The two stories that have dominated the U.S. news in recent days, are the change of government in Spain, and the revelations by a counter-terrorism expert who has worked for four presidents that Bush ignored his warnings that could have prevented the September 11th attacks.

The dramatic loss by Spain's ruling party and rise of socialists there (BBC) is widely seen as a reaction to the recent terrorist train attack there, in the context that the ruling party created new enemies by siding with Bush on Iraq over 90% public opposition.

"It's the first time I voted. I feel very happy because the government had to change... because of the Iraq war," a Spanish law student told the BBC.

In the United States, the Spanish results have been met with surprise: culturally, Americans believe that it's disloyal to let such an event impact local decisions. One colleague told me that they shouldn't have 'changed their minds just because they got hit,' and found it unlikely that decisions unpopular with 90% of the populace made more than a year ago could have been influential. (!)

If the U.S. were attacked again, "the traditional effect is a rally," unless people blame the Administration for failing to protect them. (seattletimes) [There's a new poll that theoretically supports this position, but I can't find it.]

And then there are the revelations by Richard Clark that the Bush Administration was so obsessed with Iraq that they virtually ignored Al Queda. (BBC) A friend watched Clark's recent appearance on television, and couldn't figure out why his story wasn't on the front page of all our papers. A day later, it largely was: recent coverage includes this live chat in the Washington Post with GREAT links about Clark's allegations, Bush's non-action on counter-terrorism information put forward by Clinton's people, and links to documents elsewhere and on the Post's own site. Also see this BBC article.

As Clark partly predicted, the Bush Administration is harmed by his statements, and so had to attempt to discredit him. As I joked with friends, the Administration had to decide whether to allege that Clark is either a) a disgruntled former employee; b) a pedophile; c) a Clinton-lover trying to cover for Clinton's own failure to pre-emptively kill bin Laden (really, this is a turn some right-wing blogs have taken, perhaps to make excuses for Bush's inaction in what Franken called Operation Ignore); d) a member of Al Qaeda; or e) a complete nutcase. a) appears to be their working plan, questioning the motives of anyone who would publish such a thing during the election season. They have to defend this situation with energy, because this is the second departed official with criticism, former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill having also been harsh on the Administration, despite his own conservative/business credentials.

The Invasion of Iraq: One Year of War and Occupation

The promised 'cakewalk' for control of Iraq turned into a war that cost more than 10,000 civilian lives (Iraqbodycount.net), more than 500 U.S. soldier's lives (washingtonpost.com), and the maiming of thousands more (Iraqometer.com). The weapons of mass destruction which were supposedly an imminent threat to Americans do not appear to exist. The former US ally-turned-monstrous threat turned out to be an old man hiding in a dirty hole rather than an all-powerful arch-villain with his finger on a red button. Many of the Iraqi people are relieved that their tyrannical ex-ruler is gone (aside from those who benefitted from his rule, of course), but fear that they are now being occupied by a stronger tyrant - the US military and the US Provisional Authority which are busy privatizing Iraqi public assetts.

On March 20th, the anniversary of the US' invasion of Iraq, people around the world expressed their opposition to the use of war and to the occupation.

Selected news and images:
-San Francisco peace march photos (by me); SF peace march photos 2 and 3; Scenes from arrests at an SF breakaway march; March and Bikes Not Bombs; and scary stuff: video of police attacking people on sidewalk
-German Indymedia's compilation of M20 protest images from around the world
-International Indymedia's compilation of links to demonstration news and images as reported from around the world, including Amsterdam, Barcelona, Berlin, Brussels, Belgium, Chicago, Crawford (Texas), Dublin (Ireland, not our Dublin), Goeteborg (Sweden), East Timor, London, and 9 other locations.
-New York peace march photos
-Iraq anti-occupation demonstration photos (featuring lively commentary on the fact that the Iraqis are allowed to protest means everything is fine, and so all those pesky civilian deaths and extrajudicial killings must be okey dokey)
-Barcelona for peace
-Phillipines (Manila) protest photos
-BBC worldwide protest overview and photos from around the globe. According to the BBC, there were protests in New York, Rome (300,000), London (25,000), New York, Chicago, SF, Los Angeles, Budapest, Mardrid (100,000), Barcelona (200,000), Sydney, Tokyo (30,000), and unspecified locations in Chile, Venezuela, Brazil, Thailand, the Phillipines, Hong Kong, and various Middle Eastern capitals. (This article insists there were no protests in Baghdad; the Indymedia image collection suggests otherwise.)
-SF Chronicle coverage of local protests.

Nerve

It takes a lot of nerve to try to take credit for being a protector of people your government virtually ignored while they were being massacred, but that's not a problem for U.S. Administrator for Iraq Paul Bremer. Bremer visited the memorial to the massacre at Halabja (BBC), which commemmorates the mass murder of 5000 Kurdish people by Saddam Hussein 16 years ago, which Bremer says justifies last year's Iraq war. (!)

There's a catch, of course. The Kurdish prime minister comments in the same article on the topic:

Just before Mr Bremer spoke, the Kurdish prime minister in the Halabja region, Barham Salih, criticised the United States.

He said that US and world indifference to Saddam Hussein at the time of the Halabja attack was the reason the Iraqi leader remained in power for so long.

I think the Kurdish PM is being diplomatic. After all, the US Administration at the time didn't object to the gas attack.

[Context-free comments regarding dropping] sanctions are removed from the larger and more precise context that has the United States befriending, arming, and providing intelligence to Saddam Hussein during the time of his bloodiest endeavors -- the invasion of Iran, the use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, and the ethnic cleansing of the Kurds. All of these were events, literally tens of thousands of times more bloody and vile than the relatively innocuous invasion of Kuwait, with which the United States essentially oversaw and found no problem. The Halabja incident, now invoked in somber tones typically reserved for such horrifying events as the Jewish Holocaust as well as being exploited by President Bush, wasn't even condemned at the time it took place in 1988. (globalpolicy.org)

The chemical weapons that the US fusses over now as proof of Saddam Hussein's inherent evil led to some public condemnations, but in terms of policy and relations were not objectionable at all when used against the Iranians in the years prior to the Halabja massacre, either. At the time, the US was actively courting Saddam Hussein by having Donald Rumsfeld make personal trips there to try to improve relations with him.

Rumsfeld returned to Baghdad in late March 1984. By this time, the U.S. had publicly condemned Iraq's chemical weapons use, stating, "The United States has concluded that the available evidence substantiates Iran's charges that Iraq used chemical weapons" [Document 47]. Briefings for Rumsfeld's meetings noted that atmospherics in Iraq had deteriorated since his December visit because of Iraqi military reverses and because "bilateral relations were sharply set back by our March 5 condemnation of Iraq for CW use, despite our repeated warnings that this issue would emerge sooner or later" [Document 48]. Rumsfeld was to discuss with Iraqi officials the Reagan administration's hope that it could obtain Export-Import Bank credits for Iraq, the Aqaba pipeline, and its vigorous efforts to cut off arms exports to Iran.... (National Security Archive, Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984)

[I very much recommend the National Security Archive as the source of all sorts of great information. On a related note, read Iraq: Declassified Documents of U.S. Support for Hussein With Joyce Battle, Middle East Analyst, National Security Archive at George Washington University, a discussion session at washingtonpost.com.]

The use of chemical weapons is either evil, or it's not -- it shouldn't matter what the ethnicity or nationality of the victims are. US objections to chemical attacks against one group (Kurds) yet not another (Iranians) is self-serving, but neither moral nor ethical.

[To hear Bremer's comments and some additional criticism from Kurds, listen to The World's 3/16/04 audio report. (theworld.org)]

*

Bechtel was the subject of yesterday's 'Shut Down the War Profiteers' Action at Bechtel HQ in downtown San Francisco (link to my photos at sf.indymedia.org; see also a short article in the Chronicle (sfgate.com)). From Kosovo to Iraq, Bechtel appears to have used its political connections and heavy political contributions to land work (www.warprofiteers.com), rather than relying on its experience alone.

