The bin Laden photos

I don’t understand what is driving those people who demand that the photos of the dead bin Laden be released, other than the need to satisfy some prurient interest or to gloat. It is not that photos of dead people should never be published. Publishing the images of war dead and wounded can play an important role in highlighting the tragic cost of wars. But bin Laden’s photographs would serve no such a purpose. It would be more like publishing the photos of people executed for crimes or shot in gunfights and seems like a partial step backwards to the days of public executions to satisfy people’s blood lust

While I am in general in favor of not keeping information secret, such information should have some public benefit. What benefit would be gained by releasing the photos? It will not serve as proof that bin Laden is dead because die-hard skeptics can claim that the photos are faked, just like some are claiming that Obama’s birth certificate is a fake or that the moon landing was faked or that the Bush administration was behind the 9/11 attacks. They will then demand the release of the videos. There will never be definitive proof that will satisfy the skeptics and at some point you have to take the circumstantial evidence in support of a basic fact as conclusive, though one can legitimately have doubts about specific details.

I don’t see any reason to doubt the claim that bin Laden was killed in this attack. I don’t see any upside for the Obama administration to fake the news about the death and plenty of downside. So many people are involved that a lie could easily be revealed and blow up in their faces. Furthermore bin Laden had faded from the news a long time ago and the sense of urgency to capture him had dissipated to a low level of nagging dissatisfaction, so why create such a sensational falsehood?

I think it is very clear that the US government wanted bin Laden killed and not captured alive. The fact that he was unarmed and they were able to carry his dead body out along with computers and other stuff suggests that they could have easily overpowered him and taken him alive if they had really wanted to.

While he should have been given a fair trial, we seem to have gone long past the stage where people concern themselves with such quaint old-fashioned legal niceties and now live in an age of summary justice. While a captured bin Laden might have been a useful source of information, what to do with him would have been so problematic as to outweigh the benefits of treating him like a criminal. An open trial might have revealed embarrassing information about the former links between him and al Qaeda and the Taliban with the US and Pakistan. A secret trial or a kangaroo court comprised of a military tribunal followed by an execution would have been long drawn out and had negative implications. People in the US already get into hysterics about giving low-level Guantanamo detainees a trial in civilian courts or to even house them in prisons on the US mainland. Imagine their reaction if bin Laden were to be held in a US prison.

I think it is clear that the commandos had orders to kill him, although killing an unarmed person is a potentially illegal act, which is why Attorney General Eric Holder has conveniently come up with the novel doctrine that it was justifiable as an act of ‘national self defense’, whatever that is.

Leon Panetta, the head of the CIA, said that they were not certain that bin Laden was in the house, which clarifies another mystery which was why they carried out a high risk operation like they did without simply sending in a drone to bomb the building. After all, it is not like the government worries that much about innocent civilians being killed in their air strikes.

If they had held on to the dead body, that would become a hot potato too. What could they do with it? Where could they bury it? If his family asked for it, how could they respond? Once they had possession of the body, they would have to find ways to get rid of it. Later summarily dumping it into the sea with the whole world watching would have been explosive. It was this reason, rather than any concern to follow Islamic customs, that I think led to the hurried burial at sea, so that the world was presented with a fait accompli.

I think the US government carried out the mission this way because they wanted to make sure that bin Laden was dead, that they had proof, and also did not want his body and funeral and grave to become political symbols. I think it is reasonable to conclude that the bare bones of the story, that the US government gave the order to kill bin Laden and bury his body at sea, is true. The release of the photos and videos will not add anything to it.

Not everybody reacted with cheering

Some people reacted to the death of bin Laden with hooting and cheering and raucous celebrations, as if this serious and somber event was like their home sports team winning a big game. But not everyone, even in New York City, responded this way.

I was not sure if this was a hoax video, in which a normal subway ride taken at some other time had had the voice added. It looked like the person doing the shouting had also taken the video and I was not sure why he would post a video that made him look foolish, unless he thought that the apathetic response of the people revealed the lack of patriotism of people living in the bicoastal areas who, as we are repeatedly told, are not ‘real’ Americans like those in the mythical ‘heartland’.

It was the non-reaction of almost everyone in the subway car to someone shouting about anything that was surprising to me and made me suspect a possible hoax. If I had been there, I would have at least looked around to see who was making such a ruckus.

But I am not a New Yorker. Maybe this is how they react to anyone trying to get their attention in a public place.

The unreliability of government statements

In a post I wrote six years ago, I warned that we should not believe the reports that government officials release in the immediate aftermath of a major event because they are invariably unreliable, either because full information is not available or more frequently because governments deliberately lie as part of the propaganda process, knowing that the first version of events is the one that sticks in people’s minds. As such, I said that we should not believe any of the details that are released until they have been substantiated.

The bin Laden story seems to be another example. The government initially said that he had been armed and using his wife as a shield when he was killed ‘in a firefight’, resulting in her death as well. It turns out that both these details were false. It would not be surprising if we find out in the days, months, and even years to come that other details are also false. Look how long it took for the true stories about Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch to emerge.

So why gild the lily? Why not simply take credit for what seems like a carefully thought out and well-executed plan? Perhaps the government felt the need to discredit bin Laden. But this is pointless. After all, those who hated him do not need any additional reasons to do so, while those who are inspired by him will not believe such stories. Some may even claim that the reports of his death are a fabrication.

I think governments simply cannot help themselves. They cannot let the facts speak for themselves but feel compelled to embellish in order to either cover up their mistakes or, as seems to be the case here, to make themselves look as good as possible and their enemies as bad as possible.

What is truly surprising is that the members of the media, who should know better by now since they have been burned time and again, seem to fall for government propaganda every single time, and pass on government statements as fact, without even the hint of skepticism.

Surprising, unsurprising, and amusing facts about US religious knowledge

The recent Pew survey of US religious knowledge that I discussed on the radio and on this blog, had some features that I want to discuss further.

The things that surprised me about the Pew study were:

  • That 45% of Catholics did not understand what transubstantiation meant. You would think that this would be a big part of their preparation for first communion and subsequent devotional activities. That the number of unaware people is so high suggests that this part of their doctrine is viewed as so absurd that it is downplayed. I mean, really, the idea that the wafer and the wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus because of a prayer and are then consumed seems outlandish and even macabre. It is likely that although the words “This is the body” and “This is the blood” are said during the service, it is not emphasized that people should take it literally.
    [Read more…]

William Cohan on The Daily Show

He discusses his new book Money and Power: How Goldman Sachs Came to Rule the World. The title pretty much says it all.

Part 1 of the interview:

Part 2, where he really dishes the dirt:

Film review: Inside Job

I just watched the above documentary that was released in October 2010 and won the Academy Award for Best Documentary. Narrated by Matt Damon, it lays bare the story of the 2008 financial crisis. It shows clearly the way the financial oligarchy has taken control of the government irrespective of which party is in office and is using its power to greatly enrich itself.

Here’s the film’s trailer:

Most of the film focuses on the way that the crash went down, the whole sordid story in which big investment banks (which have done more to harm to the US and the world than any terrorist organization and of whom Goldman Sachs is the worst) used government deregulation, predatory mortgage lending, lax ratings agencies, practically nonexistent government oversight, and complex new financial instruments to create a Ponzi scheme in which a very few got rich and then when trouble hit were bailed out by the government.

(Almost all of this was covered in my 2008 multi-part series titled Brave New World of Finance, but the film provides a lot more details and tells the story with much greater power and clarity and impact.)

Towards the end, the film highlights something I did not dwell on and that is the cozy relationship between academic economists in elite universities (such as Glenn Hubbard, Laura Tyson, Martin Feldstein, Lawrence Summers, Frederic Mishkin, and others) and the government and giant Wall Street firms, with the former providing the high-toned rationales that influenced government policies that enabled the latter to fleece the country. While we rightly deplore those people in the medical profession who act as flacks for the health industry without disclosing their conflicts of interest, it is a scandal that strict ethical guidelines seem to not exist among university academics who can take huge fees from the financial giants to produce ‘studies’ and ‘reports’ that benefitted those who paid them, justified the measures that led to the disaster, and then walked away unscathed. Watch the chair of the Harvard economics department struggle and fail to explain why they do not have similar guidelines.

Some of those academic economists agreed to appear in the film, no doubt expecting to be given the usual softball treatment they receive from financial journalists and they become visibly uncomfortable and hostile as they get questioned on their own ethics. Glenn Hubbard, now dean of the Columbia Business School, is a case in point. As Charles Ferguson, the film’s writer, director, and producer says in an NPR interview, “Well, the entire interview was fairly contentious, as you can imagine. It surprised me somewhat to realize that these people were not used to being challenged, that they’d never been questioned about this issue before. They clearly expected to be deferred to by me and I think by everybody.” Watch the clip:

In an article, Ferguson writes:

Indeed, one of the most disturbing things I learned in making Inside Job, an issue discussed in the film, is that US universities do not require disclosure of financial conflicts of interest by faculty members, place no limits on the sources and size of professors’ outside income, and do not collect information on the size of this income.
…
Over the past 30 years, the economics discipline has been systematically subverted, in much the same way as American politics – by money, especially from the financial services industry. Many of the most prominent economists in America are now paid to testify in Congress, to serve on boards of directors, testify in antitrust cases and regulatory proceedings, and to give speeches to the companies and industries they study and write about with supposed objectivity. This is not a marginal activity; it is now an industry, run by a half dozen large companies.

Some prominent academics have close ties to financial services yet neither their university employers nor the journals in which they publish require them to disclose their conflicts of interest, their financial positions, or the relationship between their financial interests and the policy positions they take.

You can listen to an NPR interview with Ferguson about the making of the film, where he elaborates on how the system is corrupted.

What you find is that very prominent professors of economics, often people who have also held high government posts, are paid to testify in Congress. They are paid to be expert witnesses in both civil and criminal trials. They’re often paid to write papers that praise the financial services industry and argue on behalf of deregulation of the industry. They make millions, in some cases tens of millions, of dollars doing this. And this is usually not disclosed. And in fact, university regulations do not require disclosure of these payments.

The film is well worth seeing. But be warned that it made me very angry and may make you too. And what will make you most angry is that none of these people in academia, government, and Wall Street are even being investigated for their actions, let alone in jail where they deserve to be. And if what they did was not technically illegal under current law, the law should be changed to make it illegal.