a right royal state of affairs

Having been subjected to the whole palaver of the “will & kate” wedding, and also listening currently to some lectures on the US and French revolutions, I’m not exactly in a favourable mood to royalty at the moment, so had mixed feelings about the Queen’s visit to Ireland.

First of all let me make clear that I don’t harbor a grudge against the British (specifically the English) , since they are not individually responsible for the previous acts of their country, nor have I any issue with Britain itself, since while as an enduring entity it does have ownership of prior deeds, it has not only stopped it’s policies against us, but does and has done many things for our benefit (stopping the Nazis being the most notable, while we could cower in protected neutrality).

So if this was a state visit, by the Prime Minister, then I would consider it nothing but a good thing, a normal act between neighbours. The problem is, as Sir Humphrey might say, a question of hats, specifically a pointy metal one. Although the Queen is the head of state, she also is the living embodiment and defender of the institution of British Royalty. Now while royals from anywhere will always get my goat up, and might be welcomed as irrelevant wasters but still treated as guests, a lot of the worst things that happened in Ireland could be blamed more on the British royals than the British state. Not the invasions, or occupation, or taking of resources, or even the lasses faire cruelty in the famine, which could have been done by any state with any government, but the anti-catholic measures which were a direct result of the English crown wanting to remain protestant, and which inflicted the most objectionable hardships on Ireland, and sowed the seeds for a lot of the sectarian troubles that have racked the land ever since.

Since for most of our history ,catholic and Irish were pretty much synonymous, then I think the royal family, as distinct from the British state, have a specific debt and guilt when it comes to Ireland, which is why I think there’s something wrong about the Queen’s visit, unless it’s accompanied by acts of apology not for the acts of Britain, but the ideology of the crown that drove those acts. The problem is, there has been to my knowledge no symbolic renunciation of that ideology, and until there is I find it very out of place that the defender of that tradition, should lay a wreath for those who fought (and would still fight) against that tradition. Perhaps a slightly stretched analogy would be if a German chancellor were to lay a wreath at the cenotaph, without Germany having acknowledged that it was in the wrong in WWII. It’s not that countries can’t honour each other’s dead – I see no problem in paying tribute to dead german soldiers, since even though they fought for an evil cause, in most cases they were just swept along by that cause. But if the cause is not denounced, then the tribute is meaningless - the crown is on the one hand honouring people killed , but since the reasons behind the killing are not dealt with, in principle they’d be killed again if necessary, which defeats the purpose of it.

No one seems to mention that the hypocrisy with having the head of an insitution which explicitly discriminates against catholics, visit a catholic country, and express "sympathy" with the problems her insitution caused for them through said discrimination.

Ultimately all that’s needed is a symbolic act of contrition and denunciation of the tradition that caused ireland’s problems, but none seems forthcoming. On the contrary , the British Royalty preserves the rule that forbids a catholic ascending to the throne, then it would seem that the tradition lives on unchanged.

Of course there is pragmatism too, and in principle it is good and important that Britain and Ireland can focus on current and future partnership, and base our relation on that and not harking back to the unchangeable grievances of the past, and since that was probably the intention of the whole visit then there is a lot to be said for it. But if the Queen, who people praise always for handling things so well, and being so dignified etc. etc. really was dedicated to that mission, then surely she could make some form of apology for the 2nd institution she represents? Royals want to inherit by birth the rights and powers of the predecessors, but that means they also inherit their sins and responsibilities. Hat’s off to the queen, but only if she acknowledges the one she’s wearing.

terminate, with extreme prejudice

That apparently is the US army euphemism for assassination, and given that prejudice is never held to be a good thing, it would seem to be a self-condemning label. And in general it is, since extra-judicial killings while not only being outside of the workings of the courts, can easily be beyond the realm of justice as well, devoid as they are from the normal safeguards and procedures on which the rule of law depends.