Government watchdogs noted that all six of the companies bidding on the contract Bechtel won Thursday donated heavily to American politicians -- $3.6 million between 1999 and 2002, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Most of the money went to Republicans. Bechtel and its employees contributed $1.3 million to federal campaigns and candidates over the past three years, with 59 percent going to Republicans and the rest to Democrats.(warprofiteers.com)

"...within days of the American occupation of Iraq, Bechtel of San Francisco, California, was hired to repair the power system, telephone exchanges and hospitals, weeks after multi-billionaire Riley Bechtel, the principal shareholder, was sworn in as a member of President Bush's Export Council to advise the government on how to create markets for American companies overseas." (warprofiteers.com)

Bechtel has a long history of immoral behavior in Iraq: After the US Senate passed the "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988" to put economic sanctions in place against Iraq for gassing 5000 Kurds, "Bechtel representatives said that if economic sanctions contained in Senate Act are signed into law, Bechtel will turn to non-U.S. suppliers of technology and continue to do business in Iraq." (PDF (Document 11) from Saddam Hussein: More Secret History at Georgetown's National Security Archive) "...the U.S. corporation, now part of President George W. Bush's project to bring democracy to post-Saddam Iraq, courted the dictatorial regime with full knowledge of Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iranian troops and the Kurds -- with the approval of U.S. diplomats." (commondreams.org)

All this, yet Bechtel representatives had the nerve to accuse those who protested outside it's offices that the protesters were aiding and abetting the enemy, despite its own history of doing business with a regime that was gassing its people!! (Answering machine recording within the documentary We Interrupt This Empire (videoactivism.com))

Nerve. And nerve gas, but mainly nerve.

The New Pentagon Papers by Karen Kwiatkowski (salon.com) is a lengthy essay from a longtime career employee of an intelligence department, providing an inside scoop on the intelligence community's actions in the run up to the Iraq war. She observed the erosion of intelligence information in favor of political posturing under the influence of Bush appointees. Her initial scene-setting (telling us who everyone was and whether or not they were an appointee) is dry, but it gets better.

(My favorite line isn't actually substantive, but I find it entertaining: "Neoconservatives are fairly easy to study, mainly because they are few in number, and they show up at all the same parties.")

She makes many educational observations:

The talking points were a series of bulleted statements, written persuasively and in a convincing way, and superficially they seemed reasonable and rational. Saddam Hussein had gassed his neighbors, abused his people, and was continuing in that mode, becoming an imminently dangerous threat to his neighbors and to us -- except that none of his neighbors or Israel felt this was the case. Saddam Hussein had harbored al-Qaida operatives and offered and probably provided them with training facilities -- without mentioning that the suspected facilities were in the U.S./Kurdish-controlled part of Iraq. Saddam Hussein was pursuing and had WMD of the type that could be used by him, in conjunction with al-Qaida and other terrorists, to attack and damage American interests, Americans and America -- except the intelligence didn't really say that. Saddam Hussein had not been seriously weakened by war and sanctions and weekly bombings over the past 12 years, and in fact was plotting to hurt America and support anti-American activities, in part through his carrying on with terrorists -- although here the intelligence said the opposite....

Kwiatkowski details the changes made to assignments when experienced intelligence officers kept insisting on using the supported facts that they had, rather than the political speculation and fearmongering that was desired of them. There were times when Kwiatkowski heard statements on TV from politicians' mouths which had no basis in the information intelligence officers like herself had access to, and while she wished to assume they were based on facts unavailable to her, that wasn't necessarily the case.

Some bullets were softened, particularly statements of Saddam's readiness and capability in the chemical, biological or nuclear arena. Others were altered over time to match more exactly something Bush and Cheney said in recent speeches.

Yes, you read that right: the intelligence reports had to be changed to reflect what speechwriters were putting into administration speeches, rather than the other way around.

This is a short review of a very long article, but I recommend that you go to Salon and read an insider's view of the Bush Administration's failure to use the intelligence community and its skills in favor of a pre-existing political agenda to manipulate public opinion.

The first Guantanamo detainee to speak to the press, Jamal Udeen, a web designer and father of three, describes inhumane conditions , beatings, and psychological torture used against detainees. (BBC)

Finally it's becoming clear(er) to me why the US doesn't want to participate in international bodies that punish flouters of international law...

The US has decided to try a bit harder to capture bin Laden. (news.yahoo.com) And, consistent with the 'kill 'em first and ask questions later' approach the US has been on for some time, they are killing lots of suspects. From the same item:

An Afghan army commander in southern Kandahar province, Haji Granai, told The Associated Press that U.S. aircraft killed 12 suspected Taliban in a pickup truck there Thursday.

Granai said the planes struck in Maruf district, some 160 miles east of Kandahar city, where suspected Taliban killed seven Afghan soldiers in a March 3 raid on a border post.

That's kind of convenient: it saves all that messy fact finding and justice system work that would ordinarily be associated with depriving a dozen individuals of their lives...

Today I saw on the front page of our local paper a HUGE photograph of the demonstrations in Spain against terrorism. (SFGate.com) Now that I've read the accompanying article, I find it odd that the paper didn't contest attendance, happy to accept that 2.5 million people participated.

Odd, that. And there was no insinuation that the demonstrators were not patriotic. And there was no attribution of any violence or crime in the region being blamed automatically on the demonstrators.

It was such a contrast to the sort of reporting we get about our own local demonstrations. 'Quite amazing.

*

(As a related aside, one of the same central squares in Madrid was the site of a huge anti-war protest prior to the US' attack on Iraq. THAT didn't make the front pages here, unlike the assembly in that same square this time.)

How long has it been since I mentioned the possibility of the US starting to draft soldiers? Too longer, perhaps. The US Government is considering a 'special skills' draft of people with computer and language skills. (sfgate) The article notes that a draft is "far off" because the effort "is strictly in the planning stage" and could take two years.

I think the people who don't think two years is far off are well over the age limit for draftees...

The US holds about 640 people without charge at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. As of Tuesday, 105 people have now been released from Guantanamo Bay without charges. (audio file - theworld.org) While members of the British government note that two years of life has been stolen without cause for the 5 Britons just released, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld would rather imply that everyone captured is guilty of something, even if the US can't figure out what that is, perhaps in hopes of limiting sympathy for those wrongly held.

In this audio clip, Rumsfeld acknowledges a very poor statistic to justify wrongly holding hundreds of people:

"...I've been told by senior people in this department that of the people who have been released, we know of at least one who has gone back to being a terrorist. So life isn't perfect! In other words, you can make mistakes in evaluating these people. Let's hope that none of these do."

(Transcription mine.) Yes, even after holding hundreds of people for two years, the US has released 105, and believes that just one of those people it released has become a terrorist! Less than 1 percent of those RELEASED!! So 104 of 105 people released were... well, how shall I put this... innocent of any crime they could be charged for.

More disturbing language from Rumsfeld:

The goal was to take these people off a battlefield, and keep they away from killing other people. And that's been accomplished. That's a good thing, for two years, that's not a bad thing. Second, the goal was to interrogate them, find out what do they know...so they get interrogated for a couple of years, then at some point you say, 'we think we got what we need out of this crowd' of 5 people, and let's move 'em along, we don't want to keep everybody at Guantanamo...

(transcription again mine) THIS is what repressive governments have always done: sloppy work that denies individuals of liberty and human rights, for NOTHING.

*

The follow up interview with human rights attorney Clive Stafford-Smith is very informative. (audio file, theworld.org) A $4500 bounty was offered to anyone in Afghanistan who could hand over "Taliban" members, which resulted in some greedy people abducting foreigners for the money. (I'd never heard that before.) He also points out that several Britons were abducted from other countries, such as Pakistan and the Zambia, and there is documentation of this, but the Bush Administration's line still remains that everyone swept up was captured on a battlefield in Afghanistan.

Stafford-Smith notes that even perpetrators of Nazi war crimes got TRIALS, had lawyers, and went through a proper process to establish their guilt or innocence, and that the US isn't bothering to meet any similar justice standard.

Why is the US government afraid to do things right? (Does that less than 1% non-success rate of correctly identifying terrorists have anything to do with it?)

There have been some very sad suggestions on the 'home front' that the U.S. government is sliding into totalitarian modes of thinking.

President Bush's Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, called American Teacher's Unions "terrorist organizations" for suggesting that education is underfunded. (firepaige.org) We all KNOW that education is underfunded in this country, so why the overreaction? Why the implication that wanting to be sure our kids all have books and learn in safe buildings has somehow become a threat to national security? Are Bush officials using the Cranky Soviet Communist Playbook to choose their statements?

