guess he's right--though I wish the comparison was less unequivocally understood in our culture.

back to it...