The archives should be back to normal now. More tomorrow.

My archives are going to be invisible for a few minutes - don't be alarmed. (Or at least, more alarmed than I am.)

The G8 summit begins Sunday in the spa town of Evian on Lake Geneva. The BBC reports on the extreme, defensive, unsightly militarization of the area for security concerns and to prevent the 100,000 expected protesters from disrupting the meeting in this article.

Associated with this article are two external links: one to the official G8 meeting site, and the other a trilingual logistics and planning page for the international protesters!

I LOVE the Internet!

The occupation is not going as smoothly as the Bush Administration hoped. US soldiers are facing increasing hostility, says the NY Times. After suffering an attack, U.S. soldiers conducted forced house searches, which comprised female modesty and outraged local men, leading to widespread rioting and the burning of local municipal buildings. Ooops.

*

Also an oops: a British soldier took some film to his local developer in Staffordshire which may depict him and his fellows abusing Iraqi prisoners of war. If the photos are real (and not staged by bored soldiers at home for amusement), this clever fellow has provided the evidence of his crimes.

When are people going to learn to document their crimes with Polaroids? Sheesh!

I'm still preoccupied with American paranoia. It's pathetic. If the Denver, Colorado police department labeled Quakers and other peace organizations as "criminal extremists" and compiled illegal dossiers on their peaceful activities after September 11th, something is severly out of whack in their heads.

As I wondered about this, I noticed billboards at the bus stop for home alarm systems, suggesting that right at this moment, someone is breaking into your home. Next to it was an add for anti-bacterial detergent, implying that germs on your clothes could hurt you. S reported that the last time he had the TV on, a newscaster was ranting about a threat of catching Lyme Disease if you step outside of your house.

Perhaps Michael Moore's theory about the media fanning the flames of hysteria here are correct.

*

Iran is rather annoyed at Bush's rhetoric campaign against them. The BBC quotes the Ayatollah Khamenei: ""We have to do this and that so they will remove us from the axis of evil. What kind of talk is this? Who do they think they are?"

While the U.S. media will undoubtedly lapse back into their, "why do they hate us?" blather, it appears that Time Magazine has an answer in an article called The Oily Americans - Why the world doesn't trust the U.S. about petroleum: A history of meddling. I had known that the U.S. overthrew the government of Iran, though that has never really been admitted. I had read inferences that this was because of the U.S.' previous penchant for anti-communist hysteria. That worked for me. But this article sheds some additional light: Mohammed Mossadegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. in part because it wouldn't give Iran even 50% of its revenues from extracting Iranian oil. The U.S. and Britain then tag teamed Iran, instituting an oil boycott, and then things got weird:

The CIA's fingerprints were everywhere. Operatives paid off Iranian newspaper editors to print pro-Shah and anti-Mossadegh stories. They produced their own stories and editorial cartoons and published fabricated interviews. They secured the cooperation of the Iranian military. They spread antigovernment rumors. They prepared phony documents to show secret agreements between Mossadegh and the local Communist Party. They masqueraded as communists, threatened conservative Muslim clerics and even staged a sham fire-bombing of the home of a religious leader. They incited rioters to set fire to a pro-Mossadegh newspaper...

And then the U.S. got Britain's control over Iran's oil back for them, shared some with American oil companies, and got really angry when the Iranians threw out the puppet government and took their oil back.

All those complaints about how undeveloped Iran is may have SOMETHING to do with the prohibition of our government against doing business with Iran, as punishment for throwing off its foreign oil exporters.

Oil. Why didn't I even think of it before...

The same article also has some choice words about Afghanistan, and the perception of oil issues. It's an interesting read.