Perhaps more classically self serving, Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma said "...if George Bush loses the election, Osama bin Laden wins the election, it's that simple." (news.yahoo.com) In a lovely version of Orwell-speak, "The lawmaker from Bush's Republican Party added, however, that 'the patriotism of candidates and voters who oppose the president is not in question.'"

Yeah, right.

Democracy is losing ground quickly here.

A whole new meaning for "customer service"

There are a variety of links to radio stories I haven't been awake enough to locate again. So for today's entry, I turn to a message from a friend, who has given me permission to reprint his thoughts here.

Ok, here is something that I meant to follow up on personally, but forgot last year. It's been a tick in my ear for the past few months because of the keywords on the television news: "private contractors" and "foreign fighters". The United States, and many other countries, use mercenary forces to do things that are politically, and sometimes humanitarily, incorrect.

In my interpretation, "private contractors" are U.S. hired mercenaries and "foreign fighters" are enemy-hired mercenaries. These mercenaries can possibly be the same company!

...check out the links when you get a chance. This is important now and will become important as this year progresses. I'm going to pick up this guy's book...At least listen to the Fresh Air interview in the link below.

Yes... I like to keep up with mercenary firms [:(]

-07/09/03 P.W. Singer interview (on Fresh Air); [he is the] author of "Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry" (2003).

-In Brief 02/26/04, Washington Post [information on DynCorp and other military contractors]. This is VERY recent. They are big money, man! $1.75 Billion over 5 years.

******

In general:

-Links to what appears to be the major Western paramilitary articles. (betterworldlinks.org)

-FORTUNE REPORT: THE PENTAGON'S PRIVATE ARMY: "If America goes to war, private companies will play a bigger role than ever before, LONDON: 11 March 2003." (fortune.com) Short article from 2003; skims the surface but easy read.

-They have 401k and *accidental* death and dismemberment insurance! MPRI (mpri.com) (Excerpt: "Incorporated by eight former senior military officers in 1987, MPRI is operated primarily by former military personnel and staffed by a wide range of other professionals required to provide customers the best in support and assistance....The company's business services range from strategic planning, law enforcement expertise and democracy transition to leadership development in both the public and private sectors....")

-Dyncorp, is now a subsidiary of CSC, "Computer Sciences Corporation", but they really do this kind of stuff: policemission.com. (Excerpt: "DynCorp ... is seeking individuals with appropriate experience and expertise to participate in an international effort to re-establish police, justice and prison functions in post-conflict Iraq. Interested applicants must be active duty, retired or recently separated sworn police officers, correctional officers or experienced judicial experts.") This is where they even give the salary ranges for potential contractors. Do I have to bring my own guns?

-Even Wired Magazine had an article a while back: This Gun For Hire, By Dan Baum, 02/03. (wired.com)

-DynCorp Disgrace, 01/14/02 [By Kelly Patricia O Meara at insightmag.com. An expose on allegations of corruption, mafia dealings, and trafficking in young girls by DynCorp employees and management.]

This came up in the google search and is kinda left of center, but it hits on the symptom of putting people with guns outside of anyone's laws.

That Fortune article is especially informative, in a spooky way.

Thanks to my friend for providing his thoughts, and his encouragement to think carefully whenever we hear the phrase "private contractor" in the context of Iraq, or just about anyplace else.

It keeps coming up in casual conversation, so I'll just mention the possibility of an 'October Surprise' here. You know what I mean. All the little blurbs in foreign papers quoting Pakistani authorities who insist that Osama Bin Laden has already been captured, who seem concerned that they're not getting credit for helping. There have been several of these stories. The officials have always been rapidly discredited by their bosses.

We Americans, used to our melodramatic films, know that IF the story were true and IF the US Gov't wasn't yet making an appropriately grandiose announcement right now, that the most theatrical stating of his capture possible could only occur in October, just before the November presidential elections.

I'm cynical enough to think it's possible. So I read the stories, but keep my thoughts on the matter to myself.

And now, there are new stories!

Hours ago, the US denied new stories of bin Laden's capture broadcast on Iranian State Radio. (Atlanta Journal Constitution, ajc.com)

The report was carried by Iran radio's external Pushtun service. The director of Iran radio's Pushtun service, Asheq Hossein, said he had two sources for the report that bin Laden had been captured.

Iranian state radio quoted its reporter as saying the arrest happened a long time ago.

``Osama bin Laden has been arrested a long time ago, but Bush is intending to use it for propaganda maneuvering in the presidential election,'' he said.

Pakistan's foreign minister has sort-of denied that bin Laden has been captured, sort of.(news.xinhuanet.com/english)

"I am not in position to confirm or contradict that Osama bin Laden is captured," Kasuri told reporters in Islamabad.

"I will not confirm the report that Osama is being captured by the Pakistan Army during the operation in South Waziristan," he said when asked about the confirmation of the report.

That has to be one of the LAMEST denials I've yet read.

It makes some of Rumsfeld's comments seem more cryptic (suntimes.com):"Clearly there's pressure being put on terrorists all over the world, but most recently, and certainly with a great deal of energy and some success, in Pakistan, for which we are very grateful.'' I see.

(There's another story: Australia's Sunday Telegraph is reporting that England's Sunday Express is reporting that bin Laden is surrounded, with the US just waiting for the right moment to swoop in and grab him (sundaytelegraph.news.com.au) This is less worthy of consideration, because it's a story about a story. But still interesting: the first item references comments from military sources that bin Laden's whereabouts are known and he could be captured at any time.)

Speaking of the draft, the former US interim administrator of in Iraq, believes the US military should remain in there for "the next few decades." (govexec.com)

Noting how establishing U.S. naval bases in the Philippines in the early 1900s allowed the United States to maintain a "great presence in the Pacific," Garner said, "To me that's what Iraq is for the next few decades. We ought to have something there ... that gives us great presence in the Middle East. I think that's going to be necessary."

It appears that the US can't invade anyone else without more soldiers. I suppose that's the good news (for the world) and the bad news (for everyone who doesn't want to be drafted). There's more on the topic of military expansion at this part of the ever wonderful thismodernworld.com.

So, last September the Pentagon started staffing up draft boards. (salon.com) You know, draft boards. The people who sent out draft letters to send reluctant American youth to fight in Vietnam. THOSE draft boards.

After the alternative and foreign press (including the BBC) noticed the announcement to staff draft boards, the US Government removed the announcement from its website, which was luckily mirrored by thememoryhole. (thememoryhole.org) An excerpt:

If a military draft becomes necessary, approximately 2,000 Local and Appeal Boards throughout America would decide which young men, who submit a claim, receive deferments, postponements or exemptions from military service, based on Federal guidelines.

Positions are available in many communities across the Nation.

Obscure sources

Today I'd like to sing the praises of an obscure source of some very interesting news: Engineering News Record magazine. (enr.com) As a professional formerly employed in the field of architecture, and currently employed in the area of commercial and institutional construction law, ENR provides me with news about my clients and fascinating projects around the world.

It also provides me with insights into topical news items that I would have been blissfully unaware of if I relied solely on the mainstream media. For example, it was in ENR that I read about the contracts awarded to American countries to rebuild the bridges, schools, and hospitals bombed by the US and NATO during the Balkan conflict. (IAC.org) As the proud winning contractors provided the details, I thought, "Wait - we bombed SCHOOLS?? We bombed HOSPITALS?? Why haven't I heard that we bombed schools before?"

ENR continues to provide fascinating information. For example, I learned that the US expects to be less popular in the future than it is already. In U.S. Army of the Future Will Need Bases To Match (12/1/2003) by Tom Sawyer there is information on changes anticipated to military bases. California has historically had many bases, which are surrounded by barbed wire and generally not very friendly. But in the future, according to this article, "Bases are expected to become holistic support facilities, capable of sustaining their units and supporters independently from surrounding communities, if security issues arise to make it necessary to close them off." I already assumed they were that way. I note that the article isn't differentiating between foreign and local bases, or basis in allied nations, and... well... It's a bad sign.

(On a less political note, the corrupt influence of money on common sense is clear in
Nationwide Chemical Sites Are Targets of Opportunity, (12/1/2003) by Kathleen McFall, in which industry bemoans demands to improve the security and safety of plants near major population centers for homeland security reason. Industry rejects this request and has lobbied against bills that make them responsible for their own private property because... they think it's an environmentalist conspiracy! Yes! They do! These people should not be in charge of a frozen yogurt stand, let alone major hazardous material facilities...)

