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

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

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

And now, there are new stories!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positions are available in many communities across the Nation.

Obscure sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women in Afghanistan and Iraq and what they have in common

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

Which brings us to Iraq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Much like in Afghanistan...

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

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

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

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

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

Not good. Not good. Not good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It cost us more than money

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same old, same old

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I had to put in SOME good news.

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


*

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

In other words, the Court was appropriately appalled.

*

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

*

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

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

No, they're not getting lawyers, either.

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

*

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

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

Time for a kindler, gentler occupation?

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

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

And no, they still haven't found anything.

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