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

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

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

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

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

It cost us more than money

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same old, same old

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I had to put in SOME good news.

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


*

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

In other words, the Court was appropriately appalled.

*

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

*

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

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

No, they're not getting lawyers, either.

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

*

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

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

Time for a kindler, gentler occupation?

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

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

And no, they still haven't found anything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Neglect.

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Almanacs!?!

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

*

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

*

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