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.

Read this item, look at the photo, and then decide: which is the real turkey? (BBC)

An interesting tidbit: 7 out of 10 Americans don't think attacking Iraq has reduced the threat of terrorism, and a similar number support UN intervention there. (SF Gate)

It's a shame the folks in the White House only read polls when they're favorable.

(There's no chance that anyone in the White House could stand the tiny Retropoll done which revealed that a large percentage of Americans think Bush should be impeached. (Retropoll.org) Something tells me the Bush Administration isn't about to send them a check to expand the survey into some meaningful samples...)

To keep you occupied while I'm out attending political fund raisers: Pantsonfire.net, as in 'liar liar, pants on fire, sitting on top of a telephone wire.' Yes, a catalog of Bush's lies are available, including the big ones about Iraq.