Very spooky quote of the day:

Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires.
-Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, March 2003, Cleveland

*

I wish more of the June 2 issue of The Nation was available on line. Eric Foner has an excellent short piece called "Dare Call It Treason," pointing out that every war in American history with the exception of World War II inspired significant dissent (yes, including the American Revolution), and each time the government and those who elect themselves its agents vehemently attempted to suppress protest. Foner also notes that history, while always used as a tool, suddenly becomes a partisan weapon, with war promoters citing favorable historical allegiances and parallels to support their position, while cursing anyone who finds unfavorable parallels. (The author caught hell for pointing out that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor would be justified under Bush's pre-emptive strike doctrine. Oops. Darn that history!)

Also very worthy of a read is Alisa Solomon's "The Big Chill," a catalogue of attacks on dissent and free speech in the post-September 11th, 'only traitors question their government' climate in the U.S. The very spooky quote above comes from her piece. The catalogue is alarming, when seen all in once place: isolated incidents seem less like freak occurrences, and more like the predictable side effects of a society living in a profound insecurity.

*

It seems to me that the U.S. has a long history of rampant paranoia during times of crisis and opportunity. Salem Witch Hunts. McCarthyism. Xenophobia. Homophobia. Preoccupation with "the Fall" caused by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. (Favorite bumper sticker on this topic: "Eve was framed.") Fear of change in anything other than consumer products.

How can Americans be less afraid? If ignorance is bliss, we're a very HAPPY people. But still paranoid. Still dragging minorities to their deaths, still murdering people perceived to be gay by men afraid of other men's allure, still mad at France for helping to liberate us from the British yet not wanting to be JUST LIKE US. Afraid to learn other languages. Convinced that the world has nothing to offer that we don't already know. Convinced that we only do good in the outside world, and pretending not to hear any reports to the contrary.

In late 2001, I was completely mystified by two things. The first was that people and the press asked repeatedly, 'why do people elsewhere in the world hate us?' The second was, whenever this question was answered, every single possible answer was shot down vehemently. It went something like this:


Q. How can anyone not like Americans?
A. Well, that was that time that we overthrew someone's government, and killed all their young people with death squads.
Q. You beast! How could you say that we did such a thing!!
A. Because we did? Over and over?
Q. You are a very sick person. We can do no wrong.
A. That belief isn't helping, either.
Q. Help, police!

This was about as productive as the corporate press' conversation with itself:

Press: How could anyone dislike Americans? We are perfect in every way. There is nothing in history that demonstrates otherwise. Obviously, anyone who dislikes us is completely insane and warped with evil. Unlike all others, WE truly are God's chosen people, and so everything we do is fine. Rest assured that all is well. Please resume shopping, and support our efforts to pass tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy. Thank you and good night.

There's a sort of cultural isolationism that I think feeds this fear: the U.S. against the world. Inexplicably, a caller on the radio who was promoting the war against Iraq claimed that others in the world could not understand American motivations, because they had never suffered anything like the September 11th attacks!!!!!!!!!! She had apparently either never heard of the nearly constant terrorism that exists elsewhere in the world (even to white people in Northern Ireland!), or simply thought it was of a very low quality and not worthy of her sympathy.

You have to wonder how she could rationalize that. Did everyone else in the world who had suffered violence deserve it? Is our collective graps on others' lives so slim that we think the world should work that way?

Innocent lives should NEVER be taken for any reason. But they are, every day. Each loss is a sad one. Each loss is a life, not a lesser or greater life, a lesser or greater tragedy because some is or isn't a citizen of the U.S. There has to be a way to teach people to see others as human, and not as Others. Progress has been made in this area before, and further progress should be possible. But how?

*

Robert Scheer's piece on Private Lynch's faked rescue, now entitled Saving Private Lynch: Take 2, is now available at the Nation website.

Also a very worthy read by Scheer: The WMD Follies, on the lie that led us to war with Iraq, and the "long-held hawkish Republican dream of a 'winnable nuclear war...' In such a scenario, nukes can be preemptively used against a much weaker enemy--millions of dead civilians, widespread environmental devastation and centuries of political blowback be damned."