So was the killing of an unarmed Bin Laden an assasination? And if it was, was it justified? It's interesting that the event came in the same week as Nato bombed a compound of Gadaffi's, killing his son in what was obviously an attempt to kill Gadaffi himself. Are the cases any different, or both ,or one, or neither justified?

While few people would mourn either's demise, I think Bin Laden would for sure receive least sympathy. Here was the self-confessed, proud perpetrator of an act which killed thousands of innocent people, and who remained a dangerous threat to society. Surely he would have been convicted easily, and would have received the death penalty in the US - so if both judgement and sentence were foregone conclusions, could it be so wrong to just take him out?

Gadaffi on the other hand is the head of state, and in principle the conflict there is a war between the Libyan state and NATO forces. But the very fact that the attacks on the sovereign country are to prevent 'war crimes' surely means the rules of war must be applied, and specifically the rules , i.e. the UN resolution, by which the war is being justified in international law. To put it in context, while no one considers it a war crime for Gadaffi to fire on Nato planes (just stupidity), I am sure he would go from leader to terrorist very rapidly if he somehow managed to successfully fire a scud (or whatever he uses) into 10 Downing Street or (miraculously) the White House. But if it's war, then surely the same rules apply to both sides?

Of course they must, and I think it highlights just what a paradoxical idea the notion of 'rules of war' is. The problem is, some rules are justified, but they can't operate independently of the grounds for the war itself. You can't have an unjust war fought justly, and neither can a war that is fought unjustly, ever be just. I believe there are unfortunately times when war is necessary, to preserve human life and rights, but the ends can never out rank the means - it is not morally coherent to kill civilians to save civilians, to trample human rights to further human rights. Of course war is always going to be bloody, so some utilitarian calculus will need to apply, but the whole point of rights is they can't be simply totted up and compared - the rights of each individual always count for something. This is what I think went wrong with the Iraq war - the allies were blind to the possibility, and then the reality, that the cure while not being anyway was bad as the disease, was similar to it - and not just abstractly (the general suffering and death unleashed) but also sometimes specifically - e.g. when Saddam's torture facility Abu Ghraib became infamous under it's new ownership. And this is what made it questionable - the very things that justified the war, arose in different forms because of it.

On the other hand though, if the war is justified, then I also believe there's no point being restrictive about what one can and can't do. War is war, and if necessary, then there can be no half measures - since it if justified at all then has to be completed, and completed quickly. Thus, in my view, if it's ok to kill the soldier manning the gun, then it's coherent to consider it ok to kill the commander whose order keep him there, or the leader who planned it. In fact, the commanders and leaders, since they have more power and possibility to change the situation, are in fact more culpable than the solder who is following orders. In addition, taking out 1 leader involves less bloodshed and would have more effect then taking out 10 commanders or 100 grunts.

So in fact far from being beyond the fringe in war, i think targeted assassinations are not just acceptable but even preferable, given that they have to involve less collateral damage and overall death than a clash of armies.

So I think they should be targetting Gadaffi, and I hope for everyone's sakes, the rebels, the civilians and even his soldiers, that they get him.

But what about Bin Laden? My own personal view is that if he was really just a criminal, then it would have been wrong to assassinate him, since it must be society that deals with criminals, not armies and not politicians. And crucial to the justice of society is that it follows procedure, since it is what holds the entire edifice together, and the whole is worth the occasional inefficiencies of some of its parts. But he claimed himself to be a 'at war' with the West, so surely then the rules of war apply, and make him fair game.

And even if he didn't claim to be a 'soldier' , the crucial difference between a terrorist leader and a criminal, is the terrorist leads an organization, which magnifies his intent, like Gadaffi and his army. And from this perspective, taking out the leader is again the best option, morally and practically.

Finally, it might not have been a pure assassination at all. It has been said that given the risk of him having a vest bomb to take some US troops with him (not so unlikely given the fact that he was prepared enough for an assault to have a 'getaway' robe with cash sewn into it) then the orders were to take no risks , and to kill him if 'he's not naked'. This I think would be completely justified, and a whole lot more responsible and just of the Americans than dropping a bomb from a B2 bomber.

