Suggested Answers to the Short Quiz

Post Reply
johnkarls
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Suggested Answers to the Short Quiz

Post by johnkarls »

.
Suggested Answers to the Short Quiz


My apologies to anyone who does NOT believe this Quiz is “fair and balanced” which it probably is NOT because (1) How Everything Became War is the best book Yours Truly has read in many years, and (2) the author’s knowledge and her ability to frame issues in easy-to-understand “law school style” fashion was, for Yours Truly, Champagne for the Soul!!! Even when you disagree with her, it is easy to pinpoint why.


***************
First Important Subject -- Drones

Question 1

Does our author list the advantages of drones (pp. 111-112) as being cheaper than the alternatives (manned air flights, covert ops, etc.), as having less domestic political cost, and as entailing less collateral damage?

Answer 1

Yes.

Question 2

Is the obvious drawback that the target is killed so that it is not possible to obtain any intelligence from interrogating the target?

Answer 2

Yes.

Question 3

Is our author’s statistic (p. 60) regarding Guantanamo Bay that only 45% of the detainees have been determined to have committed any hostile acts against the U.S. or its allies surprising? After all, aren’t there zillions of historical examples (Spanish Inquisition, East German Stasi, etc., etc.) in which many of the people being denounced were reported by romantic rivals, professional rivals, etc., and were not guilty at all of the acts being reported about them?

Answer 3

No, her statistic is NOT surprising (at least to Yours Truly).

Yes, false denunciations for ulterior motives have been a historical constant.

Question 4

So why does our author think that our “kill lists” for drone strikes are not similarly infected?

Answer 4

Technically, our author does not opine on this point.

God only knows why she wouldn’t address the issue and admit the problem!!!

Question 5

Does our author note (p. 271-3) the assassination IN WASHINGTON DC by Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet of a political opponent, and the assassination IN LONDON by Russian President Vladimir Putin of a political dissident?

Answer 5

Yes.

Question 6

Does our author posit that there is little difference between these assassinations and American drone assassinations?

Answer 6

Yes.

Question 7

That, in other words, instead of car bombs in Washington DC and radioactive poisoning in London, we should expect foreign drone strikes in Washington DC and London?

Answer 7

Yes.

Question 8

After all (comment of Yours Truly), couldn’t drones originating from international waters reach Washington DC or London within a matter of minutes? And if they have “stealth technology” to avoid detection, would there be any defense?

Answer 8

Yes, within a matter of minutes.

And no, presumably no defense to stealth technology.

Question 9

Have we set a dangerous precedent? Was/is it worthwhile?

Answer 9

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!


***************
II. Second Important Issue -- Indefinite (Permanent?) Detention of Enemy Combatants at Guantanamo

Question 10

Does our author imply that everyone detained at Guantanamo was sufficiently harmless so that President Obama’s goal of closing Guantanamo was realistic?

Answer 10

Yes.

Question 11

Does our author even mention Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (“KSM”), the mastermind of 9/11?

Answer 11

No.

Question 12

Why was KSM never prosecuted?

Answer 12

God only knows!!!

Question 13

Did President Obama, shunning military tribunals, prosecute at least one terrorist in a U.S. court in what turned out to be a “show trial”?

Answer 13

Yes.

Question 14

Did the “show trial” turn out to be a fiasco because the evidence had been obtained by enhanced interrogation techniques applied to OTHER PRISONERS to which the Obama Administration claimed THE DEFENDANT had no right to object and the federal trial judge, before ruling the evidence inadmissible, asked the Obama Administration whether the defendant would be released if acquitted, to which the Obama Administration replied -- “Of course not!!!”???

Answer 14

Yes.

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was brought in June 2009 from Guantanamo by the Obama Administration to be prosecuted in Federal District Court in NYC for his participation in the nearly-simultaneous 8/7/1998 bombings by Al-Qaeda of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in which 224 people were killed and more than 4,000 wounded.

We studied this case in depth on two occasions – (1) our 12/15/2010 meeting on the topic of “The U.S. Government’s ‘Kill List’ To Assassinate [By Drone] U.S. Citizens in Yemen,” and (2) our 2/6/2013 meeting on the topic of “John Brennan’s Nomination To Head The CIA.”

The reported reason why the Obama Administration risked acquittal on all 285 criminal charges against Mr. Ghailani was the Obama Administration’s refusal to permit the court to define “torture” as a predicate for ruling on whether evidence against Mr. Ghailani obtained from “enhanced interrogation techniques” AGAINST OTHER GUANTANAMO PRISONERS would be admissible.