Today's opinion page (A29) of my local paper has a piece by Robert Scheer on the staging of Pvt. Lynch's rescue, based on a report that was posted last week by the BBC. The brave woman, who I had read in US press reports had exhausted all her ammunition in a firefight that killed all of her colleagues, was stabbed and shot, and was abused at the hospital -- wasn't.

She has no bullet or stab wounds; she was wounded in a vehicular accident; the hospital informant who claimed she was being abused has a job for former Republican Rep. Bob Livingston and a book contract with a company owned by Fox's owner; and the hospital had tried to return Lynch to the U.S., but had been attacked by U.S. forces when approaching a checkpoint, and so had been unable to do so.

Scheer's editorial isn't appearing on the electronic version of the paper yet, so I've summarized it above, but last week's source article from the BBC still is. It is called, Saving Private Lynch story 'flawed', by John Kampfner. Excerpts:

"I examined her, I saw she had a broken arm, a broken thigh and a dislocated ankle," said Dr Harith a-Houssona, who looked after her....

"There was no [sign of] shooting, no bullet inside her body, no stab wound - only road traffic accident. They want to distort the picture. I don't know why they think there is some benefit in saying she has a bullet injury."

Witnesses told us that the special forces knew that the Iraqi military had fled a day before they swooped on the hospital.

"We were surprised. Why do this? There was no military, there were no soldiers in the hospital," said Dr Anmar Uday, who worked at the hospital.

"It was like a Hollywood film. They cried 'go, go, go', with guns and blanks without bullets, blanks and the sound of explosions. They made a show for the American attack on the hospital - action movies like Sylvester Stallone or Jackie Chan."

Well, golly. And to think my only doubts about the original tale of the poor girl related to a conflict between two U.S. sources, one of whom insisted she had been shot, the other stabbed. I couldn't figure out why they didn't know which, but now that U.S. doctors have confirmed it was neither, the discrepancy makes more sense.

Quote of the moment:

The message that reached the White House from two recent meetings with potential Iraqi leaders, officials say, was that it would be foolish to start experimenting with democracy without making people feel secure enough to go back to work or school, and without giving them back at least the basic services they received during Saddam Hussein's brutal rule.

From anonymous officials (but hopefully not the same ones bashing the French in the item below).

*

Today's World Views Column in the Chron has an excellent range of summaries from Middle Eastern viewpoints about both the war against Iraq and recent terrorist attacks. There are several rosy viewpoints about the resilience of the Iraqi people and the increased potential for better lives in Saddam's absence. (Yet I still think of parody paper The Onion's piece, 'Dead Iraqi Would Have Loved Democracy', about a man killed by a U.S. missile) There are also spooky views about how the militarism and violence by the U.S. will spawn more militarism and violence.

I imagine this is all likely. A future of resiliance, survival, and terror.

*

I had a discussion with a friend about how those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

It seems fundamentally wrong to me that those of us who are trying really hard to learn from history keep getting stuck with people who wrongheadedly refuse to learn from history, and are doing their darndest to force the repercussions on all of us. I think some sort of separation is in order. I don't think that any entity I am part of should have to share the fate of people who think Henry Kissinger and his evil minions give great advice on how to treat civilians.

It's unclear how to pull of this separation between the learners and the dolts, however.

*

Wow: once thought to be extinct, an actual Democrat has voiced opposition to the Bush Administration. Senator Byrd, who I recall primarily for his opposition to civil rights laws in the 1960s, nevertheless is showing some spine in his old age.

"It appears to this senator that the American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation of long-standing international law, under false premises," Byrd said.

"There is ample evidence that the horrific events of Sept. 11 have been carefully manipulated to switch public focus from Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and al-Qaida, who masterminded the Sept. 11th attacks, to Saddam Hussein who did not."

That last point is one the press has let slide again and again, despite numerous polls showing that the Administration's hints had convinced people of this baseless assertion.

I guess informing people about the world is less important than an update on Botox parties. Darn.