So he's gone, and it was a good riddance. But of course we shouldn't rejoice about anyone being killed, just relieved he's gone. And just to be sure, once the initial debate has died down, let's keep him gone by denying him 'the oxygen of publicity' even in death, especially now he's under water.

society settling scores

So they got Osama. Think the only proper response is - about time. While killing him will make probably very little difference to world affairs, indeed in the short run might actually result in some retaliatory terrorist attacks, it needed to be done, and it was unbelievable it took so long.

Satisfaction on some form of justice having been done is definitely in order - but celebration? I guess in the US especially it's more a release of pent up frustration, and maybe an eruption of the a hope that maybe the new and dangerous world has been somehow put back in balance, but unfortunately this isn't the case; the world is as dangerous as it was before OBL met his demise, and if it is to change for the better, then the needed causes would have effect even if he was still around. Osama rode a wave of a certain type of feeling, and while he may have for a while acted as a focus for it's crystalization, it was always bigger than him - arising of it's own, and maybe even dissipating on it's own, neither raised nor subdued by any one man or group.

To celebrate is to be rejoice about something positive, something above the normal, but removing one mad dog from the world is not a plus, it is simply the cancelling of a minus, and it's a sad state of affairs if the only hope we can look forward to, is the removal of fear. It also isn't the most moral or ethical of reactions- since it shows the whole event is more about revenge, than justice. A society settling its scores rather than settling matters.

But while we shouldn't get carried away, either for practical or ethical reasons, the event still does count for something in both domains. Practically, it does show something that such a criminal is eventually hunted down, despite his connections and wealth. And ethically, while it has to be held in check, I think there is something telling about the need for revenge, the human drive for pure punishment, and not just justice. Rationally looked at, as long as Osama couldn't hurt anyone anymore, and his treatment served as an example to others, then we shouldn't really care what happens him, since the point of our rule of law is mainly to preserve and protect. And of course, a civilized society needs to make this the main pillar of our legal system. But to look at it just in these terms is to miss something. It overlooks the effect not on the culprit, or even on the victim, but on all those who are technically uninvolved, but still on the victim's side. For a moral society to work, these people, who might otherwise be 'disinterested' need to be made emotionally involved. And it is the desire for punishment, to inflict discomfort on those who violate the rules, that I think is the evolved mechanism which allows this involvment. It is of course based in a sense of righteousness, but coupled with a crucial desire for action, and this relies on triggering I think our most basic 'fight' response.

The problem of course is, this powerful and necessary fuel, needs to be kept in check, since otherwise can lead to the uncontrollable barbary of mob justice and vigilantism. And seeing people rejoice in crowds about the killing of another human being, while maybe necessary in this case as a release valve, and as an indicator of that retributive glue that can bind a society together, is somehow disconcerting. When passions are inflamed by the idea of justice, and revenge, then care is needed that things don't get out of hand.

So i have no problem with raising my glass to the death of such a cruel and insane individual, but only as a mark of respect to the forces for good that could put a stop to him. But celebrate? celebrate that there are such people in the world, even if now one less? Surely we've more to be glad of than that...

Free wiki

My views on the wiki leaks affair are  hardening I think. First of all, I think my initial comments of the diplomatic cables as being almost gossip were partially misplaced, since there do seem to be some very important issues touched upon, for example covert operations in Afghanistan, and cruise missile attacks involving civilians in Yemen. These in themselves I think qualify the leaks as true "whistle blowing" , and this I think justifies both wiki leaks itself and the various papers for carrying them.

Furthermore, once the worth of the information in general is shown, then this also counters the gossip charge: this is an important leak and hence all aspects of it are "fair game". This second point is I admit debatable, but I think there is difference to a situation where there was no public interest issues raised and it was just pure miscellaneous chatter.