[The Obama Administration argued that Mr. Ghailani had no right to object to evidence obtained FROM OTHER PRISONERS using EIT and, consequently, it was unnecessary to define “torture.”]

Thereupon the Federal District Judge asked the Obama Administration whether Mr. Ghailani would be released if acquitted.

To which the Obama Administration famously replied -- “Of course not”!!!

Following which the Federal District Judge ruled the evidence obtained from other prisoners using EIT was inadmissible.

And Mr. Ghailani was acquitted on 11/17/2010 on 284 of 285 criminal counts, most of which were for murder.

He was convicted on only a single count for conspiracy.

However, Mr. Ghailani was given a “life sentence” which he is still serving.

BTW, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirmed on TV on Sunday 11/21/2010 that Mr. Ghailani would NOT have been released even if he had been acquitted on all 285 charges.

Question 15

What should be done with, for example, KSM who still resides at Guantanamo?

Answer 15

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

BTW, in our discussion we should take into account the 2013 article in Vol. 88 New York University Law Review pp. 801-877 by The Hon. Karen Nelson Moore, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit entitled “Madison Lecture: Aliens and the Constitution” which (pp. 833-834) with the help of zillions of citations contained in 4 footnotes, concludes that (1) the U.S. Supreme Court has never addressed the question of whether the Constitutional (Art. VI) right to a “speedy trial” applies to aliens, (2) the Circuit Courts have shunned answering it, and (3) only a handful (at most) of Federal District Courts have done so. The only District Court case she cites involved a considerable delay before the Defendant was brought to the U.S. and the Court held that “speedy” is only measured from the time the Defendant is first brought to the U.S.

However, a trial court decision is hardly dispositive.

Moreover, the only reason why KSM (who was captured 3/1/2003 in Pakistan by the CIA and imprisoned at Guantanamo at least from January 2006) has not been brought to the U.S. so that the “speedy” measurement would commence, is that the U.S. Government itself has held him outside the U.S. since 3/1/2003. Which was NOT true in the Federal District Court case that held that “speedy” is only measured from the time the Defendant is first brought to the U.S.

So everyone should be prepared to answer at least the threshold Q of whether KSM should be released.

And to answer the ultimate “law school style” question which has been posed by Yours Truly vis-à-vis our “drone” discussions over the years – “What’s to prevent us from dropping KSM off in a deserted area of Afghanistan (from which, after all, KSM’s 9/11 attacks originated) and then immediately zap him with a drone strike???”


***************
III. Third Important Issue -- The Law of War; The Law of Self Defense Per United Nations Charter Article 51

Question 16

Does our author spend considerable time throughout her book discussing the Law of War and its peculiarities?

Answer 16

Yes.

Question 17

For example, does our author say (p. 275) that the Law of Self Defense per U.N. Charter Art. 51 entails, inter alia, the concept that any counter action taken should be “proportional” to the attack?

Answer 17

Yes.

Question 18

Is “proportionality” a wise restraint? After all, how can attacks be deterred if the malfeasors know that the response can only be “proportional”?

Answer 18

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 19

Did Yours Truly attend as an undergraduate in the early 1960’s a presentation by a world-famous guest lecturer who claimed that wars “can never happen in the future” because his research demonstrated that groups love their own members EIGHT TIMES as much, on average, as they might hate other groups they might attack?

Answer 19

Yes.

The world-famous lecturer did visit our campus and describe such research.

However, as you have probably guessed, he was a world-famous PSYCHOLOGIST who should never have tried to address such a political issue (please see Q&A-20).

So I will not tarnish his memory by naming him.

Question 20

Did the Guest Lecturer have no answer to Yours Truly in the Q&A period regarding why the Guest Lecturer was ignoring things that would spark a war, such as accidents (which the victims perceive as intentional), irrational acts, deniable interference by malicious third-parties who want the first two parties to fight, etc., so now the Guest Lecturer’s “love/hate ratio” would act in reverse to virtually guarantee a brutal war that expands at an exponential rate of EIGHT?

Answer 20

Yes.


***************
IV. Fourth Important Issue – Military Personnel Taking Over State Department Civilian Functions

Question 21

Does our author at various points present this as a problem?

Answer 21

Yes.

Question 22

Does she suggest that the State Dept civilians are better prepared/trained for such missions as implementing traditional foreign-aid programs?

