Judge, jury, and executioner: while it isn't yet illegal to own or sell weapons in Iraq, unloading weapons from a car is now punishable by death in Tikrit (BBC), where U.S. "soldiers spotted the men unloading weapons and bomb making equipment from a car and shot them - no questions asked."

A military spokesman said that anyone who picks up a weapon becomes a "combatant."

S heard about this from a television blaring near where he was working, and was amazed at how shooting people who were unloading a car was completely accepted by the television reporter covering the story.

The reporter later asked, 'How can you tell the good guys from the bad guys,' which tells you that the black and white thinking of the Bush Administration has been all too widely accepted. S reported that there are photographs of various 'wanted' people in Iraq and our soldiers are under orders to shoot them on sight. No 'innocent until proven guilty' no 'fair and fast trial,' just 'kill 'em and let God sort 'em out.'

Public executions without trial will NOT lead to democracy, or love of those of us who claim to believe in justice.

Mainstream media? Yoo hoo? Are you awake?

The Bush Administration has granted the oil industry sweeping immunity from lawsuits in Iraq, regardless of human rights or environmental damage they may do. (Indymedia) Executive Order 13303 (link provided in article) gives the oil industry Bush donors working there free range. "Like the recently reported U.S. corporate mobile phone monopoly being instituted in Iraq, Executive Order 13303 is yet another example of corporate colonization and a U.S. regime gone out of control."

Additional information is available at Earthrights.org and Corporate Watch, including a thorough article containing these excerpts:

"The two public interest organizations charged that President Bush far overreached a May 22, 2003, United Nations resolution that was designed to protect Iraqi oil revenues for humanitarian purposes when he signed an executive order that could place U.S. corporations above the law for any activities "related to" Iraqi oil, either in Iraq or domestically. Bush signed Executive Order 13303 the same day that the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1483, which sets up a development fund, from Iraqi oil revenues, for "humanitarian purposes."

"This order reveals the true motivation for the present occupation: absolute power for U.S. corporate interests over Iraqi oil," said IPS Senior Researcher Jim Vallette. "This is the smoking gun that proves the Bush administration always intended to free corporate investments, not the Iraqi people."

An interesting and somewhat unique development: the Bush Administration has granted sovereign immunity to Iraq for crimes perpetrated during the Hussein regime (from Law.com - a subscription may be required to read this). As cases awarding massive judgments to U.S. soldiers who were detained in Iraq as prisoners of war during Gulf War I were zipping along in American courts (without an Iraqi defense), if you didn't know it. But now any payments would come from the current regime, that is to say, the U.S. regime, and that's not acceptable.

It would be great if people wouldn't be held responsible for the obligations of their evil rulers if they opposed them, but I don't think this reasoning will apply to other nations. If it did, many nations suffering under enormous international debt would have their debts forgiven, because their corrupt rulers made off with huge international loans that the people (now obligated to pay them back) never benefitted from.

An item I should have included earlier: the U.S. Justice Department's internal investigation shows a variety of civil rights violations perpetrated against Arabs and Muslims. (SFGate) Parts of it are scary, including substantiated comments from a doctor telling a detainee that if he were in charge, he'd execute all of the people rounded up, whom he apparently considered guilty through some sort of collective ethinic/religious association. *shudder*

Some quotes from Traveling Solider.org:

"...I saw people taking pictures of dead people. I thought: That's disgusting. I asked my tank commander, 'Why are you doing that?' He said, 'If my son says he wants to join the Army, I'll show him this [photograph] and tell him this is what the Army does.' " ----

"Some of the people I killed who I didn't know if they were innocent or not. That won't leave me." - Sgt. 1st Class ---.

[The quotes are attributed at the website.] Some of the other quotes are more graphic in the detail of what the soldier are having to live with, including throwing old women from their homes, facing dead children, and complaints about needless deaths caused by the language barrier.

War is still hell.

Gee, Arlene, you sure do report a lot of bad news about the situation in Iraq.

Well, yes. There's a lot of bad news to report, though I notice it's slipped from the front pages of the papers. And the thing that bothers me most, I suppose, is that all this bad news seems... unnecessary.

Are you suggesting that there's an alternative? What would you do differently if you were occupying Iraq?

I guess that's the thing: I would NOT be occupying Iraq if I were a superpower. It's been done before, and it didn't work well that time, either: the colonial British did it, forced people to form a country who didn't have much in common, arbitrarily drew some borders, and mucked things up badly enough that the aftermath is still being felt today.