Also, I learned that the US plans to spend $3.5 million on courthouses and "interrogation facilities" in Cuba, which won't even open until after December of 2004. Which means the U.S. government intends to abduct and detain plenty of additional foreign nationals while dodging the Geneva Convention and other international laws in 2005 and beyond. *shudder*

Do you remember the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City? (CNN) Do you remember the subsequent war on Montana and other states that harbor terrorists? How about the war on extremist groups living here in the U.S.?

You don't remember those, because the US government didn't attack Montana and didn't declare war on domestic extremist groups. They're still there. Montana is still a relatively infertile northern state. Those domestic terrorist groups are still suspected of causing the anthrax deaths in 2001. Those domestic terrorist groups are suspected of mailing the toxin ricin to to the government in recent months. Yet, the government's discussions of terrorism only appear to apply to foreigners.

Salim Muwakkil discusses this disparate treatment in Homegrown Terrorists in the March 15th issue of In These Times. His article provides the frightening details of domestic terrorist plots involving biological weapons - which, unlike Saddam Hussein, some of these domestic terrorists actually have. A list of weapons possessed by some plotters who were foiled by investigators included "a cyanide bomb, chemicals and components for additional biological weapons, half a million rounds of ammunition, 65 pipe bombs and briefcases that could be detonated by remote control."

Perhaps the fact that the terrorists are white, American, and Christian somehow excludes their threats against Americans from newsworthiness. Perhaps the fear of foreigners is much easier to manipulate the public with. But the fact that there are extremists already in the United States who are stockpiling lethal weapons and sending biological agents through the mail makes it appear that domestic terrorists are just another domestic issue that is currently being ignored in favor of lucrative foreign contracts and concern over unsubstantiated foreign threats.

If the US government is really serious about fighting actual terrorism, the race and religion of the terrorists shouldn't be an issue.

Women in Afghanistan and Iraq and what they have in common

Afghanistan. I can't stop bringing it up, because it keeps looking like a preview of what will happen in Iraq.

Here's an excerpt from a comment from RAWA printed in the Guardian UK and titled Rule of the Rapists on the current situation:

However, Amnesty International paints a rather different picture: "Two years after the ending of the Taliban regime, the international community and the Afghan transitional administration, led by President Hamid Karzai, have proved unable to protect women. The risk of rape and sexual violence by members of armed factions and former combatants is still high. Forced marriage, particularly of girl children, and violence against women in the family are widespread in many areas of the country."

...In the western province of Herat, the warlord Ismail Khan imposes Taliban-like decrees. Many women have no access to education and are banned from working in foreign NGOs or UN offices, and there are hardly any women in government offices. Women cannot take a taxi or walk unless accompanied by a close male relative. If seen with men who are not close relatives, women can be arrested by the "special police" and forced to undergo a hospital examination to see if they have recently had sexual intercourse.

...One international NGO worker told Amnesty International: "During the Taliban era, if a woman went to market and showed an inch of flesh she would have been flogged; now she's raped."

(There's also a BBC article with additional commentary from Amnesty International (BBC).) RAWA, whose videos filmed at great risk from within burqas helped galvanize Western opposition to the Taliban, cannot open an office in "liberated" Kabul. Rawa's news archive site (updated regularly) features items that repeatedly fail to make the mainstream US news, such as news that the Afghan Supreme Court has banned the broadcast of women singing on television. Liberation indeed!

*

Which brings us to Iraq.

Iraqi women had equal rights under Iraq's 1979 constitution (soros.org) and lived in one of the more opportunity-providing Middle Eastern societies prior to Saddam Hussein's reign:

In 1979, the Iraqi constitution declared all women and men equal before the law. Compulsory education through age 16 enabled women in Iraq to become the most educated and professional in the region, and working outside the home became the norm. Iraqi mothers received generous maternity leave, and in 1980 women could vote and run for election. In the early 80s, women made up 40 percent of the nation’s work force. The Unified Labor Code called for equal pay, benefits and promotions for men and women.

Hussein eroded women's rights to gain favor from neighboring nations, but maintained societal order so that many rights were preserved. The constant presence of repressive police forces maintained order and allowed women to travel safely from common thugs, if not from Hussein's own forces.

But that societal order has broken down completely during the war and occupation. Women have given up jobs and school to hide in their homes. (english.aljazeera.net) Iraq's governing council has already dropped secular family law in favor of religious codes which local women find regressive. (feminist.org)

Zakia Ismael Hakki, a female judge, stated, "This new law will send Iraqi families back to the Middle Ages. It will allow men to have four or five or six wives. It will take away children from their mothers. It will allow anyone who calls himself a cleric to open an Islamic court in his house and decide who can marry and divorce and have rights," reports the Washington Post.

The group Equalityiniraq.com reports that a local human rights leader has been threatened with death for opposing the imposition of sharia law upon women.

I'm not the only one who sees parallels between women's conditions in Afghanistan and Iraq. "This will send us home and shut the door, just like what happened to women in Afghanistan," said Amira Hassan Abdullah, a Kurdish lawyer quoted in the Washington Post.

There have been reports of the disproportionately hard impact of civil disorder on women since last year (commondreams.org). A horrifying NY Times Article called "Rape (and Silence About It) Haunts Baghdad" by Neela Banerjee (nytimes.com, subscription/payment required) from last July detailed the cost of the civil disorder on Baghdad's most vulnerable residents, including young children who have been abducted, raped, and who are now at risk of being murdered by fathers or brothers because their lack of virginity is deemed a dishonor to their male relatives.Schoolgirls are forced to choose between getting an education in school and safety (Guardian UK), and those whose safety is lost lose everything:

"We know of a lot of cases against women," says Nidal Husseini, a nurse at Baghdad's forensic institute. "When a girl is kidnapped and raped and returned to her family, of course the family will take her to a special doctor. The majority of doctors - without a test - will tell her family she is not a virgin, so the family will kill the girl because of the shame. Of course, they will bring the body to us."

Later in this article, an authorities in charge of rape claims brought by women who aren't killed by their families insist that "Most women are liars."

Women's lack of security and safety will prevent them from rebuilding their country. (Commondreams.org)

It isn't merely 'foreign fighters' or 'Baathists' or the regime's former loyalists that pose a threat to the rebuilding and stability of the nation: it is the lack of order that prevents more than half of Iraq's population from meaningfully participating in that country's civil society. It's been demonstrated in many situations that women tend to be less extreme than men, and can have a moderating influence on extremist factions - governments with women participating in them are more politically and religiously moderate. Iraqi women can't provide a moderating influence in their current situation. And that, more than any alleged foreign troublemakers, will prevent Iraq from becoming stable and peaceful.

Much like in Afghanistan...

Like the groundhog, the blogger resurfaces, sees shadows, and predicts more bad news before hiding in her burrow

Weren't things in Iraq supposed to be great by now? I turned away from the daily news for a few weeks, only to resurface to news of terrible attacks and mass casualties of civilians.

I suspect this means that some wings of the anti-war movement, which were criticized for demanding the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops, were right: the occupation is not providing the safety, stability, and order that were supposed to justify its presence.

No one wants to be proven right in such an ugly way. But there it is. The headlines I've been skimming contain a litany of complaints: the steady erosion of women's rights, the increasing power of fundamentalists who survived Hussein's tyrannical, partly-US-sponsored rule, and the widespread non-local conviction that the country (created by the British who forced together various groups between somewhat arbitrary borders) must be forced to remain unified, even if a somewhat oppressive majority group may oppress regional and ethnic minorities just as this majority was previously oppressed, all while under a US-influenced system that seeks to dilute the majority's power in hopes of patching together a government which won't kick the US out.

Meanwhile, the US government is letting contracts for a massive expansion of its leased Cuban terrorism prison facilities, including contracts for courthouses (kangaroo logos optional) and execution chambers.

Not good. Not good. Not good.

I'll write in more detail once I've digested some more of the changes, some of which are obscured by US political news...

[The author of the blog is recovering from 30 hours of overtime performed in about 10 days. Posting will resume shortly.]