Answer 22

Yes.

Question 23

Does she suggest that local populations are less suspicious of, and more grateful for, traditional foreign-aid programs implemented by State Dept civilians?

Answer 23

Yes.

Question 24

Does history contain zillions of examples where political opponents have simply stenciled with spray paint on American foreign-aid supplies -- “Gift of [American opponent]”?

Answer 24

Yes.

Question 25

Why does our author seem to think that State Dept personnel are gifted and military personnel are nincompoops?

Answer 25

God only knows!!!

Question 26

Does our author overlook the potential advantage that traditional foreign-aid projects and military protection can be better coordinated if both are performed by the military?

Answer 26

So it would appear.

Question 27

Does the military comprise an infinitely-superior solution in situations of grave danger, such as constructing medical facilities and providing medical help during the 2014 Ebola Crisis in West Africa -- since military personnel can simply be ordered to do such things whereas civilian personnel can refuse and, if necessary, quit?

Answer 27

Absolutely!!!


***************
V. Fifth Important Issue -- Origins of Countries; Failed States; Etc.

Question 28

Does our author have a good grip on how countries outside Europe and except for ancient civilizations such as China, are NOT real countries but rather mere inventions of colonial powers that were made with no regard to the disparate groups that were lumped together into single "countries" and the groups, each of which was divided among two or more "countries"?

Answer 28

Yes.

Question 29

Does our author refrain from criticizing the Obama Administration for creating a Failed State in Libya which we, at the time, predicted in such voluminous detail?

[Please see the 18 postings 3/21/2011 - 5/24/2011 which have attracted 3,946 views to date (1,268 before our meeting and 2,678 subsequently as of the time of this writing) and which comprised the “Original Proposal” for our 2/8/2012 meeting on “Real Politik (aka National Interest) and Libya vs. Iran” – the 18 postings can be found in the “Original Proposal” section for our 2/8/2012 meeting on http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org.]

Answer 29

Yes.

Question 30

Does our author also refrain from criticizing the Obama Administration for permitting Syria to become a Failed State when so little would have been required to topple the ruling Alawites when Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and Robert Gates as Defense Secretary (among many others) recommended doing so?

Answer 30

Yes.

Question 31

BTW, does our author subscribe to the notion of American historians that Germany did not exist before 1871 because a democracy can NOT be a country?

Answer 31

Yes.

Though this needs some explanation.

There is posted on http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org a “Meeting Report” for last month’s meeting (it is posted in the “Discussion Outline” section for our 5/10/2017 meeting) in which George Kunath had occasion in a “Reply” to the “Report” to refer about Yours Truly to --

“your reading (in addition to your ‘day job’ as an attorney) approximately 500 historical tomes and biographies during your 33 years of marriage to the co-author of the nation’s leading high-school world-history textbook for the purpose of presenting to your wife important but overlooked nuggets for possible inclusion in the next of the 6 editions that her textbook underwent during your marriage. [Since "old dogs do not learn new tricks, there have been an additional 400 historical tomes and biographies since the gavel went down in 2000.} ”

During those 33 years, I was always incredulous that Western historians (including my wife) always opined that Germany did NOT exist as a “country” prior to 1871!!!

So what was it prior to 1871???

The area that Western historians do not recognize as a “country” until 1871 was essentially The Holy Roman Empire (hereinafter “HRE”) which had existed for 1,000 years!!!

[Indeed, Adolf Hitler always referred to his regime as “The 1,000-Year Reich” but Western Historians usually call it “The Third Reich.” Why “third”??? The “first” was the Roman Empire which lasted 1,000 years and the “second” was the HRE which also lasted 1,000 years. So Western historians, from the outset, called Hitler’s Reich “Third” rather than “1,000-year” because they didn’t want anyone to lose heart following Hitler’s becoming German Chancellor in 1933, that his Reich would last 1,000 years.]

But why don’t Western historians regard the HRE as a “country”???

My wife who was the co-author of the nation’s leading high-school world-history textbook for 33 years, was always embarrassed by her/their answer whenever I kidded her about it!!!

Because it was NOT ruled by a hereditary king!!!

Instead, whenever a Holy Roman Emperor passed away, the components (which were similar to the states of the United States) ELECTED a new emperor.

Indeed, this is STILL TRUE of the United States which has an Electoral College in which each of the 50 states casts its votes for President.

The only real difference between the HRE and the U.S. is that with the election of each new Emperor, a small handful of states might or might not secede from the HRE, and a small handful of states might or might not join the HRE.