There is no 'undo' button for colonialism, or for war, or for occupation. These things create aftermaths that simmer for decades.

It's very difficult to create a just society from unjust beginnings.

Okay, specifically, what would you have done differently in the past few decades?

Gosh. If I were President Reagan, I wouldn't have sold Hussein chemical weapons. I wouldn't have extended his credit after learning that he gassed people within his borders. I probably wouldn't have allowed U.S. companies to sell weapons to both sides in the Iran-Iraq war.

If I were President Bush I and President Clinton, I probably wouldn't have been so chummy with Hussein that he thought the U.S. was winking at him when he invaded Kuwait. Changing that and providing a stern warning might have prevented full-scale war right there. If the U.S. chose to intervene on Kuwait's behalf, I probably would have insisted that Kuwait clean up its abysmal human rights record, since the idea of battling one despot for the freedom of another group of despots doesn't seem like a good investment of U.S. lives.

But some of my ideas are so humane that I probably wouldn't have done well in politics as any of those men anyway. I don't really believe that Americans should put dinner on the table by selling landmines to poor countries, often subsidized with American tax money, that blow up children. I would promote democracy through development assistance with other countries that invovled nutrition and medical programs, including scholarships for medical students that want to be doctors who are willing to serve both underserved communities in the U.S. and underserved communities abroad. I would be reluctant to form alliances with non-democracies, countries with poor human rights records, places without freedom of the press or of religion. I would want our country to enjoy a truly high standard of living, not based on how many TVs and VCRs and cars each home has, but based on how many children have enough to eat at night and how many people have health and medical care, while attempting to ensure that all people who work hard really do have a chance to earn rewards, rather than watch their retirement savings stolen by corporate pirates.

See what I mean? Too humane. Insufficiently oil-driven. Too... friendly. I believe in punishing despots and invaders -- I do -- and I believe in doing it through a strong body of international law, such as the International Criminal Court. If evil deeds go unpunished, it throws societies out of wack and sets the stage for future disputes. People who feel justice has been done are less likely to hold grudges. Yet our current policies, and the policies of other former colonial powers, just assumes that one decree that a dispute is over is enough, and that everyone can go about their business...

So many things could be better. So very many things. And if we forget that, we'll just keep doing the same stupid things our countries have been doing for years, and never learn, never get better, never really live in peace and prosperity without exploiting or killing or cheating. I think we could do so much better. And that's why this whole war and occupation are so discouraging. A better future -- a better PRESENT -- is possible. But it seems just out of reach.

In life, you can learn a lot of things accidently, by happenstance. You can learn from your mistakes (or not). But sometimes, you have to go out of your way to avoid learning something.

The U.S. is going out of its way not to learn how many civilians have died in Iraq, either during the war, or during the occupation by U.S. forces.

That's very odd to me.

As the growing number of civilian deaths in Iraq increases resentment against U.S. forces, surely there is something to be learned? (SF Gate) Something other than, 'the life of an occupied people is cheap,' which is something we already knew, sadly.

*

After an incident in Khaldiyah where resentment of the troops resulted in a mob torching the mayor's office, U.S. troops withdrew without making a positive impression. (Washington Post) One local said that it was not sympathy for the ousted regime but outrage that the soldiers shot teenagers and blew up shopfronts during their visit that upset the crowd.

*

How to know you've lowered your standards for success: when the military announces they've gone two whole days without an American casualty. (Washington Post)

Hussein, Iraq's evil dictator, used to drag people out of their homes late in the night, and hold them in one of his prisons without charging them or letting their families know what has become of them.

The United States, Iraq's aspiring liberator, is now dragging people out of their homes late in the night, and holding them in one of Saddam Hussein's prisons without charging them or letting their families know what has become of them. (SF Gate) No, really. This is supposed to be a recipe for success and appreciation. From the same article:

According to rights groups, none of several thousand detainees being held at 18 U.S. military jails throughout Iraq has been allowed to see a lawyer or meet with relatives, and none has yet been charged with a crime or brought to trial. They have essentially fallen into a black hole.

In their infinite wisdom, US forces even detained the President of Iraq's Red Crescent Society (the sibling organization of our Red Cross) for several hours, tied him up, and refused to provide him with water.

The U.S. is also trying to set up its own court system to try whoever it wants to try for whatever crimes it feels like charging, dishing out whatever punishments it feels like dishing. To make things look legitimate.

Don't we MAKE FUN of countries that pull this kind of joke on people?