However, what seems to becoming more important now is not the right or wrongness of the leak itself, but what the reactions to it mean for free speech in a connected world. As has been pointed out, a large part of our modern "discussion space" is in the virtual world, and relies on a supporting structure whose roles and practices haven't yet been properly scrutinized. Previously, we knew what was meant by "the media", and importantly, it did too. Of course not that it consisted solely of, or was even dominated by, venerable trustworthy institutions, but at least it was clear what it meant to be venerable and trustworthy, and whether they followed it or not, most networks and papers at least paid lip service to the ideals of a "good" press. Censorship, bias and inaccuracy were thus labels they at least claimed to care about, and in general tried to avoid.

However now the media world is more fragmented and decentralized, with blogs, websites and databases now being important new players. It was always apparent  that these small operations, being so numerous and easy to setup, inevitably diluted the media space with sources and opinions which posed problems for corroboration and responsibility, but this was a price with paying for the expansion in content and comment which came with it; however, now it is coming to light that the very structure which facilitates this expansion in freedom of expression also puts it at risk. This new media, precisely because it consists of small time operations whose only focus is providing news, relies on other entities, with different priorities, to deliver that news, and therein lies the problem. The new "free speech" is dependent on the likes of Amazon, who have no duty as such to protect it.  They grant the "small man" enormous support, but it comes with catch all agreement clauses which allow immediate revocation without reason or recourse.  In this case the driving pressure seems to be political, but the vulnerability applies to other situations as well. If a hosting company doesn't like what you're using its services to say, or you're causing it problems for some reason or other, then it can boot you with very little comeback.

In the past suppression came from governments, who had the means to enforce it. But in democracies at least they needed to have reasons as well. But now the power lies with the market at large, and the unpredictable and often irrational forces at play in it, and these might be harder to combat. And of course as this particular shows, government interference has not gone away, and can now also try to use these new elements to its advantage. Whither the wiki world? Hard to tell...

Posted from phone via Blogaway (so excuse any typos!)

Wiki wars

(btw, these are my first few posts using the "swype" input method on my phone, and while really impressed by it, still takes some getting used to ; so if there some odd word choices, or obvious non-sequiters, them it's probably to blame!)

Definitely the major current affairs topic at the moment is wiki leaks. At first it was just the leaking of so many sensitive documents, but now the whole affair has widened significantly: Julian Assange is now in jail in the UK pending extradition to Sweden to face rape charges, companies like VISA, Amazon and Paypal are refusing to deal with his website, and, in response, a mysterious army of independent hackers are targeting them as punishment.

From being an almost traditional debate about press freedom (and how even "democratic" governments react when not in their interests) it has grown into a question about who really controls the web, if anyone. Can an angry government , specifically the US, suppress information by bullying the private companies that help hold the web together? And, as a consequence, what does it mean for how the web develops in the future? As I saw mentioned in an article recently, for the first time the general concept of ' cloud' computing, which seemed relentless in its progression, has been called into question. Could this restrict or at least pause its growth?

It's probably being a bit hyperbolic, but I wonder if this is in some small way, a kind of web 911? Of course in human impact no way comparable to the death of over 3000 people, but rather as a similar 'game-changer' news event witnessed by most of the world in real time.

It's almost like the first cyber war, and rather than being between superpowers, or involving rogue states, it's between one government (and ironically the one professing the most commitment to furthering freedom!) and a vague  collection of outraged 'netizens', with 'violent' militias (hackers) involved on both sides. The parallels with an uprising against a colonial power are I think striking: it's becoming like a guerrilla war waged online,  with the dominant authority using the apparatus of the society (the hosting websites and credit card companies) to try to regain control while an underground resistance uses sabotage to fight back (DDOS attacks). The weird , and slightly scary thing is though, while the authority's agenda is clear, the same cannot be said for the hackers both for and against it. Of course at the moment there is the initial rallying banner of ' web freedom', (and on the other presumably US patriotism) but that's too vague a notion I think to hold such a disparate group together for long, and in principle it's more a mob than a movement.