That is the reason why the HRE (essentially Germany) could NOT be considered a “country” before 1871.

Because it was a democracy!!!

Question 32

And BTW, does our author turn a blind eye to the meaning of Lufthansa?

Answer 32

She doesn’t mention it.

Though “turn a blind eye” might be too severe.

Question 33

Was Germany’s flagship airlines since 1953 named for Luft (German for air or sky) and Hansa -- the designation for each of the zillions of members of the Hanseatic League that dominated from the 15th to the 19th century Belgium, Holland, Northern Germany and the Baltic Sea all the way to St. Petersburg?

Answer 33

Yes.

It is interesting that feudalism which dominated medieval Europe, was agrarian based.

Whereas the Hanseatic League was organized by the merchants.

BTW, German license plates for cars registered in Hanover still begin with “HH” in a special font -- “HH” stands for Hansa-Stadt Hanover.


***************
VI. Sixth Important Issue -- The U.N Security Council vs. the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS)

Question 34

Has the U.N. Security Council FAILED to prevent zillions of atrocities because of the veto power wielded by China and Russia/Soviet Union?

Answer 34

Yes.

Question 35

Does our author (beginning on p. 245) describe how in the wake of Kosovo, the Canadian Government convened ICISS?

Answer 35

Yes.

Question 36

Did ICISS decide that, contrary to pre-existing international tradition of ignoring the treatment by sovereign states of their own citizens, sovereignty carries with it a RESPONSIBILITY to protect the human rights of its citizens?

Answer 36

Yes.

Question 37

Did ICISS also decide that sovereignty carries with it a RESPONSIBILITY to prevent internal groups from attacking other countries or groups within other countries?

Answer 37

Yes.

Question 38

Was this latter principle already on display when “coalitions of the willing” (such as NATO) decided to take action despite an actual or threatened veto in the U.N. Security Council?

Answer 38

Yes.

Question 39

Are ICISS principles preferable to the inaction by the U.N. Security Council?

Answer 39

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 40

Are both preferable to unilateral action? What about our 79 Tomahawk missiles that were fired recently against the Syrian Government’s chemical-weapons facilities?

Answer 40

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!


***************
VII. Seventh Important Issue -- Non-Defense Benefits of Defense Department Technology

Question 41

Have economists often chronicled how much, if not most, of current human technology resulted from military research which turned out to also have civilian applications?

Answer 41

Yes.

Question 42

Does our author describe (p. 139) a NON-LETHAL weapon that causes human beings to flee a particular area (similarly in concept, though not similar technology, to how a pet can be restrained from leaving an area with an electronic collar)?

Answer 42

Yes.

Question 43

Would this non-lethal weapon be a good substitute for police with regard to domestic crowd control?

Answer 43

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 44

Does a companion non-lethal weapon enable the “painting” of individuals who have penetrated a particular area with invisible traces of a small number of harmless particles? Would this be useful with respect to tracking participants in riots that, for example, resulted in the death of innocent bystanders?

Answer 44

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 45

BTW, does our author have a lengthy description (pp. 134-139) of “killer robots” and opine that she has more confidence in the “decisions” that would be made by properly-programmed “killer robots” than the decisions that would have been made by military personnel?

Answer 45

Yes.


***************
VIII. Frivolous Issue -- The Marine Corps Hymn

Question 46

Has our author, however inadvertently, proved that the first four lines of the famous “Marine Corps Hymn” ARE WRONG???

Answer 46

Please read on.

Question 47

Are the first four lines – “From the Halls of Montezuma – To The Shores of Tripoli – We fight our country’s battles – In the air, on land, and sea”?

Answer 47

Yes.

Question 48

Does our author report (p. 47) that the last American warship from the Revolutionary War against Britain was sold by Congress in 1785?

Answer 48

Yes.

Question 49

Does our author explain that prior to the Revolutionary War, American shipping was protected from the notorious pirates of North Africa’s Barbary States by the British fleet?

Answer 49

Yes.

Question 50

And protected during the Revolutionary War by the French fleet?

Answer 50

Yes.

Question 51

BTW, was the French fleet responsible for the American victory in the Revolutionary War because Lord Cornwallis knew immediately upon reaching Yorktown VA and seeing that the Chesapeake Bay was blockaded by the French fleet, that he had no choice (for lack of re-supply) but to surrender -- and George Washington, whom he had been chasing south for years (and whose name, ever since the French and Indian War, had been routinely invoked in the British Parliament whenever anyone wanted to describe someone as a nincompoop), was the “nearest offensive player” who got the credit?