*

Iraqis accuse American troops of hysteria in their violent efforts to find Hussein and his supporters.(BBC) (This article also notes that an Al-Jazeera reporter was captured and his tape confiscated after he filmed U.S. troops shooting at a civilian vehicle, but he has now been released -- without his videotape.)

*

Task Force 20 raided a villa in the belief, it is reported, that perhaps Saddam's youngest son Ali or even the former president himself was sheltering there. They found nothing and made no arrests, but troops guarding the scene shot and killed five people.

(From the BBC)

*

Interesting quote of the moment from an editorial from truthout.org:

Well, if we're going to talk about aiding the enemy: By cooking intelligence to promote a war that wasn't urgent, the administration has squandered our military strength. This provides a lot of aid and comfort to Osama bin Laden - who really did attack America - and Kim Jong Il - who really is building nukes.

I do find it interesting that many people who claimed to be concerned for the safety of those of us in the U.S. have NO PROBLEM with the idea of unguarded nuclear facilities being looted in Iraq, no problem with the idea that our intelligence reports to the president are either wildly inaccurate or wildly misused, no problem with the idea that weapons the administration claims exists are nowhere to be found, yet no one seems to be looking for them... Though there's no point in looking for weapons you KNOW don't exist... Which means...

*

There's lots more great stuff to read at truthout.org, as always.

*

Not to bring up our LAST wildly unsucessful attempt at saving a country from it's wicked rulers and then improving the citizens' lives, but things still aren't going well in Afghanistan. (Washington Post) In fact, Taliban 'guerrillas' are "roaming around freely" in public quite a bit, and threatening people in ways that undermine the country's stability. (truthout.org)

Wouldn't it be nice to get some practice at helping a country and leaving people much better off before we try it again elsewhere?

The feeding frenzy over the Defense Department's ill-conceived notion of letting people invest in terrorism futures was pretty entertaining today. (SF Gate). The idea of gambling against and for various unpleasant events happening, and using the investment patterns to predict or prevent terrorism, was too much even for Republicans, whose very harsh comments got heavy play today.

The afternoon economics shows didn't seem too surprised by the idea, having already decided that the stock market's wisdom is a great thing. However, one consultant did voice the idea that, even if you believe that wise investors can give a good indication of when terrorism would occur, the fact that the Pentagon would be using that information to prevent terrorism would keep investors from making any money... And I kept waiting for the punch line. And waiting. And waiting.

No, Poindexter is not enough of a punch line on his own.

Quote of the day:

"Can we be sure that terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will join together? Let us say one thing: If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that at its least is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering. That is something I am confident history will forgive." -Tony Blair, July 17, 2003 (Washington Post)

My my.

As S. asked when I read him this quote, "So do they think that the fact Hussein was a tyrant would have been enough to bring our countries into war?"

Obviously not.

*

"Even if there were no weapons of mass destruction, we removed the tyrant from Iraq." -- Tony Blair. (spiegel.de)


*

Do you remember the principal of American justice, that one is innocent until proven guilty? Bush doesn't.

QUESTION: Do you have concerns that they'll get justice, the people detained there?

BUSH: "No, the only thing I know for certain is that these are bad people.

...

QUESTION: Mr. President, do you realize that many people hearing you say that we know these are bad people in Guantanamo Bay will merely fuel their doubts that the United States regards them as innocent until proven guilty and [due] a fair, free and open trial?

BUSH: Let me just say, these were illegal combatants. They were picked up off the battlefield aiding and abetting the Taliban. I'm not trying to try them in front of your cameras or in your newspaper. (CNN)

Of course, many of the so-called 'illegal combatants' were actually picked up in Pakistan, far from any battlefield, going about their daily business. And some of the 'illegal combatants' are just 13 years old. Some 'illegal combatants' were 70 years old (who were released -- there may be others still in custody of that age).

*

Heard about the suicide attempts by these illegal combatants recently? (unknownnews.com). I didn't think so.

*

There is skepticism, disgust, and celebration over the deaths of Hussein's sons on a comment board(BBC). Some, especially Americans, hail their killings; others ask why they couldn't have been arrested and tried; others doubt that they are Hussein's sons at all.


*

I hope I am not the only one who sees something wrong with this title: "Stocks Rise on Earns, Saddam Sons' Deaths" (Yahoo!/Reuters).

I forgot to add this summary of Darn good intelligence and the Bush Administration's many inconsistencies in defending its decision to emphasize Iraq's nuclear ambitions. (Washington Post) For those of you who haven't heard enough about those 16 words.

... senior administration officials acknowledged over the weekend that Tenet argued personally to White House officials, including deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley, that the allegation should not be used in the October speech, four months before the State of the Union address.