So while on the one hand it might be good that are forces to resist a domineering government, those forces are I think dangerously unpredictable. And it seems there are indeed similar forces on both sides. While I'm sure Amazon and co. were put under pressure by the US, there was the point made that some of the smaller sites, like the hosting company, felt they would be faced with an anti-wikileaks hacking onslaught which they couldn't withstand, and hence pushed it away to protect themselves. In this case I think the forces of the web seem less benign, (even though they might consider themselves to be just as principled).

Crazy times, and it might just be that "the revolution" won't just be "digitized", it will be digital...

Posted from phone via Blogaway (so excuse any typos!)

Leaky wiki boat

Whether they support what it's doing or not, I think most normal people must agree the wiki leak affair is pretty gob smacking, both in the sheer amount, and the detail, of data involved. It really is amazing to get such an unfettered insight into the workings of the diplomatic machine of a super power. But I think as well as simply being fascinating for anyone interested in current affairs, there also was an illicit thrill to it, like being party to juicy pieces of celebrity gossip, which were actually real, and about agents in the world who really mattered. And that I think is the problem with the latest batch of leaks-it was more telltale whispering than whistle blowing, and I really have reservations as a result.

While I think whistle blowing is something to be defended in principle, it is however always a breach of duty and trust, and hence not something to be undertaken lightly. All organizations are deserving of the loyalty of their members, but the point is that loyalty does not supersede the individuals other loyalties and duties to society at large. Thus whistle blowing is only justified when there is a conflict between these obligations, and the individual is trying to remedy that by exposing it.

Government is perhaps also a special case since it is supposed to represent its people, and so they have always have a principled stake, and hence some rights to know what it is doing on their behalf.

However even here some limits are needed, since there are also other external parties involved (other countries or even special interest groups within the country) that the government has to deal with, and hence some of the workings need to be hidden, both so that it can develop its policies and plans in private until they are mature, and so that its hand, and hence bargaining power, isn't revealed to all and sundry.

The problem is, I think the latest batch of leaks, the diplomatic cables, are by and large (with some exceptions) not whistle blowing proper, but instead just a revealing of these inner workings, and hence not really justified. Interesting as it is to know what ambassadors and officials are thinking, the fact that they think these thing is not really scandalous. It doesn't call their behavior into question, just provides some entertainment to us on the sidelines.

And of course, apart from the principle, there are the pragmatic considerations - these leaks not only make the diplomatic job harder - one side having revealed their hand on existing issues, and other sides now more way of talking candidly - but also the blunt revelations risk causing new problems by revealing to some countries and leaders what others really think or know, but would never say without more tact and caution. Furthermore, there is a definite risk of killing the golden goose, since inthe future such information will more carefully looked after, which means there will be less opportunity for true whistle blowing when it might really matter.

So, while I can't help reading it all, I think in this case things might have gone too far.

One other question is whether the papers, like the Guardian, who published the stories and who are closely involved with the wiki leaks site, acted wrongly. My first reaction is to say no, since they were just informing the world about what was already in the public domain. But is it logical to blame wiki leaks for publishing it and not those papers as well? Who is supposed to draw the line? Maybe the best approach is actually not to blame either, as long as they did not incite or reward the initial leaking, since they just then act as neutral channels of communication, which is what a free press should be. Perhaps then the only blame really resides with the original leaker, who broke his bonds of duty without justification. It seems slightly counter intuitive that the initial act can be wrong and the amplification of the results is not, but I think this is the only coherent way of viewing it. It is not the consequences if the act which were wrong, so magnifying those consequences is not to be blamed. Rather the initial act of betrayal was wrong in isolation.