*

The UN, including Germany and France, approved a resolution lifting Iraqi sanctions and authorizing US/UK control of Iraq."The occupying powers, the US and Britain, are left firmly in control of Iraq and its oil until an internationally recognised, representative government is established."

The article notes that WMDs have not been found in Iraq, and that the U.S. is having a change of heart about allowing non-US inspectors in, now that the U.S. has left nuclear facilities unguarded, and the International Atomic Energy Agency has received reports of "uranium being emptied on the ground from containers then taken for domestic use and radioactive sources being stolen and removed from their shielding". It's so nice of the U.S., so fearful of terrorism, to consider this after not returning the IAEA's calls for a number of weeks.

ElBaradei first asked the United States on April 10 to secure nuclear material stored under U.N. seal at Iraq's Tuwaitha nuclear research center and was promised by the United States that its military would keep the site secure.

One of the sources stored at Tuwaitha is caesium 137, a highly radioactive powder that would be especially dangerous in a dirty bomb. In 1987, a canister of caesium powder found in a Brazil junkyard exposed 249 people to radiation, killing four.

After numerous media reports that Tuwaitha and other nuclear facilities in Iraq had been looted, ElBaradei wrote again to the U.S. on April 29 requesting permission to send a mission to Iraq to investigate the looting reports.

The IAEA has received no response from Washington and said that the contamination in Iraq could lead to a "serious humanitarian situation."

There have already been media reports that residents near Tuwaitha have exhibited symptoms of radiation sickness.

Have I mentioned that colonization is wrong? That going to war without meeting international law's precedents for self-defense is still wrong? That granting contracts to your campaign donors for rebuilding a country you just beat up under a plan to use your colonial subjects' money is, in fact, still unethical? Just checking.

I was CERTAIN that I had heard the Bush Administration promise that the US would have no permanent presence in Iraq.

Apparently, something has changed. According to an article in 'military-stuff-is gee-whiz cool' Engineering News Record's 05/12/03 issue, in an article called Iraqi Materials Vendors Tapped for Airfield Repair Project is the following:

"The airstrip, said to be on a short list of sites in Iraq that the U.S. wants for four permanent Air Force bases, is a template for reconstruction in the period between the end of the war and the start of private contracting under the Office of Humanitarian Assistance and Bechtel."

Military bases cost millions to build. Once the U.S. military spends the money, they're not going to want to give those bases up.

Oh-oh.

So the Bush Administration has persuaded a slim majority of the senate to repeal a ban on small nuclear weapons.Nuke-light?

The Democratic stance was put in the most graphic terms Tuesday by Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, who with Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California led the effort to retain the weapons ban. The new, low-yield warheads, Kennedy contended, would be easier to use and thus make nuclear conflict more likely, not less so.

"Is half a Hiroshima OK? Is a quarter Hiroshima OK? Is a little mushroom cloud OK?" he asked on the Senate floor. "That's absurd. The issue is too important. If we build it, we'll use it."

I've noticed that the United States has a hard time abiding by existing weapons control agreements: US use of depleted uranium in the former Yugoslavia along with tear gas, which is forbidden during war for a variety of reasons, breached international agreements. Birth defects are up several hundred percent in Iraq since the U.S. invasion the previous time.

I think this Administration's official policy on world agreements is, "Whatever." Unless they result in a trade disadvantage to the US, in which case it becomes IMPORTANT.

In an article frighteningly titled Iraqi Students and Faculty Face Task of Purging Baathists in the New York Times, changes of heart about Bush's plans for Iraq's self-governance are revealed. They are not good. After explaining that the US State Department is now in charge of university appointments (no, really), the article continues:

The leaders of the country's main political groups said they learned at a meeting on Friday that the United States and Britain had withdrawn their support for the formation of an interim Iraqi government to help run the country until national elections can be held.

The Iraqis have been working for weeks on a plan to convene an assembly, composed of former exiles and local civic leaders, to take over some Iraqi ministries and to represent the country in international forums like the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.