[I still have a hard time blaming other countries for having nuclear ambitions. I mean, WE the U.S. did, right? And every country that gets them is suddenly treated with considerably more respect from us, right? Knowing that, it's hard to take our government's many "do as we say, not as we do" lectures to other countries seriously. If the U.S. won't sign a landmine treaty or destroy its anthrax collection or stop using radioactive materials in battle, why should anyone else? (There are reasons, of course, but they fail to be as convincing as they could if the U.S. had some sort of moral authority in such matters.)]

But back on topic: Bush Aide Steven Hadley is now taking the blame for the discredited uranium assertion (Yahoo! news).

...deputy national security adviser, said he should have deleted the reference from the January speech because the CIA had asked him to remove similar language from an October speech by the president... He said he had failed to recall the CIA objections, which were included in two memos and a telephone conversation with Tenet in the days before Bush outlined his case against Iraq in an Oct. 7, 2002 speech in Cincinnati.

Hadley said the CIA memos which had been sent to him were found over the weekend. White House officials had previously said they had not been informed of CIA doubts over the claim.

How many people will the Administration offer up as sacrifice? Stay tuned!

*

Dr. David Kelly, who had spoken to the BBC about the UK's case for war, was found dead on July 20th (BBC) with a slashed wrist and a package of pain killers. He had admitted to having had an 'unauthorized' conversation with the BBC, who had refused to name sources for stories that were damaging to the government.

He's the first 'fall guy' to turn up dead over the WMD issue.

Perhaps I shouldn't say first. It implies too much. Hmmm.

While the Blair government has accused the BBC of improprieties, the BBC apparently has a tape recording of Mr. Kelly making statements damaging to the Blair government (Guardian UK).

Add this to your "Why do they hate us?" file: a photo of a U.S. soldier drinking Coke and watching over Iraqi prisoners with bags tied over their heads (SFGate.

For your "Why does Turkey hate us?" file: a discussion of how the U.S. interrogated Turkish soldiers for 60 hours, which has caused a souring of relations with Turkey.(BBC)

*

This is only marginally on-topic, but the special 'Land of The Free' issue of the Stranger. No, it's not about the U.S. -- "It's America's Independence Day, and to celebrate, we're dedicating this issue to the greatest, most freedom-filled nation on Earth: Canada!" The essays associated with the issue, some of which are pure humor, others opinion, point out some differences about our nations that have influenced our differing paths, including our differences over attacking Iraq.

I especially find interesting the observation that the U.S. has formed a national religion, making things such as the flag sacred, which is apparently unfathomable in Canada. They also very strictly believe in the separation between church and state, and their leaders never pray in public.

Wow.

This issue also includes articles with titles like, "Canada's Biggest Idiots Are Your Biggest Stars"

For those of you who haven't reread Orwell lately

The always excellent This Modern World excerpts a report by a man who was interrogated by the FBI for reading an anti-Fox-news editorial in his local cafe (atlanta.creativeloafing.com). Seriously.

HE WAS READING IN A CAFE WHILE GETTING HIS COFFEE. Apparently, some of his fellow coffee drinkers are freaks, but that doesn't excuse this.

*

Also featured in TMW, a link to the blog Skippy the Bush Kangaroo, which, in turn, has references to many other good blogs.

Hey, this Internet thing is becoming useful after all!

The Democratic National Committee has a new game on their website: George W. Bush Credibility Twister. Ouch!

I’ve been coming up with flawed analogies, comparing certain authorities occupying the White House with abusive husbands/fathers. It may be wrong of me to do so. But it seems like all the relatives keep trying to get him into group counseling at the UN, but he’s too convinced that everyone else’s concerns are too petty to be bothered with. He oversimplifies so that everything that benefits him is good, and anything that doesn’t is evil. He tries to make his immediate family feel frightened to justify violence against others who have not previously posed any threat. He is offended whenever his authority is questioned, even when he’s wrong. He tries to dominate his country/family through fear (and considering the Patriot Act, it’s working). He won’t admit to making mistakes: if his actions harm the innocent, he blames others for ‘making’ him do it. (Hussein ‘forcing’ us to bomb Iraqi civilians being a sadly recurring example.) Some writers have remarked that Bush treats Congress like an unwanted stepchild (prospect.org). But I’ll stray from this theme and just talk about his promotion of fear in the American people.

*

The idea of Bush ruling us through fear, an idea usually used in discussions about nasty and oppressive foreign dictators, is increasingly common in web searches. The difference may be that, instead of merely making us fear HIM, he’s attempting to make us fear everyone BUT him.