Colin Powell has raised doubts that he would have supported the war had he known there were no WMDs, while at the same time issuing statements insisting that war was the right thing. (BBC) He's having it both ways, and it's interesting to watch. Some text from Powell's interview with the Post (washingtonpost.com):

I don't know, because it was the stockpile that presented the final little piece that made it more of a real and present danger and threat to the region and to the world.... [the] absence of a stockpile changes the political calculus; it changes the answer you get.

And then he goes into a little backpedaling, and then cites the horrific acts that Hussein made against Iran with our support as proof of his evil. What a script!

Three teenage boys detailed by the US at Guantanamo Bay have been freed. (BBC) They haven't been identified, for fear of reprisals against them in their unnamed home country.

Earlier, the US Defense Department had said the boys were no longer a threat to the United States. (BBC) Doesn't that make you feel better? 13 year old boys are being held in prison without trial or charges because the United States is now afraid of foreign children??

It cost us more than money

An Engineering News Records Article called "Threats Fray Nerves But Spawn Innovation" by Tom Sawyer on how terrorism paranoia is a boon to construction and surveillance technology industries provides this as an example of what happens if you're not paranoid enough. Which isn't the point I'd be making with this example:

The consequences of not taking action are serious, even if no attack ever occurs....

Water officials in Wilcox, Ariz., population 3,100, got their wake-up call Oct. 15 when a patrolman spotted a broken lock and an open hatch on the water tower. The system was shut down for 28 hours. Labs from Phoenix to Atlanta ran tests. The utility drained its 5-million-gallon system into the desert as a precaution. In the end, three young men were charged with breaking and entering. They confessed to having gone for a swim.

Yes. Boys. Swimming. Not terrorists. Rather than pointing out that this was a grotesque overreaction, that no terrorist likely could even find this hamlet of 3000 on a map, and that there must be something amiss with the mental state of local officials if they're sure THEY are an attractive target for terrorists, the article then goes on to recommend "solutions" such as:

...high security fences and sensors, which are going in everywhere, ...to monitor sounds in structures to give early warning of corrosion. They are finding new applications as tripwires for terrorists. They can listen for fences and bridge cables being cut or climbed.

So now they'll be able to flip out over the same boys climbing cables?

The Onion did a great piece about this sort of thing. Security Beefed Up at Cedar Rapids Public Library describes senseless hysteria in a town many people have never even heard of, let alone one of remarkable 'target' value.

Our nation suffered a tragedy, and we sadly became collectively senseless.

Working very long hours takes the edge off my typing, somehow.

*

Recent points of interest in the week's news: David Kay, leader of the Iraq Survey Group (WMD hunting team) has resigned. (BBC) In a Reuters interview, Kay said that he didn't believe Iraq has been producing WMDs on a large scale since the end of Gulf War I, and that the massive stockpiles he was supposed to find never existed. "If the weapons programs existed on the scale we anticipated, we would have found something that leads to that conclusion. Instead, we found other evidence that points to something else." (washingtonpost.com) That something else: documents contemporaneously documenting the destruction of arms back in the 1990s.


Kay's replacement, Charles Duelfer, is rescinding his "outsider" comments expressing doubts that WMDs would ever be found in Iraq. (BBC)

All George Bush could say after his lead WMD hunter claimed that he was misled by inaccurate intelligence was that "the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein." (BBC) Really. He said that. (See the full article for more quotes which all appear to have the tone of: 'I'm not listening! I don't need consistent reasons! Saddam was bad! Chocolate is yummy! I'm the President - so there!')

Bush's State of the Union address (here with excellent Atlantic monthly commentary) (atlantic.com) provided some fodder for the Kay disillusionment discussion. Bush actually cited Kay's report thusly:

We're seeking all the facts -- already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.

Read that sentence again a few more times. It's a very careful way of using a lot of words to represent things that were not found in a very vague way. I enjoy Adam Felbers SOTU commentary (felbers.net) on this issue:

This line will be quoted quite a bit in the coming months, and you have to admire the carefulness of its construction. For instance, note that Bush didn't say "weapons of mass destruction programs-related activities." Word order is important - he's talking about activities in programs related to weapons of mass destruction. There's a difference. In this construction, the Iraqi Beaker Manufacturing Collective's annual softball game would qualify.

(Be sure to also see his parody Rove memo about adding Kay to Bush's enemies list, and the related entertaining commentary from fans.)

*

Meanwhile, the Red Cross is still demanding legal status and due process for the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay (BBC) Oddly, while the thousands of men and boys swept up in US raids in Afghanistan are being held without proper classification or rights, the US has deemed that Saddam Hussein is a prisoner of war, and entitled to appropriate legal treatment. (BBC)

Surprise, surprise: Halliburton overcharged the government in a kickback scheme. (Miami.com; see also BBC story.)

The BBC reports that " US Secretary of State Colin Powell has conceded that Iraq may not have possessed any stocks of weapons of mass destruction before the war last year." (BBC)

Dick Cheney came out of his cave, saw his shadow, and before declaring that we'd have six more weeks of winter, contradicted the rest of the Bush Administration by trying to revive disavowed claims that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda, and that the so-called 'mobile weapons labs' which were already declared innocent really mean something. (latimes.com - login required) He makes these claims despite all the information that has come out since the last time he surfaced (all quotes from the same latimes article):

Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is in custody, has told American interrogators that Al Qaeda rejected the idea of any working relationship with Iraq, which was seen by the terrorist network as a corrupt, secular regime. When Hussein was captured last month, he was found with a document warning his supporters to be wary of working with foreign fighters....

[On the "mobile weapons labs":] In a BBC interview that aired Thursday night on public television in the United States, Kay said that is still the case. He said it was "premature and embarrassing" for the CIA to conclude shortly after the vehicles were discovered last year that they were weapons labs. "I wish that news hadn't come out," Kay said, calling the release of the information a "fiasco."

Cheney went a bit deeper while encouraging allies to join the so-called War on Terror, by saying "Direct threats require decisive action" (BBC), which is funny, considering that Iraq had not threatened the United States. (Perhaps no one has told him about what's currently going on in Iraq? Or his cave doesn't have cable TV?)

Who would have thought: General Peter Schoomaker says that wars are useful - to help "focus" and justify the military! (BBC) Because violence justifies violence! Here's how:

General Schoomaker said the attacks on America in September 2001 and subsequent events had given the US army a rare opportunity to change.

"There is a huge silver lining in this cloud," he said. "War is a tremendous focus... Now we have this focusing opportunity, and we have the fact that [terrorists] have actually attacked our homeland, which gives it some oomph."

He said it was no use having an army that did nothing but train. "There's got to be a certain appetite for what the hell we exist for," he said.

First off, I think we'd all be better off with a lower the level of 'oomph' in the world which he takes as a blessing. (It's interesting that a devastating attack on our homeland is supposed to justify and motivate the people who defend us, but couldn't/didn't. He avoids that topic entirely.) His scenario also requires reciprocal violence: if the military can't function in peace, than we need to make enemies who threaten our peace. As if soldiers don't want peace and to live in safety with their families!

Saying that war is useful is like arguing that fires are great, because they motivate the fire department. Or that cancer is great, because it focuses medical researchers. Or that car accidents are great, because they lead to advances in tow trucks... War is a plague, and celebrating the fact that it leads to employment and the justification of retribution is ethically misguided.

Same old, same old

The death toll of American soldiers reached 500 this past weekend (Washington Post), during yet another insurgent bomb attack near US headquarters. (Related W. Post graphic.) Nearly 2,500 have been injured. (Post's figures: others are much higher, such as NPR's estimate of 9,000 wounded.)

Bush's former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill claims Bush planned to attack Iraq from the beginning of his administration. (BBC) "O'Neill also revealed that Bush knew his tax cuts were mostly for the wealthy; that he and Vice President Dick Cheney were utterly indifferent to ballooning deficits; and that, in general, the president pays remarkably little attention to policy." (truthout.org) (discussion at thismodernworld.com)

The Bush Administration has lost credibility around the world over its inaccurate WMD claims. (Washington Post)

Bush, when asked by ABC's Diane Sawyer why he said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when intelligence pointed more to the possibility Hussein would obtain such weapons, dismissed the question: "So, what's the difference?"

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace issued a widely publicized report called "WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications. stating that the Bush Administration "systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missile programs."