But officials in Washington and London apparently consider the situation in Iraq, where government has ground to a halt and most people feel unsafe, too unsettled to be left in the hands of Iraqi political leaders.

A draft resolution presented by the occupying powers to the United Nations would instead grant the United States and Britain expansive powers to run the country. It would also lift economic sanctions on Iraq, freeing up its oil revenues for use by the United States and Britain in rebuilding the country.

Let's see, what was that chant? It's not about the oil, it's not about the oil, we are liberating them, it's not about the oil? Doesn't sound all that convincing right now, does it?

While I have been slacking off in my writing due to allergies and good weather, others have not. This is a compilation of news stories relating to the war in Iraq and wars around the world with links to original source material. This citizen-posted collection includes articles about corporate interests in the Middle East, the Carlyle Groups' willingness to sign a Saudi government contract discriminating against Jews, attacks on Palestinians and Jewish people, militarization in Africa, and more.

As the news media refers to 'post-war Iraq' and 'the end of the conflict,' I am reminded that there are always conflicts around the world, but that the U.S. media does not consider them worthy of reporting about.

*

I find the story of an American soldier being relieved of duty when she refused to take over an Iraqi TV station especially interesting.

*

It turns out that even Republicans don't like the appearance of political favoritism in the Administration's award of Iraq rebuilding contracts. I would not have guessed.

But GOP Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois, usually a firm Bush ally and chairman of the House International Relations Committee, said he is concerned with the "lack of transparency" that has surrounded the reconstruction program for postwar Iraq....

"I understand, for example, that the very charter of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs is still classified as national security information," Hyde said in asking for a General Accounting Office review of the Iraq situation.

Saying he is particularly concerned about reports of continuing lawlessness, Hyde asked the GAO to "monitor the reconstruction effort in detail, concentrating on the efforts to provide security and interim relief to the people of Iraq and on the rebuilding of its economy and political system."

"The committee expects the full cooperation of every element of the executive branch in the GAO's efforts," he added.

Which means that he does NOT actually expect the full cooperation of the executive branch, if he had to say that.

*

In another interesting effort to limit democracy in Iraq, the US outlawed the Baath party. Okay, sure, the same people can run under other parties, right? Well, not if the former Baathists are dead."The number of former Baath officials killed since the war ended is difficult to pin down. Drawing on anecdotal evidence, however, former exile groups and Iraqis familiar with some of the killings say it could reach several hundred in Baghdad alone."

So our forces are "in control" of the country, but extra judicial killings BY THE HUNDREDS are occurring in the capitol?

Not quite as random a link: photos of Basra, Iraq and it's lovely buildings. There are more photos in the Iraq Peace Team's photo gallery. (Oooh, look at this shrine.)

There are many lovely photos, but also many scenes of terrible tragedy: images of the women and children who died i the Ameriyah bomb shelter; images of babies born with severe deformaties after Gulf War I for unaccounted for reasons (DU comes to mind)... There are scenes of both beauty and horror. Just like life, which it is. But it's especially bad, knowing that the horror is so UNNECESSARY.

*

If I haven't said this yet, it's great that Hussein's regime is gone. But what is going up in its place, an occupation by foreign corporate interests, does not seem like enough compensation for the vast suffering experienced by civilians in Iraq at the U.S.' hands. Don't they deserve better?

*

Bush has complained about the repressive government killing its own people, but now the U.S.' plans for installing a real, democratic justice system seem to be a little too close to what was just removed. "According to Human Rights Watch, they even want to be able to impose the death penalty.".

Let freedom ring?!?

Semi-random image: a photo of a soldier in Spain being really nice. I really like the idea of it. It moved me when I saw it.

So the Administration has issued it's rules for trying all those enemy combatants it keep shielding from international law and rights. It's interesting: among other things, any defense lawyers must take an oath to give up their right to confidential communications with their clients, plus swear to comply with a complete gag order, which could keep everyone - the prisoner's relatives, countries, human rights groups, international courts - in the dark.