A short Nation article analyzing Bush’s speeches relative to those of other presidents (truthout.org)(thanks, D!) talks about how Bush is trying to make the U.S. feel helpless, fearful, and dependent upon him.

To create a dependency dynamic between him and the electorate, Bush describes the nation as being in a perpetual state of crisis and then attempts to convince the electorate that it is powerless and that he is the only one with the strength to deal with it. He attempts to persuade people they must transfer power to him….

John Brady Kiesling’s resignation letter over Bush’s Iraq policy asked if oderint dum metuant (more or less, ‘they can hate so long as they fear [us]’), which is directed at those we are, in turn, supposed to be afraid of, and acting in preventative self defense (!!) against. Other writers have noted that fear is close enough to respect for this Administration (pigdog.org).

This can’t lead anywhere good.

The examples of previous presidents in the Nation article dwelling on the strength of the American people to overcome problems together, rather than on our immense vulnerability and helplessness, is striking.

*

My favorite Get Your War On cartoon about Iraq (mnftiu.com) is about how the Iraqi people “ought to be the freest ****ing people on the face of the earth. They better be freeer than me. They better be so ****ing free they can fly.” It goes on to insist on a permanent, multi-mile long buffet line for the children of Iraq.

I have to admit that I suspect the multi-mile buffet line would go over better than the various showings of force (BBC) that U.S. and British forces have made in Iraq. The UK also made showings of force when they occuped Iraq and invented its borders to their liking years ago, and that didn't exactly turn out very well, did it? (A colleague noted that the British seem keen to repeat their past colonial mistakes, not admitting that part of the reason we're in our current situation is because of their meddling in the region previously...)

Not surprisingly, the Bush Administration and Pentagon do not like criticism they've heard from soldiers speaking to the press. So, many of those soldiers are being reprimanded by the Pentagon.(SFGate.com)

"It was the end of the world," said one officer Thursday. "It went all the way up to President Bush and back down again on top of us. At least six of us here will lose our careers."

The article goes on to note that there is the usual, recently established double standard: you have plenty of freedom to say that things are great, but no freedom to say that the Bush Administration or its policies are NOT great.

While you may be thinking, sure, but they have up their rights to have opinions when they joined the military and agreed to, um, well, fight for our right to freedom of speech, keep in mind the same speech double standard is being used against civilians. Want to be part of a rally at the airport for the arrival of Bush? You'd better be pro-Bush, or you're not allowed to speak freely, as this protester (Refuse & Resist) and others learned. Pro-Bush views can be expressed in the airport; anti-Bush views cannot.

Hmmm.

(This reminds me of the item I published earlier about how the same folks who said terrible things about Clinton think that criticizing the current president is treason. Oh, to hold them to their own standards!!)

Less than $200 million of reconstruction projects have been completed in Afghanistan (theworld.org), compared with $15 BILLION in estimated need. Western nations aren't living up to their rebuilding committments. The locals were expecting to be better off after supporting the effort to throw out the Taliban. They aren't yet, and are wondering if the promised
improvements in other aspects of their lives will ever come...

Not to bring up that pesky PREVIOUS, yesterday's news war, but the U.S. Administration's complete failure to succeed at 'nation building' there doesn't bode so well for the war-of-the-week nation.

*

Spin, spin, spin! British official John Sawyers claims that the shortages now plaguing Iraq are a result of improved democracy!! (theworld.org - wma file). No, really. His spin on this is that Baghdad was hoarding power unfairly so they had a constant supply, while other areas suffered shortages, so Baghdad's shortages are now more fair, because everyone has interrupted service.

When I think of democracy and fairness, I think of widespread shortages, don't you?

His explanation for water shortages adds classism: he implies that reporters are speaking with 'privileged' people who are accustomed to a regular water supply, and so they aren't representative. What a way to deflect a question!

How dare Iraqis of any class want CLEAN WATER from their liberators! (!?!)

I'm changing the title of this blog from "War is more than the absence of peace" back to an earlier title, "Peace is more than the absence of war." Not that we are in peace time -- there are many conflicts raging around the world, even if they aren't raging just next door. But that doesn't mean we won't all ultimately be effected. Peace and war are often regional in obvious scope, but much wider in their subtle, sadder scopes.

The title switch seems appropriate in the aftermath of the premature declaration of war's end and the ongoing unhappiness of so many people, in the occupied and among the occupiers.

Ending the bombing is not enough.