Nu-unclear

I remember seeing once a Horizon documentary (also on youtube) which raised the topic of how dangerous radiation (and by extension) nuclear power) really and how the risks might well be much less than is commonly assumed. Given the whole climate change debate and the potential role nuclear power might play, for me the significance of this was huge, so it surprised me that I never saw the same facts or issues discussed anywhere else. The basic premise seemed so solid - that the model of how dangerous radiation really is at low levels is an unverified extrapolation - that I was astonished this wasn't something being actively commented upon and hopefully studied. Surely this was something that should be clarified once and for all, given that the one real downside of nuclear power, is the dangers of either an accident or the semi-eternal problem of the waste. My own personal views were wholly based on the assumption that it was a major health risk, and since most countries and even some countrysides rarely remain stable for even hundreds of years, the chances of finding a safe place for a half life of thousands are virtually nil.

At last however I have seen an article about this topic (in Scientific American, ), and the author seems just as bowled over as I was. Which at least confirms both that it is information that makes an impression, and it really must not be on the general radar since I'm not the only one to not hear much about it, and wonder why.

some of the points (and here I quote) which the Sciam article list are :

—There is no clear-cut evidence of adverse health effects from radiation at levels below 100,000 millirem a year. The health effects of radiation have been calculated from people who received extremely high doses, including survivors of the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Chernobyl accident, and "radium girls" who painted radium on watches and other instruments in the early 20th century. The cancer epidemiologist Charles Key told Cravens that "compared to tobacco, gasoline, drunk drivers or being a couch potato, radiation is of very little risk to most of the public."

—Claims about adverse effects from low levels of radiation are often based on a so-called linear non-threshold model. The model assumes, for example, that if an exposure of n millirem kills 50 percent of a population, then 0.1 n will kill 5 percent, 0.01 will kill 0.5 percent and so on. There is no evidence for this model. Background radiation from natural sources varies around the world from an annual dosage of less than 100 to over 10,000 millirem. (Residents of Ramsar, Iran, receive up to 26,000 millirem a year!) Studies have not found increased cancer or other illnesses in areas with naturally high radiation.

—Fifty plant and emergency workers died of acute radiation exposure in the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the U.S.S.R., the worst nuclear accident in history. The explosion contaminated more than 200,000 square kilometers with radioactive fallout, but radiation in parts of this zone is now lower than in Finland and other regions of the world with naturally high radiation. The International Agency for Research on Cancer estimates that radiation releases from Chernobyl caused a slight increase in thyroid cancer but adds that "smoking will cause several thousand times more cancers in the same population." So far, there have been no excess deaths among the 200,000 "liquidators" who helped clean up the mess from Chernobyl compared with controls.

—The worst nuclear accident in U.S. history was the 1979 partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, which led to venting of radioactive gas. The highest dose received by plant workers was 4,000 millirem, 1,000 less than the annual dose permitted for U.S. nuclear workers. The highest dose for people living near the plant was 100 millirem. There is no credible evidence of increased cancer or birth defects among plant workers or residents near Three Mile Island.

—According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, so-called depleted uranium, which consists primarily of the isotope U 238 and not the more fissionable U 235, "has never caused a case of cancer in animals or humans." The dense metal is used to make tank armor, armor-piercing projectiles, shielding for x-ray machines, boat keels and other applications.

Surely even just the fact that radiation in Finland is higher than in the Chernobyl fallout zone raises major questions about the safety levels?

Of course statements like 'no clear cut evidence' (rarely is any evidence 100%) and the irrelevance of bringing mentioning how more harmful smoking is (that doesn't mean radiation isn't still harmful) have to be treated carefully. But some solid questions are still raised, and in my view ones that need urgent answer.

I wouldn't mind, but nuclear is big business, with probably much more lobbying power and cash on it's side than against, which makes the lack of further study into an area which seems to be in its favour even more puzzling. Hmm,...then again, maybe there has been, and the evidence wasn't good, and said lobby is just sitting on it. Alwayos a possibility, but not a likely one given the size of the studies which would need to be involved.

Actually maybe I should just start combing the net myself for some info...stay tuned!

Copies of referenced Articles are (a) nuclear fall in and (b) Nuclear Nightmares