Saddam Hussein documentation warning his followers to avoid foreign fighters undermines the Bush Administration position of a pan-national Al Queda conspiracy against the US in Iraq. (NY Times)

There is significant Iraqi opposition to the indirect elections proposed by the Bush Administration, which appear to be designed to prevent the majority groups from electing a government hostile to the United States or to secularism. (Washington Post)

The US plans to rotate more forces than it did at any time during "World War II" to swap tens of thousands of reservists into Iraq, though the reservists have been expressing serious morale problems. (Washington Post)

"“I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I do believe the connections existed.” --Colin Powell (msnbc)

(Discussion with link to a contrary representation made by Powell prior to the war at thismodernworld.com.)

All this, and people with blogs are making fun of the Bush Administration. (Pendagon.net)

Well, I had to put in SOME good news.

Reflections on the state of the nation at this point in time, and on why I’m blogging

The United States has a history that has been revised to resemble myth: glory, goodness, and apple pie. Any events that don’t reflect the way we Americans want to think of ourselves get erased from our written records and collective memory, and are hotly denied whenever reality’s ugly head rears itself. Forgetfulness becomes a virtue in a time when the history upon which we rest our identity is too ugly to allow us to feel great about ourselves.

Before some starry-eyed historians attempt to sanitize this period of history and make it warm and fuzzy for future generations, I want to make a modern record of what it is really like to be here at this time, in this place, from the point of view I have, using the recently popularized media resources available to me.

The long history of dissent in this country has been stifled again and again, kept hidden from the mainstream by wishful thinkers and image peddlers controlling the flow of information. This blog is my small contribution to documenting what I’m seeing and hearing in one of the dark times in U.S. history: the voices and images that point out that the United States is not living up to its ideals.

*

There is a concept in the US called “moral relativism,” a circumstance decried by fundamentalists for depriving our culture of morality. They define this term as meaning that there is no ultimate, God-given right or wrong. Moral relativism is decried as a crime of modern western education. Ironically, those same fundamentalists judge the same actions as right or wrong depending on who is doing them, which I think provides a superior definition of moral relativism. Examples:

Opposing the President in public? Fine if it was Clinton, even during wartime; treason if it’s Bush, especially during wartime.

Adultery? A crime against the nation if it’s a Democrat; peachy keen if it’s a Republican. (A real life example of moral relativism among my acquaintances: a Republican friend explained that Clinton’s adultery was worse than his Republican predecessor’s merely because she had to hear about Clinton’s longer. It wasn’t the act itself that was a crime – just the publicity! And the publicity was Clinton’s fault, she insisted. Also, see the list of Republican adulterers and repeat divorcers who sponsored the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (buddybuddy.com and elsewhere) for examples of adulterers supported by fundamentalists.)

Terrorism? Fine against our enemies and the old USSR, Evil against us. (See: good shock and awe versus evil shock and awe.(infinitejest.org))

Chemical weapons? Fine against Iran; evil against the Kurds.

Violations of UN Resolutions? Fine if done by Israel or any other US ally; evil if done by Iraq, or anyone else we dislike who is small and relatively unarmed.

Lying to congress and the people of the United States? Evil when done by certain presidents, perfectly justified when done by others. (You know who I mean.)

THAT is real moral relativism, and the United States is currently up to its neck in it.


*

Today I read some hate mail generated by war supporters in opposition to an article criticizing both Bush and the war. Moral relativism is boldly apparent. According to these critics, it was fine to sell chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein for use against Iran, because Iran hated us. It was fine to sell weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein, because he was our friend. It was fine to arm Afghanistan’s warlords and Taliban-types, because they were using them against other people, not us. Only the people killed by Hussein in wars matter, not the people the United States killed in wars. It's okay for us to kill others, but not for others to get revenge upon us….

Do as we say, not as we do. That’s not moral leadership. That’s not what great countries do.

*

We want to believe we are good people, so US soldiers and government officials don’t admit to killing innocent civilians (only evil terrorists do that), don’t want to admit we’re engaging in undemocratic practices (domestic spying; invading sovereign nations; locking people up and throwing away the key without having a trial); don’t want to admit that our allies have substantive disagreements with us on just about everything we do (polluting, violating the Geneva Convention, using captured resources for private gain)… Because that would mean that we Americans are less than we want to be. Less great. Less true. Less fair.

People and institutions who point out that we are currently being less great, less true, and less fair are criticized for being “anti-American.” The oversimplified explanation for this is that all critics, internal or external, ‘hate our freedoms’ and/or ‘hate America.’ The actual explanation is that these critics want the US to actually live up to its ideals, so Americans don’t have to constantly pretend to be great when it's not true.

The United States is fully capable of being a great nation that truly promotes freedom and democracy around the world, but it is choosing not to. The US is choosing to support corrupt dictators, governments which use extra-judicial assassinations to control political opposition, nations with abysmal human rights and environmental records. The US CHOOSES this, and then gets defensive when it’s pointed out, blaming critics for the tarnish on its name.

It’s not the critics that are tarnishing the name.

*

If we really want to be a nation of peace, a nation of peace loving people, we need to change our ways. We need to give up the moral relativism, partisanship, and posturing used to justify immoral foreign and domestic policies. We need to listen to our allies. We need to be a good neighbor. And, of course, we need to stop bombing people, because choosing violence over the rule of law encourages others to do the same.

What level of proof is required that attacking Iraq was a bad idea? How bad will the situation have to become before other alternatives can be seriously considered by the government and the corporate interests it serves, even in the safety of retrospection?

A litany of bad news doesn't seem to shake the administration's determination to occupy Iraq: More than 30 soldiers injured by a mortar attack (sfgate.com), 9 dead in a helicopter crash (sfgate.com), concerns about whether or not a cargo plane was attacked today...

*

The big story this week appears to be the Washington Post's: Iraq's Arsenal of Ambitions ("Iraq's Arsenal Was Only on Paper"). The report's conclusion? "The broad picture emerging from the investigation to date suggests that, whatever its desire, Iraq did not possess the wherewithal to build a forbidden armory on anything like the scale it had before the 1991 Persian Gulf War."

The five web page long report reveals some documents identified by the Post which appear to conclusively answer questions about whether or not Iraq destroyed its biological weapons collection. In the article and in this NPR audio interview, author Barton Gellman describes an internal Iraqi government memorandum which noted that Iraq had lied to inspectors by claiming that bioweapons were destroyed one year later than Iraq had reported. (NPR) They were destroyed, but not when Iraq said they were.

The article is interesting in that it interviews a variety of Iraqis, many of whom are still the subject of US interest and threats to produce evidence of projects that they wanted to build, but couldn't. Expensive imaginary projects were designed to siphon funding off from the government or to please Hussein, but many weren't real. A great quote from Hans Blix about posting a 'beware of dog' sign when you don't have a dog is included as well.

*

A quote with broader application than intended: "The collapse of Hussein's regime has created new problems without solving any of the old ones," notes an article on the serious housing shortage in Iraq. (SFGate)

*
In the article Interrogation, Torture, the Constitution, and the Courts by Joanne Mariner (findlaw.com), a discussion of the federal decision (9th Circuit) that the detainees in Guantanamo have some rights to challenge their detention, there are some scary revelations for those of us who had not read the text of the actual decision (findlaw.com). The Bush administration argued that the prisoners at Guantanamo had no right to contest their captivity, any torture that might occur, or any executions.

"...under the government's theory, it is free to imprison Gherebi indefinitely along with hundreds of other citizens of foreign countries, friendly nations among them, and to do with Gherebi and these detainees as it will, when it pleases, without any compliance with any rule of law of any kind, without permitting him to consult counsel, and without acknowledging any judicial forum in which its actions may be challenged. Indeed, at oral argument, the government advised us that its position would be the same even if the claims were that it was engaging in acts of torture or that it was summarily executing the detainees. To our knowledge, prior to the current detention of prisoners at Guantanamo, the U.S. government has never before asserted such a grave and startling proposition... it is the first time that the government has announced such an extraordinary set of principles - a position so extreme that it raises the gravest concerns under both American and international law."

In other words, the Court was appropriately appalled.

*

The same author has an analysis of Bush's use of Guantanamo as a legal black hole (findlaw.com), which is disturbing. Her citation to a dissent from a 1950s case, asking if the rights of a prisoner change every time the government choses to hold the prisoner in a new location, are distressingly relevant.

*

Speaking of prisoners, were you aware that the US is detaining about 13,000 people in Iraq?? (Washington Post) Read this:

They said that for the past two weeks they have been reviewing the files of hundreds of low-level prisoners, such as those caught in raids in which more prominent fugitives or weapons were found, to determine if they would be released. Of 9,000 such prisoners, as well as 3,800 others detained for participating in militias, panels of U.S. military judges, intelligence officers and military police had reviewed 1,200 cases and found 506 of them met the criteria for release under the new policy.

No, they're not getting lawyers, either.

Winning hearts and minds, winning hearts and minds...

*

The U.S. is continuing the occupation, but now with Marines who are intent on taking a different approach than the Army. The Marines, who are so eager to differentiate themselves from the Army that they're considering wearing green fatigues rather than desert camouflage as the Army has, say they plan to live among the people, be culturally sensitive, and focus on the violent elements of society.

"I'm appalled at the current heavy-handed use of air [strikes] and artillery in Iraq. Success in a counterinsurgency environment is based on winning popular support, not blowing up people's houses." - Anonymous Marine in the Washington Post

Time for a kindler, gentler occupation?

According to the New York Times, the Bush Administration has withdrawn its 400 person team of WMD hunters.

The step was described by some military officials as a sign that the administration might have lowered its sights and no longer expected to uncover the caches of chemical and biological weapons that the White House cited as a principal reason for going to war last March.

And no, they still haven't found anything.

[I'll comment on this week's developments, some of which are quite interesting, if I can manage to stay awake past 9:30 tonight.]

The 2003 P.U.-Litzer Prizes have been announced for the stinkiest journalism. (fair.org) Many of this past year's prizes related to reporting on the war against Iraq. My favorite:

* "CODDLING DONALD" PRIZE -- CBS’s Lesley Stahl, ABC’s Peter Jennings and Others

On the day news broke about Saddam Hussein’s capture, Stahl and Jennings each interviewed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. In step with their mainstream media colleagues, both failed to ask about Rumsfeld’s cordial 1983 meeting with Hussein in Baghdad on behalf of the Reagan administration that opened up strong diplomatic and military ties between the U.S. government and the dictator that lasted through seven years of his worst brutality.

The rest of the awards are also quite good. Go there and read them all.

Also note that the New York Times was pressured by FAIR readers to correct a Colin Powell misstatement that Hussein threw out UN weapons inspectors, when in reality they were withdrawn by the UN prior to the US bombing campaign. The media has been letting obviously wrong statements slide past repeatedly. Good for the FAIR folks for pressuring them to act like actual journalists.

*

Also good of the FAIR folks to note that the new euphemism for all negative impact of sanctions against Iraq, including the health consequences that killed hundreds of thousands of children and the collapse of key infrastructure, is now "neglect." As in, Saddam Hussein's neglect, rather than the international community's.

Neglect.

*

regulareverydaypeople.com is filled with photos of, well, regular every day American and Iraqi people who are suffering as a result of this war. (Warning: this includes maimed and deceased people.)

The U.S. government is both offering bonuses for enlisted soldiers to stay, AND forcing them to stay with their units rather than retiring or ending their tour and going home on schedule. (BBC)

Yipes. The comments by soldiers on this page (in the comments section, which is incomplete and may change) are scary.

Tony Blair is still trying to justify the war in Iraq to his skeptical nation, but also has announced that he expects England to maintain a significant troop presence until 2006. (BBC)

Something tells me both Bush and Blair would have had a harder time pushing their war plans if the amount of other people's time they planned to invest in this adventure had been known.

The U.S. government is both offering bonuses for enlisted soldiers to stay, AND forcing them to stay with their units rather than retiring or ending their tour and going home on schedule. (BBC)

Yipes. The comments by soldiers on this page (in the comments section, which is incomplete and may change) are scary.

Tony Blair is still trying to justify the war in Iraq to his skeptical nation, but also has announced that he expects England to maintain a significant troop presence until 2006.

Something tells me both Bush and Blair would have had a harder time pushing their war plans if the amount of other people's time they planned to invest in this adventure had been known.

The news that the federal authorities fear that people who use almanacs may be terrorists raises a variety of questions. (story.news.yahoo.com) Two of them would have to be: Almanacs!?!?!? ALMANACS???? Is someone in the Bush Administration, which demonized libraries in the so-called Patriot Act, just now learning about all the possible sources of reference information in the world, and becoming more frightened as a result??

Almanacs!?!

The upcoming January 19th issue of In These Times features a good summary by weblog author and editor Bleifuss of the United States' past involvement with Iraq. An earlier article called Missing U.S.-Iraq History by investigative reporter Robert Perry covered the cozy arrangements past U.S. Administrations, especially that of Ronald Reagan, had with Saddam Hussein.

While the topic has been well-covered elsewhere (the best being Georgetown University's National Security Archive (gwu.edu)), this article discusses encouragement from foreign governments, including the US, for Iraq's 'aggressive' attacks on other nations (which U.S. leaders now pretend to object to), and it may be the only place I've read the following:

Last September, for example, Newsweek reported that the Reagan administration in the 1980s had allowed sales to Iraq of computer databases that Saddam could use to track political opponents and shipments of "bacteria/fungi/protozoa" that could help produce anthrax and other biological weapons. [Newsweek issue dated Sept. 23, 2002]

Despite the release of numerous government documents on the subject, Donald Rumsfeld himself, pictured with Saddam Hussein during various meetings he had with the despot, has claimed in Senate hearings to have no recollection of the US providing any such assistance.

I don't know if anyone asked him what he's doing in the photos. That could be entertaining.

*

Speaking of missing history, the aforementioned National Security Archive has a new section called Saddam Hussein: More Secret History with additional documents received through Freedom of Information Act requests, including some with bearing on Rumsfeld's friendly visits to Hussein's government. My favorite is the section devoted to Document 11, in which "Bechtel representatives said that if economic sanctions contained in Senate [Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988] are signed into law, Bechtel will turn to non-U.S. suppliers of technology and continue to do business in Iraq." Because genocide is no reason to stop doing business with an evil and despotic ruler!

I’ve been out of town for a brief vacation, and have just begun to catch up on world events. My heart goes out to the people of Iran who lost loved ones in their devastating earthquake of the past week.

*

“How our hearts burned with indignation against the atrocities of the Spaniards!… But when the smoke was over, the dead buried, and the cost of the war came back to the people in an increase in the price of commodities and rent – that is, when we sobered up from our patriotic spree – it suddenly dawned on us that the cause of the Spanish-American war was the price of sugar… that the lives, blood, and money of the American people were used to protect the interests of the American capitalists.”
-Emma Goldman, as quoted in A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn.

This quote made my partner reflect on the many financial motivations that lead to war, especially war against those with resources that the more developed and armed nations desire. It would be so great to think that the U.S. would really care about people of other nations enough to be concerned about their governments. But with a track record of favoring any despot that will trade with us or do the U.S.’ bidding, including favoritism toward Saddam Hussein, it’s just too much of a stretch.

At least, too much of a stretch when there’s oil involved.

Have you heard that British declassified documents suggest the US considered seizing oil fields in the Middle East during the 1973 oil crisis? (BBC) Not much of a surprise, it is?

*

I had a break from world events, but it appears the people of Iraq, and those who are occupying their nation, received no rest at all. There has been an increase in violent attacks since Xmas (BBC), with many individual reports of violence, death, and mayhem piling up each day.

It appears that overwhelming military force is still not enough to bring peace and tranquility to a nation traumatized by a tyrant and more then a decade of punitive sanctions. Who knew?

*

The best item I’ve read today dates back to October: this FAIR report on the Bush Administration’s demand for Good Iraq news, and the press’ inability to satisfy that demand due to new restrictions upon their movements and, well, bad news. (fair.org) Reporters could be much more excited about hospitals being open if those hospitals had the electricity and medical supplies they would need to function, for example.

*

It would be bigger news that a general has been named to oversee US military tribunals for its ‘enemy combatants’, though that announcement was somewhat overshadowed by the fact that some crank on the Moscow Metro has ‘confessed’ to being Osama bin Laden, and is now under psychiatric evaluation. (Both BBC)

[Recently, I've been too busy viewing videos at the Bush in 30 Seconds project to blog. Now, I am taking a short holiday from computing!! I will return to my regularly scheduled observations on why the U.S. is failing to live up to its ideals and is selling democracy short around the globe upon my return to this glowing box.]