Oh, and there's no evidence rule, so rumor can be introduced as evidence! Remember the Anita Hill hearings, where a senator adverse to Ms. Hill raised allegations about an undocumented rumor that was printed in a newspaper, which later said its article was groundless? Yep. That all over again, but with the death penalty.

There are other terrible aspects of it, which the article linked above discusses. I mean, secret evidence that the defense lawyers can't see? Our government was supposed to model this process on our court system, not on the kangaroo courts of the despots our country has historically propped up. Eeek!!

*

Loyalty Day?!?! GW actually declared May Day as Loyalty Day!?!?!!?!?

[pause]

I just checked, and I'm still in the United States, but some FREAKS left over from the cold war apparently escaped from Russian History and are now running this country.

I thought it was a joke at first. OH MY GAWD. Sure, there have been historical revisionists who started loyalty day in the 1930s to try to steal May Day's thunder, but... in this day and age, we should feel much more secure about ourselves.

I've read some sad editorials forwarded to me by friends, in which columnists on the right side of the political spectrum complain that liberals are paranoid Chicken Littles who exagerrate the dangers of the Bush Administration's many actions against American civil liberties and freedoms. 'How can they say such things? How can they claim that our political leaders are a threat to anything? How terrible they are!'

And finally, I read this: Ann Coulter, right-wing cable TV commentator, provides this gem: "With Bush rounding up al-Qaida and clearing out the terrorist swamps, the greatest danger now facing the nation is that liberals could somehow return to the White House."

I look forward to hearing all those commentators who insist that it's wrong to talk of the threat our political system poses to our way of life THRASH this woman for her hysterics.

I'm waiting! I'll wait patiently. Even though I know that the complaints made of the left are considered to be charming in the right, at least so far as the right is concerned.

*

A woman who was not on the top list of wanted Iraqis, but whose surrender is being played up by the press, Dr. Taha of Iraq is alleged to have worked with botulism and anthrax. Proof of her evil deeds? "At that time, she was reported to have ordered, and received, biological specimens from US companies."

Darn her! How dare she use money to aquire weapons agents from hard-working American companies eager to sell them to her! The shock! The awe! The horror!

*

(I haven't decided if this better or worse than finding out that retired Iraqi scientists, when asked if they had worked on a nuclear weapons program, said of course they did: they sent away to the Patent Office in Geneva to buy copies of the U.S.' patented H-bomb plans, just like everyone else!!!)

*

The UK's supporters of the Iraq invasion and Bush Administration generally are complaining about Anti-Americanism. Instead of considered the criticisms they've heard, they're saying things like, 'well, people here are just jealous because Americans are just so great, rich, good-looking, and hip. And they can't deal with that.'

I think this is the peril of listening to one's own propaganda: that kind of detachment from reality, and the truly undemocratic and un-nice things that the U.S. does, can only make one sound stupid at press conferences.

Of COURSE there are legitimate complaints about U.S. policy. Lots of them. Especially all the times the U.S. has installed a puppet government, trained people in torture, propped up despotic regimes, violated human rights and standards of decency, and generally decided that non-Americans don't deserve the freedoms that Americans enjoy.

Our darling little friends in the soon-to-be-irrelevant (when Rumsfeld next lets his tongue slip) country of Britain would do well to note this.

*

Direct info on all those contracts let in Iraq for the 'rebuilding their country without their consent' effort can be found at the website of the the United States Agency for International Development's Iraq page. There are all sorts of details on where the money is going.

I'm not sure I really understand some of the categories. One company got an award for a "local governance" contract, which includes "strengthening of management skills and capacity of local administrations and civic institutions to improve delivery of essential municipal services such as water, health, public sanitation and economic governance; includes training programs in communications, conflict resolution, leadership skills and political analysis."

Political analysis? Political analysis? Like, how to interpret the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore? The mind reels.

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.