Answer 51

Yes.

George Washington did lead a Virginia militia in support of the British Colonies against the French in the so-called “French and Indian War.”

[France had hemmed in the British colonies by linking its Quebec and Louisiana colonies with a string of fortified settlements along the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers.]

George Washington ignored approximately half-a-dozen recommendations of Britain’s Native-American allies and ignoring each of them contributed to an unmitigated military disaster. Following which the Native-Americans switched sides and supported the French.

Which is why, for more than a decade between the French and Indian War and the American Revolutionary War, whenever a British MP wanted to call someone a nincompoop, the MP would call the nincompoop “a George Washington”!!!

The only reason why Washington became the leader of “The Continental Army” despite his incompetence was that following “The Boston Tea Party,” the northern colonies were desperate to get the remaining American colonies to join the revolution.

And incompetent Washington was the price that had to be paid.

And yes, Washington did virtually nothing but retreat until Lord Cornwallis was forced to surrender because of the blockade of the Chesapeake Bay by the French fleet.

Question 52

So does our author report that because of all the ransom that had to be paid to the Barbary Pirates, Congress finally approved the Naval Act of 1794 providing funds for 6 new ships?

Answer 52

Yes.

Question 53

And does our author report that in 1801, President Thomas Jefferson sent 4 of the 6 new ships to fight the Pirates of the Barbary States (Morocco, Tunis, Algeria and Tripoli) WITHOUT Congressional approval MUCH LESS A DECLARATION OF WAR?

Answer 53

Yes.

Question 54

Does our author report that Tripoli held out until 1805 when Derna, the capital of its Eastern Province, was conquered by EIGHT U.S. MARINES and several hundred mercenaries invading Tripoli from Egypt?

Answer 54

She does report that Tripoli held out until 1805.

However, she does not explain that the Barbary State of Tripoli surrendered because of the fall of Derna to 8 marines and several hundred mercenaries invading the Barbary State of Tripoli from Egypt.

Question 55

Is 12/8/1941, the day after Pearl Harbor, the last time America bothered with the Constitutional Requirement to Declare War?

Answer 55

It is true that the United States has NOT bothered with the Constitutional Requirement to Declare War since World War II.

And it is true that FDR, who was desperate to join the war against Nazi Germany, was able to force the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor.

[The U.S. had not only enacted an embargo against the Japanese of “scrap metal” which is the only thing most American history textbooks mention. But more importantly the embargo extended to oil & gas and the Japanese Empire ran on Indonesian oil & gas, 100% of which was owned by Chevron & Texaco. So even though Indonesia was still a Dutch colony and Holland had long since been overrun by the Nazis, Chevron and Texaco were still in charge of Indonesian oil & gas, and they were subject to U.S. law. There are interesting historical tomes that describe how Japanese Naval Chief Isoroku Yamamoto (a Harvard B.A.) advised the other members of the War Cabinet that invading Indonesia without first destroying the American fleet at Pearl Harbor stood a 0% chance of success, but that there were six (count them six) reasons why an attack on Pearl Harbor stood only a 1% chance of success and, accordingly, unless Japan was willing to call off the 10-year “Rape of China”, 1% was greater than 0%!!!]

So yes, on 12/8/1941, the day after Pearl Harbor, the U.S. declared war on Japan.

However, FDR got his wish!!!

On 12/11/1941, Japan’s Axis allies, German & Italy, declared war on the U.S.

And later on 12/11/1941, the U.S. declared war on Germany and Italy.

But even this was not the last U.S. war declaration.

On 11/8/1942, the U.S. declared war on France (which was governed by a Nazi puppet regime at Vichy).


Question 56

So did President Thomas Jefferson start an American tradition in 1801 that the Constitutional Requirement of a Declaration of War is NOT necessary if, instead, the President orders it?

Answer 56

So it would appear.

Question 57

And was the war against the Barbary Pirates NOT one of “our country’s battles” (but rather an unconstitutional private escapade)?

Answer 57

So it would appear.

Question 58

Which would make the Marine Corps Hymn WRONG if Tripoli was NOT one of “our country’s battles”?

Answer 58

So it would appear.


***************
IX. Other Issues???

Post Reply

Return to “Participant Comments - How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything by Rosa Brooks – June 7”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest