As a side effect of the so-called Patriot Act, the courts are handling numerous cases where Americans and others are accused of providing material support to terrorist organizations.

One major problem with this law is that the U.S. changes its mind about who "terrorists" are all the time.

That's one of the reasons those Infinite Jest 'American Crusade' trading cards so great: they point out that the U.S. position on who is good and who is evil changes very regularly. For example, Afghan terrorism against the USSR was good (so good, the U.S. funded it!), but against the US is EVIL. Same people, same weapons, same tactics, but a totally different classification.

There is no moral compass -- just political expediency. Heck, the US could be busted under this law for its past support of Saddam Hussein. But it chooses not to look at it that way...

*

I keep hearing that the U.S. attack on Iraq was not about the oil, was not about the oil, if we say it often enough we'll believe it, not about the oil...

And then comes this: the US proposed a resolution that it be put in charge of Iraq's oil and oil revenues. Oh, sure, it will expire when Iraq gets a representative government. But the US controls when that will happen, and the US admits it could take years. Read this:

The resolution... would shift control of Iraq's oil from the United Nations to the United States and its military allies, with an international advisory board having oversight responsibilities but little effective power. A transitional Iraqi government, which U.S. authorities have said they hope to establish within weeks, would be granted a consultative role.

The proposal would give the United States far greater authority over Iraq's lucrative oil industry than administration officials have previously acknowledged...

Under the system proposed by the Bush administration, new proceeds of Iraq's oil revenues and at least $3 billion in the current U.N.-controlled escrow fund would be placed in an Iraqi Assistance Fund held by the Central Bank of Iraq, which is currently being managed by Peter McPherson, a former deputy treasury secretary and Bank of America executive.

The United States and its allies would have the sole power to spend the money on relief, reconstruction and disarmament operations and to pay "for other purposes benefiting the people of Iraq." The "funds in the Iraqi Assistance Fund shall be disbursed at the direction of the (U.S.-led coalition), in consultation with the Iraqi Interim Authority," the resolution states.

It adds that Iraq's oil profits shall remain in the assistance fund "until such time as a new Iraqi government is properly constituted and capable of discharging its responsibilities." According to some estimates, it may take years for such a government to be established.

My comment: [expletive expletive expletive]! How is that not about the oil??

A colleague asked why it isn't a good thing that this account is being set up to serve domestic purposes. I explained it this way: I fail to see the propriety in me burning down my neighbor's house, seizing my neighbor's money and income, and then deciding how to care for the family without actually speaking to them (or speaking only to members of the family most likely to agree to what I want). I don't think it would be right to next assign their care to my friends, rather than their own friends or usual providers, and generously pay my friends out of their household funds for what I belive their needs should be, all at prices I negotiate for my own purposes. The situation creates an inherent conflict of interest, even without knowing that many of the contracts to my friends in this analogy were signed prior to my incursion on my neighbor's household!!

*

The BBC asked its readers for their opinions as to whether sanctions should be lifted in Iraq. There's a range of opinions, and quite a few questions. One opinion I like:

According to Bush/Blair there are chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. This was the pretence for the war. Under international law the sanctions cannot be removed until the weapons are destroyed. If US/Britain are looking for the lifting of sanctions, then they must believe that there are no weapons of mass destruction. What then was the real reason for the war?

The U.S. should not be able to have it both ways. Weapons are either there or not, and the U.S. should disclose this essential information.

Notable are the US/UK people's concerns about how terrible the sanctions are, and how the Iraqi people are suffering under them. Where have you folks been for the last decade or so? Was starving and dying for want of basic medicines less terrible when Saddam was in power?

*

The Western nations have concerns about Iraq becoming a highly conservative, extremely religious state, which might mean the country could wind up with a radical disposition. There's an obvious solution to this: make sure there really is equal opportunity in the formation of the representative government by making sure Iraqi women are included. Iraqi women, many of whom received great educations, make up 55% of the population. Many are religious in their beliefs and secular in their lifestyle. Religious women with secular experiences are unlikely to vote for extremist positions that would disadvantage their group.

If you look at the efforts to create a new government in Afghanistan, where women once held government positions and were represented throughout the workforce, you see how excluding women in the planning caused the entire process to go awry. The current Afghan government is heavy on warlords and light on everyone else, including women. Obviously, this mistake should not be made again. The US' inclusion of women on their Iraqi most wanted list is not sufficiently inclusive!! :-)

According to a report posted on Indymedia, last month two high school students were interrogated by the Secret Service for comments they made critical of the President. The Oakland High students are 16 years old, but their teacher perceived their comments as threatening to the President.

The students were each subjected to intimidating interrogation for 45 minutes to an hour each and were told they had no rights because of what they had supposedly said.

When one of the students asked if he had to talk to the agents now, could he talk to them later with a lawyer present, the student said one of the agents told him, "We own you, if you don't talk to us now, and we find out you haven't told us everything, we'll put you MF's in federal prison. This is the beginning of the end for you."

Their families were also threatened with deportation.

Is the hair on the back of your neck standing up yet?

*

Halliburton's Iraq contracts are broader than was originally disclosed to Congress. The Army Corps of Engineers said that Halliburton's "subsidiary, KBR (Kellogg, Brown & Root), actually had been authorized under the original contract to operate and distribute oil produced in Iraq, but the Corps of Engineers played down that aspect of the deal in its initial communications with Congress and the media." Gee, thanks Corps! The article notes that, if the Iraqi's can't organize their bureaucracy quickly enough, "the U.S. contractor could well be permitted to export Iraqi oil so that the country could generate revenues to help in the rebuilding process..."

So the contractor that pumps the oil can use the money it sells by distributing it to pay itself to rebuild Iraq, without any Iraqi input!! How convenient!!

Key paragraph, and the first time I've heard the p-word in this context:

The United States is developing a plan to privatize Iraqi oil fields, according to administration officials, but progress on that initiative may be slow until Iraq gets a government in place and order is restored.

*

Not only have the brilliant folks at Infinte Jest updated the American Crusade trading cards and provided good links to other worthwhile items, they've also pointed out that the deck of 'Iraqi's most wanted leaders' that the media has been hyping has not, in fact, been distributed to soldiers -- just to the media! (Their source link is no longer valid, but it's a fascinating point.)

Also for our humor section, The Onion's Iraq War Archive, titled "Operation Piss Off the Planet."

Quote of the moment: "We managed to preserve the treasure-house of Iraq, in the shape of their oil." -- Air Marshal Brian Burridge, commander of UK forces.

*

The online World Tribune reports that Rumsfeld is asking Middle Eastern nations to avoid purchasing French weapons, instead sending that business to U.S. suppliers.

"He didn't tell anybody not to buy French weapons," an official said. "What he did was intimate is that France no longer represents the U.S. interest for stability in the Gulf region. I think the rest was very much understood...."

Officials and industry sources said the Defense Department has expressed opposition to any major French weapons or upgrade project in Gulf Cooperation Council states. They said Rumsfeld has warned that France, in wake of its alliance with the deposed regime, can no longer be regarded as a positive force in the Persian Gulf region.

So let's review the ideas put forth by the U.S. Administration:
a) weapons promote stability
b) in particular, U.S. weapons promote stability
c) French weapons don't.

and

1) The French relationship with Iraq, presumably including oil contracts to take effect once Iraq came into compliance with UN mandates, was bad for the region
2) The US relationship, including bombing Iraq, occupying Iraq without a UN mandate, and having a history of extending credit and selling chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, is GOOD for the region.

Damn, I'm going to need one of those Ross Perot color diagrams to keep in touch with the bizarre reality that this Administration is trying to sell.

I'm sure the chart will be much clearer when all the defense contractors who are also Bush campaign donors can be cross-referenced.

*

The Bush Administration wants 'special arrangements' made to try the former Iraqi leadership.