In a stunning victory for constitutional rights, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Bush can't deny so-called 'enemy combatants' access to attorneys and the courts. (BBC)

Even in times of national emergency... it is the obligation of the judicial branch to ensure the preservation of our constitutional values and to prevent the executive branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike."

This decision (findlaw) closely follwed the Second Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that American citizen Jose Padilla can NOT be held as an enemy combatant. (BBC) Now the man will have to get a trial, instead of being hidden away on secret evidence. Let's hope the Supreme Court upholds both decisions, so the U.S. can return to being the land of the free, rather than the police state it has been moving toward.

*

Meanwhile, attorneys assigned to the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have been dismissed for complaining about how unfair the current system is, (BBC) and the hearing for the chaplain accused of taking classified materials home has been held up, because the U.S. military accidently sent classified materials to the chaplain's attorney. (BBC) Ooops. It's unlikely the military will be charged for this violation of 'do as I say, not as I do...'

A little levity: Fiore's parody ad for Halliburton. (markfiore.com) This is far funnier, and far less frightening, than actual military ads that run in the Washington Post routinely and make me shudder.

*

The discussion of how to deal with Saddam Hussein's capture shouldn't be limited to passionate, self-interested U.S. government sources. The Washington Post'sWorld Opinion Roundup covers the international press, and asks: will Saddam Hussein's trial be the founding act of justice for the Iraqi people upon which their new government is based, or a hasty ritual to sweep embarassing facts under the rug and rush to the execution chamber?

*

"We have captured him and he looks pathetic, but there are still a lot of questions that need to be asked about whether it was necessary to go to war." -- Madeline Albright in the Washington Post

The reaction to Saddam Hussein's capture is still playing out. For those who want to believe that Bush is a great guy, it's a good excuse for them to think so. For those of us who have piles of proof that Bush lied to us, it's not so consoling.

Here's an excerpt from some local commentary by Joan Ryan (sfgate.com) as to why we're not in awe:

"It's kind of a diversion," said Jackie Cabasso... "It doesn't change the basic situation on the ground in Iraq. It doesn't make the U.S. right for going in there. This war was sold on a whole set of lies. Capturing Saddam Hussein doesn't change that."

As popularity of the 'No one died when Clinton lied' sign increases, this sentiment will likely be more widely expressed.

There's also the grammatically irreverent Mark Morford's "Saddam, So Not Worth It" (sfgate.com):

Remember that time? Right about when the U.S. hushed up all those sales of biological weapons and computer technology to Iraq? Right about when all those American corporations, from Bechtel to Kodak to AT&T, from Dow Chemical to Hewlett-Packard to IBM and at least 100 more , decided it might be best to begin shredding their records detailing all their Iraq business deals? Hey, why is Donny Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam and smiling in this photo? Shhh.

And now, long after his political usefulness to us has expired, we up and invade his unhappy nation and lay waste to the entire region for no justifiable reason, and we inflate his global stature into this massive inhuman Hitler-esque monster when in fact he was really just an old, tired, small-time thug, and now finally Saddam Hussein, the brutal pip-squeak dictator/former beloved U.S. ally who had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, has been captured alive. Yay yay go team.

He goes on to bash Clinton for the sanctions that killed civilians, by the way, for those of you who want to be sure that the blame is shared.

Bush is calling for Hussein's execution (BBC), perhaps to spare himself the many embarassing details of friendship Saddam may try to share, and is still undecided about whether or not to follow international law with regard to his treatment, defying Geneva Convention bans yet again, while folks in Iraq still wait for stability and supplies. (BBC) As Morford says, yay yay go team.

I wouldn't believe it if I hadn't read it myself: U.S. newspapers got right down to business about the capture of former dictator Saddam Hussein in their usual, businesslike way: Saddam Rally Fails to Materialize is about how the despot's capture was supposed to have boosted the stock market. (Washingtonpost.com)

Yes, they really are that shallow. The link's shortcut title was "no Saddam rally for markets."

Saddam Hussein Captured!

I worked part of this weekend, and so I fell behind in monitoring the news. I was catching up, reading about how the Bush Administration is cutting more and more veterans' and soldiers' benefits (inthesetimes.com), when I checked my e-mail and heard the big news: Saddam Hussein has been captured!!! (BBC) The former strongman looks terrible after months of hiding in a tiny cellar.

All those of us who have read about the terrible suffering he forced others to endure can feel relieved that he's not torturing and falsely imprisoning anyone anymore.

For those worries, we have to turn to the U.S. government, which is currently torturing and falsely imprisoning people as part of the so-called 'War on Terror.'

*

There are several reports on Hussein's capture, the most odd surely being this Associated Press report:

After three decades in power, Saddam was captured without a single shot, hiding in an underground hide-out on a farm near his hometown of Tikrit.

(SFGate). Apparently the AP writer has also been hiding in a cave, because otherwise he would be aware that the bombing of Baghdad was intended to capture or kill this man, and that involved quite a few shots, and quite a few American and Iraqi lives lost.

*

Yahoos in the U.S. are already filling their blogs with variations of "Woohoo! Go USA! USA! USA!" The international press has a wider range of government opinions and public comment. (BBC) Sample:

Although Hussein's capture is wonderful news for the Iraqi people, it still does not provide justification for this war and my country's continued Empire building throughout the world - most recently through the seizure of Iraq's oil. Bush has finished what his Daddy started and I'm sure the family will be especially grateful to their Good Lord at this Christmas....

Saddam's trial may well be a mixed blessing for the US. He will undoubtedly (and embarrassingly) reveal how he was helped to power and supplied with WMD by the US government. And if the WMD still fail to turn up, the grounds and legality for the war will be clearly be in doubt....

Ah, the trial. The US has made it clear that it doesn't believe in the International Criminal Court, and there could be some awkwardness about giving the former U.S. ally an open hearing. "...U.S. authorities have not yet determined when -- or whether -- to hand Saddam over to the Iraqis for a war crimes trial or what his status would be." (SF Gate) Another awkward realization from the same article:

But Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, cautioned the capture likely will not end the insurgent attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq. U.S. officials were wary of retaliatory strikes.

"Given the location and circumstances of his capture, it makes it clear that Saddam was not managing the insurgency, and that he had very little control or influence. That is significant and disturbing because it means the insurgents are not fighting for Saddam, they're fighting against the United States," said Rockefeller, D-W.Va.

As my dour and cynical friend Larry remarks, tying in my earlier reading with this news:

So US armed forces captured Saddam. And a trial would be a bad idea because it would remind people that members of the current USA administration aided the gassing of the Kurds. Before the armed forces decide what to do with Saddam, I hope they at least negotiate to get their pensions back.

The story that is most appalling to mothers I know right now is that of the U.S. bombing a group of nine children in Afghanistan. (BBC) Acting on woefully misnamed 'intelligence,' the U.S. bombed an area they thought was occupied by a militant. They think they killed the militant AND the nine children, though locals say the militant had left town days before.

It took the U.S. several days to acknowledge having killed the children. (This article has a sidebar that lists other 'bombing errors' that the U.S. has acknowledged.)

My partner listened to a BBC radio report on this topic, in which a U.S. military spokesperson ceased the interview because the reporter insisted that killing children was inappropriate.

This story exposes a very serious issue that has also arisen repeatedly in Iraq: the U.S. is engaging in extra-judicial killings of both suspects and bystanders based on rumor and suspicion.

The U.S. is supposed to help the Iraqis install a truly fair justice system, but is leading by example in following an entirely different path. Killing 'suspects' without trial, without witness testimony, without evidence, recalls the terrible regime that was recently removed. If there are individuals who should be charged with crimes, they should be charged and tried properly -- both for the sake of their victims and to show that real justice really is possible in the new Iraq. To do otherwise suggests that change isn't possible.

There is also the major issue of inappropriate use of force. If the U.S. is seeking to apprehend or stop one individual, it is inappropriate to bomb entire neighborhoods and innocent bystanders. Bombs are NOT appropriate force against one individual. Especially an individual against whom there is no reliable evidence. U.S. "intelligence" has proven faulty again and again. So far as anyone can tell, informant Iraqis who have been helping the U.S. may be trying to remove their own political rivals. The U.S. should not be a party to such activities. The U.S. should not execute people based on questionable information from questionable allies.