This will be a hard sell: with the very legitimacy of the U.S. actions still under cloud, how can a war victor set up a court, edit the local laws to its pleasure (in this case, by removing provisions consistent with Islamic punishments), and then claim to have set up a legitimate system?

Imagine, if you will, this precedent having been established by the victors of other disputes. For example, after the U.S.' puppet, the Shah, was deposed in Iran, can you imagine the U.S. accepting the legitimacy of any court that would convict the Shah and U.S. agents who supported him and trained his people in torture? I can't. The U.S. is still dodging subpoenas aimed at Kissinger for his role in Pinochet's successful coup, so clearly these transitional processes are only important when the U.S. wants them to be.

Might makes right! Woo hoo! Go team! [cough cough cough]

*

Several eyewitnesses saw American soldiers encouraging looters to loot the University in Baghdad. The soldiers fired at the University and waved the looters on.

Ooops. A Belgian court wants to try the U.S. military authorities for this. The U.S., which only believes in foreign courts for non-US war crimes, is irate.

On the bright side, the museum workers did hide many artifacts, and rumors of organized looting have been confirmed by the U.S. government: "US Attorney General John Ashcroft has said there is evidence that organised criminals were behind the looting of select, high value items, possibly stolen to order for international clients." So the perception of locals who reported their suspicions has been vindicated. (Thank you, locals!)

*

The BBC printed some good quotes from the 'Dear Raed' weblog, which provided an inside glimpse on the impact of Baghdad residents such as the author up until the U.S. knocked out the power and phone lines. The author has contact with the outside world again, and is updating through friends.

Let me tell you one thing first. War sucks big time. Don’t let yourself ever be talked into having one waged in the name of your freedom. Somehow when the bombs start dropping or you hear the sound of machine guns at the end of your street you don’t think about your “imminent liberation” anymore.

*

In the humor department: British satirist Ali G. annoys James Baker in an interview which Mr. Baker had assumed was conventional. Hee hee.

Sorry for the light entries: I'm having problems with one of my hands, which is making typing difficult.

*

To avoid having to share power in Iraq, the Bush Administration is planning to divvy up Iraq into 3 parts, each run by an ally. They are hard enough up for allies that Poland (country of half my ancestry) made the cut.

No offense, but Poland?? POLAND?

Ahem. Anyway, dividing the country into areas each occupied by a different military force and preparing an 'interim government' based on self-serving purposes, all outside of international law and without the UN's participation, is unwise at best.

*

Not to bring up enemy combatants again, but why not: have I mentioned that kids under the age of 16 are being held as enemy combatants by the U.S.? There are three whose ages have gotten out, the youngest being 13.

Thirteen.

In a prison, with no access to parents, lawyers, or hope of getting out.

I'm a bit more settled in now, and am amazed at how quickly the news programs here have switched to the 'scare of the week,' SARS. While I was in Canada, there was widespread outrage that the W.H.O. had suggested not traveling to Toronto. An article in the paper there noted that you are more likely to be struck by lightning, die of animal bites, or strangle yourself in your sleep than you are to die of SARS in Toronto. Nevertheless, the media seems dedicated to inspiring a full-on panic.

I suppose that's their new job? Anyway, back to war and peace.

*
So-called "unlawful combatants" are still indefinitely detained. (Remember them?) "The U.S. government can sweep people up from all over the world and detain them indefinitely." NO WAR IS REQUIRED.

"It just says a foreigner held outside the U.S. has no access to our courts."

The sovereignty aspect of the ruling is fraught with danger, he said, since the United States can negotiate a lease anywhere in the world, leaving technical sovereignty with another country.

"We have taken the view there's got to be great deference to the executive in this area, but there has to be some judicial review," Wilner said. "You can't act as both jailer and judge. If there is no judicial review, the executive never needs to balance or justify its actions. It can hold absolutely innocent people forever."

On the bright side, "The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States has issued a preliminary injunction ordering the United States to hold tribunals to determine detainees' status."

*

This from a Common Dreams essay:

As the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal noted years ago: "War is essentially an evil thing ... To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."